Apple has done a lot to curtail scummy developer practices and protect users.
You could go over each of their App Store policies and see how few of them are "at the expense of their customers."
Not the least are their privacy and anti-tracking protections. iOS 14 already caught many apps (including Discord and Instagram) stealing our clipboard data and secretly accessing camera, mic and location.
Claiming Google is "user-centric" and Apple isn't, usually means taking the side of the corporations that are hurt by limited access to user data.
This is so true, and the magnitude of this is not immediately apparent unless you’ve worked in an agency / freelanced building iOS applications. You have no idea how many user-hostile and abusive things I’ve seen blown completely out of the water with the golden phrase "Apple won’t allow that". It wins arguments in favour of the user instantly and permanently.
I’ve run up against Apple’s capricious review process more times than I can count, so I’ve got more reason than most to complain about it. But it’s impossible for me to argue that these rules don’t help the user when I’ve personally seen it happen so many times. It’s a double-edged sword to be sure, and I believe the best way of balancing things in favour of the end-user is to be more open than Apple is, but there are undeniable benefits to the user with the current system.
Not really, this has just been a PR exercise that I'm watching with fascination - the real news is that they've shifted focus away from their own shortcomings. The real news here is that iOs14 allows unrestricted clipboard access. Think about that for a moment. Instead of actually fixing the issue, they choose to highlight it and call out apps for using the platform in a way they have allowed.
> The real news here is that iOs14 allows unrestricted clipboard access.
Every OS does, no? Which steps has Android or Windows taken? (genuinely curious)
In my opinion, an example of Apple practices which are bad for customers is their line on progressive web apps. Apple limits support as they cannot keep control of their platform and revenue stream. I would argue however, that installable web apps are great for user experience, especially since it helps less resourceful businesses provide a good product for mobile devices. I'll admit there are privacy concerns regarding access to phone features from a web app, so Apple's arguments in blocking some (but not all) of these have some merit.
If you look beyond just the App Store policies, this general practice appears to me to limit innovation on the web platform, as Apple is invested in keeping apps the only first class citizen on their platform.
Once they have a few slow quarters and pull the lever on taking a cut of app mediated real-world services, we may see 10-30% of each Taxi ride going to Apple.
I think they have mechanisms for distributing apps within an organization.
University students normally bring their own devices so don't fit into that model
Do you mean that universities can distribute iOS apps to iOS devices without using the App Store?
>Use the program only to create proprietary, in-house apps for internal use, and to distribute these apps privately and securely to employees within the organization.
Not sure if there is another programme that would work for universities
Even if you take payment through your app that you built with your own payment processor.
Why is Apple standing between me and my school again? They made a profit off of the hardware that I purchased from them and now they’re just standing there stopping me from paying for what I want on the device that I bought.
HEY acquired customers outside of the app but still wasn't allowed.
The argument for ongoing App Store funding is that it has to scale with the number of apps available, each requiring hours of human work to review and police.
I suppose if you care about the users, you should argue for freedom of running the software you like on the device you buy (ability to control secure boot keys/root access in some sort of developer mode), akin to values that Free Software Foundation has, not some petty marketplace rules. Neither those platforms, nor Epic, seem to give rat's ass about that freedom though.
Some publishers are giving the dollars back to the users. Like Fortnite.
Also, because of Apple's rules, you cannot just sign-up from Netflix app in iOS. You have to sign up in their Browser and then sign in. And Netflix is not allowed to even specify that in the app. Absolutely confusing, for normal users. Very horrible experience.
That is what I say when they are holding you as pawns. They are okay for you and I to go through that confusing experience, instead of allowing Netflix to tell them that they have to sign up in the browser.
> I suppose if you care about the users, you should argue for freedom of running the software you like on the device you buy
Android does allow it. They allow you to install any software. Even software that allows you to bypass Youtube Ads. In fact that is one reason why many stick to android
If my assumption Fortnite is making a profit is right they are not giving anything back. You can buy more 'fake money' for your real money which seems like a good deal to players, but the only thing they get from it are a few extra skins and items which cost Epic about nothing to produce.
You can install software on your own iOS with a free developer certificate as well. You cannot scale distribution though, which is by design, and ensures security of the other billions of users.
I did not mean just the software running in a container though, which is at the mercy of Android system. I want to control the software running on the computer I pay for, which most Android phones don't.
And it expires after 7 days. You can't even scale using your own software without having to swap it out once a week.
It's a hassle to instruct users on how to allow third party sources, which is why Epic eventually caved to Google Play's demands, after distributing Fortnite outside of Play for a year or smth.
Still, it's not the same thing. In a situation in which Fortnite gets banned from Play, their marketshare on Android doesn't go to zero, and given kids are driven to have their game installed, one can argue that Fortnite would be able to survive just fine on Android outside of Play.
And your main point, that the platforms don't give a rat's ass on freedom, is childish. Yes, they don't, we already knew that. Still doesn't change the fact that one is unlike the other for developers, users and their freedom to do what they want with their devices.
All Pixel and Android One phones allow you to unlock the bootloader. Developers do care about that.
However, all of that is pretty much orthogonal to what Epic wants, which is my point. Epic does not care about user freedom in that sense, just haggling to get a cut from 30/15% to ~5-10% and they'll be on their way. It's just spun as a user freedom thing (which is actually a valid request, but accomplished with very different means).
Linux is not equivalent to a specific device either. That distinction is meaningless to developers, who will just get the device that lets them do what they need to do.
I have a HomePod and not an alexa or Google device because Apple has shown it cares about privacy. That's user-centric. Sure, we could be incredibly cynical in saying that "well because you buy it then it is actually Apple-centric", but they clearly care about privacy.
Google to me is entirely Google-centric, which means harvesting as much data about me as possible to sell to advertisers.
I'm fine with Apple's walled garden. It works really, really well. People love iPhones for more than just marketing and status. They're excellent phones. And a not-insignificant piece of that experience is an ecosystem fits together nicely, with central control. Infinite choice isn't better for most people.
Are you fine with paying Apple 30% of the cost of any application that you buy? It's not the developers that are paying this cost -- this is what you are paying to Apple for each app. That $25 app is costing you $7.50 that goes straight to Apple. All that money adds up fast.
Even if you are good with that, I think you imagine that a lot of users -- even those who might be happy with other aspects of the Apple ecosystem -- might not be happy with a 30% tax on all purchases made on their thousand dollar device. Apple even mandates that you're not allowed to know inside of an app about cheaper ways to pay.
Is that right though? Is the economics as simplistic as that? Could it be that Apple can now bring down iPhone device prices while hitting the revenue targets they have in mind offset from services, effective benefiting iPhone SE 2020 consumers? Could it be that the cost of running the store, marketing and distribution and properly reviewing all the free apps that I actually use is subsidized by the minority of apps that are paid or have in app purchases? To say that the user is burdened by the entire 30% directly is quite an overreach. How do we know the developers won’t pocket the additional margin and keep prices at the current rate? (my bet is this, actually).
For me personally who almost never used a paid app, I can assure you that the 30% is not paid by me. I may have even benefited through iPhones cheaper than hypothetical price that Apple has to sell them without AppStore revenue potential. I certainly benefited by AppStore vetting shitty apps.
This is a business model choice and banning it is like saying Google Drive is not supposed to charge paid users more to subsidize free quotas.
There are enough shady apps, especially games, on both stores already without them asking you to enter your credit card details. At least with the current system you can set up parental controls.
I think allowing apps to process their own payments is a recipe for disaster and will open up the floodgates for apps, especially games, trying to trick kids into purchasing expensive in-app crap.
You give far too much credit to the world's largest advertising company and probably the world's biggest corporate/private holder of personal and tracking data on the human population.
Any suggestion of an altruistic motive behind any Google policy/practice/implementation is disingenuous at best.
This is correct but the definition of the "user" here is different from the definition of "user" for Apple.
In the case of Google, the advertisers and the developers are the "users", and the people who are using the software are the products.
On the Apple side of things, the people who buy the phone or the laptop are the "users" and this is the folks that Apple cares about deeply(And ironically, they also suffer in the last saga by not being able to access their favourite game). That is why its always the developers complaining about Apple.
Yes, as a developer I think %30 is high and I wish it was lower but it is on par with Google. As a user, I despise the idea of giving credit card info on every app and service I would like to use. Looking at the behaviour of the companies who think they can force users what they want, I am sure that they are not going to be as nice as Apple on the payments. They will implement dark patterns.
As a user, I don't want to see another payment method, I want this to go away. As a developer I want this to go away by Apple lowering it's fees.
What if in order to sell you an iphone as a non mac user your browser vendor required Apple to give them 30% of the purchase price? What if they refused to render pages that tried to work around this?
What id your ISP required transactions being conducted via their networks to cut them in on the deal? Hell why not your computers OEM?
As a developer I agree that we shouldn't be forced and restricted to payment methods. My developer opinion is that these payment systems should be considered public utility and should be unified and should work the same for everyone - including Apple. Apple should not be able to have competing products by where they don't pay someone the cut that we pay.
I also think that payments methods shouldn't be able to restrict who we pay. Be it Wikilieaks or whoever we please. That's actually why I am not amused by framing this pity fight over the commission rates as "fight for freedom". It's not fight for freedom, it is cocky businessmen looking to increase their margins.
You know how 99% of the startups fail? Well, maybe they fail because they forget about the user.
The ideal solution for me is, Apple Pay being an open protocol and I can add payment methods to Apple Pay, can track all payments from a single UI. Then I would be O.K. with being offered %30 discount if I pay with "Epic Card" payment method(form the same payment UI).
More importantly, It's a well know that people in the game industry are overworked and underpaid and it's not because of the Apple's cut. I don't know about the situation in Epic, but if it happens that Apple lowers the rates most certainly the difference will go to C level executives(that are not underpaid already).
If Apple gets the money, they at least will pay a decent salary to their people. The game makers can consider cutting bonuses if the money is tight.
When you say, Apple treats their users as pawns, well, Google's ad business which generates most of their money, also treats their users as pawns. Both companies are amazingly effective at extracting extremely high profit margins from the business that they control.
In other words, primary goal of both companies is to extract as much money as possible from consumers and they're both extremely good at that, in their own way. Neither treats users as pawns, because, that would undermine their market position. Both are user-centric in the sense that they offer products that consumers (whether end-users or ad buyers) believe to be useful enough that they pay very high prices for them. And both companies are zealous in maintaining that relationship.
Apple seems to be slightly better at this, sitting on about $200 billion, but that's only after using hundreds of billions of dollars to buy back their own stock over the years. This treasury stock is hard to value, because it's unlikely Apple would actually sell it, except to buy some other big company. But it looks to me like Apple has enough treasury stock that it could be converted into something like a trillion dollars if they wanted to do that and were legally permitted to. (As an accounting matter, however, treasury stock isn't even counted as an asset, even though the company paid very real cash for at least part of it.) Google's also sitting on well over $100 billion and a bunch of treasury stock.
It raises some interesting social issues, but there's nothing very different about the way these two companies relate to their users, or indeed to society generally.
Apple defenders - It is their right to do it, since Android store allows them.
Others - Apple is being a hypocrite. While they maintain that app store must be compensated for all the services they do to developers, When given a chance they do not agree with their above statement.
I feel w.r.t app stores, Google is User-centric, but Apple is Apple-Centric at the expense of their customers. They use users as pawns, to bully the best for Apple, rather than their customers (you and I).
edit: To explain "user centric" better
Because of Apple's rules, you cannot just sign-up from Netflix app in iOS. You have to sign up in their Browser and then sign in. And Netflix is not allowed to even specify that in the app. Absolutely confusing, for normal users. Very bad user experience.
That is what I say when they are holding you as pawns. Apple is okay for you and I to go through that confusing experience, instead of allowing Netflix to tell them that users have to sign up in the browser.