I don't think Apple is prepared for that future. I can imagine Google & Amazon making app stores that run on iOS, but I can't see Apple making an App Store For Android.
(Imagine if Google could also have an iOS App Store, and you could buy software once on Google Play Android, and the same purchase also ran on iOS devices via Google Play For iOS. Would you keep buying software from Apple?)
Nobody cares about other markets, but you can't even host your own app! You are forced to give up 30% of your app revenue just to be in their walled garden. That is monopolistic in every possible way. And stop with the childish "ooh we're gonna end up like Android". Android devices are more than capable to hold their own against Apple's offerings nowadays and I haven't heard anyone complain about viruses and malware in like five years now.
And when I want to install an open source app I can do so on Android but Apple wants to tell me I can't after I spent $1k on their shiny phone. Amazing stuff, let's not lose it for something silly like user and developers having a fucking choice.
Of course part of the reason for this is because Google put in a bunch of scary warnings when you try to install 3rd party apps, and Epic is so unhappy with these warnings making it difficult to distribute Fortnite outside of the Play Store that they decided to sue Google too.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/08/fortnites-android-vu...
But I personally would not like having the system I bought as a phone suddenly change in function allowing side-loaded software. (Similar to how I'm not happy that, in time, the PC-controlled Oculus hardware I've owned for several years will soon be useless without an FB account.)
This is exactly the problem. Apple can and does routinely change the functioning of their phones, and if you prefer the old functionality you have no recourse, because Apple contractually forbids you from installing software of your choosing.
I fail to see why people think this is such a problem on this forum. It’s as people think all hell and doom breaks lose if, god forbid, developers are able to distribute apps themselves.
It may be a problem to you, but for other people it's a feature. Some people have more involved threat models than you are keeping in mind. They don't want their device to be able to run arbitrary code or unsigned code. Having this feature but having a toggle to turn it off defeats the purpose.
Maybe you disagree, but HN is shockingly flippant about dismissing this extremely legitimate security concern, and comments like this are a perfect example.
Is that really so difficult for you? Why do you need to prevent me from installing other apps stores, when you can just not do that yourself.
If Apple made-good on Steve Jobs’ promise to make FaceTime an open standard and I could use it from Android devices and and PC then your argument would be stronger.
Apple put us in an unfortunate position where the strength of the iOS ecosystem means that many of us don’t have a choice in phone platform to buy into - which in turn opens us up to being exploited by their App Store practices.
Point is - I feel like I’m being dicked-over by Apple and the alternatives are just not feasible. Responses like “Just buy two phones lol” or “you still have a choice to use Android and not talk with your family at all” aren’t helpful or productive.
I’m sure the same arguments would have been made with Standard Oil when anti-trust law wasn’t on the books yet: arguably consumers and companies still had a choice to not use oil: they could use coal or natural-gas. People have a choice to drive a car or they could walk or ride a horse or take a train... hopefully you see why your argument is seen as being made in bad faith. We have a choice, yes - but it isn’t a free choice. We are being coerced into making a choice by our circumstances and Apple is taking an unreasonably unfair advantage of that.
You don’t lay any of the blame on Google’s inability you convince people that their phones are worth buying when you can afford to do otherwise?
How is any of that Google's fault? That's Apple entrenching their platform lock-in in a way that ultimately harms customers.
What you said can be applied to any other situation where a de-jure choice exists even when a de-facto choice does not:
> You don’t lay any of the blame on Netscape's inability to convince people that their Navigator browser is worth buying when you can afford to do otherwise?
What you said can be applied to any other situation where a de-jure choice exists even when a de-facto choice does not:
Google in fact was able to overtake IE on Windows so thoroughly that MS gave up and is now using Google’s engine.
Google Maps is quite popular on iOS devices.
There are dozens of other messaging clients on iPhones. Outside of the US, most people don’t even use iMessage. Now people are complaining that they can’t convince their friend circle to use alternate messaging apps.
This is again partially due to Google’s incompetence. They can’t even convince Android users to use their messaging apps.
The monopoly that Epic is complaining about is not a monopoly on smartphones or smartphone operating systems. It's a monopoly on selling iOS apps and processing payments for iOS apps and content.
You cannot allow a global duopoly of companies that managed to become the infrastructure for a large part of our economy to take a cut of all or most business that is done on top of that infrastructure.
Imagine we had allowed that to happen with telephone networks or roads. Whoever came first would have been able to suck the air out of the rest of the economy.
The same people claim the app store is this magically perfect service that provides infinite value for both developers and users. If that's the case no one would choose to use a 3rd party app store, so having the option would make no difference.
The reality IMO is that developers would try to flock to an app store with better terms and users would cling to the existing model.
To me, a fantastic outcome would be if Apple gets forced to allow developers to inform users they can pay for subscriptions outside the app store and to charge +30% to people that still want to use the app store. Then all the users defending Apple can put their money where their mouth is.
Then add in competing app stores that don't take a 30% cut and all of a sudden you'll have "dedicated" Apple users flocking to the new stores to save a buck.
Because they are buying a brand.
If Play Store will start selling iOS apps, the same iOS apps they already know, at a discount they will immediately buy them.
Because they are human after all.
Is there something similar to this for iOS apps?
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/5/21355997/microsoft-your-ph...
Apple announced that all iOS apps will run side by side with macOS apps when the ARM apps are released.
Microsoft Windows 10 can run on any compatible hardware I want, including virtual hardware (Mac OS cannot be legally virtualized on non Apple HW)
Microsoft doesn't make Android and doesn't even manufacturers smartphones anymore, they'll embraced it as a compatible platform, as they did with Linux.
From a developer standpoint that's a big step forward, from the user standpoint it reduces the friction between mobile and non mobile platforms, now they can run their apps on the most popular OS that they can run on practically any x86 HW they own. It's a pretty radical change.
Apple running Apple doesn't change much
Can you see the difference?
50% of users in the US own iPhones.
If you don't understand the difference between choice and no choice, I think you have bigger problems.
If I were running a business, why would I care about the low margin, no profit commodity PC or Android market.
I do expect they will be forced to make at least sideloading possible
> If I were running a business, why would I care about the low margin, no profit commodity PC or Android market.
nobody expects businessmen to be decent human beings, nobody expects that from a US company, but Prada, for example, can't force you to wear Prada shoes if you bought a Prada dress.
If you wanna buy Gucci shoes, you don't have to go through the Prada store that charges you 30% just because you can't escape it.
What the majority of the people here are saying is that Apple margins are artificial and built on having an unescapable walled garden
It is like luring people in a Mall and closing the doors
Of course they are going to buy only from shops inside the Mall, but what if they could go shopping somewhere else?
Why is Apple so afraid of it?
If their product is superior, people will buy it anyway.
Right?
---
Of course there is more to it
Apple bluetooth profile has been for years not compatible with device to device transfer (I don knwow about the newer models)
Apple messaging platforms can't be made interoperable with Android because Apple does not want to.
Apple does not permit to advertise in apps different ways of creating an account on third party services, which obviously gives an unfair advantage to Apple, if you are Spotify and can't tell people how to create an account outside of the iOS is one thing, but if you are a news outlet and can't advertise your website (where you collect ads or advertise different payment profiles) that's really hindering publishers and user's rights (it costs more to buy NY Times subscription from the iOS app - to cover the Apple cut on it - and there is only one option available while there are more on their website)
Ny Times can maybe handle it, but what about smaller companies/publishers?
Apple thinks that if the app doesn't work user would think it's s device problem, but if buying things from apple store costs more, users will think that publishers are to blame, and publishers are usually not worth 2 trillions and can't afford the bad PR the same way Apple can.
You mean the same 30% margin that Google, Sony, Microsoft (Xbox), Nintendo, Spotify, etc. charge?
Apple bluetooth profile has been for years not compatible with device to device transfer (I don knwow about the newer models)
People still use slow BT transfers? Why? This isn’t 2004. There are much better ways to transfer files.
Apple messaging platforms can't be made interoperable with Android because Apple does not want to
Sure it is. SMS.
it costs more to buy NY Times subscription from the iOS app - to cover the Apple cut on it
It cost more to buy a soda from the convenience store than the grocery store. I couldn’t advertise at Best Buy that you can buy the same product cheaper at Amazon.
Why do people think this is an effective argument? In any other context, noting that prices are standardized across the entire market would be strong evidence that the market was not competitive.
If you went into a shoe store and every shoe in the shop was $49.99, that's pretty good evidence that the shoe manufactures are not competing with each other over price the way that they should be.
You look at something like gas prices, service industries, physical goods, games, online payment providers -- you see lots of different prices and fees, deals, and marketing strategies. You don't see a standardized price that's universally applied to everyone, because the companies are actually competing with each other to attract customers with diverse offerings.
An unspoken agreement between every digital storefront to charge developers 30% fees on even unrelated services is bad. On more open platforms, you don't see that: Steam, Epic, GoG, Itch, and Humble all have different fees because they're actually competing with each other and it's actually possible for upstarts to disrupt the market.
Epic is actively suing Google for using anti-competitive practices to force phone makers not to include 3rd-party app stores on their phones[0].
One example they bring up:
> Epic struck a deal with OnePlus to make Epic games available on its phones through an Epic Games app. The Epic Games app would have allowed users to seamlessly install and update Epic games, including Fortnite, without obstacles imposed by Google’s Android OS. But Google forced OnePlus to renege on the deal, citing Google’s “particular[] concern” about Epic having the ability to install and update mobile games while “bypassing the Google Play Store”.
If you want to show that sideloading doesn't make a difference for storefront fees, you should pick a company not currently being sued for antitrust to demonstrate it.
----
> You have a choice of three consoles - why aren’t developers side loading there?
You can't sideload on a console, I don't know what you're getting at.
In regards to price fixing on consoles: you're right, the console situation is also bad. We effectively have only 3 major consoles, and a reasonably high barrier of entry into the space for similar reasons as mobile phones. Of course, the console space is better (in no small part because the PC market exists), and console manufacturers do compete more for developers than Apple and Google do. But it's not perfect, and as a result, you still see some issues around competition.
It took direct action from developers like Epic to even force the issue on cross-play, which is a decent sign that console manufactures really didn't feel like they needed to compete with each other in that area.
However, it is generally ill-advised to sue every single major games distributor at the same time, so it is perfectly reasonable for Epic to target what they see as the biggest problem-areas first.
The whataboutism doesn't really work here. Yes, console sideloading would probably be good for the market, it's just not as big and immediate of a problem as Apple is -- in part because more people own iPhones than an Xbox, in part because the barriers of entry to console competition are slightly lower, and in part because the PC games market provides somewhat of an escape hatch for console games, and that escape hatch isn't applicable to the mobile app market.
[0]: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21759099/f...
Epic is the problem in the case of Fortnite. They are no more ethical than the Candy Crush, Farmville’s of the world.
What happen to HN users who love Big Government wanting fo go after all of the “game” companies who were milking consumers selling loot boxes and virtual currency?
and that escape hatch isn't applicable to the mobile app market.
That escape hatch is called Android.
But it isn’t like we are talking about great innovative games for the most part on mobile. Mobile is mostly made up of pay to win games and “whales” buying virtual currency for dance moves. If the entire play to win games completely disappeared nothing of value would be loss.
If Apple made a rule banning in app purchases for games or at least banning consumables, it would be a better experience for customers. The entire pay to win mobile game ecosystem is a bigger stain on the iPhone than in app purchases.
I have sympathy for the Basecamp’s of the world. The Epics, not so much.
Currently being sued for antitrust.
> But it isn’t like we are talking about great innovative games for the most part on mobile. Mobile is mostly made up of pay to win games and “whales” buying virtual currency for dance moves.
It's almost like giving two companies a stranglehold over the entire mobile market means that only certain types of games can thrive, and that by and large more serious developers will be forced to abandon mobile games entirely.
You could almost imagine that in a world where quality games weren't constantly crowded out of the ecosystem, and where developers were free to be more creative, and where serious games could sell on serious storefronts that didn't force them to advertise right next to Candy Crush, that we'd have better games and less of a race to the bottom on price and ethics.
I'm having a really hard time reconciling, "Apple is great at managing an app store", with "everything on the app store is trash."
> I have sympathy for the Basecamp’s of the world. The Epics, not so much.
You shouldn't be deciding your legal principles based on whether or not you personally like the people involved.
This came up with Google vs Oracle as well. I don't really like Google as a company; that doesn't mean I wanted Oracle to win. I was able to look past my feelings, look at what the overall threat was to the entire industry, and treat the law as more than a popularity contest.
I really don't care whether or not people like Epic, it's not relevant to the conversation.
It’s strange
HN: We want government to be more involved in tech.
Government: okay let’s pass laws against net neutrality, against strong encryption, the DMCA, COPPA and force the sell of TikTok and the governmebt should get a cut.
HN: oh no. The government abuses power and doesn’t understand tech. But the government will get it right next time.
This is a weird take. Do you think net neutrality isn't a government regulation?
How can anyone look at the early Bell systems regulations, telephone breakups, forced network compatibility with 3rd-party answering phones and network devices and think, "now that's a market that thrived without the government?"
The entire history of the Internet and the tech industry, from regulations around smart-phone unlocking and number porting, to net neutrality itself is a giant example of how forcing the market to be competitive against its will is sometimes really good for both consumers and for innovation.
Did you watch the hearings of the four CEOs? The same hearing where the biggest concern on one side was that tech was being mean to conservatives and grilled Zuckerberg about Twitter’s treatment of Don Jr.? Is this the government you trust to regulate tech and not do more harm than good?
No one has been able to rise to the challenge - name one good law that the US government has passed in the last 40 years with regard to tech - either Democratic or Republican.
You mean the same argument that Apple fanboys have been repeating over and over, except that I can side load apps on Android and consoles are hardly needed (smartphones are)?
BTW I can buy new and used games at GameStop
Does an AppleStop exist?
Can I buy used apps on the aftermarket?
I can sell the same song on Spotify, Bandcamp, on my website directly and also have a patreon.
Can I do the same with an app for iPhone?
Spotify is also different because they mostly sell copyrighted material owned by a copyright holder which usually is not the author.
It's more like Apple music, which I don't have a problem with since there are alternatives and I can watch the content on other devices (the apps are available on the play store, for example) and Apple is making deals with labels, the same labels that sell to Spotify or YouTube
But to be completely honest, it would be great if MS, Sony, Spotify etc etc were forced to open up their platforms because they are found using unfair competition tactics.
But Apple IMO is the worst offender of the lot.
> Sure it is. SMS.
It isn't though...
My plan doesn't include SMS
I have unlimited data, unlimited phone calls, but no SMS
So, again, Apple is reducing user experience to lock users in.
also: SMS travel in clear text
So much for security...
> It cost more to buy a soda from the convenience store than the grocery store.
Because there is a grocery store available
Where is the Apple grocery store?
> I couldn’t advertise at Best Buy that you can buy the same product cheaper at Amazon.
That's because best buy and Amazon are competitors
And competition is good
Apple, on the other hand, don't like competitors, Apple loves a monopoly, and doesn't let you advertise your own website
So it's like you put your product at best buy and best buy put it out like it was a best buy product
Would you like it?
Of course you wouldn't, you would retire it immediately and sell it on the many other channels available, because there isn't only best buy.
But when it's about Apple you are ok with it.
I guess that's what happen when people suffer from Stockholm syndrome
But I prefer to think that it's just Apple forcing people to defend their abusive behaviour online
It makes me feel less sad for those who really believe Apple is the good guy
Let me tell you a little story about game call Tekken x Street Fighter. Back when I bought it was $40 from GameStop. But when you bought the physical game, 7 or 8 characters were locked until you paid for them digitally - another $15 in Sony’s “walled garden”. Guess what happened when you bought the game used? The next person still had to pay the $15. So sure you can buy the disc used but you can’t buy half the content.
Can I buy the Carlton dance on Fortnite used? Can I sell all of the virtual items I bought on Fortnite? Can I buy items and use them on the “Fortnite platform” without giving Epic a cut? Epic has just as much of a “monopoly” on the Fortnite platform as Apple does on iOS.
See how silly it sounds when you just arbitrarily use the term “monopoly”?
The in app purchase of digital goods is a can of worms on its own, but completely orthogonal to the issue at hands with Apple monopoly.
I would argue that the fact that Apple forces publishers to go through in app purchase for everything related to money exchange between the publisher and the user is even worse than being a monopoly
I think creating a walled garden where they are the sole ruler and dictator it's unfair, but profitting from shady practices like selling items in games that more oftne than not are played by kids, it's criminal
I don't like Sony, MS, Google, Facebook, Epic etc. etc. more than Apple.
Simply on this matter I think Epic is right and Apple wrong.
I don't take parts with companies, only my side as a user.
Killing Apple monopoly is better for the end users, full stop.
> See how silly it sounds when you just arbitrarily use the term “monopoly”?
It is silly to not understand context.
As a thought experiment, if that bothers you, imagine if Sony handled the same way your contacts, calendars, personal data and also removed the game from your console because you bought it in an non approved market.
Imagine they said it was for your own safety, because you are unable to discern good from bad, but at the same time dozen of celebrities had their private pictures and videos leaked because the Sony cloud is not as secure as they say...
Would you still trust Sony?
Isn’t this exactly what Epic is doing with Fortnite?
Killing Apple monopoly is better for the end users, full stop.
How is Apple’s “monopoly” on digital sells on its platform any different than Epic’s “monopoly” on buying digital goods on Fortnite? Could I set up a “virtual store” within Fortnite and sell “cool” dance moves? If they can make money off of selling the Carlton dance, why can’t I set up a storefront to sell the “Scarface dance” on their store? Can I resell virtual goods I buy in Fortnite?
As a thought experiment, if that bothers you, imagine if Sony handled the same way your contacts, calendars, personal data and also removed the game from your console because you bought it in an non approved market.
Apple didn’t remove the game from individuals devices. In fact, if you have already downloaded the game and you wipe your device, you can still redownload Fortnite from the App Store?
Isn't Apple asking for a 30% cut on that?
How it is that relevant to Apple monopoly?
> How is Apple’s “monopoly” on digital sells on its platform any different than Epic’s “monopoly
Well, I guess that if you are a functioning adult you are able to figure out yourself the difference between a game that you can only use for playing the game and a computing platform that you can use for practically everything
Of course Epic has a monopoly on Epic games, Apple has a monopoly on Apple Mail, that's how the author rights work
> If they can make money off of selling the Carlton dance, why can’t I set up a storefront to sell the “Scarface dance” on their store?
Sue them.
Or make Apple do it.
Can you guess why nobody is doing it?
Because you can https://www.epicgames.com/affiliate/en-US/overview
I thought you were working for a FAANG, how did you make it without being able to do a simple search?
> Apple didn’t remove the game from individuals devices
Not yet.
But they potentially could.
And you know why they haven't removed it?
Because the version available on people's phone still relies on their payment processor for in app payments.
I still have to give Epic a cut. Why can’t I accept credit cards on the Epic platform and bypass Epic’s “walled garden”?
Because the version available on people's phone still relies on their payment processor for in app payments.
The version on the phone allows people to bypass Apple’s in app payment.
Isn't Apple asking for a 30% cut on that?
The original sin was to allow in app purchases for consumables in games to fester on iOS in the first place. I would be fine if all games had to either be paid up front or allow you to pay for levels you keep.
Count to 10 and ask yourself the same question in front of a mirror
I'm sure you'll find the right answer
(Epic is not complaining that Apple takes a cut, but that the only way to ask for money to users is go through Apple store, which doesn't make Epic software, if Apple asked it only for Apple software, that would be much less of a problem)
So it’s Apple’s fault that your plan doesn’t have SMS?
Where is the Apple grocery store?
It’s called Android, their are literally dozens of other phones out their from $50-$2000 in every shape and form you can imagine.
I wouldn’t complain because I couldn’t get pizza in a Chinese restaurant. I would go to a Pizza shop.
That's because best buy and Amazon are competitors And competition is good Apple, on the other hand, don't like competitors, Apple loves a monopoly, and doesn't let you advertise your own website
You are just as free to say that you can get a cheaper subscription on your one website as you can say you can buy a TV cheaper somewhere else - just not in a competitors store.
Apple, on the other hand, don't like competitors, Apple loves a monopoly, and doesn't let you advertise your own website
Apple has plenty of competition. I go into a cell phone store, I see dozens of phones besides iPhones. Just like when I go into GameStop I see three incompatible consoles.
Of course you wouldn't, you would retire it immediately and sell it on the many other channels available, because there isn't only best buy. But when it's about Apple you are ok with it.
I don’t complain on the internet about Android or Windows. I choose the alternative. I didn’t need the government for that. Free will is great isn’t it. I also didn’t complain back in the day that Nintendo only allowed certain types of games - I bought an alternate console.
Even when people were complaining that Microsoft was a monopoly. I had an MS free house.
I guess that's what happen when people suffer from Stockholm syndrome
What do you say about people that constantly complain about products that they don’t own?
If Apple is stifling competition, where all of the profitable, successful Android only apps?
It's Apple fault to not make an iMessage app for Android though
My friends with iPhones don't even know that when they are messaging with me I receive an SMS, because Apple never made it clear that iMessage is Apple only
SMS by the way is not a chat protocol, it's an alerting protocol
So Apple is using it wrong
> It’s called Android, their are literally dozens of other phones out their from $50-$2000 in every shape and form you can imagine.
Android is not Apple competitor.
Android is iOS competitor and prior was Windows Mobile or Blackberry competitor.
In fact you can install a different OS on Android phones, you can't on Apple phones and that's the point, if it's a closed platform, it's a closed market, different from other markets and Apple is a monopolist in it.
You are conflating you arguments with meaningless comparisons.
> I wouldn’t complain because I couldn’t get pizza in a Chinese restaurant. I would go to a Pizza shop.
You would if the chinese store forced you to buy pizza from them because you have chinese pottery at home
I don't know why is it so hard to understand that these arguments are childish at best
> You are just as free to say that you can get a cheaper subscription on your one website as you can say you can buy a TV cheaper somewhere else - just not in a competitors store.
No, you are not on Apple store.
From their developers' guidelines
Chapter 3, paragraph 3.1
> Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, such as license keys, augmented reality markers, QR codes, etc. Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase.
I imagined that before engaging in a discussion you read the relative documentation ...
I guess you didn't
> Apple has plenty of competition
It does not.
It's artificial competition.
The point is Apple is a market per se and is a monopolist in that market.
If only people could have some degree of freedom it would be a different situation.
> I choose the alternative.
THere's no alternative to Apple, Apple is a different closed ecosystem.
When you'll understand that, everything will be clearer.
> I didn’t need the government for that.
Iḿ sorry to state it like this, Iḿ Italian and my english is decent at best, but who cares what you need?
I don't need a doctor right now, but I'm happy the government of my country is funding a public healthcare that can take care for free of people who need it and/or couldn't afford it if it was an expensive procedure
> Even when people were complaining that Microsoft was a monopoly. I had an MS free house.
They weren't complaining, they were stating the obvious, in fact MS was sentenced for "abuse of dominant position"
Sun Microsystem raised the complain and won.
Epic is doing the same to Apple, and will probably get some satisfaction.
> What do you say about people that constantly complain about products that they don’t own?
What do you say of people that constantly assume?
> If Apple is stifling competition, where all of the profitable, successful Android only apps?
The same apps that are profitable on iOS are profitable on Android, but they cost less for the user and the developer have the possibility of earning more
You can play Fortnite on Android even if Google removes it from their store.
Can you do the same on iOS?
For me, the reason why iPhone are great are because of the hardware. FOSS alternatives to Apple's software that maintain compatibility are almost assured.
I want to increase choices, you want to reduce them.
But you are actually legally incorrect. A company has “no duty to deal”.
None of these are the main reason though.
The biggest reason you use an iPhone today is because it has Instagram on it, DoorDash on it, Amazon on it, Netflix on it, TikTok on it, and yes, even games like Fortnite on it.
And so... we get to this:
> Why can't you just leave us alone?
Because they want Apple to stop engaging in anti-competitive behavior. Without 3rd party apps, the iPhone is just a better phone. Being a general purpose computer is what makes it the behemoth it is today.
I'm actually kind of surprised Apple hasn't done this on Android yet, now that I think about it.
It's hard for me to root for either Apple/Google or Epic, but if Epic's action is the beginning of the end of exclusive stores, then go, Epic, go!
That's ironic given that the Epic Store is quite well known for buying exclusive rights to new game launches.
A game developer selling an exclusive to Epic is much different. They're not gatekeeping the platform which is the PC and no one is being forced to use the Epic store for distribution to get their games on the PC.
So to get access to 100% of the market on mobile platforms, you MUST deal with Apple AND Google. To get access to 100% of the market for anything on the PC platform you MAY deal with Epic, Steam, all of the above, or self-distribution. The difference is that developers get to choose which distribution strategy and platform makes the most sense for them in terms of cost, support, target audience, etc..
It's like if Walmart and Target were the only stores in North America and most buyers only shopped at one or the other. Would "choosing" not to sell your product at Walmart be a real option at that point?
There are so many ways to distribute PC games and software, you cannot even begin to enumerate half of them.
Mostly the same on Android too. With a simple toggle, you can then install other App Stores like Amazon's, etc. Many phones come with alternative App Stores pre-installed too.
Now, there may be some interesting changes for the players and I here I am genuinely unsure, which one is least bad .
I am watching this fight unfold and see no one I am willing to back here. But.. the resulting fight may end up having good results for the customer.
Time will tell.
This is why we can't have nice things.
It's entirely possible to lose money on consoles. Microsoft wrote off such a huge loss on the first XBOX, between $5bn and $7bn, that counting inflation on the losses they probably still haven't made a profit off it.
The other problem with that is it would make it flat out impossible for any other company ever to enter the console market. The up front cost is device losses would be staggering. It was bad enough for Microsoft as it is.
Not at all. I'm merely pointing on that their console business is composed of many streams and focusing on one part of it to the exclusion of others is deceiving. Supposedly, Return of the Jedi has never made money yet they kept making Star Wars movies.
> it would make it flat out impossible for any other company ever to enter the console market
I disagree. It's harder to compete with competitors that are selling their product below the cost of production. I've always wondered if an EU-based company came out with a console, what would happen? I think Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo would be forced to sell their consoles at or above cost in the EU or face dumping charges.
It seems to me that if the consoles cost 1/3 more they would sell fewer of them (Lots of empirical evidence for this), and therefore sell fewer games and make less revenue on services to their smaller customer base, who now can by games from other publishers without the console vendor making a penny. After all isn’t the point of this to cut off their other revenue streams at the knees? I may well be missing something though.
It is not suspicious, it is plain.
https://www.polygon.com/2018/9/26/17905770/fortnite-cross-pl...
The console market only works if you sell the hardware under cost and then charge up the ass for services to the game developers ($50,000 was the price point for pushing updates on PS4)
PS3 didn't regain profitability until the end.
PS4 as well: https://www.quora.com/How-will-Sony-make-money-off-the-PS5-b...
Only Xbox seems to be sold at loss at the moment: https://www.thurrott.com/games/xbox/xbox-one/118357/microsof...
The current system is structured to be as profitable as possible for Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo and to keep competitors out. These companies aren't good guys looking out for me and you, they are looking out for the interests of their shareholders.
If the $50k price for updates is true, that's awful. It sets up a lot of bad incentives for developers. Consumers deserve much better than that.
I am excited for third-party Fortnite skin stores.
If Epic can't get an indie title as an exclusive, they're not interested in having the game on their store.
ref. https://medium.com/@unfoldgames/why-i-turned-down-exclusivit...
I am not thrilled by the idea of uneven developer access to the primary channels. Now I pay Apple 100$ and the %30 commission and I have my apps right next to the big boys. Apparently the big boys are planning to get free of the %30 and have their own walled garden where potentially I am not allowed.
There's a risk of proliferation of a business model that is possible on the Epic Store but not on AppStore and I am not welcome to join.
As a developer I would prefer a regulation to the AppStore for even access instead of alternative appstores.
https://twitter.com/wilshipley/status/1270568780712706049
https://ericasadun.com/2015/11/11/finding-triviata-on-the-ap...
They still blocked few very controversial titles that include rape and some other crazy shit, but otherwise almost anything can be published on Steam.
Is this even working on Android or anywhere?
That's not that big a problem for established and big companies but it is something that I am not looking forward to.
How does also having the potential to distribute on another app store make it worse?
That's only good for having to say that you have an app. Putting that app in the hands of the people is a different story and it's the hard part.
When there are multiple app stores, you can only access the people on that app store which can drastically reduce your market size. It is not realistic to be able to make people install and set up an app store and then install your app. Yeah sure, you can convince few very interested people every now and then but on mobile this doesn't make a business.
It is likely that the original App Store will shrink as some people will move to other stores where you might not be allowed to publish. Also, multiple stores creates support nightmare for the users since they will no longer be able to talk to Apple and get their refunds. People would no longer be confident when doing a purchase. This is very bad for independent developers who are not hobbyist but hope to make living.
Sure, it would be nice for few hobbyists to get their torrent client in the iPhone but it would significantly disadvantage all small independent businesses. When you are small, the cuts and the commissions are not a problem, the reach and gaining trust is.
IMHO:
1) AppStore should be regulated to give equal opportunity to all. Right now there are some problems but it is not broken. An idea would be to have an special API to provide alternative appstore through backend integration but have all this completely invisible to the users. For example, maybe you should be able to link to an alternative appstore but the install process be exactly the same as the original AppStore, payments handled exactly the same but get the commisions to bare minimum when the provider is the alternative appstore. This is like the "repository" concept on Linux app stores, the problem is the customer support when something goes bad. It doesn't work well when the users don't have someone holding both the responsibility and the power to solve their problem. How is Apple supposed to handle the help request due to issues caused by other stores?
2) Jailbreaking should be an option provided by Apple. People should have the freedom to jailbreak their device and do whatever they want with it. Probably should be hard to do to make sure that it's done only by people who know what they are doing.
3) Commissions should probably differentiate for stuff like Spotify v.s. In game coins because on Spotify, they actually don't sell their original content but deal it by buying it from the musicians.
But that's the case with the current app store already isn't it? At least with competing app stores I could publish my app _somewhere_ if Apple rejects it.
I don't think regulating the app store or forcing them to transparently integrate other app stores would work either. Allowing _anyone_ to publish an app store would have it's own issues, so I think it would have to be gated by money. Ex: Apple can charge $1 million to publish your app store. That would exclude me from running an app store, but also excludes bad actors.
Apple also has a huge lead with services that support iOS devs, so it's not like someone will build a competing store that's on par immediately. If a new Epic store needed to re-implement everything Apple has _and_ provide those features via a stable API, they still have a huge uphill battle because if both stores are equal, devs will prefer the Apple version since it would be the default on all devices.
I don't really get the argument I see with people being reliant on Apple for refunds. On the PC, it's an expectation for a store to have a refund policy where you can automatically collect a refund. It would be the same on mobile if they wanted to compete. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on good customer service even though they've done a really good job of convincing people they do.
> Sure, it would be nice for few hobbyists to get their torrent client in the iPhone but it would significantly disadvantage all small independent businesses. When you are small, the cuts and the commissions are not a problem, the reach and gaining trust is.
I really disagree with that. Before Apple was successful with the walled garden approach I could develop and app and be 100% guaranteed I'd be able to publish it. Now I get no guarantees and since I'm a small developer I have no negotiating power. I don't have a big social media following and if Apple or Google refuse to publish my app it's tough luck for me. Large incumbent developers can pick up the phone and talk to someone at Apple or Google. Small developers can't.
I agree the pricing isn't much of an issue for small developers. You can plan around that and I think it's safe to assume prices aren't going up anytime soon. It's losing the ability to be guaranteed you can publish your app that's the problem. I said the same thing when the app store was new. If I'm developing a custom LoB (line of business) app for another small business, how can I guarantee them I'll be able to get it on their devices? I can't and the enterprise programs aren't an option for a one off LoB app. You'll notice that kind of stuff doesn't really exist on the mobile app stores and everything has trended to large SaaS offerings. There used to be a market for custom small business apps on the PC and that's completely disappeared in the last decade because of the walled garden app stores.
IMHO it would be possible for someone to run a better app store than Apple and that's what they're afraid of. Even though the "quality" of the app store is touted a lot around here it's filled with garbage. Watch a kid play a game for 30 minutes and you'll see a ton of ads for other low effort games where the whole ecosystem is similar to advertising click fraud. The number of un-closable, misleading, click incentivizing ads in kids games is appalling.
So I can imagine an app store that caters to high quality apps and games for kids where everything is paid up-front (no IAP) and there are no ads. It's that kind of niche, super high quality curation that I think Apple and Google are terrified of.
> Before Apple was successful with the walled garden approach I could develop and app and be 100% guaranteed I'd be able to publish it
Publish and do what with it? Collect kudos from strangers? That's not good, I can't live on kudos, I should be able to do business. Surely you can adopt a business model where you collect and sell data about your users or sell access to your users(known as browser extension business) but I find that business model unethical and I don't want to be involved in it.
Business happens when money change hands, writing code and putting it out there is not a business(unless you are payed to do it for someone but that's a different situation). After a communist revolution things may change but until then, that's how it is.
To give you an example, I once sold a small, single screen app to a local business for about $2k.
That’s not great money, but at least is was something and still better than working a minimum wage job. Once I was done I knew 100% I could give them a Windows installer that would work for a very long time.
With the App Store model I don’t think I could have said yes to doing that work because the risk of not being able to deliver. The risks there would be eating the cost of the development and loss of reputation since they’d be annoyed at spending a bunch of time and getting nothing out of it.
Now things have come full circle and LoB apps would all be web apps.
Would not be that much of a stretch to support also Android.
Between safe, secure payment technologies such as (heh) Apple Pay and and safe, secure login systems such as (heh) Login with Apple, then really its super easy to not worry too much about the signup friction.
Fortnite is a software platform and the market is part of the software.
Apple is an Hardware company which also chose the software you can run on it, which also owns the only market where you can buy software for.
That's a pretty different situation.
TLDR: Apple can sell Apple stuff exclusively on their e-store, they shouldn't force third party developers to sell their stuff only on their mobile store.
Because it's the part that people should own after they bought it.
You can play Fortnite without buying anything on the Epic store.
You can't use an iPhone without being forced by Apple to use the device the way they want.
Many probably like it that way, that's not the point, the point is that if Safari is the root of many exploit for iOS (https://twitter.com/Zerodium/status/1260541578747064326) users cannot disable it and replace it with something else, something more secure
That completely hinder the free (as in freedom) utilization of the device
> If Epic sold a "Fortnite tablet" would this somehow change the legality of Epic's monopoly on selling digital items in Fortnite?
Of course it would!
It would be a monopoly nonetheless
Even though a table that can only play Fortnite cannot clearly be classified as general computing platform.
But it would probably be based on Android, being iOS not available for third parties, and allow sideloading.
The same point could be made about Amazon and the Kindle, but Amazon allows self publishing and direct sell for free.
Why? Is that just an arbitrary principle? Why should "hardware" be something we have absolute control over, but "software" is not?
> You can play Fortnite without buying anything on the Epic store.
You can use an iPhone without using the App Store. But in both cases, it's probably just not as good of an experience.
> You can't use an iPhone without being forced by Apple to use the device the way they want.
That seems like some rhetorical gymnastics that could be applied to any product or service. You can't use cheating software in Fortnite either (or at least they presumably have measures in place to prevent it).
> Of course it would!
Okay, then you're consistent. I'll give you that. Presumably you think courts should require manufacturers of literally all electronic devices to provide an easy way for owners to run any software they want?
I don't disagree with the general sentiment but
1) hardware is your property, you buy it and you should be able to use it the way you want. Also it's harder to replace it, you can easily change the gas station, it's harder to change a car.
2) the problem with Apple (but also Google Play store in many ways) is that you buy hardware capable of doing something that the software doesn't permit. Not because it's not capable of doing it, but because the manufacturer don't want you to use it that way.
But in the general you're right, I'm a big advocate of free software, and I've been since the middle 90s, because I think you should have total control over it. Including changing the parts that don't fit your needs.
I'm also in favour of using cheats if you want to, but in a tournament things have to be fair and that's where I think you shouldn't use them, in the same way I think doping at the Olympic games should not be allowed.
Oh yeah I'm so excited at the thought of a second app store filled with "games" that have no guarantee they'll actually respect data collection, privacy, etc.
As a consumer I like that Apple keeps a firm hand on the standard of apps in the store, I have no guarantee that Epic will bother doing that at all.
I would say the whole thing was pretty well engineered and executed.
Kudos to Epic.
It also wouldn't surprise me if Epic had been in touch with state AGs filing antitrust lawsuits. The timing is pretty suspicious, coming a week after Congressional hearings where Tim Cook said they don't do the exact thing they just did with Epic. You can't launch a new product in a week.