Android has a plethora of app stores, there have always been tons of them. Some phones have shipped with three or more, one from Google, one from the phone manufacturer and one from the network. Then you could add another one from Amazon, etc, etc.

Google Play Store won out on Android simply because the multitude of stores was a nightmare for customers. They don’t want multiple stores, they want one store on this phone, that will also be on their next phone. Any ‘monopoly’ wasn’t seized by Google, it was pushed eagerly on them by customers craving consolidation and simplicity.

Same for me, I don’t want 5 blasted stores on my iPhone. I want one store and run by someone I trust. The same goes for my Switch too, I’m quite happy for Nintendo to run the store for it. If I don’t like how they run it, I’ll get a PS 5 or XBOX. That’s where the competition is. I have plenty of choices thanks.

> Same for me, I don’t want 5 blasted stores on my iPhone. I want one store and run by someone I trust.

The individual stores thing is actually really annoying. If you play games on Windows you're familiar with this situation. They all want to run 24/7 and cram their UI in your face at every opportunity, and you just want to play that publisher's one game. They are trying to become chat apps, and web browsers, and it's just crazy. I think my computer will explode if it sees one more web page wrapped in a "start at login" script claiming to be an "app store" or "game launcher". (Why can't these things just let me "chocolatey install" them? I know how to keep Windows apps up to date. Just accept my credit card number from inside the app. Or, horrors, a web page.)

On Windows, the underlying cause of this is "because we can". Everyone that wants a game will install an app store to get it from without thinking, because the one Microsoft offers is too limited. (They don't use Steam because it's run by a direct competitor, and Steam games kind of have that feeling like there are 3 good games in there next to 100,000,000 "I downloaded Unity this weekend, give me money!" games.)

Where I'm going with this rant is that unlimited freedom is the worst form of app distribution -- except for all the others. (I guess I have zero qualms with "go get". It works 100% of the time. Apps can't explode files all over my computer. Google provides a CDN for free.)

It sounds like the real complaint is “the store needs to be running to use software I purchased from it.”

Which is much worse than the mobile environment. But you could still have more choice and not require the store to be running to use.

Imagine being able to go to epic games website and click “download game” and get a phone pop up “do you want to install X?”

There’s positively no need for a “store” at all.

This. So much this. It kills me that people are no longer familiar with simply buying and downloading games.

GOG and Humble Bundle work like this on Linux (though GOG has an optional Galaxy app). You login to a website, buy and download.

Humble Bundle works like this on Android too. You just need to enable apps from unknown sources.

You could do that if Epic wanted you to be able to do that. Nothing on Android prevents it; in fact, that's how you install the Epic Game Store: you go to their website and download an APK. You'll have to click through some permission screens, and then you're done: the APK is installed on your phone and can be launched like any normal app, no Play store required.

Epic chooses not to do that, because they want you to run their store. But Google doesn't prevent you from doing it; Epic just chooses not to allow you to.

I'm pretty sure fortnite's inclusion in the play store is relatively recent. For a while it was available only as a sideloaded so on Android devices.

(No pass for the racueteering play store/app store implied)

Yep, this is basically a complaint about DRM. Do apps typically have their own DRM setups or are they using software baked into the play store?

They could do DRM and all the other store stuff by linking against publisher-provided DLL. This is about an upsell opportunity - the store is there to ensure their offers are in your face whenever you want to play.

I agree 100%, although I will give Steam some credit: when it launched it was universally maligned, but with enough work it became probably the digital storefront people are most loyal to, and for some justifiable reasons; and it passes the most important test: many prefer it to piracy.

Go get is weird. I guess it’s still federated even with GOPROXY as a middleman, but I am still not sure how I feel about all of it. It makes sense from the perspective of ensuring things don’t maliciously break, but it feels less obvious what it’s doing than I’d hope, and that probably makes many uneasy.

There is GOG Galaxy[0], that is trying to gather all your games from different platforms in one place. However all platforms (except Steam) constantly disconnects from the Galaxy which is really annoying. I understand there can be a lot of reasons for this. But I like to think that those emerging platforms simply do not want being accessed from the Galaxy. For this reason I prefer buying games from GOG and Steam when possible.

Also, to install games from those 3rd party platforms one still needs to install and launch those platforms. So this limits usefulness of the Galaxy.

[0]: https://www.gog.com/galaxy

If there's one thing I don't understand about other PC gamers, it's why any of them want to use these stores in the first place.

Whenever possible, I buy from GoG, but not because I want to use Galaxy. With GoG, I just download an exe, run the installer, and my game appears in this wonderful launcher called The Freaking Start Menu. It's great.

What do I get from using a client? I don't want my games to be integrated into a social network, I just want to play them, and not be interrupted until I'm done.

------

My second choice after GoG is usually itch.io, but my third choice is actually becoming EGS. I'm not sure if this was intentional, but a significant portion (maybe even a majority?) of EGS games don't actually need EGS to run. You can download them with an open-source tool like https://github.com/derrod/legendary, back up the files, and run them. I've personally done this with Journey, Beyond Two Souls, Control, and Detroit.

A handful of Steam games allow this too (one recent example is Ori and the Will of the Wisps), but it's much less common than on the Epic Store!

For me, most everything is run through Steam. Steam games, games from GoG/EGS/Origin/GamePass, emulators, all that.

Big picture mode, controller mapping, remote play, and remote play together are amazing.

Not sure what's so hard to understand. You mention downloading, installing, and revel that it's in your start menu. And don't mention updating. With launchers, there's one less step (installing), and updating is a passive thing (for better or worse). And yup, they're placed in the start menu as well.

Big Steam user here and I agree with you on the updates thing. However this aspect has more or less value depending on what you play and when.

Single player games purchased a year after release likely never need to be patched ever again.

Unfortunately AAA games with multiplayer et al seem to need to be patch immediately upon release...

For me the main reason has been the Linux support in Steam. If they later add a Linux port, you don't have to buy it again, just go install it on Linux.

Their work with the Proton compatibility is bringing a lot of my old Windows only games to Linux too. I'll probably continue buying exclusively from Steam for this reason.

> What do I get from using a client?

Recently I've started using OS search to launch apps on my Ubuntu workstation. One day I've tried the same with game launched. When you have extensive libraries on multiple platforms it definitely helps.

Also some clients support achievements. It adds incentives (or meaning, if you will) to play some good game even after completion of campaign or something like that. Yep, not for everyone.

BTW, you can download and install games from Steam using official console client [0]. Not sure if will allow to play [all] games, though. I had limited experience with that. I managed to download windows versions of doom and quake 2 for Oculus Quest from Ubuntu.

[0] https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/SteamCMD

> BTW, you can download and install games from Steam using official console client [0]. Not sure if will allow to play [all] games, though. I had limited experience with that.

Yeah, SteamCMD can download but usually not run games—my experience is the only games that run are the handful that can run without Steam in general.

Key reasons I use steam: 1. My payment information is there 2. Updates happen automatically in the background 3. I can stream games from my pc to laptops 4. I can uninstall and reinstall later without having to try to figure out where to re-download the game from

I don't have problems with disconnections on Galaxy, the only probem is that you still need the third-party stores at all on your computer.

Maybe the real reason of disconnects in my case is that I log in once a week or even less often.

It's just like technology standards.

https://xkcd.com/927/

Sometimes it looks like this. But in some sense unlike this new "standard" previous 14 standards don't really cover "all use cases".

Only the app from GOG shows games from other platforms, that's why I prefer to launch everything from there because when I launch my windows rig on weekends no chance I remember where I bought that game.

> “ If you play games on Windows you're familiar with this situation. They all want to run 24/7 and cram their UI in your face at every opportunity, and you just want to play that publisher's one game.”

Yes, thank you! In fact Epic is one of the worst of these stupid stores about blasting you with corner-of-screen advertising even when you’re doing nothing with it.

> They don't use Steam because it's run by a direct competitor

Not sure about this. Does valve even make games anymore? /s

Not really, but their store competes with Epic's one :D

This is completely false. The Play Store has "won" by Google chopping the legs off all the alternatives. They have to be sideloaded and you have to enable a scary checkbox to do so, that suggests it's less secure to use any app store but the Play Store.

> that suggests it's less secure to use any app store but the Play Store.

The suggestion is usually correct, though. Google does a terrible job of vetting Play Store apps, but they do still have some automated safety checks, and they kick out known malware once it's found.

If you allow sideloading, you give up all of that. It's still perfectly safe if you trust what you install, but you have to make that assessment. Google can't save you.

This is exactly how I wish iOS worked. It's also basically how the Mac works nowadays, except replace "App Store" with "Apple notary service."

How would you suggest Google correctly communicate the risk?

Installing an app from F-Droid is drastically safer than installing an app from the Play Store though.

Could it be because a niche is not such an interesting attack vector?

Maybe a little, but more importantly, all apps on F-Droid are open source, and verifibly built from said source. It's very hard to hide malicious activity on it, whereas duping the Play Store content moderators is like taking candy from a baby.

For a small apps there's nothing checking against intentional malicious activity. Sure it'd be there in plain sight, but it's pretty unlikely really that anyone would read the source code of some random single person project.

Google doesn't know whether you're installing F-Droid or Totally-Free-Money.apk.

And also third party app stores (e.g. F-droid) can't autoupdate the apps for "security" reasons. One can only circumvent this by flashing a patch via phone recovery... which is fairly tedious and scary even for a tecnhical person, let alone regular users.

Wait, this is news to me! What aspect of Android is making autoupdates impossible? Apps can replace their contents, and apps can run in the background... shouldn't that be all you need?

Android requires users to go through the explicit install and upgrade screen to upgrade apps outside of the Play Store. That means that F-Droid can't upgrade applications in the background, nor can they be upgraded automatically. Batch installs are also disabled for third party app stores.

But isn't an app fundamentally just a collection of files? What is stopping F-Droid from replacing those files? Are executable bits special or something?

Android apps are heavily containerized, so unless you gave the app a filesystem permission, it can't write to it. By default they can only use their 'own' data storage (which is represented as /data/data/$APPNAME on the filesystem).

But even if you allow filesystem access, it's only for 'non-system' partitions (e.g. sdcard). Unless you rooted your phone (also a pretty tedious operation with a potential to brick the phone), normal apps can't even read files on the system partition, let alone overwrite them, except their 'own' data.

This is good from the security point, e.g. you can run pretty much any app and simply remove it if you feel like it's suspicious and asking for too many permissions. Similar to running a random Docker image: you can try out software without taking risks of losing control over your system, allowing certain capabilities if necessary (e.g. ports, paths). There might be a Docker vulnerability of course, but it's pretty unlikely for you as an individual to be targeted by it.

But it's extremely frustrating when you know what are you doing and which risks you are willing to take, but have to jump through hoops to do things that are otherwise trivial on desktop.

I've reread your comments, and realized I might have answered a different question in my comment before :)

In theory, you could request broad permissions, and have an interpreter sitting inside your app, dynamically loading its own code over the wire, so you'll never have to update from the app store (unless you want more permissions granted). But as far as I understand, this is forbidden by the Play Store policies (e.g. Facebook got told off for doing this https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/04/googl... ). Although I'd imagine it's easy to slip such code past reviewers, unless your app is very popular and worthy a more thorough review that can catch it.

Also I'd imagine there is some grey area there, e.g. your whole app could be a webview simply displaying web frontend -- surely it's okay to dynamically load javascript? Not sure how the policy works in such cases.

Look into the Android security model, it's more complicated than vanilla Linux where you can just log in as root and fiddle with files if you want to get something done.

Fdroid pops up and ask to update apps. It's very easy.

I don't find it easy to have to individually upgrade each app because Google decided that third part app stores are not allowed to batch upgrade in the background.

Not as easy as autoupdating, and far more annoying for the general user.

My Firefox mobile was updated during the night and changed the UI completely, moving the bar to the bottom etc and it is just all bad. I see not having auto updates as a feature. Mostly it is just annoying changes and I prefer to know when updates happens so I can track things that break and blame the update.

Plenty of handset makers to this day preinstall their own app stores, including the biggest and most successful, Samsung.

Related: I often find item bundles cheaper if I buy them via the Samsung Galaxy Store (10% cheaper). Is it because Samsung doesn't have keep 30% of the money, but a lower amount?

Yeah? you think users love hunting down a particular app store becauase that is the one that has the app you are after???

> Yeah? you think users love hunting down a particular app store becauase that is the one that has the app you are after???

I switch between streaming services based on the content they have. I have Steam, Epic Store and Origin on my PC because of the games and deals each have. Why would I not load a new app store (if I used my phone for anything other than a phone, camera and note-taking device)?

If only there was an example of a platform where you downloaded apps from the web and installed them at your own will!

Oh, wait. It’s what we all did and do with computers. This isn’t some mystical unknown.

In 2006-ish—before the iPhone and its App Store—preteen me decided to replace Windows with Xubuntu on his hand-me-down computer.

The feature I recall liking most was the integrated software center. When I wanted an app, I just had to search the center, not comb through random websites. It was nice.

Of course, I could and did also install programs from random websites, as I saw fit. It never occurred to me that some day, I'd be forced to rely entirely on a built-in store...

And we see how that worked out. Viruses, malware, ransomware, key loggers, 10 toolbars on your browser.

Which is where the (existing, robust) system of app permissions comes in. Something the desktop world never had.

(besides, last time I checked my macOS machine is neither virus ridden nor covered in toolbars)

Your Mac isn’t ridden with that, because you’re a user that knows that you’re doing. I see “regular users whose Macs are riddled with MacKeeper and other garbage all the time

Because no one bothered to write viruses for it. There were more viruses for Windows than Classic MacOS and it was a complete shit show compared to Windows between 1995 - 2000. It didn’t even have memory protection.

I’m talking about the macOS I run on my MacBook today. It is not virus ridden nor covered with unwanted toolbars.

And again it’s because no one bothered to write toolbars and viruses for the Mac. I never got viruses on a Windows PC but are you going to say they don’t exist? You never had to clean up your less tech savvy relatives computer?

What I’m saying is that the vast, vast majority of desktop users have an entirely satisfactory computing experience today, using operating systems that let you install whatever you want.

Yes, if you go back in time you find OSes with hideous security models that made things like keyloggers possible. Mobile OSes today do not have those problems, and have strict permission prompts that gatekeep functionality.

Yeah, I’m sure there would be some shitty experiences if people could install whatever they want on their phones, it’s the price of giving everyone that freedom. But if desktop OSes in 2020 are anything to go by, it’s really not that big of an issue.

So the whole ransomware and virus problem is imaginary?

>They have to be sideloaded and you have to enable a scary checkbox to do so

And windows has a scary sounding checkbox when you download an .exe from the internet. So what? In the old days, it never warned you, and people were CONSTANTLY getting malware by downloading random stuff from sketchy sites.

Majority of Android phones shipped in last years were built by Samsung and Huawei which both ship their own app store by default. Your claim doesn't match the reality.

Of course they have to put a scary checkbox, otherwise they would be held liable for any sketchy app that is actually malware people accidentally downloaded. And I guarantee if the checkbox wasn’t there, you would be complaining that there aren’t enough safeguards to keep people safe. I can’t even stand Google, but come on.

> Of course they have to put a scary checkbox, otherwise they would be held liable for any sketchy app that is actually malware people accidentally downloaded.

What do you mean by "held liable"? It can't be in the legal sense, because Microsoft has never been held legally liable for Windows malware, and Apple has never been held legally liable for Mac malware.

Held liable just like this:

"In 2014 the US Federal Trade Commission ordered Apple to pay out $32.3m (£24.6m) to reimburse American parents for unauthorised app purchases made by their children."[0]

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/mar/11/my-kids-spent-...

This is the complete opposite of holding Apple liable for sideloaded apps. Apple was a direct party to these transactions.

If Apple isn't the payment processor, they're off the hook.

Please, in what way is Apple liable for this other than the fact they need to hold someone accountable for the damages? You really can’t imagine this taking place for malware that compromises payment information? They may not be ordered to pay but the headlines would read the same and the negative PR is worth way more than a few million.

But again, Mac malware exists, Windows malware exists. Yet "sideloading" is still much easier on those platforms than on Android. So obviously this kind of "liability", i.e., bad PR, doesn't and hasn't required the same implementation, and certainly doesn't force them to make the platforms App Store only.

> And I guarantee if the checkbox wasn’t there, you would be complaining that there aren’t enough safeguards to keep people safe.

I hope what you mean is that someone else would be making the argument that the checkbox is necessary: claiming a crowd of people are a single inconsistent argument is disingenuous.

But the opposing crowd exists and maybe you personally don't have to deal with it but these companies do. Apple and Google deal with billions of ordinary people, not just tech nerds.

No, there is no reason for them to do that. Microsoft has proven otherwise over their entire existence.

Microsoft also has a "scary checkbox", in the form of "are you sure you want to run this exe that came from the Internet?" popup.

It very well may be less secure. This is no different than warning boxes popping up on Windows/MacOS cautioning running executables downloaded from untrusted sources.

Right because why would Google think it needs to warn people about the dangers imposed by installing an app outside of the Google Play store by a well known developer like Epic?

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/08/fortnites-android-vu...

Good! Apple may ask for a bit too much with the 30 percent but still doesn’t give Epic the right to try and do things on their own. Judging on their little trailer they released shortly after getting removed, they new this was going to happen. A company that makes so much money should be able to compromise.

> A company that makes so much money should be able to compromise.

It's hilarious to see people rooting for Apple as if they're the little guys.

The company that makes so much money here is Apple, not Epic. They should be willing to compromise. They gouge app developers and in turn its end users by charging a 30% ransom.

How many app developers feel they are getting gouged? I’m an iOS developer and don’t feel that way? Is it when you get big and greedy?

The irony of calling an app developer "big and greedy" in face of Apple is not lost on me here.

30% in pure profit would means a lot to regular companies/folks as well, not just the "big and greedy" ones. Just because you don't feel the pain doesn't mean other ones do.

And ultimately, some of this cost is burdened by the end user purchasing the app which is obviously harmful to everyday users such as myself.

Exactly, this entire thing is about big intermediaries getting a piece of the pie through the legal system.

Smaller developers will be the casualties of a multi-store situation because they will be forced to support the them all.

There will therefore be no competitive pressure on benefits for developers.

This is all about more middlemen making money.

How do you rationalize this? There's no situation where having a legitimate competitor to the App Store makes the situation somehow worse for smaller developers.

At worst, they continue their business as usual. At best the competitive pressure allows their business to stay the same but with higher margins. Most likely they would eke out a bit more money than the status quo by using another App Store competitor alongside the App Store if they choose to do so.

I'm not aware of another industry that puts up with 30% fees on all the products that they sell. GrubHub et al are notorious in the restaurant industry for their 30% cuts on orders, and owners are doing everything they can to eliminate those companies from the picture.

Artists, on the other hand, only have to deal with a 10% to 15% cut when they sell their music digitally or physically through Bandcamp.

I'm a small and modest developer, and I feel like 30% and $99/year is too much. Mind you, Apple is a trillion dollar company that will take a 30% cut whether you're a worker in the 3rd world or a kid in college. I'm not sure I follow your "big and greedy" rhetoric at all here.

The problem is that Apple has consistently demonstrated that "compromise" means "accept Apple's terms without any wiggle room for negotiation".

It completely gives them the right to do it on their own. They are free to take their business elsewhere, or start their own mobile platform.

As things currently stand this is unarguably true.

The next question is though, given the incentives in place are entirely due to Apple, is that anti-competitive?

I think it is. It is also ruthless smart business to make money. Given societies rules about "make money" for corporations I can't blame them.

But I am allowed to wish it were otherwise.

The scary check box exists for a reason. The reason malware isn't everywhere on android and iOS is because randomly installing apps isn't unsafe. I mean sans play store's automatic tools occasionally letting nonsense through.

A large part of the security model on both systems is the ability to constrain what apps can do, and by ensuring those have happened.

The various privileged (in the security sense) sandbox entitlements on iOS can't be used by a malicious app because the malicious app can't get through the App Store. That significantly increases the bar for any malware. I assume the Google Play store similarly limits access to privileged system features, and I would fully expect the 3rd party stores do not.

Also personally: The Epic store is a terrible app, and signing up for it requires providing vastly more information to them than I ever wanted to, especially for only a single company's games, from a company that has no stated intent of reducing data collection and improving privacy. A company that also engages in scummy tactics like loot boxes, virtual currency, etc

> The reason malware isn't everywhere on android and iOS is because randomly installing apps isn't unsafe.

What about macOS?

It is perennially being targeted by malware :)

> Android has a plethora of app stores, there have always been tons of them.

Google put restrictions on Android so that third party app stores can't install in the background, auto-upgrade or batch install.

> Google Play Store won out on Android simply because the multitude of stores was a nightmare for customers.

The Play Store is the only app store on Android where users can install apps in the background, auto-upgrade apps or batch install apps.

The reason the Play Store won out on Android is because it the only app store that Google allows to have the features app stores require.

Just maybe because of things like this?

https://www.cnet.com/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-fo...

Perhaps people want the ability to choose between fully featured app stores, because of things like these

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/01/resea...

https://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/...

https://www.techrepublic.com/article/new-android-bug-targets...

https://www.zdnet.com/article/popular-apps-on-google-play-li...

So either use Google’s insecure App Store, use someone else’s insecure app that’s sideloaded or by an iPhone. I think you just made a good pro-Apple argument.

iOS exploits are cheaper than Android exploits because iOS exploits are so plentiful.

Aren't most of those 0-days exploiting iOS integrated apps and thus outside the realm of App Store curation and policy?

Asking because that's the impression I get, but may be wrong.

Citations?

You can easily Google this.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/09/for-t...

https://www.securityweek.com/zerodium-expects-ios-exploit-pr...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2019/09/04/why-zer...

None of which have anything to do with the App Store....

I'm really interested in a Debian-quality DFSG Android app store. Debian's apt repository is truly the "app store" that I have chosen to trust.

Same for me; Debian's apt repo is my computer "app store" of choice.

On Android, the F-droid app store (https://f-droid.org/) comes closest but it has nowhere near the breadth of the Debian repos.

Wasn't the old Nokia Maemo OS based on Debian? I seem to remember being able to `apt-get install` things in the terminal on my N770 (or whatever the model was) tablet.

Yes, and it was glorious. I keep one running for fun, and there are people still working with whatever Maemo transformed into.

For the record Maemo spawned among other things Sailfish OS (running on my dakly smartphone) and many current mobile Linux distro projects can trace their lineage to Maemo on the Nokia N-series.

Yep, and I think a few Meego derivatives might still be out there, as well. Also, Maemo was revived as Maemo Leste for platforms like the Pinephone, although I'm not sure how active the project is.

Yes.

I can understand that having multiple store can be frustrating for the user, but why not have multiple stores with federation? You have one app implementing the federated store protocol, and you and browse all federated stores.

This would allow multiple actors to be present, while keeping things simple for the users.

This already exists on desktop Linux - all the deb/RPM/Flatpak repositories each have a standardized metadata format, so you just add a URL to the given repo and the OS will work with it the same way as with the default repositories.

Who sets the rules for the federated storefront?

The store design has a lot to do with which apps get attention.

The answer, then, is to have a single "store" app with multiple sources, such that you can add and remove sources at will.

This is exactly what F-Droid is able to do on Android, and what nearly all reasonably-popular Linux distributions have been able to do for decades.

Didn't Linux package repos solve this like 20 years ago? The store app (or yum/apt/whatever) is the entry point then you load in as many repo URLs as you want. Can't that model expand to phones?

It's basically how my Fire TV worked. I could search for a title in the home screen and it would tell me that it was on Prime Video, Hulu, Netflix or I could rent from Amazon or whatever.

The only reason Linux doesn't have malware/viruses is because the number of people running it on the desktop is basically zero. And the people using them are much more technically savvy so it's really not worth anyone's trouble.

Now if you were to take the package model and move it to Windows it would be the same mess we have today.

Many of us, including Apple, do not want ransomware, malware and viruses on their phone. It's not a computer. It's a phone.

Great then don't install the other repos.

IIRC FB and Uber both got caught doing things other companies couldn't do. Apple's vetting process is not foolproof either. Apps still do things I don't want them to do, on my own device.

Apple can still control the OS and device and sandbox the apps and app stores. It's not an insurmountable problem.

Another thing many dont know is that distros rebuild all software from source code, so any mallware is hard to hide.

Is your iPhone primarily a gaming device? I don't understand how you're seamlessly leaping from "Phone" to "Game console" and making equivalency comparisons. In my ways my phone/computer is an extension of who I am as a person. They are my second brain. Having that functionality dictated by a company feels nightmarish to me. Imagine if you didn't want to be blasted by multiple internet forums, multiple news feeds, or even multiple websites. Why have more than one website on the internet? Have the entire internet be a single website run by someone you trust. That's the natural conclusion of where your preference leads.

Like iOS devices, all major consoles are locked down and limited to what's in a single app store. Any argument in favor of forcing Apple to allow multiple app stores would also apply to consoles.

I think there's an argument to be made that in practice, smartphones are typically used by most users as general purpose computing devices, while game consoles, despite being technically capable of being general purpose devices, are typically used for a specific purpose.

That being said, I would be perfectly happy if an outcome of this was that end users were able to install whatever software they liked on game consoles.

A smartphone has a pretty defined purpose: communication. It's powerful and generic enough to be a general purpose computing device, sure, but the vast majority of users use it to do just that: make calls, send messages (whether via traditional SMS or social media offerings). It has some secondary usage such as internet browsing (primarily consuming streamed content, these days) and photography (largely for messaging/social media purposes). Occasionally it might be used for something more heavy duty, like some light editing of photos and videos. Some people play games on it. But it's still oriented around being a communication device.

There isn't much difference between that and a modern gaming console (apart from the orientation being around games/interactive entertainment). Take my PS4, for example: beyond the games there's pretty capable light photo and video editing software, a web browser (based on Webkit, actually, and has a surprisingly pleasant and minimal UI/UX even when using just the controller and not an external keyboard and mouse), a ton of content apps (Netflix, Disney+, Spotify, YouTube, DAZN, etc) as well as Twitch and the Playstation Network platform (essentially social media). In my opinion the only thing holding it back from gaining more apps and completely eating up the lower end of the desktop market is that developing apps for it is prohibitively expensive (gotta order a dev kit). Even at that I still plan to keep it around as a very light desktop alternative when I replace it with the next generation.

Let's assume that phones are general purpose computing devices.

So what ? There is no legal requirement that computers must have user-installable apps or comply with some standard around openness. Nor is there some rationale as to why computers should be treated differently to any other device that can run apps.

And if Sony decides to ship a browser with PS5 does it suddenly switch to a general purpose computer device and must allow competing app stores. And if they remove it does it switch back to a console.

The whole concept is completely nonsensical and unworkable.

Separate the hardware from the software. The devices:phones or consoles, as hardware ARE general purpose computing capable.

The software limitations is where the arbitrary restrictions come in. But as you say there is no legal requirement for "user-installable apps".

But there ARE laws about anti-competitive behaviour. Whether they apply? The courts will decide soon I guess.

I can see it from the point where Apple makes Apps and yet also profits from their competitors Apps.

Mind you, I can also see a reasoning that by keeping an App in the market Apple can set a base minimum for quality, hence setting a floor for the experience for end users. But they could do that via their gatekeeping anyway too...

Any retail xbox one can turn on DEV mode and run self made UWP games and apps, switching back and forth is very easy.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/xbox-apps/devki...

That is what Apple should do then; allow people to install Android on their devices

Yes but for most people an Xbox or a PS4 is not a requirement for their livelihood.

Would you be okay with a Microsoft-owned app store that controls all app purchases and in-app purchases for all PCs?

That existed for years in the form of Windows RT. It's also an option in Windows 10 called S mode.[1] I wouldn't buy such a device for myself, but I'd certainly consider it for my grandmother. It seems like a useful way to prevent naive users from installing malware.

1. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4020089/windows-10-...

If your phone is an extension of your person, and you don't like how that extension works, then replace that extension with a different one. There are plenty of phones on the market.

"Love it or leave" ? :-P

You can certainly do that. But we are also allowed to wish/hope/verbalise/act to make the current thing better.

As for what "better" is? Ultimately that's decided by the courts but we can express wishes.

Or tweak what you got

And then be ostracized from your social groups because no one wants to see green bubbles in their group chats.

Not a problem I personally experience but one many people have reported. This may also be less of a problem with COVID, I'm not sure.

The 'your iPhone is an Xbox' is the Gruber approved narrative as of last week, the Apple community left defending this is sextupling down on that idea.

I’ve been saying the exact same thing for about a decade. Check my HN comment history on Algolia.

Nevertheless I think Apple are making some missteps. I think they made a mistake on the game streaming service decision. Epic can go take a running jump though.

Or, it’s an extremely obvious immediate parallel

Last time I checked I didn’t use my Switch to check emails, download the Covid App, pay in a store, download and send documents or board a flight. The smartphone is an important driver for my daily life, a console is not.

Why not? If it wasn’t so locked down you’d be able to install apps to do all those things.

that bizarrely didn't appear till last week, which is odd. Before that it was 'appliance'. But I'll accept the downvotes for the churlish tone

I was describing the iPad as an "app console" back in 2010 (https://tracks.ranea.org/post/1432038656/geek-luddites). It's not at all impossible Gruber read my blog post on that back then, in fact, as it was linked around a few places.

I think you're getting a bit hung up on the language -- "appliance" and "console" are trying to communicate basically the same thing, e.g., a device which on a technical level could absolutely be a general purpose computing platform but has been restricted from that by design.

I haven’t read Gruber in years and the literal first thing I thought when the “they don’t let other people use their platform” argument was made is “Why would this not apply to any other platform, <think of another highly locked down platform> like consoles!”

And even assuming the antitrust/monopoly argument holds, is there some barely-known exception to “general devices only”?

I’d love it if I could load my own stuff onto consoles, but don’t see how this could be practically compelled in a way that isn’t massively impactful to _everything_, especially with security and piracy implications.

You really haven’t been around here long. I’ve been making the argument for months with the downvotes to prove it.

> I don’t want 5 blasted stores on my iPhone

I don't want 5 blasted distribution methods on my (Android) phone. I'm perfectly happy with 5 different sources, though. Put plainly: I want repositories, not stores. I get to use the same tool (app) to manage all of them, and I can add different sources if I'd like.

One store is great IF you can load apps independently from other sources

Which you can in android, it's a setting everyone is free to change at any time.

Not just the user, but the developers want a single store. As a developer you are focused on writing apps; you don't want to spend energy to figure out how to upload apps to 5 different stores, understand their individual requirements like app descriptions and screenshots, manage 5 sets of credentials and certificates, deal with 5 different review processes, etc.

Just ask any android developer who develop for the Chinese market where Google is absent. It's a nightmare.

The problem I have with one-store-to-rule-them-all is that it has to be run by somebody, and I never agree with the decisions of one judge 100% of the time. So I like to have the option to get software somewhere else. I purchased the device, after all.

This is an anticompetitive argument. You're asking to be taken advantage of.

Are you saying people avoid other stores even though they know about them? Then I disagree. If I ask people I know in real life, they can't tell any other app store besides Google's. Even if their phone includes others. Every phone comes pre-installed with play store. Then they don't look for another store, they never need that. People learn and teach others how to install apps only from play store.

> I don’t want 5 blasted stores on my iPhone. I want one store and run by someone I trust.

You must be representing the first generation that is anti-competition and pro-monopoly. It makes no sense that you would really want to have fewer options to buy a product. If the problem is trust, then clearly what you need is regulation, not a monopoly.

That seems like such a ridiculous attitude.

I want one just one grocery store! Want less common ingredients? NO! I just want one store! I want just one hardware store! Want some part they don't carry? Sucks to be you. Just one car store, etc...

If nothing else I at least one two stores. One for regular apps and one for porn apps. You can see steam now has lots of adult apps.

Are there any well-curated and maintained app store alternatives?

I'd love to keep Google Play off my phone if there were a competitor who did a better job at surfacing truly great apps (rather than the garbage suggestions Google spams me with) and passed on a bigger piece of the pie to publishers.

FDroid and also the Aurora alernative Google Play client.

What you're describing is a natural monopoly.

What about _no stores at all_? I am fine downloading the app or buying it from the dev website.

I want 0 stores.

Exactly. Consumers don’t want stores really. They want the content that comes from them. Businesses want stores.

I'm a customer. I do not want to vet all brand quality for each brand individually. I want to be able to choose between a few pre-vetted options that I can already trust.

I want stores like Costco and Apple's AppStore because I trust those companies to vet brand quality and provide me a basic level of trust for the products. I'm happy to pay a 30% premium for that piece of mind.

On the one hand I agree with this.

On the other hand I would like the option to add another App Store who's "Brand of quality and trust to vet apps" I can compare to Apple's store... and so the layers go...

On the gripping hand, it is the "benevolent dictator" problem. A benevolent dictator really can be an efficient and great way to run things. For the people that agree with the dictator.

But who determines who the dictator should be and what makes them benevolent?

Vetting is separate from selling. There can be a vetting service that just links to direct downloads. I use stuff like that on my PC all the time. The only reason to lock the obtaining of a product behind the vetting service is to grab money.

> iPhone, Switch, PS5, XBOX [..] I have plenty of choices thanks.

I can hardly imagine anything more pathetic than listing 4 locked down, corporate controlled devices, and calling that "choice".

> Same for me, I don’t want 5 blasted stores on my iPhone. I want one store and run by someone I trust

To be honest, I wouldn't mind having the option to specify multiple stores that I trust the same way I do the Google Play store. I could imagine having Google Play, the Epic store, the Blizzard store, and Steam on my phone if that were necessary.

I am not worried about being spammed with stuff, as apps don't run until you open them, normally, and I already have granular controls over what notifications spam me on Android as it is.

> I could imagine having Google Play, the Epic store, the Blizzard store, and Steam on my phone if that were necessary.

This sounds like an absolute nightmare.

Oh, it really would be. :D I meant more that if one did have it, I would not be afraid to get spammed with notifications, any more than i already am (and turn them off...) for any other game or app I install.

The really tragic part about this comment is the idea that what was needed was a "big, well funded company" to hit the duopoly.

The law exists that the strongest might not always get their way. Literally anyone hitting it /should/ have the same claims, rights, laws, and the same process as the very rich and strong when up against these enormous "legal persons". It's an ideal and we won't achieve perfection in trying to get there and there are tradeoffs with other ideals.

But let's never lose sight of the ideal of equality before the law and the strongest should not always get their way.

It's just so important. Without it, we end up with people as the enemy of the state with its monopoly on violent enforcement, then on to revolution and all that horror. I think it's an ideal that is slightly more important than the desire and profit of google and apple claiming the right to tax success and profit as though they were nation-states and the welfare of other big, well-funded profitable companies that don't like that. Regulatory capture is a disaster and an even bigger one that it first appears, be you leftist, rightist, collectivist, rugged individualist or, more hopefully, someone not so easy to label who thinks about individual issues and wants an outcome approximating what you think is best for everyone. We're all united against corruption, I have no doubt, we only disagree on whether particular cases are or are not that. The unity opposed to corruption is a thing that gets lost quite often as the division are imposed on us.

Although I agree with you that is good that a big company did hit both walls at the same time, and that might benefit developers in the long term, It doesn't seem fair to compare Google's behavior and Apple's.

In the Android world, you still have an option. The option isn't good, you might end up limited, the user have to enable a scary checkbox, but you have an option. If Epic wants, they can create a micro store for android. The same thing they do with PCs today.

But you can't do it with an apple device. You have no option, no workaround. That's the monopoly that needs to be destroyed.

Even if both companies behaviors are detrimental for developers, Apple is way, way worst.

That all said: Sadly, this is not about freedom but about money. My bet is that Apply will lose the restrictions for Epic and they will drop the case.

>My bet is that Apply will lose the restrictions for Epic and they will drop the case. They will have to do it for all dev's. Not just the big house name brands.

This is probably going to fundamentally change the landscape. Congress accused the big players including Apple of anti consumer behavior. Not being in control of your own device (Read: not being able to side load software without paying a fee.) will be the downfall of the app store.

> If there were actual competitors, their rates would be much lower... around 2-5% probably

Maybe for the more expensive apps, but not for the $0.99 apps that consumers love. For those, 2-5% doesn't come anywhere near covering the credit card processing costs.

this has a pretty trivial workaround, get in-store credits with a one-time payment and then keep paying the 1$ apps with that like any other store that has a wallet system/micro transactions.

I have an electric car charging account with chargepoint. They see how much usage you have and predictively fund your balance periodically.

When I first used it, I wouldn't use very much and I would get notices from time to time that $10 was added to my account. When my usage went up, they did $20 for a while, and at one point I hit $50.

I think this is reasonable and if it makes the overall cost of a service lower I am all for it.

Keep in mind that Apple is slugging developers $150 every year just to get their foot in the door of the App Store. That's not an insignificant sum.

No developer or company is happy with the way Apple runs the App Store. Their commission is outrageously high, their approval process is slow and often arbitrary, and their tooling is god-awful. We all just put up with it because the iPhone/iPad install base is so large, we don't really have a choice.

That being said, I'm very reluctant to demand regulation that interferes with a private company's right to run its own products. After all, maybe Apple's attitude is precisely why their install base is so large.

But God I wish there was a competitor that knocked them down the leaderboard a few pegs. Android is great, but the ecosystem is too fractured for the market to force Apple to change.

> No developer or company is happy with the way Apple runs the App Store.

The App Store isn’t made with developers in mind. It’s made for the average user. And right now the average user is pretty damn happy with Apple.

Another interesting thing this could do is get some momentum behind alternative app stores on Android. They exist but they're not popular. But suppose some of the big names who are tired of Google's fees go together, choose one and put all their apps there instead. That could be enough to get people to start using it. At which point, if it was charging e.g. 5% instead of 30%, many other apps would move there too.

It could be the best thing to happen in this space for a while.

Would it even matter? Google has tied so much critical functionality into their Play API that they could probably just flip a switch, and any app that didn't go through their own store would lose huge amounts of capabilities that Google has locked up.

This is a fine - even advantageous - for open stores like F-Droid, as the target market is users who explicitly don't want more Google spyware on their phone. But for large software companies pushing out profitable apps that require Play apis, it wouldn't be feasible.

Other stores aren't allowed to auto update apps which is a pretty big disadvantage.

If you want the alternative app stores to become more popular like you say, there's no better place to actually name some of them than in the comment you just made.

A lot of the 'alternative' app stores are either for piracy or for heavily fringe content (think NSFW) or open source only like F-droid. There are also app stores that are region specific e.g. east asia or Russian-speaking. It is difficult to find international, mainstream general purpose app stores.

That's because Google made it so third party app stores can't install apps in the background, auto-upgrade or batch install multiple apps.

Users expect to be able to do that, so it is a non-starter to run a commercial app store that Google's already turned into a second class citizen on Android.

I think if there was truly a great alternative store, these features would not block it’s initial success.

I think it is impossible to have a "truly great alternative" app store that doesn't include basic functionality that all the competing App Stores have, and Linux has had for decades.

Surely other app stores should be able to compete on an even playing field with Google, and be allowed to implement background installation, auto-upgrading and batch installation of apps.

You can include such features if you are an OEM vendor e.g. Samsung can install their own app store as root and give access to all the above features.

They do and it's quite popular. That's the reason fortnite is still avaliable to all Samsung users.

Why bother when you can just install apks directly?

Updates

“ Apple and Google are gatekeepers to all mobile devices (practically), but the value they add as gatekeepers is questionable”

If you own an app and remove it from all App Stores, you’ll quickly see what value they add. It’s the millions of users who are able to download your product.

What's questionable, AznHisoka, is what value the gatekeepers add for consumers by charging such a high tax.

Most of the value is being provided by the app developers.

30 - 50% is an acceptable markup in the retail world, like a bricks and mortar store selling furniture, but the purchase of virtual currency is not the same as a retail transaction. It's closer to the sort of service a money changer provides, or even a credit card merchant. The fee for such as service should be in the range of 3 - 18%, not 30%.

I have bought (for money) hundreds of iPad apps. Maybe 2 or 3 have been complete and total duds. I’ve bought (for money) tens of pieces of software directly from the developers’ websites with at least as many complete and total duds.

I’ll take the App Store experience thanks. Doesn’t matter to me what they charge. If developers want my money they’ll take the 30% haircut.

This implies there is no serious work involved in developing the App Store or platform other than credit card fees.

That’s just clearly not true.

You are right, zepto, that developing, maintaining, and delivering the App Store requires work and resources, and Apple should be compensated fairly for it.

App store owners are compensated fairly by the 30% fee they charge as commission on sales. But the Fortnite case is not about sales. It is about the re-supply of virtual currency for use within a game. The customer is already established. There is no new selling or marketing or delivery required of the app store owner.

To recognise the differences between product sales vs ongoing consumable resupply, such as virtual currency, app store vendors should do what physical world vendors do and charge different fees that are commensurate with the value add.

Retailers charge 30-50% markup to cover the overheads of rent and sales staff. What Apple does with the app store is similar, and so their 30% fee is in step.

Forex dealers and banks charge 3% - 18% for financial transactions such as currency exchange and credit card financing. Given that Apple isn't even providing financing for Fortnite's virtual currency, a fee in the order of 5 - 10% would be reasonable in this case.

What's at stake here should not be the all or nothing duel that Apple has initiated by banning Fortnite from the App store. Apple should just evolve, and introduce a second tier charge for consumables.

Would it make sense for Walmart to charge one price (say $100) for every item it sells in every one of its stores? Of course not. Walmart and every other real world retailer charges different prices for different things, depending on how much value they add. Apple should do the same.

Apple didn’t initiate a hidden feature for an in-app store (flagrant violation) + an accompanying ad blitz + lawsuit. That said I kinda like the argument of currency, the problem I guess for Apple is that what’s the difference between fortnite bucks and any other IAP? I mean how would Apple differentiate it. Why not just make every app surrounded by a layer of conversion to your fake currency to get your commission down?

Wondering if instead Apple should look at pricing breaks when a customer spends over a certain amount on IAP or certain repeat transactions. In effect trying to differentiate the take they get for whatever initial bit but incentivize monetizing customers for the long haul. That has precedent with the subscription model they have been pushing to achieve similar pricing breaks as a compromise down to 15%

Yes, Apple could just be reasonable, like you.

As you point out, awinder, it would be possible to rort the rules by charging zero for the app, and then making the bulk of the revenue come from the IAP, if the former costs 30% and the latter costs 0%.

Apple could overcome those technical nonsensibilities by simply defining a second tier lower charge of say 10% in a common sense way, and then granting second tier status to the kinds of transactions that deserve it in a common sense interpretation.

Without a second tier to app store pricing, Apple is not going to please all the people all of the time. Dissatisfaction is inevitable.

With a second tier, sensibly applied, everyone's a winner, all of the time.

Is this a GPT-3 auto-response bot? It’s a new account, the replies are all very similarly structured, fairly long, and still mostly devoid of content

I'm a human, xref. And I am new to Hacker News. If you feel that I am not fitting in with your expectations for the culture here, please feel free to suggest ways to improve our interaction. I will listen to you with open ears.

When you say "devoid of content" is that a criticism because you don't agree with my proposal that Apple introduce tiered pricing? Or something else? Would you care to elaborate?

There is a way you don’t seem to be taking this debate seriously. But in my view I doubt that means you are a bot.

For example your walmart analogy isn’t an analogy of anything in this situation and you don’t explain that.

And of now you are talking about Apple using common sense rules to decide what is an is acceptable, which of course is what they think they have been doing all along. People disagree on what is common sense.

The pattern is that you appear to be making interesting but flawed suggestions and then not taking seriously people’s responses to them.

This kind of gatekeeping / rentier activity is not good for economic activity. There are two big players.

Amazing coincidence that both charge 30%, isn't it?

It's not a coincidence and I have never heard a claim it was. Apple set it at 30% and Google decided not to compete on price. Of course it is legal to set the price of your product based on a competitor.

When competitors non-coincidentally decide to set their prices the same arbitrary number, that's called "price fixing" and it is potentially an antitrust issue.

Exactly, crazy people are arguing otherwise.

I don't think that is a good situation. It's basically an open duopoly.

I actually don't disagree with this, I just said it is not some "coincidence". Apple was first, Google decided to follow. Good for consumers? Probably not.

That is not value. That is gatekeeping.

Top of the funnel discovery and verifying the app won't do malicious things is value. It's debatable if that's worth 30% of all in-app purchases (but then those also get the value of a trusted payment processor too). But it's silly to imagine that app developers aren't getting value from being in app stores.

That is only because their app stores hold monopoly positions on their respective devices.

> If there were actual competitors, their rates would be much lower... around 2-5% probably.

Now that's an interesting (though highly impractical) idea!

Imagine both app stores on every phone, providing the exact same service. There's probably no room for price fixing here, because Apple's market share is far smaller than Android's, so Apple would have a significant incentive to reduce the fees (and snatch some of Google's customers.

Now add two or three other "app store providers", and things get interesting.

2-5%? Where did you pull that number from? Credit card fees alone are 2-3%, and besides payment processing Apple/Google obviously has other costs (at the least distribution).

Let’s not forget, you can frame this as a “cost” to developers, but it can just as easily be framed as a convenience fee to consumers, I as a consumer am happy to pay it.

It’s astonishing how the most people here look at this whole situation just from the perspective of a developer and mostly tune out the implications for society and consumers. Case in point: You discount the value of security compared to delivery which is ridiculous. Apple does a much better job at the former and look at the societal outcomes. The value generated by a relatively safe computing platform is ENORMOUS. Even a developer should be able to acknowledge as much.

I agree that fees seem somewhat high but we might be underestimating the cost it takes to check all the apps. One reasonable change of law could be a requirement for cost and revenue transparency for app stores and if we are hell bent on lowering prices maybe even a stipulation that margins must remain reasonable or even that stores must be run by a separate nonprofit with its own goals and guidelines.

However, all of this seems to be more in the realm of congress and law making rather than the courts. I don’t think that there are many good legal grounds for epic here. Everyone is paying... they can’t really claim damages in a competitive market sense as they are not worse of than any competitor.

> If there were actual competitors, their rates would be much lower... around 2-5% probably.

probably not. Visa takes a bigger cut than 2% when you buy a hamburger.

Those fees are fixed at 0.2% in EU.

Do you have a source for this?

> As a general rule, the Regulation will cap interchange fees at 0.2% of the transaction value for consumer debit cards and at 0.3% for consumer credit cards.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/lt/IP_15_...

1. What's the evidence to support a view that Apple and Google would charge 2-5%? Steam charges 30%. Epic takes 12%. Origin/EA takes 30%. Amazon takes an average 13% but it scales up to 25%.

2. Nobody gives a shit if this is better for developers, do they? Epic could charge +30% on IAP and use the Apple IAP system which is orders of magnitude better than anything else in the market. Developers set the pricing, and Apple handles security, authentication, refunds, etc. Consumers know it's a consistent experience across the platform.

3. The only benefit anyone seems to be able to come up with here is "choice" and a misguided belief that prices would come down as if by magic. Video game publishers took up to 60% of video game sales in physical stores, but the ARP of a video game has risen since 2008 and the advent of Steam and other online stores.

4. Seems like Apple has built a successful hardware/software play at least partially based on the fact that consumers don't have to do bullshit things like entering credit card details into some third party payment gateway to buy things, or deal with different refund policies from different folks. Consumers have flocked to the platform and now its success is being used as the basis of an attempt to strip it of its competitive advantage.

5. Same thing happened in the UK with sports coverage. The English Premier League was only broadcast on Sky until a few years ago. £29.99 a month got you all the live televised top flight soccer. Now to watch all of the televised soccer in the UK you need Sky Sports, Amazon Prime Video, and BT Sport. And Sky Sports prices have not decreased in real terms. (Oh, and BT's tech infrastructure is hot garbage.) I don't know anyone who loves the experience of having three different services to deal with and paying more money. Nobody is bleating about "choice" now.

6. I object to this on exactly the same terms as I object to Spotify's bitching that IAP margins -- which have been the same since before Spotify launched -- are too thin. They operate a business where they pay sixty cents of every dollar they make to rights holders for fuck's sake. Why are they bitching at Apple telling them that if they want to do a monthly subscription and net £9.99, they need to charge £14.28? Why can Spotify try to tell Apple that the HomePod -- a fucking speaker -- should let Spotify onto the device natively (when you can already connect via Bluetooth)?

7. Nearly every online store has serious arbitrary limitations placed on it by the operator of the store. Many of these are to do with the user experience, but many of them are a means of paying the bills for something they fund (hosting, marketing, app review team, developers working on APIs). It helps them sell phones, but it's intertwined with the user experience.

8. Gruber's point stands: if you think it's OK for Microsoft to prevent Sony from selling a PlayStation game streaming service on the Xbox Store, I don't see why you have an issue with this. It's not the same as Netflix: it's more like an app store within an app store.

I’d say the $.60 per dollar to rights holders is a much better deal than $.30 per dollar to Apple for payment processing. There are a lot of people involved in creating a song vs a couple automated API calls to process a monthly payment.

I think you are confusing the value you are getting from Apple with the means you are paying for it. Just because the fee is collected through a couple of payment API calls doesn’t mean thats what you are paying for.

> I'd say the $.60 per dollar to rights holders is a much better deal than $.30 per dollar to Apple for payment processing.

You're totally within your rights to think that! (My advice to you: don't start a business literally built on top of Apple's platform!)

> a couple automated API calls to process a monthly payment.

This sort of oversimplification makes it hard to take your argument seriously. I'm pretty sure you don't believe that, but just in case you do…

This article[1] suggests that Apple made $4.2bn from the App Store in the 10 years between 2008 and 2018.

Here are some of the things I would put into the cost lines for Apple's app store P&L (the company operates a combined P&L):

1. Multiple data centres dedicated to the app store and routing third-party notifications. That's both hosting of the apps and ongoing cost associated with e.g. push notifications, software updates. Each of these data centres has energy, staff, hardware costs. That is to say: there is both opex and capex here, which means Apple isn't only netting ongoing costs from revenue but also thinking about the cost of the capital invested in infrastructure up front.

2. The card processing charges associated with customers buying the app in the first place, and subsequent in-app purchases.

3. The cost of Apple's App Review Teams (three dedicated offices: Cork, Shanghai, Sunnyvale). That's 300 people.[2] There are costs behind them, too (for example: recruitment, HR, management).

4. Product and engineering costs associated with the team Apple has working on internal systems and services dedicated to app review.

5. An apportionment of costs associated with customers seeking technical support in-store and online due to third-party apps.

6. An apportionment of costs associated with the development and maintenance of services and APIs which Apple develops and makes available to app developers. (For example, sign-on with Apple.)

In 2018 the app store had seen 130 billion apps downloaded[3], with an average app size of 38mb[4]. That's 4.94 exabytes of data excluding updates.

Microsoft for many years charged Xbox developers for certification of games and patches, in part because of the bandwidth costs of distributing those patches to its customers, but also because providing this sort of service is mired by multiple perilous overheads -- which, I have to say, people on the web tend to misunderstand/ignore/dismiss.

Fortnite has nearly 150 million installs on iOS. It's 1.8 gigabytes. That's 270 million gigabytes, and the game is free. 30% of users don't spend a dime in Fortnite. That's 81 million gigabytes of free bandwidth for Epic, before you forget about the fact that Apple promotes the game etc.

Neither party is a saint here. Apple and Epic both get a lot of out the app being in the store. But Epic has multiple options to resolving this without trying to rob Apple's platform of a significant part of its USP.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/20/18273179/apple-icloud-itu... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/21/how-apples-app-review-proces... [3] https://www.appannie.com/en/insights/market-data/data-behind... [4] https://sweetpricing.com/blog/2017/02/average-app-file-size/

There’s no way Epic has gotten $175 million dollars of value from Apples services let alone $175 million a year. Every single one of the popular apps would be better off dealing with all that infrastructure on their own IMO.

Installer infrastructure used to be nearly free. I absolutely disagree that Apple or Google are providing significant value here. The app discovery ship has sailed and no one is going to find your small apps on those platforms. The review processes might benefit users, but is a detriment for developers who aren’t guaranteed the ability to distribute apps they’ve invested in.

Steve Ballmer wasn’t stupid for laughing at the App Store. He just wildly underestimated the stupidity of the average developer. No one would have taken the App Store deal in the 90s and Apple would have been laughed out of the industry. Now everyone throws caution to the wind and marries into a system where they have no voice and no leverage. It’s absolutely crazy.

> There's no way Epic has gotten $175 million dollars of value

This feels pretty subjective. My point was that you were suggesting the App Store is just a card processing gateway. It's significantly more than that.

> Installer infrastructure used to be nearly free.

And viruses and malware were everywhere, and many folks hated using their computers. People forget how far we've come since the days of malfunctioning and virus-riddled PCs being the butt of jokes.

> I absolutely disagree that Apple or Google are providing significant value here

Eh? App review? Literally a general purpose computing platform with close to zero malware / spyware? User satisfaction for iPhone amongst the highest for any consumer product in history.

> The review processes might benefit users

Ah. Yes. That's the core of this I think: Apple cares about Apple, then Apple customers, then developers. Developers seem to care most about developers. Customers seem to care most about customers.

> developers who aren't guaranteed the ability to distribute apps they've invested in

What? If your app conforms to the rules of Apple's app store, you are absolutely able to distribute the app.

> Steve Ballmer wasn't stupid for laughing at the App Store. He just wildly underestimated the stupidity of the average developer.

Tough gig to argue that every single app developer on the app store is stupid and you and Steve Ballmer are the smart ones.

> No one would have taken the App Store deal in the 90s

I want to write this in capital letters: every. Single. Consumer. Would. The app store is better for consumers. It's better to have one trustworthy company (Apple) with my credit card information. It's better to have a simple hardware-based authentication for payments like TouchID or FaceID. It's better to have no malware and spyware. It's better to have apps which don't crash or have showstopping bugs. It's better to have refunds controlled by one predictable entity. All of those things are made possible or significantly easier by the App Store.

> It's absolutely crazy

Crazy might look like dismissing all the huge benefits consumers love because one developer was unwilling to either accept the commission one of their marketplaces charges, or increase their prices to offset it.

You realize that in the 90s, retailers and wholesalers got a lot more than 30%?

So you think the “average developer” is “stupidly” doing what they need to make money?

Does Epic deliver any “value” by selling skins? How they any different than Candy Crush?

Yeah, but in the 90s it was physical distribution. Shelf space has value. Virtual shelf space is unlimited and has almost no value. A 60% cut would be a good deal if it guaranteed you visibility equal to being on the shelf in BestBuy. Plus, there were many retailers where you could sell your products and no one could literally prevent you from building your own store if you wanted to.

Imagine if Walmart was the ONLY retail store on the planet and took 30% of all revenue while selling their Great Value products in industries that have 30% margin (ex: music streaming).

It’s time for regulators IMO.

It obviously has enough value for Fortnite that made almost a billion dollars after the 30% cut selling virtual costumes and skins - that really have no value.

Very solid analysis. And it doesn’t even cover payment fraud, support, and legal costs. I have friends involved with Xbox at Microsoft and they have to do an extraordinary amount of research for rights holders in older games when doing compatibility updates.

The 30% is not for just for payment processing. I have seen this a lot in this thread.

It’s hard to be sure whether this is an honest mistake or not, given the generally well informed community.

What are they doing besides the payment processing APIs for IAPs?

Paying for the the rest of the App Store infrastructure.

Gatekeeping is never about adding value; it's about removing or keeping out [whatever is the opposite of value]. A subtle difference but one to keep in mind.

I'm not sure that's true? Gatekeeping is definitely about keeping out/removing, but that doesn't mean that it has zero or negative value?

For example, there's absolutely positive value for users in filtering spam. This tends to be negative value for spam senders, but that doesn't detract from the user value.

The fact that you phrase this in such a binary fashion invalidates your point. Decisions are never so one sided.

Apple's version of gatekeeping is a balance between providing a user experience that they control and design, and managing/controlling competition.

Keeping out bad (in their opinion) UX constitutes the valid part of their gatekeeping because it subtracts negative value, which almost amounts to adding value, but is subtly different, like I said. Keeping out competition is a little harder to justify since it presumably only benefits them. And that does tend to be a temptation for all gatekeepers. But in neither case is value really being added directly, was my only point.

Agree it's a subtle difference.

It reminds me of the internet filters at large companies. Keeps out the filth and bad actors at the detriment of being on a truly free internet. That makes sense when it's the companies computers.

But not so much when you own the device.

Not subtle - a fundamental point. Thank you for putting it so succinctly, rdiddly.

Dumb question but if there is no collusion between the companies in a duopoly, is it still illegal in the US? Or does it have to be a monopoly to be illegal?

Monopolies aren’t illegal per se in the US if they were acquired lawfully. What’s illegal is using monopoly power in a prohibited way. However, collusion (even tacit collusion) can be illegal even if there’s no monopoly by a single company, e.g., market sharing[1].

Note: Not a legal expert, this is just my understanding.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividing_territories

They both carefully added up all their costs and each independently arrived at a fair 30% fee, even though entire physical supply chains can undercut this percent.

This happens often without direct collusion. You see it commonly in retail. Not sure anyone can outlaw unspoken pricing standoffs like this.

They can do it indirectly by breaking them up.

There are already alternative app stores on Android (perhaps most notably, Amazon) and that hasn't impacted their 30%... so what exactly are you expecting?

These alternative App Stores are heavily restricted when it comes to updating or even just installing apps, unless they were installed into the system and the system was patched by the OEM.

They are different markets. If you have an iPhone you must use Apple's store, Google's store is not competition for that market. For Google, use of the store is not required, but there's a risk to side-loading because ideally there would be competing stores that also do quality control and security audits, and there aren't. So it isn't a duopoly, it's one absolute monopoly and one near-monopoly.

The legal definition of a "market" is always going to be somewhat subjective and arbitrary. I doubt whether a US federal court would define the market the same way you did.

The predominant test is market or pricing power, whether the people you are selling the good or service move to putative competitors in response to pricing/conditions changes you make. If Apple makes their terms more onerous, does it drive purchasers of their app distribution service to the Play Store? If not, they aren't competing in the same market.

Epic Games hasn't purchased any app distribution services from Apple or Google. Epic is the vendor here, not the customer. The money flows from Apple to Epic.

What Apple is doing feels unfair, but making an antitrust case against them is going to be a stretch with current laws.

If I want to buy a game to play on my phone, and there is only one seller, it's a monopoly. Yes, I could buy a new phone, and then buy the game from a different store. But then I'd be buying a different product (Fortnite for Android instead of Fortnite for iPhone).

It depends on how the court decides to define the market. Is the market limited to Fortnite on Apple devices? All games on Apple devices? Fortnite on all devices? All video games everywhere? The laws and precedents provide some general guidance but there's no clear and simple procedure defined for deciding what constitutes the "market" in the context of a particular case. Don't presume to know what a court will decide. In particular the legal concept of a product doesn't work the way you describe.

> If there were actual competitors, their rates would be much lower... around 2-5% probably.

You can only get nothing for 2-5% because that barely meets the payment processing fees (of course, a large company can negotiate a lower rate). If you’re saying 2-5% plus payment processing fees, then that might be possible depending on the solution and what’s provided to users and developers.

You do realize that credit card processors take 2-3% alone? Honestly I agree with Apple and google one this one.

I don't think Epic Games is doing this to get the rates for the whole market down. They're just looking to get their tax cut reduced and increase profits. Once its down, they won't even look at indie developers and smaller firms.

Why would more competitors drive the price down? Developers will have to support Google and Apple’s stores regardless of whether they lower the rate.

If the rate mattered, Google would have lowered it to compete with Apple for developers.