All: these Epic vs. Apple threads, and $BigCo vs. $BigCo threads in general, have unfortunately been seeing more name-calling, accusations of manipulation, flamebait/unsubstantive posts, and other things that break the HN guidelines. If you comment, can you please avoid that? Reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html would help.
The idea here is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. Remember that every post you make has a non-negligible impact on the community. If we all treat this place like the discussion forum we'd like to have, eventually we'll have it.
Unfortunately, supporting a brand as team sports is a thing like supporting a political party as team sports is.
HN is, hopefully, better than most places on the internet as there are lots of people willing to decide each issue on its merits, and also recalibrate their positions continually in the light of events,
HN is not better in that way, or else the comment you’re replying to wouldn’t have needed to posted. HN users often bring preexisting and inflexible views to new discussions, on topics such as GateKeeper, GPL licensing, and ‘freedoms’. Unpopular positions on such topics are frequently unwelcome in discussions, even when presented with good reasoning and respectful tone. HN users often use downvotes to hide content they disagree with, rather than to hide content of low quality alone. HN users often use conversational warfare and personal attacks to diminish the views of others. We have more than earned this chastisement by the mods over the past few months.
When I downvote for low quality, I often have the distinct impression that the recipient of the downvote would not understand or admit to themselves the quality deficit I had in mind and certainly wouldn't correctly attribute the downvote to it. It's always easier to believe that you're being downvoted simply because people disagree with you.
Of course, everyone has to be their own judge in every particular case, but there's so much room for disagreement that generalized interpretations of downvoting behavior just aren't convincing.
That's all true, but I'm not sure that's relevant. I agree with the GP, not because my posts are downvoted, but because I see respectful, thoughtful posts from established users of reasonable karma downvoted into greyed-out territory for no obvious reason other than that their opinions (or their facts) are not popular. This includes posts I agree and disagree with, so I don't think it's necessarily bias. I also think it is behavior that has become endemic (although I may think so because I find myself having trouble not doing that).
Introspecting into the occasions when I myself downvote out of disagreement it is usually:
1. I think the other person "doesn't get it."
2. I lack the time to offer a substantive opinion.
3. The other party has demonstrated either: a. A tendency to view statements ungenerously or; b. that they already know The One True Way.
Y'all may wish to evaluate whether #2 has an undertone of 'instead of accepting their argument', as we human beings have a latent tendency to find the easiest way to reject contradiction. I think that the below thought process, whether conscious or unconscious, is affecting downvoting behavior on most online forums that permit unmoderated downvotes:
"I'm confident that I'm right and they're wrong, but their argument is very well put, and after a minute of thinking about it I can't find any way to contradict their viewpoint. I'll just downvote it now so that I can mentally dismiss it and move on without giving it further consideration, because otherwise it'll continue bothering me that I might be wrong."
(And, to parent: thank you for taking the time to reason through this and consider your own actions. I'm not sure where I stand on #1 at all. I'll have to think on it a while longer than a day.)
> Unfortunately, supporting a brand as team sports is a thing like supporting a political party as team sports is.
My take is the exact opposite: this episode is an opportunity to air grievances regarding each company, which by themselves have amassed a bunch of reasons for customers and end users to dislike them. There are no good guys in this story, only bad guys whose evilness outstages the other's evilness.
I agree but here is my take: These companies don't deserve this much of your attention or feelings. I have worked for Amazon and Google, and at the end of the day neither is a place with feelings. I have a lot of love for co-workers in both places and was part of some amazing products. I think I would say the same if I ever worked at Apple.
For me, like in others, Apple sure brings up a lot of feelings for some reason. I have gone to from hating to loving to hating to loving. Now I think they are currently on a really good iteration of products and I will use them when it makes sense for me. If they hit a rough patch I will try something else.
As for the 30% cut etc, I can't get emotional about that. There are so much bigger issues in the world. You have democracy, global warming, nculear weapons, war and famine.
> As for the 30% cut etc, I can't get emotional about that. There are so much bigger issues in the world. You have democracy, global warming, nculear weapons, war and famine.
I can’t get emotional about the 30% cut either, but I can and do get emotional about locked-down computing devices. For a kid that grows up only or primarily using a smartphone rather than a laptop, what chance do you think they have to learn how this stuff works? If you use an iPhone, you can’t even begin to write software for it without also having a Mac, and it certainly doesn’t make its inner workings apparent.
And speaking of democracy, when companies lock down devices such that the manufacturer must approve any software that runs on them, what do you think the impact is on users of those devices when the government of a less-democratic country pressures the manufacturer to remove apps they find inconvenient? See China’s take on VPN apps on iOS.
The more we teach people that computers are magic and design systems such that huge distant companies dictate how it works, the more the balance of power shifts away from individuals. These things have real-world impact. I’m not just picking on Apple here, they’ve just gone further than most so far; this kind of attitude is endemic in our industry, though.
Fortunately the US legal system does not work like that, because while the issue isn't important to you, actually it turns out the issue is important to Epic.
And I think I can sympathize with them, considering 30% of my revenue is walking out the door to a company that charges both consumers for the hardware and companies for the right to send binaries to a user.
I'm sympathizing with you (well maybe, don't know exactly what you are making :-), but not really with Epic. Don't really think they are in it for good reasons.
> I agree but here is my take: These companies don't deserve this much of your attention or feelings.
None of the arguments are emotional responses. All arguments are rational responses to the problems that both Apple and Epic Games creates with their modus operandi, and the comments we see about this issue boil down to people pointing out how the modus operandi of these companies again havr negative effects.
> There are no good guys in this story, only bad guys whose evilness outstages the other's evilness.
I'm not a stakeholder in Apple or Epic. I don't possess products from either. That said, I'm inclined to view epic's actions here as closer to civil disobedience, specifically in that epic is playing the long game to prove their opinion that Apple's contractual terms are anti-competitive.
Because it maps so effectively to civil rights struggles for me and likely for others as well (sidebar — I'm not white), I can see why this topic gets pretty heated. It's not so much about evil v. evil as it is about one group feeling oppressed v. another feeling offended at (their team) being accused of oppression.
More like: Apple is offering a take it or leave it deal. Epic doesn't find it acceptable, and is willing to lose access to the store and take Apple to court. They clearly think that taking a shot at breaking the monopoly is worth it. It isn't civil rights, it's business.
Can you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN? You've been doing it repeatedly and we've asked you repeatedly not to. You've also posted substantive comments. That's great; please keep those and drop the others.
Then there are outright attacks like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24045935, which we would have banned you for if we had seen it at the time. Please don't do those any more.
Trying to move a conversation about Apple and Epic Games into social justice politics territory (i.e. the comment I replied to here) is definitional flamebait.
And yes, I called that guy a stupid fuck only after my two civil comments both got flagged, one including a source. I'd say I acted in good faith there, and got flagged by the community. The level of toxic use of downvote/flag on this site is quite apparent, and maybe mods should find a different approach on moderating or even allowing non-technical topics. Comments or discussion on those topics is constantly slanted in a disgusting manner, and I could easily lose my own downvote rights for bothering to participate.
PS: I'm not white. Will I get protected by moderation now that I've pointed this out, or do I need to throw that in to every one of my comments as if it is relevant? Or am I just fucked because I'm not a leftie who feels compelled to use my race as a blunt object when engaging people online?
Indeed fanboyism is a thing, but personally I don't see it in this case. I see arguments accusing a monopolistic app store manager who is enforcing draconian guidelines to abuse it's monopoly, and I see arguments accusing a software vendor with a long history of abuse getting locked out of a plstform it by violating its terms and conditions when attempting to avoid paying for it's use. None of these actions are cheerable.
that's well put. i'll admit, i'm mostly reading these threads for the satisfaction of seeing the grievances aired with increasing volume and frequency.
"supporting a brand as team sports is a thing like supporting a political party as team sports is"
This may be true at times, but the assumption of the same is the root of a lot of the toxic behavior. You cannot be neutral or even in agreement with Apple's position without being a "fanboy", or giving into the "cult of Apple", etc.
If you didn't already, consider taking look at the details/summary elements (https://caniuse.com/#search=summary) which provide a non-JS method for collapse-by-default and as of late have quite good evergreen support. They're fairly versatile, I've even used them recently for JS-free context menus. The only gotcha (the 80% implementation part) is in consistently overriding their default styles on all platforms.
> The idea here is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. "Boo $BigCo", "yay $BigCo" fan-v.-antifan cage matches are not curious conversation. We want curious conversation.
If you really desire that, then please consider making some fundamental changes to how HN voting and auto-moderation works.
Currently, every HN mechanism seems designed to make these "conversations" one-sided, where $SideA just gets to pile on $SideB with abandon and all $SideB can do is watch:
• Any user that piles on $PitchforkTarget gets tens of upvotes.
• Any comment that does not pile on $PitchforkTarget gets downvoted, no matter how substantive or thoughtful it is.
• It’s not enough to just not support $PitchforkTarget; simply remaining neutral is enough to get downvoted.
• A few downvotes in a row makes you unable to post anything anywhere on HN for several hours.
All this comes together to say: “When there’s a mob against $PitchforkTarget, join it or stay out of it.”
HN does not allow the "wrong" side a chance to be heard, and punishes users for having the "incorrect" opinion. I am literally afraid to post anything by now on such topics.
This is NOT a conversation, this is an echo chamber.
Comments sometimes get downvoted in the first minute. That's just how stochastic processes work if you have enough data, and there are a lot of people reading these threads.
These discussions are not one-sided—they're two-sided at least, which is one reason people get so mad at each other. Each side feels like the discussion is one-sided against it though.
I certainly agree that internet dynamics favor indignation, but that's not specific to HN and it's not clear what any technical changes could do to mitigate it. We do everything we can as moderators.
This is inaccurate: "A few downvotes in a row makes you unable to post anything anywhere on HN for several hours". Rate limiting isn't based on votes. Moderators rate-limit accounts when they post too many low-quality comments too quickly and/or get involved in flamewars. There are also some software filters that can lead to rate limits, such as for new accounts.
> Comments sometimes get downvoted in the first minute.
Making them invisible to other readers and pushing them down, like the example [0] above.
All it takes is, what, 2 or 3 downvotes to prevent thousands of other users from even seeing a comment?
> These discussions are not one-sided—they're two-sided at least
On this very page, there were only 2 comments for most of the time, without clicking "More": Yours, and the one favoring Epic.
Any comments with an opposing view appeared briefly before being driven out in under a minute, again like that example [0].
> it's not clear what any technical changes could do to mitigate it.
On Reddit, some communities hide karma scores for a specified amount of time.
HN could do the same: Do not show the score and do not let the score affect a comment's visibility for N hours.
That would at least ensure that every voice has a chance to be heard, and reduce the emotions which result from seeing yourself instantly downvoted if you don't agree with the louder voices.
For spam and more severe violations, there's always the Flag button.
> Rate limiting isn't based on votes. Moderators rate-limit accounts when they post too many low-quality comments too quickly and/or get involved in flamewars.
I had never encountered that in all my 6 years on HN, until recently when I tried to take the side of the mob's targets as loudly as the voices decrying them in such "conversations".
I think these all also touch on deeper aspects of our personal stories and the emotions we feel about them. See the post about a non-white person viewing it as a battle between an oppressed party and a party upset at being viewed as an oppressed party.
Although people like to believe they think rationally, especially here; the truth is, none of us is capable of doing so all the time. We all bring things to the table. And I think each of the things you mention touches all of us pretty deeply, as it has to do with all of our individual standings in society and our freedom to live our lives.
Plus as it's HN, there's a lot of people who want to have control over what their customers do with their products. lol. It's like those threads where some company is exposed for spying on their users, where a bunch of people argue that it's just telemetry and they wouldn't know what their customers wanted if they didn't spy on them and stuff.
These faction wars exist for most brands that have any adversarial relationship or buy-in.
Another major example is Xbox vs Playstation. Often because mom is only going to buy you one and not both, so now you're part of that faction when duking it out online. That's certainly how I spent my summer at age 15.
Ideally you grow out of caring which corporation stacks more money, though. Very boring hobby.
As a dev I feel very passionate about open hardware platforms. I don't really care about epic, but the fact they are taking on this fight regardless of motives makes me very happy.
It's a topic that most people can relate to and pits two complicated viewpoints ("user/developer access to hardware" and "vendors keeping their platform from becoming a cesspool of spam and low-quality content") with notes of other important topics ("freedom of speech", "monopolies").
If this discussion was on Reddit or similar is would probably more one-sided both due to the number of people who play games and the proportionally lower amount of people who have spent a lot of money on Apple products than on HN (accidental humblebraggging regarding your credit card bill seems relatively prevalent here)
I can immediately see that you are biased as your comment implicitly implies that everyone buying Apple products is an idiot who buys overpriced hardware on credit just for the status symbol.
Consider that instead we are professionals that need the best tool possible that works and is functional
I just did it manually. That is, I posted the stub like I would any other comment, and then used a REPL to move the replies to my top-level comment and make them children of the stub. There's no specific code support beyond that, though I've done it often enough that I've thought maybe I should write something. Does that answer your question?
Workaround (kind of) for nojs users: these comments are available via the api, so you can access them via your choice of app or alternative UI (there are some sites around that put a different interface around the api).
I'm not so sure about that. Downvotes are as much an indicator of outspokenness as they are that one's post is repugnant. Unfortunately lots of people love to downvote posts they do not agree with, or don't support their chosen side
I'm not sure that's exactly what they meant. If someone writes a comment with an incorrect fact, it's common to see it downvoted. It also happens with rude or humorous comments.
But it also happens with opinions, no matter how thoughtful, rational and well written the comment is. Even with true facts that someone happens to dislike. I'm avoiding certain topics as long as I can and following pg's advice in What you can't say. It's not worth it. Actually I'm avoiding most topics that I find interesting directly for me, begining with the technical ones.
I would also like a new feature in HN: giving up the right to vote.
You’re avoiding certain topics, even ones you are interested in because of the downvote behavior, impacting even “thoughtful, rational and well written” comments?
Please let me know if I’ve misread you. But interesting.
Specially the ones I'm interested. It's mostly others' comments that I see downvoted. With mine I see another problem: responses use to be completely unrelated to the point I was trying to make.
I'm not an English native speaker and ellaborating in technical topics is more difficult than in pop-sci or net folklore. Spending a long time composing a comment just to see it misunderstood or downvoted is discouraging.
If you take a look at my recent comments, there was someone complaining that he could not control his browser completely. I've had some success using Chromium Embedded Framework. I suggested that and got a -2. Why? I don't know, because it was a post about Firefox? So what? Someone that disliked another thing I said?
It doesn't matter, but it happens to be my most technical comment in weeks, maybe months. Other of my comments with platitudes are much upvoted.
Most discussions are polarized. Sometimes I start to write a comment writing a disclaimer saying that I'm not in side X, but... when I notice that, I stop and cancel. And that's not only politics or bigco.
I completely understand you, friend. Personally given up trying to pacify other commenters and just speak my truths. That doesn’t mean going out of my way to offend people with my words, I try hard to NOT do that-but I’m also not going out of my way to appease them either.
I think the problem with downvotes is that they tend to make the comment invisible. Initial downvotes don't reflect the community unless it's a general consensus (political flame bait).
They get buried and then no one ever sees them to upvote. The visibility in the absence of raw numbers works as a reference and sometimes it is misleading.
Real shilling/astroturfing is a different phenomenon. It certainly exists, but from everything I've looked at, it's orders of magnitude less common than fans making up bogus accusations about shilling.
> Real shilling/astroturfing is a different phenomenon. It certainly exists, but from everything I've looked at, it's orders of magnitude less common than fans making up bogus accusations about shilling.
This is interesting... how many orders of magnitude?
My feeling is that this whole situation is mostly going as Tim Sweeney intended. He was itching for a fight, wanted to sue Apple. The harsher that Apple retaliates, the better Epic's court case. Apple is playing right into his hands.
Did Sweeney anticipate Apple's threat to Unreal Engine? Maybe, maybe not. But the temporary restraining order did block that threat, at least for now.
I don't think Epic ever intended to release the new Fortnite season on Apple platforms.
This is a long play, not a short play. In the short term, Epic loses money by not having Fortnite on Apple devices. But in the long term, it's much better for Epic to break Apple's App Store monopoly.
If Stripe can claim Wells Fargo doesn't want to process porn payments, and that's legal, how can an American court rule for Epic?
Epic are obviously going to lose, and lose hard, or set a precedent that's going to screw every payment provider in America and open a flood gate for fraudulent payments.
You can't force someone to sell something they don't want to, especially because Apple is nowhere near a monopoly in games or gaming sales, they can just point at steam.
If somehow the American courts arrive at that judgement, and I am a non-lawyer, I put my hands up, but surely it's going to set all sorts of nasty precedents?
Edit: The more I think about it the more absurd this is. It's as if some random brand of Mayo is suing Wallmart for not stocking their brand on their shelves.
There is absolutely no way they can win this, unless American courts are going to start allowing "mom & pop" random ketchup brand to force Wallmart to stock it on their shelves. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on phones, it doesn't have a monopoly on games, it's got a store front you can buy stuff from, and if you don't want to play by their rules, then bye-bye. Wallmart choose their suppliers, and sets the markup, why can't Apple?
The iPhone is not a store. The App Store is a store. Epic wants to be on the iPhone, but not necessarily in the App Store. Ideally, Epic wants to run its own store on the iPhone.
In any case, App Store is the only store in town, where the "town" is the 1.5 billion iOS users. If there's only 1 store, with no competing stores, that's an entirely different situation legally.
I bought a $1000 device because Apple gets to decide what can run on it. I like iOS, and I like that Apple provides a great user experience on the device.
I was not in any way coerced into buying said device, and there are a plethora of other options for substitute devices had I wanted more control of what runs on the device, which I do not.
What other things in your life would you accept similar limitation?
Would you accept a house that only allowed furniture, food, books, electronics, devices from the company that built the house? Do you think it should be legal for a company to make a house with those conditions?
Would accept a car that could only take gas, tires, oil, electricity from the company that built the car? Should it be legal to offer such a vehicle?
You used to be able to buy a VCR and choose only to rent videos from Blockbuster video if you wanted "safe and clean". That didn't require any company making the VCR to force people to only to go their "safe and clean store". Apple doesn't need to force everyone on iOS to go to their store for you personally to continue to only get apps from their store.
The only digital device that allows you to run anything you want on it is a pc.
Consoles? Only allows you to run code they allow, since forever.
CD/DVD Players? Only runs the code which gets flashed during manufacturing.
TVs? Can’t run your own code.
The list goes on, Apple was actually the first company which made a marketplace on a non PC device which had a overly cheap way to get your software on it and they even made it super easy and cheap for developers to get updates for their code on it, that was during a time where consoles where limited to physical media to ship your code to customers.
Microsoft made you pay 5 digits or something similar outraging to release updates on Xbox once they had a digital store on it.
Is Apples model outdated by now? Maybe. Should a court force them to practically change their model to the one of their competition? Well, why should anyone buy their stuff then anymore? It would practically made their brand worthless to me, they’d just become another pc shop, the last time they tried that it nearly made them bankrupt.
That time made Apple what it is today, it’s in their DNA. They’ll fight anyone which tries to change that.
> The only digital device that allows you to run anything you want on it is a pc.
Apple Macintosh?
> CD/DVD Players? Only runs the code which gets flashed during manufacturing.
> TVs? Can’t run your own code.
CD/DVD players don't demand a cut of music and movies. TVs don't demand a cut of TV shows. These devices work on a standardized, non-propriety format. You can even burn a CD at home. So in a sense, you can run your own code. You can play home movies on your TV too.
It's too narrow to think of freedom only in terms of "code".
PC as in Personal Computer, which includes Macs, but even if one were to take the strict interpretation of "IBM Compatible PC", that also includes the current x86 Macs, at least until the first Apple Silicon models appear.
"Is Apples model outdated by now? Maybe. Should a court force them to practically change their model to the one of their competition? Well, why should anyone buy their stuff then anymore? It would practically made their brand worthless to me, they’d just become another pc shop, the last time they tried that it nearly made them bankrupt.
That time made Apple what it is today, it’s in their DNA. They’ll fight anyone which tries to change that."
This is a very distorted telling of history, and trying to equate Apple with iPhone. Desktop computing has been in Apple's "DNA" since 1976 and continues to be today. Mac sales were $7 billion last quarter. Apple had financial trouble in the mid-90s, but they were doing well in the 2000s even before iPhone came along. There's nothing about the App Store that's essential to Apple as a company.
The PC will never die as it cannot be replaced by locked-down ‘content consumption devices’.
If we want the phone or tablet to become a real alternative to the PC, they need to open up. It’s not just about devs being gouged for 30%, it’s also about the outright ban on some types of app, from cryptocurrency to BitTorrent to pornography.
Actually it is already dying, the classical PC is only used in a couple of places that still need desktops with replacement parts.
Most consumer shops now only sell tablets and laptops, and if desktops are in display they tend to be some variation of NUCs, which are basically laptops in a desktop case.
I would argue that they are not, as far as the typical consumer is concerned. Consoles have historically been single-purpose devices, that purpose being to play games. Whilst there have been varying moves across the three big manufacturers to include additional functionality, game-playing is still the single most important feature - you probably wouldn't even call it a console if it didn't play games.
> What other things in your life would you accept similar limitation?
I have a Playstation that only allows me to play games that comply with DRM, unless I root the Playstation (if that's even possible). I have a coffee machine, that only accepts cups from a specific manufacturer, because they own the patent. I own a car that only allows me to run maps supplied by the manufacturer and the updates are expensive.
I knew all of this when I bought this stuff. Complaining about the app store when you buy an iPhone is like complaining about the airplanes after you bought a house near an airport.
Just because we are forced to accept such limitations on some devices, that does not mean that it is necessarily acceptable. I own a PlayStation because I want to partake in entertainment exclusively available on the system. That does not mean that I don't get to hate the fact that it's a locked-down piece of crap. I really think they should be forced to open up the platform and not have any barriers for people who want to execute arbitrary code on hardware they paid for. The same should also be true for all computing devices - why should you not be able to change the software in your fridge? It's yours, and the manufacturer should be forced to respect that or very explicitly state that you are actually renting it and do not own it if they don't want to open up the hardware to its owner.
That is the argument that slaves cannot assert their freedom, they can only become recalcitrant slaves because they at one moment in time accepted their slavery.
It's a great analogy, that's why we banned slavery altogether and allowed personal declaration of bankruptcy, we learned from history and it took us centuries to get the slave drivers to comply.
I don’t think this comparison is apt. At least in regards to slavery in America. Weren’t many slaves forcibly taken from Africa (either by force or by purchasing from parents (and then using force))?
Well I was thinking of King Agrippa counselling the Jews prior to their rebellion against the Romans:
"However, as to the desire of recovering your liberty, it is unseasonable to indulge it so late; whereas you ought to have labored earnestly in old time that you might never have lost it; for the first experience of slavery was hard to be endured, and the struggle that you might never have been subject to it would have been just; but that slave who hath been once brought into subjection, and then runs away, is rather a refractory slave than a lover of liberty; "
The problem is that the difference between those two devices boils down ENTIRELY to the addition of DRM. The only thing stopping a game console from being a general purpose computer are the platform creators preventing you from running the code of your choice on hardware you own.
This distinction is purely arbitrary, user-hostile, and monopolistic, and so it is not worth respecting.
Why should corporations be allowed to trample all over our freedoms just because the devices can be classified as primarily being for consuming content? Should we have no agency in how we choose to consume content?
Which means they're to cheap. Customers need accurate price information or they will buy things that were more expensive to produce than they're worth.
But you don't need to pay for such feature. It's called approved software, with signatures from multiple authorities you can get all sort of filtering you want. That's just not what the manufacturer wants, they want to be the sole authority, treating us like kids with restriction and cows at the same time with this 30% cut.
> Would you accept a house that only allowed furniture, food, books, electronics, devices from the company that built the house? Do you think it should be legal for a company to make a house with those conditions?
Would I personally buy one? No. That doesn't mean it should be illegal to offer such a bundle. You can simply choose not to buy it.
And guess what? According to current US law, as long as those limitations are disclosed to the buyer at the time of purchase, it is in fact, not illegal to offer such a bundle.
Maybe cars can provide a useful comparison. Car manufacturers can't prevent you from using aftermarket parts or different brands of gasoline on a car, and they can't deny warranty coverage because you had your car serviced somewhere else. Phones are becoming even more ubiquitous and essential than cars, so it makes sense to start looking at them from a similar perspective.
Incidentally, Apple tries to treat phones this way and periodically ends up in legal battles over it - get your phone repaired by a third party instead of an Apple store? Have fun with features being disabled by anti-tamper mechanisms, etc. Obviously there are arguments to be made for it but it sure is unpleasant and shows you how they view their customers' freedoms.
They cannot deny warranty coverage, but are not prevented from arbitrary hurdles that make it hard to create a compatible aftermarket part. They don't have to make that particularly easy.
Installing aftermarket parts always voids warranty. Also, more and more manufacturers are creating sealed off engine bays to make working on them harder. It's just physically impossible to block someone to tinker with that type of hardware. If they could find a way, car manufacturers would love to block you from modifying your car.
Come to think of it, Teslas are pretty much impossible to modify, because they're more comparable to the iPhone, a fully integrated hardware and software stack. However, to continue on cars in general, I cannot load my own maps into my car navigation. I cannot load 3rd party maps into the navigation. If I want to upgrade the maps, I need to go to the dealership and pay them an ungodly amount to upgrade them for me.
> more and more manufacturers are creating sealed off engine bays to make working on them harder. It's just physically impossible to block someone to tinker with that type of hardware. If they could find a way, car manufacturers would love to block you from modifying your car.
It's not impossible, it's just not cost effective for them to do so. The cost of sealing the engine bay to such an extent that the end user cannot modify the hardware, while the garage can, adds more cost than the value gained to the manufacturer can justify.
If they could do it in a way that was cost effective for them, there is little reason to believe that they wouldn't be doing it already.
That is not true, there are many car parts I can replace without voiding the warranty. Tires, oil, windscreen wipers, seats, car stereo, the exhaust, the battery, the list goes on. You are perhaps focusing on engine parts only. Apple is not so lenient.
It’s not easy to distinguish between legal and illegal tying, but that doesn’t mean that disclosure to the buyer is an adequate defence. More commonly, the seller would argue that they lack the market power of which tying is said to be an abuse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
Yes I should have added the caveat "in an otherwise competitive market". If there was only one seller of houses then the tying would indeed be a problem.
> That doesn't mean it should be illegal to offer such a bundle. You can simply choose not to buy it.
Be careful with that. Consider how prevalent HOAs are (In most areas, you can not buy a house that's not covered by one), despite how much people hate them.
Consider the market pressures that resulted in that state of affairs. Everyone who wants to own a home has to make a bargain with the devil, despite few homeowners actually wanting to do that. It's quite possible that those market pressures will lead to a situation where the choice will be made for you.
People buy homes where homeowners associations dictate what goes in the yard. They pick schools where children are told how to dress and what they can say. There are whole cities who have kicked out strip joints. Those sorts of choices are made all the time and people should be allowed to live in a safe walled garden if they want to. The instant you let a porn shop open next to your school there are going to be issues that most would prefer to have prevented in the first place.
> They pick schools where children are told how to dress and what they can say.
I don't see how the schools are relevant, because parents tell children how to dress and what they can say too. Children have very limited legal rights. But we're not children, and I'm tired of Apple treating us like children.
As for homeowners associations and cities, it's important to note that the residents of those have a vote, whereas Apple users have no vote over how their devices work. (Only Apple shareholders have a vote.) Someone is going to respond "you vote with your wallet", but that's not the same. With Apple, your only choice is "love it or leave it". Whereas in a democratic organization with voting, you have the option to stay and still change how the system works.
If enough Apple users get upset online, that's valid feedback the company should listen to, or risk losing money. I think the numbers are too small though.
Being an informal process that they are not bound to listen to, "online outrage" isn't exactly the best solution. A vote is much more powerful than a voice.
> The instant you let a porn shop open next to your school there are going to be issues that most would prefer to have prevented in the first place.
I think it's less that "there are going to be issues" and more that people fear that there will be issues, and vote to remove what they think of as a threat.
The instant you let someone plant azaleas instead of tulips there are going to be issues that most would prefer to have prevented in the first place.
You could still live in your walled garden if Epic wins. You would just get an additional option of using another garden if you prefer. This is unlike your examples where choices made (strip joints, what goes into the yard etc.) influence surroundings and life quality of others.
I imagine people that want only the walled garden prefer their isn’t an alternative because chances are some publishers will just stop publishing within the walled garden.
Well exactly! And the people who would complain the loudest are the ones here saying they like Apple's curation, want the 30% Apple tax and if developers don't want to pay it can go elsewhere. Then the developers could say, if you want our content come and get it, otherwise stop your compaining, if there were enough of you without apple forcing it, we'd pay the tax to reach you.
Isn't that exactly what's going on already though? There is an alternative, it's called android. Epic has their software on many other platforms, but apparently there are enough people choosing to buy iOS that they felt it was worth paying the "tax" to reach them. Now they're complaining that they're paying the tax to reach the people they wanted to reach. After all, it's not like Apple is forcibly cramming iPhones into consumers hands and preventing them from going anywhere else. iPhones are as or more expensive than high end android devices, they come with well known limitations. Any price sensitive consumer should be (all else being equal) buying android devices where they could play all the fortnite they wanted and Epic could sell without paying any Apple "tax". And yet here we are. Apparently enough consumers prefer the Apple way that despite the abundance of lower cost options, they're still buying iPhones. So what is the fundamental difference between paying the tax because users have chosen iPhones and paying the tax because users have chosen the "Official iPhone Store" in some alternate reality?
Sounds like a similar situation to buying a house that belongs to a HOA. You pay extra to give up freedoms, but have the peace of mind that you won't have obnoxious neighbors that make your house difficult to sell.
The difference being that (in all cases I'm aware of) you get some sort of representation in the HOA (ie voting on things). Also there are almost certainly limits in any given jurisdiction on the sort of rules an HOA can impose.
One reason for this difference is that HOAs are kind-of eternal. They need some way to adapt to changing circumstances. Whereas things you will only use for a few years, you get to vote with your wallet. (As you do when booking a hotel, or renting an apartment.)
HOAs are becoming ubiquitous. In my area, nearly every home built in the past 20 years is under a HOA, and of course there are older HOAs too. They're generally created by the home builder, not the home buyer.
When I was buying a house, I didn't want an HOA. I hate them. But the options were extremely limited, and it was a seller's market.
I think local governments like HOAs because they pay to maintain certain common areas, so the cities don't have to spend tax money on that. Also, local politicians are all on the take with... surprise, surprise... the home builders.
In practice, it doesn't matter. Your share would be so tiny that voting with your wallet is equivalent. After all, people usually renew their phones every few years.
So now all housing companies start doing that, and we’re living in some unauthorized bread dystopia. That doesn’t sound like a world I want to live in.
Or more accurately: the market is reacting to what consumers want. Librem phones exist; they’re just not popular because most people don’t care about privacy.
> Librem phones exist; they’re just not popular because
What's the marketing budget of Purism? What's the total budget of Purism? In which stores are these phones available?
Consumers can't buy what they don't even know about. Popularity requires availability. It requires awareness. These things are very costly. There are huge barriers to entry, especially in the smartphone market.
Marketing budgets are a function of sales too. If even the people that know about them (such as yourself) aren't buying them, they're not going to have a lot of money to pour into marketing.
>Should it be legal? I mean, why not? If you don’t want one, just don’t buy one. There are plenty of other houses and cars out there!
Easy to say as an end-user, but what if you were a furniture maker by trade? You've been selling furniture for years and then houses start being built that can't use your furniture. Eventually these houses become the largest segment of the house market. Your furniture business goes bust.
>What other things in your life would you accept similar limitation?
You probably have access to only one power company. A small handful of internet providers. And your car example is quickly becoming the reality as well.
> Would accept a car that could only take gas, tires, oil, electricity from the company that built the car?
No. But for some reason I do pay for Spotify, Neflix, Disney and some others and for a bunch of media I never would have before. I can’t use the media from one service in the player from another. Even the Apple TV app doesn’t work that way: it takes you to the DRM holder’s player. Trade-offs.
> Should it be legal to offer such a vehicle?
Yes, til we discover the extent of impact of such a model.
The house example is very interesting. Currently, no, I wouldn’t buy into that ecosystem. However, I am going through a process of updating my views on land and building ownership. I’m tending towards personal home ownership (and land) being anathema to stable society. Call me a communist in this area. So, if houses had “compatible” power and furniture, AND they were owned by commons, I might accept it. We already have standardised power outlets.
What a silly question. You accept limitations on how plumbing, electrical and other matters operate because there is code. You accept limitations because sometimes the environment is a bit of a Wild West, and it’s nice to have someone making sure the software I’m running on the most important device in my life isn’t malicious.
If Apple currently sells you a house and you aren't permitted to put non-Apple electrical or furniture in, building codes are the framework by which third parties could be permitted to do so. We're already in the locked down house. Building codes are exactly what we need.
What would that look like? How could Apple ensure that subscriptions made through a third party payment processor are cancelable without dark patterns?
I could say that we’re very often in situations like this.
I buy gym membership but it’s not for me to decide who is the staff or what kind of equipment is there.
I buy a car but I can’t drive anywhere but places I’m either legally allowed or where land owner lets me.
I pay for the medical insurance and I don’t get to choose exact procedures I’m going to be signed to.
I’d say that “I pay but I don’t have control” is common theme. Sure I can switch to other service provider but no perfect providers for any service exists. There are other mobile systems as well.
One interesting thought behind what you wrote is that you compared software ecosystem to utility. I wouldn’t go as far. OS is OS and if you don’t like it you legally can jailbreak device albeit the provider in this case can choose not to support it, which it does.
And in iOS perspective that's jailbreak. You can have not-supported ecosystem and it's completely legal.
You probably don't know this, but current car manufacturers can stop car from starting if
a) maintenance isn't done in a way it should be (see AdBlue)
b) maintenance is done with non-original parts
Sure - b) is the premium and luxury segment, but you don't see people raging about this. Because - as with smartphone - it's a choice that they made. iPhone isn't a necessity. It's a choice. If you don't like it you can choose one of many other mobile systems or opt for a dumb phone.
In that case, you lose nothing even if Epic wins: the msot hey can do is set up their own store, and nobody's forcing you to use their store. If there's an app you want to get on a store you don't want to install, just don't download that app. "Free choice" works both ways: you can choose to remain within Apple's ecosystem, and others should have the choice to go out of it if they want.
Well that’s not strictly true because of the effects of fragmentation. A few years ago I could get practically anything I wanted to watch from Netflix; today I’d have to manage subscriptions and search and watch queues and UX across seven or eight different accounts just to get the same size catalog. I really hope that doesn’t happen with App stores too - but it seems to me that Epic is trying to do to gaming what Disney+ did to video content.
If you want that, it is in your best interest that Apple reduces their cut. Content creators shouldn't have to put up with Apple's obscene 30% cut. On the PC market, Epic has been indisputably a boon for game developers. Its cut is much lower and their exclusivity contracts pumped millions into development. Steam could've been in a much stronger position if they took a more reasonable cut.
To the end user who only uses Apple's app store, there is no functional difference between an app not being available in Apple's app store, and an app being available in a different App Store.
If Apple's app store was truly competitive, then Apple would have no problem keeping developers within their walled garden.
Try buying games on PC. I’d love to buy all my games on steam and keep them there. But no, every publisher now wants to run their own store with their own social network (usually one that doesn’t work well). There is truly a difference running one fairly good launcher/store vs 10 different slow start and resource hog stores.
Another example: would you rather listen music on Spotify, Apple Music or would you like to install Sony Music, Universal Music, Warner Music etc and always try to guess which artist is on which store.
I think it is called natural monopoly in economics. And it is one of the more generally accepted[1] economics findings that natural monopolies should not be in the hands of private corporations, but public.
(Obviously one can discuss whether it actually is a monopoly or not given android around.)
[1] One significant exception to this almost universal agreement is of course the private owners of said natural monopolies. Estimating the relevance of their opinion is left as an exercise to the reader...
Natural monopolies are ones where the barrier to entry to provide a service is high. Like a nuclear power company. This fragmentation isn't really in the same category, since clearly many companies have the ability to create a music streaming service or game store with some form of content.
Natural monopolies are ones where having multiple competing services doesn't make sense. Nuclear power isn't, to the extend NPPs make sense it makes sense to have multiple.
I'd genuinely rather have more options to choose from, and benefit from the competition, than to have only one choice from a company that bans things like GPL apps from their App Store, which is what Apple does.
However, that doesn't mean that that's how the market will pan out with healthy competition. For all we know an app store that really meets its users' needs will win out and have the majority of the market.
> from a company that bans things like GPL apps from their App Store, which is what Apple does.
AFAIR this is not exactly the case.
Software using GPLed code cannot be distributed via the apple App Store because of the GPL clause forbidding additional restrictions. The GPL is incompatible with the App Store license, just as it is for example with the old OpenSSL license. There’s nothing in the App Store rules that forbids GPL code, the restriction comes entirely from the GPL side. It’s a choice the developers of that code have made.
However, if you hold other rights (for example the full
Copyright or you entered a special license agreement with the creators of the GPL’ed code), you can distribute such an app via the App Store.
Apple could make exceptions for open-source software. The end result is that Apple will remove software from the App Store if they catch wind that it is GPL, and end users effectively can't use free software on their devices.
How exactly would such an exception look like? The GPL would require that the user can take the binary they downloaded and redistribute it. Or change and recompile it and then run the changed binary. That’s all fundamentally impossible with the iOS App Store.
The GPL is fundamentally at odds with a lot of things, for $reasons. For example, ruby could not be distributed with compiled-in OpenSSL support, until the developers adopted an OpenSSL linking exception.
The GPL or the developers of the GPL’ed software could make an exception for app stores. But the developers have deliberately chosen a license that is incompatible with certain uses, including all app stores - it’s not only the apple App Store that is affected, all consoles for example are affected, too.
> That’s all fundamentally impossible with the iOS App Store.
There's absolutely no reason that Apple wouldn't be able to allow GPL apps legally on their app store. It's just a matter of Apple changing their own terms.
> The GPL could make an exception for app stores
No, it couldn't unless you have a time machine or the ability to get consent from the author every line of GPL code ever written to agree to relicense their code under these new terms.
Apple doesn't even need to make exceptions for the GPL, it could just relax its policy or allow users to install whatever software they want.
That’s not a policy that can easily be changed. It’s a fundamental restriction of the entire system. There is no side loading on iOS devices unless you use a developer account. And that’s not going to change.
The issue with the GPL is not the limitations Apple put in place on their platform, but the additional terms required for distribution in the App Store. This is the reason cited by Adium[1] and VLC[2] developers when their projects were removed for GPL violations.
You can read more about those terms here[2], but they have nothing to do with the iOS security model.
I don’t see how the “mike gives a copy to Steve who can then run it on his iOS device” can be made to work without side loading (steve can already download his own free copy from the App Store). The FSF seems to argue that this must be possible to be compliant, so yeah, that’s my point.
Online game stores are convenient, but I don’t understand why I need to open them and have ads shovelled at me just to use the software I already bought. The app stores integrated into most OSes do not do this. I’d prefer having everything on Steam to running five different bloated game stores, but it seems like a false choice. Why didn’t the old gatekeeper-free business model survive the transition to online distribution?
This is a pretty great analogy and shows why some Apple customers are honestly happy with the current model. Besides, if you allowed more stores, nothing’s going to get cheaper for the customer, Epic will just make slightly more money and charge the same amount and customers will be left with the worse experience. The only advantage of loading apps from anywhere would be to load apps that are banned. Emulators or torrent apps.
> Besides, if you allowed more stores, nothing’s going to get cheaper for the customer
If you allowed more stores, they would have to actually compete to attract customers and prices are a fairly common way to do that. It's exactly what's happening on the PC video game markets with the Epic Store having giveaway and promotions.
So yes, it's pretty much a given that if you allowed more stores it would result in lower prices for customers.
Some functional differences may include likely an additional required app for each (more app clutter), more clone products, shoddy knock offs, selling your product far above or below cost, stores without the infrastructure to keep your data private, no UI enforcement (lots of ugly Java), no subscription enforcement (call us and wait to cancel), no app stability requirements (constant restarts and sluggishness)...
An app that does that and is in another app store has no way of affecting users who choose to only use Apple's App Store. No one is forcing you to use another app store.
But having competitors/alternatives does typically help to bring the price down and improve the customer experience. Another store may take only a 5% cut, so apps can be offered cheaper.
You can argue that for subscription based services of IP content like netflix this doesn't really apply since you'll now need multiple subscriptions. But a big reason these subscriptions have to keep their prices low is because of the free competitor called pirate bay. If it wasn't for the alternative of pirating, we might not ever have gotten Netflix.
Putting to one side the issue of how content producers might feel about a world in which Netflix was the only game in town, I think fragmentation is a much smaller problem for app stores. Consumers need to launch a streaming app whenever they want to watch TV, but they only need to launch the app store infrequently to install new apps. I don’t mind having to think about which app store to use a few times a year.
> In that case, you lose nothing even if Epic wins:
Another commenter put it really well [1]:
A sufficiently powerful company or group could promote a third party app store by negotiating exclusive deals. Imagine a "EpicTwitBook" store being the only way to get Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter and Fortnite.
Previously those apps were forced to make concessions to be on the iOS store, and I could download "Instagram, the version that makes Apple happy" app.
But now, that version of the app is gone! I google "Why is my Instagram gone" and get an article that says I have to sign up to the "EpicTwitBook" store, and download the "Instagram, the version that makes Advertisers happy" app.
I would prefer the first version but I don't get a choice.
> B) If this does happen, then just make the choice of not installing the app.
Why is "If you don't like the app spying on you, don't install the app" OK, but "If you don't like paying the 30% tax for having your app on iOS, don't make an iOS app" not OK?
Because it affects a third party, the consumers who gets less choice. I admit that the tax is not a legal problem by itself, companies are allowed to act selfishly.
It is a legal problem only when the Apple tax becomes anti-competitive behaviour by giving Apple products an unfair advantage (e.g. Apple Music vs Spotify). Apple driving away from the market competitors to its products is bad for everyone but Apple.
How to solve that? 3rd party app stores are workable and theoretically desirable, but that's a solution both Apple and the 3rd party stores will end up hating without fixing the problems (95% of users will still only use the official store; Apple will still hate it because they lose 5% control).
It's better to fix the current store. Perhaps banning use of private APIs by non-system Apple apps and allowing payment system choice would be enough. A more transparent app review system would also help.
> I was not in any way coerced into buying said device, and there are a plethora of other options
My apologies, but I don’t see what options I have? Either I go with Apple, or I go with Google.
Going with Google is akin to giving away all your privacy, going with Apple is akin to giving up all your control. Neither is really a great option, so we need the law to step in and correct what the free market (apparently) does not.
> Going with Google is akin to giving away all your privacy, going with Apple is akin to giving up all your control. Neither is really a great option, so we need the law to step in and correct what the free market (apparently) does not.
Apple is a public company, and face the same pressures to make profit that Google does. If they can't "capture the value" of the platform they've created via the Apple Tax, there's a decent likelihood that they'll be forced (by pressure from their shareholders and the market) to start giving away your privacy too.
So as you say: Right now you have a choice not to give up your privacy. If Epic prevails, there's a good chance you won't have that choice any more.
You can go with a feature phone or you can look at one of the small open-source Mobile OS. Firefox OS springs to mind.
No, you would not be able to run Fortnite on those.
You speak of false equivalences after equating Android with iOS... There are countless different Android distros. Most Android phones can be unlocked easily and/or are sold unlocked in certain markets. All software components are swappable. The OS can be run entirely Google-free, if you want. The Play Store is default, but optional. Sure, the mainstream hardware manufacturers sell preinstalled Android distros that require a bit of menu diving in order to enable free software installation, but there's little that's stopping you, as a customer.
I do not know of a functionality not available for development on a open source Mobile OS.
I agree that it costs time, effort and money to develop each functionality. I fail to see the choice between only iOS and only-Android. It is not mandated to choose only between these two.
If that approach had been taken, then Microsoft would have killed Apple completely before the iPhone was invented, and we wouldn't even be having this debate.
Hypothetically speaking, what would you see as the downside of Apple allowing users to install alternate app stores?
Presumably almost every user would just use Apple's app store and be satisfied with that, but for everyone else they'd be able to use their iPhone with much more freedom.
The downside is not for folks like us on here that can make decisions about what is good and what is bad. Apple has invested heavily in creating an experience where the common person with no mental model of how this stuff is relatively safe.
The downside is Mom somehow installs said store, and said store distributes a poker game that does something malicious. Mom blames her iPhone as that's all she knows. She doesn't separate hardware from operating system and apps like we do.
I got my mom an iPhone for this reason. Then she kept locking herself out of it by typing in the wrong password. She lives in an Android dominated country so asking for help around her had varied results, including having her phone wiped and icloud account replaced a few times. In the end I got her an Android phone of the same model as the people around her. When I saw her next I noticed her phone had adware on it. I didn't know adware was a thing on phones.
Let's talk about my mom. When her brother died, she inherited a Mac and an iPad from him. I helped my mom set up the Mac for her, and she was good to go the same day. Whereas she spent many months (it may have been a full year, I don't recall) in a battle with Apple to get them to allow her to erase and reinstall iOS on the device. She wasn't trying to get my uncle's data, she just wanted to use the iPad for herself. Apple wanted a death certificate and all kinds of legal crap.
You don't own iOS devices, you're just paying an exorbitant rent.
Depending on how it's installed (the two ends of the spectrum being either downloading other app stores via Apple's App Store or downloading them from safari) it can cause issues with how Apple's standard of "no malware" stays even when downloading apps via those app stores.
For an example, with alternative app stores it's very likely you could release a jailbreak and have it installable without a computer since most (non-checkm8) jailbreaks break out of the sandbox and exploit their way to root access and installing an dpkg frontend. That's all well and good until someone does the same but hides jailbreak code in an inconspicuous app that initiates the jailbreak in the background, and instead of installing dpkg it installs a keylogger/keychain dumper that sends all passwords to a remote server.
Either Apple will still need to review these, have IPAs notarized, or have contracts in place with each app store developer to ensure the same app review quality. I don't see epic accepting any of these scenarios without a fight.
In your scenario, there's malware in a non-apple app store. So what? It rightfully gets a bad reputation, people presumably avoid it, etc. Those who are more risk averse choose only to use the Apple app store. I'm not seeing the issue here?
If Apple want's to ensure that the platform itself is as secure as possible, that involves patching the underlying vulnerabilities. The presence of a third party app store doesn't affect that one way or the other.
How would mom know about the bad reputation? Download.com included toolbars with their installers (not a vulnerability, just shady) and only in rare blog articles were they called out on it. Multiple sites linked to them as a reputable download source for affiliate money.
The same way she avoids more open ecosystems like android? Presumably, the addition of another app store would be something she would have to actively seek out and do.
> Either Apple will still need to review these, have IPAs notarized, or have contracts in place with each app store developer to ensure the same app review quality. I don't see epic accepting any of these scenarios without a fight.
As Windows shows us, none of these need to be true.
Don’t download random shit from people you shouldn’t trust, and you won’t have malware and/or keyloggers.
"Don’t download random shit from people you shouldn’t trust, and you won’t have malware and/or keyloggers."
If only it was that simple. Apple's audience is not really us. I can't count the number of times, my mother-in-law tried to install random stuff on her PC and me having to deal with it. This is Apple's user.
Ditto for Linux and Android. I'm sure I could find a sketchy closed source kernel module somewhere out there that's actually malware. That's not a problem in practice though because I'd have to leave the confines of the official repositories for my OS and intentionally seek it out.
(I suppose NPM could be an interesting point of discussion here though.)
Honestly? I want to pay up front for a device that won’t show me ads. If left to open competition, I’m certain that dozens of app stores would race to the bottom and I’d have an ad and snoop-funded experience on my phone. Apple currently uses their position to prevent this. Sure, it’s for their selfish reasons, but it’s good also for me.
Main downside I see of Apple allowing users to install alternate app stores is that it could probably rescue them from the now tiny and still shrinking global market share they have.
Surely better to just let them finish suiciding themselves?
Personally I'll be sad to see them go, but judging by the number of comments that are encouraging them to continue on their current path (now single digit market share) I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them are really thinking like this.
Bang & Olufsen is actually constantly on the brink of bankruptcy, and has been for very long. I don't think it's been a super profitable company ever since LCD TVs became popular.
Then just don't use anything else than the Apple Store? Why should everyone else have to suffer the fact that you can't prevent yourself from using third-party stores?
Why buy a device known for the creation of a walled garden as one of its defining personas? I didn’t buy into the iOS ecosystem for flexibility of App Stores. I bought like many others because it allows for an ease of use free of tinkering. They have a huge competitor whose differentiator is literally what people are requesting. Why don’t the consumers which need more freedom support the companies who actually want to service that demand?
> They have a huge competitor whose differentiator is literally what people are requesting.
Except that said competitor is actively hostile to your privacy. The device market is also incredibly confusing to navigate - many competing independent companies, unreliable security updates depending on said manufacturer, and a wide hardware performance range.
And regardless, all of this is entirely irrelevant from the perspective of a company that wishes to run their own marketplace spanning every significant platform out there.
First of all, the said competitor is not the only game in town. There are other alternatives- such as feature phones or open-source mobile OSes.
If your are requesting an app for such OSes, then you have to find an economic incentive for its development.
But there are other alternatives.
Secondly, if you are requesting that one side in the current court (Apple) is forced legally to take a different economic incentive, then why would they remain as privacy-oriented? Times will change. Without the freedom to choose incentives, a company’s structure will change. There are risks to taking Apple’s privacy-oriented approach for granted.
Suggesting that feature phones are an alternative in this situation (mobile gaming) is completely absurd. iOS and Android devices are the only option right now for quite a wide range of things.
> then why would they remain as privacy-oriented?
You aren't seriously suggesting that Apple only promotes privacy because of their walled garden?! (Even if that were the case, the fact that a wall proves useful to the owner doesn't imply that it's legally permissible or morally desirable.)
The number of people using feature phones in Africa at least, in my experience, is dwindling very fast, and most people that still use them do so because they can't figure out a smartphone (for example, my grandmother).
> iOS and Android devices are the only option right now for quite a wide range of things.
That is a stretch and I do not accept this definition. On one hand, we have had MeeGo, Symbian, FirefoxOS, QNX, Windows on Arm, even Ubuntu on Mobile phones. It covers both phone functionality and gaming functionality.
For games, there are game alternatives. You can buy games on non-mobiles extensively.
Furthermore, feature phones are covering functionality necessary to work on both games and application stores (limitations vary on model - even if limited to mobile gaming,There are options for that ).
In this varied complex history, why would I perceive as iOS and Android as the only game in town? They never were.
Note that FirefoxOS allowed the tinkering, which would permit all the functionalities . My point is to revive such mobile OSes instead of having to rely on iOS. If someone wants tinkering, FirefoxOS is a case study.
Or install Ubuntu on a phone/pad.
Covered elsewhere is the fact that web on iOS/Android can perform the equivalent gaming experience. With the current state of WebGL, gaming on web is feasible.
> ou aren't seriously suggesting that Apple only promotes privacy because of their walled garden?!
Having a cut from app revenues will cover the cost for the infrastructure and give financial boost to the mobile division at Apple. If the financial cut is gone, Apple’s middle managers will not be incentivised to maintain the same level anymore. At that point in time, there will be financial cost to the AppStore infrastructure, but limited financial incentive in maintaining the AppStore/other store integrations.
I claim that restrictions on the iOS application stores imposed from court will result in Apple’s incentives changing to limited privacy. In due time, Apple will start sharing private information just like Google is doing, to fill the gap by the lower percentage revenue. Then we all lose.
The wall is useful for me - this is a wall the owner placed himself. Now the only incentives for the owner are inside that wall. The owner being a set of managers (see Innovators Dilemma for reference).
A third point not covered is the cost per application. The original idea is that the cost per app will be lowered, had it not been Apple. But the list price for applications are driven by what the developer can charge, not the developer’s costs. If the optimal list price for an application is 10$, the price will remain 10$ with or without a change in % associated to Apple. Say a widget costs me 1$ to develop. It costs 3$ to market. I know that my target audience pays 10$ for the widget. Say, if the costs is less than 10$ the audience associates it with bad quality, so 10$ is the optimal spot. ) A new marketing strategy comes up and it costs 1$ to market the widget.
What is the price to sell the widget? My target audience associates good quality with 10$ per widget. It costs with 1$ to make the widget, but to serve my audience, what is my incentive to lower the price? I will sell the widget at 10$ at a higher margin of 8$.
I am ready to put good money that Fortnite’s price will increase, at a time in the future when it is all settled to avoid bad PR.
> Why buy a device known for the creation of a walled garden as one of its defining personas?
It is possible to like the garden and dislike the walls. I really like my iPad mini, despite hating the fact that I need a Mac to sideload or develop apps for it. The last time I was in the market for an upgrade, I read that Apple had “no competition” [1]. This problem seems to be getting worse over time as tablet developers concentrate their attention on the iPad. And it affects other markets – when buying a phone, I need to consider whether it will play nice with my tablet. It would suit me to put some restraints on Apple’s ability to use its dominance in one field to push me to buy other products I’m less interested in.
That's fair, but you must accept that the level of control is variable, and you have no say in what it is. It's in the ongoing hands of Apple, not you the purchaser of the product. You're accepting a situation in which, theoretically, you could wake up tomorrow with none of your apps available, including those you've paid for, including those you depend upon, possibly for income. I'm not saying necessarily that such a situation should be impossible, but I think many consumers don't recognise it.
It wouldn’t do you any harm if epic was allowed to set up its own store. You just don’t use it if you don’t want to. Just like any other store. If you don’t like the look of it, don’t go inside. The AppStore will still be there for you just the same as always.
I was thinking about the same thing, but it can (and will) create a situation where each big Corp will have its own store with its apps unavailable on the Appstore obviously.
That will only happens if they gain the credibility to run it. I would expect a lot of people (above poster included, and myself to an extent) will prefer the AppStore for most of their apps. It will force those AppStore’s to compete, for developers and for users. And isn’t that what capitalism is meant to be all about?
Ok, so you keep using only the AppStore and we gain the ability to side-load. There's no loss for you and a gain for those who are not happy with the current situation.
But today Microsoft e.g. has to put Excel in the App Store. In your proposal, Microsoft might move it to their own store. I don’t want that. I like that Excel is in the App Store.
Did I miss anywhere on Apple.com explanation for the users that they are a walled garden? If it’s not there, then I bet most people are not aware while buying and simply buy due to the brand.
The solution is to allow multiple app stores. Want the safety that Apple provides? Don't install other stores. Maybe block it in the settings. Want more choice? Install other stores.
This is the argument all monopolies use. If they open up, they cannot warrant the quality. The telecom operators could say the same thing not to open their networks. But at that time there was no consumers defending the telecoms.
There are ways to open up, they already do for Macs. The argument is weak.
Why can't you still use the app store with it's curation and filtering, and 30% tax if you want, while others skip it and pay 30% less or the money goes to the developer?
I think thats a fetish. There is no shame to it. But I think its important to realize that when it comes to apple we leave the territory of buying phones and entering the territory of bdsm.
Federal law says you can jailbreak your phone or tablet and put whatever you want on it, and Apple cannot stop you from doing that.
The question is whether the law requires Apple to code their OS to make that easy for you. It’s up to the courts of course, but I’m skeptical there is a viable, consistent legal theory available to Epic under current law.
> Federal law says you can jailbreak your phone or tablet and put whatever you want on it, and Apple cannot stop you from doing that.
That's a strange one. In patching security holes, Apple are actively preventing people from jailbreaking their phones. And they should be. So that argument seems ... problematic. This kind of thing was never about making it easy to jailbreak your devices. Actually, it's kind of about the opposite: you should be able to own a device that runs code of your choosing and also have that device not be riddled with security vulnerabilities. (And, despite Apple's bizarre insistence to the contrary, this is very possible).
Correct, apple can either release a phone with perfect software with no bugs, or continue to provide bug fixes (security vulnerabilities are bugs). This is totally orthogonal to letting the owner of the phone run whatever software he wants. As windows has shown, it is quite possible.
And as Windows has shown, doing so greatly increase the chance that your device will be infected with viruses and all sorts of malware. A problem that Android is increasingly facing as well.
The law says that jailbreaking is legal, but it doesn’t say that Apple can’t stop you from doing it. Apple’s jail is also legal, and you can only break out of it when Apple makes a mistake. I wouldn’t defend antitrust as a “consistent legal theory,” but if Epic wins this case, all iOS users would have the freedom to use alternative app stores, not only those who manage to find and exploit vulnerabilities before Apple patches them.
But the DMCA also prevents you from reverse engineering Apple's software, so although jailbreaking is legal, you are not allowed to work on a new jailbreak.
I think this is the wrong analogy to make. I bought John-Deere farm equipment. Are they allowed to break it remotely if the GPS detects I've resold it or did my own maintenance?
In other words: I bought something in the general understanding it is 'tractor'/'general purpose computer with 4G' but its capabilities are an artificially restricted.
I think it would be in everyones best interest to have such consumer protection/rights from such practices.
Perhaps they should be required to market themselves with a prominent disclaimer saying they are restricting it's normal functions.
It may suck that Apple makes decisions about what runs, but if rules are there then I would expect them to be enforced. The thing that ticks me off most about this game of chicken is the timing. Pretty much have 10s of kids stuck at home due to COVID-19 who use this to socialize and who have sunk in 10s of dollars getting their access yanked to what they paid for because Epic didn’t want to follow the rules any more. Epic basically is messing with kids when they could have just stuck to lawsuits.
I am glad Apple is actually managing and moderating their store as opposed to the ocean of fraudulent crapware on Google Play and to an even more extreme extend the Windows Store...
I have never had a single person complain about what they can't run on an iOS device. The apps that aren't availabe are either crapware or if they are useful they only matter to 0.00025% of users who can gladly go get an Android instead.
As a developer and iOS user, I strongly disagree with this. Due to these restriction, iOS devices are toys to me, not tools to use for work.
Yes, there's a lot of crap on the Play Store, but there's also a lot stuff that I don't like about Android that makes me not want to use it, much less gladly.
There is a lot of prohibitions in the iOS guidelines that serve no purpose but Apple's business interest, such as running a "platform" app that has other apps embedded. Of course, if you're WeChat, you get to ignore that rule.
To pass off all this as "security" or "curation" is just dishonest. There's a lot of crap on the App Store too, but that crap can't be as malicious because iOS has a better sandbox, not because Apple does the literally impossible task of scanning for hidden malicious behavior in its review process.
Of course users are not complaining about having no access to apps that were never developed in the first place, because 80% of the revenue is on iOS and going Android-only makes little sense.
You knew perfectly well how applications are installed on that device before you bought it. If you disagree to that just go buy anyone of the other posh 1000$ devices on the market.
It’s not like the ‘00s when you couldn’t buy a PC without Microsoft being involved
As a person in tech you’re going to understand locked-down devices, code signing, and monopolistic app stores. But does an average consumer (who bought an iPad for the kids to play Fortnite on...)
If you don't like that situation then look around for another device without this limitation. Besides, you can always get a developer account and run whatever you want on it.
Manufacturers love it. Inkjet printers, coffee makers, cars, vacuum cleaners, laptops. If a manufacturer thinks it can get away with monopolising parts, accessories, and services it will try it.
If Epic does win it could set a very wide-reaching precedent.
On the flip side, the fact that no one has successfully sued manufacturers of inkjet printers, coffee makers, cars, vacuum cleaners, and laptops over this issue should give you some clues as to how likely it is for Epic to win their case.
Philips tried to block other companies from making Senseo-compatible coffee pads. The European Patent Office revoked Philips' patent after opposition of competitors:
And actually in the case of Inkjet printers, the court of appeals and the supreme court ruled in favor of companies making third-party cartridges and refills:
Retaliation, such as this one by Apple, or the recent kerfuffle around the WordPress app are only going to increase the probability of antitrust action against Apple.
The EU cases aren't likely to inform how Epic's case is going to work out in a US court. The European Commission also just lost a lawsuit against Apple so just because they take an aggressive position doesn't mean it will hold up in court.
The Lexmark case was about whether patents right end once a patented product is sold and doesn't seem to be directly applicable here. But note that Lexmark's technological and contractual "post sale" restrictions preventing the reuse of discount toner cartridges were not considered illegal, even if their patent rights were considered exhausted after the sale.
The lawsuit doesn’t have to succeed in court for Epic to succeed. If the case generates enough publicity but ultimately fails, they may be able to lobby Congress for a new law akin to the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act [1]. Then, instead of precedent they might have statutory protection for what they want to do.
I’m not really aware of any console manufacturer other than Nintendo that spends as much effort trying to prevent me from doing that.
Generally I don’t want to do it with my console either, as I explicitly buy it to play games. The same thing is not true for my phone, which is very much a general purpose device.
In the case of game consoles though, they're essentially general purpose PCs that are sold to under cost with the expectation that they'll make their money back on game sales. I think that's a fair assumption, and of course if game consoles weren't locked down it would open the doors for people to get x compute power for less than it would be worth otherwise.
Whether you agree with that model or not, it's definitely different than the iPhone model where you are paying full price for the hardware, but are limited in what software you can run on it.
Nintendo tends not to sell their consoles at a loss. People criticize them for using older hardware but they make a profit on every unit sold plus their first party titles drive the console sales to a large degree.
If Microsoft and Sony could no longer take a cut of all software sales like Apple does, they’d simply be forced to adapt their business model, perhaps to something similar to Nintendo’s. Gamers would either have to pay full price for modern hardware (less volume discounts) or otherwise settle for older parts. Microsoft and Sony would have to focus a lot more on bringing top developers in-house with exclusive publishing contracts. Life would go on.
Under cost? My understanding is that consoles cost MORE than an equivalent self-built PC, and that the expectation that sells them is the guarantee that the games will WORK. On an actual PC, there's no guarantee that any software works with your particular configuration. That is, consoles standardize system specs, and include a markup reflecting that.
Not really. After the Atari generation, Nintendo released the NES which was locked down to prevent developers from selling games without paying them first. So regardless of where you were selling your game if it ran on NES then Nintendo got a cut. At first that cut was small but when that market grew they jacked up the percentage enough to cause some arcade manufacturers to leave the home console market for years.
These types of restrictions are all over the place, and I'm not sure if they're good or bad. TVs and audio-listening-devices come built-in with dmca protection, meaning you can't watch pirated footage or listen to pirated music even though you own the device. Is that good? Is that bad?
That's bad, 100% bad. My TV does not need to be playing detective and monitoring every use of it. My car doesn't prevent me from exceeding the speed limit, not does it report me to authorities if I do.
I'm not aware of any such devices? I believe you have that backwards - many (most?) devices support HDCP, a form of DRM (and thus legally protected against reverse engineering by the DMCA). This is supposedly to prevent you from pirating (ie copying) otherwise legally purchased content.
In other words, the claimed motivation is to prevent you from running off a copy of whatever you happen to be streaming from Netflix. In reality though it doesn't seem to be very effective, leaving me wondering why so much time and effort is invested in it.
There are no studies that demonstrate the absolute ubiquity and irreplaceable nature of a gaming console; there are for phones.
I don't order a pizza with it. Or check my email. Or call Uber. Or read HN. Or take pictures of my kids. Or make phone calls. Or check social media (well... I don't... but over 3 billion do). Or...
There's a way that a "smart phone" (more accurately, a palm-sized computer that happens to make phone calls) is a general computing device - and a critical component of modern life in Western civilization -- that a gaming console is not.
Yeah but you would have been on your own. It was never as ubiquitous as it is today. The real world is now very much living on server farms+mobiles, more than ever before.
All this seems like such an immature pointless argument.
One that is advertised as not constrained to a single genre of use. Game consoles are for entertainment. Consumption. That's why I can say "game console" and you know exactly what I'm talking about. Smartphones are for anything and everything. "There's an app for that."
I'm making a moral argument, not a legal one. Legally Apple can do whatever they want and I give Epic's lawsuit a very low chance of doing anything at all.
Well the point being that the smartphone market is suffering from poor alternative.
If so many people here seems to believe that neither iOS, nor Android, provide both flexibility and privacy they seek market opportunity might be ripe for new competitors.
The issue is that new competitors have to go against... Apple and Google. Given what happened to Epic (retaliation on Unreal Engine after #FreeFortnite), you can be sure that any competitor which would get a little bit of traction would be hammered into the ground by some Apple/Google money-powered shenanigans.
Similarly, if I can buy an iPhone from a store (like Target), and it contains a store… why can't I get Fortnite from the App Store then buy V-Bucks from Fortnite?
Conversely, if you sell iPhones you only get 10% at most by Apple (Retailers' margins have been reduced to 4.5 per cent from 6.5 per cent, and it further reduces to 1.5-2 per cent if the customer opts to pay by card for the iPhone X).
But on the iPhone, I don't buy V-bucks in the App Store, I buy it in Fortnite, and if Epic can go through the trouble of processing the payment, they deserve all the proceeds.
Apple will do just fine arguing that their devices are no different from Xbox, PlayStation, Switch, Roku, Cable Boxes, Keurig, Vzw feature phones. I would be extremely surprised if the courts just up and anti-Tivo’d every device on the planet.
You try to make a case about how phones are somehow special but they’re really not. You have millions of people who only have an Xbox and so you can’t reach them unless you contract with MS.
If you recall, Microsoft got a punch in the nose for their abuse of market power, stuck with billion-dollar fines for it, then more similarly scaled fines when they tried to circumvent the ruling in 2013.
They learned an important corporate lesson, which is why Xbox games can link to external subscription payment options.
That did not set 95% as some kind of magic threshold. The test is written as "a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it". The jurisprudence on this actually starts at 40%. Of the $100bn global app store sector pie, Apple have ~2/3 of it.
As one might imagine the full history is a bottomless pit of claim, counterclaim, strong-arm tactics, PR, subversion, argument, opinion etc where the truth goes to die.
You're citing EU law but this case between Apple and Epic is happening in a US court, which has historically held higher requirements for the finding of monopoly power (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24312856). For what it's worth I do agree that Epic would be more likely to prevail if this case was under EU jurisdiction.
I don't think iPhone/iOS market shares in the EU are high enough. I couldn't find a definitive source, but it seems to be somewhere between 14% [1] and 25% [2], the latter in the wealthier European markets.
These numbers also include UK (I think), a traditionally strong market for Apple, but which should be out of EU Single Market by the end of the year.
IANAL, but I don't think that's enough for Epic to have a case in the EU. On the other hand I could see the EU being more likely than the US to regulate these kind of stores, to try to protect European editors against Apple/Google. But the lobbying would have to come from European editors, not from Epic.
This isn’t about device sales. The market in consideration is the $100bn/yr app-store market, of which Apple has 2/3 globally and around 55% of the European segment in 2019.
EU has already started an antitrust investigation into apples app store. Most likely they will get hit with a huge fine.
> The European Commission has opened formal antitrust investigations to assess whether Apple's rules for app developers on the distribution of apps via the App Store violate EU competition rules. The investigations concern in particular the mandatory use of Apple's own proprietary in-app purchase system and restrictions on the ability of developers to inform iPhone and iPad users of alternative cheaper purchasing possibilities outside of apps.
The case is not about closed platforms in general, it's about monopolistic behavior. In the US (the legal jurisdiction), Apple is the largest smartphone vendor by far, with ~50% market share. Epic is trying to show that Apple is abusing its market dominance. That's the case.
The Justice department has said that more that 50% is generally required to be considered a monopoly power, but 70% is a stronger case[2] (not a lawyer, if someone can parse this better please do)
The PS4 has 58% of the gaming console market currently.
I’m trying to figure out where the monopoly argument comes from. Apple hasn’t demonstrated that they have monopoly pricing power since even the Windows store takes 30% and they’re obviously using their dominance in the smartphone space to advantage themselves in… the smartphone space.
Windows and the Apple App Store don’t complete with each other.
Also, if PlayStation has control of that much of the market, perhaps there ought to be some regulations there as well. Does Sony similarly force all in game sales to use their payment processor and forbid you from mentioning it or encouraging folks to pay you directly?
There shouldn’t be any regulation of PlayStation, because consumers are actively choosing to buy into the PlayStation ecosystem. By the same vein, consumers are actively choosing to buy into the iOS ecosystem. No consumer has been forced into being part of the iOS or PlayStation ecosystem.
The argument is that when a vendor controls a large enough portion of the market, consumers might not be left with sufficient choice for market forces to prevent abusive behaviors. This idea has significant legal precedent and legislation behind it throughout the entire western world.
The question isn't whether you actively chose to buy into the PlayStation ecosystem. It's whether you had a meaningful choice available to you and whether the vendor is abusing it's market power.
The % is not enough in itself, otherwise the case would be very short, open and shut. The question is, does Sony abuse its market power?
If console developers are satisfied with the deal, then it's hard to say that it's abusive.
Also, there's no specific % cut that can be said to be excessive, outside of context. In some cases, a 50% cut may be a good deal. It sounds to me like console vendors may be returning better value for their cut than Apple does.
In my opinion as an Apple developer, Apple returns very little value for its 30% cut. I'd be happy to pay 30% if it was worth it, but it's not.
To me this is exactly where their argument falls apart.
I don’t get what Epic wants exactly. Even with Android where they initially had users side load their apps they eventually gave up and put it on the Play Store after complaining that there’s too many warnings when users load third party APKs (how dare they include security warnings of un-reviewed apps!)
It seems to me that Epic expects Apple and Google to offer up an Epic App Store/Epic made games in their own App Stores free of charge, and conveniently ignore any developer terms they previously agreed to. Talk about entitlement.
They want platform providers (Apple with iOS and Google with Android) to get out of the way. They are both providing platforms, as well as market places, as well as competing apps/services.
How do they expect those competing platforms to be delivered? If via side loading through a website then we’ve already seen them complain about Google having warnings for that.
If through the app stores themselves then they’re essentially asking for discoverability, hosting, and distribution of their products for free.
At what point does a company deserve the right to compete with you on your own product? If Amazon continues to engulf online shopping can another company eventually sue to have their own store listings put on Amazon with no money going to Amazon?
To me these two situations aren’t that different. Apple and Google have each built hardware and software systems for their services. Other companies like Samsung have developed their own app stores that they distribute on their phones. If Epic wants to be a service provider then there are already charted pathways to doing so that don’t involve suing over service fees you already agreed to.
> At what point does a company deserve the right to compete with you on your own product?
I get where you're coming from, I do -- but the answer to your question is somewhere around "when that company controls access to billions of eyeballs around the planet".
These companies have greater access to and control of people than any government. They are beyond review, beyond accountability, and beyond reach. They are dictatorships controlling access to billions of people, the kind of power that would make any dictator in history blush.
And I am not saying we should take from them all their power. They DID earn it, it's true and most of it is quite benign. But... giving them absolute power over who everyone in the world can do business with, just because they chose to buy that device (probably not knowing what the limitations would be)? For the sake of the future of the entire species I should think that this is not a situation we would consider ideal.
If the companies have become too large then I feel that’s really the responsibility of anti-trust regulators to address rather than the courts making a ruling that you have to let other companies sell their services in your store.
Unless things have changed in the past couple of years it's not just a single security warning the first time you side load an app. On my device, F-Droid can't seem to update apps itself - rather I get a security warning dialog for _every single app_ whenever I do updates. This is in spite of the fact that I approved the initial security warning when installing the F-Droid apk itself and granted it all of the permissions it requested.
So this is step one and they intend to sue for more and more with the Epic endgame of getting the Epic store preloaded on iPhone? I look forward to the never ending news cycle.
If Google's work on Android entitles them to be the only store on all Android-derived devices, what rights do Linus Torvalds and all the other Linux contributors have? Or is Google allowed to monetize their work for free, but Epic isn't?
Both companies contribute to the open commons with open source software and sponsorships.
I think the right for Google to monetize and place restrictions mainly centers around the Play Services which are all tied back into their non open source projects.
You could probably make a reasonable argument that Play Services are specifically designed to undermine the spirit of open source, but theoretically you could build an alternative, and use AOSP however you wish.
I would also like to run my own store in the corner of Walmart’s buildings. Obviously I can’t force that through a lawsuit or by claiming that wallmart is abusing their monopoly on space in their buildings by only allowing their own store to operate in their buildings.
Think of the iPhone as a mall then - it still gets to pick its tenants by whatever criteria it sees fit (that are not illegal, and fees are not illegal). Epic is not winning this one.
Sure, but does that one mall capture 50% of all physical good sales nationwide?
This is an issue of monopoly power, which depends on scale. If you use an analogy that doesn’t demonstrate the same market power, of course it’s going to seem absurd.
Was curious so I looked it up. Turns out property is really expensive so it isn't quite as conglomerated as you would think.
Because of this, there are about 100-ish large mall conglomerates. Of these, the top 4 combined take as much "mall" as the following 10 entries.
Without doing a proper analysis of the data, at a glance it looks like the sizes taper out pretty evenly so it seems like the "mall" industry has a pretty healthy and varied market.
Because the comment I was replying to was saying to think of the iPhone as a store... I was following the analogy and expanding on it because I thought it was inaccurate.
> Wallmart choose their suppliers, and sets the markup, why can't Apple?
But, at the end of the day, Walmart can't prevent customers from proceeding to Kroger down the street to get the products or deals they want. That's the market regulator of last resort in most circumstances.
You say "Apple doesn't have a monopoly on phones or games". In the broad view, you may be right, but they've spent significant effort in creating a closed ecosystem with non-trivial switching costs, inside of which they DO have complete gatekeeping power. They may not have a full "prevent the customers from going to Kroger" power, but they can basically say "here's a several hundred dollar toll to leave our store, and BTW, we won't let you back in for anything else we sell", which is a pretty high barrier. Is the only available counterweight for their behaviour "drop everything and buy a new $500 phone to express your discontent?"
Google gets out of this with their hands much cleaner-- they can retreat to "Well, you can sideload apps". Epic proved they can make that a viable business that way on Android. But iOS offers nothing resembling that without asking consumers to jailbreak their devices, which is probably beyond reasonable accommodation.
I'm sort of amazed they're so desperate to cling to the no-sideload mentality. Offering sideloading with a lot of big angry red warnings immediately defuses the vast majority of anti-competition complaints, while still being scary enough that most name-brand software isn't going to immediately drop off the App Store. I'd also think it presents a welcoming option for some hobby developers, where even the $100 annual developer fees are prohibitive, until they can show there's enough of a business there to justify going to the real App Store.
Using cost of switching as an alternative would seemingly have ramifications that could be applied to almost everything from Fortnite skins to membership stores to video game consoles to state governments.
You could always try and find out! Your freedom to take digital purchases (and save data) between different console platforms is a factor here, and historically some platform holders have actively prohibited it and others have not.
Only recently did Destiny 2 gain the ability to transfer save data between platforms. Oddly enough Epic pushed on this kind of freedom too: They wanted PS4 and XBox players to be able to play together, but Sony kept resisting it. They eventually pushed hard on it in public and got concessions so everyone can play the game together now. Now other multiplayer titles from smaller studios also can offer cross-play.
Platform exclusives like a spider-man outfit or playable character are still typically locked to your PlayStation, though.
That does not fix the problem for content creators, who have to target the nearly 50% of the US market that's on iOS. I'm sure everyone at Basecamp would prefer to use androids, but they just can't be competitive with other e-mail services without releasing the Hey app for iOS.
This is part of the problem; there are entire industries now that rely on mobile device deployment. It would be untenable and unreasonable to say "hey you don't like it, F off, just don't deploy on iOS, you can always willingly give up access to over 1 billion users you know". It just doesn't even sound reasonable.
In those industries - mobile gaming is one, a $150 billion a year market reaching a whopping 50% of all mobile users across platforms, that requires presence on iOS if you want to build a business in any serious way.
This is where Apple is going to have a really, really hard time avoiding an accusation (and judgement) of antitrust. They literally control industries. This means that they probably have to give up some control of their platform.
Content creators don't have a legal right to demand to distribute to a specific smartphone any more than they have a legal right to demand to distribute inside Walmart.
> Content creators don't have a legal right to demand to distribute to a specific smartphone.
That is the exact scope of the anti-trust case here, and unless you're the most preeminent expert in the field I'm not inclined to take your word in whether they have the legal right or not.
> You can't force someone to sell something they don't want to, especially because Apple is nowhere near a monopoly...
The case is going to not about that. The case is going to be about Apple not allowing developers to tell their users that they can buy subscriptions and in-app goods for cheaper through alternative payment mechanisms where Apple cannot take a cut. Payments is what is this is about (also see the FB release today).
Apple doesn't have to sell anything it doesn't want to but what it's doing is also preventing apps from telling users where they can buy these goods outside of Apple store unless Apple is offered a cut.
This behavior has a high chance of failing on anti-trust if it goes to a jury trial which is what Epic is trying to force (and likely others like Facebook will join or also sue) because Apple store is the only way people can install apps on iOS.
I think this is a surprisingly good analogy. Let's make it explicit (now in two ways) -- the daughter here seems to represent iPhone owners.
So, getting to the crux of the disagreement -- the way you've stated it, fair enough. What about when the farmer is actually the owner and landlord of just over half the homes in the US? Assuming enthusiastic consent from the daughter to [play Fortnite], it's not so reasonable to require her to "just move into a property your dad doesn't own", especially if the 50% he owns make up the nicer half.
There's a bunch of other places you can take this analogy. I like Epic as a pickup artist here -- in it for their enjoyment, not any caring for the daughter. And some users (daughters?) have chosen to live on Dad's property precisely because he gets to keep the less savory types away, even if it means they have a more limited choice of partners.
At the end of the day, I'm personally against the farmer-baron (thus, temporarily and uneasily allied with the pickup artist). It's the daughter's body, and I believe she should be able to make her own choices. Partiarchy is one solution to unsavory suitors, but I don't think it's the best one.
The point of the anti-trust regulations is that some of these kinds of contract terms become illegal as market power increases - particularly contract terms around using dominance in one market to unfairly gain dominance in another market.
Otherwise for instance you could have a dominant employer in your town (eg. A factory town) write into your employment contract that you can only buy household groceries from their own supermarket etc. These kinds of things actually happened at one point in history before the anti-trust regulations.
A lot obviously depends on definition of the "markets" which is what anti-trust cases in practice largely revolve around.
That's not what Apple is doing here, the rules are:
1) don't portray our fees in a negative light if you want to do business with us,
2) don't actively try to subvert us in our own garden where you are a guest.
Where is the monopoly here?
The service Apple has, is appealing to customers because they're aggressively protecting what is important to them, and using their fees to ensure they've got the resources to actually vet software, prevent abuses of customers, and make payment seamless.
If you don't like that, you're free to find software in many other forms.
But you don't want that, you want to have someone provide you all that, but without having to you know, pay for it.
Which is why the internet is an ad supported shit hole, and this is one place that is actually pretty great for customer experience.
The part which will i think likely be found anti competitive will be not allowing app publishers to advertise or provide alternative payment mechanisms for in-app good & services being provided by them while being the only way to distribute apps for the iPhone.
This very easily can and will be be argued as using dominance in one market (distribution of apps) to extract value out othet (in-app services, books, gaming, movies, sheet music...). There's easily demonstrable consumer harm because buying the exactly same sheet music on a iPad is a few dollars more expensive than buying it on the same app on web and using it in the iPad.
Of course Apple can and probably will make the argument of "movie theater concession stand" (ie. your "in our garden" comment) and will probably make the "safety and security" argument just like concession stand owners will.
However, that analogy is very weak legally i think because iPhones are not really Apple's property (unlike concession stands on theatre property) since they're clearly sold as hardware and is off their books (EULAs not-withstanding - they're not enforceable).
So I think what will happen is Apple will lose this case and will be forced to stop preventing advertising and offering of alternative payment mechanisms by Apps - maybe with some terms and conditions for safety certification by neutral third parties.
I don't really think the remedies will stretch beyond that - but payments is what this fight is about.
Even if they lose, they win. "Oh you can't play Fortnite on IPhones" is a seriously bad place for Apple to be. Don't even get me started on "Oh you can't use the most popular game engine to make games for IPhone". It'll shift market share toward Android, where presumably some users will learn to sideload and save Epic some money.
More likely it will shift market share to consoles. Epic will still lose their 30% cut and Apple will still sell what they did before. I do not foresee “can play Epic Games” as a phone marketing strategy.
I find it interesting that we still call those “phones” when for a sizeable part of the population they are mostly portable gaming machine to kill time when they’re bored.
This is like in Amazon sold a fridge and said you can only shop at Whole Foods. Epic wants users to be able to shop at stores other than Whole Foods, not to be carried at that store without a markup
My wife is absolutely obsessed with getting the latest iPhone when her current device (Android) either breaks or otherwise stops being useful. Her reason? "It's the best phone". Why? "Because it's super expensive". Why? "I don't know everyone says it's the best phone."
It would surprise me if any conversation about why to buy an iPhone ever went deeper than that, 99.99999% of the time. The HN crowd is absolutely an exception to the typical buyer.
In what way? The same way most people think about what phone they're going to buy?
In no way have I indicated she isn't intelligent. She is. She just doesn't care to know that Apple uses a Qualcomm Snapdragon blah blah blah processor and investigate in depth their app store policies before buying one. And why should she? None of those things tell her "can I send pictures to my friends on Facebook? Can I check email? Will it work on my wifi?" And why should she wonder those things?
What might blow your mind to think about is that her position is the rational one. We can't all be experts in every decision we make. While we might be tempted to (incorrectly) think that more information will inform a better decision, that is not always true and it can lull us into false confidence to believe it is. We rely on "crowdsourcing" knowledge and recommendations (we are, after all, social creatures, and our success as a species is 99.99% predicated on that sole factor) and that is what we do in many many areas of our lives.
Sure, there are reasons people buy products with restrictions. But if there is harm to consumers, antitrust regulations can be used to prevent predatory business practices
Most iPhone purchases in usa today are not based on careful evaluation and comparison with other phones. Otherwise us iPhone sales would be in line with the rest of the world, who were introduced to smartphones with other devices.
Look at other markets to understand what a legacy free smartphone market share like like today.
Other markets are very price sensitive, there is no new iPhone choice below $100. Where people do have a choice, point stands, many choose iPhone and pay premium.
That's not true. Apple has had a budget model every year for several years now. Nobody outside the USA buys it in any volume. Why? Because it is irrationally priced based on that phone's capability.
The truth is, if you want the best phone on the market, in any single area (battery, camera, screen, apps, usability, design) or all of them, it is not an Iphone. The only reason USians cling to their Iphones is because they are familiar with it. They are stuck with SMS and Imessage. People are risk averse and would rather pay more for something they know.
You cited the stats yourself. Do you think Germans are more price sensitive than Americans? Search for "poorest state in USA", and Mississippi comes out as one of the poorest in terms of median household income. That number is $44,717 for 2018. Now search for "iphone market share by state" and you end up on this page[1]: For iOS, the most popular states were Connecticut at 73 percent of respondents, Missouri at 72 percent, and Mississippi at 71 percent. Median household income in Germany is $46,278. But Iphone share is 30%.
Are you saying that marginally richer Germans are more price sensitive than the inhabitants of Mississippi? To the extent of flipping the market share exactly opposite of 70-30?
The remedy in this scenario is to simply not buy Amazon fridges, not have the government step in and force Amazon to change its fridges. Legal intervention should not occur unless Amazon was the only fridge seller in the world.
Would you please stop posting in the flamewar style? We've had to ask you many times. The snark here is not cool, and you've crossed into personal attack and did it again in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24313573. We ban accounts that do these things. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd appreciate it.
You've added a number of details to this hypothetical scenario that weren't actually in the original scenario I was replying to. Let me go ahead and agree with you that if two companies have colluded to fix prices, then regardless of how big they are the government should indeed intervene.
Apple has a monopoly on distributing and selling mobile apps to customers that chose to carry an iPhone.
You can't distribute or sell mobile apps to a large percentage of the US public without going through Apple, and they should definitely not be allowed to prevent anyone from doing that (for reasonable terms, which means no 30% tax).
The fact that this is even a discussion is pretty ridiculous: if Apple were a person, their behavior would lead them to be ostracized from all communities and have no friends.
Microsoft didn't have a monopoly on computers, yet it was guilty of pushing all their users to use their apps over others.
Apple and Google are the only major phone OS's. If they control what you can install on your phone, they have a monopoly.
> Wallmart choose their suppliers, and sets the markup, why can't Apple?
You're really comparing setting up a physical store to building world class operating system and phones? Almost anyone can set up shop and start selling things that Walmart isn't, or from suppliers who won't deal with Walmart, but it's not how tech worms. You're living in a different reality.
Apple seems to prevent a company from having a line of text in their app that says: oh, by the way, you can purchase this texture pack or that asset on our website. I think it's the key to the problem. It seems difficult for Apple to argue that it is not anti-competitive.
That depends on the definition of the market. Big Co.s under antitrust scrutiny like to present themselves as being just small parts of some huge markets, like Jeff Bezos recently saying that Amazon is actually not that big when you compare it to _all_ commerce in the US. But that doesn't make it less incredibly huge in e-commerce.
Apple with iOS is in a much clearer situation though. Simply put, they have an _absolute_ monopoly on app distribution on iOS, and iOS is part of a powerful duopoly. Americans still can choose buying outside of Amazon (though maybe less conveniently), half phone-owning Americans can't choose anything else than the App Store.
This is new legal territory. I was talking to an Silicon Valley antitrust lawyer today. There are no clear precedents in this area. Whatever is decided here will affect many later cases. So this case is being followed closely by lawyers in the antitrust community.
Is this tying? We don't know. It's not a form of tying that's come up before. That doesn't mean it's not tying. Antitrust law is very general. This case is taking a different path than most antitrust cases. The plaintiff is asking for an injunction. It's not about money damages. It's going to be very interesting.
Tying in general is insisting that customers buy thing B, which they don't want, to get thing A, which they do want. The term "B picture" in movies comes from such an arrangement. Exhibitors had to run B pictures to get A pictures. That was knocked down by a lawsuit from Syufy, who went on to build dome-shaped theaters in Silicon Valley such as the ones near Google HQ. At one time the film studios owned many of their own theaters, which is why you see big old theaters named Warner, Paramount, or Fox. That was ended by an antitrust decision.
Tying cases are rare. You can look them up.[1] They come in many shapes and sizes. Examples of tying include trailer park operators requiring new land lessors to purchase a new trailer from them, similar cases involving marina boat slips and boat maintenance, Visa requiring merchants accepting their credit card to also accept their debit card, telcos requiring or deceptively inducing customers to pay for inside wire maintenance, and the one people here may remember, Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows.
It is definitely, as the judge said, not a slam dunk for either side.
>> You can't force someone to sell something they don't want to, especially because Apple is nowhere near a monopoly in games or gaming sales, they can just point at steam.
I think this depends on the basis of the rejection. If you can prove that they are not selling because of discrimination then you can force them. The question how can you prove it.
I doubt Apple could or would really want to ban the Unreal engine, right? I guess at some point Epic could create a new Apple account again (perhaps after some court order by a judge) and just continue testing their engine on devices. They don't need to release games themselves on the AppStore, as long as 3rd party devs can release software based on the Unreal engine on the AppStore.
I think what Epic wants to see gone is Apple's condition that IAP sold on the AppStore should be priced the same on any other outlets (e.g. websites, Play store, etc...). And I can see a judge agreeing this is unfair of Apple to ask.
As for me, I mostly like the idea of the AppStore. As a consumer I feel more confident downloading software from the AppStore as compared to e.g. the Play store. What I don't like about the AppStore is that discovery of new products is very hard. And there also doesn't seem to be an easy way to look for apps that are ad-free or that becomes ad-free by paying a 1 time IAP fee.
App Store takes the same 30% as Xbox, Sony, Switch, Target, Walmart, Walgreen, etc...
Purchase a console game at Walmart? Walmart takes their cut after the console creator took their cut. In fact if you think your game is gonna sell like crazy that you press (DVD/BluRay) 1 million copies, you are in debt to the Console manufacturer for their 30%.
Retailers take far less than 30%. Consoles provide first-party QA, disc/cartridge manufacturing and distribution, bandwidth, and customer service among other services. Whole apps on the mobile stores also have similar services provided by the platform - testing (nowhere near as rigorous as consoles), discovery, bandwidth, customer service, etc. In both cases, a large cut can be reasonably argued for.
IAP is nothing more than moving money around, in an app the user has already discovered and downloaded, that will affect a user's account on the developer's servers. The service to the end user is indistinguishable to what is provided by any other payment gateway for ~3% (Stripe, Square, Paypal, etc.) Your card is charged and you have something new in the app.
The only reason I can think of for why IAP takes the same cut as whole apps is that most if not all apps would be "free" but open up to a screen that makes you pay for the app via IAP to take advantage of the reduced fee.
This could be mitigated by ToS restrictions preventing this exact situation, but there would still be a ton of gray area like "pro" versions of apps.
Opening up to third-party payment processors for IAP would create a vacuum in one of their highest margin and most consistent revenue sources so they won't be doing that willingly. Opening up to third-party stores would be more tolerable but any sufficiently large developer will move to their own store and do everything themselves and pocket the ~27.5% (if they are their own payment gateway, interchange fees are ~2.5%)
It's an interesting situation because the platforms want to be paid for all the services I listed above, but in Epic's case they already have the infrastructure to handle everything on their own, and they offer a fully-featured game for free, with the only source of revenue being a conversion of actual money to V-Bucks.
There is no place where the platform can provide a service that Epic would get any value from, but they are imposing a 30% fee in the only place they can, payment processing.
Retailers don't get 30%. Not even close. Try 0.5% or something like that. As for MS, their cut on the MS app store is 5%. 30% is just really really steep, and I think consumers would win if that got reduced.
Retail is not the place to compare markup. The lowest markup I saw recommended was 10%. Average was 20-30% and big box was at least 40%. There is no guaranteed win for consumers at all as prices are set what the market will bear.
Part of the original thing was Epic offering a discount of 20% on V-Bucks if they processed the payment through Epic instead of Apple.
The end user got a nice discount and Epic still pockets more because interchange fees are ~2.5% and not 30%.
The Epic Games Store had a similar strategy, cut the fee for devs and incentivize end users to move onto their platform (weekly free games). They still make a boatload of money even though it's not as much as Valve's money printer.
In general I see this as a great thing for devs (indie in particular) if it triggers more competition to bring platform fees down across the board.
Epic isn't being overtly greedy with end users (yet)
I don’t know about that. I could imagine it going both ways. But even if Epic pockets more, there might be other apps which pass on the savings. And if not, well at least you can now subscribe to Spotify and Netflix directly on device.
apple has never ever targeted that kind of gaming market. there are a lot of video games you cannot play without bootcamp on a mac.
i wouldn't be surprised if it turns out they have been trying to jettison the fornite group. it's just not consumers they want to have on their ecosystem.
mobile game discovery is big pain point for devs as well, and that none of Apple/Google seem to do anything about is frustrating. This is in sharp contrast to, say, steam, where discovery is something they are constantly trying to improve.
Funny cause both stores (App and Play) are always promoting games to me. Usually crap like Fortnite which stinks on any mobile device. Yes devs have to pay for those promos but just like in Steam, Retail and all the console markets you pay for marketing.
Yes you can pay for promotional spots on both mobile stores and steam, but that is not to say that they are remotely similar in terms of discoverability.
Discoverability would include things like a recommendation algorithm but also filtering features, promotional spotting, social graph relevance (do my friends own this game? do they want to?) and general UI accessibility, to name some factors.
Steam has put so much work into making sure users can find a title (regardless of that title's marketing budget) that fits their arbitrary preferences that they are now LEAGUES ahead of mobile stores on that metric.
One example that is easiest to point out is the main carousel (and entire front page) of the steam store. Everyone's carousel is customized to their profile and will show both old games and new based on an algo that weighs your preferences against a title's relevance and performance metrics.
The irony that google, a company that made its name in SEARCH, has an app store who's discoverability is so abysmal that i can't find certain titles without explicitly typing in the name or digging through 100s of "more titles like this" lists is not lost on me.
It's just really bad. The game categories are too few in numbers, and there's no tagging to speak of so finding something remotely hybrid is a pain and the categories themselves have become unhelpful.
> or set a precedent that's going to screw every payment provider in America and open a flood gate for fraudulent payments.
...
> but surely it's going to set all sorts of nasty precedents?
Just going to comment on this part.
Supreme court decisions has a long history of making very narrow decisions, and in that question there is a clear out that they could use. The precedent can be that apple can refuse epic if it is in order to prevent fraudulent payments, but not in order to enforce a 30% tax in an online market place. That would narrow the decision down and allow payment providers to operate like they do now, but not apple. It would also not force wallmart to stock "mom & pop" random ketchup brand, because it would not be a online market and the purpose would not be to enforce a 30% tax.
Courts have a lot of room to narrow decisions down based on intent, on circumstances, and even the outcome on the specific market as a whole.
You can load vBucks directly through the Epic website now. Apple is not preventing that. They are preventing advertising it on device and bypassing their on device payment processing. All Epic needed to do was disable in-app purchases like Netflix did if they wanted to get their money directly. Customer wants to get vBucks. Epic support site says go here. Inconvenient? Certainly. But it is clearly delineated who you are giving money to and how. You are leaving the app ecosystem and entering the open web with the need for additional caution. Short of a warning pop up where you need to type your passcode I would not want less from the current system. Say Epic decides to auto bill you every time you open a loot box?
You might be able to, but not every consumer can. You're presenting a fundamentally different argument than a business changing which provider they use to collect credit card payments.
The mayo comparison doesn't hold. People go to multiple shop. Apple only allows one shop.
It's definitely the first step of a fight. It's hard to know what the end game is for Epic, but there's several possibilities I can think of:
- moving towards gettibg their own app store, they did this move on computers already. Apple and google start to get under scrutiny for their monoply.
- being on one platforn using their games to bargain the 30% cut on android (android is bigger user base than iphone and users who mainly play there game can change phone). Now that apple did the move of removing all epic games, it makes this bargain more interesting. I know that Epic sued Google as well but but it can always be settled or dropped.
> The mayo comparison doesn't hold. People go to multiple shop. Apple only allows one shop.
It would hold up if you said Costco or Sam's Club instead of Walmart. People who pay for a Sam's Club membership do a large amount of their shopping at Sam's Club. Sure they could go to other stores, but that's significantly limited.
Also, people can play Fortnite on their laptop or their Android tablet.
There's no walmart or sam's club where i live so I don't really know what you're talking about, but to buy one product i definitely have multiple choice, i don't have to join a club or something. On my computer it's kinda the same, i can install software from several sources. I buy games from several sources., i don't need to buy a new computer...
If I understand correctly, the difference is that apple owns both the store and the payment processor, and require exclusive use of the payment processor (with associated uncompetitive fees) to gain access to the store. This would be somewhat akin to Wells Fargo also being in the business selling porn while not processing payments for anyone else who competes with their product. In the current climate, it seems unlikely a judge would rule against apple for anticompetitive behavior, but there are several reasonable cases to be made that this is anticompetitive and even anticonsumer.
>Epic are obviously going to lose, and lose hard, or set a precedent that's going to screw every payment provider in America and open a flood gate for fraudulent payments.
Users have always been (and still are) subject to all kind of fraudulent. It is about the freedom to do whatever you want with your computing device. The idea that Apple has an absolute control of what goes in into their mobile devices, and that they can claim whatever policies they see fit scares me.
Neither apple nor anyone should have this control.
It's hard for me to feel scared about the control a company has over a product I can choose not to buy. Of course I do think you should have every right to jailbreak/root your device and vendors should have every right to cease updating or warranty repairs in return.
Personally what I find scarier is courts and other govt institution deciding what products companies are allowed to make or sell me.
Epic has installs on phones which paid the iPhone tax. Those can't be updated and are made worthless, causing damage to Epic. Removing an app in violation is one thing. Removing them as a developer and preventing them from updating apps which have been paid for may violate something, somewhere. I'm sure Apple's contract absolves themselves of all responsibility, but there is at least some argument there.
That's the best I can come up with. Personally I won't run an iPhone.
Walmart and Apple are not equivalent examples. A better analogy for the iphone would be your house. Apple sells you a house and then takes a cut of everything you buy for it. It's able to do that because you can only buy stuff for your house through their shop. To a very meaningful extent your house is not your own despite the fact that it is your property.
Someone commented that it seems unlikely that Epic gets a legal victory out of this, but they may get a legislative victory. It's very possible Apple will win the case, but all the App Store fights that have been in the news more or less every day recently should at least be looked at when the US and EU consider new regulations.
How about- it goes to EU/US's court for anti-monopoly and dominatory behaviour and Apple is ordered to separate it's HW business from SW business and allow other "appstores" as well?
> The more I think about it the more absurd this is. It's as if some random brand of Mayo is suing Wallmart for not stocking their brand on their shelves.
If I can buy groceries, flights, concert tickets, and random Amazon items without paying an in-app fee, why I can't I buy game content?
If I can buy in-app content in an iOS browser, why can't I buy it inside the app? (Because some app makers have decided they would rather make it unavailable inside an app than pay the Apple tax.)
This is fundamentally consumer-hostile behaviour.
Of course Apple will argue it has to vet apps and in-app content.
And then all a lawyer has to do is point to the various exploits and it's game over for that argument.
And if you look at App Store revenue share, which is probably more relevant in this case (developers need to target the platform where the revenue is), it's closer to 70%
I don't see a way in which Apple is abusing its monopolistic threshold within its competition. Apple slides in at 45% of phone purchases in the US market. That's 122 million people choosing something else. Now, that's not marketshare, but Apple has convinced consumers that their product is worth the markup - clearly evident by the increased marketshare.
I don't understand the desire to regulate a business that has clearly demonstrated value in a highly competitive market - if you don't want an iPhone, join the other 122 million Americans or 2.3 Billion people with an android.
_You_ may believe
> Q.E.D. Apple has monopolistic power in the U.S. and needs to be dealt with.
but by and large, monopolistic control and anti-trust cases are only brought to court if they are used to negatively impact consumers. In Apple's position, they believe they are doing the better thing for the consumer. If their argument holds water in court, then who is the US government to tell Apple if that business strategy is sound? If the market wants something different or better, then it will decide.
Things would be different if Apple were attacking other platforms, but instead, they're simply moderating their own.
The real question is: Can Apple prove that they are the only one that can provide a store that will keep their customers safe? Because that's what this is about. Epic wants a different store, Apple will argue that they are the only safe store for iOS.
Yea, I just don't understand Epic's endgame here. Even if they win, Apple will never let them back on the AppStore. They sued them! If I owned a grocery chain and one of my suppliers sued me, I would never choose to sell their products again in my store, regardless of the outcome. Suing someone is like burning the bridge. What is Epic hoping for here?
Unless they are counting on the judge actually forcing a store to sell Epic's products, which would be a very scary precedent!
I would note that Apple and Samsung sue each others pants off over patents, but while their legal departments are fighting it out, the operations folks are making deals where Apple buys billions of components from Samsung for use in their phones. This despite the fact that those phones compete with Samsung’s phones. When two companies are engaged in mutually beneficial relationships, they seem to learn not to take the legal stuff personally.
Apple's statement today: "We hope that we can work together again in the future".
Also, Apple requested that Epic submit a new rule-compliant version of Fortnite.
I think Apple would be happy to have Epic back and paying 30%, which is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It won't break Apple if they don't get that money, but it's still nice money, with little work required from Apple.
Sure, the platform takes a lot of money to create, but the marginal costs of adding or subtracting an individual developer in the App Store are almost nothing.
I don't think this fight is 100% rational here. There is a good chance they will only lose money.
It seems like Tim Sweeney is taking it personally, he is rich enough and has enough power at Epic to take the risk. As an indie game developer I can tell you that the AppStore is a pain and everyone would thank Epic if they manage to break or even change it, at this would lead to a large domino effect.
The harsher that Apple retaliates, the better Epic's court case. Apple is playing right into his hands.
I keep seeing seeing assessments in this vein but they can't really be right - the courts would have to be toddler-level naive not to see through it. They aren't - here's Judge Rogers addressing Epic at the recent hearing (as reported by Sarah Jeong):
"To Epic: Your client created this situation. 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."
What I think is happening is Epic is trying to force a jury trial on anti-trust and won't hold out for a settlement unlike Amazon and Netflix. At this stage all Epic's actions are geared basically around collecting arguments to bring in front of a jury composed of regular folks.
I'm very confident the old Steve Jobs emails from the eBooks anti-trust case will also be brought into the trial to argue anti-trust is in Apple's DNA.
That's also the reason for that silly 1984 ad parody, so they can bring Apple's original 1984 ad into the trial and make an argument of hypocrisy in front of the Jury - once they were plucky upstarts but now as the most valuable company, they're vampire like etc.
Other vendors are also at this same time taking the opportunity to test Apple store rules limitations - either for Epic to be able to add those additional arguments to their own case OR possibly for them to get standing to join the suit - look at the PR yesterday around Facebook donations to creators hurt by Covid being blocked by Apple store rules.
In this situation, there's very little role the judiciary can play except move the process along. It's going to be a fun battle to watch.
Epic can’t force a jury trial on anti-trust (Sherman act violations) - only the US government has standing to even file that kind of suit. What they can do is sue for damages due to breach of contract or similar bad faith which is a risky and not hugely convincing position.
You’re quite right that they want a jury trial and to put on a show. But legally this is just a business dispute and arguably one that Epic engineered. I wouldn’t be surprised if the case was simply thrown out for that reason.
> PSKS filed suit, alleging, inter alia, that Leegin violated the antitrust laws by entering into vertical agreements with its retailers to set minimum resale prices. The District Court excluded expert testimony about Leegin’s pricing policy’s procompetitive effects on the ground that Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373, makes it per se illegal under §1 of the Sherman Act for a manufacturer and its distributor to agree on the minimum price the distributor can charge for the manufacturer’s goods. At trial, PSKS alleged that Leegin and its retailers had agreed to fix prices, but Leegin argued that its pricing policy was lawful under §1. The jury found for PSKS.
> Thereafter, respondent filed an action in Federal District Court against petitioners and Yoder. The jury found, inter alia, that petitioners had conspired to violate § 1 of the Sherman Act, but that Yoder was not part of the conspiracy, and awarded treble damages against petitioners.
More cases are listed under "United States Supreme Court cases" in this Wikipedia article:
Yeah, but the thing is Epic is trying as hard as they possibly can to get into their own monopoly position. They want to BE Steam and the App Store, not to destroy them. They can't do otherwise, as a giant corporate entity.
It makes things interesting but the notion that there's anything heroic or even helpful about what Epic is doing, is real dubious. I think the best argument one can have is that one always wants some Epic around snapping at the heels of whoever is currently the Establishment. That's not the same thing as wanting them to prevail, because then you have to ask 'what are they going to do when they are in that monopolist position that they so obviously want'.
Just some thoughts; I actually found this phrasing really interesting, because clearly “you cannot have irreparable harm when you create the harm yourself” is provably incorrect.
The judge won’t let this influence the decision on not extending the injunction to the Epic Games contract with Apple because of an earlier point, which is that two separate contracts exist.
It’s interesting that this has been addressed with this flimsy follow-up argument.
Obviously the court shouldn’t let this influence their decision because it was a calculated move, and it’s assumed that Epic is fine with the harm it causes them to make a point. Nonetheless it’s causing them financial harm, which may in the long term be irreparable if in the meantime their player base on iOS shifts to different games.
So all in all, it is a calculated risk but irreparable harm is indeed one possible outcome. Whether Apple takes any responsibility in this depends on how the court decides in the case however. Even if their behaviour is judged as uncompetitive, that may not automatically mean that they’re at all at fault here.
The judge is using "irreparable harm" as a term of art. What he's saying is you cannot have standing to sue for irreparable harm that you inflicted on yourself.
You can't deliberately crash your own car and then go to court demanding the manufacturer give you a whole new one because the crash revealed a loose screw.
Epic's motion had several parts. The judge denied Epic's motion to be restored to the App Store. But the judge did grant a restraining order to prevent Apple from closing all of Epic's developer accounts. That was the retaliation, and the judge said it fit the criterion of irreparable harm.
If Apple had simply removed Fortnite and stopped there, they'd be in a better position legally, and in terms of PR.
I'm not any sort of expert in this and can't really re-litigate what happened at the hearing. It can't be the case, though, that Epic is pulling some clever Grand Admiral Thrawn Hyperpoker move here if every commenter on the internet along with United States District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers can tell what it is after about 3 seconds thinking about it.
The strategies on both sides are fairly obvious. On Apple's side, the strategy is to make an example of Epic, in order to dissuade other developers from becoming "rebels" too.
It all depends on who ultimately wins the lawsuit, and that's up the in the air. It's a fairly high risk strategy on both sides, but it'll pay off for the winner. Apple is probably confident (perhaps overconfident) that they'll win in the end.
If that's the case, the thing you said in your original comment and what I'm taking issue with seems very unlikely - that "Apple is playing right into his hands". For this to work, everything happens to be obvious to everyone except Apple and the court who are somehow inexplicable naifs.
> that "Apple is playing right into his hands". For this to work, everything happens to be obvious to everyone except Apple and the court who are somehow inexplicable naifs.
For Apple, the stage is set, and they are merely players; they have no choice at this point but to act the way they are because if they don't they lose the consistency argument. So while they may see through the strategy, they're also bound by it, because they have to enforce their terms -- lest other developers get "uppity" and think they can do this too.
They also want to demonstrate what it takes to fight them, the amount of money that will be lost, because that too will have a chilling effect.
Honestly the only way this works out for anyone is if Epic wins a slam dunk because otherwise Apple elegantly demonstrates that their control can never be broken. I think it's possible they win some concessions; the slam dunk though... much less likely.
> the only way this works out for anyone is if Epic wins a slam dunk because otherwise Apple elegantly demonstrates that their control can never be broken
Not necessarily. Even if Epic's solitary actions aren't enough to break Apple's control that doesn't mean more developers acting in tandem can't swing the balance of power. Microsoft and Facebook have already mumbled that they are in support of some of Epic's complaints. If those two try to force the issue now as well, and if more developers in general take a stand together (even Google has reason to join in; Apple Music doesn't use Play Store's IAP for subscriptions on Android while Youtube etc is forced to use AppStore's IAP on iOS), I think Apple might just blink first...
I suspect that he with the largest market capitalization wins: hence the attempt to hashtag against Apple and make up a social movement in opposition to it, as if Apple was Big Brother practicing totalitarian oppression.
The Apple side of the argument can be expressed as 'on this platform (that you can buy into), who gets to take your money over the internet?' Exerting oversight over their walled garden and taking a cut of revenues means they take very real responsibility over the situation of 'taking your money over the internet', which they're apparently fine with. We buy into that scenario when we are Apple users: there's a point of clearly defined accountability that we take for granted, and we expect any bad actors to be handled by that point of accountability.
Epic's like, 'no, there should be many points of accountability. Or at least, well, US'. We've already got that platform, and it's Android. People still choose to hang out in the Apple walled garden even though it costs a premium to do so, when Android is RIGHT THERE and lots of people are prepared to make it a very appealing proposition (I use Google Fi as a cell provider, but on an iPhone. There's functionality I would have if I went with a Google phone, and the phone would cost less)
I believe that Apple is making Epic's case stronger. However, the case is still very much a wildcard. Epic could lose, and then they've risked everything in order to get nothing in return. If Epic loses, then everything is on the table, including losing all of their Apple accounts.
I believe that Apple has other reasons for acting as it does, which are not necessarily directly related to maximizing its chances of winning this specific case.
This doesn't make anyone a naif. Every party in the situation is playing a different game, not the exact same game. Sometimes your hand is just forced by the actions of someone else.
I’m wondering if the point is to get politicians attention with this, since it coincided with the antitrust hearings on Capitol Hill. If they could get some lawmakers on their side, regardless of what the courts decide, the law could be modified to give Epic a more favorable position in all this.
Remember that Tencent owns about half of Epic. Once this dispute is resolved, if Apple were to try and “punish” Epic, they could encounter some pressure from the Chinese Government. There seems to be a lot of dependent relationships involved here.
Apple already tried to punish Epic. They removed all of Epic's apps from the App Store yesterday. And they tried to terminate all of Epic's developer accounts, including accounts for Unreal Engine, which was only stopped by a court's temporary restraining order.
> In the short term, Epic loses money by not having Fortnite on Apple devices.
Will they though? For all the players who already had the app they still have access to Epic's payment system meaning they're making 20% more on those transactions. I'm not sure that new user purchases will be > 20% they make in the short term from those existing users.
An important part of this is that as far as I can tell, most AAA mobile games now ship all but the most fundamental "code updates" as updates to interpreted scripts/data files over the Internet, bypassing the App Store update mechanism. (Where does data end and code begin? That's a philosophical argument that historically Apple could look the other way on for high-performing mobile games with weekly or even more frequent event releases.)
Part of the calculus must have been that Fortnite was stable enough, especially from a low-level and netcode perspective, that it could do without needing App Store updates to remain cross-play compatible in the medium-term.
Apple's iOS ToS specifically forbids downloading and executing code by the app. (with a definition of "code", and "execute" somewhere in the document)
While you could technically hide this from them during the review stage, apple can stop any app from functioning on any iOS device connected to the internet by revoking the certificate, if they discover it at a later stage.
Are there noteworthy apps that break this term in the wild?
Any level of a game contains at least some logic like NPC behaviors, event triggering etc. and I'm sure scripting is a standard component of every single game.
Have you heard of Thimbleweed Park? It's basically a VM executing an adventure game language (like the creator's SCUMM VM in the past).
That's on the App Store.
Now if we specifically look at the downloading part, that would mean games on iOS cannot download new levels, which I think is done by a lot of games.
I don't think my original comment was clear about how I view the ToS as a hammer Apple made for themselves to wield. Not for the good of anyone, but apple.
Their goal here being to cover their ass and have a rule, that you already "agreed" to follow, to point at when they want to get rid of your app.
Apple's legal tech has always been years ahead of their electronic tech, I'm honestly curious to see if epic's got some sort of counter to apple's usual legal shenanigans.
In the court hearings, Epic explained how they implemented their payment processor change addition without catching Apple's notice. The app simply asks the Epic servers for a list of payment processors available to display to users, and at review time it was only the Apple one. A week after the update, they added another entry to the DB, and now there's a second option, without modifying app code.
But it allows downloading and executing interpreted code. See paragraph 3.3.2 of Apple Developer Program License Agreement.
So you can have significant portion of your app in say javascript, which you can update OTA.
E.g. react native apps have most of their functionality in js and can use services like code push to update themselves without app store and it doesn't violate Apple ToS.
That's not always true though. Although WhatsApp is very popular here in South Africa, I use iMessage most of the time because most friends/colleagues/family have iPhones.
And honestly I have switched off notifications on WhatsApp (I cannot recommend this highly enough!) so that's the only quick way to reach me. I am sure others do the same.
Indeed. Of course it has to be pointed out that 70% of the population can barely afford a smartphone, so they get the cheapest ones, which are obviously not going to be an iPhone.
That’s not what “dark pattern” means. Dark patterns are designed to cheat or deceive.
The blue bubbles are quite useful because it lets you know if your message is being transmitted encrypted or not (green SMS bubbles mean effectively cleartext).
No, it's only off the Play Store. But you can still download and install it from elsewhere. iOS is unique in that you can only install apps through the store; there is no side-loading.
Does the former require paying $99/yr to Apple? If so no thanks.
And as for jailbreaking, the last time I jailbroke an iOS device was many years ago, and it never worked 100%. Every time I rebooted the damn thing it had to be connected to a computer to re-unlock it again. I don't know how the experience is now but it was terrible then. I haven't bought an Apple device since because I like the out-of-the-box ability to install whatever random stuff I want.
So the court case will wind up being a moot point.
This is a technology forum, so speaking of technology... maybe there will just be some radical streaming or delivery innovation, compatible with Mobile Safari today, that could really change the state of at least games and movies on iOS. I wonder why that hasn't happened sooner.
Kids are technologically clever, and so long as one of them figures it out it's gonna virally spread to the rest of them. That's certainly how it was for me in school.
So, I suspect that lots of people are going to be sideloading in the very near future.
If my young cousins in a 3rd world country are any indicator, sideloading will lose its "fear factor" because these kids are doing insane things with devices these days, stuff I wouldn't have been able to nor had any will to do in their day. Even more so the ones in 1st world countries!
Definitely less "insane things" these days than back in the day. I remember jailbreaking Sony PSPs for all my classmates in middle school :D Later when iOS became big, the only common "insane" thing was app store account sharing.
I don't think that is quite right. Fdroid and the Amazon app store are two prominent examples. While they don't have the same impact as the first party store, they also aren't Fortnite.
Even if Epic doesn't "win" this, I just hope that this whole debacle results in an overall improvement of market practices in general down the road, including Google Play and console stores.
Ideally, the sooner people realize and escape from Apple's tyranny the better.
For the same reason they’ve pushed Epic Games Store on PC - they take 5% of gross revenue as royalties for any product that uses UE4 and lower fees charged by distribution channels makes that easier to swallow for both larger and smaller studios.
Mind you, this is pure speculation on my part - but given they consider that 5% royalty paid as part of the fee for every title sold on EGS it seems likely that their goal is to sell more licenses, not just to cash in on Fortnite.
I wonder what percentage play exclusively on iOS though. If big spenders will spend on whatever is convenient it could be easily worth it to stop them from spending on iOS and get the cut back.
And ironically Epic is mum on all those consoles that take the exact same cut that Apple does.
The iPhone is merely another console. Really hard for me to see why this is controversial, or why Epic thinks that Apple can have a monopoly over their console while somehow Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo don’t...
1. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have all negotiated smaller rev-share agreements with Epic. Maybe this is in exchange for marketing or console bundles or something else that improves the health of the platform.
2. Epic thinks they can use any victory they get out of Apple to force game console manufacturers to do the same thing.
Personally, I think it's the latter - Epic's ultimate goal is to get their hands into the game distribution pie. One of the things Epic contemplates in the lawsuit is "we want to run our own iOS app store in competition with Apple's App Store". You bet their ass "Epic Game Store on Switch" is going to follow if they win the Apple lawsuit.
(For the record, I happen to want Epic to win, though I don't want EPIC to win. I hate locked-down hardware.)
You are correct in one critical way: there's no way in hell Epic would try this shit with console manufacturers. You know how Apple tried to threaten developer tools access and basically tried to take UE4 users hostage? Yeah, imagine that, except console manufacturers have far more leverage. First, console is Epic's core business; second, console developer access is very strictly guarded. Had the courts not enjoined Apple from revoking Epic's UE4 developer account, they could at least have hypothetically continued to support iOS customers.
This isn't true on console: the developer tools are confidential and highly guarded. So, instead of "we might revoke your dev account access", it's "give us back our devkits, delete all your copies of our SDK, delete any UE4 code that uses that SDK, and stop selling UE4 on our platform". Epic wouldn't be allowed to support PS4/Switch/Xbox developers in any capacity. Just the mere act of a licensed console developer asking an unlicensed engine provider for support with the console SDK would constitute a breach of their confidentiality agreements.
Not to mention the chilling effect it'd have on adoption of unreal engine for next gen consoles. Just the existence of a Sony v Epic lawsuit, would have devs rethinking what engine they use for playstation 5.
Really hard for me to buy this is a good faith argument. The iPhone has never been marked nor positioned in any way similar to consoles. User & developer expectations are not remotely similar here.
I agree, and while I don't think there's a great chance Epic wins in court, I think now is a great time for them to highlight Apple's deeply unethical practices around the app store: they are both stifling innovation (in what an app store can do or be, see Microsoft x cloud, but also see how long it took Apple to develop subscription payments) and pocketing money they really haven't done anything to earn (rent seeking)
Ultimately, I think lawmakers are going to have to be the ones to address this, and it's disappointing they don't seem particularly interested in investigating Apple's app store practices
Unity is also making a play on this, portraying the Unreal Engine as an unreliable choice because of Epic's erratic actions, and in their court filing Epic themselves complained about people leaving them in droves.
(Incidentally, when I try to Google "Epic says people leaving in droves" all the results are about millennials leaving cities.)
^^^this. Apple appear to be determined to prove that they are monopolists who will use their monopoly power to screw over devs. While apple probably could have got away with suspending just epics developing account and definitely could have got away with just suspending fortnite, attempting to cripple all devs who use unreal to create their games and other products was an idiotic idea, and a textbook example of abusive monopolistic practices. Also epic, because of fortnites success, are absolutely swimming in money and have other revenu streams on desktop and console that that they can survive and prosper on. They're also tapping into an increasing resentment amongst devs, but also political actors about the amount of power apple et al wield.
I think Epic doesn't care much about losing iOS and MacOS. Epic wants to bring public attention to the issue and reiterate the idea that Apple is against the gamer community but Epic is fighting for them.
In either case Epic wins. They wouldn't have gotten into this otherwise.
Disagree. Epic's battle against Apple seems to based on ulterior motives. They agreed to the App Store terms of service after all. If Epic were to win it would set a terrible precedent whereby contractually requiring payment is unenforceable.
They won't all the big companies release FPS on iOS are using their own engine (EA, Activision, etc). Using Unreal Engine for a casual mobile game is like buying a Ferrari to get some groceries 2 blocks away.
Could you provide any info showing that Apple was definitely going to block all unreal engine powered iOS apps from the App Store? Ideally definitive evidence.
Apple was not going to explicitly block Unreal Engine from the App Store, but instead they were going to terminate a different Apple Developer Account that Epic uses for Unreal, hindering them from developing it on Apple platforms.
Ah. Epic International. If apple has blocked that other account, would it have removed all Unreal Engine powered iOS apps from the App Store, just like all Epic games are now removed from the App Store?
I press this question because IMO that would be a serious tactical mistake on Apple’s part, and it’s surprising that Apple would make it (even incidentally). The judge’s injunction may have saved Apple from itself.
But I don’t know if it’s true that all UE iOS apps would be removed, if Apple terminated that other account. It seems like no one has given a concrete, conclusive answer.
It’s like blocking all apps that happen to use the leftpad library. It’s not those apps’ fault for what Epic is doing with Epic Store. It’s completely unrelated. And it would be worrisome if, by Apple’s decision, all businesses who built their futures on Unreal Engine were put out of business overnight.
No. Even if Apple terminates the 'Epic International' account - nothing will happen to existing Unreal Engine games on the store by other developers.
The issue is that Epic will lose access to Apple developer tools and will struggle to maintain Unreal Engine going forward and as such that may hinder development of those games in the future.
There's no indication or reason to believe Apple would manually remove all UE based games (because it wouldn't be something they 'revoke' and all UE games stop working).
Why would they struggle to maintain Unreal Engine? The developer tools/SDKs are free to download and you don’t need a developer account for that. All they will lose is access to pre-release tools such as betas or the Apple Silicon transition kit. It just means they might not have a release ready on launch day, but should be fine after that as the tools are made public.
You can't even run a hello world app on iOS device without signing it with a developer account, and the restraining order that blocks apple from terminating epic international's developer account is just temporary. There is still chance that epic will lose developer account needed for developing unreal engine. You can run unsigned code on iOS simulator, but the simulator lacks many api and can't replace running on real devices (unlike Android emulator that can emulate almost everything a real device does).
No, on Android you can sideload anything. (Do you not use smartphones at all? How do you not know this?)
This hasn't been true for iOS either for the last N years, AFAIK you can sign apps for free to load on your devices, but the signatures are valid only for a week, so you have to reload the apps at least every week.
> AFAIK you can sign apps for free to load on your devices, but the signatures are valid only for a week, so you have to reload the apps at least every week.
Guess where the key required for signing the binary comes from? That's right, it comes from your apple developer account, automatically downloaded and provisioned by xcode when you hit the build button. Without a developer account you won't have any valid key to sign the build, even for debug build. Afaik the only way to skip this is to jailbreak your device so it can run unsigned binary.
The theory was that apple might revoke their ability to use the developer tools/SDKs (Broadly, this is what was stated in the letter saying their developer account would be revoked, even though you don’t need a paid developer account to download some of that stuff).
Xcode, the SDKs, etc. are licensed, not open source, and probably contain clauses allowing apple to terminate the license.
No, all Unreal Engine apps wouldnt have been removed. But it would be harder for Epic to develop the engine, and other developers would be less inclined to use the engine knowing development would be impeded.
>Well, how could Epic continue developing unreal engine for iOS without a developer account?
I thinl this nicely sumariges whats wrong - why the hell should one need an account somewhere to develop software for an OS!
Thats a totally arbitrary limitation and as nicely illustrated by Apple - very very dangerous.
Sure and while that's still bad IMHO, for general purpose devices this should simply not be required ever.
I can develop and distribute software for my tablet (Android), Notebook (Linux/Fedora), gaming PC (Windows), smartphone (Sailfish OS) or e-reader (Kobo) without the need to open an account with a third party and be at their mercy.
Sure, in some cases a repo system account can make things easier, but I can just as well put the source and binaries on a website and any users wanting to use that will not be needlessly hindered by stupid OS maintainer policies.
The issue is not necessarily that you need an account, it's that punitive action is being taken against this other related account as a form of coercion/arbitrary punitive action. Imagine if your Gmail account was deleted because you made a nasty comment on YouTube. It would be a clear abuse of administrative power.
IIRC the Gmail & Youtube example is actually true - they are all a single Google account and if it gets blocked due to one service, you loose everything.
> Apple originally wanted to terminate the developer accounts of both Epic Games and Epic International, a separate account linked to Epic's Unreal Engine used by third-party app developers, but a judge issued a temporary restraining order preventing Apple from doing so.
Why would they need their own account to just develop the engine? They could use any employee's personal account, or a third party partner company's account, anything
Apple is know to cracking down abuse of developer accounts, so they could ended up playing cat and mouse game with apple. Also, the dev tools are probably licensed in a way that you can't use it legally after getting kicked out of apple dev program. Maybe epic can get around this by divesting unreal engine into a separate company. I think it's already done that (unreal is under epic international), but as apple was considering taking down epic international's account too, maybe that too is not enough.
You can use Xcode and the SDKs without even having an account! A free account is required to sign code temporarily to run on test devices. Apple shouldn't even get to know what is being signed.
Apple might be cracking down on people who sign apps for others as a service, publish signed stuff online, etc. but they literally have no way of preventing development of anything.
Interesting how every big dog is attacking Apple as they continue to be the lone-wolf in enabling privacy and a secure platform for their users. Apple users are mostly computer illiterate because its Apple’s mission statement to enable computing for everyone. Because of their ease of use, they are now targeted to open up their platform in ways that will jeopardize both their increasing user-privacy and user-security.
Not sure why people are surprised or consider it giant news.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
The problem is there is no alternative to the App Store on iPhones. Epic Games couldn't open their own Epic Games App Store and sell their games there because Apple has a complete control over how apps can be used and sold on iPhones.
There doesn’t need to be an alternative App Store in iOS. There just need to be alternatives to iOS.
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.
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.
> whereas iOS has somewhere around 25% market share.
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
> 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)
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
> 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.
You don't see the real problem: the device that you buy (paying a lot of money in case of an iPhone) is not really yours. You can install the apps that Apple approves. To me that is unacceptable and should be made illegal. When the user buys a phone he expect it to be able to use it with all the software that he wants, and not to be limited of what Apple approves. If not let's write it with a big red font on the box and see how many people buy iPhones anymore...
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.
> 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.
That's not right. Civil tort suits are for any citizens to seek justice for themselves.
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.
> on an operating system designed for general computing
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].
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 not an abuse of power when you created a phone many years ago, and when it was way less popular you told everyone beforehand that it will be impossible on install random software, only though store.
It is called a built-in feature and iPhones were designed with it from the very start.
The first sold version of the iPhone had no app store and only allowed web apps to be used. Without Apple having any say over what you could install or not.
Tim Sweeney may be a wonderful man who loves open platforms, apple pie, and kittens, but:
- 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.
The reality of the legal system is that all small companies would just get worn out and forced to settle against Apple, regardless of the justice of their complaint.
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".
Sure, Epic's size is absolutely going to be helpful here. But there are other larger companies that could probably make better cases against Apple if they chose to: Amazon and Microsoft come to mind immediately, with Facebook a possibility given the events of just the last couple of days.
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.
I agree with most of your points. The one question I'd like to return, however, in response to your 70% question is this: does apple deserve 30% of all developer income? That seems steep. I think the 70 % argument is a bit of a red herring. If you think that virtually cost free products should cost less, that's a different argument. But once the price is set, why should get apple nearly a third of it? If anything, lower cuts could result in lower overall prices.
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. :)
Well, clearly it’s profitable enough because companies bend over backwards to launch on iOS.
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.
Sure there is. You can play the game on PC, Xbox, Switch, Android, etc.
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?
Imagine if Microsoft would charge for every application that you buy and install? People would shout and scream about monopoly.
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.
Fees were high before the App Store. Verizon VCast (or what ever they were calling it) was taking 70 to 80%. In all this time the percentage has not changed, While you dismiss the console market Apple pours just as much money into maintaining it's iOS ecosystem as any of the console makers.
30% sounds steep, I agree. But it's also industry standard. See: Google Play Store, Microsoft Store, Steam, Samsung Galaxy Store, Amazon App Store, etc.
Fair enough. Some companies do have a stronger case. MS and Amazon would however get pilloried here due to... other issues. Not many candidates around (unless some rich entity were to support a company's legal case from the shadows? These things do happen).
My suspicion is that Microsoft and Amazon aren't interested in charging in here because they're much more in "frenemy" positions with Apple; Amazon used to be fairly antagonistic toward the Big Fruit, but they've been more amenable to having their various services work together gracefully over the last few years, and Microsoft has ended up being pretty enthusiastic about Office on iOS. So they probably just figure that it's not worth going to war over.
Theoretical objections of the sort "this could have been done some other way" are always rather strange, because they tend to ignore the actual fact that it has not been done some other way.
Yes, that would be possible. However, it is difficult to get multiple parties to cooperate and coordinate on an expensive for a long time. It requires a high degree of trust, or some form of legal instrument. Trust isn't very much around these days, maybe some clever legal instrument could have done it?
Two week’s ago’s The Verge coverture was pretty thorough and interesting.
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.
Verge was a fluff piece for Epic. They go on to paint how the monolithic Apple is bad and throwing out Apple's dirty laundry (which is fine) but poor Tim Sweeney is just fighting for justice. Not mentioning his dealings with Silicon Knights, other engine developers and Valve.
Well, they spent years discussing app store policies, antitrust, ecosystem management, the impact of the biggest players (amazon, facebook etc.) in general.
It seems in brand to care more about the legal argument and its ramifications for Apple than bickering if Epic is being “unsincere”.
> Instead you have sideload... the Epic Games Store!
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.
> which is how Apple ensures their App level advantage, and that you can't ship your own browser engine.
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.
A JavaScript runtime doesn't require a JIT to work, it just makes it a lot faster. That alone wouldn't keep alternative browsers from being in the store, there are plenty of reasons to want a different browser even if JavaScript runs slower on it.
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.
> - 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.
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.
Valve was introducing a new kind of an experience with their store, because there were no digital stores for games before that (that were actually used; because no doubt someone in the comments will point out to some obscure digital game store that existed at that time, but no one has heard of or used).
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.
> 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.
Epic has been very clear from the beginning that they would like to viably run a store on the major mobile hardware, they are not claiming that stores are bad in general.
Stardock comes to mind as the Obscure Store That We Probably Haven't Heard Of. But unlike Stardock, Steam was also a DRM platform, the first to implement Carmack's observation ("The Internet is the ultimate dongle.")
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.
The Android suit has different claims in it than the iOS suit. One of the issues with Android is the allegation that Google killed deals Epic was trying to make with Android hardware manufacturers (by voicing objections to the manufacturers, who rely on Google) to get the Epic Store app preinstalled on some Android devices.
> to force both Apple and Google to let you install the Epic Games Store from the iOS App Store and the Google Play Store
That is what he asked for in his email to Apple that is part of the court filings. Epic Game Store on iOS with full OS level access without Apple's approval to anything they release. Also 0% fees to Apple for IAP.
Well, I think not having a sole official gatekeeper is good for consumers on both platforms -- I'm mostly agnostic about the mechanism for getting there. I'm not convinced requiring Apple and Google to host other people's app stores in their app stores is actually a good idea, if only because I'm skeptical that a government-imposed regulatory mechanism for that wouldn't have unforeseen and unintended consequences.
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.
That's what WeChat is already. It's an entire ecosystem with its own mini-apps, payments and community. Many users in China only use WeChat as the OS on top of iOS.
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.
Open and closed is relative, as nothing is completely open unless it’s open source. Epic game store isn’t completely open. He’s just defining his version open to suit his bottom line.
That's true, but Epic is more of a friend to open source than Apple: they donated money to both Blender and Godot Engine. Also Epic benefit from game development being more open in general even if their own engine is not open source.
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.
We were obligated to provide source code for the LGPL parts corresponding to official releases. We were not obligated to make it a community open source project with a live repo, or to accept code for ports to non-Apple platforms. We chose to do those things.
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.
Okay it's not the only reason, but certainly one of primary ones. All proprietary software developers had issue with GCC long before switch to GPLv3. GNU declined all attempts to make compiler IR accessible for 3rd-party software which would make proprietary extensions possible. And yeah it's the reason why LLVM take that niche.
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.
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:
Yeah, but Valve also doing all of this not just of goodwill, but as insurance in case Windows become full walled garden. Like it or not, but Epic working more or less the same direction.
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.
Pretty much the same sentiment in regards to Epic - on PC it's yet another store to install & there have been some weird practices in making games exclusive, etc.
But in their attacks on Walled Garden - 100% behind them for that.
PAYING game developers for exclusivity is much different than CHARGING game developers 30% of their revenue.
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.
> PAYING game developers for exclusivity is much different than CHARGING game developers 30% of their revenue.
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.
I mean, that's an ordinary business deal. Presumably, the $10m price was chosen because it's at a point where both parties believe they're benefiting from the deal.
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.
That's not what a deal that someone "can't refuse" means -- that's just a deal, a mutually beneficial exchange, one of the foundations of society. "Can't refuse" generally means a threat of out-of-band (e.g. physical) harm if the deal isn't accepted.
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.
Apparently it has two meanings. I've only heard it in terms of implying bodily harm, and I'm also in the US. Probably a phrase to be avoided if you don't mean bodily harm because there's a high risk of misinterpretation.
sure, there is a difference for the developer. anyone who is deluding themselves into thinking that Epic is fighting for the consumer here will be sorely disappointed.
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.
>PAYING game developers for exclusivity is much different than CHARGING game developers 30% of their revenue.
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.
You're really missing one part about Valve. Game developers that publish games on Steam are not allowed to set lower prices on other stores; at least on release when bulk of sales happening and most of full price sales occur.
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.
> They are artificially dividing an open market by making some PC games exclusive to their store.
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?
Now consider that Valve games like Half Life: Alyx are platform exclusive to Steam -- presumably because Valve gets ~100% of the money spent on Valve games on Steam. Is that "less open for the consumer" as well?
Them doing exclusives is on their own IP isn't really the same thing is it? I will give them a pass on it.
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.
No it doesn't weaken the argument. The point is that seems to elude you is that they aren't bribing other devs by offering cash for an exclusivity deal. In the cases you highlight they bought IP outright. Also people seem to forget that Valve released a lot of their games on consoles which aren't open market places.
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.
We've had decades of exclusivity deals for one console or another. Those actually prevented people from playing the games without shelling out for an extra console.
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.
I dont care about free games, I have more money than free time.
All I want is that games work on my platform, which is linux.
They killed rocket league, because its not worth it to support platform that is used by 0.3% of the playerbase.
Somehow they managed to do it before epic monies, but now its just too expensive or something. So fuck em.
TotalWar franchise works great in native Linux/Steam. I think I even got better performance than when I played the same (Shogun 2) in Windows on the same laptop. Kudos to CreativeAssembly for backporting all the old releases to the platform. One day all my old purchases just showed up under Linux and was installable without any fuss using the steam interface. Oh yeah, Civilization 5/6 showed up as well. You may want to take a look at what's been added recently. You might find something you like!
Well not everyone wants to have to have ten game stores with ten custom launchers if they only have ten games installed
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.
What is your opinion on the fact that game devs aren't allowed to have a cheaper price on Epic due to Epic's much lower cut because Steam doesn't allow the devs to?
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?
I wasn’t aware of a Minimum Advertised Price rule for Steam but such rules are extremely common across industries even if I agree they generally don’t help the consumer.
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.
You’re exactly right. Epic charges the same for games as Steam usually even if their cut is a bit smaller. Plus they still take a cut so the difference would be about 20% instead of 30%. For larger developers Steam only takes 20% so the difference would be around 10%
Considering the fact that you can easily find iTunes gift cars for 10% off face value (and 15 to 20% around the holidays), I remain skeptical that anyone will be paying 30% less.
Fun fact: Brick and mortar retailers spam the checkout lane with gift cards because they do not pay face value for them.
Epic exclusivity deals are typically for one year.
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.
Why should that not be more of an expectation? Sony has started putting out formerly PlayStation-exclusive first-party games on PC. Even Bloodborne may show up on Steam soon if rumors are to be believed.
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.
Look I think they’d sell more copies and it’d be good for everyone to have the content more widely available but it’s not always feasible to require it. A PlayStation game doesn’t just automatically work on PC and it probably takes numerous hours to get a PC game ready to submit to the Steam store. I’ve certainly wasted many hours localizing text for iOS app submissions and the like.
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.
Epic charges a fee too so I’m not sure why you think the price of the game is going to change drastically to the end user. Epic doesn’t charge less for Civilization 6 than Steam does, the developer just gets a bit more of the sale.
That’s a false equivalency. A more apt comparison would be if you could only buy a game at GameStop for one year, while all the Best But shoppers weren’t able to buy the game from their preferred retail store.
You never heard complaints about physical store exclusive DLC? It was a big topic for a year or two before Gamestop decided they weren't getting their ROI and it became less common again.
This is a preposterous claim that requires a lot of revision to be even close to true. Marketplace owners have been using their own games' exclusivity to push their platforms since Steam's introduction. Even just talking about third-party exclusives (which IMO is an arbitrary distinction — they're just as exclusive and for the same reasons), Valve paid for third-party exclusives early in Steam's history. Once they got rich enough, they started just buying companies outright when they wanted exclusivity on a game somebody was making, which is a much stronger exclusivity deal than the relatively tepid "the game comes out a few months earlier on our store" deals Epic is best known for.
If something is exclusive to a platform that's free to use, who cares? It's not like xbox vs playstation where you have to shell out a few hundred dollars to play an exclusive title.
those were all EA titles, so EA had their own publisher exclusive marketplace. Tim Sweeney introduced buying out third-party publishers with exclusivity clauses.
edit: there's a good analogy in another thread -- only being able to buy a Nintendo game at GameStop and not Best Buy.
To be clear, you'd be perfectly happy if Epic bought the developers outright and made the games exclusive to the Epic store? To me, that seems like the same end result for consumers.
This is equally unpopular when it's happening to Rocket League.
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.
> people familiar with Tim Sweeny’s life and ideology know that it is an actual important issues to him that platforms be open.
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.
I would presume so as well. If Apple loses their case, I imagine we will see big changes in many platforms. I would also posit... much higher prices for hardware[1] to make up for the "income gap" too, presumably.
[1]: hard to image game consoles being sold at a loss if they couldn't make it up in fees on the other side.
hmm. I presumed they were still initially sold at a slight loss until economies of scale made them per-unit profitable in the middle of the sales curve.
If that isn't the case, then it makes Sweeny's statement above seem even stranger.
I feel like his standards for openness are always up to where Epic's business model is a best fit. I've never heard him suggest something like letting me run my own Fortnite server or something of the sort.
That said, you're right that he's consistent with these views, especially how he was against UWP during its heyday. [1]
He was very vocal years back when Microsoft was trying to pull off with UWP - https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-03-04-tim-sweene... - That is too much to go in to here, but I would recommend reading about it if you are concerned about being able to do things like load the software you want on to Windows.
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.
That seems meaningfully different. The openness here is you own a piece of hardware, another company wants to sell you software to run on your hardware; can that two-party interaction complete without an adversarial third party being involved?
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.
Independent of the Epic Vs Apple debate, I’m merely stating that it’s somewhat hypocritical to claim someone is ideologically open while at the same time they take actions to lock down purchases to the Epic platform only.
I don't really understand the hypocrisy though. It seems consistent to suggest people should be able to run the software they choose on the hardware they own, without also forcing every store to sell every product.
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.
Epic could have taken the matter directly to the courts and taken action (whatever it was) after a verdict.
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.
Without taking this action and being removed from the App Store, Epic would not have had standing[0] to sue Apple. Their lawsuit would have likely just been thrown out.
Under American law there has to be an actual harm (meaning alleged harm). Speculative lawsuits where you ask the courts to rule on something ahead of times is not allowed. It's just not how this country views its court system. The courts are for resolving specific conflicts that have occurred -- with factual histories playing key roles in determining which precedents may apply.
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.
Epic already had standing based on the $300 million in Fortnite IAP fees Apple has collected, they did not need to do anything else. The rest was for media attention.
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.
They are not. You cannot assume App Store service if all the income I meant all go to the developer only. If they fight for a lower cut may be. But 0! No.
I don't think you understood what apple does. apple is forbidding Epic Games to offer "discount" outside apple platform. the price must be equal on all points of sale.
>Epic could have taken the matter directly to the courts
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.
It's not even legal departments having a fight, it's Tim Sweeney tilting at windmills
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.
Maybe. We're talking about the same company that only allows their software to run on their own hardware. It looks like having full control of the entire user experience is a sacred rule that they must never break.
The iPhone had PWAs (under a different name) before it had the App Store though.
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).
WebView support and PWA support largely both depend on the same set of functionality (disregarding Cordova/PhoneGap).
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).
People keep making this argument regarding the App Store but that’s not how monopolies are defined. Apple might have strict control over their walled garden but their walled garden itself isn’t the only walled garden. As such, people can buy different handsets running different operating systems and thus use a different repository on them. The fact that Apple don’t allow other repos on iOS doesn’t make it a monopoly in the legal sense because that would be like walking into a high street supermarket and demanding they stock a competitors own brand. If, however, that happened to be the only (or within a slender margin of that) supermarket chain in the country and they still refused to work with a specific supplier who makes a competing product, then there might be grounds to file for antitrust.
But Epic did start an antitrust case, and so far a judge has found that “serious questions do exist” and granted a temporary restraining order. That wouldn’t have happened if Epic was as obviously wrong about the monopoly question as you say. https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21814075/c...
You’ve cherry picked a sentence there but the full paragraph actually has a less optimistic tone:
> 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.
You’re right, the judge has not ruled that Epic is likely to win the lawsuit in the end, given that the case only just started. But you claimed that iOS was clearly not a legal monopoly, when Epic is suing to establish this point and a federal judge has entertained the argument and made orders based on it.
That’s not what the document actually says though. It says Epic games has filed a case with 10 claims, some of which are categorised as antitrust but none of which actually state the term “monopoly” (remember antitrust rules doesn’t just apply to monopolies). And again, it’s worth remembering that document demonstrates that even those antitrust claims weren’t well received by the judge.
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.
You can find this in Epic's filing. As you point out, Epic's federal antitrust claims were not as well received as their claims based on California law at the temporary restraining order stage, but they have not been finally resolved. https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/epic-v-apple-8-17-20-768927327...
> 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.
The current situation is called a duopoly. There are 2 walled gardens with approximately 50-50% revenue share in the developed world.
One makes it almost impossible to distribute your own app on these, the other makes it just very hard.
Both should be broken up, it's a bleak distopia that 2 companies headquartered a few miles from eachother decide who can publish software on mobile devices.
Indeed but that wasn’t the point I was making. I was saying those who argue the App Store as a monopoly (ie because it’s the only repository on iOS) miss the point of what a monopoly legally means.
iPhone user here. I did not opt into a walled garden for the benefits. I am in this walled garden because I happened to buy an iPhone 10 yeas ago and now I'm locked in.
It's possible Apple would then proactively reach out to the largest developers to make similar deals, but the risk is pretty low to Apple if it takes a company willing to launch a multi-year lawsuit costing millions and millions of dollars; many companies, even large ones, don't have that cheddar.
Currently, Epic’s existing users on iOS are able to make in-app purchases without paying Apple’s 30% fee, which is literally saving them an expense. They are better off than before. Epic being blocked from issuing updates may eventually make them worse off (and it makes prospective new users worse off).
When preparing for a battle like this that's basic optics. Get the users on your side. But don't be fooled for a minute, in the end this is simply Epic not liking to give Apple a cut of what they consider their income. What surprises me is how easily people are fooled about this.
That's not true at all. This whole thing started when Epic released a direct pay feature in their iOS app that gave a 30% discount for direct pay straight to the users. You can argue whatever you like about the big corps legal departments, but it's inarguable that users using the direct pay feature are paying less right now.
So can they just make anything bought through iOS cost 30% more, but people can buy it from the website (not through iOS) without the Apple markup? I'd think people would quickly learn to buy from the lower cost option.
Perhaps, but that is nothing new, now is it? I'm not sure why this case would be special... it's definitely not the scale, numbers or competition, because those are practically the same on plenty of other (non-IT) inter-corporate schemes. Just because you don't hear about them as much doesn't mean they aren't bigger or less relevant.
What I don't get is: they pushed a noncompliant Fortnite update, and Apple took it down. So aren't they, in fact, not currently in violation? Since Fortnite is not on the store?
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"?
I'm tired of these comments stating that the headline should not be surprising. Can you just accept that not everyone's life is fixated on the subject at hand, and that this still constitutes "news" for them?
Now that you can play Fortnight on iOS and on the console is it fair that Apple can force Epic to a sell vbucks through its App Store because the game exists on iOS?
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.
> 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.
I don't think this means I shouldn't vehemently support companies when their policy advances my interests.
But do they? Or is that just a facade to influence public opinion. Don't forget that all large companies like to personify when it suits them, but are just legal entities with the upsides or persons but none of the downsides or actual accountability. That goes for Apple, Google, Epic and all the other big ones all the same. It's also good to remember that it's not "all the people that work at the company", but mostly a bunch of legal people, and a small blip on the calendar of the CEO.
I know it's very fashionable on Twitter to say the word "post-capitalism," but how is Epic in any way operating in a post-capitalist environment? They face heavy, almost capitalist-ideal levels of competition in every market where they compete.
Highly unlikely, the iPhone is very common and a major status symbol in China.
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).
China is acutely aware that banning the iPhone is likely to send Apple into meltdown and by extension the US stock market and presidency. If they perceive that to be in their political interests then they will do it, otherwise they won't.
They might if Apple is forced to ban WeChat and other Chinese apps from the App Store worldwide (which is why Tencent/CCP is having all these proxy wars targeting Apple, with the sole purpose of making it possible to side-load apps so that Trump’s executive orders will hurt Tencent/Bytedance (and future Chinese companies) a lot less). The timing of 40% Tencent-owned Epic Games’ PR lawsuit is no coincidence.
>> 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.
An upvote didn’t seem like enough, that is a devastatingly accurate appraisal IMO
Apple is truly doing themselves a disservice here, if Epic wins this battle Apple will undoubtedly be painted as the bad guy, and other major companies will smell blood in the water when it comes taking down a competitor.
Case in point; Tinder, Microsoft, Facebook, Spotify have all openly backed Epic and started to call attention to features that are impacted by this 30% fee. Status quo isn't going to cut it, and it would be in Apple's best interest to make a small concession to look like they're not so evil.
I'm actually happy Apple didn't make a small concession.
I can't quite have the resources to sue Apple by myself as a small user being prevented from using the device I have paid for the way I see fit. I'm very glad that EPIC is doing it on my behalf. I'm also kind of glad that Apple didn't simply cut a backroom deal with EPIC, but is instead going the full-monty on this.
I share a different view on this. I want Apple to have as much control over as they can to keep my device safe. Obviously, this is an unpopular opinion on HN - part of me wants it super hackable and open source (my hacker self), but my average joe self wants is as tied down, closed doors as possible to avoid sniffing off my personal data, usage patterns, cookies, and a whole bunch of "soft metrics" about my device to finger print me and then auction it off in a giant data auctioning event - an evil corporation buys my data in 3 milliseconds and off it goes.
Apple acts on my behalf as a security officer - they have no interest in selling me ads - they already got their revenue hunger satiated from the high price of my device and all the internal Apple services I pay for (Apple music, TV, icloud, etc).
I love Apple and I love that they are willing to stand up for riffraff that's trying to invade my personal space (consider iPhone literally as the entire life's worth of information vault) by masquerading as a crusader of light and openness.
I don't want Apple to open up their devices. Average Joes around the world outside of HN crowd will have everything to lose and nothing to gain.
I also think that 30% share is too low. Apple should be charging way more for exclusive access to their App store. It's their turf.
Why is this good? Because dev will go back to using browser apps to provide services and the browser itself is a nice sandbox to keep the riffraff out.
And only high quality apps will make it through the App store.
> Apple acts on my behalf as a security officer - they have no interest in selling me ads - they already got their revenue hunger satiated from the high price of my device and all the internal Apple services I pay for (Apple music, TV, icloud, etc).
They remove apps that compete with their own apps even if those apps existed before hand. They disallow cloud gaming because it they can't collect fees from it or control it. They've already done a long list of "abuses" that have nothing to do with your device security (or battery life, etc).
Honestly I do think Apple has done a great job of device security and I think they could do a lot more with their OS. I don't see why I need an app store to prevent apps from sniffing off my personal data, usage patterns, cookies, etc -- the OS could protect those from me if that's what Apple wants to do.
> Apple should be charging way more for exclusive access to their App store. It's their turf.
I think something is likely anti-competitive when there is absolutely no market pressure on pricing.
> They remove apps that compete with their own apps even if those apps existed before hand. They disallow cloud gaming because it they can't collect fees from it or control it. They've already done a long list of "abuses" that have nothing to do with your device security (or battery life, etc).
I can concede if there is a clearcut evidence and a source you can provide that proves it with absolute certainty. I don't think its that clear.
Also, the motivation doesn't make any sense. Why would Apple want to trade PR/brand damage for what constitutes pennies so to say for a small app? Do you think that internally Apple's executives were like "Let's copy this app, ban the developer, sustain the PR damage because it is worth making that juicy $80K from sales. Surely, our shareholders would like that!"
Lot of anger with Apple is unsubstantiated and completely emotional. There are a whole clan of people that love/hate Apple since the dawn of the company.
I just don't see why Apple would this. Usually, they buy the whole company (e.g. Shazam).
No. I think Hanlon's razor applies; Apple has a policy against duplicating features, they add more features, existing apps that have these features are now in violation of that policy. It's Kafkaesque, not premeditated.
Hackernews has a regular postings (a few a year) from app developers who's long standing apps are suddenly rejected after a minor update with no recourse and they're appealing to us for help. This isn't rare, it's a regular occurrence. And those are just the ones we know about.
It's users and the developers who are losing out. You never know if Apple's going to destroy your business or nuke your favorite application and it doesn't hurt Apple at all. I doubt they even notice.
> They disallow cloud gaming because it they can't collect fees from it or control it.
They disallow cloud gaming for the same reason they disallow non-generic screen mirroring. Because people would use it to circumvent the App Store policies. I’m sure it nets them some cash to do this but I’m sure they would be happy to take 30% of the cloud gaming subscription revenue and allow it. Can you imagine if Facebook didn’t want to follow App Store rules and just streamed the app?
> They remove apps that compete with their own apps even if those apps existed before hand
This is just f.lux. I don’t see Apple banning notes apps in droves. And f.lux ran into the issue of Apple adding the feature and then suddenly f.lux running afoul of “you can’t sell OS functionality” which is a good rule in general. Android is rampant with apps that charge for push notifications.
> Can you imagine if Facebook didn’t want to follow App Store rules and just streamed the app?
You mean like www.facebook.com?
I fail to see why game streaming is any different than Netflix. You can't compromise the security of a device if nothing is running on the device. So this is only about Apple maintaining control.
> This is just f.lux.
Apple banned every screen-time and parental control app just before they released their own. Google Voice was banned. Apple has removed Podcasting applications for "duplicating functionality of iTunes".
> Android is rampant with apps that charge for push notifications.
I have all Android devices and my wife has all Apple devices (and I had all Apple devices in the past). There is almost no significant difference between the experiences -- the most popular apps on the store between the platforms is generally the same apps from the same companies.
Those examples you picked are misleading at best. The Google Voice ban was a weird carrier dispute, parental control apps were banned because they used MDM, and the podcast apps were removed in China because the gov’t made them.
No, I'm not talking about China w/ regards to podcast apps.
And yes parental control apps were banned because they used MDM... Which they used for years and yet all were banned mere months before Apple released their own parental controls. The reason is acceptable the timing is extremely suspicious.
For Google voice, Apple themselves said they banned it because it duplicated functionality and was "confusing". Now it's quite likely the carriers pressured them to ban the app which, in my opinion, is even worse!
You are relying on a benevolent dictator.
If Apple decided to sell you out you are fucked.
BTW if you are such a security fan would it be good if Apple watches which websites you visit in your browser?
Wouldn't it be even better if only websites are allowed which are hosted on Apple servers on Apples own internet?
Definitely - it is better than keeping tabs on thousands of small predators (apps) that want to milk your data at every instant possible.
Apple's entire business model for decades is about selling hardware and services, not advertisement. And they're doubling down on it.
The alternatives are "open source" masquerators like Ubuntu who had a boatload of Amazon spyware in it.
This is an age old argument about Apple. Last couple of months for Apple has been rough in terms of PR, but I can point you to many many threads about how Apple cares about their users and despite of the "dictator" status, they're a safe bet relative to what other options we have available. It is fashionable during this time to hate on Apple. See @dang's warning at the top of the thread - I've kind of lost hope in HN since it has become too emotional and less objective day by day.
BTW if Apple wins, developers are fucked. Apples gatekeeping will become the norm.
Developers would be resigned to the role of supplicant, who have to beg to sell their apps in the App Stores.
Just as is already happening in supermarkets and the automotive industry.
The farmers and suppliers are squeezed out and the big corporations make even more money.
It's ironic that once Apple sold Macs with the spin to prevent a 1984 like computer scenario.
Now they are big brother who watches over us to keep us secure.
It"s am incapacitation of its customers.
Please don't compare a tractor/car with the phone. Phone is a unique all-in-one system that has personal biometrics, facial recognition data, accelerometer data of my walking gait, what my sleep patterns are, emotional state, browsing habits, GPS location, home/work trips, messaging data, how often I call my doctor, network access, bluetooth access - I could go on for a few more paragraphs.
Does a tractor even come close to that level of personal information?
I agree with you and the right to repair movement. It bothers me that comes like John Deere are milking innocent farmers with equipment lockdown. It's the same with industrial robot manufacturers like Fanuc and Kuka. I once had to call Fanuc to add 128 additional registers on the controller for $10k! This is pretty rampant in B2B world and now penetrating the customer space - think about all the subscription services today! You don't own anything.
Phone is a different beast all together.
When it comes to developers, I value my device more than the developer ecosystem. For me, the phone is where I store personal data:
- Contacts
- Photos
- Notes
- Messages / SMS
- Health and Fitness
Everything else is secondary to me. So, I could give less of a damn about developers and their ecosystem than the security of the device. If I want to access external service, I use Safari or download an App.
I absolutely do not want Apps to have more control of my device. I am thankful that Apple is the gatekeeper.
I hope people see this - no one outside of HN gives a shit about Developers and I agree with them.
That's like saying I don't care about farmers I get my food from the supermarket.
What do you think who developed the programs to store your personal data?
Apple took over functions from third party apps because clever developers programmed them.
Your entire argument relies on a dichotomy between having a locked down walled garden which gives you privacy, and allowing any apps which takes all privacy away. Are you sure that's actually true? Because for example with PCs it's inverted, Linux is 110% more privacy sensitive than Windows. Openness also means you can protect yourself.
Android has an option allowing the users to install apps from any source. (You could install whole third-party app-stores this way.) Do you know of anyone who uses it?
However, it's always there, so, if my favourite Android app gets deleted from the store, I could still install it.
If your favourite iOS app gets deleted by Apple, what choices do you have?
Apple is about selling an image.
And Apple is caring as long the money flows. Don't get fooled, it's always about money. Apple sells products with a high margin that's why they can do without advertisement at the moment.
That can change every moment.
Remember how Steve Jobs laughed at using a stylus for tablets, what do we have now?
New management, new rules.
It's crucial to recognize that for most of Apple's existence, they sold only their own products. Reselling third-party products was a nonexistent or minimal part of Apple's business. That changed with the iTunes Music Store, and it took off from there.
I like Apple's first-party products. I want to buy into that ecosystem. But I never wanted to buy into the ecosystem where Apple is a reseller. I don't want Apple to become Amazon.
No one is forcing you to unlock your phone or install a third party app store. You can have the same relationship with Apple that you do now even if other people can unlock their devices and run their own software.
Also, iOS exploits are cheaper than Android exploits, because iOS exploits are so abundant in comparison to Android exploits.
>I don't want Apple to open up their devices. Average Joes around the world outside of HN crowd will have everything to lose and nothing to gain.
Well, they have Fortnite to gain...
But seriously, I've lost count of the number of apps I've enjoyed on Androids that were either unavailable or stunted on iOS. Recommending even basic apps like Google Photos to family comes with a long list of caveats like, "oh yeah, it uploads your photos automatically... as long as you open the app manually to do it". It's icing on the cake that they're also taking such a hard stance against game streaming right now, which is IMO going to be a huge market going forward that a lot of people are going to miss out on (or maybe not, since most of the game streaming market is poorer people...).
I guess the argument of dumbed-down phones for the sake of security/privacy is a reasonable one, but why wouldn't people just buy, like, actual dumb phones? Having a premium phone that you don't actually own just seems like an oxymoron to me. I don't "hack" my own phone and I'm certainly no tinkerer, but being able to actually use the apps my friends use and changing the settings I want to change makes my day to day life a little better every time I do have to use my phone.
Opening up what my friends and family can do with their phones seems like it'd have a lot to gain and very little to lose.
> Why is this good? Because dev will go back to using browser apps to provide services and the browser itself is a nice sandbox to keep the riffraff out.
Just so you know, a lot of us would like to develop our software as browser apps, but Apple has deliberately and intentionally limited the capabilities of browser on iOS devices to ensure that developers continue to develop native apps.
Microsoft takes 30% on Xbox plus its much more expensive to develop and publish on that platform overall.
Neither Tinder nor Spotify will transfer any savings to the end users.
Spotify has been ramping their sub costs considerably my sub went up by like 150% in the UK over the past 3-4 years.
Tinder employs discriminatory pricing by charging certain genders, age groups and sexual orientations more for their premium services.
How Tinder hasn’t been sued to oblivion I’m still not sure it seems to violate even US anti discrimination laws, I guess were lucky that they don’t employ differential pricing based on race yet.
If you’re claiming that Spotify would get all the benefit of a break in the fee, you’re implicitly claiming that it bears all the economic burden of the fee (ie. it doesn’t pass on the fee to users). Spotify currently charges $13 to sign up in iOS and $10 to sign up on the web. This is strong evidence that Spotify is currently passing through the fee to users. It seems much more likely that Spotify would give iOS users a price break if the fee was cut. Music streaming is a competitive market, so they don’t have much choice if everyone gets the same break.
Especially when Apple Music is $10 per month, Spotify needs to more or less match that price. The problem is if Apple takes 30% and Spotify pays out 70% (old info, maybe this has changed) to labels, Spotify is left with $0. It drops to 15% after the first year, but that's still not good compared to the 3% major credit card processors charge.
Regulators won’t see it like that because you didn’t factor in opportunity cost.
If Apple takes one of Spotify’s customers then not only do they lose out on the 30% but they’ve just taken on the burden of providing the actual service to the customer. So Apple not only has to make a profit but make more profit than the 30% would have gotten them. And music streaming is a competitive business.
Do you never think how Kroger brand products don’t run into the same issue?
To clarify, these companies are certainly not absolved of doing the same exact thing, but the current news isn't about them, it's about Apple, and they're going to make good use of that
> Microsoft takes 30% on Xbox plus its much more expensive to develop and publish on that platform overall.
And yet Epic has beef with Apple. So Microsoft must managed their relationship better than Apple has done to make Epic satisfied enough to not pull a stunt like they have with Apple.
I would like the developer to have the choice of what percent Apple gets (e.g. slider from 10% -> 30%) and that also determines the level of support (and discoverability on the App store?) that Apple gives. Would that type of system work?
Sure, if only Apple would itemize the support costs, developers could see how much support each position on the slider will earn us. Surely this won’t reveal that it’s almost pure profit.
There are lots of questions around compensation equality (i.e. the big companies get richer, the poor get charged more) but something besides the blanket 30% rule based on some metric sounds feasible to me
Really? That's so strange. I swear I thought I could buy XBox games from other stores like Amazon, Target, and Walmart if Microsoft were to kick them out of their store. I can even buy used games on CraigsList.
> There are no fees to apply to ID@Xbox, to submit a game to certification, publish, or update your games. There is a very modest one-time cost associated with development for the Universal Windows Platform.
With severe limitations, you have to use all of the Xbox Live features including having multiplayer.
You still need to pay for ESRB ratings and other things.
The SDKs that are available for this program are also heavily limited it’s basically only for UWP compatible apps, and while they didn’t put it yet it looks like there will be further limitations down the line including ensuring full cross platform compatibility including with IOS and Android.
So yes if you build a game using their more limited SDK and implement all Xbox Live features they won’t take a fee other than dev account fees.
And we aren’t talking about indie devs we’re talking about fucking Epic Games.
Around the time that program was introduced, Microsoft was promising to eventually level the two. I am certain DirectX is fully supported. Not sure about access to all memory though.
So your “source” is a HN post with no citation? You can simply compare prices on the NYT’s website and compare them to the iOS app price to find out that this isn’t true either.
That's a big IF. You will find it damn-near-impossible to have any legal standing when you willfully violate the terms of service with a provider as openly as Epic did.
Apple is fully in the right here, and as a consumer I'm glad Apple isn't messing around with their software security. What Epic did was down right sneaky, and they are (rightfully) being punished for it.
Epic started this mess, the law and legal judgements have made it very clear how they could have avoided this, and they didn't. Your feelings, personal device choices do not change facts.
Contracts are not laws, if you breech a contract then one of the possible outcomes is that you will end up in court arguing whether the contract is valid. That is what happened in this case. The law would be especially toothless if you had to obey a contract in order to dispute its validity.
This topic has been brought up a lot in these conversations and I’ve missed the substance. Which laws do we suspect Apple may have broken with their App Store contracts?
You can read Epic's court filing but the tl;dr is that Epic alleges that the terms of the contract restrict Epic and other parties from competing with Apple, that Apple uses their market power in one area to get an unfair advantage in other areas (such as payment processing), and they cite the Sherman act as the primary legal basis of their claim that those terms are illegal.
This case is likely to last for years so it is very much too soon to be predicting who will win.
The court told Epic how to get in compliance with Apple, they refused, Apple in their terms clearly states they have the right to terminate their account. That's the facts of the case, it doesn't matter what anyone feels.
The difference would be that the same iPhone has access to Taylor Swift through Spotify, Apple Music, Play Music (does that even exist anymore?) and so on.
Put the app store on the same level of competition and level the playing field of Spotify vs Apple Music in regards to the 30% subscription fee.
You must have a wildly different experience with YouTube Music then me. This forced migration was the final tipping point to push me to Spotify. YouTube Music's UX is _horrendous_ compared to Google Play Music, and the pre-canned radio stations are almost completely missing.
There are multiple streaming services, but most people won't pay for multiple services, so there is a lock in effect. And Spotify has a higher market share in music streaming than Apple has in cell phones.
Switching my $10/month payment from Spotify to iTunes is negligible compared to replacing a $700+ smartphone (which is likely on a payment plan). And in the latter case I lose access to every single app I have paid for over a decade.
Of all the things about this, the fact that the Fortnite competitor PUBG is now being “featured” by Apple just ticks me off so much. Talk about being petty. Are there school-aged children running the App Store now (or the executive suite?).
I realize Apple has the right to decide who they feature but come on. Being featured is important, it’s a big deal and it can make a serious difference to any developer’s income and notoriety. The fact that Apple can just deposit something at the top of the list because they’re in a bad mood really says something about Apple: I don’t know, maybe that they’re a bit isolated and immature about this whole thing?
The App Store promotes PUBG constantly [1]. You're reading too much into this. It would be silly for Apple to promote PUBG to spite Epic because it's made with Unreal Engine.
Based on that thread, the last time they did it was in May, and the latest was yesterday. Furthermore, they’re promoting a sneak peek so they could have easily waited to promote something that isn’t even here yet. The timing makes it pretty clear that they’re just trying to beat up Epic, and it’s an immature thing for a company to do.
The irony here is that PUBG is made with the Unreal Engine, which they're being forced by a judge not to cut off from their platform, and Epic still gets 5% of all revenue from PUBG.
Heads up, PUBG was released under the EULA and thus the 5% but after release the publisher sued to be able to buy a buyout license. Thus no, Epic gets no new revenue from PUBG.
Thanks, good note. I'd argue half of my comment remains valid though: If Apple hadn't gotten a TRO from the judge, PUBG would be unable to get Unreal Engine updates going forwards.
do you actually need to download unreal engine from the app store to build unreal engine games on ios or do gamedevs download the unreal engine tools and sdks on a desktop and then compile their games for ios from the desktop and sign them with their own app store dev accounts and upload them to the app store
I was trying to figure this out before. As I understand it from other discussions (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), the majority of developers bundle Epic's engine with their game, so it is delivered with the game in the app store. Those would not be harmed by and Epic entity being terminated by Apple, EXCEPT that it would hurt Epic's ability to develop new versions and support the already existing Unity engine and their customers. Because this court case might drag on for months but much more likely years, the court didn't think it was ok to allow Apple to terminate the dev account for the part of Epic that makes the engine, Epic International. This news is specifically about Epic Games, the company that makes Epic games, not the engine.
They're not being forced to do anything, it's a temporary injunction, i.e. just a remedy.
What's noteworthy here is that it's not a preliminary injunction, meaning that Apple might not even have had the chance to defend themselves in court yet.
To be honest Apple has to feature PUBG, because this fight with Epic is hugely damaging to their reputation with the next generation of kids who want devices.
The message that young preteens and teens are hearing is "iPhones and iPads are wack because they don't have the cool game". They don't care about the cost of v-bucks and who gets what percentage of the money. They just care that they can't play a game but their friend at school who has an Android can.
Apple has to feature PUBG because they have to show their customers that they still have cool games to play. Otherwise they run the risk of killing their iPhone gaming market just like they did the Mac gaming market. When you think desktop gaming its pretty likely that you think Windows first, because Mac has a really weak selection of games and many of the biggest titles are Windows only.
That's what Apple is now desperately trying to avoid happening to iOS as well.
>That's what Apple is now desperately trying to avoid happening to iOS as well.
It took a court order to not cut off Epic's developer liscence, which affects many other game vendors too.
That doesn't sound desparate. That sounds balsy and arrogant, and considering the attitude of Epic somewhat called for. It's almost like the gaming market on iOS is a only small percentage of all the money Apple makes. We are talking about a lot of money that Epic looses to them, but the same is not true in reverse.
Apple will stick to its guns even if the whole gaming industry would boycot them. They don't seem to care, and i can understand why they don't. Mobile games is a very profitable market, but one that makes money irregardless of quality. Angry Birds will do for Apple. The assumption that exclusive titles are platform drivers for mobile phones is false.
Linux gaming is actually really solid now thanks to Lutris, DXVK, WINE, Steam, etc. Lutris especially makes it all work smoothly, and apparently it's Linux-only. Could Mac have similar gaming support if it were less hostile to OSS?
This might be a desperate attempt at saying "hey but we do have PUBG!" but OTOH 80% of Fortnite players are on console vs PUBG has 40% of players on mobile [1].
My point being that if PUBG is much more popular that Fortnite on iOS it would only be natural that Apple would want to promote it. I have no idea if that's the case though.
It comes across as petty, certainly rubs me the wrong way to the point I'm done with Apple. But could it just be a coincidence of some sort and that we read some agency in that?
Not to whataboutism too hard, but Epic made an animated short mocking a past Apple advertisement. Further, tried to brew up a hashtag shame campaign. And finally ending with a holier than thou email over this whole ordeal.
Apple is just promoting an update for a popular game, around the time it’s going to be updated.
Love that move. EPIC is no nice guy in this fight. They put it as if they want to benefit users, but is still bottom line they are after. You wanted a fight why are you ticked off the other guy start throwing hay makers?
This kind of thing is handled at the CEO level at Epic because it is clearly part of a big strategy. This sounds to me like two very wealthy CEOs got really pissed off at each other and are going to all out war here. To me Apple's response only makes sense if you see if as keeping a promise to do literally everything possible to crush Epic in response. This seems very transactional to me, not strategic.
I wish every damn micro transaction app gets removed one day. Of course no one will do it but I simply hate everything about these apps forcing parents to pay small fees for stupid pixels because their kids begs them to do it.
Sorry, nothing else new to add to the topic, just venting and have absolutely no sympathy to apps tricking kids to spend money on tiny cellphone games.
My niece begged her mother to buy a roblox dress for $60, it is in a game, not a real dress. Another neighbor's kid spent over $600 for a game called soccer stars. The game is literally gambling. When I hear gaming apps with micro transactions removed I celebrate, no matter what the reason is.
Parent here. I play Fortnite with my two kids almost every night. Compared to the more ubiquitous pay-to-win style games that dominate the mobile market in particular I think Fortnite's model is pretty reasonable. Nothing you buy in the game will change your performance in any way or help you win. The game is free on every platform and there are people who play a lot without ever spending. As for what you can buy, its all just bling - stuff to make you look cool. If you pay $10 upfront and then play 3-4 hours a week you can earn enough V-Bucks playing to buy the battlepass every season and one or two small extras without ever putting another dollar into it. I'm sure some kids go crazy with it but its certainly not necessary.
I am alright with cosmetic microtransactions, but I think "loot boxes" should be relegated to rewards for play. Microtransactions should be to buy specific items... but leave loot boxes as a way to get random ones for free through normal play.
Be clear to the kids that they don't have permissions to spend money in apps, then systematically request for refund and charge back if the app doesn't refund you.
Apps have no basis to deceive children into spending money. Most of their practices are outright illegal depending on the jurisdiction (latin Europe), shouldn't have mercy on them.
There are bad developers will not pay your money back and keep their 5 bucks and only refund after a long, long process. They feed on this behavior, for each customer do not challenge those purchases they make free money.
When all the payments are forced to go through a trusted processor with correct parental controls for all apps in the platform, you guarantee that your kid will not make any uninformed purchases.
The thing about fraud is, if you do not stop it completely, it grows exponentially.
> I wish every damn micro transaction app gets removed one day.
What’s the alternative? I’m in love with the micro transactions model because the alternative is experience destroyed by ads or high upfront fees.
On the games I play I rarely buy anything, don’t see ads but their business is healthy and the games are fantastic and regularly updated with new content.
I casually play Asphalt 9, SimCity BuildIt and PUBG, probably have hundreds if not thousands of hours on each and spent probably less than $20 till now. If that’s not a great deal, I don’t know what is.
I also bought games like Monument Valley or Limbo and similar. While the experience is also top notch, the upfront payment feels steep and the developers don’t update the games so the play time is considerably less.
> I rarely buy anything, don’t see ads but their business is healthy
Where do you think the money comes from, then? Ultimately, your `fantastic' experience comes at the cost of innumerable singular sites of suffering from the children and addicts _who do_ buy them.
There are teams of people whose entire job is to make the IAP as addictive as possible. It's not fair to say that someone should just "be less addicted" to buying them.
Regulating the kids by banning them completely is like a nuclear bomb in a mineshaft.
It should he easier to stop children spending money on them but equally I don't mind adults spending their money on new things. A new Fortnite skin or dance etc. does have a cost to produce (I am not in favour of PTW-style microtransactions though)
the alternative is experience destroyed by ads or high upfront fees
My experience is exactly the opposite. IAPs encourage developers to make the default experience sufficiently broken (e.g. requiring absurd amounts of grinding) so that you'll pay to fix it.
I know the argument but it’s not my experience with these games. Especially with PUBG, the purchases are only cosmetic if you don’t count the private playing mode that I’m not into anyway.
Because these games are multiplayer, you peer with people that are also not high spenders(mostly).
In Asphalt 9, for example It’s not realistic fir me to unlock some cars by free playing but I would not say that the experience is broken, Years later I still enjoy a few races every day because they introduce new items and gaming modes almost monthly.
I can say quite confidently that micro transactions ruined sim city build it. They slathered the game with a massive amount of grind, it really only has a minor thematic similarity to the rest of the franchise.
I played the game for a year straight, just once spent something like $5 because I wanted an item that was about to expire an I was out of resources. Never felt like I had to pay to “win”. I never played the rest of the franchise though, enjoyed this one until I felt like I am spending too much time on a game and quit.
At least a Roblox dress likely doesn't use something near slave labor for what is ultimately disposable fashion like traditional throw away clothing production.
I see this as a huge failure in parenting - how come kids can actually spend those money? Why in the heck would you put in your credit card on a kids phone?
Heck, I never put in mine, I am perfectly fine with free apps that cover vast array of my usage. I don't game on the phone though. If my kids won't either, I can call it a small victory in parenting. If they will, either they earn the money themselves, receive gift (not from me that's for sure), or they will have to suffer subpar free-to-play variant of the game. Still a win.
I know, peer pressure and all that, but what happened to proper parenting and guiding children a bit through life?
The developers use every psychological tool known to human kind to make these kids beg for those. The way they are brain washed is ridiculous, you would understand if you watch these kids play and how addicted they get and only way to help their "life" which is the game at that point is buying. The kid will beg, scream, throw tantrums to get that thing they want. I've seen it, you can see it on youtube, there are thousands of videos showing how kids are brainwashed.
Again, I don't have a kid nor spend a single dollar on these apps. As a developer of other kinds of software I can see the dark patterns and psychological games in these apps and it is pure evil.
Agreed, but it sounds pretty petty to say you surely won't gift your kids money for apps. Why not let them do what they want with your gift? Probably would end up a good lesson when they realize how much of a waste the apps are when you have limited resources.
Microsoft went from open options to package deals with no options. iOS (and vendored Android) started out with nothing, then added a store. There is no precedent on the platforms to point to an "it got worse" scenario.
The best (far-fetched) comparisons would be the inability to pick and choose TV packages from your local TV broadcast supplier. Or not having a choice on what firmware your car's infotainment system runs. Or what store you use on your Xbox/PlayStation/Nintendo. And for all of them: you can't run your own software of choice either.
While we might see a mobile phone as a collection of Application SoC, Baseband SoC, firmwares, boot loaders, OS, apps etc. the perspective of the actual markets where they sell like the hotcakes they are see it as a 'thing', a 'device'. There is no separation, no bundling and no concept of swappable components. It's the same people that see computers that way. There is no hardware + firmware + boot loader + OS + applications, it's "the computer".
> There is no precedent on the platforms to point to an "it got worse" scenario.
While not iOS, there was a discussion last week on how MacOS has made things worse for independent developers, and is laying the groundwork to continue restricting un-notarized code.
From our perspective: yes. But legally and from the perspective or the mass-marketed users there really isn't much for them to think about or consider in terms of flexibility of application installation. (freedom is such a vague term to describe platform access - are you really free if you don't harvest your self-grown silicon chrystals, diffuse the chips yourself, write the firmware and OS yourself etc?)
Ironically, we could turn this on it's head: when the iPad came out people commented humorously "nobody asked for this" but apparently it was a device we didn't know we could use or enjoy. The same could be said for personal platform access. But what shape or benefit (and downsides) it gives to the mass market user eludes me so far.
I am not sure why this fallacy continues to be repeated in every Apple thread. Apple currently has 46% US market share [1] and 14% global market share [2]. This is far from monopoly power.
By contrast, Microsoft had 95% market share during their antitrust suit. [3]
First, these statistics are for phones shipped, not current active users of said phones. It's well known that iPhone users tend to hold on to their phone for longer before upgrading compared to Android users, who often switch phones much earlier. You need to look at operating-system market share based on active users(e.g. web tracking), not "who upgraded their phone this quarter". In that regard, Apple has over 56% market share in the US and over 24% market share globally [1].
Secondly, the fallacy here is that people, like yourself, keep conflating the smartphone manufacturing or operating system markets with the individual software markets that developed around each platform. Mac software doesn't "compete" with Windows software because people tend to have one device or the other. That software is what makes the platforms themselves competitive between each other, yes, but the actual software industry that's dependent on them is not competitive across those platforms. They are competing with apps within their particular platform, including the purveyors they have to go through (e.g. Apple and Google). You wouldn't say that the Bear notes app on iOS is competing with the Scarlet Notes app on Android because they're in different markets. Instead, Bear is competing with Apple Notes. Even if we are to go by your 14%, that's 14% of 3.5 billion people. IMO, that's such a large amount that it should be considered it's own market, but that has to be determined by a court.
No one is arguing "monopoly" of mobile smartphones here. They're arguing a monopoly specifically of iOS software distribution. The Microsoft case wasn't in relation to other web browser developers, but of other operating systems and of manufacturers because they leveraged their market share to illegally maintain their monopoly in that regard. Their monopoly was their monopoly of the Windows operating system, not the Internet Explorer web browser. What's being argued here is that Apple is leveraging their power, or distribution monopoly, over the entire iOS software market, not "smartphone" software in general, to gatekeep competition of software and software distribution while also profiting from that gatekeeping.
This is going to come down to how a court interprets this because antitrust isn't as cut and dry as other areas of law, especially now that individual markets are not so easily distinguishable in the current tech world.
> First, these statistics are for phones shipped, not current active users of said phones.
That's fair, however I don't believe web usage is the correct metric to use either. In any case the numbers are still a far cry from the 95% Microsoft held during their antitrust case.
> Mac software doesn't "compete" with Windows software because people tend to have one device or the other.
By that logic Nintendo games don't "compete" with Xbox or Playstation games. I disagree with this narrowly defined view of the market in which Nintendo games, Xbox games, and Playstation games are viewed as competing in three separate markets, instead of competing in the overall video game market.
> They're arguing a monopoly specifically of iOS software distribution.
I disagree that this is a valid antitrust market and I think Epic is going to have a hard time convincing a court to accept this narrow market definition. US courts generally frown upon treating aftermarkets of a single brand's product as a valid antitrust market unless specific circumstances are met.
Those circumstances usually involve situations where the consumer lacks information about aftermarket restrictions or policies when the original product is purchased. In this case, iPhone customers know when they buy an iPhone that they will only be able to install apps via the App Store. If they are unhappy with this limitation they have an option of buying a different phone without such limitations. If they decide to go ahead and buy anyway, they did so knowingly, therefore antitrust liability is not likely in those circumstances.
> This is going to come down to how a court interprets this
I think many people are going to be disappointed by this. Aftermarket scenarios are not uncommon in antitrust law and the existing precedent is not in Epic's favor.
The real fallacy here is attempting to frame 'monopoly' by its dictionary definition, and not the definition used by the government[1]:
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.
The definition you've linked does not really contradict my point considering it says that courts typically do not find monopoly power below 50% market share.
Market share does not actually determine monopoly. You can have 100% market share and not be a monopoly. Conversely, you can have 50% market share and be a monopoly.
Apple has more active users in the US than Android btw.
The fallacy being repeated is actually people defining monopolies by referencing market share.
In determining whether a competitor possesses monopoly power in a relevant market, courts typically begin by looking at the firm's market share.(18) Although the courts "have not yet identified a precise level at which monopoly power will be inferred,"(19) they have demanded a dominant market share. Discussions of the requisite market share for monopoly power commonly begin with Judge Hand's statement in United States v. Aluminum Co. of America that a market share of ninety percent "is enough to constitute a monopoly; it is doubtful whether sixty or sixty-four percent would be enough; and certainly thirty-three per cent is not."(20) The Supreme Court quickly endorsed Judge Hand's approach in American Tobacco Co. v. United States.(21)
Following Alcoa and American Tobacco, courts typically have required a dominant market share before inferring the existence of monopoly power. The Fifth Circuit observed that "monopolization is rarely found when the defendant's share of the relevant market is below 70%."(22) Similarly, the Tenth Circuit noted that to establish "monopoly power, lower courts generally require a minimum market share of between 70% and 80%."(23) Likewise, the Third Circuit stated that "a share significantly larger than 55% has been required to establish prima facie market power"(24) and held that a market share between seventy-five percent and eighty percent of sales is "more than adequate to establish a prima facie case of power."(25)
It is also important to consider the share levels that have been held insufficient to allow courts to conclude that a defendant possesses monopoly power. The Eleventh Circuit held that a "market share at or less than 50% is inadequate as a matter of law to constitute monopoly power."(26) The Seventh Circuit observed that "[f]ifty percent is below any accepted benchmark for inferring monopoly power from market share."(27) A treatise agrees, contending that "it would be rare indeed to find that a firm with half of a market could individually control price over any significant period."(28)
Some courts have stated that it is possible for a defendant to possess monopoly power with a market share of less than fifty percent.(29) These courts provide for the possibility of establishing monopoly power through non-market-share evidence, such as direct evidence of an ability profitably to raise price or exclude competitors. The Department is not aware, however, of any court that has found that a defendant possessed monopoly power when its market share was less than fifty percent.(30) Thus, as a practical matter, a market share of greater than fifty percent has been necessary for courts to find the existence of monopoly power.(31)
Unless you believe a market that includes nearly the entire population of the United States to be "typical", are we not then in agreement that Apple can still be found to be a monopoly, according to the excerpt you just posted?
The relevant geographic market for this court case will be the entire United States, yes. It is possible, but rather unlikely given existing historical precedent, that Apple's current US market share will be considered a monopoly.
Are monopolies strictly and solely defined by market share and not power and influence on the market in addition to abuses done through that power and influence? Defining monopolies only by market shares seems to be an outdated view. Things are different now. Even with that definition though, there is definitely a duopoly.
Strictly speaking, no. Monopoly power has been defined by the Supreme Court as the "power to control prices and exclude competition" and it is not based on a specific market share threshold. However, courts tend to start by examining market share in determining how much power a company has in a given market, and (as I posted in a sibling comment) they typically do not find monopoly power when a company has less than 50% of the market.
Might be an unpopular opinion but I don’t think they are acting to the level of MSFT in the 90s. What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps. Also recall that Jobs was pretty adamant about allowing third-party apps in the beginning. Now, do I think 30% is ridiculous in 2020? Yes. But it made sense a decade ago when having a half decent working app almost guaranteed you revenue.
You can't uninstall Safari from iOS. In fact you can't even browse the web without it as Apple prohibits any other browsing engine (Chrome, FF, etc, are using WKWebView).
I don't know the numbers but I imagine there are more iOS devices now than there were Windows PCs back in the 90s.
I don't think Apple has demonstrated more commitment to "building secure devices" than to "building a tightly walled garden to maximize leverage over developers and users".
I don't know of any consumer company that has taken privacy and security more seriously than Apple.
They led the way on iOS with Sandboxing, Secure Enclave, forcing HTTPS, on-device ML, on-use permissions model, fingerprinting prevention. And TouchID/FaceID both were popularised on iOS and made simple and reliable enough to be used by tens of millions.
By disallowing dynamic code execution, Apple does disallow other browsing engines. It does not matter what language Apple uses to disallow other browsing engines, since the effect is the same.
> What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps.
How many HTML/CSS/DOM/JavaScript rendering engines have been available on iOS compared to Android?! Has Gecko or Presto ever been available on iOS? What is the ONLY platform in wide use today that does not support Gecko or Blink?
Apple's iOS is by far worse than the Microsoft with Windows.
>What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps.
There was never any limit on installing software. Any Windows user could have easily installed Netscape.
Now, if we want to compare actual complaints, I recall that the idea that MS used private APIs to get Word a leg up was considered outrageous. These days, Apple uses private APIs to help Apple Music, and not a peep (well, until the EU will smack them down).
> What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps.
Did I read this right? My understanding was that Microsoft was penalized for bundling Windows with IE. Windows never forbade users from installing other web browsers.
Apple situation today would be more like if Windows did not allow users to install word processors other than Office, didn't allow browsers other than IE, etc.
Very good point and my example was not quite right. Although Apple’s market share is nothing even close to what MSFT had. It would be very difficult to prove in court that Apple is flexing market power when (a) they apply the same cut across the board, (b) competition charges the same amount, and more importantly (c) they have not changed it since inception. I think lawsuits are only possible once Apple crosses 50% market share which I don’t see happening.
Competing browsers saw their traffic increase,[16] suggesting that these smaller competing developers were gaining users. However, long-term trends show browsers such as Opera and Firefox losing market share in Europe, calling into question the usefulness of the browser choice screen.
If that were the case, you would have seen Chrome’s market share increase faster in the EU than the US where there was no browser ballot. That wasn’t the case.
The premise of browser lock-in was that Microsoft was tying IE to Windows and then encouraging the creation of websites that required IE. If Europe broke the lock on global websites that required IE, that would enable people all over the world to switch to other browsers at the same time.
What do you think had more to do with IE losing market share worldwide “browser choice” or the most popular website in the world hawking their browser on the front page and MS losing mobile - you can’t very well be IE only and want to work on mobile browsers.
What requires it to be a larger effect? Your claim was that "browser choice" was ineffective because non-Microsoft browsers lost share, but that's nonsense. Microsoft browsers lost share. That there were multiple reasons for this is no evidence that browser choice didn't work. The thing it was supposed to do happened.
I’m quoting from *your source”. How would Microsoft not lose share if they weren’t on mobile? We have a control group - the US. Where there was no browser choice forced on Microsoft, they lost share faster and where Google was more popular.
Losing share faster rather than at the same rate is evidence that there are independent factors involved, which means that it isn't a valid control group.
> hat MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps
This is exactly what Apple is doing. Apple does not allow 3rd party app stores on the iPhone. They are literally preventing competitors on the platform, and forcing people to only use the apple app store.
> about allowing third-party apps in the beginning.
No, they absolutely do not allow 3rd party app stores on the iPhone. That is what this is all about. It is about Apple preventing competing app stores on the iPhone.
Might be an unpopular opinion but I don’t think they are acting to the level of MSFT in the 90s.
It's far worse. Microsoft may have played dirty tricks with bundling, but they never prevented developers from distributing competing software. If Microsoft had the control over Windows that Apple does over iOS, they never would have allowed web browsers (for "security", no doubt) and we might be in a Windows monoculture today.
> What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps.
Does Apple prohibiting apps from using any other payment processors than Apple's come close enough to equivalency to you? That's one of the key elements of the dispute here.
Your citation has nothing to do with Apple banning apps and the idea the article cites is as old as dirt and has been discussed since way before the App Store.
There is no copy cats rule. There is an existence proof that this isn’t true in every category where Apple bundles a first party app.
That is not what they are referring to. For some strange reason there is a myth that you can’t ship an app on iOS if Apple has a competing service. Even though there are all sorts of existence proofs that it isn’t truth.
Signal can't send SMS on iPhones (it can on Android). Firefox has to use Apple's browser engine. Just because they don't do it in 100% of cases doesn't mean they don't do it.
Allowing apps to send SMS exposes users (think: kids) to all sorts of headaches such as auto-signing them up for premium content. And Apple has no mechanism to prevent this other than blocking the APIs entirely.
And you can use a third party browser engine. You just can't be dynamically compiling code at runtime which is needed for JIT Javascript. Being able to do this defeats the purpose of having an app curation process.
Signal doesn't auto-sign up kids for premium content. Firefox doesn't run local apps.
If these were actually security restrictions then they would be privileging their own applications by waiving them for themselves, which is just as bad. Meanwhile in practice the effects of these "security restrictions" rather than rules against apps taking the bad behavior you're actually objecting to are suspiciously convenient for them -- their users can't switch to Chrome and it gives iMessage a larger network effect, and keeps people on iPhones when their friends have iPhones because they're all using iMessage rather than Signal or Whatsapp etc.
No but having an SMS API allows dodgy apps to signup kids for premium content. When dealing with security issues you don't just imagine the perfect case scenario.
And you use Chrome, Signal and WhatApp on iPhones. Not sure what you are talking about here.
> No but having an SMS API allows dodgy apps to signup kids for premium content.
So reject the dodgy apps then. What justification is that for denying it to Signal? In particular, what justification is that for denying it to Signal but not iMessage?
> And you use Chrome, Signal and WhatApp on iPhones. Not sure what you are talking about here.
Signal and WhatsApp on iPhones can't send SMS. Chrome on iPhones isn't Chrome, it's Safari with a Chrome logo.
> You don’t think it’s a security issue for apps to be able to intercept your text messages
Apps, like Signal, that you have given permission to intercept your text messages? Why would that be a security issue? You gave them permission to do it because that's what you wanted.
> Of course the OS vendor is going to have privileged access.
Also known as "private APIs" etc.
> Do you also want third parties to be able to reprogram the Secure Enclave?
Why would that be unreasonable, if done at the request of the device owner?
When the effect of the "security restrictions" is in practice to ban the competing apps while Apple exempts its own apps from the security restrictions, it's the same thing.
How is Apple not going to “exempt” itself from having privileged access to its own operating system? Signal is not “banned” from the App Store neither is Chrome - they both exist on the App Store.
Signal is an app for sending text messages and Apple doesn't allow it to send SMS text messages. Example of why this is a security vulnerability rather than a security feature: Someone with an iPhone uses Signal to communicate with someone with an Android phone but they still have to use iMessage for SMS with others. Then they accidentally send a message to the other person using iMessage instead of Signal and it goes out unencrypted.
The "Chrome" in Apple's store is just a skin over Safari. It doesn't actually exist there, only something different with the same name.
Someone with an iPhone uses Signal to communicate with someone with an Android phone but they still have to use iMessage for SMS with others.
How is this any different from people having to use WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, SMS etc?
Then they accidentally send a message to the other person using iMessage instead of Signal and it goes out unencrypted.
So the same people who are smart enough to know the risks involved in letting a third party intercept your text message aren’t smart enough to choose the right app?
> How is this any different from people having to use WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, SMS etc?
It means you're using a different app for secure messaging and SMS. If they're the same app then it knows to not send SMS to the person you have encrypted messaging set up with.
It also requires you to use multiple messaging apps, which increases cognitive load and the potential for mistakes, because there is nothing available on iOS that can both send SMS and send secure messages to Android devices.
> So the same people who are smart enough to know the risks involved in letting a third party intercept your text message aren’t smart enough to choose the right app?
Smart people make mistakes all the time. Isn't that your whole thing about not giving the user full control over the device?
You mean like making a mistake and clicking “yes” and giving permission to all of your text messages to a third party that can then log it and use it to take over accounts?
How many people trusted the “no logging VPNs” before the ES hacks showed they were in fact logging everything?
Actually I do think it matters if Apple is technically a monopoly, as laws are technical documents. If you agree Apple is not a monopoly then the worst thing you can say is, "I don't think Apple is being very nice."
And Apple is not forcing anyone to write ios apps. They are curating a store. Should lawmakers dictate to Walmart which products to stock or how much to buy and sell them for?
Laws are technical document, and as I keep saying, legally a company does not need to be a monopoly to get the law to interfere against it. IIRC, the test in the US is "market power" + "harm to customer welfare", and there's a good case to be made that Apple meets it.
Apple is not forcing anyone to write iOS apps, Microsoft and IBM did not force anyone either. Still, the law acted, because anti-competitive market behaviour is illegal.
The law (Sherman Act) does actually say that “Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize ... any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony.” The test you mentioned is basically an attempt to explain the meaning of this contentious word “monopolize.”
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.
The Sherman Act is not the only relevant law here; the Clayton Act is relevant as law. (And was passed because the Sherman Act was too narrow). You do not need to be a monopoly to violate the Clayton Act, and most antitrust legislation nowadays is I believe brought under that and not the Sherman Act.
In this case the Sherman Act is relevant because all of Epic's federal claims are brought under the Sherman Act. (There are some California specific claims too.)
However, it is true that some of Epic's claims were brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act which do not necessarily require monopoly power. (Section 1 has to deal with unreasonable restraints of trade, whereas Section 2 deals with monopolies.)
The legal proceeding terrified IBM to the point the PC became an open system, so they definitely had a market effect.
The MS case was different, but some elements are similar (use of private APIs; ability to choose default apps which is still not complete in iOS), and some are things MS never dreamt they could do.
IBM didn’t open up because of suit on mainframes. They really didn’t care about the personal computer market and just got open source parts and paid MS a little money for the operating system.
The use of “private APIs” is a red herring. Every software developer for the last forty years knows about the concept of a public interface that they promise not to change and private implementation details. Some languages force it and others do it by convention.
IBM did wish to maintain control, that's why they copyrighted the BIOS. But when Compaq reversed engineer it, it was obvious that there was no way to sue without inviting more legal scrutiny.
My other point is that some Apple app store apps can use APIs that every other app would get banned for. People complained about that when it came MS; It's not better when Apple does it.
That also isn’t true. Compaq had to do a clean room implementation so it wouldn’t get sued. The anti-trust suit was dropped in 1983 - around the same time that Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS.
Epic specifically brought several Sherman Act section 2 claims against Apple. The first step of proving a section 2 claim is establishing monopoly power.
So even though there are some antitrust violations (e.g. price fixing or bid rigging) where monopoly power is indeed irrelevant, it is very specifically relevant in the context of Epic's lawsuit against Apple.
Very broadly speaking it's perfectly legal to have a monopoly on something, and Apple has a monopoly on the thing they created, and that's fine.
It's generally illegal to use a monopoly on one thing to acquire a monopoly on another thing when that harms society, and that is the claim here.
Microsoft alone created windows, that's fine. Microsoft used their monopoly on windows to gain monopolies on other pieces of software, and that was problematic.
1) They use their market power over something they created in order to gain advantage in a market they did not create (payment processors). There's no technical reason to link the two except that's it's good for Apple's bottom line.
2) Apple's app store is like running a Mall where Apple rents store, or Apple being a landlord renting apartments. The agreement to receive rents comes with implied duties like allow fair competition, and Apple overtly giving themselves undue advantage violates that.
Also have to mention apple is charging a fee way outside the norm for a payment processor at 30%.
Have to also remember to deploy to the app store and a lot of the development has to be done on a Mac. So it is really equivalent of saying you must buy the factory from us, only sell in our store, and only use our payment processor.
> Apple's app store is like running a Mall where Apple rents store
Apple's app store is the store, not a mall, 100% build, owned and operated by Apple. Developers are goods suppliers, like milk to Wallmart. Want a better deal? Build your own store or sell elsewhere. You cannot expect Wallmart stocking your empty milk bottles for free with a printed message "now you can buy milk on milk.com"
The typical store model also has the store owner selecting products, paying in advance to the suppliers, and assuming partial liability - especially over fakes. Comparing it to a mall makes more sense IMHO, given that it's the developer that initiates the transaction here, pays to the mall owner, and assumes all liability.
P.S. Quite a lot of products in I buy in $LOCALSTORE link to the manufacturer's web site, and more than a few manufacturers allow direct sales. No store here would imagine it could force the manufacturer to use only its preferred credit method in their web site.
How should Apple get paid for a free app that has it's own payment system? Apple created a phone, IDE, language and entire ecosystem and from day 1 has charged 30%. They have not increased that as their marketshare increased. Should Apple be forced to allow an app to be released free and then accept payments outside of Apple?
Oh, I don't know. They could ask the developer for a fee. How about that?
To answer your question, yes, Apple should be forced to allow other payment system. The current anti-competitive arrangement both disadvantages non-Apple payment systems, and prevents users from switching to Android if they wish (since subscriptions are managed by Apple, and it difficult to access that without an Apple device...).
Put Fortnite into a box and put it on the shelf at a store which will take 30% in margin on that sale (probably more). Should that store also be forced to allow buyers to purchase it off their store shelf through a payment to someone else? Of course not.
It's payment in-app that are the issue, not payments to the store. Apple played no role in generating these in-app payments, and shouldn't have the right to mandate use of its payment solution. If you bought Fortnite at a store, would the store get money over purchases made later inside the Fortnite application? Of course not.
Because their current behaviour is anti-competitive rent-seeking, and limits innovation.
Anti-competitive by mandating use of their products, rent seeking because 30% is absurd (but alas legal), and as one twitter thread pointed out, if the web hadn't already existed, no existing web browser could possibly have passed Apple's app store policies.
I guess I don't see them mandating the use of their products. You can have your app on iOS or not. I just don't see the moral issue here. They've never raised the prices and have had this price since they had 0 3rd party apps so I have a hard time seeing it as rent seeking. Do they make a lot of money? Yes, they do, but is that enough to force them not too? I'm just not convinced of that yet.
Apple are mandating the use of their Apple ID and Apple Payment System (aka products). The first might have a security rational, the second does not, yet devs must pay Apple's fees even if they are higher than alternatives[, a defacto price raise].
It used to be possible to get payments on iOS going without using Apple's payments, before Apple set their eyes upon that market.
Why shouldn't they? They got paid when the customer bought the phone. If the "free" app is handling payment processing and distribution itself, what is Apple doing that justifies receiving any money at all?
The ide, language, servers, and platform to support the app aren't worth anything? Really not trying to be dense here, I just don't see how this isn't just Epic thinking a price is too high and wanting to pay less.
I guess I just don't see why they should be required to support those other things. I agree that they could do that, but I don't see the reason to force them to. They created what they wanted because they didn't like the current offerings at the time–Epic or anyone else is free to do the same.
> I guess I just don't see why they should be required to support those other things.
Because not supporting them is anti-competitive. Markets require competition to operate. It is obviously not feasible for an individual app developer to build their own phone hardware and operating system and convince everyone to switch to it from iPhones just in order to avoid Apple's app distribution system, so requiring that is unreasonable.
By this tortured logic Tesla should be forced to have a marketplace of self-driving implementations which their cars must support because that is technically a market.
> But you've arbitrarily defined what a market is.
It's not arbitrary. It's based on whether there are reasonable substitutes. Exxon is a reasonable substitute for Chevron when buying gasoline for your 2020 Ford F150, because you can use either one. Google Play is not a reasonable substitute for the Apple App Store when buying apps for your 2020 Apple iPhone, because you can't actually use it for that.
> By this tortured logic Tesla should be forced to have a marketplace of self-driving implementations which their cars must support because that is technically a market.
It has nothing to do with forcing them to do something. They just shouldn't be able to prevent someone else from producing an autopilot implementation for their cars. And what's so unreasonable about that? It's plainly anti-competitive.
Because Epic is happy with the console makers, but they're not happy with Apple.
The console makers actually actually do things for Fornite, other than offering a download. Sony sells like a Fornite + Playstation bundle, and do marketing with them.
It shows they have a majority share of the mobile OS market in the US; therefore, they can basically act like they have a monopoly in the US. Everyone else is a distant second, so they can monopolize or attempt to monopolize the mobile app market.
That's not how any of this works. Majority share is a lot of power, but the theory of how monopolies work doesn't support the idea that anyone with a majority of the market has monopoly power.
It's most definitely how this works. Monopoly power isn't some binary attribute. It's not like you flip a switch one day from not being a monopoly to suddenly becoming a monopoly. Monopoly power is accrued over time with increasing market share. Very few companies have the kind of market share we are talking about here with Apple and the US mobile OS market. Take for example, Walmart, who many people think of being gigantic in the retail sector in the US. They only account for 16% of US retail sales. If Apple only had 16% of the US mobile OS market there wouldn't even be a discussion about anti-trust laws and Apple wouldn't have just made this announcement -> https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=84w3e5bm
"The kind of common theme is the abuse of their market power to maintain their market dominance, to crush competitors, to exclude folks from their platform and to earn monopoly rents."
But that also applies to every single current game console and
almost all other modern devices with app support, ranging from
smartwatches to home automation.
That doesn't seem like a monopoly to me. Apple has huge
competition on the mobile market. Windows Phone 8 only had
Microsoft's own app store, was that a monopoly with its <5%
market share? I think not.
> But that also applies to every single current game console and almost all other modern devices with app support, ranging from smartwatches to home automation.
That sounds like an argument that "every single current game console and almost all other modern devices with app support" are maintaining monopolies on app distribution on their platform, what's your point? Epic Games is not obligated in any way to sue every company breaking the law just because they chose to sue one that is.
Tim Sweeney has made some statements about this, to try and walk a line where, while the situation is equally true about game consoles, they shouldn't count/shouldn't be forced to be open because their platforms are less innately profitable. That is, consoles are sold at a loss and have a lot of R&D costs, and so they have more rights to maintain an exclusionary platform than Apple.
I can see the pragmatic sense in that argument, but I'm pessimistic and see it more as Tim trying to avoid destroying a relationship with strategically critical partners while achieving new strategic goals on mobile. Trying to have his cake and eat it too.
Let's assume your pessimistic case is exactly right, so what? He's allowed to sue one person who is breaking the law while not suing another one. He's allowed to eat the console slice of cake and complain to the courts that the apple slice of cake had the wrong color icing even if they both have the wrong color icing.
He's also allowed to believe that there is a stronger case against Apple and sue them first, and then sue the other people later if he wins the first suit convincingly, which is what I personally suspect is going to happen.
Yeah, but I'd imagine if someone offered you to have Steam on ps5, you'd jump in instantly. At least I would. I'd even pay more for the nice compact hardware if it is currently subsidized.
Apple is a monopoly that controls what applications can run on iPhones. Being a monopoly is not illegal in the US. What is illegal is for a monopoly to engage in predatory practices, which Apple clearly does.
I was referring to the specific point that is mentioned in the article, that Apple demanded 30% from Fortnite sales that had nothing to do with being listed in the store. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Android is another phone platform with a larger market share. This is hardly a monopoly.
Don’t buy an ios device if you want apps from vendors who don’t play by apples rules.
I hate the 30% fee as a developer and a user.
I was an ios jail breaker before the App Store launched. I used jailbreaking after the App Store launched to have a control panel and fast app switching. All that got baked into ios but I wish new innovations could make their way to the platform with an unofficial store.
I think that would ultimately be better for consumers.
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.
You can install any other store on Android; you can enable installation from any source on Android; you don't even need to jailbreak to get this option on Android.
I don't know if you remember the 90s, but at the time MS was the ONLY monopoly in personal computing. Intel was the other big force, but even they had competition on AMD. All other companies had not even a slim of hope of controlling the ecosystem like MS had. Now we have Apple, but you still can buy Google devices and do whatever you want outside their walled garden.
I think its really important the narrative stays clear concerning this: Its never been about users having choice (because users do have choice): Its about Developers not having a choice.
Refusing to release an iOS app for your web application/game/etc is generally a death sentence, so much so that oftentimes you see new services release as "Get it on the iOS app store, Android coming soon."
Of course the argument for this is "why are iOS users more inclined to purchase games and IAPs compared to Android users?". I'm legitimately curious about this, but my first guess is these two factors:
A. iOS is generally more expensive and thus users are more likely to have disposable income
B. The IAP system means the only barrier to purchasing stuff on a completely new app is performing touch/face ID
Don't forget that Android has more than one store and depending on the company you buy your phone from it might even come with another store pre-installed, such as the Samsung store.
So comparing iOS store to only the play store will ignore a section of Android users.
I don't think this line of argument would fly, because developers have actually a choice in developing for Android. If they don't make as much money that is not Google or Apple's fault.
What I think is an argument against Apple is that users want to have access to apps that Apple doesn't want to release on its store. In that case, they may be forced to relax their rules on the Appstore.
> I don't think this line of argument would fly, because developers have actually a choice in developing for Android.
This is much like saying that having a monopoly on retail stores in California isn't a problem because producers can just sell their product in New York. Obviously that doesn't allow them to reach the same customers. They aren't alternatives to each other because you need both to reach your entire customer base. Compare to Walmart where if you don't sell through them, the exact same customers can easily walk across the street and buy your product at Target.
That's not the same. People living in California cannot relocate to NY just to use a different store. iPhone users can in fact buy an Android phone to escape Apple. I think this line of argument is very weak and will never succeed in an antitrust trial.
> People living in California cannot relocate to NY just to use a different store. iPhone users can in fact buy an Android phone to escape Apple.
In what sense can people in California not relocate to NY but people with iPhones can relocate to Android? In both cases moving is possible but the cost is far in excess of the cost of the typical product you'd buy in the store.
In the very definite sense that Android and iPhone are brands of mobile phones available everywhere in the US, which you can buy any minute you want. You literally just need to buy a new one. That's not the same for the place where you live.
Even "just buy a new one" is laying out hundreds of dollars, if not over a thousand, to buy a $1 app. But then you also have to re-buy all of your existing apps and learn a new operating system. There may be apps that only exist on one platform, or services like iCloud that you would have a cost to transition away from. You may have friends who use iMessage and can't convince them to switch to anything else. It may force you into relationships you don't want -- maybe you don't want to give Google all your data and regard that as a significant cost.
That's normal in the world of software. There are thousands of titles that are Windows only. To use them you need to buy a PC with a windows OS, even if the software you want to run is $1 or free. The same applies to macOS or even Linux.
Ultimately, this isn't about App Store revenue. Yes, iOS generates far more IAP revenue than Android, in general. But, does this apply to Fortnite (maybe), xCloud (no), Hey (no), and the many other apps which have been Banned By Apple?
I'm not talking about writing an application for iOS and Android, then selling it in the store. I do think that's a separate case.
I'm talking about, as the best examples, xCloud and Hey. Web services which need to offer a mobile experience. Microsoft will be fine without Apple, but Hey faced legitimate business issues when Apple kicked them out. These companies are uninterested in the App Store Economy: They just want distribution.
How were they a monopoly if Apple had their own OS? As did many others?
Microsoft got hit for antitrust because of bundled software. What Apple does is far worse imo, not just bundling software, but the control over the store/devices is nuts.
> Microsoft got hit for antitrust because of bundled software.
Not quite. Microsoft's antitrust violations involved coercing other companies to bundle IE with their products. In particular:
1. They forced OEMs to ship IE instead of Netscape as a condition of obtaining Windows OEM licenses.
2. They made deals with ISPs to ship IE instead of Netscape (for example on AOL CDs).
3. They threatened to pull Office for Mac if Apple shipped Netscape with Mac OS instead of IE.
The question of whether the sole act of bundling IE with Windows would have been itself an antitrust violation was never decided by the appeals court. It was remanded back to the district court for additional proceedings which never happened as the lawsuit was eventually settled.
Apple had less than 5% of the desktop market. At some point in the 90s Apple was going bankrupt quickly! MS had to step in and invest in Apple so that it wouldn't close down leaving MS as the only company in the personal computer OS market.
Microsoft “invested” a token $250 million in Apple. The same quarter, Apple spent $100 million to buy PoweComputings Mac license. The $150 net did not save Apple. Apple lost far more money than that before it became profitable.
What MS did was promise to continue releasing both Office and IE for the Mac.
Well, I couldn't buy a computer from a major company with an alternate operating system without paying Microsoft in the 90's, so I'll say that's pretty damn abusive.
They effectively made it impossible to buy a computer without paying them. They profited even when they were not part of a transaction which killed BeOS and others.
The monopoly word gets thrown around a lot in this context. But it's not clear where the monopoly is, in a legal, anti-competitive sense. Can you define what Apple's market monopoly is?
Super glad I cut all ties with Apple a few years back. They make great products for my parents, but they are increasingly hostile toward developers and tech savvy users.
I made a free mobile game that's in both the iOS and Play store, and after I realized the $99 fee is not just a one time fee but a recurring fee to keep the app in the store, well of course I let my developer account lapse. I'm not a charity, and it's not worth it for me to pay $100/year just so friends and family can download it. So, for now only Android users can play my game. And same with all of my future free software - it will never intentionally target Apple users, ever, unless Apple changes their ways.
The sad part is all the users who think that not providing the folks who own the physical instances of hardware the choice to install software from any location, is great for the end user.
This option is present in Android. And you can use it at any time. Is it often that the option is used? Absolutely not, I've never even used it myself. But I still think it's great that it's available, and, if need be, I can easily install any app I want from any source, even if Google doesn't approve of such app or such source.
> They make great products for my parents, but they are increasingly hostile toward developers and tech savvy users.
This is the opposite of a backhanded complement. The market for your parents is orders of magnitudes greater than the market for developers and technologists.
As a tech-savvy user, I may be asked which device I recommend.
If I write OS-agnostic mobile apps for fun, and my apps can be downloaded for Android easily, but cannot be downloaded for iOS, guess which device I'll be recommending to my "parents", friends and internet strangers?
That way of thinking assumes that the people you are giving recommendations to care most about your app’s availability rather than the persons own preferences and motivations. If your audience is non tech savvy (group defined by not being a specific group, eg much broader), good chance they have a broad set of preferences unrelated to your free app availability.
This point above is more of a “save your breath” suggestion as tech savvy people would much more likely be interested in this trade off when considering a which device type to purchase.
I’m also unsure how you can possess the skills to build an entire app and not also posses the skills to read the “annual fee” part of the developer program cost.
Not rooting for Apple, but the pretentiousness in the “I’m not a charity” part seemed far removed from the humbleness required to be unintentionally illiterate.
I was under the impression that the fee was only annual if you wanted to continue developing. I didn't know the fee was also tied to whether or not your existing apps would be taken down. Clearly, this is confusing to other people as well: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5271418/will-my-app-stay...
You also have to buy Apple hardware to build and test their software. That would be at least an iphone and a macbook air. The wallet garden extends to developers as well.
I'm launching an app and I have no desire to buy hardware that treats me like I'm too dumb to be able to install software from whatever source I want.
So Apple will be ignored and that's gonna be a net win on sanity and time to polish the product for Android.
IANAL and I cannot judge the legal merits of this case.
I did read Apple's response though and I found the argument not a compelling justification for their practices.
A big part of their response is to justify the need for the 30% as a mechanism to recoup costs. That sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize that Epic is not allowed to recoup its own costs for the higher App Store cost by increasing their product cost by 30%.
Instead it must take a loss on the product and charge the customer the same price as app stores that do not take as large a %. That makes little sense.
> Epic is not allowed to recoup its own costs for the higher App Store cost by increasing their product cost by 30%
What are you talking about? Epic can price their product however they want. Why do you think Youtube Premium costs more on iOS than on any other platform?
> What are you talking about? Epic can price their product however they want. Why do you think Youtube Premium costs more on iOS than on any other platform?
As far as I understand this is something Google was specifically allowed to do because their nature as streaming service. E.g most of companies are not allowed to sell subscription or app options for 30% extra on iOS and make it possible to pay for them on their own website for normal price.
They have exceptions for few kind of products and this is exactly where Apple policy become some controversial. Since they also allow video streaming, but banned game streaming apps.
This is a blunder. Epic will do just fine without Apple, but Apple is alienating people like me who use their products and are predisposed to support them. Our eyes are opening to their true nature. Full disclosure: I worked for Apple for almost 20 years.
My top of the line MBP died aprox 2 years after I bought it. By that time there were thousands of people with the same problem on the internet. Obviously I had to buy another Mac to keep on working.
If Apple had cared about its customers it would have taken the defective machines early on and either exchanged them for new machines, or at least offered a proportion of its retail price towards a new Mac. Apple didn't do nothing of the sorts.
It took almost 2 more years and 3-4 action class lawsuits for Apple to finally start a repair program.
By that time I could't even sell the damn thing after the repairs. I ended up giving it away to a junior dev and guess what? It died a year later of the same problem.
Apple to Epic and Facebook: Our 30% cut is the cost of doing business on our turf. If you refuse to pay it or you draw attention to it, Bruno will pay you a visit and break your kneecaps.
Apple have been exceedingly clear about their App Store policies for a long time. And they’re not so out of step with Google, Sony and Microsoft stores. What true nature is being revealed?
I'm surprised there's no effort by companies to negotiate collectively with Apple, as one entity. A single company means nothing to Apple, the company often risks a big chunk of their revenues, Apple risks basically nothing.
Surely there are things that such app developer organisation could do to make Apple change their terms? Quick idea: motivate users to switch to Android, by adding new features there first, exclusive deals, etc.
Paradoxically, if a group of small businesses being harmed by a monopoly get together to do something about it, they can themselves run afoul if antitrust regulation.
Can someone who's on Apple's side here elaborate on why they think the outcome for consumers would be worse if they're forced to loosen some of their restrictions?
It's very unlikely that app developers choose to forgo the AppStore since it will be driving the majority of app installs even in a completely open world for years to come. And if they do choose to forgo that distribution channel that should be seen as a very strong signal of how unhappy developers are with the current policies. So if you want to just keep doing what you've been doing and just use the AppStore not much should change, but at least now there's the possibility of competition.
I don’t need apps on my iPhone to do 100% of all things that apps can do. I am fine with some restrictions, so long as there’s enough reliability, consistency, privacy and security.
If there are alternate app stores, I am sure others would make their apps exclusive there and demand you download them through these stores:
1. Facebook will want a store that allows them to build an app that has no ad or data collection restrictions.
2. Epic will want a store that allows them to directly charge for in-app purchases.
3. Google will want a store that allows them to track your location in the background regardless of your consent.
4. The New York Times will want a store where you cannot find a way to cancel your subscription.
And so on... I end up having to download 5 or 10 stores, and end up with a poor user experience.
And what do I get in return? As a consumer, I see no value for me.
I spend a small fraction of what I spend to buy my iPhone on apps per year. If their developers want to charge more to recoup their 30%, I am fine with that.
But Android exists, and has multiple noteworthy alternative app stores (including, relevant here, the Epic Games App) and this has not come to pass; every mass-market app is on the Google Play Store, excepting now Fortnite.
Epic previously tried to build out a Fortnite playerbase on Android outside of the Play Store and was unsuccessful in drawing in players, so they had to upload it to the Play Store (which has now been removed).
I would argue that this is because there's far less to gain on Android vs. iOS in terms of data collection and privacy by leaving the Play Store. It's pretty apparent just by perusing the two SDKs how much less information you can gain about devices through Apple's APIs.
Google is also being sued for not going far enough in allowing Epic to do what they want to do. I think that is the proof positive that Epic doesn't just want additional app stores and sideloading, but that they want concessions that will enable Epic to be successful in forcing users onto their own store.
But why could you not just keep using the AppStore and nothing else? Out of the things you've listed the only one who would actually consider leaving the AppStore would be Epic.
Take Amazon’s Audible as an example. I use that. I want to continue using that. If Amazon launched its own store on iOS, does that mean they stop distributing it on the native App Store? If they do make it exclusive to their store, I will have to download their store.
I really don’t like the 30%, but that I see the line Apple shouldn’t cross. Loosening restrictions or opening it up for more stores effectively means the iOS platform wouldn’t be worth What it is now.
Facebook has been pretty vocal about iOS privacy restrictions as well. They don’t need to make their own store on Android; but they very well might on iOS.
Yep, this is exactly where I'm at. Opening up the AppStore is a slippery slope to having 3rd party stores rife with apps that abuse private APIs and go well beyond the gated access to the iOS sandbox that the SDK provides.
So you are against a free market. Instead of multiple shops you want one megastore.
Only one webshop: Amazon
Only one Social Network: Facebook
Only one search engine: Google
Only one OS: Windows
Only one chip manufacturer: Intel
Sure you can, but that's like saying I am for freedom of speech as long I have something to say and against it if I haven't.
Others will follow Apples lead and walled gardens will spread.
The whole internet and computer thing becomes more and more like an oligarchy and we are the peasants who must choose with lord we follow. Apple-shire, Google-shire, Facebook-shire.
They built their own ecosystems with iOS, Android, Oculus and totally controll it and if we don't "behave" we get locked out.
I'm on weasel's side, but I can understand Apple wanting to keep iOS trusted by its users by restricting unapproved software coded to their current native app API layer. What I can't understand is the harm for end users in apps using 3rd party payment processing without giving Apple a cut. That restriction encourages a worse experience for users who now have to go to the vendor's website to complete a purchase they could be making in-app.
> Can someone who's on Apple's side here elaborate on why they think the outcome for consumers would be worse if they're forced to loosen some of their restrictions?
I don’t see why this is relevant. Apple runs a business. If you force it to walk away from income sources, you could just as well force any other company to do the same. So even if consumers would win, how would it justify the enforcement?
the setup to your question is flawed, since you're starting from the perspective that someone should be on one side or the other. Epic is suing on multiple points, and there are probably very few people that agree with Epic on every point.
iOS is widely regarded as being the safest consumer OS in widespread usage on the market today. Much of that is because of the restrictions that apple places on developers ability to install arbitrary code on the user's device. Epic is suing for the ability to create an app store that would allow third-party developers to install arbitrary binaries on iOS devices without oversight from Apple.
that level of restriction is a part of the product. It's what people are paying for when they buy an iOS device. People actually want that. And there's no reason why there shouldn't be an option for consumers to pick a locked-down platform. Many developers are hostile to users, and many users consciously want a device that makes that hostility harder for developers.
The 30% take that Apple charges is steep and is replicated by basically all other vendors, so I'd be happy to see that reduced since it improves all ecosystems. But the app approval process and the single app store ecosystem is a thing that I think differentiates iOS, and I wouldn't want to see that changed.
fwiw, I have an Android phone, which I picked because I wanted to use Daydream. I never really use that, so my next phone will probably be an iPhone.
Note that Apple wouldn't be just be forced to loosen some restrictions to match Google Play and Android, they'd have to go far further. Google Play is also being sued. Its not as dramatic or fun to cover it that way, but I feel like news orgs could be doing a lot better here.
Android is already a mess with multiple stores and loose, to put it mildly, standards for the quality of apps. And that still isn't enough for Epic. I don't want my iPhone turning into an Android (I did have many choices, and I chose iPhone) and I __definitely__ don't want it turning to an even less regulated ecosystem than what we already have with Android.
I don't really care if developers are happy, because so many of them have interests hostile to mine. Apple is fortunately big enough to be able to force folks like Facebook and Uber to play by the rules. They're also big enough to force developers to play ball with things like iPad support or get booted from the store. The cost of targeting iPad is less than the cost of e.g. Twitter losing their spot on iPhones, so now iPad has a great Twitter app where it didn't before.
Edit: forgot to mention how Apple's subscription management process is far, far superior to any other device. I explicitly choose to subscribe through Apple because I know I will be notified before renewal and that I can cancel easily. I know the scale of the iPhone market, combined with Apple's restrictions, are the only reason I have that choice.
People paint this whole situation as Epic fighting for the consumer, but really Epic is fighting for the interests of Epic alone. I know Android users don't get it becuase they may not have experienced it, but really Apple is adding loads of value here and taking that value away isn't automatically pro-consumer, even if associated with words like 'freedom' and 'competition'.
Edit: Another perspective on this is that as a developer who writes software for Android and iOS, iOS is a far, far superior experience. Things work more reliably, testing is easier because iOS is an OS whereas Android is really a family of operating systems - see how much things can change on Pixel vs Galaxy. Things are getting better over time especially with AndroidX and Jetpack, but the developer experience is still loads better on iOS.
If you're referring to developer as 'individual who writes software for iOS' Apple is far superior. If you're thinking of developer as 'financial entity that profits off software' then the 30% cut becomes more painful, but Apple justifies that by having a premium offering with customers who spend more on apps.
They are not acting rational in these kind of discussions.
Most Apple users are deeply locked into the ecosystem. I guess it is sunk cost fallacy, now even though the cracks are clearly showing they don't want to see Apple fail in any way. You'll see people rationalize anything Apple does without blinking.
And it makes sense too. If I use a mac, iphone, apple watch, airpods, have all my photos on iCloud etc I would not want Apple to face any hurdles.
I'm guessing Epic wants the court to break down Apple's monopoly on app sales on iPhones, potentially by requiring them to allow third party app sales via alternative marketplaces, then swoop in with their Epic Games iOS marketplace and capture a big chunk of Apple's in-app purchase lunch. Considering the sheer size of Apple's revenue from gaming despite not being a game development company[1], I'm guessing that Epic has weighed up the expectency of proceeding with this legal battle and decided its worth the risk.
I mean if this is their plan and they pull it off then hats off to them. As a consumer I welcome healthy competition.
I did something today that I never imagined I’d do in 10 years as an exclusive Apple user: I installed Windows 10 on my iMac so I could continue playing fortnite. I’m sure Mac had one of the smallest shares of users, but I was surprised by how much more performant the game was running on Windows compared to MacOS. The difference was incredibly noticeable. It’s weird to me that Apple is risking losing users to other platforms, but I guess the 30% is worth it to them.
Between this and the fact that Apple tried to kill Unreal Engine from its platform, I’d be really nervous to be a game dev trying to rely on Apple at this moment. Regardless of the outcome of the Epic suit, Apple hasn’t really acted like they take gaming seriously on Mac or iOS, as several big iOS games would’ve suffered a similar fate to fortnite if a judge hadn’t stepped in.
One thing I've seen Apple do more and more in recent times is the concept of introducing something for the good of the user with sometimes little regard to the impact shouldered by developers or businesses.
Sometimes they're smaller impacts - like the ability to only enable GPS when an App is actively being used. Other times they are larger - like the the changes to the Advertising and Device IDs.
I've read here that the loss of the singular, centralized and controlled store could potentially be an issue for things like malware, privacy, and some of the other causes Apple has come out to fight for on behalf of the user. Perhaps Apple forgot to consider its own behavior as a threat to those ideals? Could Apple have avoided all of this if they applied the principles they used in other cases to themselves?
If the store had a 12% rate would Epic have bothered to do this? Other decisions can come into play too, like no ability for upgrade pricing and how subscrption costs are handled. If we really look, the list could get long.
I guess what I'm trying to say is if Apple truly cares about the things that could be lost if the App ecosystem is altered, then perhaps it needs to take the same hit it has doled out to others in the name of that cause?
As an app developer, I'm moving to straight web apps. All the hoops, the review system,and ranking prejudice makes it an easy decision even outside of the 30% rake.
Apple intentionally limits the capability of web applications on iOS. They only added WebP support in June with Safari 14, and still don't support progressive web apps.
Profits have been stagnant on iOS and Android for some time. Too much churn and competition. For $10.99 a month the webapp is growing 10% a month with much less CPA and less churn and no 30% cut.
IMO, Apple is acting like a bully. It's using its position of power to coerce other into giving up a substantial amount of revenue for very little effort.
If they want to keep this monopoly, they should make their cost transparent and apply a reasonable markup. Otherwise they should be forced to allow competing stores. Anything else is ripe for abuse, as we can plainly see now.
I’m saying that selling costumes and Carlton dances at zero marginal cost and loot boxes is not the hill to die on. If every game that had micro transactions for consumables disappeared tomorrow, nothing of value would be lost.
I am completely on the side of Hey and other non game apps. Especially if they are a cross platform service where almost all of the value is on the back end. All they wanted was to be treated just like Netflix. They didn’t care about not being able to link outside for payments. I’m also completely on the side of WordPress
Most of the comments defending apple, are people thinking that epic games does not want pay the 30% cut... but the problem is not that.. the problem is that apple demands that the price must be equal on all points of sale. ( Epic should be able to increase their price in 30% on apple plataform only, to cover apple fee )
I am a developer and I really can't understand the arguments against Apple.
And I have many apps on iOS store, and sure I would love to pay a less cut.
But Apple's pricing policy was the same way before they had 50% share of phones. Sure a monopoly must be regulated, but it doesn't mean that if a company has >50% share you can dictate how they should price their product.
Monopolies should be regulated so they don't increase prices or take advantage of their position. And if the policy is 10 years old this is obviously has nothing to do with bad practices of monopoly.
The one thing I don't understand about Apple's stance: why don't they let a device owner sideload things SAFELY on their own device? Something like the Apple Developer Account, but for free, and I get a certificate that works on a single device - my own - ONLY.
I still need to understand software development, and probably to own a Mac just to sign things and to upload them to my phone. They could even provide something like a web interface to perform the signing and/or notarization, so people cannot invent magical desktop software to make signing easier for random users.
This would effectively defeat the "walled garden" objection, but make things hard enough that 99.99% of iphone users wouldn't bother.
With the notarization system (is it applied to ios apps as well, I suppose, not just to Mac apps?) they could even prevent piracy.
You would still need a Mac, then to register with Apple as a developer, then connect the iphone with a cable. For each update, you need to reupload manually. And for each game - you could not upload a store app - you would need to repeat the whole procedure.
Maybe if the U.S. government broke up microsoft when they had the chance back in 2001 then we wouldnt even be having this conversation. Apple would clearly, unambiguously be in violation of anti-trust laws, and that would be a win for the people.
But the courts have set a precedent with microsoft which makes it very hard to destroy these vertically integrated monopolies moving forward. Destroying monopolies is needed to protect the people's liberty and property.
That particular piece of history sure doesn't help.
But Apple excluding all of Epic's products from their store (the technical reasons aren't that important, the effective result is), while only a single product is actually violating their (already questionable) rules, sounds to me like a heck of a glaring antitrust issue either way.
The real issue here is not so much that Apple is doing all kinds of illegal (antitrust) things (and so do Epic, Microsoft, Facebook and many more). It's that the USA has essentially become a defunct banana republic a long time ago. That particular Microsoft charade, including their subsequent violations and blatant disregards, played a significant part in the whole shift to where we are now. However, for some reason it appears that most Americans still want to hold on to an image of reality that already belongs to the past.
I'm not saying it's better in other places, or even comparing it with any other place. Still, the USA not enforcing its own antitrust rules sounds pretty bad to me. If these companies have become too powerful to effectively prosecute them for violations, then it is certainly on the government for having let those get to there in the first place.
Really interesting to study how macrumors.com loses all claims to objectivity when you read its wording with an editor's mindset:
> Shortly after Epic blatantly disregarded App Store policies
You don't need the adverb "blatantly" here.
You can just say "Epic disregarded App Store policies" and be able to claim to some reasonable objectivity. But as soon as you throw in "blatantly", you have clearly revealed yourself as a biased news source.
tim sweeney sent an email to tim cook and other apple execs telling them in advance that he was going to violate the contract and that he would fight them for years if necessary. so, no, it's not biased to call it blatant, they were extremely blatant about it.
Is there any other example in the industry where you can not install and use an application without approval of the operating system creator and maintainer?
Categories range from Books, Medical, Business, Finance, Music, Photo & Video, Health & Fitness, Entertainment, Shopping, Productivity to Games. And the list goes on and on.
What are gaming consoles used for? Gaming. Maybe you can create apps to do something else but it wasn't meant to be general purpose.
Does the number of app categories matter? They’re all apps, meant for casual content creation and consumption. Consoles have a number of game categories too.
Epic had a golden goose here that printed money for them.
Now they are shooting the goose because they want a bigger share of the egg.
The goods are all digital with no lasting or intrinsic value to speak of. The only reason Epic has the cash flow it has is that people don't fully understand this yet. Instead of riding the wave they are getting off of it.
Can people sell the goods that they buy from Epic? What will happen to these goods ten year from now?
> The goods are all digital with no lasting or intrinsic value to speak of. The only reason Epic has the cash flow it has is that people don't fully understand this yet.
People understand perfectly well that Fortnite skins have no intrinsic value. They buy them because they enjoy the game and the skins have subjective value to them. Maybe the game will be around in a decade, maybe it won't; it doesn't matter.
Fortnite is far from the only game with paid cosmetics, it's a model that appears to work quite well from a business perspective, even over time. CS:GO has had weapon skins in lootboxes for 7 years now. (That's just one example.)
to be honest with you, I'll be happy if either one of them wins. One of the unusual cases when I think both outcomes would bring about positive change.
One unexamined side effect of this is that Epic is no longer able to security patch Fortnite. A sufficiently bad exploit would have really interesting tradeoffs for both parties. If Apple is standing on security being the core of their offering, they'd undercut it by not letting Epic patch it. But if Apple didn't let them patch it would Epic be forced to come to terms?
If Apple wants to make their own users hostages that's their choice and Epic shouldn't bend to it. Apple has totally shattered the illusion that their walled garden model is about Security and not Control.
Apple may win, but they aren't winning me over as a developer. All this tells me is that I don't want to develop on their platform lest they change some rules under my feet.
This doesn't completely work because of all the missing features that Apple's iOS Safari does not implement. And you cannot even get a different browser (engine), because of Apple's App Store rules.
Off the top of my head, iOS Safari doesn't support notifications or (at least on iPhone) fullscreen API. Surprisingly there is controller support
It could be done in a different browser that supports these features, of course. But on iOS, there is no other browser, and Apple prevent any other browser from being put onto the App Store. Chrome and Firefox on iOS is just a skin around iOS Safari with bookmark syncing features. They have no ability to implement these features on iOS.
1. Let's think about what's in the users best interest wrt app capabilities. Wouldn't it be better for users to not be hit by a 30% surcharge when signing up for Spotify thru the iOS app? Wouldn't it be better for users patronizing small businesses if all of the revenue for events booked through that Facebook app went to the small businesses?
2. Let's figure out if it's possible for Apple to still offer a secure experience for apps installed via sideloading (which is one option; the other option is allowing other payment methods in the App Store for in-app purchases). It should be thanks to their sandbox. They're welcome to tighten the sandbox further too over time, e.g. how they relatively recently restricted background location access, since that was rightly considered more sensitive than foreground access.
Apple can easily offer more user benefits without fundamentally making their business model unsustainable. Note that the situation here is fundamentally different from brick-and-mortar stores, which have very limited shelf space; not to mention no single brick-and-mortar store controls so much of someone's life (we're very reliant on our smartphones).
Regardless of where you stand on this brouhaha, it's still a cautionary tale about what can go wrong when you develop for a walled garden platform where your access to developer tools can be revoked on a whim.
Epic poked a bear with a stick. A stick they deliberately sharpened for poking.
No idea why they thought they would walk away from that unharmed. Enormous hubris or a complete lack of understanding of politics? Probably both.
Nothing Epic did is the sort of thing a potential employer of mine would accidentally do. There are cautionary tales to be sure. This isn’t one of them.
Epic should make a Fortnite inspired Android phone and put their own store on it. Gamers buying such phones (even if the price of the phone was subsidized) would be later spending $$ on in-game purchases. Even if anything positive comes out of the Apple-Epic collision, in the long term, having their own platform would reap benefits for Epic.
In the end this is really a competition question and whether or not Apple has engaged in anti-competitive behaviour.
I remember the days when Apple was pushing to break up Microsoft for including free software (Internet Explorer) in Windows operating systems. It's amazing how "principles" change depending on whom they are being applied to.
Maybe a naive question but why doesn't Apple take 30% commission on my Robinhood trades. And how is that exchange of money for stock, digital currency different from apps like Fortnite
Remember this whenever you hear someone say their company is too big to fail when dealing with the likes of Apple, Microsoft, Google and others: no company is too big to fail.
Just as important: they are companies, not people. We (or perhaps: some of us) fall for the idea to personify the companies or brands that we use(d) because that is what some of the products might mean to use while we use them. But it's still products and companies, and our interaction is often limited to legal, retail and marketing.
I don't think "too big to fail" is a phrase used outside the context of government bailouts. The public is acutely aware of the life and death of major companies and brands, see GE or Ford nostalgia.
I'm sure you can find some exceptional abuse of vernacular out there, but the term was coined for something else and in this thread you are alone in using it this way...
But you understood it anyway, didn't you? And on the off chance that you would not I provided sufficient context making it plain that this was not intended in the original version but in a slightly modified version, which has been used often enough in my hearing that I got to notice it.
Those two cases stand out for me because they ended exactly like the one on display here.
A neutral news source detailing the arguments from both sides would have been better fit for HN. This one reads like Apple press statement until, actual Apple press statement is featured.
Network effects are a symptom of the internet. They yield incredibly strong market control. Very few economic actors run extreme profit margins at giant scale [0][1]. They extract a disproportional profit share from the market economy. Apple is just one of them.
Is this sustainable? Will these players stay happy just extracting profits and eating small innovative players for breakfast? Is the market economy strong enough not to succumb to their lobbying power?
To me, it's clear that as the general public, we don't benefit from this situation. In the best case scenario, we're overpaying for all things information. I think something should be done about this, but what? Suggestions welcome, because I don't have answers yet. In the meantime, I try to stay clear of the molochs.
[0] As a symptom, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Facebook and Amazon's combined market cap equals 75% of the entire EU stock market. Read their annual reports to understand where thet extract their profits.
Since fortnight stopped running on iOS, they lose all that revenue. I figured they’d hold up to the wire and then give up so they didn’t lose that revenue. Seems I was wrong.
You bet they are blinking right about now, looking at each other. But I bet they’ve also planned for this scenario, and is getting close to the worse case.
I have zero sympathy for Apple and how they manage iOS, but I do agree that banning Epic from the App Store is only logical.
OTOH I think it is outrageous that breaking the rules from the iOS App Store now bans you from even having an Apple dev account. Unless I'm mistaken, without an Apple dev account you can't even sign a macOS app (different from notarization).
I'm so glad I decided to not make any new projects for an Apple platform.
What doesn't bend must break. App stores and other walled gardens seem imposing and dominating until they aren't.
Remember the original ideal of the HotJava browser, where fully sandboxed applications could be published online?
JS has come a long way in fulfilling that vision. PWAs are trustless and require no approval from appstores. Of course they aren't as efficient as native applications, but performance is improving.
I believe the psychology behind making an e-payment comes in many forms. If you really want to listen to music ads-free on Spotify you will pay for Spotify even if it means going outside of the app. On the other hand if it is the type of payment that is more on-a-whim in nature, etc, then perhaps it’s justifiable for the os (i.e. whereon the experience runs) to take a fair share.
As an iOS developer who started writing Obj-C 8 years ago and witnessed and felt first-handed the overall evolution of the language environment (which subsequently led to the birth of Swift and its continuation into what I considered to be the most interesting thing about Apple now), I think 30% is fair considering it has and would continue to contribute to (and in some sense incentivise) Apple’s decision in allocating (what occured to me as) an amazing amount of resources in improving the iOS (and Swift) developer experience.
Great languages (and great developer experiences) don’t come cheap. And I won’t be surprised if the top executives of a multi-billion video game company fails to realise that.
My serious op-Ed in this is that these problems for Epic, Apple and those who side with the general idea that Apple needs to loosen some grip around payments and distribution of software are as follows:
- If Apple has a blessed Paymenrs SDk, where you could use an alternative payment processor, thst would solve the percentage cut
- if Apple allowed for being able to do true software update sales - not subscriptions or in app purchases but a way to sell through “versions” of software that would solve the last missing let of distribution
- finally they could provide guidelines for acceptable ways to communicate pricing and alternative purchase points for a license. They already have a way for developers to generate codes that let you download an app from the App Store with said code, it’s a matter of blessing this as a distribution target and not just for testing
I think these three things happen, all these issues go away, and Apple won’t have to have a protracted fight in the courts and quite possibly come out the other side looking very bad.
I really believe this is the everyone wins scenario here
> On June 30, 2020, Epic emailed Apple requesting to offer a competing Epic Games Store
app through the App Store that would allow iOS device users to install apps from Epic directly,
rather than through the App Store and to offer payment processing options within Epic’s apps other
than IAP.
> On July 10, Apple responded that “Apple has never allowed this . . . we strongly believe these rules are vital to the health of the Apple platform and carry
enormous benefits for both consumers and developers.”
> Around 2am on August 13, Mr. Sweeney of Epic wrote to Apple stating its intent to breach Epic’s agreements:
“Epic will no longer adhere to Apple’s payment processing restrictions.” Hours later, Epic activated a secretly planted payment mechanism in Fortnite to slide a non-approved change into the app that blatantly evaded App Review.
If Epic wins and they create their own store then it would open flood gates for others. There can then be Google PlayStore, Microsoft Store, Steam, Adobe etc. The big players with their own store. This would substantially reduce interactions with App Store. iOS App store can become like Mac store. Not something which Apple would give up easily.
I should be able to build a website and set up payments on it, then build an app which includes a subset of the features, not including payments. Apple should not be allowed to terminate me or compel me to support payments via the app. That is predatory and monopolistic behavior.
Consumers and developers have very different interests. Locked down system is good for consumers, not so much for developers. Many comments here commingle the two. I happily pay Apple premium because the app store rules protect my data from developers.
I'm confused by this whole thing--the violation was cured by Apple removing the app, so why are they proceeding to delete the account? It seems that there is no clear justification other than retaliation for the bad PR/lawsuit.
“This is not fair to all other developers on the App Store and is putting customers in the middle of their fight.”
Ah yes, like it was so fair that every other big company got special deals and “reader app” exceptions and so on.
Nice.
Could this be a half-proxy war between Google and Apple? If Apple has to allow other app stores, who is preventing those other stores from installing web browsers that are not Safari-based?
In the end, in a normal world, the judge should decide what is good for the people and doesn't kill the company. A giant fine for monopolistic behaviour should be the only sensible outcome. But this is the US so the general "fuck the little guy" policy should apply. Epic games will be forced to pay apple 30% + extras for lost revenue. The account will not be restored and the customer shall be ordered to cheer the victory of their favorite brand.
If I were Apple, I would have embraced and extended what Epic was trying to do. Apple has always struggled with its gaming image, and iOS games barely deserve the game. Why not find a way of partnering with Epic that creates a better deal for them and accelerates platform innovation? Everyone would've won. It kind of boggles me that we're here, but now that we are I'm hoping Epic wins just to see how the landscape shifts afterward.
Sad to see how apple drones agree with this. It is fair for a hosting company to require a per download fee, but it has nothing to do with ingame purchases.
The precedent that would set if the Apple/Google is forced to distribute alternative app stores via App Store/Play store. No downloading the apk and turning on installation from Unknown Sources to install it. This would also enable alternative stores on Xbox/PlayStation/Nintento etc. Steam inside Epic Games store and vice versa
It’s not rent because when a mall rents out space to apple they do it by sq ft. They don’t charge them on a percent of revenue. Imagine every mall did that instead.
If its a credit card processing fee that should be 2-3%. With value added services maybe 10-15% but that would be the ceiling.
So whats going on here. Apple wasn't happy with one of the apps from Epic games (Fortnite), so pulled the other apps that were compliant?
Is that what happened. That leaves quite a bad taste in my mouth. Apple removed apps that were following the rules to try and enforce their rules on one that wasn't.
> This is unfair to all other developers in the App Store and makes users suffer from conflict.
Is this not a confession that paying Apple’s cut makes competitor’s less competitive? Possibly hints that this is a market, but not a free one? Seems like language you’d want to avoid when facing anti trust cases.
What I find interesting is not so much this case but the globalization of the markets. With globalized markets you have near-monopolies which are so much more powerful than monopolies used to be.
So you want to sell an app? Well first you practically cannot install it "for security reasons" without being on either the Apple AppStore or the Android Play Store, which represent 99.9% of devices or so. (yes you can disable GPP, and side-load on android, or sign as a dev and side-load on Apple, neither of which make any practical sense if you're not a developer)
If you do not like their rules, you now need to make your own OS, Phone, distribute it and have your game on it. That's quite the step and why there are laws against monopolies.
The globalized monopolies use their leverage to exert pressure on governments, and it is very difficult to apply these laws without the company using a "globalized capitalism" as their own advantage, i.e. it will move everything it can to another country that will let it exploits it's customers and it's workforce (which is why all our stuff is made in China, India, etc. obviously, and tax HQ is generally in Ireland rather than USA and on so)
No Fortnight and no WeChat could be devastating to iPhone market share. Strange times, but it is nice using Samsung that has 2 official app Stores. Still love my iPad though.
Capitalism, according to Wealth of Nations, has some problems with corporations becoming monopolies. When Teddy Roosevelt was sidelined into the Vice President position, it was partly to sideline the movement towards regulation and trust-busting. That period, due an assassination, broke up large companies.
We now have Apple, and a host of other players, using monopoly powers to extract value from any who would play. Epic may have done that math and found the tax was too high to be profitable, or that upsetting the monopoly was worthwhile. History may turn again, and monopolies may face more scrutiny.
The uncertainty of changes are one of the joys of a government system that is organized mob rule.
Apple had to not be anti-competitive. If ANYONE else did this they would have the same happen. Even if it was Apple in Epic Game Store. If Apple let Epic willingly break ToS and other small/medium developers would get the hammer, that would be seen as anti-competitive.
Let's be honest, this is what Tencent/Epic want and they want their own store. It was demand #2 on their initial emails to Apple from Tim Sweeney [1].
> Because of restrictions imposed by Apple, Epic is unable to provide consumers with certain features in our iOS apps. We would like to offer consumers the following features:
> 1) Competing payment processing options other than Apple payments, without Apple’s fees, in Fortnite and other Epic Games software distributed through the iOS App Store;
> 2) A competing Epic Games Store app available through the iOS App Store and through direct installation that has equal access to underlying operating system features for software installation and update as the iOS App Store itself has, including the ability to install and update software as seamlessly as the iOS App Store experience.
> If Epic were allowed to provide these options to iOS device users, consumers would have an opportunity to pay less for digital products and developers would earn more from their sales. Epic is requesting that Apple agree in principle to permit Epic to roll out these options for the benefit of all iOS customers. We hope that Apple will also make these options equally available to all iOS developers in order to make software sales and distribution on the iOS platform as open and competitive as it is on personal computers.
Apple's official statement [2]:
> We are disappointed that we have had to terminate the Epic Games account on the App Store. We have worked with the team at Epic Games for many years on their launches and releases. 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. Epic has refused. Instead they repeatedly submit Fortnite updates designed to violate the guidelines of the App Store. This is not fair to all other developers on the App Store and is putting customers in the middle of their fight. We hope that we can work together again in the future, but unfortunately that is not possible today.
I don't think Epic is doing anything but trying to pocket more for themselves, yet I also think that the comments here overstate how "aware" average people are about Apple's restrictions, tax etc.
I don't think most people would consider direct payment to reputable companies like Epic to be a particular security risk. I don't think most realize why they can't subscribe to Spotify from their iPhones, they think it's simply not implemented.
The thing is, Apple now holds a tremendous amount of power over a large set of the population. All the comments saying "just buy an Android" ignore the simple fact that you buying an Android does not change the fact that a significant portion of the market is elsewhere.
I'd be more OK with this if Apple was OK with displaying a 30% Apple tax on checkout. But the fact that they prevent apps from showing it and actively try to conceal it shows that they know most of their customers would ask questions about it, at the very least, likely question if the "benefits" they get in return are worth it.
The word "tax", when referring to Apple's fees, is a loaded and partial term. The fact that it's clear and understood and factored into the price makes it easy to complain about, but no casual customer to my knowledge has ever seriously asked what proportion of their peppermint tea and scones pays for a café's rent - overheads are overheads and margins are margins. Both companies are invoking consumers and value in their arguments and ripostes, but I only see one of them defending their customers' interests.
Many a company is upset that they have no leverage in a business deal and want to courts to hand it to them.
If a company like Spotify sells subscriptions both in the app and on the web, they have to charge 43% more to the in-app purchaser to get the same revenue, even though the user gets exactly the same experience.
I would call that a tax (informally; I know it strictly doesn't meet the definition) and as a customer I would like to know about it.
As a Spotify subscriber, I don’t really care, because it’s their job to handle their overheads, in the same way that John Lewis on Oxford Street pays different rent to John Lewis in Kingston (probably) but the prices stay the same. Cost of doing business is a thing. Capex and Opex are well-understood by businesses, or should be.
If the Spotify web store is more profitable than the Spotify iOS store, because Apple wants ITS CUSTOMERS to get the same deal and Spotify wants those customers, then this is good and fair for customers at the point of purchase.
> this is good and fair for customers at the point of purchase.
I think it is widely accepted in commerce that a deal is only fair if both parties have the relevant information.
If customers know they're paying more because of Apple's fees and are comfortable with it because they feel they get adequate benefits in return, that's fair.
If they are unaware of this however, am not sure how the deal can be considered fair, since not all parties have the relevant information to make an informed purchase.
You can see this in action on Twitch sometimes in the chat. People ask why the subscription for a streamer via mobile app is $5.99 when it's $4.99 via the web app when there is no difference in what is being provided.
It is noticed and often people actively avoid the higher price once they are aware. Some are frustrated and unsubscribe.
This is understandable since they realize they've been paying an on-going 20% premium every month for a one-time convenience by originally pressing the subscribe button from the mobile version. And none of the extra 20% goes to the streamer they wanted to support.
It would be fare if it wasn’t a monopoly. Only if other companies could create their own app stores that worked on iPhone the customers would be optioning. In the current state of affairs there is no option.
Remember there was a time you could only phone people in the network you were a subscriber. It is not the same, but a similar situation here.
But it’s not a monopoly, it’s one of many, many devices. There are, at time of writing, many games platforms and many application platforms: XBox, PlayStation, Nintendo, IOS, Android, Windows, MacOS, Linux, with Google Stadia too.
Developers make a choice and everything sold on those platforms has distribution costs. Fortnite is available on most if not all of those platforms. AND, players play against one another through the internet not through a private developers network. So there’s plenty of competition. Why Epic aren’t demanding Nintendo and Sony take a lower cut is a mystery. Or maybe not?
Epic have massively, massively, overplayed their hand here. Instead of creating an amazing new game and using THAT as leverage to platform owners for a deal, they’ve made a satirical video, broken a contract, had their bluff called, and cemented their place in future business school classes as how not to go about a negotiation.
Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are creating a game ecosystem by selling hardware at a loss or near loss, footing R&D, supporting devkits, and running promotions mutually beneficial for developers. The value of creating and enabling an entire ecosystem is found to be worth 30%.
An iPhone is sold for a substantial profit regardless of gaming entirely, and offers none of those services or promotional benefits to developers/publishers.
This may have used to be true to a degree, but the console makers don't really sell consoles at a loss anymore, or a minor loss at launch knowing that they will turn a profit soon enough on the hardware once they reach volume.
Not sure what the point is supposed to be with "The value of creating and enabling an entire ecosystem is found to be worth 30%", and making the judgment that Apple hasn't done the same. Without some harder numbers on both sides, it's not a conclusion that anyone is in the position to make. It's also worth remembering that Apple has amassed an extremely loyal customer base that has shown that they are willing to spend an immense amount of money on App Store purchases over the period of decades - Apple does deserve to cash in on that value created such as being the single point of contact for easily addressable issues with app purchases, fraud, & such for the customer, secure & frictionless payments, and most of all, creating the situation where users want to go and spend $ on their platform over alternatives.
The value created is in developers/publishers being able to make more $, which is the ultimate value.
This is true, but until Free-to-play arrived, the companies would get a cut from every single piece of software that was published through licensing. The advent of downloads reduced the trade in used-games, meaning higher revenue.
The selling at a loss is just another business strategy to drive hardware sales of a limited-functionality device (ok, you can watch videos and surf the net, but it's hardly an actual computer) compared to the iPhone, where other factors drive sales and increase the user base.
I mean, I love my Switch and I'm definitely a profitable customer but it's a specialized device. If Nintendo's loss-leader strategy is worth 30%, why isn't Apple's strategy? Or really, who gets to decide what the correct % is? And how?
That seems like an incredibly arbitrary distinction for why consoles are justified in taking 30% but Apple isn't. Apple created a software platform that has made developers billions of dollars, it seems to me there has been value created there.
Actually MS isn't doing just fine as they would gladly that everyone migrates to Windows Store, which was also part of Windows 10X plans, store only installations including Win32.
Now that Windows 10X seems to go nowhere [1], and Project Reunion is still trying to find out how to merge Windows 7 and 10 worlds [2], one more reason not to do just fine.
I'm sure Apple would be just fine as well, I just found it a little funny that the previous poster claimed Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft were justified in taking 30% because of the "value of creating and enabling an entire ecosystem"... as if Apple hadn't done the exact same thing.
You compare a company ( Apple) who invested billions of dollars in ecosystem, hardware etc. In dev tools. It's not even fair to compare it with parasitic company Epic. That is leveraging platform been developed and pretty much created a market to leverage human weaknesses ( gaming). They don't bring any real in this world. And yet they dare to say they not happy with market that brought them billions. Such kind of ideas can only appear in such kind of company, that don't bring any value to the world and thinks that the world owns them something. Huge part of Epic success is apple marketplace that users trust. Even google play is a derivative from Apple's ideas due to Eric copy pasted while been a board member of apple. You got access to billions of people thanks to apple and google, using their tools. I think it's logical apple and google want their cut for that.
I find it rich that a company that bleeds tons of money just so they have exclusive titles on their platform is suing someone else for anti competitive behavior.
How is it remotely similar? If you want to argue their fee is predatory or too high that might make more sense but the concept of charging a fee to use a distribution channel is present in every single aspect of selling a product. Epic wants to make more money, fine. It’s not a noble endeavor with our best interest at heart. It is a calculated business move to allow them to cut down the distribution fee or remove it entirely. What is a reasonable fee for Apple to impose on the imaginary third party stores? None?
There should be some acknowledgement that the people that manufacture the hardware of your phone shouldn't be able to control every aspect of your digital life related to the phone. Choice is a thing that Apple does not provide as a business policy.
It appears there may be some pushback to that as a corporate policy. I guess it could even be suggested that maybe not everything Apple does as policy should be golden law.
It’s fine to want that but to force it is an entirely different issue. The entire premise of the law suit is that Apple is in violation of anti trust laws and actively harming the customers. Apple has been literally criticized every year for a decade regarding their restrictions and yet people still buy it. Is the thought process here that we are all naive consumers who don’t know Apple only plays nice with Apple? The damn cords clued us in years ago.
I don’t want to rob people of being able to have open hardware but I also don’t want that need to dictate all platforms. Luckily, there are a lot of phones which fit the needs of that market. If I want a phone with one App Store with authoritarian control of the system should I not be able to buy it without fear that one day it will be too popular and deemed too draconian in policy?
This sounds interesting, but not convinced since we could say that fairness mainly exists in the circumstances and rarely in the courts. At some point there is an upper limit to the relevant information available for any decision.
We could test this, I mean, suppose the invoices or even the details at the checkout broke down the total into developer’s fee, apple’s fee, government tax, and so everyone could see that, would that be sufficient to fix the problem? I suspect not, because Epic, in this story, are seeking to pay Apple less, and give themselves more - that’s really their bottom line.
Are they really going to all this trouble on my behalf?
Well, hotel bills do routinely break out not just taxes but individual taxes. And it does matter. I just got back from a hotel where I was rather irritated to find that local taxes for just a 6 day stay added up to the cost of a very nice restaurant meal for two. That's worth knowing next time a politician talks about tax.
The hotel could treat such taxes as overheads and incorporate it into the price, but that's not really useful because they can't change it, only the customer can. Most business overheads aren't like that. If only a customer can affect a charge it makes sense to break it out and highlight it.
What if the shoe were on the other foot? What company would hire me if I negotiated a salary and then after we shook hands and everybody had the warm and fuzzies, I said, "Well now, you'll understand this is just the rate I charge, so it is exclusive of federal and state income tax. These are additional fees that I am responsible, by law, for collecting from you on behalf of the government. I've broken the numbers down this way in the interest of full transparency."
That's pretty much how it happens in Romania. All (or almost) salaries are negotiated post tax (so what gets payed out to me) and the employer is responsible for paying the appropriate taxes to the government.
In that case you have to go to the tax office and file out some documents and then you pay the taxes for the investments separately.
There is a single income tax rate, 10%, so it doesn't matter how much you earn. If your investments make more than the annual minimum wage, you also have to pay the health insurance tax and "social security" tax.
Hotel bills are broken out like that because the tax system allows many write-offs and reimbursements of many of those fees. They're broken down because they often go to different parts of the local, state and federal governments, and it's important that those seeking write off or reimbursement know who they need to claim those against.
Interestingly, many large companies use services for this kind of thing, much like Apples walled garden, where their employees can spend without worrying about tracking all these details, and the service takes care of all the (significant) legal wrangling and deal negotiation to make this simple.
That's essentially what Apple does for their money: makes it possible for users to buy things across a host of jurisdictions from an ecosystem of vendors, without risking their device security or payment security. There is a significant amount of legal and infrastructural wrangling involved, most of which the end customer, and many of the vendors don't fully understand.
But yeah, let us focus on the least important part: price.
Knowing that a city has a high hotel tax has driven me immediately to Airbnb in the past. Knowing the amount that I am overpaying for a service is a valuable capitalist function.
That's a valid opinion about what Spotify should do, but the fact is for a time Spotify did pass some of the fee on to iOS customers by charging a higher price for IAP.
The question is, should Spotify be able to tell customers that they are getting a higher fee because they are making the purchase on an iOS device?
To me, it requires massive contortions of logic to believe that customers are better off not having this disclosed.
Yes, I had to check they were not still doing this. I don’t believe they are allowed to charge a higher fee on iOS, or is there some loophole?
Customers ought to know, but whether companies are compelled to tell them is problematic - just see the prices of fuel or snacks at motorway service stations - which reflect a local monopoly, not the true cost. Ultimately, it seems the answer over time is that nobody is forced to buy Spotify or a WHSmith sandwich. The music you can go and buy in the shops, or from Amazon, Googly, Tidal, Bandcamp. Spotify is like WHSmith at a service station and wants to use the local monopoly as an excuse to put up their prices and push the cost onto the consumer rather than factoring it into their business.
It was never disallowed for developers to charge a higher fee on iOS app store purchases. They just aren’t allowed to make the user aware that they are paying more than required or explain why.
Spotify could make a web app and bypass this whole issue. They chose not to: let them pay the Apple Tax (if you must call it that. Personally, I think it’s just a distribution cost).
> If the Spotify web store is more profitable than the Spotify iOS store, because Apple wants ITS CUSTOMERS to get the same deal and Spotify wants those customers, then this is good and fair for customers at the point of purchase.
Are you saying you think Spotify should just charge everyone extra and take extra profit from Android customers? As an Android user, why should I pay extra so you can use an iPhone?
Assume me and you are the only 2 users on Spotify and they need $10 per user in revenue. As far as I'm concerned, I should pay $10 and you should pay $14.29. Apple gets $4.29 (14.29 * .3) and Spotify gets $20.
If Spotify can't differentiate and has to charge every user the same, they won't charge everyone $14.29 because they're in a competitive industry and keeping the cost to the customer as low as possible is important. It's more likely they'll charge us both $12.15 and call it $10 average revenue per customer.
If Epic's lawsuit accomplishes only one thing, I hope Apple is forced to allow developers to advertise and charge different prices for iOS users. If you think iOS is worth +43% on everything you buy on your phone you're welcome to pay that IMO. I don't want to and I'm happy with Android.
> "If the Spotify web store is more profitable than the Spotify iOS store, because Apple wants ITS CUSTOMERS to get the same deal"
I am surprised how this unprecedented practice is not widely discussed - I am not aware of any situation in real life where you rent a store and you are told you cannot charge what you want.
There are established limits on what a contract can enforce, an outrageous terms are not considered valid in court. For instance a phone operator could not have penalty of £10,000 for a going over your credit.
I believe this term should be considered outrageous - if apple wants to charge 100% tax, thats fine, but their customers will pay 100% more and then they might have questipms for Apple.
Revenue share and price parity are standard clauses in most department store lease contracts and not at all unprecedented, at least in my experience. My company is routinely told that if we want the lease, we must pay a fixed percentage on sales (usually 25%) as rent, must not list a price higher than can be found elsewhere for an identical item, and all payments must be handled by the department store themselves.
I assume there's a minimum required so the landlord has all upside and no risk. That sounds like a super bad deal. The only way I can see that being practical is if you're getting space in a super exclusive location where the clientele are mega rich and the margins are insane.
I misinterpreted the rules - developers are actually allowed to charge whatever they like, they're just not allowed to say "Actually you can save five quid if you go -> HERE".
Back in the real world, sales assistants may not be allowed to offer deals unless asked first - I know that my partner was basically given very heavy hints to ask if the sales assistant "had any special offers" before he could offer a deal on a new motorbike. I guess this is the same, without the helpful hints. Some people scour the web for coupons and deals, other people pay the full price (and then get extremely cross when the first screen they see in their new app offers a 25% off coupon, yes you, Capture One, you bastards)
John Lewis pay a different rent (again presumably) based on the more desirable location, but it's also reasonable to assume their payment provider is the same.
In this case, I would argue that Apple have the monopoly on the App Store, which is fine if they are reasonable about it. However, there's no optionality on the payment processor: they insist it's them and take 30% (from what I've read; not actually an iOS dev).
Would it not be more reasonable for them to charge a small revenue fee (rent) and allow you to choose a payment provider? They could audit the payment provider to achieve the security features that they seem to be presenting as an excuse for their charges.
If a company sells coffee both in a shop and on the street it would have to charge 43% more to the in-shop purchaser to get the same revenue, even though the user gets exactly the same experience.
Would you call that a tax or would you call that rent?
If there was only one entity owning all the houses, and to operate a business you needed space, then the terms rent and tax would be practically interchangeable
One entity doesn’t own all the buildings though. Google, Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony, etc all have their own malls and properties you can go to to get your Fortnite. It’s up to the customer which they go to.
If iOS was a monopoly, how is it possible to get Fortnite on all these other platforms? That just doesn’t make any sense. The only monopoly Apple has is on selling and licensing their own products.
Fair Point but I from the viewpoint of someone who has already purchased an iOS device, Apple is the only mall. That is the problem, not the existence of the stores themselves. In the case of Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo they do operate the same kind of platforms which are equally scummy in my opinion, but honestly not on my Radar as I don't really play console games.
In the case of Google I would like to disagree, if only for the fact that I have options as where to procure my software and run it in a manner that is intended, but I must concede that it is more cumbersome that I would like. That is the key difference that makes what Apple does so egregious, and why I don't really have much problems with Google at the current time.
For me it is not about the fees or the stores, its that Apple in practice forbids anyone in the digital marketplace to do business with any of their consumers unless it goes through them, as they own the app store and for the average user, their devices only run apps that are on the app store.
Epic is in no position to reject the proposition of using Apple's payment service or their store entirely and still do business with the million of customers that are playing Fortnite.
Apple should be definitely be able to charge for the access to their App store customer base, but Epic should be allowed to reject that price and still be allowed to do business with the iOS user base on their own terms, just like they did on Android with side loading before striking a deal to be on the Google Play store.
It’s just seems to me that supporting the installation of software on a computer and managing installed applications is a feature of the system. Those features are products of the manufacturer or software vendor. What would legislation restricting or mandating those features look like? Who would draw up and certify compliance with the requirements? What impact would that have on innovation or the development of new products? How would compliance against a standard set of requirements work for new and different platforms?
I’m personally opposed to Apple locking down MacOS to run only signed binaries. If they go too far with that I’ll stop buying Macs, but to what extent do I get to dictate to Apple what software they develop, what products they choose to sell and how they decide to implement them?
On balance I think it’s a good thing the US and EU are looking at these issues. Clearly at the moment there is at a consensus and I think there is a legitimate role for oversight of how these companies operate and enforce the rules on their systems. I’m not convinced though at forced openness on every platform of any kind is tenable.
I agree that it is finally good that not only the governments but us as consumers are looking at this issue. I would hope that this entire debacle will result in a shift in perspective for enough people and legislators that Apple will just give us the right to run sideloaded applications without more (or hopefully less) effort than on the Android platform. If i remember correclty, microsoft tried to emulate Apple by only allowing windows store downloaded applications on their ARM version of windows initially but yielded after backlash (and probably poor sales).
I wouldnt call it trying to dictate what Apple does.Also I would like to specify that I don't really wanna dictate what software Apple develop or what products they want to sell in their store(atleast beyond whatever code is necessary for sideloading). What I do take issue with, is Apple dictating which companies are allowed to do business with "me" as a consumer, should I be on their platform.
Walled Gardens has not been the norm of Hardware/operating system platforms in the pc/laptop market, and I don't think it should be that way on mobile either. All of the major OS vendors could have implemented similar walled gardens if they wanted to, they just couldn't get away with it. I hope this leads to Apple not getting away with it either.
Conventionally, rent-seeking is a poor quality activity which doesn’t generate any new wealth, it just transfers it.
But that’s not the case here, at least from my perspective, as Apple invests huge amounts in developing their hardware and software and millions of developers around the world (ok, maybe thousands, I don’t know) and their families have benefited from this.
It’s not like they’ve inherited a vast real-estate portfolio that was amassed through violence and war (see British aristocracy, est. 1066) and have invested relatively little into it.
It kind of is like rent seeking though. Apple has developed a product with some software but not the software we call Fortnite. They are now acting similar to a company like ExpressScripts, who created an organization in the form of a platform so they could extract rents from both the drug makers and the (insurance company) buyers. If Epic keeps the game off iPhone, there’s some overall loss to consumers. If they keep prices the same but pay the Apple fees, they pay rent to Apple. If they raise prices across the board to compensate, consumers pay rent to Apple and there is some deadweight loss because of a likely reduction in demand.
I’m not sure why this is being downvoted. A huge consideration into whether Apple is truly anti-competitive should be if this has caused harm to consumers.
> I’m not sure why this is being downvoted. A huge consideration into whether Apple is truly anti-competitive should be if this has caused harm to consumers.
Prior to the 1980s, monopolies were considered bad (or at least extremely dangerous and suspicious) by default, and leveraging one to privilege your entry into another market was a huge no-no (though I'm not sure leveraging a monopoly to create a monopolized adjacent market would always have been seen the same way).
Robert Bork's theory of "consumer harm" as the guiding light of anti-trust enforcement (and further conceiving of "harm" mostly in the form of higher prices, or at least "value for money") has given corporations too much wiggle room and consequently led to a lot of contorted legal and economic arguments, substantially reducing antitrust scrutiny and enforcement (which was the whole point, AFAICT).
I'd say the difference is that the tax is not uniformly charged by a middleman. If a mall made its profit by charging 43% on every purchase, I would think of it (informally) as a tax.
But suppose that mall didn't charge for anything else? Electricity, water, security, gravity all came free, and you just paid only if you made a sale? (Ok, there's a $100 developer fee and the cost of a Mac and iOS device.)
Maybe Apple should offer two deals to publishers:
1) Pay £1,000,000 up front and keep all the revenue
2) Pay As You Earn.
I don't think that works: The customer gets vastly different experiences because in a shop you're benefitting from the rented space's protection from weather, etc.
The same is true in the case of the iPhone vs. Desktop + web experience: it's different. One way that highlights the added benefit of the iOS app store is that it's safer than the open web.
But you can purchase a Spotify subscription on a different platform (say, Web), and then use your account on iOS, enjoying the same experience as every other iOS user. The only part of the experience that's different is the one time sign-up process, for which Apple wants to charge a permanent 30% fee for the entire duration of the subscription (even if after that you happen to primarily use Spotify on Desktop or Android).
This puts Spotify in a weird spot. Their only options are:
1) Charge more to iOS users. This seems unfair to them and of course they will complain and blame Spotify when they find out they've been overcharged since Apple explicitly forbids informing customers about their fees.
2)Charge ~10-20% (depending on the share of iOS subscribers) to users of all platforms to compensate for Apple's fees. Why should I as an Android user pay extra so that someone else can make purchases on an iPhone?
3) Status quo - disable subscriptions on iOS entirely, make customers jump through the hoops to figure out how to purchase a Spotify subscription.
I don't have the exact figure, but I imagine that quite a few Spotify customers use their subscriptions on multiple platforms. Apple just wants to take a permanent 30% cut if the the initial subscription was handled through an iOS app. Maybe this isn't such a huge problem for game DLC where there is no fixed unit cost, but companies like Spotify need to pay royalties to music labels, etc.
If you don't like it then don't set up payment through Apple. Just set it on the web. Multiplatform subscriptions outside the Apple ecosystem are explicitly allowed. The reality is that users don't get to save money so they don't care.
It seems Apple prevents you from embedding the website, linking to the website, directing users to that website from the app, or giving a FAQ that includes information about how the user is expected to pay via the website. Users have to guess, or already know.
Watch the struggles LTT have gone through with the Floatplane app.
Conversely when I tip someone I like to know that they will actually get the tip (see amazon and doordash) rather than it being directed somewhere else because the point is support that entity. Consistently if I purchase an app I like to know if that money is going to the developer, or when I purchase a service from someone in-app I like to know it is going to the person providing the service and not getting misdirected.
I agree that for large companies like spotify it is just a transactional thing they could potentially bake into the price but when interacting with smaller entities it just feels wrong that they have no alternative.
> no casual customer to my knowledge has ever seriously asked what proportion of their peppermint tea and scones pays for a café's rent
Furthering your café analogy:
• How many cafés do you think pay an annual amount + 30% of their revenue to their landlord, and may only use the landlord's payment system comprising of landlord dollaz
• Would consumers of a popular café be seriously concerned if their café were suddenly closed because they decided to accept cash directly?
Quite a lot, sadly, just look at eateries as a concession in an institution like a museum, or as another poster said, pop-up places like Boxpark or even - slightly tangentially, event stalls at places like Kew Gardens or during Festivals.
> Many a company is upset that they have no leverage in a business deal and want to courts to hand it to them.
I think Epic does actually have a lot of leverage. They have clout. They're a popular, widely respected company and founder. They could easily organize a strike, where large companies frustrated by this exploitative fee all pull their apps and publicly say "move to Android" or something.
Probably the fear of such a strike itself would lead to negotiations. It would just be embarrassing. Apple would not want to be the phone without any of the apps that people want. Who would buy that? And it doesn't matter that Android currently has the same fees, because they just copy Apple and would also change after such a strike wins out.
It's not just the companies though. I've heard others online say "the company doesn't have to sue, there's probably a free market solution," 90% of the people I know shout BAD TAKE! and assume that it must/should be decided in the courts.
The saddest part to me is just the total lack of creativity. There is a way to do it without suing and it would probably even be more impactful, because Apple would know that it is wrong when it loses. Rather than simply feeling that it has to comply with a law, it would know that developers themselves have negotiating power and there is a reasonable point of exploitation that Apple has long since passed.
The tactic is not very good at all. Respect and popularity doesn't get you much further than inside the front door in business, it certainly doesn't get you free money. It is quite sad to see this happen, because they had a great relationship at some point, Infinity Blade was an outstanding series and mutually beneficial. I also can't believe that all of us give s shit about this issue too and we're here discussing it.
I think we're pretty far off on our interpretations here, and you don't explain why you think the tactic isn't good. Epic is not asking for free money. And they wouldn't be asking for free help, either. This is clearly an issue that is impactful to other large companies in the app store, and they would simply be coming together to negotiate rather than stranded on their own. Hacker news is full of developers, that's part of the reason people care about this issue. Epic's problem could be our problem, too. Nobody wants to be exploited.
Well, I have suggested that Epic have no leverage, several times, and this appears to be true. They violated a contract, threw mud, and filed a lawsuit, all on their own, without any signs of getting developers on board to the cause or having anything of significant value (apparently) that might persuade Apple to back down.
Escalating to mom is not an adult way to behave.
This is a business fight about power, control and money. Positioning it as some moral crusade is disingenuous at best. I don’t love Apple’s policies, but Epic aren’t asking that Apple gives developers freedom, it’s asking that EPIC gets freedom to also run an App Store and take fees from developers. It’s literally writ large in Sweeney’s E-Mails to Apple in June:
“Please confirm within two weeks if Apple agrees in principle to allow Epic to provide a competing App Store”
I think we might be talking past each other. When I say that Epic and the founder have leverage, I do not mean against Apple in a lawsuit. I mean that they have leverage in the community because they make great products and have been making them for a long time, they are reputable and liked in their community and in the tech and business world.
When you say "escalating to mom," it isn't clear to me if you're criticizing Epic's lawsuit, in which case I am in agreement with you and criticizing the same thing - or if you're criticizing my suggestion to go on strike, which I think would be the opposite of "escalating to mom." It would instead be gathering your friends in unison against a bully and stating plainly, without appeal to law or to force, that there is no mutual agreement in your interactions and that you want new terms to your relationship.
I also disagree that there is no moral argument to be made here. The point is that it should not matter what Epic's particular motivations are, because they're borne from the same frustrations and feeling of unfairness that all other developers here are in a position to one day find themselves. If Epic is acting strictly selfishly, a win for them is still a win for everyone else. To interpret these events in good faith is to put yourself in their shoes - not to require them to fight for you for it to be just.
As far as I've heard, Epic is not asking to be able to charge developers, they want to sell their own things in their own game at their own prices. There aren't any third parties involved in that so I'm not sure where you got that part from.
It's one thing to say that you think a strike would fail, it's another to say that it shouldn't be attempted. For someone so rigorously defending Apple on ostensibly free-market grounds, you're stopping short of going all the way and accepting a free-market response to their high prices. Your defense is selective, and my interpretation of such selectivity is that you yourself do not have conviction when it comes to how markets should operate or what are just actions inside a free market, but simply an emotional defense of a trillion dollar corporation who makes nice products that you like.
Epic make excellent products, no argument, this is also a reason why this is a poor tactic - use your strengths to drive a bargain, right?
To confirm, I definitely think Epic are running to Mom here with the lawsuit, they were trying to get Apple sucked in deliberately by breaking the contract.
Regarding the moral argument, Tim Sweeney doesn't get to represent all other developers unless he at least checks with a few, and he might be surprised at the range of responses he would get. This is supposed to be a game where everyone knows the rules in advance and sticks to them. There is plenty of evidence to say that Apple has offered sweetheart deals or not applies the rules consistently - and that IS unfair, and I hope Apple gets a smackdown on that. But on the basis that you knew what the rules were in advance, should we continue to accept these events in good faith?
On the subject of money, Apple's prices are off-the-charts crazy right now, and speaking as a veteran of the prices of the early 1990s, I am staggered at how expensive everything is. My current iPhone is almost two years old and it had better last another three at least. I just bought a new MBP in January and the cost was eye-watering. That had better last ten years. And on these things, we have little choice, or at least I don't. I want to be in that ecosystem, because I've tried the others and they suck, so if it's a choice of spending the money or having my life suck, well, that's why money was invented.
I would rather not be seen as defending Apple, because they don't need my help, and I don't want to help them, but I also do not want to read emotive and partial cheap shots at them decrying their "tax" and espousing "freedom" - everything is a trade-off and people make those choices themselves. If Epic had decided to sue Apple, Google, Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft all at the same time, or done the diplomatic thing and gotten an alliance or coalition to stand up to Apple, that would be defensible, but it seems that the Sweeney Toddler approach won out - how are we supposed to support this even if we agree that Apple deserve a kicking?
This is a bad analogy because there are many cafes and you can even buy tea in a supermarket and make it at home, whereas for apps the market is cornered.
Apple regulates this market, and we have to pay them a tax.
Going to another cafe to buy your coffee doesn't include a door charge of €300 just so you can start getting your coffee there. Sure you can get it from those other devices but there's a large cost up front to switching device.
I originally started on Android and moved to iOS to check the other side. I find it annoying that I can't really use Kindle like I could before.. Or tell Siri to play something from Spotify. I'm forced to use Apple alternatives and it's the reason I'm moving back to Android when my phone dies.
You certainly can ask Siri to play music from Spotify, I don't know who said you can't. That was added last October with iOS 13. I have no idea what's happened with Kindle, but I use Google Play and Kobo books as well as Apple's Books, and everything works fine for reading. If not being able to purchase books on the device bothers you so much, fair enough, it's your choice, but nothing much has stopped me from finding the cheapest source of an ebook in epub format and reading it.
I've seen gas stations list two prices, one if you pay with cash and one if with credit. It's not quite what you asked for, but it's an example of passing optional margin related to the choice of payment on to the customer.
(Incidentally credit card companies, like Apple, really hate it; I think some states have exceptions in their laws to disallow contracting out of it?)
It's common here in the Netherlands for shops to charge extra for MasterCard/Visa card processing, and they advertise this at the till. Maestro is king in this country.
Buying airline tickets online often display the processing fee for using MasterCard/Visa too.
The important part is other options are displayed so I have a choice - iDeal, PayPal, MasterCard, Visa, bank transfer, etc.
I remember 15y-20y ago when it was becoming a trend to fuel your own car, some gas stations had two prices. One for "self service" and one "served". I believe that majority of people were trying to avoid tipping the attendant (imagine tipping £€1 for a £€10 fill, that's 10% tip).
>Do you know any store that adds a line showing their margin on the customer receipt ?
Man i would really love this! the luxury goods market would be ruined overnight when everyone realizes that most of the time you're paying for the brand!
Online stores profit from the difference between buying at volumes and selling at a higher price.
They don't charge over the market price, they buy at a discount
Apple doesn't buy anything, doesn't have a warehouse, doesn't allow publishers to discuss the terms of the agreement, they take the same fee from everyone, in this regards it is very similar to a flat tax
Apple store is more similar to a market place, a mall in the physical world, in a mall businesses rent the space
They pay in proportion on how much space they rent and the quality of the space they rent
Apple (unfairly IMO) charges the same amount for everyone, even though some apps are promoted by the store and the vast majority of them is practically undiscoverable unless you already know what to look for.
If Apple was a store it would be a store that only place orders on your behalf, just because it's the only store in town and charges a fee on every order, even if they don't do much
If you had the phone number of the supplier you could place the order yourself, but Apple prohibits customers to even ask for it and if publishers try to contact customers directly, they sue them
In this imaginary town people supporting the Apple business say to people sick and tired of their way of doing it "change town"
Nobody asked Apple to provide check out, distribution and warehouse
They are doing it and forcing everybody to follow along with that because it's best for Apple
In the same way Facebook hosts your pictures because it's good for them
I'm sure companies like Twitter, Facebook, Microsoft, epic, Spotify, Google etc. etc. are perfectly capable of doing all of the above, Apple simply prohibits them from even writing in their apps "this is not the only way you could buy this app"
> They are doing it and forcing everybody to follow along with that because it's best for Apple
I’ll concede the point that Apple are looking after Apple. I’ll also concede the point that Apple don’t disclose enough about their restrictions to their customers. However, I still find their App Store and fees reasonably tolerable, as a customer. Apple’s approach falls in line with much of how I want my computing to work. They’re not perfect, but compared to Google and FB, they’re by far the more appealing supplier. Compared to Microsoft, I just find Apple’s stuff nicer to use.
PWAs are crippled on the iPhone and the fact that the only browser available is Safari is not encouraging for developers, so native it's the only option to have a good experience on iOS
Apple does want you to develop native apps, because to make native apps you have to buy Apple hardware, Apple developer licenses and Apple devices to test them
I’ve chosen not to develop (or learn how) iOS native apps. For now. Almost everything I want to do could be a web app and I’d take the cost of maintaining servers for shelf space, distribution and offline storage. I’d have to use email for notifications. Notifications are optional at point of consumption anyway so they can’t be relied upon, so this UX impairment is minor.
The PWA argument doesn’t work for me. Most of the features I might choose to use PWA abilities for can be implemented in other ways.
> I’ve chosen not to develop (or learn how) iOS native apps
I've chosen to skip writing mobile apps entirely, that doesn't mean that the company I work for can ignore their users on iOS hence they can't ignore Apple store policies
> Most of the features I might choose to use PWA abilities for can be implemented in other ways.
That's the problem
When the actor that controls 50% of the market doesn't fully implement some standard to drive adoption of their closed platform, development becomes more costly
And it reflects on both development time and price for the end user
"How dare my corner grocery they charge me a “store tax” without displaying the amount of money they make for operating the shop, handling customer requests and complaints, and so on...
I mean seriously people, do you not realise the words you use also affect the way you think about things and not just the other way around?
The private company that sells me electricity has to charge all sorts of fees that are mandated by the various levels of government that regulate the market. These are not taxes but admin fees, riders and right-of-ways, each dutifuly detailed as a line item. Is this not exacxtly what Apple does to anyone who wants to reach a big market?
every regulated, monopoly or olgigopoly private company does pretty much: utilities, gas stations or anything that has one or more fees, charges or mandated expenses, for example an event ticket that adds the processing fee on top of the price. This sounds exactly like Apple and what they do to everyone in the app store.
Free market works on freedom of information and informed choice. If you entered into a contract because I mislead you, thats fraud. Sensorship is a form of market manipulation and apple is ACTIVELY SENSORING this information:
https://youtu.be/jdEdGPnaDRY
Also margin is the wrong term - these are transaction fees charged by the platform.
The best comparison is Airlines and airport - every time i buy a ticket, i know how much money actually goes to the airline.
I am so amused that this debate is very American centered all while American physical stores can't figure out how to include taxes into displayed price. And everybody is okay with that.
Businesses are incentivized to not include taxes in the price since there's no laws against it, everyone else does it, and it lets them advertise better prices then they actually have. Personally, the practice really irks me and my small act of rebellion is that I pay in cash if tax is included in the price and by card if it's not. I wish people cared about it more but I suppose there's just more important things to worry about
> it lets them advertise better prices then they actually have
It’s a bit more nuanced than that. The issue is that cities will often have their own sales tax, or that states have different sales tax. This gets pretty complicated when you advertise a price near the border of a tax cliff. Well, not complicated for the customer, but for the business.
Luckily, in places like here in the EU, when watching Dutch TV, I don't see prices that I'd expect in Germany. When someone buys my goods from Germany, I might pay German VAT or they might pay Netherlands VAT. It depends. Point is, I don't have to think about taxes, the business handles it.
But here's the other kicker. The Netherlands VAT is ~21%, the German VAT is/was 19%. It's a pretty simple difference that's basically negligible.
In Kentucky, sales tax is 6%, but in Ohio it's 5.75%, not that big of a difference. Oh wait, in Ohio it's 0% going through the drive thru. In Tennessee, sometimes there's no sales tax on clothing.
Tax is a political tool in the US, not so much elsewhere.
From some. I simply don’t care. To me, Apple are keeping my highly sensitive data (my phone is my bank card, address book, post box, todo list...) secure. I’m really grateful the tools and experience is consistently so good for so long. Whether I’m paying that 30% or the software devs are, I’m not really bothered. I want the high quality to continue. I accept that multiple app stores may improve things... but from what I hear, that’s not the case on Android.
I think we only have this discussion because of Apple’s market cap. Most others are envious. Sure, Apple have a lot of power, but they do a fairly good job of using it responsibly. The interactions with the Chinese government do desire further scrutiny, however.
Android is a bad comparison, because they are basically an adware based product, and rightfully many people reject it as a serious tool for managing their personal information and communication. This actually makes Apple a monopolist.
I agree Google are adware. I disagree that tales them out of the discussion of monopoly.
I also think the monopoly discussion and the 30% fees discussion are separate. This relates to my interpretation that the 30% covers “shelf space, distribution, And security”.
If the fee were 5% but nothing else changed, Apple might still have a monopoly.
The other poster is correct, the issue of the fee is orthogonal to the issue of app distribution. After all, even if the fee were 5%, Epic could still argue they want to put in their own store where the fee was 4%.
"A tax is a compulsory financial charge or some other type of levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a governmental organization in order to fund government spending and various public expenditures"
The 30% tax that everyone have might actually be a good thing. This makes the market for another OS champion way more likely.
Pop OS mobile? Amazon?
The price to create an OS is humongous so the rewards has to be too.
But that's the problem with oligopolies, the reward is fictional as all that happens is the existing market players stop taking so much. This means the ROI for a new competitor is much worse than what you'd assume on it's face, it could even be negative.
Without the in app purchase fees, developers could (and would) give away the app and take all of the revenues.
With the in app purchase fees, developers (rightfully) feel as though Apple is taking a cut for something they they did not sell.
If apps sold for $40 or $80 each, Apple would have a much harder time justifying the commission on in app purchases. The motivation to do so would still be there, but the pressure from consumers may have more bearing on the rates (though I doubt they would eliminate them).
I sort of agree and disagree. I will admit upfront I still cant articulate my thoughts very well on the subject matter.
I dont see why collecting 30% from Games is anything off limit. I consider Gaming as Non-Essential. If you dont like the Gaming Platform. Go Elsewhere. Literally every Gaming Platform collects 30% ( if not more ) on Games being sold. That is everything from early days of Nintendo, Sega, and now Playstation and Xbox. So in the case of EPIC, why are they happy with Sony and Microsoft charging them 30% on Playstation and Xbox? Whether they are losing money on the console sales is irrelevant in this context, that is their business model, and that is how the market works and accept. Nintendo is able to compete with a profits on both console and games.
However charging 30% on Apps, on productivity, business tools and when there are only One competing App Platform in the whole world ( of whole of US ) is where the question of Monopoly or Monopsony comes into play.
I dont think there is an easy answer. On one hand, changing 30% of subscription for Education and Fitness App is ridiculous. Apple being the sole buyer and pitching these client / business / partners against each other while benefiting from it is precisely the definition of Monopsony.
On the other hand, I would much rather paid this 30% extortion than having a platform where user can, no matter how difficult it may be, able to side load Apps. I dont want any of my family member doing it. If you really want the ability to side loads, Android it is.
I think Apple should just keep the 30% on Games. 15% of One Time Purchase Apps, 10% on Subscription and call it a day. I think that is a fair deal. Payment Processing, Fraud Protection, Refund and General Admin and Store Operation would have put it close to 5%. Business aren't losing much with the 10% Rent. With the lower commission Apple can better Enforce the Sign up rules. No more "Reader" App Guidelines. You are allowed to give better deals else where like on your Website. But as a consumer I am happy with the extra 10% for the safety of going through Apple.
And some additional info, it is estimated that 80% of App Store Revenue are from Gaming. So dropping the Apps and Subscription to 15% / 10% arrangement isn't going to make their services revenue collapse. Apple are also working hard on their AppleCare+ push, as you can now buy it within the first year of your purchase and Apple Store Genius has had their KPI percentage increased for AppleCare sold. ( Personally I think what is happening in Apple Retail is even worst than the App Store )
> I would much rather paid this 30% extortion than having a platform where user can, no matter how difficult it may be, able to side load Apps. I dont want any of my family member doing it.
I’m confused, why are you opposed to the option of sideloading? Are you unaware that you can sideload on iOS? (see /r/sideloaded for a thriving sub on sideloadable apps)
It takes a little setup but it is totally doable and doesn’t require jailbreak or anything.
> All the comments saying "just buy an Android" ignore the simple fact that you buying an Android does not change the fact that a significant portion of the market is elsewhere.
All the comments saying “just allow side-loading apps/third-party stores and let people decide themselves” ignore the fact that by doing so then iOS will end up with the same virus/malware issues that you see on Windows and Android. Suddenly we’ll need to help friends and family factory reset their iPhone because their search engine got hijacked, or because they get spammed with sex notifications, etc.
> All the comments saying “just allow side-loading apps/third-party stores and let people decide themselves” ignore the fact that by doing so then iOS will end up with the same virus/malware issues that you see on Windows and Android.
Why? Who is forcing YOU to sideload?
There's no reason why the default couldn't be status quo and you'd only opt in into sideloading, this way the users who want the walled garden still get it and the users who want to sideload can optionally opt into that.
Why is it always an either/or?
As for Android, I'm pretty confident in saying that F-Droid, which is a 3rd party store, is generally safer than even the Play Store.
Android's problem is the lax review of apps even on the Play Store, lack of updates soon after purchase etc. Most users on Android don't even have sideloading enabled, that's not a huge vector.
Because 99% of the user base isn’t tech savvy and will install all sorts of crap without realizing the consequences of doing so.
I may be capable of sticking to the App Store and not side-loading apps, but many of my friends, family and non-developer coworkers are not. They’ll click on random links in their mailbox, ads from apps and when browsing the web.. the end result is that they end up accidentally having their homepage, search engine and browser hijacked, they get redirected to spam websites, links on websites gets replaced with affiliate links, their sensitive information gets stolen, etc.
I’ve never had to help fix an iPhone and I don’t know anyone who’s been infected with malware (besides e.g. TikTok secretly copying clipboard and such), however for Windows and Android then I have people reach out to me on a monthly basis because they accidentally installed something that fucked up their computer/phone and they need help fixing it.
As for F-Droid, I hope you realize that their store is even more locked down than the App Store, and it’s as far as I’m aware the only secure third-party store on Android.
> I’ve never had to help fix an iPhone and I don’t know anyone who’s been infected with malware (besides e.g. TikTok secretly copying clipboard and such), however for Windows and Android then I have people reach out to me on a monthly basis because they accidentally installed something that fucked up their computer/phone and they need help fixing it.
All well and good, but this is not due to sideloading. That is an option that is disabled by default and the majority of people keep it that way. There's sketchy apps on the Play Store itself, which does not require you sideloading. I feel like you're conflating sideloading with malware here.
> As for F-Droid, I hope you realize that their store is even more locked down than the App Store
Not sure what you mean exactly, considering you can even have your own repos in F-Droid, but in any case the point is that it is a 3rd party store.
I don't think anyone is arguing no store can be locked down if you have multiple choices.
> All well and good, but this is not due to sideloading.
It is. iPhones don’t suffer from these malware issues precisely because everything is locked down and you can’t get apps to the iPhone without Apple’s manual approval. If Android was locked down and only allowed apps to be installed through F-Droid then they wouldn’t have any malware issues either.
The reason F-Droid is safe is because they’re also locked down and their approval process is even more strict than Apple’s.
> I don't think anyone is arguing no store can be locked down if you have multiple choices.
What I’m saying is that once you allow third-party app installations then malware will follow. And as we can see with Macs, not even Apple will be able to prevent it no matter how much they try to discourage people from downloading apps outside the App Store. The malware you see on Macs are a result of users downloading apps outside the App Store, and the same thing would happen to iPhones if they allowed third-party app installations.
Actually they do, and the reason for that is precisely because they allow third-party installations on Macs, and the exact same thing would happen to iPhones if they allowed third-party installations there as well.
> Adware has become much more aggressive in 2019, heavily targeting consumer and business endpoints on Windows, Mac,
and Android devices. A new team of
the most active adware families have replaced the top adware family detections of 2018. In total, we saw approximately 24 million Windows adware detections and 30 million Mac detections. The top three consumer threat detections belonged to adware families
and the number one business detection was also adware. The number one Mac detection, an adware family called NewTab, brought in 28 million detections itself.
If you think Apple owners don’t know about this, you are mistaken. Curating the App Store is one of the main reasons why I buy Apple products. I want them to tax and restrict developers.
> If you think Apple owners don’t know about this, you are mistaken. Curating the App Store is one of the main reasons why I buy Apple products.
You're posting on a site called Hacker News so I'd expect you to know, but does you extended family know, without you telling them? Doubt ir, just as I would expect most people to think "Hacker News" has to do something with illegality or perhaps reporting on criminal hackers.
Of course Epic wants to keep more of their profit to themselves. Especially if they have to give a way tens of millions not just a few thousands. I think it is fair for Apple to cap their charges. If they need to take a percentage, they should take a percentage of profit rather than sales to be honest. Unity model is a good example in my opinion.
Afaik Unity royalties are based on revenue, not profit. Balance sheets are not difficult to mascarade, revenue is much harder to hide.
Though I agree a minimum revenue threshold would make sense. But that's not apples strategy. Their strategy is to subtly charge the massive amount of indie developers (developer account fee) and take 30% from the get go.
I think Apple is in the “real estate”/rent business here. if you compare that to how big malls operate it’s pretty similar. They take a fixed fee plus a cut from the revenue in exchange for foot traffic.
And they are in a sort of Las Vegas real estate market, made global. It must be difficult for them to resist the treasure, especially when stakeholders want to see greater and greater returns.
Commented this in the other thread on this subject, but think it's still relevant here.
Apple is truly doing themselves a disservice here, if Epic wins this battle Apple will undoubtedly be painted as the bad guy, and other major companies will smell blood in the water when it comes taking down a competitor.
Case in point; Tinder, Microsoft, Facebook, Spotify have all openly backed Epic and started to call attention to features that are impacted by this 30% fee. Status quo isn't going to cut it, and it would be in Apple's best interest to make a small concession to look like they're not so evil.
What in god's name is with all the bootlickers in this thread? I have no love for Apple or Epic. But if this lawsuit leads to better treatment of third-party developers on the platform and Apple not being able to arbitrarily control what apps consumers get to download, I don't see why Epic is being painted as the "bad guy" by so many people here. Apple has been behaving in crazy anti-competitive ways (just look at how they historically treated any developer that dared make an app that competed with their own) for years now. It's time for the hammer to fall.
I'm with you. They're both billions of dollars worth companies arguing about who should get which percentage of additional millions of dollars of profit.
I'm not invested at all in this debate, but I do silently hope that Epic succeeds purely for the little guys who may benefit from that.
I’ve noticed in gaming circles that people are very anti-Epic Games and will take any opposing position no matter the facts.
Epic has been trying to position their own game store as a competitor to Steam. One of the things they have been doing is spending money paying for games to be exclusive to their platform. This is seen as the ultimate evil by gamers who want all of their games in one place (on Steam).
I don't require someone to tell me I'm not allowed to install or provide app X because someone somewhere doesn't like the idea of two consenting parties making an app transaction.
I don't understand this line of reasoning. Just because you paid someone doesn't mean they are obligated to write software to allow you to do something with the thing you bought. If the thing you bought doesn't do what you want it to do, then buy a different thing that lets you do what you want. And in this case there are literally thousands of other phones you can buy.
> doesn't mean they are obligated to write software to allow you
Apple literally doesn't have to write any software! All we're asking is for Apple to remove the software they've written that intentionally blocks any other software from working!
Android has a checkbox to install apps from any source. Hardly anyone even knows about its existence, but it means that we don't have to have a black market for phones with a given app installed (context: iPhones with Fortnite already installed were being sold for 2k+ per pop on eBay when the app was blocked).
It's disingenuous to claim Apple built and promoted the platform by themselves - third party developers are a huge reason behind iOS's success, and the iPhone wouldn't be what it is today if it only had first-party apps.
And? Those third party developers have already been compensated fully based on the terms they agreed to when they contributed to the platform. Apple owes them nothing at this point. Obviously it is probably in Apple's best interest to treat them fairly, but that is up to Apple to decide.
And to respond to GP. This has nothing to do with "bootlicking". The same thing should apply regardless of the company.
They control the distribution channels of a general computing platform at their whim.
They push their own services like Apple Music by having pre installed apps, free app store placement, not having to pay the 30% cut over other competitors like Spotify. In a low margin business that is live or die.
They force a browser like Firefox to not have its own engine as well.
When you build a platform and it becomes so successful that it forms part of the foundation for an entire society's technological existence, you lose the privilege of arbitrarily controlling that platform. Electricity companies don't get to skim 30% off of the revenue of any factory that makes widgets using the electricity company's electricity. Cell phone carriers don't get to skim 30% off of any orders placed over their networks. Apple shouldn't be able to skim 30% off of every transaction that happens to be made on an iOS device. I don't give a damn about esoteric arguments about Apple being a "private company" or whatever: it's unacceptable for society to pay a 30% tax to Apple on a big chunk of the economic activity of an entire society. No taxation without representation, right?
Exactly: a market duopoly doesn't mean they don't have disproportionate control over consumer choices especially when there are feature and ecosystem differences between the platforms.
The platform was built by every consumer, app devs, hardware vendors, and many others.
These players of the platform voluntarily cooperate with apple, and allow apple the oversized power, because the economic values of doing that is higher than other behaviors.
There isn't a moral high ground for apple, nor a particularly outsized contribution by apple considering their profit from the platform.
What you said is so superficial that it does not even refer to the right topic.
Epic might be painted in a bad light because they’re 40% Tencent owned, and they happen to purposely get banned and sue Apple (in a PR campaign style) shortly after Trump sign an executive order targeting Tencent’s WeChat.
Or people might enjoy being able to use a device without having to worry about viruses and whatnot.. a problem plaguing Windows and slowly starting to affect many Android users as well. And while they might feel comfortable being able to avoid such viruses themselves, then they likely have friends and family that will suffer from it (you might think it’s easy not to install a different App Store, just like you might think it’s easy not to click on phishing links in your mailbox.. but it unfortunately isn’t easy for the average user).
Or people might worry about losing all sorts of privacy as a result of the Apple being forced to open up various parts of their system.
Target might exist alongside several other competing retailers on the same block. The friction for a customer to leave and shop at a competing retailer is low. To extend this analogy, The Apple store exists in a company town, and the friction for a customer to leave 'Appletown' shop at competing retailers in 'AndroidLand' is intentionally as high as possible [1].
This is not an argument as for what (if any) kind of control third parties should have over the App Store as retailer, it's an argument for why this current arrangement is exploitative, and not analogous to conventional retail platforms like Target.
You lost me. I just switched carriers from T-Mobile to ATT last week. I had an easy chance to switch to Android (I didn’t) but the cost to me would have been close to nil—other than time. All my apps are agnostic to iOS/Android (same for the 3 other people on my family plan). So just like I’d have to spend time learning the Layout of a Walmart if I left target, I’d have time costs to switch to Android.
And the example you gave of the Kindle still doesn’t make me question the App Store market: if kindle had a kiosk in a target to sell ebooks, I bet target would demand a cut too.
If what you’re after is data portability then solve for that. I’d rather have a law that covers all digital companies rather than devolve the App Store into some unregulated flee market.
That doesn't have much bearing on the cost of switching considering most of that friction is borne of investment into a particular platform and the intentional difficulty in migrating to another platform. This is the central caveat of walled gardens, the walls do not only serve to keep unwanted things outside, they also serve to keep you inside.
The analogy to a company town is apt. When you embarked for a town, both AndroidLand and Appletown were the same distance away, but now that you have settled down the prospect of migrating outside is considerably more difficult.
What high cost of switching? There are hardly any popular iOS only apps or popular apps that people paid for instead of buying a subscription that works cross platform.
As far as media that you bought, music that you bought on iTunes has been DRM free for almost a decade.
Even with movies, you can blame the lock in on the studios that don’t participate in “Movies Anywhere”. Any movie from the participating studios that you buy on Prime Video, Google Play, Vudu, or iTunes is automatically considered purchased on the other platforms.
Most of the money being spent on the App Store are from in app consumables.
They shouldn't, but it's not about that. Apple can sell whatever they like or don't on the Apple Store, that's fine. The problem is that they sell consumers a "general computing" device, and then enforcing that every single transaction on said device goes through them. They are not only processing those transactions, not only taking a cut, but also deciding which ones are ok and which ones aren't. Meaning, that if you and me wanted to do business together selling iOS apps, we would need to get blessing from apple. The argument here is that maybe it shouldn't be like this. After all, we don't need to ask Microsoft for permission for the same thing, and on Android if I don't like the rules established by Google, I can put my app on the Amazon store, one of the many 3rd party ones, or just send my customers the .apk directly - Google cannot stop two parties from conducting business, they can merely offer a convenient alternative that involves google getting a cut. Of course apple will respond with argument that this tight control is beneficial to customers - and they are welcome to make such argument.
So there should be a law that says any computing device must be free to load any software? So PS4 must play XBox games? Printers must accept any ink cartridge? Apple Watch should allow any android app? What’s the distinction? (I’m not trying to be obtuse). I buy iPhone specifically for the walled garden. I don’t want to have to worry about malware etc like I do on my PCs/MacBook.
And again—-going back to the Walmart/Target analogy, if you wanted to enter into a business deal with a third party in a Walmart, Walmart would demand a cut too.
>>So there should be a law that says any computing device must be free to load any software?
No, that's not what I said. I said general computing device. For a lot of people nowadays, their phone or tablet is the only computing device they have. The argument here is that Apple is stopping two sides from engaging in a fully legal business transaction. Epic wants to sell you their game, you want to buy that game. The fact that it's running on a device manufactured by Apple is only tangential here - Apple should have the freedom to run their app store however they see fit, but Epic's argument is that they shouldn't be a gatekeeper to allowing and purchasing applications on their devices, because that stifles competition and innovation on the market(which the government is trying to protect). I think it's really well explained here[0]
It's as if Nescafe tried to forbid anyone from making capsules that work in their machines - their argument could be the same, we made the machine, our capsules guarantee correct operation and quality standard, therefore our machines shouldn't work with anything else. And yet....it would be illegal for them to do so, just like it is illegal for a car manufacturer to forbid you from using 3rd party replacement parts. They can void your warranty, sure, but they legally cannot forbid you from fitting 3rd party replacements. But it's about freedom of choice - if you want to buy original Mercedes parts, you can. If you only want to buy apps vetted and approved by apple - you can.
>> I buy iPhone specifically for the walled garden. I don’t want to have to worry about malware etc like I do on my PCs/MacBook.
Literally no one wants to take this away from you. If you want to only install apps from the App Store that have gone through apple's approval process - please continue to do so.
>>So PS4 must play XBox games? Printers must accept any ink cartridge? Apple Watch should allow any android app? What’s the distinction?
The distinction isn't that everything should be compatible with everything. Just that anyone should be allowed to make software for anything, which the platform holders are trying to forbid. Apple is just the first one - but I'd hope that eventually the same argument will be made against Microsoft and Sony and yes, you will be allowed to make a game for PS4/Xbox without having to explicitly ask those companies for approval. The example with the printer is an interesting one, because like I mentioned earlier - manufacturers cannot forbid you from neither making replacement cartridges for their printers, nor from you using them. The ability to do so for hardware has been enshrined in law for a long time. Why not for software?
Android isn't much better in this regard. There is realistic choice of two smartphone operating system vendors, both of which exercise total and random control over their stores. If you look at the frontpage of HN today, several fediverse apps were just thrown off the Google Play store, so it's a choice between pest and cholera
I wasn’t aware that Apple would remove an extremely popular app from the app store without giving users any option to continue using it, no.
I’m not particularly invested in Fortnite, but if Apple removes one of my favorite apps I’m going to get really cranky at any friend that suggests that I should have planned ahead for what to do if the app dev and the phone maker got in fight years after I bought my phone.
Being aware of it doesn't mean it was your preference. What if you want an iPhone for the hardware and bought it in spite of rather than because of Apple's restrictions on third party apps?
Moreover, the app you want may not have existed when you bought your first iPhone and became locked into the platform. Or it may have been on the iOS app store at that time and was subsequently removed.
This would be like if there were one single store on the planet and if they don't want to sell your shit everyone just says, "That's their right, shouldn't have gotten into the business of selling things."
But there are 2 stores, and you make the choice of packaging for one or the other. You can also make your own store, if you want. (In this analogy, that is. You cannot make a store inside a store, that’d be silly.)
Basically, you can still sell on Android, or, make your own phone/mobile operating system?
Shopping malls owned by supermarket companies do exactly that. A hypermarket in the centre, owned by the supermarket company itself, and hundreds of smaller stores around, operated by others in the same building.
What happens when Target is the only store that 13.5% of the population can access? What happens if it become 25%? 50%? 100%? At what threshold is it proper to put in restrictions on Target?
This is true, and perhaps consumers in those areas should have more control over the choices that business provides. National corporations with local monopolies are often the least critiqued anti-consumer actor.
The comments are terrifying. I know this isn't unique to apple but I will forever fail to understand how regular people to seemingly have so much of their self worth tied to a technology.
We're all just out here trying to find (secular) religion, apparently.
Do you want Fortnite on your iPhone, here’s how. Ask Epic for the source code (I am sure they will just give to you), build the app with xCode, and deploy it to your phone. And you are good to go.
On one hand I really hope this breaks apart Apple and Google's duoploy in mobile, basically acting as the gatekeeper to all users around the world.
On the other hand, I don't feel good about the way Epic went about this. Makes it hard to support them because they were the ones who first started the war by deliberately breaking the terms of service. There's gotta be a better way.
Epic has a more clear case if Epic does what they want and Apple takes action against it than if Epic doesn't do what they want because they fear Apple will takr action against it. Now, the actions have taken place, there's no hypotheticals that courts dislike addressing.
ok, lets say we build a software distribution platform and fix a 15% commission to list any software..
Cut - 5 years later, after a billion dollar sales via that platform, and all of a sudden some developers see this 15% as a burden..
Now for an outside consumer, he doesn't care about the split, all he sees is value and return of his purchase..
For a indie developer, getting the much needed traction could be well worth the 15%..
now for a bigger shark this could be a problem and they propose a solution that the store shouldn't be the only one and they will setup a new shop (today for free, with discounted 15% for their products, but one day they when their own side platform grows, they WILL start charging)
as a consumer I side with Apple, as a developer am split, but no matter what , I won't Side with EPIC, because, they pay the same cut everywhere else ( XBOX,PS4 etc)..
If the counter argument is that apple is getting billions in profits, lets take a devlis advocate position and say apple grows negatively and billions become losses, now will EPIC agree for a 40% cut instead of 30%? NOPE, because that's not how. business works!
I hope Epic loses this. I do not want the App Store opened up in any way. One of the reasons I use iOS is so that I have very few worries about a device that I use every day.
To me, and I suspect to almost everyone else, iPhones are not computers. They are devices. Laptops are computers because they are for computing things. This is why I have moved away from MacOS as they have progressively made computing harder, but gravitated even further towards iOS.
If you want a totally open smartphone platform, great. That sounds wonderful for you. But don’t use the law to take away the only secure smartphone platform I have available to me - go find your own open platform and play Fortnite to your heart’s content.
It’s possible for some middle ground here. If there’s an alternative distribution method, you wouldn’t have to use it.
And it’s of course possible that a lower commission is enforced.
Finally, the biggest issue here is Apple’s extreme power in being able to completely destroy software companies. I don’t think that’s right, personally.
I want a platform that both I and my 72-year-old father can use without concern that he might be phished into downloading another App Store.
Billions of iPhone sales show that people clearly want the same.
If you want a top-end device with a widely used OS where you can install a thousand app stores, you can have one. Any one of a dozen major phone manufacturers will be happy to sell you an Android device.
You might consider your iPhone a computer, but I don’t, and more to the point Apple doesn’t - and you and I both knew that when we bought them.
> Billions of iPhone sales show that people clearly want the same.
It could as well be showing that they are only willing to endure the same. The truth is - we cannot know, since an iPhone cannot be bought without the App Store and vice versa.
I do agree with Epic that the requirement for all IAP to go through Apple is absurd, and the 30% cut is too high. However, I fully support Apple in enforcing the App Store rule.
What else do you want Apple to do? Suppose Apple cave this time, what happens if tomorrow Facebook comes in and use private API to track users? Could Facebook argue Apple is using its monopolistic position to hurt its business? If you say, clearly forbidding tracking is good for the user and taking a cut is bad, who gets to draw the line? One can argue preventing tracking make ads less relevant to user therefore hurt them, and similarly forcing all purchase to go through Apple prevent unscrupulous developers from fleecing users. It's never a black and white issue.
Also, to be honest I always thought bigger developers have special negotiated rate with Apple. As an Apple customer & developer, I am very glad that everyone is treated equally in App Store.
I have yet to find a compelling anti trust argument.
- if anti-trust is about consumer protection (kind of a European perspective), there's no basis. You buy an Apple device knowing full well that the only apps allowed on that device are vetted by Apple. That's hardly new. The rules have not changed. Few exceptions have been made, and I bet those few have been framed by the best lawyers there are to avoid any possible contamination. So there's no new event or situation that has consumers losing.
- if anti-trust is about protecting against market manipulation : no one forces any one to be on the App Store. The rules have not changed. Few exceptions etc. Apple does have sole control of the iPhone apps "market" but is that truly a market in the sense of competition law? The fact that it's called "App Store" should not obscure the fact that Apple could as well have decided to provide only their own Apple-branded apps, and develop themselves all of the apps they make available to iPhone users. Instead they chose to let third-parties provide apps under a restrictive set of conditions that include the "tax". Would it be any different if they actually licensed the apps from developers for a fee and resell them on the App Store to end users?
Regulations are for protecting the people and ensuring no monopoly takes place. Just because no laws exist now doesn't mean there shouldn't be. The choice the companies should have is either you follow those regulations or don't sell your product.
As far as I know in Apple ecosystem its very hard to have apps installed in your device if its not in the store. That is not how it should be. It's my phone my decision. It should be like it is on android.
Other countries apart from US should have extensive set of regulations to protect consumers and ensure no monopoly takes place. These regulations should be about what companies are allowed or not allowed to do.
Huh? I don't play any Epic games... But just because they refuse to pay a 30% fee?
Apple is only the distributor here. If they would charge a reasonable processing fee (4-5% like credit card companies do) nobody would have had - presumably - a problem.
Unlike with most (all?) other platforms there is no way to install apps from any alternate sources.
30% is the modern version of way-laying. (IMHO at least)
Supporting Epic in this fight is just setting a dangerous precedent that big players should be able to just intimidate platform owners into giving them whatever terms they want. Don’t do it.
With no skin in the game, I could just as easily counter with:
Supporting Apple in this fight is just setting a dangerous precedent that big players should be able to just intimidate platform developers into giving them whatever terms they want. Don't do it.
Again I don't really have a concrete view but a lot of these discussions tend to boil down to preference against one party or the other and not objectively looking at the arguments from both sides. Replace Epic with one of your critical apps. Replace Apple with Google and the arguments are the same.
>>If they don’t like the terms they can simply choose to not develop there.
Sure, but sometimes, as a society, we decide that this is simply not ok.
I know this is not a completely correct comparison, but the main counter against forcing businesses to accept non-white customers was "well, they can simply go somewhere else, what's the big deal". We as a society decided that no, actually, it is a big deal, and regardless of whether you can "simply" go somewhere else or not, you shouldn't have to.
I'm hoping that this will be the first victory in a string of rulings forcing platform holders to open them up, because we value that more than we value the platform holders ability to keep them closed. Apple just happened to be first.
Yes, because buying an Android phone instead of an iPhone is like moving to another country.
As a consumer, you can push for improvements by voting with your wallet and flat out not buying Apple products. As a developer, you can push for improvements by not supporting that platform. Given that you have alternatives to Apple both as a developer and as a consumer, I don't think there's any justification for the government to force Apple to accept Epic blatantly breaking the terms they agreed to comply with.
I guess that's what remains to be seen. But Epic seems to be throwing their most valuable property at it right now, so they must have some degree of confidence that a larger player will back them on this.
I assume that the Epic supporters rather are hoping to get Apple to reduce the 30% on all transactions (or on all transactions of some type), not just to get Epic to be a special case. I'm not sure they have a case, but I think you're misrepresenting them.
Well, of course; if someone is supporting a company's position because of that company's "character", that would be absurd indeed. Both sides are doing it for profit. That doesn't mean we can't support one or the other on other grounds.
No, I think what they mean is that for instance, Apple Music is on Android, but Apple takes payments through its own platform, not through Google Play, therefore denying Google their 30% cut on apple music payments. Many smaller companies are not able to negotiate the same thing.
Massive off-topic aside: Would you mind stop referring to me as he, and more generally don't assume someones gender identity. Sorry about it, just shitting me off a bit lately.
That's very unlikely, because the court can't force Apple to provide a special deal to Epic. Whatever decision they arrive at, it must be generally applicable.
The idea here is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. Remember that every post you make has a non-negligible impact on the community. If we all treat this place like the discussion forum we'd like to have, eventually we'll have it.