This isn't how the software development eco-system works. There are tonnes of examples of providing free development tools with restrictions on use and revenue sharing agreements. For example, there's this little known company called Epic Games which provides the Unreal Engine for free- but with the following clause:
> This license is free to use and incurs 5% royalties when you monetize your game or other interactive off-the-shelf product and your lifetime gross revenues from that product exceed $1,000,000 USD.
And Epic doesn't even provide quality control, a discovery mechanism, or payment processing.
> And Epic doesn't even provide quality control, a discovery mechanism, or payment processing.
Apple takes 30% off all purchases upfront, and maybe they'll cut you a deal if you're Netflix-size.
On top of that, Apple's "quality control" allows through scam apps with scam IAPs, while they will reject your well-established app if you don't change the wording for your IAP copy for the second time in one year.
Or if you have no presence, they may well just reject you for not meeting the ambiguous minimum functionality requirements or for functionality they don't want users to have access to. After you've already paid them $99 for the privilege of being rejected, of course.
And then on top of that, Apple's "discovery mechanism" puts other people's ads above your app when people search specifically for the name of your app.
Epic, however, takes 5%..... after you pull in $1mil in revenue. That's it.
Do you really not see the glaring issue with your comparison here?
Netflix, like Kindle & Spotify are "Reader" Apps which pay 0% Royalty.
[1] https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/principles-practices/#:~...
All the "reader" designation does is allow this off-site option to exist at all, still with the restriction that you are not permitted to even imply that you can sign up elsewhere.
The only thing this does is make the customer experience worse. Now we have a Netflix app that can't tell you how to sign up, and a Kindle app that can't sell books. The alternative is the customer has to pay more, or the company has to eat the cost. Nobody wins except Apple, but you could make the argument that they're harming their own platform with this stuff.
That's it, for now. Epic is trying to set themselves up as publisher like Steam. Once they can get first-party status as an app store on iOS their tune will change.
This is about money, and one way to make money is to get people hooked on your product then jack up the price.
How does Epic store become first-party, they get bought by Microsoft? I don't get what you are claiming
I suspect that where the line is drawn depends on what benefit you feel you get from one side of the line versus the other.
Nipping it in the bud was wiped clean off the table the moment Trump won the Republican Party presidential nomination for a second term..
As far as I'm concerned, now, it's a complete free-for-all.
But this is the worst/dumbest/most off-topic reply to a comment I have ever read on this site, and maybe the entire internet. I regret having had to read it.
The proper analogy to Epic charging for its game engine is Apple charging for its developer licenses - which it already does separately from the app store.
FWIW, Google (illegally? according to Epic, anyway) blocked Epic's attempts to address this through partner deals with phone manufacturers, so their hand was relatively forced.
If Google and Apple didn't require all installs to go through a blessed path, people would just type "fortnite" into their search engine of choice and install that way instead. Of course, Google & Apple have good reason for not allowing that, but in the case of Fortnite they really are not delivering much for the 30%.
More importantly, Google does not prohibit sideloading. It simply does not make it convenient to do it.
In essence Apple is running an Apple App incubator :) Getting 30% of anything, anybody ever makes on it, with basically no risk on it since the actual cost of reviewing the apps and hosting them is pretty fixed.
I pretty happily try out subscription apps on iOS (which I rarely to never do online). Why? It's darn easy to cancel. I get a reminder in advance even. This contrasts in my experience with nearly EVERY other auto-billing approach out there. The time I sometimes spend calling people to cancel stuff (that I could sign up for online) is ridiculous.
Another nice touch that builds trust. I once deleted an app and iOS reminded me to cancel the subscription if I wasn't going to reinstall! I mean, every other store will keep the auto-bill going forever.
But you guys aren't arguing the actual point anyway. The question is whether the forced app store is always a plus for developers, not users. The answer is certainly no. And the answer is also no for users who can manage their own trust, and could happily live with direct downloads outside of the app store. They pay higher prices, and are forced to effectively subsidize everyone else.
One result - they have a pretty high level of trust among users. And so they can charge a pretty remarkable premium. This level of control has also made them popular for developers. Their ecosystem has a much more consistent development experience, many more users are on a relatively recent iOS and the per user spending is far higher to name just a few elements.
Many of these things are benefits for DEVELOPERS. Sony and Microsoft make the PS and XBOX, also closed systems with networks they hope benefit developers.
And finally, does apple have an obligation to help developers make money or is their focus more properly on consumers?
Do you have a record of that (your emails and their cancellation notice)? Would be very interesting to see how that went down.
> Purchasing the same app more than once on the same device shouldn't even be possible.
It’s not and I don’t think it has ever been.
But Apple believes the opposite of you, has direct contact with nearly a billion customers, and spends massively on safety/security which they wouldn’t do if it wasn’t important to customers.
Apple has earned trust with me as a user. When I download an app from Apple’s stores it extends its trust to those apps.
I feel more comfortable spending money on iOS because of that trust. Take away the trust, and I promise there is significantly less money to be made.
This is all my opinion and most importantly feelings about spending money though the AppStore and through any other channel.
I will say, for me no other company has built the good will that Apple has. I really doubt that Epic understands the “trust” I speak about. Both because of the general sentiment I see online and as a Fortnite player.
Have any of you actually played Fortnite?
Do any of you know how many bugs exist in that game? I’m not even talking about “wall hacks”, rendering issues, difficult collision detection stuff or the many in game broken mechanics. I’m talking about the many, many out-of-game user interface bugs. Logging in fails 1/4 the time (need to reboot the app). Matchmaking fails 1/10 the time (just stuck in an infinite loop). Matchmaking for groups fails 1/10 the time (at least one person in the party will not be in the same game!!! How does a software company fuck up atomic transactions for the full party?)
lol Epic is not a company I want handling financial transactions. I’m very happy to buy Vbucks from Apple/Google/Sony and then “safely” use Vbucks in the Fortnite store.
The type of trust building Apple does is a “value add” that a company like Epic doesn’t understand yet.
Epic choosing to make this decision isn’t data about Apple’s ability and mindset to earn trust. Epic choosing to make this decision seems to be a short term play at rent seeking before Fortnite stops being popular.
Also please read my other comments in this thread for anecdata about my experience/feelings as a customer of both Apple and Epic.
You're not even making a coherent argument. Epic is making a short-term play at rent seeking? That doesn't make any sense. They're trying to be able to charge for individual products the way they do on any other open platform. Platforms that do not filter through single monolithic app stores, and which - surprise - are successful and enjoyed by millions of users and developers.
He copy pasted the exact same comment in a conversation with me, which is why I am bringing it up. Instead of actually saying anything related to what I said, he just posted that copy-paste comment.
Likely, because they had nothing to add, related to the actual comments and points that you or I brought up.
- used an iPhone as your primary device?
- used an Android as your primary device?
- played Fortnite, and on what device?
For me it was 6 years of Android before switching to an iPhone for the last 4 years. I've been playing a lot of Fortnite (less during the waterworld season) on a PS4 over the last 11 months.
Rationale:
Especially because you're arguing for sideloading and Android already allows that, yet Epic is still suing Google. I ask because when you keep saying you're arguing "for customers" and "pro-competition".
I'm just wondering what background experience you have with all of these different companies and platforms that helps you judge what is best "for competition and the customer".
Does iOS make the success of any app?
It’s the same for Epic on PlayStation, Switch and Xbox.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. A game produced with the Unreal Engine could just as easily be created through a natively developed engine or another licensed engine instead of Unreal. Unity, for instance:
Apple has a monopoly... on Apple products?
It was made from a bygone era, where the digital concept didn’t even exist.
I imagine if Apple tried to restrict third party apps from doing that through the legal system, we would see another suit but this time about "graphics" instead of "payment processing".
I agree. Operating systems are not App Stores.
This is false; unless theoretically means there's no concept of "money" involved in our world.
A game deployed to an iPhone must be compatible with the hardware chip supplied on the iPhone, must be built using APIs designed, built and committed to be supported by the iPhone.
Apps can't be built out of thin air. Programming languages, debuggers, IDEs, distributions channels, commitment to support cost money, time and people's energy. Apple, as a private business, can choose to monetize however they wish to. It would be really dumb for the govt or other parties to dictate what pricing policies Apple has to set for a product they're building. Heck, they're free to ask for a million dollars for each copy of Xcode people use.
Apple is trying to balance the costs of building an iPhone ecosystem with the benefits of ease of accessibility to that ecosystem.
Customers pay Apple to handle _everything_ from rearranging sand to naming functions accessible to developer to make the iPhone.
> This is false; unless theoretically means there's no concept of "money" involved in our world.
I am fairly sure that Apple has already produced a general purpose computing device that also requires applications deployed to it to be compatible with its CPU and to be built using APIs designed and built by Apple, but nonetheless lets applications be acquired for it through other means, including direct download.
Ultimately, it's their product. I mean, can you imagine the world we'd live in if some arbitrary group of people (who are _not_ the product developers) decided that the iPod should be opened up to side-load any arbitrary software, such as a music store, run by some other company.
In what world is that legal? Just because the iPhone has majority profits of the smartphone market doesn't mean they ought to share that platform with everyone else. If developers don't like Apple's policies they should not build for Apple's platforms. It's pretty simple.
Go make your iPhone, and App Store, and Retail distribution channels and marketing that works to your specification. Isn't that what competition means?
The "the app store pays for libraries" argument is total bullshit. Apple wants 30% of your Spotify subscription because they saw it, they wanted it, and now they're having a temper tantrum about it. Not because they laid the foundation for Spotify.
Sony and MS games can be programmed without licenses or devkits (which make it much easier to debug games by providing debug access not available on retail consoles).
Moreover, devkits are frequently made available for free by both companies to indie developers and even major partners.
Xbox developer mode [1] appears to require a valid, current Partner Center app developer account [2]. Individual accounts are $19 and "With a developer account, you can submit apps and games to Microsoft marketplaces, including the Microsoft Store."
so you dont need a devkit but would need an Xbox and you do need an account to publish. so yes, while you dont need a xbox dev account to program, you dont need an apple dev account to program either. you just need a dev account on either platform to publish.
[1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/xbox-apps/devki... [2] https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/store/register/
In Microsoft's case, UWP on XBox doesn't count as it is castrated to the actual OS capabilities, and hasn't been updated for a while and most likely it won't.
In some version of Visual Studio the SDK can be downloaded from within the program.
XDK: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/gaming/xbox-live/get-starte...
The XDK (aka HDK) includes physical hardware and is intended for more demanding games.
Sony SDK: https://www.companyregistration.playstation.com/SCEInternetA...
The Sony SDK and HDKs are available to registered partners only, though registration is free and the SDK (but not the HDK) is free to all partners.
You're comparing Epic's dev tools to XCode.. but then you're also comparing them to the App Store later in your comment?
Epic has an equivalent of the App Store that does the things you listed: https://www.epicgames.com/store/en-US/about
(saying either does QC is a little disingenuous imo. Apple does "QC" insofar to make sure you're not trying to submit a flaming hunk of garbage, they're not there to be your QC. Epic does the same.)
Which is just _one_ of _many_ licensing terms available for that product. You can just buy a license outright and avoid the royalty fee if you so choose.
Epic runs their own digital distribution platform, in which they also take a cut of the sales. Their terms are different than Apples, but they still do take a cut of sales.
Epic also takes 5% royalties for any (non-free) game built with Epic's Unreal Engine.
Epic and Apple have the same business model, however Epic's terms are not as high as Apples.
On the other hand, Epic makes a lot of money selling "cosmetics" and loot boxes. In effect, you have a company that has profited immensely from gambling, going after a company that has profited immensely due to their own closed ecosystem.
(also not to mention Epic blatantly ripped off the success of PUBG when they switched Fortnite to be a Battle Royale game)
> (also not to mention Epic blatantly ripped off the success of PUBG when they switched Fortnite to be a Battle Royale game)
I think Epic did it better. That's why we don't give intellectual property rights to vague ideas like "100 players parachute into an island and shoot each other" or "after a certain amount of time a circle kills people outside of it". PUBG had their take -- super boring stakeouts to get hyper-realistic weapons. Fortnite had their take -- cartoony jumping around while you build forts. Players can choose which they want to play. (And, of course, there are like 8 billion other battle royales.)
That's your opinion. That is not what's supported by our current technology/copyright/intellectual property-related laws.
Please be clear about that.
That is your opinion. Please be clear about that.
Currently, what Apple is doing violates EU and US antitrust laws. It's not a matter of what the user wants. It's a matter of Apple abusing its market position.
Please provide legal documents equivocally stating this.
It's the followup laws broadening the Sherman Antitrust Act that Apple violates. The amendments to the Sherman Act target anti-competitive behavior that results in market distortive effects, even in the absence of a monopoly. This includes price-fixing, collusion, and using leverage in one market to interfere with the market dynamics of another (usually smaller) market (see, e.g., Microsoft). There is at least one landmark case in which minor market participants were found to have violated the antitrust laws because their collusion would have anticompetitive effects even though their combined market share was less than half of the market, though the case dates to a more active time in antitrust jurisprudence.
Apple is no stranger to anti-competitive behavior; they are in fact the banner case for the last big antitrust case...which similarly did not involve a monopoly of any sort. (The book price-fixing case.)
The majority of antitrust claims are brought under the Sherman Act. Apple's ebook price fixing case was brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
All of Epic's federal claims against Apple are alleged violations of the Sherman Act.
Sort of. There are two possible avenues of attack here against Apple. And it depends on how the market is defined.
1: if the "market" is defined as you have, which is a "monopoly on apple services", then it absolutely true that Apple does have a monopoly on the specific market as defined by "Apple services", and I would accept 10 to 1 betting odds on that.
BUT, I think it is a bit of a stretch that the "market" will be defined that narrowly. Instead I think that the market will be defined as the smartphone market share of the USA.
2: If the market is defined as the smartphone market, in the USA, then the argument will be that Apple has control of ~50% of the market, in a 2 entity duopoly. It is a common misconception, that anti-trust law only applies in cases, of a overwhelming singular monopoly. Instead, anti-trust law, applies even in cases where there is not a singular monopoly, and the company in question only has significant market power.
Controlling 50% of the market share, is a bit on the edge of whether anti-trust law applies, or does not apply, as according to government guidance. So the case is far from a slam dunk, and I think that there will be interesting arguments brought up in court.
But, even though Apple has less market share than, say Microsoft did, when Microsoft lost their anti-trust case, I think that Apple's actions are significantly more restrictive than Microsoft's was, and thus this contributing factor will push them over the edge into losing the case.
I expect that this case will be a landmark case, that will determine future court actions, and will be even more significant than the microsoft case was.
Similar antitrust violations of the same nature: iMusic vs Spotify, iChat vs Hey/other chat programs, Apple Webkit vs all other browsers.
I would have included Apple Pay but in that instance Apple lost, largely because their actions in other markets made it extremely undesirable for merchants and payment processors to get behind Apple's vision of Apple Pay in which Apple skimmed X% for providing absolutely no value to the transaction. In fact, so many retailers found Apple to be an undesirable partner that a number of major retailers disabled Apple Pay integration on their NFC-capable payment terminals. For example, most Kroger locations (like Ralphs) take Google Pay, Samsung Pay, Garmin Pay, and most other app-based NFC payment methods...but not Apple Pay. (Apple's situation is similar to American Express, which also charges significantly higher rates to retailers than its competitors, but unlike Apple, Amex actually processes transactions and theoretically provides valule to retailers, just not enough to justify its Appleesque rates.)
And, likewise, Apple, as the platform owner, should be able to deny access whatever software they want.
You can of course, jailbreak your iphone, or install PWA's that work.
Afterall, you just paid for the car, they still own the software that controls the engine.
Maybe just don’t buy that car then?
They do this to an extent already.
Aftermarket ECU Tunes can often invalidate your warranty.
Most OEM infotainment headunits are not user upgradable.
GPS Maps must be refreshed through the dealer.
In the US there is a governor that limits how fast a car can go.
Android is by far the most dominate mobile platform worldwide.
And you can. You just need to bypass Apple's security mechanisms.
Could one not argue that you are able to do this by jailbreaking your iOS-device, which the courts have deemed perfectly legal?
It seems to me that one owns the phone, but not necessarily the operating system it runs.
Thing is, Apple still charges $100 USD per year for a developer license which lets you distribute your app, so this is already happening! :)
From the court documents, Apple said there are 27M AppStore registered devs. Even if only half of those pay $100 per year that's still about $1.3B per year.
Edit:
It's even worse than with consoles as every dev needs at least a Mac. When developing for consoles most work is not done on the dev kit itself.
Google asks for $25, once, for a team that can be an individual or an organization, as you wish.
That is less than the coffee bean budget for a month at most of these organizations. They probably spend more than that a year on parts and labor for the coffee equipment.
That organization fee is a token fee. A little friction so that it makes you serious and it stings a bit if it gets cancelled. To maybe not faff about and get down to shipping a product. A few bucks to cover things like CA maintenance and help fund some outreach programs I suspect.
$100 for individuals might be a bit on the steep side, I'll grant you. Or a stick to get you to become an organization as soon as possible.
There is a second program called the Apple Developer Enterprise Program, which is $299 per year, and is only required if you wish to deploy apps for internal use across your organization without using the App Store.
Which, in fact, they can-- if you use their products.
There is, however, a straightforward way to stop them: Don't use their products.
If others aren’t happy with it that’s fine too, just get a different phone. I don’t see any justification for coercing Apple into entering into commercial arrangements and developing product features they don’t want to support.
I‘ll admit that having the Apple iOS ecosystem is of certain value, but Apple doesn‘t even allow you to install your own OS. My point is that if I buy a hammer, should I be forced to use it only for hammering nails or could I use it for other things as well?
The reality is, you bought a product that accurately advertised its features. Were you ever misled into thinking that an iPhone could download non-AppStore apps? If so, please return your phone you are owed a refund and maybe even sue for false advertising.
Meanwhile, if you bought the product like me knowing the product’s features. It feels disingenuous to now want more from the product.
If you want to jailbreak your iPhone, do it. But you really shouldn’t expect Apple to provide updates or support your warranty once you choose to. The same as if you opened up a hair dryer, and disabled the part that heats the air the warranty would be void.
It's called an unconscionable contract. Epic's argument is that you cannot enforce unfair things even if you signed on it. Of course, the court is going to decide if it's really unfair, neither Epic nor Apple.
I would be interested to see a solid case decided on unconscionability where both parties are multi-billion dollar companies with substantial resources to spend on negotiating contracts.
If "I really want what you're selling, but it's kinda expensive" is the new standard for unconscionability, then we're all in big trouble.
>In a ruling late last month, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers largely rejected similar arguments Epic made in seeking a restraining order against Apple regarding Fortnite development on iOS. There was no "irreparable harm" to Epic, Rogers wrote, because "the current predicament appears of [Epic's] own making."
> "Your client created this situation," Rogers told lawyers for Epic in an August hearing. "Your client does not come to this action with clean hands... in my view, you cannot have irreparable harm when you create the harm yourself."
> "The court recommended that Epic comply with the App Store guidelines while their case moves forward, guidelines they’ve followed for the past decade until they created this situation," Apple said in a statement earlier this month." Epic has refused. Instead they "repeatedly submit Fortnite updates designed to violate the guidelines of the App Store."
EDIT: @gpm The status quo you refer to is Epic abiding by the agreement they argue is unenforceable. I have to be mindful about my reply quantity, HN throttles me otherwise, hence the edit.
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/08/judge-issues-restrain...
The idea is just that the judge is generally going to maintain the status quo during the TRO phase (this policy exists because there has been such little time for legal argument at the point that a TRO is requested).
I don't see that any of these quotes are at all responsive to the person you are responding to.
> EDIT: @gpm The status quo is Epic abiding by the agreement they argue unenforcable.
Heh, just so you know you can reply to new comments by clicking on the timestamp and then clicking reply.
Anyways, I think I must be missing your point? The person you replied to appeared to be arguing about what the final ruling should be not about whether or not a TRO should be granted (which is where the status quo arguments come in).
The only difference is people want to change the rules because they feel Apple (and Google) have won the game forever and App Stores should now be regulated like utilities.
Which makes me wonder : is there any way to distribute your own game to playstation users, without having to ask or pay anything to sony ?
Same for any console, though some are very restrictive and have very specific pricing guidelines (eg. Nintendo).
A contract may not be enforceable, but only if it contradicts the law. In this instance, I don't see how.
I suggest you read up on this dispute then, because the whole cause of this dispute is that Epic believes the contract violates anti-trust law.
I suppose if you don't like it you can go buy an Android phone and just give away all your data in addition to the 30%.
Also worth considering: How much of Apple's intellectual property here could exist without them harvesting decades of free/open software development history unpaid? And now they're complaining that someone used their SDK after paying the license fees?
Some apps choose to make their apps free, others choose to charge fees. Some want to have their in-app purchases charged 30%, others don't.
Lots of products charge you an upfront fee, and then more fees for various things in addition. I don't think you've got much of a leg to stand on with that argument. That would be like saying, I paid for my cell phone, I don't think that cellular carriers should charge me again for the monthly service -- they should bundle it all one.
It's a design and pricing choice. And you buy in or you don't.
And that's a problem. I am buying an iPhone, per Apple, not renting it. Therefore I should be allowed to run whatever I please on my hardware.
On the other hand you and I don’t have the right to dictate to Apple what software they write and what features it has. That includes features for installing and managing software packages, software upgrades, security features, etc.
Well, that can definitely be your opinion. But whether that's fact or supported by our current laws is not at all certain. Let's at least be clear what's fact and what's desire.
> ...buying the iPhone comes with access to apps through the the App Store, not any software that you like. That's clear to almost everyone I would think....
> It's a design and pricing choice. And you buy in or you don't.
This follow up:
> ...whether that's fact or supported by our current laws is not at all certain
Appears to at least be an explicit moving of the goal posts, if not claiming advantage from both sides of the argument. Is it clear that the relationship is a legally enforced 'take it or leave it', or isn't it?
Right now, it's totally within a company's rights (and a consumer's rights) to review the terms of a sale of a product/service, and agree to them or not.
The Apple/Epic fought reminds me of when sometimes content owners and cable networks are fighting over affiliate fees and it spills into PR campaigns targeting the public. Typical consumers don't want to think about it, but they can end up effective leverage in the negotiation occurring.
Companies on one side of it will always try to frame it as a principled fight over consumer access, etc. etc. And the other company will frame it as a cost of doing business / business model. But it always boils down to dissatisfaction about the prices they're paying or receiving.
Don't buy into the claimed principles. They're just dressing on the argument that is always about the $. Both sides.
Bad analogy, it'd be like buying the cell tower and getting charged for using it.
Different sides, different business concepts.
It denied both Apple and Epic revenue by decreasing sales.
It moved revenue from Apple to Epic by moving the commission on the sales that did happen from Apple to Epic. I believe this is what they're complaining about with the "lined Epic’s pockets at Apple’s expense", i.e. they are arguing that they are entitled to that commission on the transactions that went through the 3rd party payment provider.
I am an advocate for open source, but I am just wondering in principle what is your argument exactly?
(Especially since... come on, punitive damages for something that was live for less than 24 hours?)
The punitive damages are about the what was caused by the ad campaign. Judges have a lot of leeway here if they don’t like how companies act.
It seems that Apple has forgotten that each iPhone user already paid Apple hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars for the iPhone itself. It is reasonable to charge developers for development tools, but if that's what you want to do, just charge them for development tools. Meanwhile, I bought an iPhone so that I can run the software that I like. If it costs money to develop a platform, it doesn't seem that strange to just charge that upfront when someone buys an iPhone.