Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire(protocol.com)
protocol.com
Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire
https://www.protocol.com/apple-epic-trial/tim-cook-apple-epic-grilled
372 comments
It should just be like on Mac—you can go through the App Store, or you can download directly, but with a warning.
I think that would be killer argument for Epic—Apple already allows you to download apps onto their devices that don’t go through their store and everything is fine.
I think that would be killer argument for Epic—Apple already allows you to download apps onto their devices that don’t go through their store and everything is fine.
This argument was made and their response yesterday was that there is an unacceptable level of malware on macs because they are not locked down the same way.
So the subscription scams in the iOS app store are an acceptable level of malware. Got it.
You open up 'general', you go to 'subscriptions', and select that. Any subscription on the iPhone can be canceled right there. As this is done through Apple's payment processing, Apple/iPhone knows about every subscription and can cancel it easily.
However, if the subscription is processed through a third party, then you may have more difficulty with canceling it... but it wasn't bought through the app on the phone.
Additionally, by default, renewal receipts are sent for each subscription and are visible under the purchase history.
If Epic wins and you've got subscriptions set up using payment processors other than Apple, this will make it harder to manage these subscriptions.
However, if the subscription is processed through a third party, then you may have more difficulty with canceling it... but it wasn't bought through the app on the phone.
Additionally, by default, renewal receipts are sent for each subscription and are visible under the purchase history.
If Epic wins and you've got subscriptions set up using payment processors other than Apple, this will make it harder to manage these subscriptions.
It also makes it harder to subscribe. You can accidentally tap the fingerprint scanner on the home button, and there were apps that made use of that, but you can't accidentally enter your credit card and then accidentally confirm the transaction with a 2fa code. The payment form alone is a huge deterrent IMO, even if it says "you won't be charged, free trial, cancel anytime".
Apple also makes a 30% cut of every scam app, so they're not in a hurry to shut them down.
On one hand we've got people saying "apple is too much of a nanny - I want app stores from anyone."
On the other hand, here, we have "apple isn't nanny enough because there's a financial incentive for them."
To what extent are we expecting Apple to audit the terms of subscriptions? And if someone wants to pay $10 a week to get a horoscope reading... ok... they did it with 1-900 numbers yesteryear.
And... apple is doing things about IAP subscriptions from scammy apps. https://www.imore.com/apple-getting-tough-scam-apps-extortio...
On the other hand, here, we have "apple isn't nanny enough because there's a financial incentive for them."
To what extent are we expecting Apple to audit the terms of subscriptions? And if someone wants to pay $10 a week to get a horoscope reading... ok... they did it with 1-900 numbers yesteryear.
And... apple is doing things about IAP subscriptions from scammy apps. https://www.imore.com/apple-getting-tough-scam-apps-extortio...
You start from one specific type of scan and jump to a conclusion about a platform. Without providing any evidence whatsoever regarding the “level of malware” on either macOS or iOS, or what level you’d find acceptable. This is fallacious and not helpful.
Most phone users aren’t interested in developing software on their phone. They aren’t interested in developing a better systemd. They have no idea what malware actually is.
All that is going to happen if Epic gets their own store is Epic will be collecting the 30% rather than Apple, and the user will get apps that are poorly designed, chew battery, and don’t conform to the UX standards that Apple has set (eg: accessibility) and exploit undocumented APIs which change from iOS version to version.
Epic will blame Apple for all these problems, Apple will blame Epic for not doing sufficient QC, and we’ll be back in court with various store managers demanding that Apple stop changing things.
If you want third party stores, there’s the Android ecosystem. Keep your grubby mitts off the Apple ecosystem.
All that is going to happen if Epic gets their own store is Epic will be collecting the 30% rather than Apple, and the user will get apps that are poorly designed, chew battery, and don’t conform to the UX standards that Apple has set (eg: accessibility) and exploit undocumented APIs which change from iOS version to version.
Epic will blame Apple for all these problems, Apple will blame Epic for not doing sufficient QC, and we’ll be back in court with various store managers demanding that Apple stop changing things.
If you want third party stores, there’s the Android ecosystem. Keep your grubby mitts off the Apple ecosystem.
The new iPads literally have the same SOC as what are some of, if not the best consumer laptops on the planet currently. But what can you do with them? Not a heck of a lot, thanks to the walled garden that is iPad OS. If you ask me, that's a crying shame.
I don't see how it hurts anyone to allow side-loading of apps on iOS devices. Even if you make it as hard as having a toggle behind a scary warning 2 layers deep in the menu, 95% of users will never use it, and it will open up a world of opportunities for people who actually want to create with their devices.
I don't see how it hurts anyone to allow side-loading of apps on iOS devices. Even if you make it as hard as having a toggle behind a scary warning 2 layers deep in the menu, 95% of users will never use it, and it will open up a world of opportunities for people who actually want to create with their devices.
Where is the evidence that allowing sideloaded apps will result in an explosion of desktop class apps ?
Hasn’t been the case with Android. And I would say the touch centric form factor is far more an issue.
Hasn’t been the case with Android. And I would say the touch centric form factor is far more an issue.
I disagree. There are many classes of applications on the Play Store and F-droid not on the App Store, including multiple browsing engines and emulators.
I would wager that within weeks or months there would be a full windows VM available for the iPad if it was allowed.
I would wager that within weeks or months there would be a full windows VM available for the iPad if it was allowed.
Apple allows you to sideload those kinds of apps using the developer certificate. Emulators, VMs etc have existed for years.
Again it’s far more the form factor that is a restriction than whether it’s downloadable from the store or not.
Again it’s far more the form factor that is a restriction than whether it’s downloadable from the store or not.
>Apple allows you to sideload those kinds of apps using the developer certificate.
A TEMPORARY developer certificate that expires and requires a MacOS system to install.
Meanwhile I can click to download an apk through the browser on my phone, click accept and install. No expiration, no self signed certificates, no other system needed.
A TEMPORARY developer certificate that expires and requires a MacOS system to install.
Meanwhile I can click to download an apk through the browser on my phone, click accept and install. No expiration, no self signed certificates, no other system needed.
A while back I paid Apple $99 for the privilege of compiling an open source emulator and side loading it to my iPad and then having to re-load is after some period of time. It was not worth the effort.
For the average user, it is not even within the ballpark of their abilities.
I would argue that the reason is less form factor and more computational power. The M1 brings best-of-class laptop performance to a tablet, combined with a keyboard and a Linux distro and I would have a much more powerful platform than my current laptop.
For the average user, it is not even within the ballpark of their abilities.
I would argue that the reason is less form factor and more computational power. The M1 brings best-of-class laptop performance to a tablet, combined with a keyboard and a Linux distro and I would have a much more powerful platform than my current laptop.
It's very much not something you could depend on as a component of a serious workflow. You have to stay on top of certificates, and Apple can change those rules at any time.
I guess we're going to pretend that all those Humble Bundle users don't exist at all.
termux is pretty popular.
Though android is locking down, making this kind of app difficult in future.
Though android is locking down, making this kind of app difficult in future.
iPads also outsell and outperform Android tablets by several orders of magnitude
Being able to dual boot or virtualize Ubuntu and windows 10 on an M1 iPad Pro with 16gb of ram and a touchscreen would be great.
Parallels already runs on m1 it wouldn’t be very hard to enable on m1 iPads.
It is honestly a better form factor than the laptop as you can just plug in a thunderbird dock and get expanded ports.
Parallels already runs on m1 it wouldn’t be very hard to enable on m1 iPads.
It is honestly a better form factor than the laptop as you can just plug in a thunderbird dock and get expanded ports.
By create you mean develop, right?
The iPad is already one of the best creation tools out there for artists, musicians, photographers etc.
I’d suggest the iPad is hampered more by the limits of iPadOS’ multitasking UI and it’s roots as a scaled-up phone OS - and the scarcity of truly pro-level software - rather than the App Store and not being able to sideload.
In fact the only real reasons to sideload or jailbreak at the moment are to get around the limitations on running dynamic code - or to use cracked/dodgy versions of paid apps.
Wouldn’t be surprised if we see some big improvements in the dev experience over the next few system releases, but to say this will enable a burst of creativity is ignoring all the highly creative ways it’s already being used.
The iPad is already one of the best creation tools out there for artists, musicians, photographers etc.
I’d suggest the iPad is hampered more by the limits of iPadOS’ multitasking UI and it’s roots as a scaled-up phone OS - and the scarcity of truly pro-level software - rather than the App Store and not being able to sideload.
In fact the only real reasons to sideload or jailbreak at the moment are to get around the limitations on running dynamic code - or to use cracked/dodgy versions of paid apps.
Wouldn’t be surprised if we see some big improvements in the dev experience over the next few system releases, but to say this will enable a burst of creativity is ignoring all the highly creative ways it’s already being used.
iPad has some good tools for content creation. Procreate for example is probably one of the best drawing tools available at the moment.
But these apps are still largely islands. Powerful pro workflows require multiple applications to be used together in interesting ways. With iPad that's impossible. You have an anemic file system, and strict limitations on what an app can do.
What I want is a proper *Nix layer, like I have on macOS. For instance, if I want to synchronize my files across multiple systems, I need my iPad app to have a built-in solution for that. I want to be able to run a daemon in the background to synchronize my creative work with an S3 bucket using a custom protocol of my choosing. That kind of customizability is just not possible on iPad, and it's a huge limitation.
But these apps are still largely islands. Powerful pro workflows require multiple applications to be used together in interesting ways. With iPad that's impossible. You have an anemic file system, and strict limitations on what an app can do.
What I want is a proper *Nix layer, like I have on macOS. For instance, if I want to synchronize my files across multiple systems, I need my iPad app to have a built-in solution for that. I want to be able to run a daemon in the background to synchronize my creative work with an S3 bucket using a custom protocol of my choosing. That kind of customizability is just not possible on iPad, and it's a huge limitation.
Even a lot of amateur workflows are difficult to impossible on the iPad. I'm an amateur photographer and after using the iPad Pro as my primary editing computer for months I gave up and went back to Windows. I wanted to make it work. I really did. The file system makes the workflow incredibly painful, my preferred RAW converter isn't available, and the Adobe apps that are available are sorely lacking compared to the desktop versions. I have a couple hundred dollars worth of Photoshop plug-ins and none of them work on the iPad. There isn't even a way to load plug-ins on iPad. I can't print at all (yes, some of us still like to print). Backups can't be automated. Internal storage is very limited and external drives are painful to use. There's simply no way to tell when the iPad is accessing the external drive or not. I have had to perform multiple filesystem repairs because of that.
The iPad has some definite advantages. Battery life is great, performance is great, the screen is amazing, but it's all severely crippled by the software. Until Apple makes the OS as powerful as MacOS there is no point at all in having so much power that you simply can't use.
The iPad has some definite advantages. Battery life is great, performance is great, the screen is amazing, but it's all severely crippled by the software. Until Apple makes the OS as powerful as MacOS there is no point at all in having so much power that you simply can't use.
No one really jailbreaks for cracked apps. There are many small reasons to jailbreak. Most apps are paid via in app purchases that can’t be cracked. Very few apps are paid and popular enough to be cracked and not crash upon attempting to use. It is something that may have been true a decade ago. The cliche needs to stop ever since in app purchases took over most spending.
That’s because of in-app purchases, which create terrible crippled naggy software.
Sadly, this will accelerate the ecosystem away from tools like procreate and affinity into “each brush is $1”.
You might be right, but I’m personally sad to see this playing out in a way that makes it worse.
Sadly, this will accelerate the ecosystem away from tools like procreate and affinity into “each brush is $1”.
You might be right, but I’m personally sad to see this playing out in a way that makes it worse.
Especially because how big was piracy ever on iOS? It would be a fraction of jailbreakers. Who were always a significant minority of iOS users. So we’re talking under 10% of users who use at least one cracked app at the peak. Most likely. Likely less and def less for people using multiple pirated apps regularly. 5% piracy rate is still not helpful or good to some developers, but that’s not going to do much at all to the bottom line.
So yeah unfortunate. Both the high price of yearly or monthly subscriptions and the specific in app purchases for things like brushes.
So yeah unfortunate. Both the high price of yearly or monthly subscriptions and the specific in app purchases for things like brushes.
> If you ask me, that's a crying shame.
If they ask you, buy the MacBook Air instead of the iPad Pro!
If they ask you, buy the MacBook Air instead of the iPad Pro!
The point is that a developer could have a lot of fun experimenting with the tablet form factor and inputs, with the full power of a desktop system (including hardware x86 emulation which is currently unusable!) but we can't because Apple says we can only use the hardware we bought in the way which they intend it.
Imagine how you would react with any other product you paid for, and brought into your home, if the company which produced it had the right to dictate how you could and could not use it.
Imagine how you would react with any other product you paid for, and brought into your home, if the company which produced it had the right to dictate how you could and could not use it.
And you can not buy iPads.
I know it is completely anathema to suggest something like this on HN these days as the socialist wave completely took it over and the mere suggestion that people have the freedom to not buy something if they don't think it fits within their world view instead of trying to force everyone using the state and the courts to cater specifically to them is now considered a sin, but...
You said it yourself, you have a laptop with the exact same chip that lets you do all the things you want, and then you have the iPad that doesn't...why don't you buy the laptop instead? Surely if enough people feel the way you do Apple would get the message.
I know it is completely anathema to suggest something like this on HN these days as the socialist wave completely took it over and the mere suggestion that people have the freedom to not buy something if they don't think it fits within their world view instead of trying to force everyone using the state and the courts to cater specifically to them is now considered a sin, but...
You said it yourself, you have a laptop with the exact same chip that lets you do all the things you want, and then you have the iPad that doesn't...why don't you buy the laptop instead? Surely if enough people feel the way you do Apple would get the message.
You don’t think Apple has a team of people trying to figure out what you can do with them? iPadOS isn’t designed to cripple the HW, its designed to extract the most from it. Its missing some traditional use cases
in a few seconds I can think of many many ways an ipad is crippled.
- look at your data directly and back it up
- backup and restore the entire device including apps
- use ethernet through the lightning port instead of wifi
- use general usb devices through the lightning port
- wifi scanner (apple disallowed it in ios early-on)
- tcpdump network traffic
- change the wifi-off shortcut to actually turn it off (matching settings)
- firewall
I'm sure people can think of other examples...
- look at your data directly and back it up
- backup and restore the entire device including apps
- use ethernet through the lightning port instead of wifi
- use general usb devices through the lightning port
- wifi scanner (apple disallowed it in ios early-on)
- tcpdump network traffic
- change the wifi-off shortcut to actually turn it off (matching settings)
- firewall
I'm sure people can think of other examples...
>look at your data directly and back it up
>backup and restore the entire device including apps
Ironically these areas are where iOS shines. Despite being a heavily walled garden, it grants you full backups and full user filesystem access (including things like keychain) via extracting those backups.
A comparable and unrooted Android tablet cannot be fully backed up, and you cannot inspect app/user settings areas of its filesystem.
>backup and restore the entire device including apps
Ironically these areas are where iOS shines. Despite being a heavily walled garden, it grants you full backups and full user filesystem access (including things like keychain) via extracting those backups.
A comparable and unrooted Android tablet cannot be fully backed up, and you cannot inspect app/user settings areas of its filesystem.
> Ironically these areas are where iOS shines.
You as a device owner do not have access to the full ios filesystem. full stop.
You as a device owner do not have access to the full ios filesystem. full stop.
You get way more access on unjailbroken iOS than on unrooted Android. The equivalent of the entire /data partition is available to both read and write via iTunes backups with very few exceptions.
On Android, you used to be able to backup maybe half of app/user data in this way (many devs opted out), now closer to zero (adb backup deprecated)
On Android, you used to be able to backup maybe half of app/user data in this way (many devs opted out), now closer to zero (adb backup deprecated)
Yeah exactly, the main thing which is missing is being able to have direct access to the file system in a programmatic way, an to run arbitrary processes (including background processes) which operate on the file system. Until then the way software can be combined to do interesting things will be severely limited.
iPad Pro supports ethernet and general USB devices.
And allowing apps to sniff network traffic defeats the entire security model of the device which many of us like.
I want more privacy and security in my devices not less.
And allowing apps to sniff network traffic defeats the entire security model of the device which many of us like.
I want more privacy and security in my devices not less.
How does it defeat your security if other people want to look at network traffic on the device they purchased?
Sniffing network traffic would not defeat anything, provided you are prompted about the necessary permissions.
The problem with those permission prompts is that many users blindly accept them. If a “sniff all network traffic” permission were allowed, it would take all of one day before Facebook et al release an update with it and start siphoning millions of users network traffic.
Apple does not want this.
Apple does not want this.
Apple would probably also prefer it if I had to use an in-app purchase to pay my rent, but luckily we live in a nation of laws, and Apple doesn't get to decide everything based on unilateral self-interest.
All of this is available if jailbroken. There aren’t many people caring too much about most of these.
I personally enjoy parts of the first two. They aren’t deal breakers if I can’t jailbreak/root though.
I personally enjoy parts of the first two. They aren’t deal breakers if I can’t jailbreak/root though.
>All of this is available if jailbroken.
should read:
All of this is available if you use the same exploits that malware often use to compromise systems.
"Jailbreaking" is not a feature inherent to iOS so stop trying to say it's an option. It really isn't.
An option is something that continues to be available to the user regardless of system updates and without restriction. As such, sideloading apps is an option on Android.
Jailbreak is not a feature. It is the result of the LACK of features.
should read:
All of this is available if you use the same exploits that malware often use to compromise systems.
"Jailbreaking" is not a feature inherent to iOS so stop trying to say it's an option. It really isn't.
An option is something that continues to be available to the user regardless of system updates and without restriction. As such, sideloading apps is an option on Android.
Jailbreak is not a feature. It is the result of the LACK of features.
I didn’t make my post clear enough. I was stating most people don’t care for these features that are available when jailbroken. My post was not about this being an “option” but that the list of features aren’t important to even the more geeky jailbreaking users.
Regardless of me not being specific in my post, your reply has a ton of assumptions and unnecessary attitude in my opinion.
Regardless of me not being specific in my post, your reply has a ton of assumptions and unnecessary attitude in my opinion.
Jailbraking is fine as a hobby, but it's not viable to build serious workflows on top of what's essentially a cat-and-mouse game between Apple and the jailbreak community
iPadOS is designed to extract the most revenue from the hardware, and the users. An more-open platform would allow for many things that would likely be really awesome for users, but is disallowed because that would threaten Apple's revenue streams.
Which is exactly what anti-trust regulation is supposed to protect us from, it's a shame it's quite impotent at the moment
> All that is going to happen if Epic gets their own store is Epic will be collecting the 30% rather than Apple
"All" that is going to happen if Epic gets their own store is there's going to be competition in what is now a monopoly. To say that the only difference will be lower quality is, at best, naive.
"All" that is going to happen if Epic gets their own store is there's going to be competition in what is now a monopoly. To say that the only difference will be lower quality is, at best, naive.
I'm interested to see Steam on the iphone rather than anything Epic might do
Epic winning wouldn’t only let Epic do things. It would let any one. Though why not be interested in what the company doing the fighting is doing? Versus Steam that only has a good rep because other app stores in comparison seem worse. Even though Steam’s fee is crazy too and they only did one recent change because of competition.
The good news is that if Epic wins, that could be a reality!
[deleted]
Great I can't wait to sideload the Epic Game store on my PS5 and Xbox series X. I also look forward to the outlawing of buying exclusive rights and laws that force developers to release their games on every platform in existence. Anything less is AnTi CoNsUmEr..
Some of us prefer to sit down and use a device without having to worry about installing an app or game store just to use/play one app...
Some of us prefer to sit down and use a device without having to worry about installing an app or game store just to use/play one app...
You still totally can! You can just not buy those things! The rest of us get to choose! Delightful.
The point is opening it up so users have a choice. Third party stores will emerge, and it is up to the consumer, not Apple, to decide whether the extra features are worth the new apps being a little rough around the edges like they are on Android. If it's as bad as you say, the new stores will not be successful anyway.
> The point is opening it up so users have a choice.
Users have a choice: Don't use iOS.
Their actions have pretty overwhelmingly spoken and they don't care. The only people that care are techies. And most obviously not that much because most meetings I show up to are still full of iPhones.
Users have a choice: Don't use iOS.
Their actions have pretty overwhelmingly spoken and they don't care. The only people that care are techies. And most obviously not that much because most meetings I show up to are still full of iPhones.
> Users have a choice: Don't use iOS.
The judge in question was clearly not at all impressed with this argument when Cook raised it, and neither am I.
This amounts to telling people to throw the baby out with the bathwater every time they have an issue with something.
The judge in question was clearly not at all impressed with this argument when Cook raised it, and neither am I.
This amounts to telling people to throw the baby out with the bathwater every time they have an issue with something.
Sorry, but I don't believe that should be Apple's prerogative.
You say that users don't care, but users _don't know either_.
And whenever people lobby for right to repair laws and for consumers to _own_ hardware, guess who's always standing on the other saying that it ain't so.
You say that users don't care, but users _don't know either_.
And whenever people lobby for right to repair laws and for consumers to _own_ hardware, guess who's always standing on the other saying that it ain't so.
Apple also has a choice. Begin conforming to our legal framework regarding monopolistic practices or pay a heavy price.
I’m a techie and I don’t want to worry about malware, spyware, extensive software configuration, etc. on my microwave, my car, or my phone. I’ve got plenty of computing devices for that!
iOS isn't immune: https://interestingengineering.com/apple-reportedly-kept-mal...
You will also have a choice: don’t use alternative stores
And if Apple is so concerned about user security & privacy when it comes to alternative app stores, they should adjust their policies so that the apps most users want will see no reason not to be on the App Store.
And if Apple is so concerned about user security & privacy when it comes to alternative app stores, they should adjust their policies so that the apps most users want will see no reason not to be on the App Store.
I switched from Android to iPhone because the hardware is excellent and lasts forever. They won the hardware battle
Should they then be able to leverage that position to instantly win and extort the marketplace built on the next layer up? It pretty much goes to the heart of antitrust
5-10%... sure maybe, 30% of saas fees... ridiculous
Should they then be able to leverage that position to instantly win and extort the marketplace built on the next layer up? It pretty much goes to the heart of antitrust
5-10%... sure maybe, 30% of saas fees... ridiculous
>Should they then be able to leverage that position to instantly win and extort the marketplace built on the next layer up? It pretty much goes to the heart of antitrust
Exactly. And yet this idea seems so hard to grasp for many, just look at the discussions around the web and on HN. Everyone over simplifies it to it is Apple's phone or Apple's App Store they do what ever they want. Or the user chose iPhone if you dont like it go and get an Android.
The judge actually pointed out ( Finally ! ) vast majority of revenue are coming from Games. Which means Gaming is in a way subsidising all other Apps in App Store.
I wish Apple separate the Game into Game Store and keep those 30%. While Apps and Services are 10%, with little curation of Apps with App Store. i.e You no longer block Apps for their political view or speeches. As long as they are legal you should allow them in within the quality guidelines and security clearance. Apple could still down rank all these lower quality apps should they choose to. They dont have to block it from accessing iPhone.
Exactly. And yet this idea seems so hard to grasp for many, just look at the discussions around the web and on HN. Everyone over simplifies it to it is Apple's phone or Apple's App Store they do what ever they want. Or the user chose iPhone if you dont like it go and get an Android.
The judge actually pointed out ( Finally ! ) vast majority of revenue are coming from Games. Which means Gaming is in a way subsidising all other Apps in App Store.
I wish Apple separate the Game into Game Store and keep those 30%. While Apps and Services are 10%, with little curation of Apps with App Store. i.e You no longer block Apps for their political view or speeches. As long as they are legal you should allow them in within the quality guidelines and security clearance. Apple could still down rank all these lower quality apps should they choose to. They dont have to block it from accessing iPhone.
[deleted]
Just to add to all the replies.
EU is watching the case very carefully. While Americans might think Apple can do whatever they want with their devices. The same could not be said with the EU. And I am willing to bet the court battle wont flavour Apple because it seems the old world has a much different view to Anti Trust and Anti Competition than US.
And Apple will have a choice, comply or paid a heavy price.
EU is watching the case very carefully. While Americans might think Apple can do whatever they want with their devices. The same could not be said with the EU. And I am willing to bet the court battle wont flavour Apple because it seems the old world has a much different view to Anti Trust and Anti Competition than US.
And Apple will have a choice, comply or paid a heavy price.
And use what? I didn’t use iOS until Windows Mobile, then webOS, then Windows Phone died out in that order. Not much choice any more.
Have you considered that the choice of phone might be despite this policy rather than because of it?
It is possible to demand better things from something you use. Not every issue is a hill to die on.
It is possible to demand better things from something you use. Not every issue is a hill to die on.
<retracted>
To use the same argument as "don't use iOS"...simply don't use the alternate app store.
I can't yet convince myself that "don't use iOS" is a valid argument while "don't use a different app store" is not.
I can't yet convince myself that "don't use iOS" is a valid argument while "don't use a different app store" is not.
> Every app with any popularity will then be considering their own app store. The WeChat Store. The Facebook Store. The Snap Store.
Why would you assume this would happen on iOS when it hasn't happened on Android, when the suggestion is to do what Android already allows, and yet we don't see this on Android?
Why would you assume this would happen on iOS when it hasn't happened on Android, when the suggestion is to do what Android already allows, and yet we don't see this on Android?
Android doesn’t allow first class alternative stores, and is also not the market leader.
It’s obviously not an example for this, otherwise Epic would have just made an Android store and moved on.
It’s obviously not an example for this, otherwise Epic would have just made an Android store and moved on.
> Android doesn’t allow first class alternative stores
The only thing that Android doesn't allow is for the third-party stores to auto-update apps installed through those stores.
I'm not going to say that's not a big deal, because it's definitely annoying, but I have F-Droid on my phone and get plenty of value out of it, despite having to go through a confirmation dialog to update the apps I've installed through it.
> ... and is also not the market leader
Which is entirely irrelevant. (And if you consider the world market, not just the US, Android definitely is the market leader.)
The only thing that Android doesn't allow is for the third-party stores to auto-update apps installed through those stores.
I'm not going to say that's not a big deal, because it's definitely annoying, but I have F-Droid on my phone and get plenty of value out of it, despite having to go through a confirmation dialog to update the apps I've installed through it.
> ... and is also not the market leader
Which is entirely irrelevant. (And if you consider the world market, not just the US, Android definitely is the market leader.)
> Which is entirely irrelevant.
If it was irrelevant, Epic would have just created an Android store and let Apple go their own way.
If it was irrelevant, Epic would have just created an Android store and let Apple go their own way.
Good news for you, seems like Android 12 is adding this
https://www.xda-developers.com/android-12-alternative-app-st...
https://www.xda-developers.com/android-12-alternative-app-st...
> Android doesn’t allow first class alternative stores
Don't change the goal posts. Apple doesn't provide anything. Having to pass through a dialogue after download t confirm install isn't ideal, but possible is better than not.
> and is also not the market leader.
Android is at 45% and apple is at 55%.[1] Is your contention that a least of that amount is sufficient such that it actually changes this in some way? If so, how do you square that with Android's worldwide market share being reported as 72% in 2020?[2]
1: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/north-amer...
2: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide/...
Don't change the goal posts. Apple doesn't provide anything. Having to pass through a dialogue after download t confirm install isn't ideal, but possible is better than not.
> and is also not the market leader.
Android is at 45% and apple is at 55%.[1] Is your contention that a least of that amount is sufficient such that it actually changes this in some way? If so, how do you square that with Android's worldwide market share being reported as 72% in 2020?[2]
1: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/north-amer...
2: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide/...
> Don't change the goal posts. Apple doesn't provide anything. Having to pass through a dialogue after download t confirm install isn't ideal, but possible is better than not.
It’s not just a dialog box. Alternate stores can’t provide automatic updates, which is a critical feature.
You are the one changing the goalposts here. Android alternative stores are not representative of what would happen because they are not the same, either technically, or in terms of market value.
It’s not just a dialog box. Alternate stores can’t provide automatic updates, which is a critical feature.
You are the one changing the goalposts here. Android alternative stores are not representative of what would happen because they are not the same, either technically, or in terms of market value.
> Android is at 45% and apple is at 55%.
These are the wrong numbers to look at. App profits are what count here - that’s what Epic wants to tap into.
These are the wrong numbers to look at. App profits are what count here - that’s what Epic wants to tap into.
That sounds awesome IMO. If Apple opened the iPhone up I would buy one.
Exactly. So would I.
> Then we'll have to trust that all of these companies have the same level of competence to prevent malware that Apple does (narrator: "they won't").
This is a losing argument. We've already seen that the Apple store doesn't/can't prevent clones and fakes with information collecting inserts from overwhelming the originals.
Another store might actually do this better.
This is a losing argument. We've already seen that the Apple store doesn't/can't prevent clones and fakes with information collecting inserts from overwhelming the originals.
Another store might actually do this better.
They already can do it better on Android!
This is a ridiculous caricature of reality.
If anything, empirically we've seen that Apple runs a much tighter ship wrt scams and malware than Android and 3rd party friendly platforms. Especially from the perspective of non-tech mass consumer, who are incredibly well served by Apple's model.
Legislating / ruling Apple's closed model to be illegal is the true harm to consumer choice and freedom.
If anything, empirically we've seen that Apple runs a much tighter ship wrt scams and malware than Android and 3rd party friendly platforms. Especially from the perspective of non-tech mass consumer, who are incredibly well served by Apple's model.
Legislating / ruling Apple's closed model to be illegal is the true harm to consumer choice and freedom.
When you only have two choices of operating system for phones, there is not choice. It's a duopoly; there's nothing competitive or pro-consumer in having to lump the entirety of your mobile OS feature sets in two camps and damn anything else that doesn't remotely resemble that.
Sorry but Toyota doesn't have its business model harmed by being able to go to my mechanic to tune a car. If Apple wants to put three layers of dialogues to open up customization, so be it.
I have no sympathy for a trillion-dollar company and their "choice".
Sorry but Toyota doesn't have its business model harmed by being able to go to my mechanic to tune a car. If Apple wants to put three layers of dialogues to open up customization, so be it.
I have no sympathy for a trillion-dollar company and their "choice".
[deleted]
Why do users care about this choice? What are some top experiences available to Android which aren't available to iOS customers? In fact, isn't it often the other way around? iOS gets things and Android doesn't?
Or are users seeing awful prices for the app store?
Where are Customers complaining the most?
Or are users seeing awful prices for the app store?
Where are Customers complaining the most?
> What are some top experiences available to Android which aren't available to iOS customers?
The Humble Bundle app allows you to install Android games you bought through humble bundles onto your Android phone. This allows you to buy bundles of games from developers at your own desired purchase price and give an amount of that purchase you choose to some charities of your choice.
It is, quite literally, used as another store and has the ability to install applications.
Many of the games I've gotten through that are also available on iOS, but you're unable to get iOS versions from this because there's no way to install that app nor a way for it to install other applications if you did, currently.
At least some of those developers would be happy to offer iOS versions as a bundle, or even give you access to choose iOS or Android in the same bundle, but there's no way to legitimately deliver these games to those customers.
The Humble Bundle app allows you to install Android games you bought through humble bundles onto your Android phone. This allows you to buy bundles of games from developers at your own desired purchase price and give an amount of that purchase you choose to some charities of your choice.
It is, quite literally, used as another store and has the ability to install applications.
Many of the games I've gotten through that are also available on iOS, but you're unable to get iOS versions from this because there's no way to install that app nor a way for it to install other applications if you did, currently.
At least some of those developers would be happy to offer iOS versions as a bundle, or even give you access to choose iOS or Android in the same bundle, but there's no way to legitimately deliver these games to those customers.
Well I can imagine if 3rd party stores were allowed, I could have a Steam client on an iPad for example, and share my library of games without paying for it a second time for iOS.
But there’s no Steam on Android either even though they do support third party app stores.
>What are some top experiences available to Android which aren't available to iOS customers?
Recently, cloud gaming apps and paying for subscriptions. Google Stadia and Xbox Streaming are not allowed through the iOS Store. Netflix and Spotify(not sure about this one) do not allow you to pay for the subscription on their app because Apple asks for 30%.
Apple does not allow other browser rendering engines. So now every iOS browser is just a Safari wrapper and you're unable to do any sort of plug-in, like adblockers.
These features being blocked does not help customers. They only help Apple.
Recently, cloud gaming apps and paying for subscriptions. Google Stadia and Xbox Streaming are not allowed through the iOS Store. Netflix and Spotify(not sure about this one) do not allow you to pay for the subscription on their app because Apple asks for 30%.
Apple does not allow other browser rendering engines. So now every iOS browser is just a Safari wrapper and you're unable to do any sort of plug-in, like adblockers.
These features being blocked does not help customers. They only help Apple.
> the user will get apps that are poorly designed, chew battery, and don’t conform to the UX standards that Apple has set (eg: accessibility) and exploit undocumented APIs which change from iOS version to version
This is already true with the App Store today.
This is already true with the App Store today.
100% true. Legislating away the option to run a closed, manicured, walled-garden model is the true harm to consumer choice and freedom.
I want my parents and non-techie friends and family to have the easy, stress-free, locked-down model that they enjoy and that works for them.
I want my parents and non-techie friends and family to have the easy, stress-free, locked-down model that they enjoy and that works for them.
Your parents and non-techie friends and family won’t have to use alternative stores, no one will be forcing them to.
And if Apple is so concerned about user security & privacy when it comes to alternative app stores, they should adjust their policies so that the apps most users want will see no reason not to be on the App Store.
And if Apple is so concerned about user security & privacy when it comes to alternative app stores, they should adjust their policies so that the apps most users want will see no reason not to be on the App Store.
Decades of experience helping protect my parents PCs tells me this isn’t true. As soon as the option is available, it will be exploited by bad actors. I guarantee that “app stores” will prey on my parents fears or confusion to get them to install that store as opposed to Apple’s, and I really don’t want that.
Do they fall for email/sms scams?
>and the user will get apps that are poorly designed, chew battery
Source?
Source?
All that is going to happen if Epic gets their own store is Epic will be collecting the 30% rather than Apple
Epic already has a store of its own, and it charges developers 12%.
Moreover, Apple already has thousands of apps that are poorly designed, chew battery, and don't conform to Apple UX standards. Part of the reason for the pushback against the Apple tax is that Apple is objectively failing to perform many of the tasks it claims as justifications for the tax.
Epic already has a store of its own, and it charges developers 12%.
Moreover, Apple already has thousands of apps that are poorly designed, chew battery, and don't conform to Apple UX standards. Part of the reason for the pushback against the Apple tax is that Apple is objectively failing to perform many of the tasks it claims as justifications for the tax.
> If you want third party stores, there’s the Android ecosystem. Keep your grubby mitts off the Apple ecosystem.
Ok. Like the other 72% of users, I will.
Ok. Like the other 72% of users, I will.
> Keep your grubby mitts off the Apple ecosystem.
But it is actually you who want to control how other people use their own phone, that they own.
If you don't like Epic's store, just don't use it. Problem solved.
That way, people who want to trust apple get what they want, as well as people who want to trust other app stores.
Everyone wins, right? Why do you care so much about how other people use their own phone?
But it is actually you who want to control how other people use their own phone, that they own.
If you don't like Epic's store, just don't use it. Problem solved.
That way, people who want to trust apple get what they want, as well as people who want to trust other app stores.
Everyone wins, right? Why do you care so much about how other people use their own phone?
> If you don't like Epic's store, just don't use it. Problem solved.
That only holds up until something you need is exclusive to a store that you don't want to use.
That only holds up until something you need is exclusive to a store that you don't want to use.
Which will happen pretty instantly since the stores will buy exclusives.
Will it, though? My expectation is that most apps will still want to be on the main App Store if they can, since installing a third-party app store still represents friction to the install experience.
Perhaps in a more mature market where having several app stores on your phone is commonplace (assuming that even happens), we'll have an annoying situation of exclusives, but I don't expect that "instantly" or even remotely so.
Perhaps in a more mature market where having several app stores on your phone is commonplace (assuming that even happens), we'll have an annoying situation of exclusives, but I don't expect that "instantly" or even remotely so.
I would point to Epic's use of exclusives.
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/epic-covering-refund-costs-...
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/08/why-one-pc-developer-...
https://www.vg247.com/2019/07/09/epic-games-wants-pc-games-m...
Given epic's current behavior on PC, I think it would be a given that they would also do this on another App Store.
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/epic-covering-refund-costs-...
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/08/why-one-pc-developer-...
https://www.vg247.com/2019/07/09/epic-games-wants-pc-games-m...
Given epic's current behavior on PC, I think it would be a given that they would also do this on another App Store.
How else should Epic compete? They can't reduce the price in line with their 12% cut vs steam's 30%, because steam doesn't allow games to have cheaper prices elsewhere.
Which now that I think of it seems anticompetitive from Valve.
Which now that I think of it seems anticompetitive from Valve.
Exactly this - exclusives are a standard move which we can be guaranteed will be used if multiple apps stores are allowed on iOS.
It won’t help consumers or developers, but it will allow epic and other well funded companies to insert themselves into a revenue stream without creating value.
It won’t help consumers or developers, but it will allow epic and other well funded companies to insert themselves into a revenue stream without creating value.
Yes, it will happen instantly.
Well funded app stores will just pay up front for exclusives. It’s completely standard practice in any comparable industry. Music, TV, Movies, books, podcasts, etc.
Developers might abstractly prefer to be on the main store, but some will be happy to take million dollar payouts from the marketing budgets of the new stores.
It’s hard enough for independents to be successful now, but once you have competing publishers like Epic in the game, the era of independent commercial app development will be over.
Well funded app stores will just pay up front for exclusives. It’s completely standard practice in any comparable industry. Music, TV, Movies, books, podcasts, etc.
Developers might abstractly prefer to be on the main store, but some will be happy to take million dollar payouts from the marketing budgets of the new stores.
It’s hard enough for independents to be successful now, but once you have competing publishers like Epic in the game, the era of independent commercial app development will be over.
If Apple is so concerned about user security & privacy when it comes to alternative app stores, they should adjust their policies so that the apps most users want will see no reason not to be on the App Store.
Your argument only works if people are forced to use iPhones or if you can show that reasonable people expect to have functionality on their iPhones that doesn’t exist. But on the contrary, I suspect a lot of people choose iPhones specifically because of the perceived curation of the App Store and lack of malware, spyware, etc.
In my experience people choose iPhones because they are a status symbol, and because Apple has become synonymous with good design and good taste. Due to marketing efforts, Android devices are still seen as the "cheap option" or for people who don't care about their image. Many people are also already locked into the Apple ecosystem through desktop/laptop Macs, iCloud, etc., so getting a non-Apple phone would introduce a lot of friction into their experience.
Part of it is also that iOS used to be quite far ahead of Android when it came to usability and polish. Android has since mostly caught up, but there is an advantage to being a first mover, and the people who didn't like Android back when it was much worse have since gotten locked into Apple's ecosystem, even if they never used Apple products before that.
I don't think most people seriously think about App Store curation as any of top reasons why they have an iPhone.
Part of it is also that iOS used to be quite far ahead of Android when it came to usability and polish. Android has since mostly caught up, but there is an advantage to being a first mover, and the people who didn't like Android back when it was much worse have since gotten locked into Apple's ecosystem, even if they never used Apple products before that.
I don't think most people seriously think about App Store curation as any of top reasons why they have an iPhone.
Status symbol where? That can’t be the case majority of the time in the US. Every other person has an iPhone. Literally.
But iPhones and Android devices do have functionality that users can’t obtain anywhere else. What alternative smartphone ecosystem could the average user choose as a substitute? To say nothing of the fact a smartphone is essentially required in and of itself.
Once a user has chosen a smartphone ecosystem large switching costs come into play.
If a significant amount of your customers choose your phone because it is stylish that could just as well demonstrate there is no price competition to speak of.
Once a user has chosen a smartphone ecosystem large switching costs come into play.
If a significant amount of your customers choose your phone because it is stylish that could just as well demonstrate there is no price competition to speak of.
Keyword being "perceived."
The argument of "don't like it, use android" is bad faith but lets go with it since many people suggest it.
Ok now I'm on android and google/samsung is spying on everything. The android crowd will say "dont like it, leave"
Ok so what do I use?
The argument of "don't like it, use android" is bad faith but lets go with it since many people suggest it.
Ok now I'm on android and google/samsung is spying on everything. The android crowd will say "dont like it, leave"
Ok so what do I use?
>If you want third party stores, there’s the Android ecosystem. Keep your grubby mitts off the Apple ecosystem.
Ah yes, because that's where you'll find customers that use iOS.
Ah yes, because that's where you'll find customers that use iOS.
> All that is going to happen if Epic gets their own store is Epic will be collecting the 30% rather than Apple
News flash, Epic already runs a store, and competes with another store (Steam) which takes a 30% cut. How much of a cut does Epic take there? 12%.
There is a well known example of Epic in a similar situation specifically not doing what you say they will, so why assume they will do that? Or are you arguing without knowing this fairly common knowledge of this case?
> the user will get apps that are poorly designed, chew battery, and don’t conform to the UX standards that Apple has set
These are games. They already don't conform to the UI standards. They already chew battery by the nature of what they do, not because they are inefficient. That said, being the authors of the Unreal Engine, Epic is in a key position to make changes so the engine works better with iPhone norms, performs better, and uses less battery and many games would benefit from that. If only Epic had more financial incentive to focus work on the iOS platform...
> and exploit undocumented APIs which change from iOS version to version.
Doubtful. They need to make sure their product is stable across a wide swatch of iOS devices, as individual game makers that license their product will have different support policies and targets. You don't make a widely portable and stable engine across multiple architectures and operating systems by using hidden and unstable APIs unless you have some assurance they aren't going away.
> Epic will blame Apple for all these problems, Apple will blame Epic for not doing sufficient QC, and we’ll be back in court with various store managers demanding that Apple stop changing things.
The blaming I see going on is people that don't really understand the market, the problems, or the incentives making wild conjectures that not only aren't backed up by anything, whether that be logic or evidence, but seem to run counter to that.
> If you want third party stores, there’s the Android ecosystem.
They're being sued too. They take the same cut. You can put an alternate store on Android, but you can't have it function with the same permissions (you need to manually approve each install, and it can't auto-update). This is what keeps third party stores from actually being a reality there. I don't consider secondary stores that ship with the phone on purchase and are part of the customer OS shipped "third party", and that's what has to be done to really compete on the same level as the Play store, and even then, it's not like they're used much. This is all about control and Apple not wanting to give up that very lucrative 30% cut of in app purchases, and subscriptions.
News flash, Epic already runs a store, and competes with another store (Steam) which takes a 30% cut. How much of a cut does Epic take there? 12%.
There is a well known example of Epic in a similar situation specifically not doing what you say they will, so why assume they will do that? Or are you arguing without knowing this fairly common knowledge of this case?
> the user will get apps that are poorly designed, chew battery, and don’t conform to the UX standards that Apple has set
These are games. They already don't conform to the UI standards. They already chew battery by the nature of what they do, not because they are inefficient. That said, being the authors of the Unreal Engine, Epic is in a key position to make changes so the engine works better with iPhone norms, performs better, and uses less battery and many games would benefit from that. If only Epic had more financial incentive to focus work on the iOS platform...
> and exploit undocumented APIs which change from iOS version to version.
Doubtful. They need to make sure their product is stable across a wide swatch of iOS devices, as individual game makers that license their product will have different support policies and targets. You don't make a widely portable and stable engine across multiple architectures and operating systems by using hidden and unstable APIs unless you have some assurance they aren't going away.
> Epic will blame Apple for all these problems, Apple will blame Epic for not doing sufficient QC, and we’ll be back in court with various store managers demanding that Apple stop changing things.
The blaming I see going on is people that don't really understand the market, the problems, or the incentives making wild conjectures that not only aren't backed up by anything, whether that be logic or evidence, but seem to run counter to that.
> If you want third party stores, there’s the Android ecosystem.
They're being sued too. They take the same cut. You can put an alternate store on Android, but you can't have it function with the same permissions (you need to manually approve each install, and it can't auto-update). This is what keeps third party stores from actually being a reality there. I don't consider secondary stores that ship with the phone on purchase and are part of the customer OS shipped "third party", and that's what has to be done to really compete on the same level as the Play store, and even then, it's not like they're used much. This is all about control and Apple not wanting to give up that very lucrative 30% cut of in app purchases, and subscriptions.
And the benefit of Epic’s store to the consumers is exactly 0% because most publishers pocket the difference.
[deleted]
[deleted]
All Apple has to do is change the APIs from version to version and poorly document the changes. Would Apple do such a thing? Of course not. Apple is too noble and good for that -- exactly like how they work with WebRTC right now.
Nah - it cannot be Apple, all Apple, or go home. Gez, if that's the way Apple wants it, it better make me a shareholder so I can get my proper cut.
Indeed. The customer is, of course, the people buying the phones and buying the software, and not the developers. The judge seems a little vague on this fact. One has to either accept that the customers buy Apple because they prefer it this way, or else assert that the customers are too dumb to know what’s good for them. That may be literally true but isn’t really a classically good argument you would use to pin somebody down on anticompetitive behavior.
Also, as a parent, I consider it a useful feature that Apple makes it very hard for kids to buy things on the phone through any method other than the one that I am aware of.
Also, as a parent, I consider it a useful feature that Apple makes it very hard for kids to buy things on the phone through any method other than the one that I am aware of.
Apple doesn’t let developers tell their users what Apple’s rules are, including the fact that up to 30% of their payment goes straight to Apple.
And of course people don’t know of all the good apps that never get to be on the App Store because of unwarranted rejections.
So people generally have no idea about most of the problems with the status quo.
And of course people don’t know of all the good apps that never get to be on the App Store because of unwarranted rejections.
So people generally have no idea about most of the problems with the status quo.
> Then the customers that trust apple to protect them will just stay with the app store.
The problem is that if it’s possible to trick grandpa into downloading a malicious app then it will happen. The only defense is to not make it possible.
You can argue if that’s a worthy goal or not but thats what Apple has to do if they want to make it impossible to trick people into downloading malware.
The problem is that if it’s possible to trick grandpa into downloading a malicious app then it will happen. The only defense is to not make it possible.
You can argue if that’s a worthy goal or not but thats what Apple has to do if they want to make it impossible to trick people into downloading malware.
Apple definitely needs to keep working on the sandbox both for defense in depth and so that sideloaded apps (if the court forces it) can be secure enough.
It's possible to trick grandpa into sending money to Nigeria, too, but we don't use that as an excuse for forcing him to do business with a particular bank.
Nobody sane would argue that our current approach to banking security is fine, though. There definitely is money to be made with more secure and convenient money transfer, as proved by the quite large number of start-ups in the field. Among these, quite a lot work only among users of the same app without anybody being outraged about it.
Startups, Banking, Secure?
Wirecard and Theranos called, they want their fraud back.
Wirecard and Theranos called, they want their fraud back.
This need might be better handled by allowing delegation of approval to a trusted contact.
That's a false premise because consumers have endured the Microsoft ecosystem for decades and the risk vs choice is one that consumers have accepted. The only way Apple would have an argument for that aspect of their ecosystem, is that if all similar vendors operated the same way. This case is about consumer choice and it's the better consumer choice argument that is going to win.
Apple has made a ton of money from people utterly dissatisfied with the windows ecosystem, so I disagree people have accepted this. (I certainly haven't, and put my parents on an iPad 10 years ago and haven't heard barely a peep out of them since.)
I think more technical HN-type users aren't aware or have forgotten how terribad the Windows download scene was in the 2000s. It was almost impossible to install anything without getting some toolbar or adware bundle, if not outright malware.
I think more technical HN-type users aren't aware or have forgotten how terribad the Windows download scene was in the 2000s. It was almost impossible to install anything without getting some toolbar or adware bundle, if not outright malware.
You literally just used the word “endured” to describe the relationship between customers and Microsoft. That’s hardly a glowing endorsement or a strong argument that Apple should follow Microsoft’s lead!
These replies to my comment are completely missing the point. The debate isn't about what is the better system, which is arbitrary, it is about whether you have a choice, period. If you didn't want to use Windows, you had a choice; you could use Apple, Unix, or Linux. You do not have a choice on iOS, you use the App store, or you can't get apps. That's the anti-competitive behavior under review.
Microsoft making certain choices regarding to safety and how open their platform is has no relevance to what choices Apple makes. Apple happens to choose for a less permissive system and it has been going well for them and their users. I don’t see how that has anything to do with how other vendors choose to operate.
They never accepted that. They had no choice really. They do have a choice here. Use Apple or don't and go with Android.
It is also possible to trick grandpa into buying another iphone because that's the only way of preserving his text messages from the grandkids when his iphone filled up.
Computers and Android devices don't employ predatory code signing and can run anything without the manufacturer having a say, yet somehow the hell didn't break loose. Also, if you don't let people make mistakes or see someone else make them, they won't learn. In effect, one might say that this scheme makes people dumber.
What do you mean? Hell does break lose. The malware situation on PCs might be better than it was 15 years ago, but it’s still ubiquitous. Removing malware from PCs is still an entire industry and career path.
At this point I am convinced HN commenters have a blind spot when it comes to how easily non-technical users get infected with malware. The latest statistics[1] show iOS has significantly fewer malware infections compared to Android and Windows devices:
iOS: 1.72% Android: 26.64% Windows: 38.92% IoT: 32.72%
[1] https://www.nokia.com/networks/portfolio/cyber-security/thre...
iOS: 1.72% Android: 26.64% Windows: 38.92% IoT: 32.72%
[1] https://www.nokia.com/networks/portfolio/cyber-security/thre...
Android and Windows devices don’t necessarily have the same OS-level security provisions, so this isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison. It’s probably true that iOS as an operating system has had stronger security from the start, but that’s not related to the app distribution channel.
If you’re working in a company, I suggest you go and tell them that it’s fine and malware is not a problem and that the users need to learn from their mistakes. They should be quite relieved to learn that.
Same for the companies who lose regularly millions of dollars to ransomware.
Same for the companies who lose regularly millions of dollars to ransomware.
This is the point that people keep missing. The most common argument is “just let people install whatever software they want and if they install something bad that’s their fault.” But the point is that, if Apple does allow sideloading apps, customer satisfaction with iPhones will almost certainly go down. Can you argue that those new unsatisfied customers are to blame? Sure. But Apple probably actually cares about how satisfied their customers are with their products.
And if you allow cars to be repaired some cars might eventually be fixed the wrong way and crash. Same with my home appliances. Yet that doesn't seem to be an argument.
People still call the gamebox under the TV a "nintendo" even if it's a PS5 or an X cube, or the browser internet explorer when it's a little fox-ish looking thing...
Tech literacy is in the toilet, and the lack of physicality (seeing Rob the mechanic was you hand over your Toyota for a service) doesn't help with association of whose responsible..
Also typically cars and appliances have warranties and some times the terms call out unauthorized/untrained 3rd party repair.
Tech literacy is in the toilet, and the lack of physicality (seeing Rob the mechanic was you hand over your Toyota for a service) doesn't help with association of whose responsible..
Also typically cars and appliances have warranties and some times the terms call out unauthorized/untrained 3rd party repair.
The sub-text is that the customer does not know what’s good for them, and that they should be grateful because competition. Who cares about the actual users or their satisfaction, when there is money to be made?
You might have less average negative experiences in the home if everyone were only allowed to buy new Ikea furniture and appliances directly from Ikea. But there are a lot of reasons people would find that level of restrictiveness unacceptable.
The argument is that this isn't a great goal. The argument is that Apple has chosen a solution that doesn't conform to our legal framework.
I don't know if the appropriate standard for technology is that it has to be completely safe for grandpa. In general we don't design society for the lowest-common-denominator.
I'd like to use these unbelievably powerful portable computers like general purpose computers.
Develop applications right on device! My dream.
Develop applications right on device! My dream.
The pretty obvious solution is to not buy Apple devices
I have never owned an Apple device, but they clearly believe locking them down is part of the appeal of the devices in the first place.
If you want an impartial platform get an android; if you want a curated ecosystem get an apple
I have never owned an Apple device, but they clearly believe locking them down is part of the appeal of the devices in the first place.
If you want an impartial platform get an android; if you want a curated ecosystem get an apple
> but they clearly believe locking them down is part of the appeal of the devices in the first place.
Do they believe that? Their behavior and stance could equally be explained by pursuing their economic best-interest
Do they believe that? Their behavior and stance could equally be explained by pursuing their economic best-interest
They most definitely are. But they figured that aligning their interests with their users’ brings in quite a lot of money. Security and privacy certainly is part of the appeal of iOS devices, and strict sandboxing and app vetting is part of that. So is not having to leave your card details on the developer’s database every time you buy an app.
You can still have that even if it's open. There's literally nothing preventing them doing all that while letting others choose not to.
You can’t, because no app can install other apps. So sandboxing would need to be significantly changed.
Every big software publisher having its own store implies that our details will be stored in more databases, which increases the risk of hack or leak. The alternative would be to not get apps that we can currently get without risking much. It is hard to see this as a progress.
Every big software publisher having its own store implies that our details will be stored in more databases, which increases the risk of hack or leak. The alternative would be to not get apps that we can currently get without risking much. It is hard to see this as a progress.
Google did this right with developer mode on Chrome OS. Flip a physical interlock and your device becomes simultaneously "yours" and untrusted by Google.
Apple could do the same thing. They won't because the reason for the walled garden is revenue. The user privacy and security gambit conveniently aligns with generating revenue.
Apple could do the same thing. They won't because the reason for the walled garden is revenue. The user privacy and security gambit conveniently aligns with generating revenue.
> The pretty obvious solution is to not buy Apple devices
But there are other solutions. The other solution is that people are allowed to do what they want, with phones that they own.
And you don't have to download other app stores, if you don't want to!
But there are other solutions. The other solution is that people are allowed to do what they want, with phones that they own.
And you don't have to download other app stores, if you don't want to!
I think the better solution is to persuade them to open up their computing devices.
That does not sound desirable at all for anything other than basic toys..
Maybe you feel that way because you've only ever had mobile devices which hamstring any possible developer tools
> The best result for customers is that there are alternate ways of putting apps on their own phones that do not require apple's permission.
Should Apple still be allowed to prevent Chrome from running it's own rendering, javascript, & other web platform engines? How much editorial & technical control are we going to let Apple keep, if we do allow alternate distribution mechanisms?
Should Apple still be allowed to prevent Chrome from running it's own rendering, javascript, & other web platform engines? How much editorial & technical control are we going to let Apple keep, if we do allow alternate distribution mechanisms?
That‘s a very different discussion (there were some HN about that few days ago).
If Chrome will get full access to iOS, we are back to the year 2000 with 1 company deciding what the standards regarding Web are and a standardization organization having nothing to say. Not saying that I love the walled garden (not saying the opposite too), but if we love the web, we have to keep this walled garden.
If Chrome will get full access to iOS, we are back to the year 2000 with 1 company deciding what the standards regarding Web are and a standardization organization having nothing to say. Not saying that I love the walled garden (not saying the opposite too), but if we love the web, we have to keep this walled garden.
I have never side loaded an app on my Android phone in the 6+ years I've had one.
All I've ever heard is that it is risky to do so.
I could *maybe* see doing it if the vendor were directly offering me their software - and I had some amount of trust of that vendor - like if Microsoft offered an app to directly install one my phone.
But I've never heard of or encountered that. So I'm guessing it isn't a thing.
All I've ever heard is that it is risky to do so.
I could *maybe* see doing it if the vendor were directly offering me their software - and I had some amount of trust of that vendor - like if Microsoft offered an app to directly install one my phone.
But I've never heard of or encountered that. So I'm guessing it isn't a thing.
The argument against an iPhone being a general purpose computer is that it first and foremost needs to be a phone, and do various other critical things. Imagine being stuck out in the middle of nowhere and your phone not working because of an app you installed from a non verified source messing things up.
I would like to see "feature phones" return, not to replace, as a privacy-friendly alternative to, "smartphones", but this time with Lua instead of Java.
The best outcome for everybody is that the maximum % commission of these stores is regulated, perhaps to a maximum of 10-15%.
Do that and the need for alternate stores, alternate payments etc. goes away.
Do that and the need for alternate stores, alternate payments etc. goes away.
If I want an alternate store, it’s not to safe ~$20/year in commission, it’s to gain access to functionality to which Apple restricts access.
App is not necessity good, you can not impose price controls for apps like you can for food for example.
Basically every other comparable store charges the exact same 30% rate
Google, Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo
The ones that don't just prove that charging a lower rate doesn't actually change the price the consumer pays in any way.
Google, Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo
The ones that don't just prove that charging a lower rate doesn't actually change the price the consumer pays in any way.
Google charges 15% <$1million
Steam charges 20-30% depending on how big you are, and probably has a sweatheart deal with EA.
Xbox and Playstation offer subsidised hardware and arguably have a 0% rate given that so many titles are published in-house.
Nintendo offers an effective 25% rate as 5% of spend is rebated to customers' wallets.
Microsoft charges 12%
Epic charges 12%
Steam charges 20-30% depending on how big you are, and probably has a sweatheart deal with EA.
Xbox and Playstation offer subsidised hardware and arguably have a 0% rate given that so many titles are published in-house.
Nintendo offers an effective 25% rate as 5% of spend is rebated to customers' wallets.
Microsoft charges 12%
Epic charges 12%
Are the different rates reflected in the prices on the store or does the customer pay the same price irrespective of the cut taken by the platform?
The different rates are reflected in the burnout, low pay, bankruptcy and failure - or the opposite - of the developers who launch on them.
Right now for example its basically impossible to make a reliable income just from PC, for the average solo developer or micro-studio, due to the insanely high 30% commission taken by Steam.
Its necessary to launch cross-platform onto consoles, and optimizing the graphics and control schemes for these devices means that PC is not the focus.
Right now for example its basically impossible to make a reliable income just from PC, for the average solo developer or micro-studio, due to the insanely high 30% commission taken by Steam.
Its necessary to launch cross-platform onto consoles, and optimizing the graphics and control schemes for these devices means that PC is not the focus.
They should be forced to open up as well. The whole software platform business model needs to die.
Just because you don't like it, it should be forced to die? You know there are people happy with the way it is...
On the contrary, I would argue the exact converse. There are many reasons to want alternative app stores, and they might even be an effective market mechanism to avoid specifying some naive threshold like 15%.
That still doesn't let me install (real) Firefox.
Then money would be less of an issue, but we'd still be stuck with all the same arbitrary restrictions as today, like no third party browsers, no porn, political censorship in China...
Political censorship in China is just part of doing business there. I would like Apple to follow the laws where I live (which they do imperfectly, and they need to be held accountable), so I am not going to complain because they follow local laws in other countries.
In the other hand, their policy for apps with user-generated content is stupid, and their stance on adult content is pure ideology that belongs in the 19th century.
In the other hand, their policy for apps with user-generated content is stupid, and their stance on adult content is pure ideology that belongs in the 19th century.
Do you really believe that setting profit margin for an industry is the government’s job? I am not libertarian, far from it, but this sounds excessive.
There's a lot of debate and fine tuning of what should be allowed regarding things like the size of apple's cut, side loading or allowing a 3rd party appstore but it's painfully clear to me that banning app developers from even mentioning an alternate payment method is very anti-consumer.
The judge did seem to be coming back to the anti-steering rule in particular multiple times over the course of testimony. If only one thing changes as a result of her ruling, I feel like it's probably the anti-steering rule going away.
IMO that is probably the worst policy of the bunch. In particular Apple punishing Facebook for trying to disclose the 30% was really vile and unnecessary. For context: Facebook was being required to pay a 30% cut when allowing in-app RSVPs for paid events, even if the events were charity events. In some of these cases, Facebook was not taking anything - so it was 30% Apple, 70% event operator. Facebook tried to add a disclaimer noting that Apple was taking 30%, and Apple blocked the update.
"The feature lets Facebook users buy tickets for online events directly through the app. Apple’s rules say that purchases of digital content have to use the App Store’s payments system, giving Apple 30 percent of the total. Facebook says it asked Apple to waive this fee so that all of the revenue could go to event organizers, but Apple refused. The feature is now available, but without the message about Apple’s 30-percent cut."
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/28/21405140/apple-rejects-fa...
IMO that is probably the worst policy of the bunch. In particular Apple punishing Facebook for trying to disclose the 30% was really vile and unnecessary. For context: Facebook was being required to pay a 30% cut when allowing in-app RSVPs for paid events, even if the events were charity events. In some of these cases, Facebook was not taking anything - so it was 30% Apple, 70% event operator. Facebook tried to add a disclaimer noting that Apple was taking 30%, and Apple blocked the update.
"The feature lets Facebook users buy tickets for online events directly through the app. Apple’s rules say that purchases of digital content have to use the App Store’s payments system, giving Apple 30 percent of the total. Facebook says it asked Apple to waive this fee so that all of the revenue could go to event organizers, but Apple refused. The feature is now available, but without the message about Apple’s 30-percent cut."
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/28/21405140/apple-rejects-fa...
This is going to the Supreme Court and will not be settled by a single judge, particularly a California district judge. There is just no incentive for either participant to decide "Oh, if Yvonne Rogers says so, then sure we're changing business models".
The entire case is just round 1 of an oracle-google style dispute, which (if I had to guess) will likely have a similar ultimate conclusion -- e.g. preserve the status quo with possibly minor adjustments.
The entire case is just round 1 of an oracle-google style dispute, which (if I had to guess) will likely have a similar ultimate conclusion -- e.g. preserve the status quo with possibly minor adjustments.
In the US perhaps but not so in the EU.
Not knowing much about the EU, would a district judge responsible for, say, northern Italy be able to change EU-wide business rules? With no appeal to a broader authority?
No, not really. A judge would apply the rules as they exist. And then, depending on the case it would follow the local country’s appeal process and possibly end up at the CJEU. But even then it would not change the rules.
Any change of rules needs to be drafted by the commission or proposed in parliament, and then accepted by the parliament. The EU does not really do common law. Not like in the US anyway.
Any change of rules needs to be drafted by the commission or proposed in parliament, and then accepted by the parliament. The EU does not really do common law. Not like in the US anyway.
They are not changing the rules, they are changing the status quo by ruling that a currently widespread practice is breaking the law.
This is the rule that bothers me the most, so it’s the one big change I would be happy with.
This is also, AFAIK, the biggest thing that differentiates Apple’s platform from every other mobile and game console app store regarding fees and whatnot.
In general, my biggest problem with Apple is their heavy handed approach to content. Whether it’s policing political content in a one-sided manner, or telling companies like Amazon they aren’t allowed to inform customers of other means of purchasing content, these policies seem more abusive, anti-customer, and anti-choice than anything else.
(That said, as a user, I would also love easier app side loading support, I just don’t think I’d like the consequences of that coming from a court ruling).
This is also, AFAIK, the biggest thing that differentiates Apple’s platform from every other mobile and game console app store regarding fees and whatnot.
In general, my biggest problem with Apple is their heavy handed approach to content. Whether it’s policing political content in a one-sided manner, or telling companies like Amazon they aren’t allowed to inform customers of other means of purchasing content, these policies seem more abusive, anti-customer, and anti-choice than anything else.
(That said, as a user, I would also love easier app side loading support, I just don’t think I’d like the consequences of that coming from a court ruling).
Yeah, they should have made it such that Epic is required to say (“mention”) that any items purchased with V-Bucks from outside the AppStore cannot be used on the iOS app. I don’t see how advertising another platform in their iOS app would be fair, though. It’s not like you’d find it ok if Google pushed ads for the new Pixel phone on the notifications in their iOS apps.
I can buy a book directly on the Amazon iOS app, but I can't buy an ebook.
That seems like the most fundamental problem to me and a clear case that this is anticompetitive behavior.
That seems like the most fundamental problem to me and a clear case that this is anticompetitive behavior.
This weirded me the heck out when I switched from Android last year. I can't buy for my Kindle from the iOS Amazon app, but I can log into amazon.com, buy for the Kindle there, and then read in my Kindle app on iOS.
It suggests a way anyone can circumvent Apple's restrictions too. Introduce an app whose only job is to act as a content player but has no content of its own, then have customers go to your website to buy the content, and then download it to your app. Epic can sell one game that is empty and make every actual game DLC.
It suggests a way anyone can circumvent Apple's restrictions too. Introduce an app whose only job is to act as a content player but has no content of its own, then have customers go to your website to buy the content, and then download it to your app. Epic can sell one game that is empty and make every actual game DLC.
> Introduce an app whose only job is to act as a content player but has no content of its own, then have customers go to your website to buy the content, and then download it to your app. Epic can sell one game that is empty and make every actual game DLC.
I believe this accurately describes Epic Games Store, or any other games storefront like Steam, as they work on desktop platforms like Windows. The Store is free, then all the games are paid (or sometimes, free) "DLC". Is there a fundamental difference I'm missing?
I believe this accurately describes Epic Games Store, or any other games storefront like Steam, as they work on desktop platforms like Windows. The Store is free, then all the games are paid (or sometimes, free) "DLC". Is there a fundamental difference I'm missing?
> Epic can sell one game that is empty and make every actual game DLC
That would make the "empty" app qualify as a general-purpose computer and therefore break Apple's ToS.
Oh, and if the app mentioned the possibility of going to the website, that would also break Apple's ToS.
That would make the "empty" app qualify as a general-purpose computer and therefore break Apple's ToS.
Oh, and if the app mentioned the possibility of going to the website, that would also break Apple's ToS.
Apple's guidelines already cover their bases to prevent such a loophole.
The first clause of their Payments[1] guidelines explicitly states you're to use in-app purchases to unlock features and functionality within your app, while also forbidding you from linking to or directing users to any alternative purchasing mechanisms.
They then make limited exemptions for "reader apps"[2] to allow users to consume content they've previously purchased, and explicitly list which categories of content they consider allowable for this exemption. Games not being one of them. They also make an exemption for multi-platform services which isn't as restrictive as the reader app clause, but only if you also abide by the first clause of making it available as an in-app purchase as well (and not direct people to alternatives for purchase).
So this works for Amazon's Kindle app, but wouldn't for a gaming service. And even the way Amazon handles Kindle listings[3] in their main app is toeing the line of what Apple allows, and smaller companies would have a hard time pulling off.
And just for good measure, they also pretty much spell out exactly what you described in the first bullet under the Unacceptable clause[4]
[1] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#pay...
[2] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#rea...
[3] "This app does not support purchasing. Books purchased from Amazon are available to read in the Kindle app" is what they put on the listing page. It's not a direct call to action so isn't strictly against the guidelines, but such a thinly veiled insinuation is something few other companies would be able to get passed app review.
[4] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#una...
The first clause of their Payments[1] guidelines explicitly states you're to use in-app purchases to unlock features and functionality within your app, while also forbidding you from linking to or directing users to any alternative purchasing mechanisms.
They then make limited exemptions for "reader apps"[2] to allow users to consume content they've previously purchased, and explicitly list which categories of content they consider allowable for this exemption. Games not being one of them. They also make an exemption for multi-platform services which isn't as restrictive as the reader app clause, but only if you also abide by the first clause of making it available as an in-app purchase as well (and not direct people to alternatives for purchase).
So this works for Amazon's Kindle app, but wouldn't for a gaming service. And even the way Amazon handles Kindle listings[3] in their main app is toeing the line of what Apple allows, and smaller companies would have a hard time pulling off.
And just for good measure, they also pretty much spell out exactly what you described in the first bullet under the Unacceptable clause[4]
[1] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#pay...
[2] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#rea...
[3] "This app does not support purchasing. Books purchased from Amazon are available to read in the Kindle app" is what they put on the listing page. It's not a direct call to action so isn't strictly against the guidelines, but such a thinly veiled insinuation is something few other companies would be able to get passed app review.
[4] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#una...
I agree that it's a fundamental problem and anticompetitive behavior but I don't think it's as clear of a court case as this Epic v Apple.
Users don't need to install the Amazon iOS app, instead they can use Safari where they can buy books and ebooks directly.
Games like the ones Epic makes, however, cannot run in Safari. They are forced to go through Apple store and play by Apple's rules.
Users don't need to install the Amazon iOS app, instead they can use Safari where they can buy books and ebooks directly.
Games like the ones Epic makes, however, cannot run in Safari. They are forced to go through Apple store and play by Apple's rules.
One bit of context to add: Amazon opted out selling ebooks one the app due to the the 30% fee imposed on purchasing in app/digital goods. They’re not disallowed from selling ebooks.
I mention this because it’s both an important distinction and the same subject as Epic’s lawsuit.
I mention this because it’s both an important distinction and the same subject as Epic’s lawsuit.
Along the same lines, Comixology removed their ability to buy issues in-app when Amazon bought the company.
But I can also fund a Robinhood account directly from my bank account through the iOS app and buy cryptocurrency.
Or I can go on the ebay iOS app and buy a PDF ebook from a seller.
The mechanism of "in-app purchases" doesn't scale to ebay or Amazon or any other store where you might have millions of SKUs. Not to mention that you can't even buy Kindle books on the iOS app, even if you already have credit on Amazon (gift card, rewards points, etc.).
Or I can go on the ebay iOS app and buy a PDF ebook from a seller.
The mechanism of "in-app purchases" doesn't scale to ebay or Amazon or any other store where you might have millions of SKUs. Not to mention that you can't even buy Kindle books on the iOS app, even if you already have credit on Amazon (gift card, rewards points, etc.).
Sounds like the judge had some very sharp questions, big props to her. It seemed to me like Tim Cook and Apple were not as prepared as they should've been. They didn't have any particularly unexpected/novel arguments, it was basically just constantly repeating the same bland things they've been saying all along about IP and fraud and convenience.
Novel arguments aren't needed. If the precedents are on your side then it makes sense to repeat bland arguments instead of confusing the issue. I don't necessarily support Apple's business policy here, but strictly from a legal standpoint Fortnite's case has always been a long shot.
"A good lawyer knows the law; a great lawyer knows the judge." It sounds like this was a rare blindsiding.
The article made it sound like Cook (and Apple legal) were not expecting a grilling from the judge. She asked him questions for longer than any other witness.
>Sounds like the judge had some very sharp questions, big props to her.
In following some court cases in Tech ( mostly Apple ) this is the first time I have seen a US judge actually doing their job properly. May be this is also because it is the first case Apple is a defendant. All the other case Apple brought forward, the judge was unapologetically Pro Apple. It was uncanny.
In following some court cases in Tech ( mostly Apple ) this is the first time I have seen a US judge actually doing their job properly. May be this is also because it is the first case Apple is a defendant. All the other case Apple brought forward, the judge was unapologetically Pro Apple. It was uncanny.
I really hope the concept of "you can't be anti-competitive if you own the entire ecosystem" dies.
I really hope devices, services, and infrastructure get separated and also that it would become illegal for a device manufacturer to retain any kind of control over a device after it's been sold. Burning a public key into OTP ROM as trusted and not providing its private counterpart counts too.
You want to set up cloud backups? You get a text box to put a domain in. You get to choose whose infrastructure you use. It might be pre-filled with apple.com, but that's as far as it can legally go.
Protocols, not platforms.
You want to set up cloud backups? You get a text box to put a domain in. You get to choose whose infrastructure you use. It might be pre-filled with apple.com, but that's as far as it can legally go.
Protocols, not platforms.
This right here. I like controlling my own DRM Free media. I imagined a system the other day where you can buy a pressing of a movie and on checkout you get the video file or enter the host you want it sent to so you can stream it. Or both. This would open up all kinds of different hosting services- an entire industry.
I mean I really haven't heard a good argument against it. Everyone is just complaining that 30% is too high, or it shouldn't apply to IAP for some reason. None of the questions the judged asked really get to the heart of the matter: why should the government get to tell Apple how to run their app store? What makes app stores different than the xbox marketplace or ebay? If the app store was more specific with the types of apps they allow (ex. no more IAP apps), would that make it better or worse?
Rather, the question is, how can Apple control access to a device they have sold to customers by forcing all app deployments through their App Store? They can run the App Store quite whimsically if they allow side loading apps and other app repositories.
It isn’t illegal to side load another OS with another App Store onto your phone. But Apple is also well within their rights to design their phones to brick if they detect something they deem a security risk being loaded onto a device they sold. They tell you up front, before you buy it, what the device is designed for and what it isn’t. Xbox doesn’t let you run Word and won’t support it if you somehow figure out a way to. Is that not the same thing?
why should the government get to tell Apple how to run their app store?
Because Apple has a monopoly in that area. That's what antitrust law is all about - using monopoly power to raise prices.
Because Apple has a monopoly in that area. That's what antitrust law is all about - using monopoly power to raise prices.
They have a monopoly on what? Apps in the Apple App Store? I agree they shouldn’t be able to use their market dominance in the app marketplace space to stop other app marketplaces from competing with their App Store, but within their own ecosystem that is way too specific of a thing to apply anti-trust rules to. The reason the App Store is popular is because of the iron grip they keep on their apps. Telling them they can’t control their apps the way they want is like telling a chip maker they can’t use a certain architecture because it is too fast and other companies won’t be able to compete with them.
Specifically, because it harms consumers, it harms the industry (or industries in this case), and hurts innovation.
> why should the government get to tell Apple how to run their app store?
Do you simply not believe in anti-trust law then?
What if microsoft forced you to pay them a 30 percent cut, for installing other web browsers, or apps? You would be ok with that?
Do you simply not believe in anti-trust law then?
What if microsoft forced you to pay them a 30 percent cut, for installing other web browsers, or apps? You would be ok with that?
Isn’t this the case on the XBox? People seem to be fine with it.
Microsoft should absolutely be able to do that if they wanted and in fact do that when you buy something from their Windows store. But not allowing side loading of apps would be bad for business. Linux would see a huge gain in marketshare.
The point of Apple existing is to make people’s lives better. That’s the only reason any company exists. If Apple is behaving in a way that makes people’s lives worse, they should have to change. That’s why we live in a society.
Who gets to define what the current ecosystem is?
The slogans are easy but you need to define what "ecosystem" is so we understand the system-wide implications of these attitudes.
Can I for example go to Walmart and setup my own store inside their store without having to ask them?
Can I do the same in your local mom-and-pop store?
Can I for example go to Walmart and setup my own store inside their store without having to ask them?
Can I do the same in your local mom-and-pop store?
The kind of ecosystem/business model that Apple has created is so fundamentally different from everything else that real world analogies just don't work. We should avoid using them in this debate.
It's more like, if you buy a Ford car, does Taco Bell owe 30% to Ford when you use their drive through?
Or can Ford forbid Taco Bell from operating drive through stores of their own, and require Ford owners to go through Ford's own all purpose drive through stores?
Or can Ford forbid Taco Bell from operating drive through stores of their own, and require Ford owners to go through Ford's own all purpose drive through stores?
I mean, you can use the amazon website on the iphone and circumvent all the limitations for example. They want to use the platform apple provides to create apps (good user experiences). So, this analogy doesn't seem apt to me
Should Taco Bell be legally required to let MacDonalds set up stall rent-free in their stores?
This is a false analogy.
People who purchased a phone, own that phone. Apple doesn't own it anymore.
Thats the difference. McDonald's own the store. But they don't own your car.
And similarly, Apple does not own your phone, but they go to great efforts to prevent you from using other app stores.
People who purchased a phone, own that phone. Apple doesn't own it anymore.
Thats the difference. McDonald's own the store. But they don't own your car.
And similarly, Apple does not own your phone, but they go to great efforts to prevent you from using other app stores.
You own a phone yes. But you don’t own iOS. So take your own phone and install your own OS on it if that’s what you want.
Ok, and people should be allowed to install whatever they want on their own hardware.
We don't need to force Apple to put apps on its app store.
Instead, people should be allowed to install whatever they want on the hardware that they own.
> So take your own phone and install your own OS
Or, instead of that, we could use the court system, to stop illegal anti-competitive practices, and require, by the existing law, that people are allowed to do what they want with their own phone.
We don't need to force Apple to put apps on its app store.
Instead, people should be allowed to install whatever they want on the hardware that they own.
> So take your own phone and install your own OS
Or, instead of that, we could use the court system, to stop illegal anti-competitive practices, and require, by the existing law, that people are allowed to do what they want with their own phone.
You can do whatever you want with your phone already. As I said you don’t own iOS. Install your own OS.
> You can do whatever you want with your phone already.
But, with the court decision, it will become much easier to install other app stores on the phone, if Apple's actions are ruled illegal anti-competitive.
Thats the point. The illegal anti-competitive behavior, that makes it more difficult for people to install other software, could be blocked by the courts.
At which people, people will be able to install other app stores, while also having iOS on their phone.
That sounds like a much better solution to all of this. Everyone gets what they want, and can now more easily install things on the phone that they own.
But, with the court decision, it will become much easier to install other app stores on the phone, if Apple's actions are ruled illegal anti-competitive.
Thats the point. The illegal anti-competitive behavior, that makes it more difficult for people to install other software, could be blocked by the courts.
At which people, people will be able to install other app stores, while also having iOS on their phone.
That sounds like a much better solution to all of this. Everyone gets what they want, and can now more easily install things on the phone that they own.
I don’t get what I want. I want Apple to control their ecosystem. It significantly altered the iPhone experience for the better imho and this is why I buy the products.
A store in a store is like a country in a country. I declare myself a country now laws no longer apply to me. How would that work for society.
And you already had what you want. It’s full of phones where you can install whatever. Why should you force Apple to offer a product they don’t want to?
A store in a store is like a country in a country. I declare myself a country now laws no longer apply to me. How would that work for society.
And you already had what you want. It’s full of phones where you can install whatever. Why should you force Apple to offer a product they don’t want to?
> I want Apple to control their ecosystem
Users are free to choose the Apple app store, if the decide to do so.
The problem is Apple's illegal, anti-competitive behavior, that needs to be stopped.
> I don’t get what I want.
If the courts rules that Apple's behavior is illegally anti-competitive, then what will likely happens is that Apple will be ordered to make it easier for people to install other app stores, if the users choose to do so.
> It significantly altered the iPhone experience
You can continue to have that experience. Just don't install other app stores. But, if the courts rule that apple's behavior is illegal, then other users will be able to choose differently.
> declare myself a country now laws no longer apply to me.
What are you talking about? I am talking about the law. You know, the court case that is happening right now? The legal system?
The judge, in this case, in America, could rule Apple' behavior illegal, and force them to make it easier to install other app stores.
> And you already had what you want.
No, actually. What other users and developers want, is for Apple's behavior to be ruled illegally anti-competitive, and for them to be required to stop intentionally making it more difficult for people to install other app stores, using their illegal anti-competitive behavior.
> Why should you force Apple to offer a product they don’t want to?
It is not about forcing them to offer a product. Instead, it is about stopping them from spending so much effort, illegally, to stop competitor app stores. With their illegal behavior.
Users are free to choose the Apple app store, if the decide to do so.
The problem is Apple's illegal, anti-competitive behavior, that needs to be stopped.
> I don’t get what I want.
If the courts rules that Apple's behavior is illegally anti-competitive, then what will likely happens is that Apple will be ordered to make it easier for people to install other app stores, if the users choose to do so.
> It significantly altered the iPhone experience
You can continue to have that experience. Just don't install other app stores. But, if the courts rule that apple's behavior is illegal, then other users will be able to choose differently.
> declare myself a country now laws no longer apply to me.
What are you talking about? I am talking about the law. You know, the court case that is happening right now? The legal system?
The judge, in this case, in America, could rule Apple' behavior illegal, and force them to make it easier to install other app stores.
> And you already had what you want.
No, actually. What other users and developers want, is for Apple's behavior to be ruled illegally anti-competitive, and for them to be required to stop intentionally making it more difficult for people to install other app stores, using their illegal anti-competitive behavior.
> Why should you force Apple to offer a product they don’t want to?
It is not about forcing them to offer a product. Instead, it is about stopping them from spending so much effort, illegally, to stop competitor app stores. With their illegal behavior.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Look I don't know about Taco Bell, does it come installed in your car, like you push a button and a taco comes out from your dashboard? Because that's the only case this terrible example makes sense.
If you get a job through a phone interview, do you owe Apple 30% of your salary? No.
Using your phone's services doesn't cause Apple to get a cut of anything that happens while you do so. Selling apps THROUGH ITS OWN STORE does.
If you get a job through a phone interview, do you owe Apple 30% of your salary? No.
Using your phone's services doesn't cause Apple to get a cut of anything that happens while you do so. Selling apps THROUGH ITS OWN STORE does.
When we have self-driving cars, can Ford, Tesla, etc., require businesses to pay them a stipend to allow our cars to drive to those stores?
"No, you can't drive to Walmart; Walmart isn't in the destination store. You may drive to Target."
"No, you can't drive to Walmart; Walmart isn't in the destination store. You may drive to Target."
You’re making a category error. A car’s ecosystem is the road system. Roads don’t let you anywhere, there has to be a road there. Sometimes a paid one.
I wasn't using an analogy. I was literally talking about: if this is a law, how it'll ACTUALLY impact every business.
If you think what Apple has created is different, again, define it. Let's see how it's fundamentally different and where the line is.
If you think what Apple has created is different, again, define it. Let's see how it's fundamentally different and where the line is.
Can you please explain how you go from the hypothetical future of "Apple's 30% app store cut is found to be illegally anti-competitive" to "Walmart would be forced to allow random competitors to open stores physically inside them".
Parent does have a point here. His point is not that you can or should compare the two. We know they are different. But the LAW doesn't. How do you define in LEGAL terms how apple and WalMart are different? You can't use the word "ecosystem" like we throw around for apple because it is meaningless in legal terms. So first you need to either find an existing legal term and apply it or you need to make a new one. If you make a new one (because obviously Apples thing doesn't have a normal analogy) then you have to be VERRRRRY CAREFUL how you define it and what exact terms you use because whatever that is will be used and abused by precedence for decades to come.
I was asking a question. (1) That we define what we mean, so... (2) We can analyze the impact.
Here I'm going to do it again. What does it mean "30% store cut is illegally anti-competetive". What does that even mean? Why isn't Apple allowed to charge a fee for maintaining their own store?
It's just entirely unclear what's the objection here. Is the objection Apple's cut is too big? Is 5% legal? Is 10%? Should it be 0%? How big should it be? What is everyone even saying? Or is everyone just whining about "big bad corporate is bad, punish bad corporate" and not thinking any deeper than this?
Believe it or not, Walmart and all other grocery stores charge 50% for the same service. Even when you order online, actually. Should we sue them for this? If no, why. If yes, why?
And the Walmart example came directly from Epic wanting to open a store inside iOS. You don't agree? Again, where's the definition that contradicts this interpretation.
Define what you say, so it means something. Right now I just see bunch of emotion and absolutely nothing of substance being said.
Here I'm going to do it again. What does it mean "30% store cut is illegally anti-competetive". What does that even mean? Why isn't Apple allowed to charge a fee for maintaining their own store?
It's just entirely unclear what's the objection here. Is the objection Apple's cut is too big? Is 5% legal? Is 10%? Should it be 0%? How big should it be? What is everyone even saying? Or is everyone just whining about "big bad corporate is bad, punish bad corporate" and not thinking any deeper than this?
Believe it or not, Walmart and all other grocery stores charge 50% for the same service. Even when you order online, actually. Should we sue them for this? If no, why. If yes, why?
And the Walmart example came directly from Epic wanting to open a store inside iOS. You don't agree? Again, where's the definition that contradicts this interpretation.
Define what you say, so it means something. Right now I just see bunch of emotion and absolutely nothing of substance being said.
Real world analogies are crucial to the process of reasoning about economic relationships.
It's also how lawyers argue and judges decide.
Not using them is implausible.
It's also how lawyers argue and judges decide.
Not using them is implausible.
Obviously there’s a spectrum of scenarios.
In the 80s and 90s breaking up AT&T local loop unbundling made a huge positive change in telco in the us.
Requiring the power company to rent pole space has a positive benefit.
I think the App Store is more like a utility pole than a Walmart. Forcing Apple to unbundle the infrastructure of delivery, payment and signing would allow for competitive forces and innovation.
The AppStore is all built around PKI. My company already operates an internal enterprise store — the metaphor exists. It would be pretty straightforward to evolve it into something different and arguably better.
In the 80s and 90s breaking up AT&T local loop unbundling made a huge positive change in telco in the us.
Requiring the power company to rent pole space has a positive benefit.
I think the App Store is more like a utility pole than a Walmart. Forcing Apple to unbundle the infrastructure of delivery, payment and signing would allow for competitive forces and innovation.
The AppStore is all built around PKI. My company already operates an internal enterprise store — the metaphor exists. It would be pretty straightforward to evolve it into something different and arguably better.
I don't see this as an accurate comparison. You can already rent a space right next to Walmart and open your own store if you like. Yes, I may have to pay a landlord, but again, there's competition among owners of land that keeps rents at a market rate.
You can think of the space within an ecosystem as virtual land. Apple has a monopoly on this virtual space. They can charge whatever they like, there is no competition.
The argument of choose another phone is different, because it requires spending a large amount of money for the right to entry. To many people this is cost prohibitive.
I don't have a personal stance on what the outcome should be either way, need to dig into it more.
You can think of the space within an ecosystem as virtual land. Apple has a monopoly on this virtual space. They can charge whatever they like, there is no competition.
The argument of choose another phone is different, because it requires spending a large amount of money for the right to entry. To many people this is cost prohibitive.
I don't have a personal stance on what the outcome should be either way, need to dig into it more.
You can buy a new unlocked Samsung smartphone for $180. That's hardly cost prohibitive. Especially if you already have an iPhone you can just sell it and buy something else.
[deleted]
Apple’s argument is that their land has value because of the work they did/do. They also may argue that rents for their land are at market rate, as demand for it stays high.
Of course, that may be (is for a large part, in my opinion) because of their market power, but that, I think, isn’t much different from Walmart. Market power and sales volume are how Walmart can negotiate lower prices with sellers.
Theme parks such as Disney World may be even better examples. If you want to sell ice creams there, I bet you have to pay a huge sum of money to Disney. It wouldn’t even surprise me if that were a percentage of revenues.
Of course, that may be (is for a large part, in my opinion) because of their market power, but that, I think, isn’t much different from Walmart. Market power and sales volume are how Walmart can negotiate lower prices with sellers.
Theme parks such as Disney World may be even better examples. If you want to sell ice creams there, I bet you have to pay a huge sum of money to Disney. It wouldn’t even surprise me if that were a percentage of revenues.
> I don't see this as an accurate comparison. You can already rent a space right next to Walmart and open your own store if you like.
Opening a store in iOS is not "next to" it's "inside of".
> The argument of choose another phone is different, because it requires spending a large amount of money for the right to entry. To many people this is cost prohibitive.
This makes no sense, first because Androids tend to be cheaper than iPhones, and second no one forces you into buying an iPhone.
Also "iPhone is too expensive" is not an argument for "I should be allowed to do X with it". If you don't like what an iPhone does, don't buy one.
You don't get to buy a Tesla and complain how come it's so expensive and doesn't run also on oil, do you?
Opening a store in iOS is not "next to" it's "inside of".
> The argument of choose another phone is different, because it requires spending a large amount of money for the right to entry. To many people this is cost prohibitive.
This makes no sense, first because Androids tend to be cheaper than iPhones, and second no one forces you into buying an iPhone.
Also "iPhone is too expensive" is not an argument for "I should be allowed to do X with it". If you don't like what an iPhone does, don't buy one.
You don't get to buy a Tesla and complain how come it's so expensive and doesn't run also on oil, do you?
The level of specificity in debates around these subjects is kind of moot. The trajectory of growth of these companies and their impact on our everyday lives make it obvious they will be regulated to ensure fair competition. Whether it happens today, or 10 years from now... it will almost certainly happen, I'm very confident in that.
I don't plan to hash out the legal language of a proposed law in a HN comment, but "platforms" will probably be defined in some way and be required to allow competition. An app store is nothing other than a market that can either be competitive or not, depending on how it's regulated.
It was considered sensible to implement anti-trust laws to protect consumers in the broader markets, I have no doubt that when a privately created market reaches sufficient market share and impact, they will be subject to anti-trust laws as well.
As a thought experiment, imagine 99% of the population uses iOS... now the private market of an app store becomes the de-facto public market by virtue of adoption. The same can be said for social media, where a single app can control 90% of discussion (depending on country and medium of discussion). There is no world in which these things will not be regulated as "public spaces" once they reach sufficient scale.
The question is just when does the scale become sufficiently large, and when do the rules cross the line into anti-competitive behavior. They are close but maybe not quite far enough to get regulated yet.
I don't plan to hash out the legal language of a proposed law in a HN comment, but "platforms" will probably be defined in some way and be required to allow competition. An app store is nothing other than a market that can either be competitive or not, depending on how it's regulated.
It was considered sensible to implement anti-trust laws to protect consumers in the broader markets, I have no doubt that when a privately created market reaches sufficient market share and impact, they will be subject to anti-trust laws as well.
As a thought experiment, imagine 99% of the population uses iOS... now the private market of an app store becomes the de-facto public market by virtue of adoption. The same can be said for social media, where a single app can control 90% of discussion (depending on country and medium of discussion). There is no world in which these things will not be regulated as "public spaces" once they reach sufficient scale.
The question is just when does the scale become sufficiently large, and when do the rules cross the line into anti-competitive behavior. They are close but maybe not quite far enough to get regulated yet.
The issue is about app developers who don't get to choose the phone that users have.
It's interesting to consider what the effect of breaking up Walmart into constituent parts (either vertically or horizontally) would be. I'd be willing to bet it'd be a net-positive for the economy. The same is true for the majority of companies that large.
Deleted
Wouldn't it be more like any games you bought at GameStop would force you to pay a cut to Gamestop from inside the games in-game store? ...that GameStop has nothing to do with.
Are iOS devices Apple's private property?
iOS is. It's a software and a set of associated services and apps provided to you under a license.
If you wanna install your own OS, you can set up your own App Store.
If you wanna install your own OS, you can set up your own App Store.
> If you wanna install your own OS
Yes, please. Who do I have to call at Apple to get an iPhone's bootloader unlocked?
Yes, please. Who do I have to call at Apple to get an iPhone's bootloader unlocked?
I don’t work at Apple, do your own research. Also maybe next time do that research before buying a device and then complaining it doesn’t do what it never said it does.
How about we make it illegal for corporations to lock down other people's devices instead? Much better than constantly moving the goalposts.
How about you phrase your statements with intellectual honesty, instead of wasting my time having to explain this is not a case of "corporations locking down other people's devices" but it's a case of "you bought this device with the idea it runs iOS, that's the only thing Apple promised it'll do, and that's precisely what it does".
I'm not moving any goalposts. Your argument is this utterly ridiculous notion that you get to buy an iPhone and then whine it doesn't do what it never said it'll do.
It's like buying a Tesla and complaining it doesn't run on oil.
The responsibility is on you, as a buyer, to buy shit that does what you want it to do. It's full of phones that you can install whatever on. Buy one of those.
"How about we make it illegal for corporations to control the product they themselves make" is a shitty, entitled, spoiled brat behavior that honestly disgusts me to my core.
I'm not moving any goalposts. Your argument is this utterly ridiculous notion that you get to buy an iPhone and then whine it doesn't do what it never said it'll do.
It's like buying a Tesla and complaining it doesn't run on oil.
The responsibility is on you, as a buyer, to buy shit that does what you want it to do. It's full of phones that you can install whatever on. Buy one of those.
"How about we make it illegal for corporations to control the product they themselves make" is a shitty, entitled, spoiled brat behavior that honestly disgusts me to my core.
> wasting my time
Yes, your time is so precious you spend it defending the monopolist practices of a multi-billion dollar corporation on a hacker forum.
> I'm not moving any goalposts.
First you compared having software freedom to invading someone else's private property. "Can I go to Walmart and setup my own store inside their store without permission?" You implied people's iPhones were still Apple's private property despite people having purchased them.
So I asked you in direct terms if this is really what you believe. You immediately backtracked by changing focus from hardware to software. "Just install your own OS", you said.
Okay. So how are people supposed to do that on the locked down device they bought? "I don't know, do your research, buy something else, stop complaining."
And I am the one being "intellectually dishonest"?
> Your argument is this utterly ridiculous notion that you get to buy an iPhone and then whine it doesn't do what it never said it'll do.
It doesn't have to be said. If I buy something, it's perfectly reasonable to assume I can do whatever I want with it. It shouldn't require some corporation's permission.
> It's like buying a Tesla and complaining it doesn't run on oil.
It's like buying a car and then finding out it only drives to pre-selected locations which pay 30% tax to the manufacturer for the privilege of having people reach them via that manufacturer's product.
> "How about we make it illegal for corporations to control the product they themselves make" is a shitty, entitled, spoiled brat behavior that honestly disgusts me to my core.
It's entitlement to actually want to own things I paid money for? You gotta be kidding me.
Yes, your time is so precious you spend it defending the monopolist practices of a multi-billion dollar corporation on a hacker forum.
> I'm not moving any goalposts.
First you compared having software freedom to invading someone else's private property. "Can I go to Walmart and setup my own store inside their store without permission?" You implied people's iPhones were still Apple's private property despite people having purchased them.
So I asked you in direct terms if this is really what you believe. You immediately backtracked by changing focus from hardware to software. "Just install your own OS", you said.
Okay. So how are people supposed to do that on the locked down device they bought? "I don't know, do your research, buy something else, stop complaining."
And I am the one being "intellectually dishonest"?
> Your argument is this utterly ridiculous notion that you get to buy an iPhone and then whine it doesn't do what it never said it'll do.
It doesn't have to be said. If I buy something, it's perfectly reasonable to assume I can do whatever I want with it. It shouldn't require some corporation's permission.
> It's like buying a Tesla and complaining it doesn't run on oil.
It's like buying a car and then finding out it only drives to pre-selected locations which pay 30% tax to the manufacturer for the privilege of having people reach them via that manufacturer's product.
> "How about we make it illegal for corporations to control the product they themselves make" is a shitty, entitled, spoiled brat behavior that honestly disgusts me to my core.
It's entitlement to actually want to own things I paid money for? You gotta be kidding me.
Except what you state already exists. I can load the Walmart app on iOS and order a TV from Walmart, not Apple. Apple is preventing Epic from doing the same - buy in-app merchandise through Epic's app on iOS.
I can also go into a mom and pop store, load Target's website on my phone, and order a pick-up order from Target. The Mom and Pop store can't stop you from doing that.
You can also open an iPhone, load any website in Safari, and order whatever you want from the website. Apple can't stop you from doing that either.
Except, as we have seen with Epic, and why we are talking about this case, is they can, by dropping your app from the App Store in retribution for offering an alternative. They can do that because there is no other app store on Apple and effectively prevents you from competing.
No, you are allowed to offer an alternative on your website. Netflix and plenty of other apps do this just fine.
If you want to advertise the alternative inside your app, well, that's a bit like Target putting a sign inside that mom-and-pop store saying you can get a better deal at Target.
If you want to advertise the alternative inside your app, well, that's a bit like Target putting a sign inside that mom-and-pop store saying you can get a better deal at Target.
Epic wasn't dropped for offering sales on a site. Inform yourself.
Except, they did. Apple started the threats against Epic when Epic started lowering their prices for add-ons on other platforms, which made Apple look greedy. To bolster their anti-competitive case against Apple, Epic turned on the in-app store to which Apple then pulled Fortnite. Epic has to be able to show damages and anti-competitive actions in order to have a case. If they didn't force Apple to pull Fortnite, they wouldn't be able to show damages.
The closest comparable platforms are probably the consoles. Should Xbox/PlayStation/Nintendo be forced to allow 3rd party app stores on their devices?
Yes.
Why not? Everybody benefits from open marketplaces. The PC has been like this, and though Steam is dominant, it's not even close to a monopoly.
Why not?
edit: You changed your comment and added your line about mom-and-pop stores. To which I reply that different rules should apply to multi-billion dollar corporations.
edit: You changed your comment and added your line about mom-and-pop stores. To which I reply that different rules should apply to multi-billion dollar corporations.
Good! It's about time that our industry's monopoly of the ages is put to bed.
Apple put us in the kettle and slowly turned up the heat. They delivered good hardware, good software, but at the same time demanded that nobody else have the ability to run JIT, other runtimes, first-class web, browsers, marketplaces, etc. Over time, Apple rose to 50% of the market, all the while exacting complete control and taxing all market activities.
Unfortunately, iPhone is now responsible for a majority of its users' business activities. It's the single plane of control between a user and their banking, commerce, communication, entertainment, and social lives.
We didn't allow this level of control with Microsoft in the 90's and 00's, and there's no reason we should allow the increased scope of control that Apple has now.
They need to lose the App Store.
They need to have an open platform.
They can't run Apple Pay.
Other browsers and JIT runtimes need to be allowed. Marketplaces, too.
This needs to happen to Google as well.
We don't pay the electric company for every app we install. We don't pay UPS for our Netflix subscriptions. Apple isn't providing any additional economic value. They're a tax, and that's it. They're also an impediment to repairing our own devices. It has to stop, and they have to start playing fair.
Apple put us in the kettle and slowly turned up the heat. They delivered good hardware, good software, but at the same time demanded that nobody else have the ability to run JIT, other runtimes, first-class web, browsers, marketplaces, etc. Over time, Apple rose to 50% of the market, all the while exacting complete control and taxing all market activities.
Unfortunately, iPhone is now responsible for a majority of its users' business activities. It's the single plane of control between a user and their banking, commerce, communication, entertainment, and social lives.
We didn't allow this level of control with Microsoft in the 90's and 00's, and there's no reason we should allow the increased scope of control that Apple has now.
They need to lose the App Store.
They need to have an open platform.
They can't run Apple Pay.
Other browsers and JIT runtimes need to be allowed. Marketplaces, too.
This needs to happen to Google as well.
We don't pay the electric company for every app we install. We don't pay UPS for our Netflix subscriptions. Apple isn't providing any additional economic value. They're a tax, and that's it. They're also an impediment to repairing our own devices. It has to stop, and they have to start playing fair.
I agree - the service Apple are offering for recurring payments is that of a payment processor. In a competitive market that role takes 2-3% at most. And that percentage has been falling year on year as new entrants have entered the market.
How does a company disrupt the Google/Apple phone duopoly? Even Microsoft spending hundreds of millions of dollars couldn't do it.
How does a company disrupt the Google/Apple phone duopoly? Even Microsoft spending hundreds of millions of dollars couldn't do it.
Even on PC, where there's plenty of store competition, the only way to get much lower than 30% seems to be to seriously cut corners - Epic's own store famously lacks standard features like a shopping card, and people have had problems with buying multiple games in succession seperately triggering anti-fraud measures that stop them from doing so, so they're not exactly doing great even at the payment processing part. And they're quite openly subsidising that from their Fortnite profits as well in many ways.
While I agree that the EGS experience is bad, I don't think this is related to the cut. It's just an immature store backed by questionable software engineering and design. There are other stores with low % cuts that don't have these issues.
Itch is very cheap, for example, and developers love it. Apparently Itch is important enough that Apple and Epic kept bringing it up over and over in court.
I don't know their current %s, but Humble's game sales platform (that is, for non-bundle game sales) definitely charged way less than 30% in the past.
Itch is very cheap, for example, and developers love it. Apparently Itch is important enough that Apple and Epic kept bringing it up over and over in court.
I don't know their current %s, but Humble's game sales platform (that is, for non-bundle game sales) definitely charged way less than 30% in the past.
I'm confused, don't we allow this level of control with video game consoles? (Heck Sony and Microsoft also take 30% cuts)
What's the difference other than form factor?
What's the difference other than form factor?
Gaming is unimportant.
General-purpose computing is gradually being replaced by locked-down phones and tablets, and that's much more concerning.
General-purpose computing is gradually being replaced by locked-down phones and tablets, and that's much more concerning.
Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo get to avoid competition because games aren't important? I don't like that argument.
At the end of the day, it's a company telling a consumer what they can or can't do with their own property. Sony saying you can't buy a game from anyone else is just anti-competitive BS. It isn't fair to consumers, and it isn't fair to developers.
Hopefully the court rules in favor of Epic, and this case is used as precedent to go against the game console monopolies next.
Also, for what it's worth, the "real" reason why game consoles aren't allowed to be jailbroken under DMCA rules (whereas phones, computers, and other devices are) is because, currently, most people only want to do it to commit piracy. Of course, that's because there are no other legitimate software vendors for that hardware. It's a chicken and egg problem.
At the end of the day, it's a company telling a consumer what they can or can't do with their own property. Sony saying you can't buy a game from anyone else is just anti-competitive BS. It isn't fair to consumers, and it isn't fair to developers.
Hopefully the court rules in favor of Epic, and this case is used as precedent to go against the game console monopolies next.
Also, for what it's worth, the "real" reason why game consoles aren't allowed to be jailbroken under DMCA rules (whereas phones, computers, and other devices are) is because, currently, most people only want to do it to commit piracy. Of course, that's because there are no other legitimate software vendors for that hardware. It's a chicken and egg problem.
General-purpose computing Is bigger than ever. Record PC and component sales and more open source software than ever.
It may be a matter of consumer perception. A game console is viewed as an appliance for playing games. A phone is a more personal device, and users expect to be able to run any app they want. Generally apps that most people are interested in running have no issue getting published on the App Store, so consumers don’t care about the technicalities of what Apple does and does not allow. This Epic case is a big deal because it is likely the first time many iPhone users are being faced with Apple preventing them from running software that they care about.
In practice, the difference is that consoles tend to be sold at loss, they wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the 30% cut. And in my experience, another big difference was that when I had consoles, I could easily borrow my friend's games, or buy cheaper games used. I don't know how it works with digital goods on modern consoles, but Steam actually has a feature to lend your library to a friend, so there's precedent.
If customers don't buy consoles unless sold at a loss, they value them less than making them costs. Which means they shouldn't be made.
You forget that there's a competitive market that affects the pricing of consoles. If a customer values a console for $1000 and therer are two consoles on the market that are almost identical, one costs $600, and the other one $900, the customer is still going to get the $600 one.
The cost is related to the value it brings, but it's also heavily affected by competition.
The cost is related to the value it brings, but it's also heavily affected by competition.
No, I didn't. I meant that if opening consoles means they stop existing because customers aren't willing to buy them at full price, that's actually a good thing.
The line is very blurry. The only major difference between a console and a smartphone is that a console is intended from the get go to be a gaming device, whereas a smartphone is more of a generic computing device, but even then it's hard to draw a meaningful argument on why one should be treated differently from the other.
Sure it is. A gaming console has a plethora of alternatives available to the consumer. PCs, other consoles, game streaming, mobile games and other entertainment options.
If you need a smartphone ( and that is everyone for all practical purposes) your only choice is iPhone or Android. There are no substitutes whatsoever and little evidence of the price competition that would show market forces. In the same vein, software developers have no choice if they want to develop for smartphones and it’s hard to think of a substitute.
If you need a smartphone ( and that is everyone for all practical purposes) your only choice is iPhone or Android. There are no substitutes whatsoever and little evidence of the price competition that would show market forces. In the same vein, software developers have no choice if they want to develop for smartphones and it’s hard to think of a substitute.
Perhaps something similar to the Xbox’s UWP mode might be nice. The owner can run their own computer program on it, but opts out of Xbox games and services.
> don't we allow this level of control with video game consoles?
The copyright industry allowed themselves this level of control via extensive government lobbying.
The copyright industry allowed themselves this level of control via extensive government lobbying.
There is none. Game consoles should also be forced open.
I message my boss on PS5 Slack and tell him I'm done for the day.
I then take my PS5 to the mall, because I carry it with me to do all of my financial transactions. Later, I log onto my PS5 bank account app to check my spending limits.
I check PS5 Yelp for a list of restaurants. I head out, but I'm careful to check my PS5 GPS to know where I'm headed. I fill up my car using PS5 pay, and as I leave get messages from potential romantic matches on PS5 Tinder.
Of course Sony gets a cut of every transaction and there are no other options than taking your PS5 with you everywhere.
Oh wait, there's Switch, Xbox, PC, Steam, Epic, GOG, ...? Lots of options for games. But what about email, finance, dating, and everything else I would do on my PS5? Gaming devices aren't general purpose computers and don't do general purpose business, communication, finance, etc.
Gaming is a toy and comparatively niche industry with lots of consumer choice. The iPhone is 50% of all commerce in all industries for all Americans.
Apple has locked down computing behind an iron curtain, and they're clawing away at more and more as the days go by. If the trend continues, every restaurant will be Apple (instead of Taco Bell), and you'll license your car and pay Apple by the mile. The signs you see out your window will have to pay Apple a licensing fee.
I then take my PS5 to the mall, because I carry it with me to do all of my financial transactions. Later, I log onto my PS5 bank account app to check my spending limits.
I check PS5 Yelp for a list of restaurants. I head out, but I'm careful to check my PS5 GPS to know where I'm headed. I fill up my car using PS5 pay, and as I leave get messages from potential romantic matches on PS5 Tinder.
Of course Sony gets a cut of every transaction and there are no other options than taking your PS5 with you everywhere.
Oh wait, there's Switch, Xbox, PC, Steam, Epic, GOG, ...? Lots of options for games. But what about email, finance, dating, and everything else I would do on my PS5? Gaming devices aren't general purpose computers and don't do general purpose business, communication, finance, etc.
Gaming is a toy and comparatively niche industry with lots of consumer choice. The iPhone is 50% of all commerce in all industries for all Americans.
Apple has locked down computing behind an iron curtain, and they're clawing away at more and more as the days go by. If the trend continues, every restaurant will be Apple (instead of Taco Bell), and you'll license your car and pay Apple by the mile. The signs you see out your window will have to pay Apple a licensing fee.
They would just stop making the phone.
> They would just stop making the phone.
Stop making their high margin hardware that integrates into paid Apple services? The same phone that works with other massively popular Apple hardware, such as Air Pods? Extremely doubtful.
Apple will not cut off their nose to spite their face.
Maybe you have less faith in Apple than I do. I believe they can succeed enormously without their monopoly. They make great products. Microsoft managed just fine (look at their market cap!)
edit: I'm confused. Are the downvotes from Apple fans that think the hardware sucks without the monopoly? And that Apple can't survive without it?
Stop making their high margin hardware that integrates into paid Apple services? The same phone that works with other massively popular Apple hardware, such as Air Pods? Extremely doubtful.
Apple will not cut off their nose to spite their face.
Maybe you have less faith in Apple than I do. I believe they can succeed enormously without their monopoly. They make great products. Microsoft managed just fine (look at their market cap!)
edit: I'm confused. Are the downvotes from Apple fans that think the hardware sucks without the monopoly? And that Apple can't survive without it?
HN is just a massive downvote crew nowadays without any arguments. Since the karma system does not penalize this behavior it is widespread.
Or they'll loudly whine and then follow their orders like Microsoft did back in the day.
Getting short-term compliance is the easy part. But the hard part is calculating how this changes the business incentives of a company and how they adapt to this compliance over time.
What orders did Microsoft follow in specific, what are you referring about? Let's see how this has actually impacted their business today.
What orders did Microsoft follow in specific, what are you referring about? Let's see how this has actually impacted their business today.
I think if Tim Cook announced he was stopping iPhone production, he would find himself unemployed by the end of the day.
Apple will stop making the iPhone?
That's crazy talk. It's literally their most successful product line ever.
That's crazy talk. It's literally their most successful product line ever.
It's clear the pricing is far above what a fair market competitive rate would be.
I would guess their margins on the app store are 90% or higher. If somebody has the number, please provide. But it's clear the fee is significantly above the investment required to keep it running.
Legal precedents regarding private spaces are going to have to change in a lot of ways over the coming decades, as we now live in a world where a single corporation can control major aspects around your entire life. I've been a strong free market proponent myself, but at a certain scale it becomes anti-competitive, which ultimately becomes anti-consumer.
This may not be the case that alters regulations, but I would be very surprised if we don't see big changes to regulate social media/big tech "private spaces".
I would guess their margins on the app store are 90% or higher. If somebody has the number, please provide. But it's clear the fee is significantly above the investment required to keep it running.
Legal precedents regarding private spaces are going to have to change in a lot of ways over the coming decades, as we now live in a world where a single corporation can control major aspects around your entire life. I've been a strong free market proponent myself, but at a certain scale it becomes anti-competitive, which ultimately becomes anti-consumer.
This may not be the case that alters regulations, but I would be very surprised if we don't see big changes to regulate social media/big tech "private spaces".
To me, the value Apple provides is a simple in-app flow to make a purchase. That's worth something. Getting kicked out of an app and having to type credit card info into a browser would suck.
But is it worth a 30% markup on each transaction? Well, disclose the fee to users, give them an alternative (shittier) option to pay, and find out.
I think an actual free market with forced transparency would settle on transaction fees an order of magnitude less (i.e. closer to 2% or 3%), similar to Visa and MasterCard.
But is it worth a 30% markup on each transaction? Well, disclose the fee to users, give them an alternative (shittier) option to pay, and find out.
I think an actual free market with forced transparency would settle on transaction fees an order of magnitude less (i.e. closer to 2% or 3%), similar to Visa and MasterCard.
On my computer, I can often click the “pay with Paypal” button and not need to type in anything. There should be an equivalent feature on iOS to redirect to another app to finish the transaction. After all, I already have an app for my bank and my credit card, why can’t I just pay with those?
Everything you buy has markup. Everything
Digital stores have settled on a 30% standard. Different industries have different standards.
It's notable that even on stores that don't charge 30%, like Epic Games Store, the price of the products offered are almost never at a lower price.
Digital stores have settled on a 30% standard. Different industries have different standards.
It's notable that even on stores that don't charge 30%, like Epic Games Store, the price of the products offered are almost never at a lower price.
I'm pretty sure you'd start screaming blood murder if your grocery store put a flat 30% markup on all items tomorrow.
That's exactly what they do. They buy products from suppliers and mark them up, sell the the products and take the margin.
Except the markup and margins are extremely low because the grocery business is competitive.
Unlike the app store space (within a given device)
Unlike the app store space (within a given device)
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/profit-margin-supermarket-22...
That is profit margins in a competitive market.
That is profit margins in a competitive market.
Sure, that's true. I have no problem with businesses making money.
But when a business can run an operation in a market with 90% (or whatever) profit margins, it's an indication that the market isn't open to competition. Which is exactly why anti-trust law exists.
Why? Because competitors will see how much money Apple is making and move in to capitalize. I don't think computing devices should become walled gardens where companies are free to gouge their customers.
Fees are most assuredly passed onto consumers. They cut into the providers bottom line. Providers must charge at least 30% markup just to break even when offering through the app store. This is simple math, and self evident.
The app store itself is not a particularly great piece of technology either... it's simply a monopoly on the iPhone user audience. Could the app store improve if it had healthy competition? e.g. better searchability/functionality?
Personally I'm amazed at how bad app discovery still is on both iOS and Android app stores.
But when a business can run an operation in a market with 90% (or whatever) profit margins, it's an indication that the market isn't open to competition. Which is exactly why anti-trust law exists.
Why? Because competitors will see how much money Apple is making and move in to capitalize. I don't think computing devices should become walled gardens where companies are free to gouge their customers.
Fees are most assuredly passed onto consumers. They cut into the providers bottom line. Providers must charge at least 30% markup just to break even when offering through the app store. This is simple math, and self evident.
The app store itself is not a particularly great piece of technology either... it's simply a monopoly on the iPhone user audience. Could the app store improve if it had healthy competition? e.g. better searchability/functionality?
Personally I'm amazed at how bad app discovery still is on both iOS and Android app stores.
> It's notable that even on stores that don't charge 30%, like Epic Games Store, the price of the products offered are almost never at a lower price.
So? That's because the price of the products in that industry isn't based on the costs. What does a digital copy of a game cost? Practically nothing!
People seem to be focusing too much on whether or not 30% is too high or unfair. I don't think that's important; Apple should be able to charge whatever the hell they want, but they should not be immune from the competitive forces that would normally keep those types of things in check in a free market.
You might argue that, because the lower fee won't reduce game prices, the players will see the same price and won't buy from another store instead of the app store (since they cost the same). So Apple wouldn't feel "competitive forces" either way.
However, the thing to keep in mind is that those customers aren't buying from Apple, they're buying from the developer. So developers will be incentivized to move customers to a more profitable store, and they have many ways to do that that benefit consumers. A discount is the most obvious, but even without that a developer could offer exclusive content, early access, a better shopping experience, community features, and pretty much anything that will *provide value to consumers* in exchange for switching stores.
Alternate app stores will increase game industry profits, create jobs, provide value to consumers, lead to innovation (the damn app store has been the same boring thing for decades; there's a lot of room to innovate). There are literally no downsides whatsoever, except that Apple shareholders and fanboys will be unhappy.
So? That's because the price of the products in that industry isn't based on the costs. What does a digital copy of a game cost? Practically nothing!
People seem to be focusing too much on whether or not 30% is too high or unfair. I don't think that's important; Apple should be able to charge whatever the hell they want, but they should not be immune from the competitive forces that would normally keep those types of things in check in a free market.
You might argue that, because the lower fee won't reduce game prices, the players will see the same price and won't buy from another store instead of the app store (since they cost the same). So Apple wouldn't feel "competitive forces" either way.
However, the thing to keep in mind is that those customers aren't buying from Apple, they're buying from the developer. So developers will be incentivized to move customers to a more profitable store, and they have many ways to do that that benefit consumers. A discount is the most obvious, but even without that a developer could offer exclusive content, early access, a better shopping experience, community features, and pretty much anything that will *provide value to consumers* in exchange for switching stores.
Alternate app stores will increase game industry profits, create jobs, provide value to consumers, lead to innovation (the damn app store has been the same boring thing for decades; there's a lot of room to innovate). There are literally no downsides whatsoever, except that Apple shareholders and fanboys will be unhappy.
Remember that when the iPhone was launched there was no app store. All you could do was 'install' a web app.
Now we have progressive web apps with full offline functionality, but installing them is a nightmare.
You have to dig through the share menu from Safari (tough luck if you use another browser) to install one, and Apple removes it after some time limit.
Maybe a half measure would be to make that process less restrictive and allow companies to directly distribute software to their users again...
Now we have progressive web apps with full offline functionality, but installing them is a nightmare.
You have to dig through the share menu from Safari (tough luck if you use another browser) to install one, and Apple removes it after some time limit.
Maybe a half measure would be to make that process less restrictive and allow companies to directly distribute software to their users again...
Push notifications also don't work with web apps. Totally hamstrung platform.
Isn’t that an os issue? Push notifications work on desktop websites…
It is absolutely an OS issue, but neither mobile OS has any incentive at all to do anything to make PWA's actually work.
In fact, they have every incentive to make sure they don't work. You can see this in their constant regressions in areas that only actually matter to PWA's.
I will say this: Google has been a lot more fair and open to PWA's and related tech (like WebRTC) than Apple. Apple absolutely hates the idea of any web app that might survive outside of the app store. In fact, for a very, very long time you couldn't even upload a photo on Craigslist with a standard HTML "Browse" button, because "IOS doesn't have a filesystem." It was a conscious decision to not allow the camera to be accessed except from within an IOS app.
In fact, they have every incentive to make sure they don't work. You can see this in their constant regressions in areas that only actually matter to PWA's.
I will say this: Google has been a lot more fair and open to PWA's and related tech (like WebRTC) than Apple. Apple absolutely hates the idea of any web app that might survive outside of the app store. In fact, for a very, very long time you couldn't even upload a photo on Craigslist with a standard HTML "Browse" button, because "IOS doesn't have a filesystem." It was a conscious decision to not allow the camera to be accessed except from within an IOS app.
I imagine that regardless what the ruling is that it will be appealed. I have however noticed that a lot of the comments I have seen about this case seem to be spreading FUD. After the news about what happened with net neutrality I wonder if many of the comments are a result of astroturfing to manipulate public opinion. When I keep seeing comments about how this would affect consoles which to me seems incredibly unlikely, as my understanding of antitrust is that it is usually about leveraging a position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another. It seems clear to me that consoles are focused on the digital entertainment market with a specialization in the gaming submarket. This is far different from the market that many of Apples devices like the iPhone are in; The iPhone competes in the mobile market, However as a platform it is not focused on any particular market, much like a windows PC it is general purpose. Because of this and the way the app store is setup, Apple gains an advantage in almost any market that can earn money through mobile apps and ecosystems. Further by restricting some APIs to their exclusive use they can Further give themselves an advantage like the recent case of tracking tags and tile only being to use features through apples app. This last example is something that Microsoft had to stop when they went through antitrust investigations. My own opinion is that what Apple and Google now do make what Microsoft was investegated for look like child's play. The idea that the app store faces competition from the play store is like saying your ISP faces competition because you can sell your house and move to get a different ISP. While the cost of switching is of course less the idea is the same the consumer must go spend a significant amount of money, face inconvenience, and use valuable time to see competition on a hidden cost.
I really hope Epic will release a gaming phone. It appears they have enough cash, enough clever people, and a good connection to Chinese manufacturers through their partners.
If they make it Android-based but Open Source, similar to how the Unreal Engine contains proprietary components while remaining easy to customize, that could be quite the popular move for grabbing market share from Apple and Google.
I, at least, am unhappy with Apple's greedy behavior and also unhappy with Google's Data Kranken tendencies. So there's at least a niche market opening for a 3rd OS. And I'm not holding my breath for Linux. Instead, I think it'll be something like Lineage OS and its privacy protections but more professionally managed.
If they make it Android-based but Open Source, similar to how the Unreal Engine contains proprietary components while remaining easy to customize, that could be quite the popular move for grabbing market share from Apple and Google.
I, at least, am unhappy with Apple's greedy behavior and also unhappy with Google's Data Kranken tendencies. So there's at least a niche market opening for a 3rd OS. And I'm not holding my breath for Linux. Instead, I think it'll be something like Lineage OS and its privacy protections but more professionally managed.
Hmm, sounds like Amazon's ecosystem, which has hardly been a competitive success.
We don't need more vertical silos, we need a horizontal playing field.
We don't need more vertical silos, we need a horizontal playing field.
It's not a problem they're trying to solve. You can't just tell people "go buy a less restrictive phone". You want to make your app available for whatever hardware they already have. You want to provide your app, your users want to install your app on their phones that are capable of running it, but Apple forcibly inserts itself between you two, wants a say and acts as if you two couldn't have found each other without its "help".
Like a PSP that makes calls, texts and surfs the web? With HDMI out (2x?) it could be a console in your pocket. Bluetooth controllers? Now I want this. Epic are you listening!?
Relevant: https://imgix.gizmodo.com.au/content/uploads/sites/2/2020/09...
Too bad Sony's executives are spineless and out of touch.
Too bad Sony's executives are spineless and out of touch.
A gaming phone doesn't really solve any of the issues at stake in this case, though. And if they want to reach people who want handhelds, they can just encourage them to buy a Switch and play Fortnite there. It would certainly be something they could do, but I think their mixed success with the Epic Games Store so far indicates that their huge cash reserves and technical expertise aren't sufficient to just nail any big challenge they take on.
[deleted]
Tim is on record as not being a fan of Linux, so I doubt it.
Agreed, it would definitely drive engagement to the Epic Games store.
They could even give it a name that symbolizes that, perhaps something like: N-Gage
They could even give it a name that symbolizes that, perhaps something like: N-Gage
It might be too outside Epic's wheelhouse. How about a Tesla phone?
That will solve none of the problems that they are suing Apple for.
> I really hope Epic will release a gaming phone.
Maybe think through what you're proposing. Do you believe most of Epic's customers will buy two phones, charge two phones and carry two phones just so they can play their games, while also having access to first-class OS services like Google and Apple offer?
No.
Maybe think through what you're proposing. Do you believe most of Epic's customers will buy two phones, charge two phones and carry two phones just so they can play their games, while also having access to first-class OS services like Google and Apple offer?
No.
All the services that I rely upon on my Android phone are free 3rd party apps. Firefox, Banking, Authentication, Calendar
So if the "Epic Phone" had the ability to install and run APKs, that'd be good enough.
So if the "Epic Phone" had the ability to install and run APKs, that'd be good enough.
Those APKs will only work on devices with licensed Google Play services. And that platform changes so rapidly that it's effectively impossible for a competitor to build compatible APIs without infringing on Google's IP.
I have an android phone without google play enabled or installed. Not even a replacement framework such as MicroG or whatever. Works fine. Check how f-doid apps are running, or what it requires. No google license, api, nothing.
[deleted]
Many people recycle phones every couple of years. If the phone functions as a typical smartphone with a gaming bent, it could replace traditional smartphones for folks who want to game. Gamers also carry secondary hand-held devices (like the Nintendo Switch) for dedicated gameplay.
Do you realize how many failed devices fit that category. Those who don't know their history...
I only said it could work, not that it will. I am aware of the many failures in this category. I also wanted to point out that the original premise (nobody would buy an Epic phone because it must be their second phone) is flawed. Not only could it replace their primary phone, but gamers do indeed buy, charge, and carry secondary hand-held devices if the device suits their needs.
"Gamers" represent a tiny percent of the game-playing public. If Epic needs to rely on "gamers" they'd go bankrupt.
Also I like how all of those theories just sit in vacuum, as if we're not going through a major economic contraction due to a two year global pandemic, but sure, everyone has the money to get themselves a second phone, because they decided not to eat anymore.
Also I like how all of those theories just sit in vacuum, as if we're not going through a major economic contraction due to a two year global pandemic, but sure, everyone has the money to get themselves a second phone, because they decided not to eat anymore.
I’ve watched these big tech cases wind their way through the courts since US v Microsoft. I’ve learned, if there is a lot of money at stake, individual judges and decisions matter little because it will get dragged out for years. These big companies even have workarounds to the negative consequences of final decisions.
I believe this is the most important line here:
"The judge also hammered Cook over the App Store commission reduction last year, as part of its new small business program, saying it "seemed to be a result of the pressure that you're feeling from investigations, from lawsuits, not competition"
"The judge also hammered Cook over the App Store commission reduction last year, as part of its new small business program, saying it "seemed to be a result of the pressure that you're feeling from investigations, from lawsuits, not competition"
Apple could sell Bootloader unlocked iPhones and iPads at a higher premium and then tell Epic there’s your freedom. There’s literally no need to interface with iOS other than Epic wanting to tap into the iOS userbase and platform and to not pay for it.
I would pay the premium but I don't know how that would alleviate the anti-trust issues. Epic would just argue that is essentially a tax on users who want to use their app store.
Why is that a tax? How would a bootlocked iPhone not be Apple giving you a discount on their product if you buy into their ecosystems?
I'm seeing two opposing and yet identical arguments showing themselves around this topic repeatedly:
> If you don't like Apple's walled garden, then don't use an Apple product.
> If you don't like the Epic app store, then don't use the Epic app store.
I don't have a solution here (though i know which side i fall on), but it's worth noting that neither of these seem to useful arguments to base anything on. The judge here seems to be aiming for an argument based on Apple not having any real competition they need to respond to, which is probably more fruitful.
> If you don't like Apple's walled garden, then don't use an Apple product.
> If you don't like the Epic app store, then don't use the Epic app store.
I don't have a solution here (though i know which side i fall on), but it's worth noting that neither of these seem to useful arguments to base anything on. The judge here seems to be aiming for an argument based on Apple not having any real competition they need to respond to, which is probably more fruitful.
"We have 150,000 APIs to create and maintain"
Really? API calls maybe, and a lot of them are barely documented in my experience.
Really? API calls maybe, and a lot of them are barely documented in my experience.
This dicussion is missing the main advantage of an app store in iOS vs customer platform locking
If you buy an app on iOS in a store present in both platform you can just switch OS with all your app.
If you buy an app on iOS in a store present in both platform you can just switch OS with all your app.
I was not expecting that "gaming industry subsidizing other industries" argument. Are there any legal precedents around this idea?
[deleted]
"What is the problem with allowing users to have choice, especially in a gaming context, to find a cheaper option for content?"
What's the point in this question?
The answer is clear: that any company wants to limit choice to the extent it helps their business.
Shouldn't the judge be more concerned about the specific nature of the legality of it all?
What's the point in this question?
The answer is clear: that any company wants to limit choice to the extent it helps their business.
Shouldn't the judge be more concerned about the specific nature of the legality of it all?
What Ive noticed about this trial is that the judge has a lot to say. Is this normal? Reading this article it sounded like she doing Epics lawyers job for them. I get that this is a sort of David(Epic) vs Goliath(Apple) and the article may be editorializing, but why is the judge asking so many questions?
> gaming, and in particular in-app purchases for mobile games on the iPhone, generate the majority of the App Store's revenue
Precisely. Based on revenue, the iPhone is primarily a handheld gaming device, and Apple strictly controls the platform – much as Nintendo does with the Switch. Arguments for Apple opening up the iOS app store apply equally to the eShop.
Tim should note (and probably has noted) that Apple exerts strict control over its iOS platform so that 1) it can make more money 2) it can provide what it considers a better user experience - including better security, privacy, and battery life, and 3) it can have a lower iPhone support burden at genius bars.
Another thing that Judge Rogers (and indeed Tim Cook) should note is that games are "sold" as "free to play with IAP" to make the game "free" to download and play (at least until you hit the first paywall.) Moreover (to make more money and drive users toward IAP) Apple does not offer timed trials of paid games and therefore free trials must use IAP. Users and developers would probably benefit from timed trials of paid games.
Lastly, Judge Rogers should note (and Apple and Epic should admit) that much of mobile gaming operates on a "whale" model where certain high-spending players (including those who are susceptible to slot-machine like monetization schemes) are exploited in order to subsidize non-paying players. This approach has of course been used by Epic with great success in games like Fortnite and Rocket League.
Precisely. Based on revenue, the iPhone is primarily a handheld gaming device, and Apple strictly controls the platform – much as Nintendo does with the Switch. Arguments for Apple opening up the iOS app store apply equally to the eShop.
Tim should note (and probably has noted) that Apple exerts strict control over its iOS platform so that 1) it can make more money 2) it can provide what it considers a better user experience - including better security, privacy, and battery life, and 3) it can have a lower iPhone support burden at genius bars.
Another thing that Judge Rogers (and indeed Tim Cook) should note is that games are "sold" as "free to play with IAP" to make the game "free" to download and play (at least until you hit the first paywall.) Moreover (to make more money and drive users toward IAP) Apple does not offer timed trials of paid games and therefore free trials must use IAP. Users and developers would probably benefit from timed trials of paid games.
Lastly, Judge Rogers should note (and Apple and Epic should admit) that much of mobile gaming operates on a "whale" model where certain high-spending players (including those who are susceptible to slot-machine like monetization schemes) are exploited in order to subsidize non-paying players. This approach has of course been used by Epic with great success in games like Fortnite and Rocket League.
>"It's also quite lucrative."
Is 30% the most lucrative way? Putting ads and tracking would be the most lucrative way!
Is 30% the most lucrative way? Putting ads and tracking would be the most lucrative way!
In other news, it seems like protocol simply shows nothing if I have ghostery turned on.
Why is a judge asking a witness questions? Isn't that normally either the prosecutor or defense counsels' job?
The Federal Rules of Evidence permit a judge to question witnesses in addition to the parties. See Rule 614 linked below. And I think you mean plaintiff. A prosecutor generally refers to a lawyer representing the government in a criminal prosecution. This case is dispute between private parties.
https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-vi/rule-614/
[deleted]
Anywhere I can watch a VOD of it?
Then the customers that trust apple to protect them will just stay with the app store.
The customers that try the alternate ways may find problems, but they will also find enormous positive changes in their ability to do new things on their phone.
Personally, I would like the ability to see what apps - including apple apps - are doing, and firewall my phone.