A valid opinion is that those rules are illegal under current federal statue. Another one is that although they currently aren't, they should be.
> Separate the issues and angles and see it for what it is: just a bunch of legal departments having a fight.
Yes, but the only reason they get to adjudicate it in tax payer funded courts is precisely _because_ the decision will have a major impact on consumers and developers as as whole.
It's a surprise because typically these departments have a much larger incentive to settle, and not to create new case law. It's giant news because of the potential impact to many individuals and to the industry as a whole.
If you think about it it's not really valid.
Retailers take a big cut of the price to sell your product and its legal.
The rules were defined many years ago, and its a free world - don't like it - don't buy it.
Why would it be illegal?
This whole “Apple have a monopoly inside their own product” is an absurd line of questioning when their product has anything but a monopoly. This argument is akin to saying that Disney has a monopoly on hotdog sales inside Disneyland and should be forced to allow competitors to open hotdog stands inside Disneyland.
Didn't MS get into trouble for the exact same reasons, they were using their monopoly in the OS market to force Netscape out of business.
I dont think that is the point, Apple has 100% market share on its devices and its using its dominant position in that market to make that market anticompetitive (as per Epic)
Apple also has secret deals with other big companies where they can negotiate the commission Apple gets, apparently they did not give such treatment to Epic and other devs
No, it's exactly the point and was the catalyst for my comment. Apple sells a product. If you don't like it, buy something else. The only time that doesn't hold up is when there are not any practical alternatives (a la Windows) and thus the product (perhaps) satisfies the conditions for a monopoly.
> Apple also has secret deals with other big companies where they can negotiate the commission Apple gets, apparently they did not give such treatment to Epic and other devs
And? They're completely free to do this.
I guess its upto the judge to decide that now whether they are abusing their dominant position or not.
> And? They're completely free to do this.
But then why lie about it, Cook said they have the same rules for everyone but then its revealed that they have secret deals with some others.
> MSFT had a monopoly outside of their own product. This is my point. Windows had essentially 100% market share, whereas iOS has somewhere around 25% market share.
I am not renting my phone from Apple, I own it. So when I am buying an instance of Disneyland, being able to install my own hotdog stands is a perfectly reasonable expectation.
The court shouldn't be able to change business models that you don't like.
The problem is not the fee that the App Store imposes to you. The problem is that you don't have an alternative, either you accept the fee that Apple imposes to you or iPhone users have no way to use your software (beside jailbreak). And since cutting out iPhone users is unacceptable for all companies you either have to accept the Apple policy or respond to thusands of angry customers that asks why the app is only available for Android or the iPhone version of the app has not all the feature of the Android one (since the final user usually don't know that there are these restriction in place).
On Android if you don't agree with the Google Play policy you can simply let the user download the apk from your website and install it manually on your phone. Granted, you loose the visibility that you have on the Play Store and you have to implement updates and push notifications manually without relying on the Play Service.
Or you can choose of distribuiting your software trough an alternative App Store, that the user can install on its phone like any other application.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/071615/what-profit-...
Just like selling on Apple marketplace.
That's not right. Civil tort suits are for any citizens to seek justice for themselves.
They are not asking for special treatment.
They are asking for the courts to curtail Apple's absolute power over how applications can be installed on an operating system designed for general computing.
That would be a game changer for the entire developer ecosystem.
Whether that's good or bad is another debate, but the industry-shifting impact it could have is undeniable.
Apple could easily make the case that the platform was never designed for general computing. It was never an open platform, and what Epic is asking is for the government to 'compel speech' from Apple in the form of changes to their product in order to make it one.
If you steal an candy bar, the government can "compel speech" in the form of forcing you to return the stolen property.
This is a great example of a thing that is not remotely 'compelled speech.' Here's the wiki article on the topic[1]. There's a pretty high bar for the government to create exceptions to the First Amendment.
A better example of compelled speech is the FBI trying to require Apple to write software that would give police a backdoor into any iPhone user's phone[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compelled_speech#United_States
[2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/what-we-talk-about-whe...
This kind of thing didn't exist before because it was impossible to make people follow the rules, and it's pretty costly to maintain, given that Apple has to vet all the software, host all the content, and do that across hundreds of jurisdictions with various local rules.
Before Apple there was no way any of this could happen, Google followed suit only because it looked so profitable, and they could afford to bite the losses for as long as it took to prop up their smartphone.
So, yeah, it would shake the industry to the core, just not the way most of the people begging for it think it would.
It is called a built-in feature and iPhones were designed with it from the very start.
It was also marketed accordingly.
your cynical take is often very true but there are sometimes real human ideals behind things.
- Android is clearly more open than iOS, but Epic is also suing Google. So is this really about sideloading? From that suit, it sure doesn't sound like it.
- When you do sideload Fortnite on your Android device, from what I understand, you can't actually sideload Fortnite directly. Instead you have sideload... the Epic Games Store!
It seems awfully clear that Epic's real goal here is to force both Apple and Google to let you install the Epic Games Store from the iOS App Store and the Google Play Store. And while I'm not much of a gamer, the stories I recall about Epic's store in the press... well, we'll just say they didn't have a "so ideals! much open!" vibe to them.
I think there's a lot of valid criticisms to be made about both the "app console" model that Apple is steadfastly pushing and the specific ways in which they're running the App Store, but I am skeptical that Epic is the general this particular battle needs.
No company smaller than Epic could afford to file such a case. I wonder whether any company could become large enough without having some way for people to argue that "it is not the general this particular battle needs".
I'm not saying Epic is a bad poster child for this case because Epic is a sleazy company (although from all accounts they kind of are); I'm saying they're a bad poster child because their battle is running up a steeper grade.
Are they arguing that Apple's policies make it impossible for them to split money with authors at the same rate on ebooks? No. How about the policies making it impossible for them to give 100% of event ticket sales to their users and impossible for them to even tell users they'll make less money when people buy tickets on iOS? Nope. Maybe they make it impossible for them to put a client for a streaming game service, period, full-stop, even if Apple got a cut of the money? Negatory.
What does Apple's policies make it impossible for Epic to do, then? Get a higher cut of the revenue from Fortnite's game currency when it's bought on iOS. That's what got their developer account terminated. This is the stand they're taking, the flag they have planted, the hill they are ready to die on: that 70% gross profit on zero marginal cost virtual tchotchkes isn't enough.[1]
Maybe this case will be successful, but my suspicion is that if Apple changes their position, it's going to be either due to regulatory pressure or the ever-increasing weight of the rolling PR disaster they're getting themselves into.
[1] Edited to add: As I wrote, I think it's ultimately about them wanting Apple to be forced to allow the Epic Games Store to be installed on iOS through the Apple App Store, but the case they're bringing is still about Fortnite.
That's the (literally) billion dollar question, right? Just with a bunch of other questions embedded in it: even if a 30% cut was okay in 2007, is it still in 2020? Aren't there a whole lot of different kinds of in-app purchases? What about subscriptions? Even if you still buy Apple's argument that the App Store isn't just a payment processor and should get more of a cut because of that, aren't there clear cases of in-app purchases where they literally are just a payment processor? I'm skeptical of the strength of Epic's particular case, but I definitely don't want to come across like I think Apple has been showering themselves in glory here. :)
In business it never was a case, and why should it be?
And Apple doesn’t “deserve” anything anymore than any company deserve anything. Apple built the iOS and iPhone platform, so they can charge based on that.
> ...lower cuts could result in lower prices
I’m not confident that if Apple stopped taking a cut that companies would lower prices.
As for your second point, fair, but at least then we could blame them for being money hungry.
If you want users to see the app you also have to use the iOS system on iPhone. You have to rely on Apple to build GPUs to process your game effectively. Why is the App Store treated so specially?
If you want to charge people to use your platform there are other methods, e.g. developer licenses.
Your initial comment doesn't change my point, just moves the goal post. If I want to deliver no IPhones, I'm stuck with the system. And you can make the same argument for the Play Store.
I don't think PC/XBox quite fit in the same ball-park. The engagement model is very different on those compared to mobile devices. Which is why video games still cost 60$ but most people won't pay more than a couple of dollars for an app.
I don't think that's the real disagreement we're having though. I think the misalignment is on whether 30% fees are acceptable or not.
Also Epic’s filled surprisingly readable lawsuits, covering your points and more.
> from that suit
Google’s lawsuit is a different one, with specific arguments. It includes for instance Google blocking makers from directly pre-installing Fortnite on devices, which would be bypassing the Store altogether.
> Epic Game Store
Not related to the lawsuits, but an issue with straight side-loading was how to auto-update the game itself (not just the content). For that you need a mechanism, I’d expect the Epic Store to be it.
It seems in brand to care more about the legal argument and its ramifications for Apple than bickering if Epic is being “unsincere”.
There are many levels to compete with Apple on, since they have decided to entrench themselves on every level. Epic is not competing with Apple on an Apple basis, where Apple doesn't want to allow a specific type of app (e.g. a browser with a different engine), they are competing with the App Store (which is how Apple ensures their App level advantage, and that you can't ship your own browser engine).
> It seems awfully clear that Epic's real goal here is to force both Apple and Google to let you install the Epic Games Store from the iOS App Store and the Google Play Store.
Whether from those stores or not, they want it to have a level playing field on the device. Apple doesn't allow that through not allowing the store on the device at all. Google restricts it by pushing a lot of the phone functionality through the Play store now.
Amazon has a store for Android too. Interesting how Google split a bunch of essential services away from the OS and into the Play services which are updated and handled through the Play store when that happened.
It makes perfect sense for Epic to go after both Google and Apple. Both restrict alternative marketplaces on their devices through anti-competitive behavior, even if their methods are entirely different.
To be clear, you can't ship your own JIT, including a Javascript runtime, because Apple does not give TestFlight or App Store distributed apps the ability to mark memory pages executable.
iOS supports two different app platforms, native apps via the App Store and HTML/Javascript/WebAssembly via Safari. One reason Safari exploits work is that the sandboxing and entitlements for Safari (and the WebKit/JavaScriptCore processes) are different from any other app.
Last I heard you couldn't ship any interpreted language on iOS, and this was the big reason given why you can't have your own browser (and many other types of apps that could benefit from some scripting interface).
But that's just one example anyway, and somewhat besides the point. I have no problem with Apple running their App Store and restricting what apps are allowed on it. I do have a problem with the App Store being the only trusted source for installing software and managing updates. It's one more link in the chain that makes any real competition on in the iPhone ecosystem beholden entirely to Apple's wishes.
Google is equally as responsible for anticompetitive behavior with their exclusive agreements with OEMs, and the fact that they've limited Android in such a way that third party app stores will never have feature parity with the Play Store.
If you distribute an app outside of the Play Store, there is no way to automatically upgrade it, upgrade or install it in the background or include in a batch of updates.
I remember when Valve did that with HL2 and Steam. The outrage was similar [1]. Look how it turned out for Valve.
[1] https://games.slashdot.org/story/04/10/23/0812224/half-life-...
Valve was not fighting an existing store using "stores are bad" as an argument, only to introduce another store. Which is exactly what Epic is doing here.
No. You are not arguing in good faith.
In retrospect, it seems to have worked out pretty well for the company and its customers. Gabe Newell has proven to be a more benevolent dictator than his counterparts at Apple and Microsoft.
Even so, I actually think it would be good for Apple if they stopped insisting on being the exclusive funnel for all iOS applications, too. Yes, it would mean a certain amount of lost services revenue, but in addition to avoiding PR fiascos and regulatory interventions, it takes a certain amount of pressure off their reviewers -- and might let some really interesting niche applications bloom.
Apple is still trying to deal with that and doesn't really have a solution, and it only adds to the numerous inconsistent practices with the App Store.
If they gonna win in battle with Apple and will be allowed to have their own store then it's also make it possible to setup more of alternative stores for e.g open source software without waiting for jailbreak.
(clang and llvm are also open by choice)
I do like the fact that we now have two competing compilers and llvm brought a lot of innovation, but everyone know that only reason Apple invested in these projects is to avoid GPLv3.
And yeah at the same time Apple's locked platform and Webkit-only policy saves us from Chromium monopoly over the web and helps Firefox live. So yeah world is not just abstract "good and evil" obviously.
So if that's the only reason, then why did Apple hire Lattner to work on llvm in 2005 (two years prior to gcc's switch to v3)?
Surely it would have been easier to just fork one of the GPLv2 releases from 2007 or earlier.
Also GPLv3 was officially announced in 2005. It's was just matter of time before all GNU projects switch to new license version. And it was certainly.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/gpl-3-may-tackle-web-loophole/
Oh and there was plans to release GPLv3 even earlier in 2004 and it's was known that it's will include patents grant. This was obviously absolutely unacceptable for Apple:
Also Valve didnt start to use open source packaging software and haven't even made their own game engine source-available let alone open source. Yes it's nice they improving Linux graphics stack, but they also could do much more.
Like really I dont use Epic Games Store to buy anything neither I support the way they try to capture market share. But any attacks on locked down platforms is a good thing for FOSS.
But in their attacks on Walled Garden - 100% behind them for that.
Also, the PC is an open platform. Game developers don't have to use Epic's or anyone else' store to distribute games on PC. With iOS you have no choice.
It definitely is - one store, Epic, offers deals publishers can't refuse to make a game exclusive to their storefront which limits a consumer's ability to use a platform of their choice to purchase a game. The other, steam, puts no limits on where you can distribute your game (unless you use assets from Valve's own games, but I digress) and has done no exclusivity deals that would force a game to only use their store. Publishers are free to use steam if they want to have 30% taken, but otherwise they can completely forego steam in their distribution.
> a recent financial report suggested that Epic paid over $10 million to get Control as an Epic Game Store exclusive on PC, and it's possible the company has done the same to snag some of the more important releases of the year.
A little hard to turn down 10 million.
The colloquial definition of an "offer you can't refuse" is one that would be a bad deal for you, but that you have to accept anyway because otherwise the counterparty would do something even worse to you.
The Epic Store is free (as in beer) to create an account on, and there's no hardware lock-in -- Steam, the Epic Store, and other platforms like GOG Galaxy/itch.io/whatever Ubisoft has can all be run on the same computer at the same time. The situation is completely different from Apple's app store.
What if the game would have made $20m if it was non-exclusive?
Exclusivity deals mean both parties - or either party - is making a huge risk or there's information-asymmetry involved.
Epic is at least bringing the joy of console exclusives to the desktop. Innovative!
Epic recently raised $1.78 billion dollars in capital. how do you think they intend to deliver a return on such a massive investment?
anyone paying attention to their moves sees this as what it is. Epic wants to be the exclusive destination to build, buy and play video games.
they're fighting Apple because they beat them to the punch. this is not some idealistic martyrdom. it's multi-billion dollar company fights multi-trillion dollar company for market share.
The way you frame it is totally incorrect and completely misrepresents
Steam (who is obviously relevant in the PC space) doesn't "charge" developers 30% of the revenue. Steam is acting as an affiliate. Affiliate agreements work on the fact that one party will get a commission for driving sales of a particular product.
Steam drives sales of a particular product by providing the market place, they provide the payment mechanism, the hosting and update infrastructure and probably a bunch of things I am not aware of.
Also the 30/70% split for an affiliate relationship is standard across many industries. This could be Travel, Gambling, House hold items.
> Also, the PC is an open platform. Game developers don't have to use Epic's or anyone else' store to distribute games on PC. With iOS you have no choice.
You are getting wrong way around. If would be fine if the EPIC store offered the same games as Steam at a lower price (by taking a lower commission). Then that would drive competition and that would benefit the consumer.
However that isn't happening here.
They are artificially dividing an open market by making some PC games exclusive to their store. This stops competition because the two store fronts can't compete because they cannot offer the same games. In the same way that if you wanna play Halo you aren't doing it on a PlayStation.
GoG and Steam will have many of the same games sold on them. I end up buying them on the GoG store, why is that? GoG is guaranteed to be DRM free. That choice cannot exist when some games are exclusive to one store. So GoG competes with the Steam store and offers a better refund policy (you can refund for any reason and at any time) and no DRM.
Now it may benefit developers to be exclusive to the EPIC store but this will ultimately make the PC ecosystem less open for the consumer.
So developer can't sell game on Steam for $60 and at the same time sell it on Epic Games Store for $50 due to lower commission. So Epic don't have any other tools to compete with Steam.
This sounds suspiciously like Amazon's KDP Select[1]:
Q. What does it mean to publish exclusively on Kindle?
A. When you choose to enroll your book in KDP Select, you're committing to make the digital format of that book available exclusively through KDP. During the period of exclusivity, you cannot distribute your book digitally anywhere else, including on your website, blogs, etc.
... I really don't like Amazon when it comes to the demands they make for publishing books through their platform. I am no lawyer, but the whole system reeks of wrongness. I publish a few books on KDP, but none have been enrolled in KDP Select - why should I give up Google Play, iBooks and a whole host of other distribution channels just to please the owners of the biggest distribution platform of them all?
People have to remember perfect is the enemy of the good. Considering Steam's position in the market they don't seem to abuse their position. Anecdotally I know people that have developed indie games and they told me they are generally quite happy with Steam.
We are talking about stores acting as if they are publishers (because with a exclusivity deal that is what is really happening). Steam is a open market place for all intents and purposes.
If Epic is successful we will have every store front acting as a publisher. This won't benefit the consumer (publisher tend to interfere with the creative process) and it won't benefit the developers because those low commission rates will suddenly vanish.
I am all for free markets. But this is not what is happening here. EPIC is flush with cash from Fortnight and dominating the game engine market with UE3, UE4 and probably do the same with UE5 (they have over 25% in a very fragmented market) and they are trying to artificially divide what is an open ecosystem.
In general I think that "they have special rules for their own stuff" weakens the argument.
Anyway this is distraction from the general point I was trying to convey that store specific exclusives doesn't promote competition, it actually retards it.
If Epic had a store and just offered the same games for cheaper. I would be fine with it.
Also everyone keeps pretending that EPIC is this tiny company when nothing could be further from the truth.
Total War: Troy is exclusive to Epic Games Store for one year before it comes to Steam. If you got the game on its release date, Epic gave it to you for free. To play it, you need one more launcher to go along with Steam, Battle.net, GOG, and various custom launchers. What is the harm being done here?
I like Steam, but I doubt that it will be good in the long term for it to be completely dominant. It needs a solid competitor.
Also Epic may control the release in some ways. For example, Civ 6 on Epic is PC only but on Steam it’s PC & Mac. So I bought it on Epic and then realized I can’t play with my friends who are on Macs.
Why would I want an entire new game store, an app that they’ve chosen to make incompatible with one of the two major computing platforms, and yet another thing to keep updated, minimized, and logged into.
I’m all for competition but exclusivity deals are overall negative for the consumer. It’s worth $10 million to get a new game exclusively for Epic to force everyone to use a store they don’t want to install or use because they’ll end up spending $100 million on other games. It’s an effective business tactic but it’s not exactly in my interest.
Isn't that also a net negative for the consumer? The fact that a game dev cant charge $8.20 on Epic vs $10 on Steam or else Valve will ban their game?
This is why when you go to buy an Apple laptop or a GoPro or whatever on Amazon that they can’t initially show you a price below the price allowed by the manufacturer. You’ll sometimes need to add the item to your cart to see the “discounted” price which is still allowed under Minimum Advertised Price rules. Cars and many, many other products work this way too.
Once again, not saying I’m necessarily in favor of it but it’s hardly a unique Steam policy. Brands seem to believe protecting their advertised prices helps maintain the value of their brand. For Steam, I guess they wouldn’t want to have a store full of games that cost more. Just like no one wants to pay 30% more to buy a game on iOS instead of PC.
I'd say the choice of launchers and stores is fine. Especially with tools like GOG Galaxy which can aggregate them too.
Would consumers prefer paying 30% more for games to stay on the most dominate launcher/store?
Fun fact: Brick and mortar retailers spam the checkout lane with gift cards because they do not pay face value for them.
Steam exclusivity for games like Portal 2 is forever. Of course, Portal 2 was a sequel to a game created by a studio that Valve simply bought outright.
It would be a good thing if Half-Life Alyx came out on other PC game stores, in exactly the same way that it would be a good thing if a game like Control came out on other PC game stores. Our expectations are socially constructed and we should question them more.
With so many different stores to download apps, it gets increasingly unlikely anyone is going to take the time to cross list on all of them.
If we wanted to change how this worked, I feel like we’d need to consolidate on fewer marketplaces. For example, apt-get has access to a huge variety of packages so I don’t find myself using the Ubuntu App Store or random third party marketplaces as much as I do with games.
edit: there's a good analogy in another thread -- only being able to buy a Nintendo game at GameStop and not Best Buy.
At the same time, nobody really cared about Nintendo making Bayonetta 2.
I think the problem is with taking away something that was already available or announced to be coming, and people have less problems with funding new things with strings attached.
I get that, but I admit to finding it hard to square with his statements[1] that he is fine with game consoles not being open. Seems a strange dichotomy.
[1]: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oglnAi...
[1]: hard to image game consoles being sold at a loss if they couldn't make it up in fees on the other side.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/30/sony-posts-2-1b-profit-as-...
If that isn't the case, then it makes Sweeny's statement above seem even stranger.
Ps4 pro was profitable from day one.
That said, you're right that he's consistent with these views, especially how he was against UWP during its heyday. [1]
[1] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-03-04-tim-sweene...
Tim Sweeney is thinking years ahead of most other people. In the case of Google and Apple, I suspect what he is actually concerned about is these two companies have control over a VR/AR/XR "metaverse" platform. There are hours of audio and transcripts about him talking about this as well.
https://blog.siggraph.org/2019/10/siggraph-spotlight-episode...
The answer to that question on iOS is a "strong no", on Android it's a "yes, but". On PC that answer is yes regardless if the actions of Epic Store.
Put another way, in real life any legal product should be feasible to sell/buy as long as there's corresponding supply/demand to make it work. No one should force Target to sell things they don't want to sell, but it shouldn't be allowed for Target to use some leverage to block any other stores from opening in driving distance of your house.
Epic could have taken the matter directly to the courts and taken action (whatever it was) after a verdict. Heck, they could even have tried to make a case to the European Union, which seems to have a knack for pursuing this kind of thing. A ruling over there wouldn't directly impact the rest of the world, but it could get the ball rolling.
Instead, they decided to make a spectacle of this whole issue to try to rally customers to their cause. For that, I have no sympathy. Customers are being used as cannon fodder here. And it's not by Apple.
I agree that the App store cut is too high. But this is not the way to go about things.
No, I don't believe they could. The courts in common law jurisdictions generally don't rule on speculative harm, they require an active controversy to rule on.
The larger topic of which this is a part is something called "standing." Lack of standing is quite a common reason for a court to deny hearing a case. Not only does there have to be a harm, the party suing has to be the party that suffered the harm. So you also cannot sue on behalf of others.
This is the reason for the initial actions Epic took. Tim Sweeney has been chomping at the bit for this sort of suit for years. But they needed a harm to use as the locus for a suit. There has certainly been a big PR campaign surrounding it to try to sway public opinion to Epic's side, but the action itself was necessary.
Just because Epic stands to make an extra buck or two doesn't mean that their incentives are not aligned with small developers and consumers in this particular moment.
Probably not. Part of the reason Apple has prevailed in the past is the lack of direct consumer arm from their actions. By offering the discounted rate it's no longer disputable that Apple's actions harm the consumer.
At the expense of the users, in both the figurative and the literal sense of the word.
I 100% believe that 3rd party app stores is a hill Apple is willing to die on. I would guess they're more likely to get rid of "apps" entirely than open up their ecosystem.
You believe they'd rather give up the iPhone than compromise on a more consumer-friendly ecosystem policy?
I'd wager most App Store apps on the iPhone could be ported-over to PWA and retain 90% of their functionality - and people would still buy the iPhone.
Looking at my Settings > Screen Time history for the past week, these are the apps I use the most (in no particular order) and how I feel they would work as a PWA:
1. Microsoft iOS Remote Desktop Client: this could be a PWA with a WebSocket+<canvas>-based interaction surface.
2. Twitter: there's nothing I use in the iOS native app that can't be done in their web-app.
3. Google Maps: I think I'd be okay if I had to use the built-in Apple Maps instead.
4. Telegram / WhatsApp / Slack etc: Apps like these can't be used offline anyway, so being PWAs web-apps is also fine. As Slack is an Electron App (on Windows at least) then porting it over to a PWA is straightforward.
5. Authy / Google Authenticator / Azure Authenticator: I'll admit this is one that can't be done properly as a PWA right now because there's no way to reliably and securely persist client-side secrets.
6. Star Walk: this is one that can't be PWA: while the 3D world can be rendered in a WebGL <canvas>, it needs a large offline data cache and PWAs can only store 50MB presently (and that's 50MB as text, not binary data).
Most of the other apps I use are Apple's own or built-in to the device (iWork, Notes, Camera, iMessage, Mail, etc).
As for games: I stopped buying and installing iOS games on my phone and iPad a few years ago because there's no way to reliably download and "keep" games and apps you've bought indefinitely (e.g. as IPA files). Once a publisher removes an app or game from the App Store and you've removed it from your phone then you're SOL - you will get a refund if you contact iTunes Customer Support, but I view games as art - and the idea for a games publisher to unilaterally prevent me from accessing content I've paid for is horrible and reeks of Orwell's Memory Hole.
(Besides games-as-art that I've bought... and lost, the only other types of games I see in the stores are crass freemium bollocks - and I won't let myself get hooked on that business model).
(I think the last game I ever got from the App Store was "Rainbrow" ( https://apps.apple.com/us/app/rainbrow/id1312458558 ) - which was an experimental game using the then-new iPhone X's face detection camera where you move a character on-screen using your eyebrows - that was almost 3 years ago).
If Apple decides to arbitrarily disable some functionality in PWAs but not in-app WebViews then they're going to have a hard-time defending that, as all new web-standards specifications are built around privacy in-mind (as that seems to be Apple's overriding reason for not implementing some web-standard specification that benefits PWAs).
But PWAs aren't really suitable for Unreal Engine because of Apple's 50MB size-limit.
And if Apple doesn't bend, we need antitrust action against these monopolies anyways.
> Epic brings ten claims for violations of Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, and California Unfair Competition. Based on a review of the current limited record before the Court, the Court cannot conclude that Epic has met the high burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits, especially in the antitrust context. However, the Court also concludes that serious questions do exist.
So no, a judge hasn’t suggested there is a winnable antitrust case here but he has acknowledged there are serious questions regarding unfair competition.
Unless you can find another court document that does specifically mention the individual claims and states the word “monopoly”? The only references I can find is tabloid-level journalism covering the story (ie using vague summaries with common language rather than legal jargon accurately). If you can I’ll happily accept that the “monopoly” point is at least currently under legal dispute. But I can’t find any evidence to support that claim.
> Apple conditions app developers’ access to app distribution through the App Store on their agreement to use Apple’s IAP to process all their customers’ in-app purchases of in-app content ... Epic is likely to prove that this conduct is: (a) tying per se; (b) an unreasonable restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act under the rule of reason; (c) unlawful maintenance of a monopoly under Section 2; and (d) a denial of access to an essential facility under Section 2.
I agree what we have is a duopoly.
They will never let it go far enough to truly threaten their walled garden.
But then who isn't going to want to take their place and get their own "special deal"?
Im a user, and it will be very bad for my security and privacy of my data.
Just like any other cost, more often than not these costs are just passed on to the customer.
I don't think they want special treatment. I think they want the rules to change.
Is it not a valid response to Apple finding a violation to just say: "OK, then we just won't try to put it back up"?
this is pretty dismissive considering Apple is messing with every developers on their platform and their known not to give special treatment.
I'm stepping out on a limb and saying Apple is going to end up settling with Epic so they don't have to host competing App Stores.
I don't think this means I shouldn't vehemently support companies when their policy advances my interests.
People making up the government are not gonna ban their phones (or their son's and daughter's iPhones, considering the 70 year old politicians might not be strong users of smartphone themselves).
An upvote didn’t seem like enough, that is a devastatingly accurate appraisal IMO
> The court recommended that Epic follow the App Store’s guidelines and policies while the case is in progress – the rules they followed over the past ten years until they created the current situation themselves. Epic refused.
Well duh, this is a show match court fight of Epic Games not liking the rules and not getting the special treatment they want. No matter what opinion one holds on mobile store rules, they are their rules and so far you have the choice of following them (which is also somewhat iffy) or not being on the store.
The whole goal of two post-capitalism enterprises having a fit is for one or more of them to make more money. The whole "it is good for consumers" or "good for developers" is just sprinkles and marketing to appeal to the public. Separate the issues and angles and see it for what it is: just a bunch of legal departments having a fight.