Apple, Epic, and the App Store(stratechery.com)
stratechery.com
Apple, Epic, and the App Store
https://stratechery.com/2020/apple-epic-and-the-app-store/
773 comments
Following your logic, Fortnite's add-ons should clearly be free since the cost to make and sell them is minuscule in comparison to 400M Epic made in April alone [0].
[0] https://venturebeat.com/2020/06/15/epic-games-shareholders-s...
[0] https://venturebeat.com/2020/06/15/epic-games-shareholders-s...
You may not know how to follow logic.
No one is saying that Epic are doing bad things in order to maintain their monopoly position.
Epic doesn't have a monopoly on any market.
People ARE saying that Apple are doing bad things to maintain their monopoly position, and others are justifying that by saying that "running a business is expensive" as if that justifies a monopoly or monopolistic actions.
No one is saying that Epic are doing bad things in order to maintain their monopoly position.
Epic doesn't have a monopoly on any market.
People ARE saying that Apple are doing bad things to maintain their monopoly position, and others are justifying that by saying that "running a business is expensive" as if that justifies a monopoly or monopolistic actions.
> Epic doesn't have a monopoly on any market.
Epic has a monopoly on selling items inside Fortnite.
The problem is that as soon as you allow narrowing your definition of words to whatever supports your argument, then they become meaningless.
Epic has a monopoly on selling items inside Fortnite.
The problem is that as soon as you allow narrowing your definition of words to whatever supports your argument, then they become meaningless.
> Epic has a monopoly on selling items inside Fortnite.
3rd party artists can't create anything that can be used inside Fortnite, neither inside the v-bucks store nor outside of it. There's no 3rd party "market" at all.
Apple has a market where third parties can market their apps. Apple requires a cut of all purchases made through that store, which alone is not monopolistic. Apple also requires that you sell your iOS app and any iOS in-app purchases only in their marketplace. That's the monopolistic part.
No one can create 3rd party items for Fortnite at all, so there is no monopoly on where 3rd party items for Fortnite are sold.
It's not even illegal to have a monopoly; it's illegal to use your monopoly powers to keep other parties from competing, and that's exactly what Apple has done.
3rd party artists can't create anything that can be used inside Fortnite, neither inside the v-bucks store nor outside of it. There's no 3rd party "market" at all.
Apple has a market where third parties can market their apps. Apple requires a cut of all purchases made through that store, which alone is not monopolistic. Apple also requires that you sell your iOS app and any iOS in-app purchases only in their marketplace. That's the monopolistic part.
No one can create 3rd party items for Fortnite at all, so there is no monopoly on where 3rd party items for Fortnite are sold.
It's not even illegal to have a monopoly; it's illegal to use your monopoly powers to keep other parties from competing, and that's exactly what Apple has done.
Xbox has a monpoly on their game store. Sony has a monpoloy on their game store.
Come on - is this argument going to be used for all these too? Walmart has a monopoly on what sells in Walmart.
Come on - is this argument going to be used for all these too? Walmart has a monopoly on what sells in Walmart.
Once you decide to shop at wall-mart you can easily switch to other markets or buy items from other stores. not comparable at all.
If there were basically only Wall-Mart and Target to buy stuff from, and you had to commit to one for 2-5 years every time, you bet they should be under heavy scrutiny.
Sony and Microsoft are a better comparison, but different because 1) their consoles are huge loss leaders, phones are not and 2) they are way less essential and used by an order of magnitude less people than phones.
If there were basically only Wall-Mart and Target to buy stuff from, and you had to commit to one for 2-5 years every time, you bet they should be under heavy scrutiny.
Sony and Microsoft are a better comparison, but different because 1) their consoles are huge loss leaders, phones are not and 2) they are way less essential and used by an order of magnitude less people than phones.
But the irony is that loss leaders are a sign of market abuse / market power. That's the normal anti-trust claim - predatory pricing. If anything, Apple is charging a premium price for their experience.
Apple has become essential and trusted in part perhaps because it has exercised near iron control over almost all aspects of their platform.
Apple has become essential and trusted in part perhaps because it has exercised near iron control over almost all aspects of their platform.
Unironically there should be alternatives for those platforms, and the Switch
I'd include walmart too if walmart is the only store I'm ever allowed to shop at.
Apple doesn’t force you to own an iPhone.
In a world where walmart is the only store & it bans all other retail stores from existing, Walmart will become monopoly.
This is false equivalence
This is false equivalence
What do you call the Play Store? What do you call Android? Talk about false equivalence, you’ve just demonstrated that.
The Play Store has very little for tablets. The Android tablet market is effectively dead.
1.I have installed LineageOS which has 0 apps from Gogle
2. I have installed android apps from F_-droid/Samsung app store or even Vivo app store
3. I have directly installed apks which didn't appear on play store directly from the internet
Where is my false equivalence? Pray tell me?
Google makes it impossible for apps to run without play store but I've used 0 google apps on android for 1yr and lived easily with 0 issues
Remove apple's app store, I dare you and then tell me you can live for one year.
Apple has monopoly on app store.
Walmart can't be compared.
Google has technically enforced monopoly and which I oppose. I never said google play store isn't a monopoly.
Are you sure you know what false equivalence means?
2. I have installed android apps from F_-droid/Samsung app store or even Vivo app store
3. I have directly installed apks which didn't appear on play store directly from the internet
Where is my false equivalence? Pray tell me?
Google makes it impossible for apps to run without play store but I've used 0 google apps on android for 1yr and lived easily with 0 issues
Remove apple's app store, I dare you and then tell me you can live for one year.
Apple has monopoly on app store.
Walmart can't be compared.
Google has technically enforced monopoly and which I oppose. I never said google play store isn't a monopoly.
Are you sure you know what false equivalence means?
Depends on what you define as their game store. I can purchase a game that is playable on the xbox from anywhere that sells a copy. One of these places is the digital store that comes with the xbox. But I can also go to cd-keys, or amazon and buy a copy there that will still work on an xbox.
Wait, what? It doesn't matter where you buy an XBox game, Microsoft is getting their cut as platform holder no matter if digital or retail.
That's a licensing fee and separate to the discussion about market control. As it stands (although this is starting to change) a developer can sell the game through a variety of different avenues (online, brick and mortar, the xbox store), these avenues may have different prices associated and drive where the consumer makes their purchase.
That is the relevant comparison here, if Epic want to provide Fortnite on iOS they HAVE to use the app store and associated requirements. If they want to provide it on XBox, they pay a licensing cost for the proprietary tech they leverage from Microsoft. But they can choose to sell the game on Amazon if they want.
That is the relevant comparison here, if Epic want to provide Fortnite on iOS they HAVE to use the app store and associated requirements. If they want to provide it on XBox, they pay a licensing cost for the proprietary tech they leverage from Microsoft. But they can choose to sell the game on Amazon if they want.
Even if they sell the game on Amazon, they still pay Microsoft a royalty for each game sold. Whether you want to call it a "licensing fee" or a "Microsoft tax" seems like a matter of semantics. Also keep in mind that their publisher agreement with Microsoft gives Microsoft approval rights over the game itself, marketing materials, and even packaging. And if they sell virtual goods in the Xbox version of the game they have to go through the Xbox store and pay Microsoft 30% of that.
The amount of control console manufacturers exert over the games allowed on their platform is not dissimilar to the Apple and its App Store.
The amount of control console manufacturers exert over the games allowed on their platform is not dissimilar to the Apple and its App Store.
For now.
Look at the PS5: the ability to put a disk in is a legacy that's clearly going away by Sony making it an option you'll have to pay extra for. The entry level model is digital only, for better or worse.
Look at the PS5: the ability to put a disk in is a legacy that's clearly going away by Sony making it an option you'll have to pay extra for. The entry level model is digital only, for better or worse.
That's definitely true, and as they move away from physical media more scrutiny of what they are doing is required. But as it stands this isn't yet an issue for game consoles
I don't think you realize the permissions game makers need to even sell a CD that works on xbox. If that CD is not signed off on by microsoft - total control -> it's not going to work in your console - period. And the irony - EVEN IF microsoft does not market / distribute or accept payment for the game (Apple does all of this) I can guarantee you Microsoft (and sony) get a cut.
AFAIK, you can install 3rd party apps to Xbox without paying MS. If that is not true, it should be fixed.
There is still a retail market on consoles. So not entirely monopolistic. Also iirc you can use your own payment method on those consoles.
[deleted]
You can also buy vbucks outside of the App Store and use them on your iOS devices. I’m not sure what’s the distinction here.
Ah, but that's outside of Fortnite. Inside Fortnite they have a monopoly on selling items, right?
The core point your parent was trying to make is that Fortnite is not an open market. No one but Epic provides goods to the Epic store. Apple allowing third party developers is the distinction being made.
Which would be irrelevant since the original comment was that Epic had no monopoly on any market, and didn't specify the terms and conditions for a market to fit the argument.
Yes, thank you.
Apple's platforms aren't an open market either. They allow third party developers to develop for their platforms, subject to you agreeing to their terms.
Agreeing to a TOS is a standard for open markets. Splitting hairs over a TOS existing is ignoring the fact that Epic doesn't allow third parties to sell in their market (with or without a TOS).
When you accept Apple's developer agreement, you're agreeing to a contract. It absolutely isn't an "open market" for any definition of what that means. Apple has exclusive control of their IP and they are offering a way for you to license it on their terms.
Regardless of what term you use it's a fact of reality that right now no one else but Epic can put content on the Epic Store which is not true of Apple and the App Store.
So, let's say hypothetically Epic allowed the sale of third-party skins in Fortnite. Would a skinmaker would be entitled to demand the following concessions?
1. The ability to install skins outside of the V-bucks store.
2. The ability to pay for Fortnite skins using payment methods other than V-bucks.
Alternatively, should Epic not be permitted to impose the following restrictions in their Fortnite store?
1. Skins must be approved by Epic before they can be sold. No x-rated skins, etc.
2. Epic will take a 30% cut of each skin sold.
What if I'm a skinmaker that wants to compete with Epic because I think I can provide higher quality Fortnite skins than they have made. Should I be able to demand to participate in the "Fortnite skin" market which is currently 100% controlled by Epic?
1. The ability to install skins outside of the V-bucks store.
2. The ability to pay for Fortnite skins using payment methods other than V-bucks.
Alternatively, should Epic not be permitted to impose the following restrictions in their Fortnite store?
1. Skins must be approved by Epic before they can be sold. No x-rated skins, etc.
2. Epic will take a 30% cut of each skin sold.
What if I'm a skinmaker that wants to compete with Epic because I think I can provide higher quality Fortnite skins than they have made. Should I be able to demand to participate in the "Fortnite skin" market which is currently 100% controlled by Epic?
I think it's a very American perspective to see this as black or white. You should be able to tell something is wrong by looking at what Apple is doing. Looking at how Fortnite operates does not give me the same feeling. Obviously Fortnite as a platform is not the same as iOS as a platform, and holding monopoly positions for each yield completely different outcomes. They are not equivalent.
Regulation is a blunt tool - it not enough to just feel they are not equivalent. Any law that may apply to Apple will apply to everyone else as well. The American perspective is that the government should not pick and choose winners
Not all monopolies are created equally. Some have greater cost to society. For example, Qualcomm has an essential patent which grants them a monopoly over certain communications technologies but it has been mitigated by requiring them to license it in a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) way.
A monopoly by Standard Oil was pervasive in all of daily living because by the early twentieth century, they had control of more than 90% of the country's petroleum fuel production and logistics which they abused to keep any competition from ever gaining a foothold. By 1911, they were dissolved by the Supreme Court as per Sherman Antitrust Act.
VBucks and Fortnite are not pervasive in all of daily living, it is a tiny market and the monopoly is one which can easily be managed by society without breaking up the company.
A monopoly by Standard Oil was pervasive in all of daily living because by the early twentieth century, they had control of more than 90% of the country's petroleum fuel production and logistics which they abused to keep any competition from ever gaining a foothold. By 1911, they were dissolved by the Supreme Court as per Sherman Antitrust Act.
VBucks and Fortnite are not pervasive in all of daily living, it is a tiny market and the monopoly is one which can easily be managed by society without breaking up the company.
> it has been mitigated by requiring them to license it in a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) way.
Writing it in passive voice makes it look like there is some governmental force at play that made them license on FRAND terms. They voluntarily agreed to that in negotiations with a standards body/industry consortium which otherwise would not have agreed to utilize their technology in a communication standard. The trade-off is they benefit automatically by getting distribution and licensing the technology to a lot of people that need to implement that standard.
Writing it in passive voice makes it look like there is some governmental force at play that made them license on FRAND terms. They voluntarily agreed to that in negotiations with a standards body/industry consortium which otherwise would not have agreed to utilize their technology in a communication standard. The trade-off is they benefit automatically by getting distribution and licensing the technology to a lot of people that need to implement that standard.
> A monopoly by Standard Oil was pervasive in all of daily living because by the early twentieth century, they had control of more than 90% of the country's petroleum fuel production and logistics which they abused to keep any competition from ever gaining a foothold.
The key point here is that 90% market share constituted monopoly power, whereas Apple's 46% share of the smartphone market likely does not.
The key point here is that 90% market share constituted monopoly power, whereas Apple's 46% share of the smartphone market likely does not.
Apple and Google have some >90% and are colluding to keep their cash cows fat. Antitrust needs no monopoly to enforce.
> Antitrust needs no monopoly to enforce.
I'm not sure why you think this? Sure, certain Sherman Act violations (e.g. price fixing) do not require monopoly power to be considered illegal, but the specific claims in Epic's lawsuit (unlawful monopoly maintenance) definitely require proof of monopoly power.
I'm not sure why you think this? Sure, certain Sherman Act violations (e.g. price fixing) do not require monopoly power to be considered illegal, but the specific claims in Epic's lawsuit (unlawful monopoly maintenance) definitely require proof of monopoly power.
“Conspiracy in restraint of trade” would fit perfectly what Apple/Google are doing.
The average American spends some what, 4-5 hours a day on their phone? Is there any even remotely comparable precedent for a company to control all trade through everything? The best I can think of is cable, imagine if there were only two cable companies and they not only had unilateral ability to control which channels appear, but also charged 30% to every channels profit.
Further, how many different commercial activities do people do every single day on their devices? This is a far, far bigger thing than any platform before it. And it’s dominated by only two companies with a history of collusion. These platforms are nothing at all like “a market” and trying to argue from narrow historical frames is poor form.
They are far bigger things. It’s more akin to a world, people use them for literally every part of their lives. I don’t think narrow precedent should ever rule our thinking and especially when it’s clear there is no historical precedent here. We need to be “courageous” enough to use moral and logical thinking and not legalistic weaseling, we need to legislate them as new types of markets far bigger and more important to every persons life than any that’s ever existed.
The average American spends some what, 4-5 hours a day on their phone? Is there any even remotely comparable precedent for a company to control all trade through everything? The best I can think of is cable, imagine if there were only two cable companies and they not only had unilateral ability to control which channels appear, but also charged 30% to every channels profit.
Further, how many different commercial activities do people do every single day on their devices? This is a far, far bigger thing than any platform before it. And it’s dominated by only two companies with a history of collusion. These platforms are nothing at all like “a market” and trying to argue from narrow historical frames is poor form.
They are far bigger things. It’s more akin to a world, people use them for literally every part of their lives. I don’t think narrow precedent should ever rule our thinking and especially when it’s clear there is no historical precedent here. We need to be “courageous” enough to use moral and logical thinking and not legalistic weaseling, we need to legislate them as new types of markets far bigger and more important to every persons life than any that’s ever existed.
> “Conspiracy in restraint of trade” would fit perfectly what Apple/Google are doing.
Proving a conspiracy claim requires two parties to knowingly participate in the conspiracy. While you may believe Apple and Google are conspiring together there is a reason Epic's lawsuit does not make any conspiracy claims - their lawyers know they'd never be able to win such a claim.
At any rate that is irrelevant to my point: Epic made several claims in their lawsuit that will require proof of monopoly power.
Proving a conspiracy claim requires two parties to knowingly participate in the conspiracy. While you may believe Apple and Google are conspiring together there is a reason Epic's lawsuit does not make any conspiracy claims - their lawyers know they'd never be able to win such a claim.
At any rate that is irrelevant to my point: Epic made several claims in their lawsuit that will require proof of monopoly power.
How are they colluding? Both google and apple seem to be trying to commoditize each other's (very different) cash cows and both are mostly failing at that. At least, google is failing miserably to make a dent in smartphone hardware, apple seems to struggle with software services, but maybe not as badly as google is at hardware.
Apple avoids search and ads. Google avoids high end anything (except phones perhaps, but they will never take Apple’s share there anyway).
Apple has a 100% monopoly on the market for iOS app distribution, which can be argued is bad for the customer because the 30% revenue share they take is inflating app prices.
People keep saying this but in an antitrust case you cannot simply declare the narrowest market that fits your argument and expect the court to accept it. The court will examine the market reality and examine how consumers actually behave to determine what the actual relevant market is, and it's unlikely that a court would find "iOS app distribution" to be a separate and relevant market for antitrust purposes. I've explained why in detail elsewhere [1], but in short, the US legal system generally does not consider an aftermarket consisting of a single brand's product to be a relevant product market unless specific rules are met:
> Because it would be inappropriate to punish a firm for its natural monopoly in its own products, courts embraced a sweeping prohibition against analyzing alleged anticompetitive activity by focusing on single-brand relevant markets: "[A]bsent exceptional market conditions, one brand in a market of competing brands cannot constitute a relevant product market." [2]
For a much more thorough explanation see my linked comment below.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24193731
[2] https://casetext.com/case/metzler-v-bear-automotive-service-...
> Because it would be inappropriate to punish a firm for its natural monopoly in its own products, courts embraced a sweeping prohibition against analyzing alleged anticompetitive activity by focusing on single-brand relevant markets: "[A]bsent exceptional market conditions, one brand in a market of competing brands cannot constitute a relevant product market." [2]
For a much more thorough explanation see my linked comment below.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24193731
[2] https://casetext.com/case/metzler-v-bear-automotive-service-...
Not being a pure monopoly doesn't prove that Apple doesn't have market power. Moreover I don't think people are saying that Apple has a monopoly of smartphones.
The argument is that Apple is using their market power to set prices that seems well above the marginal cost. And they also have created policies that prevent competition in their store. Imagine Windows not allowing any apps unless they give them a 30% cut.
The argument is that Apple is using their market power to set prices that seems well above the marginal cost. And they also have created policies that prevent competition in their store. Imagine Windows not allowing any apps unless they give them a 30% cut.
> 1. The ability to install skins outside of the V-bucks store.
Isn’t this like allowing mods, custom maps etc? So CounterStrike, DoTA, etc shouldn’t exist?
Honestly I started off on the fence but now I’m 100% against Apple here, and I’m an iOS dev. This is kinda crazy.
Isn’t this like allowing mods, custom maps etc? So CounterStrike, DoTA, etc shouldn’t exist?
Honestly I started off on the fence but now I’m 100% against Apple here, and I’m an iOS dev. This is kinda crazy.
Isn't Fortnite a free online game? How is that comparable to a general-purpose computer that the consumer bought and owns?
If skins are what I imagine they are, Epic needs oversight over which ones players are allowed to use because they affect the experience of other players. And Epic provides Fortnite gratis specifically so that they can sell premium features like skins, so it seems completely reasonable that they would take a large cut out of third-party sales of those features.
To be analagous to IOS devices, Fortnite would have to be a single-player game that players bought a copy of. In that case, I think people would be right to be upset if Epic prevented them from getting skins through some other channel.
If skins are what I imagine they are, Epic needs oversight over which ones players are allowed to use because they affect the experience of other players. And Epic provides Fortnite gratis specifically so that they can sell premium features like skins, so it seems completely reasonable that they would take a large cut out of third-party sales of those features.
To be analagous to IOS devices, Fortnite would have to be a single-player game that players bought a copy of. In that case, I think people would be right to be upset if Epic prevented them from getting skins through some other channel.
XCode, the iOS software libraries and tools are all Apple products and are used to develop software for iOS. By requiring that Apple allow developers to distribute software outside the App Store with no revenue for Apple, you are requiring Apple to give away their products for free. On what basis do you or anyone else have that right?
Apple has a monopoly on how those products are sold and licensed because they are Apple products, in exactly the same way that Fortnite and it's marketplace are Epic products. There's no requirement for Epic to open that up, and if they do it will be on their terms. Their house, their rules.
Apple has a monopoly on how those products are sold and licensed because they are Apple products, in exactly the same way that Fortnite and it's marketplace are Epic products. There's no requirement for Epic to open that up, and if they do it will be on their terms. Their house, their rules.
How would you feel if your ISPs started wanting a cut of all money you made via the internet?
After all, it's their house so their rules...
Apple have carved out a significant market share of mobile users. They've locked down the OS so you can't install your own apps on it and they've crippled the browser so you can't build nice web apps. For businesses like Netflix, Spotify and Epic who's userbases arguably transcend the App Store, why should they pay the Apple Tax?
Apple doesn't "own" these users. But if you want to extend your services to them you have to pony up.
After all, it's their house so their rules...
Apple have carved out a significant market share of mobile users. They've locked down the OS so you can't install your own apps on it and they've crippled the browser so you can't build nice web apps. For businesses like Netflix, Spotify and Epic who's userbases arguably transcend the App Store, why should they pay the Apple Tax?
Apple doesn't "own" these users. But if you want to extend your services to them you have to pony up.
I don't expect to use my ISP's infrastructure for free. However most of that infrastructure was built using tax payer's money, on tax payer's land with special privileges granted by the government, and special tax incentives for improvements. In return we, the people, demand certain concessions and rules to compensate us. I'm actually in the UK, but the situation on this here and in the US are different in many details but in broad strokes are equivalent.
The iOS operating system, developer tools, platform libraries and the App Store and distribution system are all Apple products built by them on their own dime and at their own commercial risk. On what basis do you get to dictate to them what features they must or must not develop, what services they must be coerced to provide and what contractual relationships they are required to enter into? There's just no basis for that.
The iOS operating system, developer tools, platform libraries and the App Store and distribution system are all Apple products built by them on their own dime and at their own commercial risk. On what basis do you get to dictate to them what features they must or must not develop, what services they must be coerced to provide and what contractual relationships they are required to enter into? There's just no basis for that.
Fair enough but Apple and Google have essentially built out the entire mobile digital ecosystem. While I can empathise with the mindset that they should reap the benefits of investing and nurturing the platforms, they are also for all intents and purposes a duopoly so I am in favour of that control being wrested back into the hands of consumers and the relationship being renegotiated - the distribution platform of mobile software feels more like a public good than a private ecosystem given the way we depend on it
Maybe we just tell apple they can do what they want as long as their devices don't connect to the public cellular networks.
Ive explained why Apple's system is their product and therefore their property, and Ive explained why ISPs are a different case. I'm not seeing any attempt at all to seriously, coherently provide a credible counter argument that makes any actual sense.
Radio stations used to sell cheep AM radios that were only tuned to their station and the government outlawed them.
It would be amusing if the outcome of this is that Epic has to allow outside sources of content in their games instead of having it in a vBuck walled garden. I'm sure many developers would be happy get a part of a billion dollar a year market without paying Epic a cut. Imagine the irony of everyone running around Fortnite in Apple store branded loot.
Players don't pay $500 just to play fortnite.
Epic is not putting up some legal crusade for the “little guy” competitors. Epic is putting up a fight for Epic.
It all comes down to money.
If Epic was running their own platform, and 3rd parties didn’t want to abide by their rules, then Epic would give those 3rd parties the finger and tell them to F-off the same as Apple.
Each is trying to grab as much profit as they can while running into the issue of other hands grabbing from the same basket.
The classic case of one’s greed versus another’s desire to be greedy.
It all comes down to money.
If Epic was running their own platform, and 3rd parties didn’t want to abide by their rules, then Epic would give those 3rd parties the finger and tell them to F-off the same as Apple.
Each is trying to grab as much profit as they can while running into the issue of other hands grabbing from the same basket.
The classic case of one’s greed versus another’s desire to be greedy.
They do run their own platform, the Epic Games Store, which is PC only but trying to compete with steam. Want to know how much cut they take in the Epic Games Store? For things worth £50+ rather than £0.99 in-app purchases?
It's 12%. They also allow selling games made with their competitor technologies (e.g. Unity), and the cut is still the same.
It's 12%. They also allow selling games made with their competitor technologies (e.g. Unity), and the cut is still the same.
> If Epic was running their own platform, and 3rd parties didn’t want to abide by their rules, then Epic would give those 3rd parties the finger and tell them to F-off the same as Apple.
What exactly is your point here? If <entity> was in Apple's position, they would protect their interests exactly as Apple is. Thats why we need to regulate companies who are in Apple's position! The fact that its greed vs. greed is immaterial.
What exactly is your point here? If <entity> was in Apple's position, they would protect their interests exactly as Apple is. Thats why we need to regulate companies who are in Apple's position! The fact that its greed vs. greed is immaterial.
You're right, but you're not. Yes, Epic is trying to make money. But if Epic is allowed to open their own store it would be very good for small developers. Those things aren't mutually exclusive.
If they manage to land their store on iOS, expect them to do the same anti-competitive things they did in the PC market... paying studios to exclusively put their games on the Epic Store only. Even games fund raised by communities, and games already announced to be launching on other platforms.
I don't see that as much of a win.
I don't see that as much of a win.
That sounds like a gigantic win for developers to me.
Good for dev. Even good for end user since they are throwing money into easy bait like offer free things to user just to use the platform.
But I would refrain from investing much more into the platform since what Im seeing right now isnt going to sustain the platform in the long term.
Its one thing if the store has distinct feature like gog, but theyre not. In the end I(and many others surely) use it just to get free games.
But I would refrain from investing much more into the platform since what Im seeing right now isnt going to sustain the platform in the long term.
Its one thing if the store has distinct feature like gog, but theyre not. In the end I(and many others surely) use it just to get free games.
It's a "gigantic win" for everyone in the same manner that Uber paying drivers and customers (via bonuses / free rides) to use their service was one for everyone involved . Sooner or later, Epic will have to stop doing this once they get their market share and there is no guarantee that this will be the financial model they follow (free games frequently, paying devs to be exclusive etc).
It works in a different context ( platform exclusives ) because the lock in / costs to developing for a different platform are far different from that for different stores on a single platform.
It works in a different context ( platform exclusives ) because the lock in / costs to developing for a different platform are far different from that for different stores on a single platform.
Developers being paid to make games sounds great. Why is Epic a bad guy for paying developers?
Because making content exclusive to a single platform is not adding value - it is removing value from other platforms, and as such is a net negative move.
It's not though. There is nothing inherently negative having to use EGS compared to any other game hub. There is absolutely nothing negative about giving developers more money to make more and/or better games. It's a net negative to take 30% from developers doing the actual work.
How is any of that anti-competitive? It's a fair competition between multiple app stores.
And Epic is also competing with Steam by having lower cut (5 % versus 30 % IIRC) leaving more money for the developers. It's good for the developers and consumers both.
And Epic is also competing with Steam by having lower cut (5 % versus 30 % IIRC) leaving more money for the developers. It's good for the developers and consumers both.
Pay for studio to make game exclusive on store, how is anti-competitive? (Possibly the store might be BS but it's not anti-competitive matter)
Somehow Facebook running a market on iOS marketplace where they funnel every click to their preferred apps with their own in-app payments and frameworks mandated doesn't sound like a developer win to me. It may not much of a user win if Epic installs DRM into your phone with cool features like an always on audio chat.
Small developers don't care about minuscule savings on their low sales numbers. They primarily care about getting as many sales as possible. The only ones who benefit are those who are selling lots of copies.
That's absurd, of course I care about the 30% take. I care about both.
I said the same thing in another thread. It's all about money.
But even though is all about money, a legislation change is still necessary. As long as the result of this benefits the society, who's pushing it shouldn't matter that much.
At the end of the day, antitrust process are frequently started by people with a lot of money and power to catch people with more money and power. That's the game.
But even though is all about money, a legislation change is still necessary. As long as the result of this benefits the society, who's pushing it shouldn't matter that much.
At the end of the day, antitrust process are frequently started by people with a lot of money and power to catch people with more money and power. That's the game.
Epic is absolutely putting up a legal crusade for the little guy, whether or not it's motivated by their own personal gain. The lawsuit explicitly precludes special treatment for Epic.
Who cares what their motivations are if they've mandated that the benefits should be distributed?
Who cares what their motivations are if they've mandated that the benefits should be distributed?
If Apple has a monopoly on the iOS App Store market, then it follows that Epic has a monopoly on the Fortnite add-on market, right?
No! This is explained right at the beginning of the article:
> the question as to what is anticompetitive and what is simply good business changes as a business scales. A small business can generally be as anticompetitive as it wants to be, while a much larger business is much more constrained in how anticompetitively it can act
The word “monopolize” is used in a specialised way in antitrust; it doesn’t encompass every exclusive right of sale, because that would disrupt many small businesses and law is intended to prevent huge businesses from dominating the economy.
> the question as to what is anticompetitive and what is simply good business changes as a business scales. A small business can generally be as anticompetitive as it wants to be, while a much larger business is much more constrained in how anticompetitively it can act
The word “monopolize” is used in a specialised way in antitrust; it doesn’t encompass every exclusive right of sale, because that would disrupt many small businesses and law is intended to prevent huge businesses from dominating the economy.
Can I buy and sell virtual items in Fortnite without giving Epic a cut?
Selling virtual items is not especially common due to the exposure it creates to fraud and abuse. Fortnite doesn't allow selling or trading - games that do like Team Fortress 2 and Counter-strike Go are home to lots of scammers who try to trick teens and other uninformed players into giving away their valuable loot :(
Who are you going to buy from without giving Epic a cut? They're the only ones offering Fortnite items.
Who are you going to buy from without giving Epic a cut? They're the only ones offering Fortnite items.
Selling virtual items is not especially common due to the exposure it creates to fraud and abuse.
How is that argument any different than the one Apple is making?
How is that argument any different than the one Apple is making?
Apple doesn't just require you use their payment processor - which might in theory be acceptable - they also demand 30 cents on every dollar. Payment providers everywhere have shown that fraud and abuse can be mitigated to an acceptable level with transaction fees as low as half a cent on the dollar. So Apple forces you into an agreement to use a payment processor that is 30-60x more expensive than the competition simply because they can.
Correct for credit card transactions but not for gift card credit which A LOT of people use. Far more than you’d assume. Apple doesn’t get all $50 when you buy an Apple gift card. I’d be surprised if they even got net $40 per $50 card.
The physical cards cost money to produce and the retail stores will insist upon a decent cut. And then the cards are often discounted by 10, 15 or even 20%.
The physical cards cost money to produce and the retail stores will insist upon a decent cut. And then the cards are often discounted by 10, 15 or even 20%.
How much does Epic demand to buy pretend money to by things in Fortnite? Why do I have to give Epic money to buy useless virtual goods?
Can we really call Epic Games and Fortnite a small business?
No. My point is not that they are a small business, it’s that they are smaller than Apple and selling into a different market. Thus it does not “follow,” from the proposition that Apple is a monopolist, that Epic is also a monopolist.
I think you've missed the point here. Neither Apple nor Epic have enough market share in their primary market (smartphones/games) to be considered monopolists.
So instead, people move the goalposts to an aftermarket of the product (iOS apps) and claim that Apple has a monopoly over that market instead. But every company has a natural monopoly over their own products, and by the very same logic you could claim Epic has a monopoly over the aftermarket of their product (Fortnite skins).
So instead, people move the goalposts to an aftermarket of the product (iOS apps) and claim that Apple has a monopoly over that market instead. But every company has a natural monopoly over their own products, and by the very same logic you could claim Epic has a monopoly over the aftermarket of their product (Fortnite skins).
People just desperately want competition law to be something it isn’t. And armchair move the goalposts relentlessly to try to redefine literal law.
Size of the business is not relevant unless:
1) The business has a dominant market position
Or
2) The behavior of the business is likely to result in the business achieving a dominant market position
Neither of these apply to Apple. They are a minority player in the smartphone market and their market share is shrinking.
If Apple has a monopoly on their own App Store then Epic has a monopoly on their own game. Period.
Size of the business is not relevant unless:
1) The business has a dominant market position
Or
2) The behavior of the business is likely to result in the business achieving a dominant market position
Neither of these apply to Apple. They are a minority player in the smartphone market and their market share is shrinking.
If Apple has a monopoly on their own App Store then Epic has a monopoly on their own game. Period.
The difference is that if Fortnite abuses its power, it is relatively easy to build another MMORPG competitor. If Apple abuses its power, it's practically impossible to build another mobile platform to compete today. Even Microsoft failed with that.
The bottom line is that Fortnight can have practical competition (that for example offer 3rd party plugins or lower prices), while the iPhone only has Android as competition, which is taking the exact same 30% cut.
The bottom line is that Fortnight can have practical competition (that for example offer 3rd party plugins or lower prices), while the iPhone only has Android as competition, which is taking the exact same 30% cut.
> it is relatively easy to build another MMORPG competitor.
Oh no it isn't. There are very few successful (and even fewer wildly successful) MMORPGs and countless failed attempts.
Games are not really fungible. It's not like I'm going to go out of Fortnite to buy items in WoW instead and treat them as the same. They are two completely different markets.
> The bottom line is that Fortnight can have practical competition (that for example offer 3rd party plugins or lower prices)
No, unless things change, you need to use the Epic store.
Oh no it isn't. There are very few successful (and even fewer wildly successful) MMORPGs and countless failed attempts.
Games are not really fungible. It's not like I'm going to go out of Fortnite to buy items in WoW instead and treat them as the same. They are two completely different markets.
> The bottom line is that Fortnight can have practical competition (that for example offer 3rd party plugins or lower prices)
No, unless things change, you need to use the Epic store.
Sure, but if the community got sick of Epic's walled fortnite garden, they can play other games. Could be WoW, could be Call of Duty, could be Pubg, could be the latest Mario. It doesn't really matter. Fortnite competes for your time with all other games, and the main thing keeping people there, besides basic enjoyment of the game, is that a lot of people play with their friends. And not many people will say that certain in app purchases are essential item (unlike, say, having an email app on your phone).
iOS on the other hand has a single serious competitor, Android, and if you have an iPhone you can't install Android on it when you get mad at Apple - you need a whole new phone. From a developer's perspective, you would miss out on all the iPhone users if you ship and Android app and not an iOS one. In that sense, Apple has significant monopoly-like power over the app market; solidified by the fact that you can't just install Google play store and start downloading Android apps on your iPhone if you get fed up with Apple' App store. The switching costs are too high for most users to consider it, except when buying a new phone.
A lot of this comes down to what a meaningful market is. E.g. Border's and Barnes and Noble learned the hard way that they were in the same market as online book selling - you couldn't usefully look at their book store models and ignore Amazon in the last ~decade.
iOS on the other hand has a single serious competitor, Android, and if you have an iPhone you can't install Android on it when you get mad at Apple - you need a whole new phone. From a developer's perspective, you would miss out on all the iPhone users if you ship and Android app and not an iOS one. In that sense, Apple has significant monopoly-like power over the app market; solidified by the fact that you can't just install Google play store and start downloading Android apps on your iPhone if you get fed up with Apple' App store. The switching costs are too high for most users to consider it, except when buying a new phone.
A lot of this comes down to what a meaningful market is. E.g. Border's and Barnes and Noble learned the hard way that they were in the same market as online book selling - you couldn't usefully look at their book store models and ignore Amazon in the last ~decade.
“You may not know how to follow logic.”
Regardless of the context, this is so good and hilarious on so many levels. Meme worthy! I’m going to have to try to work this quote into a conversation.
Regardless of the context, this is so good and hilarious on so many levels. Meme worthy! I’m going to have to try to work this quote into a conversation.
Even if Apple lower their price their market position is still the same, vertically integrated at massive scale.
But you did say that Apple should lower costs because their marginal cost is $0. The same is true for Epic.
[deleted]
Fortnite is free. They release patches to the game weekly, with major patches every month or so, which are also free. The _only_ revenue stream in fortnite is cosmetic skins, which as a player you could ignore entirely and still play 100% of the game.
In fact, you can earn small handfuls of the premium currency every season, which actually allowed people to purchase premium skins or the "battle pass" with currency obtained for free.
There is no comparison to be made with Apple, who won't let you do a thing on the app store without giving them money.
In fact, you can earn small handfuls of the premium currency every season, which actually allowed people to purchase premium skins or the "battle pass" with currency obtained for free.
There is no comparison to be made with Apple, who won't let you do a thing on the app store without giving them money.
Epic won’t let you do anything inside the Fortnite store. Literally nothing at all.
Seems quite anticompetitive to not allow me to upload and sell skins to compete with the official ones.
This is the problem with making absurd monopoly arguments. If you redefine monopoly in such a ridiculous way, almost every company is a monopoly.
Seems quite anticompetitive to not allow me to upload and sell skins to compete with the official ones.
This is the problem with making absurd monopoly arguments. If you redefine monopoly in such a ridiculous way, almost every company is a monopoly.
Games have a limited shelf life. I don’t really care about Epic. Fortnite won’t be around much longer when the next big game du jour comes out.
Whether or not Epic charges for their store is immaterial to whether one of the largest and most important general purpose computing platforms in the world is performing highway robbery.
Whether or not Epic charges for their store is immaterial to whether one of the largest and most important general purpose computing platforms in the world is performing highway robbery.
Not really sure why people are voting this down. It's self evident that Fortnite's "platform" is far more ephemeral than iOS. Team Fortress 2 is probably an example of a skins market that has been around the longest (since 2007), but very few games last this long and run a market that is still selling a lot.
This line of thinking is very reminiscent of “Facebook won’t be around much longer, it will be gone like MySpace”, many people still believe that as FB is now one of the most valuable companies in the world.
There is no reason to believe this will be true. Grand Theft Auto V is now 7 years old at this point and has seen 2 almost 3 console generations as generates an incredible amount of money for TakeTwo. The longevity of these platforms have clearly changed
There is no reason to believe this will be true. Grand Theft Auto V is now 7 years old at this point and has seen 2 almost 3 console generations as generates an incredible amount of money for TakeTwo. The longevity of these platforms have clearly changed
Facebook is indeed not around much anymore, users have moved to Instagram. In fact I can't remember the last time I've seen someone under 30 using Facebook.
Give it 10 years and there will be again another large social network. Teenagers won't be on the same network as their parents.
Give it 10 years and there will be again another large social network. Teenagers won't be on the same network as their parents.
[deleted]
I hear this argument often, but there are counterexamples like Minecraft, CSGO, World of Warcraft (one of the few MMOs that still have a subscription).
So it's entirely possible that Fortnite will stay.
So it's entirely possible that Fortnite will stay.
Minecraft has arguably evolved into its own "platform" with people building and sharing their own worlds (some on Minecraft's own managed Realms, many not) and tons of third-party games built on top of Minecraft accessible to the public. Fortnite may evolve in this direction some day, but it hasn't yet.
Roblox similarly.
It's all about updates. If there is new stuff to do, people will come back eventually. Maybe not every year but there are some games I've come back to every 2 years.
V-bucks should be banned completely, along with all other illegal gambling.
I don't follow. The game is free, "V-bucks" you buy, I think you just get character/weapon skins that aren't required. I don't love the setup, but since kids are hanging out on fortnite having it free lets everyone who wants into that world.
I think they're referring to swapping in funny money to obfuscate customer ability to estimate the costs.
It's similar to how slot machines require tokens, but I don't think that's quite gambling. The gambling part comes in with loot boxes, where you're essentially paying to roll the dice to get something of value.
It's similar to how slot machines require tokens, but I don't think that's quite gambling. The gambling part comes in with loot boxes, where you're essentially paying to roll the dice to get something of value.
Fortnite doesn't have loot boxes.
GP didn't say that Fortnite has loot boxes; they used loot boxes as a point of comparison with actual gambling.
It's not just obfuscation... you can only buy set amounts of V-Bucks, which not always match with the cost of the skins, etc.
Since when do slot machines require tokens? I thought it's usually either cash, or a card with money loaded on to it.
Token slot machines used to be common prior to the early 2000s, but they were phased out mostly for cost reasons (minting tokens, refilling tokens, handling tokens, theft, etc). Cash ticket/cards quickly replaced them.
Some casinos still have an aisle or two of coin machines for nostalgia though. People collect these tokens, but I'm sure that hobby is on the way out since new mint is pretty rare.
Some casinos still have an aisle or two of coin machines for nostalgia though. People collect these tokens, but I'm sure that hobby is on the way out since new mint is pretty rare.
Unlike CS:GO, Fortnite skins aren't gambling.
It takes work to implement an ingame premium currency. The only reason to perform that work is because some business person thinks they have discovered a new way to claim that what they are doing "isn't gambling."
It's a currency. There's no lootboxes.
There's premium items you buy with that currency.
A microtransaction isn't gambling by default.
A microtransaction isn't gambling by default.
It’s simpler for a global game to have a single currency for pricing in-game items and rewards than twenty different ones.
[deleted]
I agree with the sunk cost - besides, who is the customer and who is the product here?
The customer is supposed to be the one who bought the phone and is using the OS in their best interest. Right?
This whole thing feels all wrong. Both Apple for "gatekeeping OUR customers" and Epic for "Apple's stealing OUR money" (or "Apple is making us pay 30% so we're going to charge you 30% more")
Besides, it's not as if the Apple App Store is full of quality apps. It's full of a lot of garbage. It's so full of garbage that I have a hard time finding anything worth buying - because almost all of it is ad-laden junk that tries to nickle and dime you with in-app purchases. lol.
The customer is supposed to be the one who bought the phone and is using the OS in their best interest. Right?
This whole thing feels all wrong. Both Apple for "gatekeeping OUR customers" and Epic for "Apple's stealing OUR money" (or "Apple is making us pay 30% so we're going to charge you 30% more")
Besides, it's not as if the Apple App Store is full of quality apps. It's full of a lot of garbage. It's so full of garbage that I have a hard time finding anything worth buying - because almost all of it is ad-laden junk that tries to nickle and dime you with in-app purchases. lol.
>Apple is making us pay 30% so we're going to charge you 30% more
You would have to charge $142.86 for something you otherwise could sell for $100 if it wasn't for Apple taking a 30 % cut. So ~43 % more, not 30 % more. Apple sure is milking iOS users for alot of money, without users knowing.
You would have to charge $142.86 for something you otherwise could sell for $100 if it wasn't for Apple taking a 30 % cut. So ~43 % more, not 30 % more. Apple sure is milking iOS users for alot of money, without users knowing.
I think that's transparent to a lot of people, because IIRC, charging price $x on your website, and then charging price $x+30% on apple's store is a breach of the app store contract and will get your app removed. Am I wrong though? If I am, sorry. xD
No, you're free to charge whatever you want on your own website. You just can't mention that fact in your iOS app.
> You just can't mention that fact in your iOS app.
And you don't think that is anti-competitive? Apple is free to promote their own services on their platform that compete with others, require them to pay a 30% tax that their own competing service does, and the only escape hatch they give you is "you can use the web, but you can't tell your users"
Am I taking crazy pills, or do other people think this is absurd.
The first rule of alternative signup models on the App Store is, you don't talk about alternative signup models.
And you don't think that is anti-competitive? Apple is free to promote their own services on their platform that compete with others, require them to pay a 30% tax that their own competing service does, and the only escape hatch they give you is "you can use the web, but you can't tell your users"
Am I taking crazy pills, or do other people think this is absurd.
The first rule of alternative signup models on the App Store is, you don't talk about alternative signup models.
Of course it is absurd. But a lot of people have no idea what this is even all about.
A large part of the internet is screaming "The evil Epic brought this upon themselves, if they don't want to pay 30 %, then don't use iOS!"
Apple increases costs for users, just because they bought an iOS device. Thats definetly not good for consumers.
But what are developers going to do about it? For some developers, over 2/3 of their customers are on a iOS device, so just not using the App Store is not a realistic option. Apple has also made sure that the App Store is the only possible way.
So, it's way to big to ignore, and there is definetly no competition. Clearly something has to happen. I would also love to be able to use a decent browser like Firefox or Chrome on iOS(not the current webkit crap apple forces mozilla and Google to use).
A large part of the internet is screaming "The evil Epic brought this upon themselves, if they don't want to pay 30 %, then don't use iOS!"
Apple increases costs for users, just because they bought an iOS device. Thats definetly not good for consumers.
But what are developers going to do about it? For some developers, over 2/3 of their customers are on a iOS device, so just not using the App Store is not a realistic option. Apple has also made sure that the App Store is the only possible way.
So, it's way to big to ignore, and there is definetly no competition. Clearly something has to happen. I would also love to be able to use a decent browser like Firefox or Chrome on iOS(not the current webkit crap apple forces mozilla and Google to use).
Apple is adding a lot of value for developers and customers by providing a secure low friction app sales and discovery system.
No, they are not. Epic and a lot of others would just go without Apple App Store if they could. They don't need discovery. They are adding value, but that value is for themselves, in form of a 30 % cut. That's not good for consumers or developers.
It’s great for consumers and developers, the security and ease of use of the walked garden is primary reason customers spend 50% more on iOS than than Android, despite Androids six times larger market size.
What's good for a consumer like me is installing whatever the fuck I want on my devices.
I don't really think it's about the number. I try not to think about these kinds of things in terms of what different companies "deserve." Apple can get away with demanding a 30% cut on their platform and they do so without much arm twisting. Nobody has to support macOS or iOS, and both developers and customers can completely ignore their existence. They'll be missing out on a lucrative customer base but that's true of realestate in high-traffic areas as well.
Apple being able to pull off such huge margins in markets where they have competition on every front I think paints a picture of just how ahead they are. The fact that the gap is so big and nobody has been able to step up and close it is mind-boggling to me. You can only blame so much on slick marketing because for 64% gross margins I think other companies would be happy to put up the marketing cash.
Apple being able to pull off such huge margins in markets where they have competition on every front I think paints a picture of just how ahead they are. The fact that the gap is so big and nobody has been able to step up and close it is mind-boggling to me. You can only blame so much on slick marketing because for 64% gross margins I think other companies would be happy to put up the marketing cash.
Is Nike so far ahead of every other shoe manufacturer? What's the margin on a pair of Nikes? How many young kids waste family money on a brand who makes the shoes for a fraction in Southeast Asia. How about Christian Louboutain?
There's also the sunk cost for many people. If you've bought tons of content in the App Store, you'd have to rebuy everything if you switched to another ecosystem. For the same reason, if you own proprietary camera lens for Camera Body A, you are not likely to dump all your photo equipment even if a Camera Body B comes out that is cheaper and better.
Path dependency. We learned this lesson once with the Wintel duopoly. Then with the Web, from about 1994 to 2007, we had broke the shackles. And now, people are happy to enslave themselves again, and vigorously defend their servitude.
Apple makes great hardware and software. They don't need this.
There's also the sunk cost for many people. If you've bought tons of content in the App Store, you'd have to rebuy everything if you switched to another ecosystem. For the same reason, if you own proprietary camera lens for Camera Body A, you are not likely to dump all your photo equipment even if a Camera Body B comes out that is cheaper and better.
Path dependency. We learned this lesson once with the Wintel duopoly. Then with the Web, from about 1994 to 2007, we had broke the shackles. And now, people are happy to enslave themselves again, and vigorously defend their servitude.
Apple makes great hardware and software. They don't need this.
>> Is Nike so far ahead of every other shoe manufacturer?
From personal experience, yes. Easily. It's like comparing a Wal-Mart 'First Act' electric guitar to a Fender Stratocaster, or one of those awful Crosley turntables to a pair of Technics SL-1200s.
I have particularly sensitive feet, and ride a push scooter everywhere so cheap soles will wear quickly. I'll go through 4 pairs of $30 knockoff shoes a year instead of buying a pair of Nikes for $100 and enjoying them for three or more years. I live in Toronto and make my pilgramage to the actual Nike retail outlet in the Eaton's centre once a year to see what's new, try things on, and buy just one pair of shoes between $100-200. As a result, my closet is full of stylish, comfortable shoes that have lasted years and years. :)
YMMV, but honestly the same goes for Apple for me. I'm still using a G5 tower from 2005 with 16GB RAM and 2x1TB SSD's on the daily. I paid a couple grand for that back in the day (with about 4GB RAM originally and a 120GB HDD, I believe)...I don't have a single PC tower or laptop left except a hackintoshed Lenovo that's only a couple years old, despite buying a bunch.
Nike is not 'so far ahead' of every other shoe manufacturer, but, similar to Apple, they are only comparable in any way to similarly-priced manufacturers of their tier - Adidas, Reebok, or Microsoft Surface, Alienware.
The Surface is probably the only portable I've had the pleasure to use that is comparable to the build quality and feel of Apple's manufacturing.
Gucci, for example; is a company that represents true excess for the sake of excess. (What's that Lil' Pump line? 'Spent 10k on my Gucci bed sheets'?)
As an iOS dev for a living, I think the 30% is bullshit. But from what I've read/heard, it's based off something similar to retail margins.
From personal experience, yes. Easily. It's like comparing a Wal-Mart 'First Act' electric guitar to a Fender Stratocaster, or one of those awful Crosley turntables to a pair of Technics SL-1200s.
I have particularly sensitive feet, and ride a push scooter everywhere so cheap soles will wear quickly. I'll go through 4 pairs of $30 knockoff shoes a year instead of buying a pair of Nikes for $100 and enjoying them for three or more years. I live in Toronto and make my pilgramage to the actual Nike retail outlet in the Eaton's centre once a year to see what's new, try things on, and buy just one pair of shoes between $100-200. As a result, my closet is full of stylish, comfortable shoes that have lasted years and years. :)
YMMV, but honestly the same goes for Apple for me. I'm still using a G5 tower from 2005 with 16GB RAM and 2x1TB SSD's on the daily. I paid a couple grand for that back in the day (with about 4GB RAM originally and a 120GB HDD, I believe)...I don't have a single PC tower or laptop left except a hackintoshed Lenovo that's only a couple years old, despite buying a bunch.
Nike is not 'so far ahead' of every other shoe manufacturer, but, similar to Apple, they are only comparable in any way to similarly-priced manufacturers of their tier - Adidas, Reebok, or Microsoft Surface, Alienware.
The Surface is probably the only portable I've had the pleasure to use that is comparable to the build quality and feel of Apple's manufacturing.
Gucci, for example; is a company that represents true excess for the sake of excess. (What's that Lil' Pump line? 'Spent 10k on my Gucci bed sheets'?)
As an iOS dev for a living, I think the 30% is bullshit. But from what I've read/heard, it's based off something similar to retail margins.
Retailers have physical real estate that is a limited resource. They have to have logistics and shelf stocking. The marginal cost is that is non-trivial compared to maintaining a large database of apps which is almost but not quite zero.
The retail analogy is bogus. Software isn't a physical product these days.
The retail analogy is bogus. Software isn't a physical product these days.
A purse is a purse, do you think some purses are so ahead of the curve that people pay thousands of dollars for one, or do you think they are buying a brand name despite the cost?
Like I get what you’re saying but there’s also lots of luxury designer brands. The competition in that space isn’t about the margin on individual items. Like the market thousand high-end bags, shoes, or even art is a whole other world. Like do you think a Rembrandt is overpriced because paint is only a few cents?
But that’s so different from the smartphone space. Like iPhones were really a status symbol like a decade ago but you can get one now at like every price point and flagship androids aren’t much cheaper. You have threads full of people on HN arguing that Apple is actually the budget pick if you can afford to frontload the cost. I’m typing this on a used iPhone X that cost less than $400.
Like have we all forgotten when Apple released FaceID and then Samsung responded with the lamest front camera picture match thing?
Like yes lock-in is a thing, lifestyle marketing is a thing, brand loyalty is a thing, and momentum is a thing, but that doesn’t explain how Apple is seemingly able to do it so much better than everyone else. Because we could name companies that have all of those but still aren’t Apple.
But that’s so different from the smartphone space. Like iPhones were really a status symbol like a decade ago but you can get one now at like every price point and flagship androids aren’t much cheaper. You have threads full of people on HN arguing that Apple is actually the budget pick if you can afford to frontload the cost. I’m typing this on a used iPhone X that cost less than $400.
Like have we all forgotten when Apple released FaceID and then Samsung responded with the lamest front camera picture match thing?
Like yes lock-in is a thing, lifestyle marketing is a thing, brand loyalty is a thing, and momentum is a thing, but that doesn’t explain how Apple is seemingly able to do it so much better than everyone else. Because we could name companies that have all of those but still aren’t Apple.
I don't understand these arguments either. It's not illegal to have high product margins, right? Why can't they charge whatever they want? It comes across as pure moral "I don't like it" objection, which is fine, but don't use it as a legal argument.
High product margins are usually signs of monopolistic powers used, otherwise profits would slowly move towards cost as time goes forward.
This has not been the case with Apple.
This has not been the case with Apple.
What do you think of coffee?
That I can make it myself at home and it comes to around 10cents?
Or get it from a cafe, and value my time at around 2-3€ per cup
Or get it from a cafe, and value my time at around 2-3€ per cup
This is only true of products with substitutes. The extreme example being commodities.
Pretty much any luxury brand has high product margins, but certainly not for lack of competition.
Pretty much any luxury brand has high product margins, but certainly not for lack of competition.
Exactly, and luxury brands are characterized by their electivity. While and appstore has formed to become something close to a virtual public good.
Google has basically the same profit margins with their Pixel phones compared to Apple and Android has 85% market share. Yeah you can sideload any app you want on your Android, but I've heard of no even half serious 3rd party competitors to the Play store. Not sure what the point is here.
It's about balancing the market. That's why anti-trust exists. Would you want an insulin monopoly to be able to have 95% margin? Probably not. That's why it's illegal.
Too many usinesses can't live without access to iPhone users.
Too many usinesses can't live without access to iPhone users.
Epi-pen approx 97% $8/injector, so $16/two-pack, selling for $700 in 2016 https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/10/01/epipen-outrage-silico...
Of course, software sales have much higher margin of production cost (every copy but the first is free-to-make).
Of course, software sales have much higher margin of production cost (every copy but the first is free-to-make).
[deleted]
iOS is the minority smartphone OS in the US and in the world. In the world their share is under 20%. In the US it’s under 50%. In both cases, shrinking.
If Apple/iOS is a minority that means someone else must be a majority. Who, exactly, do you think should be the target of that balancing, and why?
If Apple/iOS is a minority that means someone else must be a majority. Who, exactly, do you think should be the target of that balancing, and why?
It's the fact when you get large enough and force things that are considered unrealistic or anti competitive platform it becomes an issue. This isn't new to American business. It evolves. It use to be oil, steel, ATT, Microsoft.. Now it's Apple. Tech is long over due for a overhaul only a matter of time until some politician uses it to add a feather to their cap. 30% cut of a sale of a mature economy is just crazy.
>30% cut of a sale of a mature economy is just crazy.
That is why it isn't 30% after the first year. It is 15% for subscription based software starting year 2. As I pointed out earlier, Apple also eats credit card transaction costs (~2.5%) and the costs of collecting and paying sales tax in 50 states and 155 countries, app store personnel, servers, etc...
That is why it isn't 30% after the first year. It is 15% for subscription based software starting year 2. As I pointed out earlier, Apple also eats credit card transaction costs (~2.5%) and the costs of collecting and paying sales tax in 50 states and 155 countries, app store personnel, servers, etc...
Just only for recurring subscription. There's very little reason to be.
This is a great picking apart of Apples justification but I think the issue that most irks everyone who’s not apologizing for Apple is where did this magic number 30% come from? Which market forces created it?
Here on HN most of us probably feel that product manager at Apple licked their finger, felt the wind and said “Yeah 30% seems about the most we can get away with”
And what irks even more is once Apple set the precedent, as their we’re no outcries Google was like “Let’s copy that!”. Let’s hope there was no collusion ...
Here on HN most of us probably feel that product manager at Apple licked their finger, felt the wind and said “Yeah 30% seems about the most we can get away with”
And what irks even more is once Apple set the precedent, as their we’re no outcries Google was like “Let’s copy that!”. Let’s hope there was no collusion ...
It is interesting that few people are recognizing that the 30% buys you distribution on a billion devices.
Yes, I know, the web is free...and the App Store search is broken so discovery isn’t what it was... but still. Market access is VERY significant and worth something and the incremental cost to Apple has no bearing on what it is worth.
As discussed, prior mobile cuts were far more one sided. We payed the carrier 50% and then Qualcomm 20% of what was left. Bottom line, we walked away with 40% and we were happy.
Yes, I know, the web is free...and the App Store search is broken so discovery isn’t what it was... but still. Market access is VERY significant and worth something and the incremental cost to Apple has no bearing on what it is worth.
As discussed, prior mobile cuts were far more one sided. We payed the carrier 50% and then Qualcomm 20% of what was left. Bottom line, we walked away with 40% and we were happy.
> the App Store search is broken so discovery isn’t what it was.
More often than not, I can't find a named, non-popular app, even when searching for its exact name. The only way I can find it, is if they have a web-page and an direct link to their appstore entry on that web-page.
So ironically I have to search Google/DDG on the open web to find the apps I'm looking to install on my iPhone.
"Broken" doesn't fully convey just how mismanaged the AppStore is.
More often than not, I can't find a named, non-popular app, even when searching for its exact name. The only way I can find it, is if they have a web-page and an direct link to their appstore entry on that web-page.
So ironically I have to search Google/DDG on the open web to find the apps I'm looking to install on my iPhone.
"Broken" doesn't fully convey just how mismanaged the AppStore is.
> It is interesting that few people are recognizing that the 30% buys you distribution on a billion devices.
It's interesting that few people don't understand the difference between permission to distribute versus actual distribution.
If Apple was doing any distribution for you at all, you wouldn't need to pay Facebook and Google for distribution.
Note how this was different in the early days, where simply being on the app store would get downloads. That has not been true for 7-8 years now.
It's interesting that few people don't understand the difference between permission to distribute versus actual distribution.
If Apple was doing any distribution for you at all, you wouldn't need to pay Facebook and Google for distribution.
Note how this was different in the early days, where simply being on the app store would get downloads. That has not been true for 7-8 years now.
> It's interesting that few people don't understand the difference between permission to distribute versus actual distribution.
Not sure what distinction you're trying to draw here but in order for Apple to take their 30% cut, someone has to download the app, at which point Apple have de facto distributed it to someone.
> If Apple was doing any distribution for you at all, you wouldn't need to pay Facebook and Google for distribution.
This makes very little sense to me. Are you saying that if I pay Apple to distribute my app on the App Store then they should also distribute it on every app store? And that if they aren't then they're somehow failing me?
> Note how this was different in the early days, where simply being on the app store would get downloads. That has not been true for 7-8 years now.
The App Store is a shit-show in terms of discoverability, this is true. I'm not even sure what they can do to improve things at this stage.
Not sure what distinction you're trying to draw here but in order for Apple to take their 30% cut, someone has to download the app, at which point Apple have de facto distributed it to someone.
> If Apple was doing any distribution for you at all, you wouldn't need to pay Facebook and Google for distribution.
This makes very little sense to me. Are you saying that if I pay Apple to distribute my app on the App Store then they should also distribute it on every app store? And that if they aren't then they're somehow failing me?
> Note how this was different in the early days, where simply being on the app store would get downloads. That has not been true for 7-8 years now.
The App Store is a shit-show in terms of discoverability, this is true. I'm not even sure what they can do to improve things at this stage.
The App Store wasn't the first online store on mobile phones, there were stores for downloading ringtones and wallpapers on some devices and some primitive app stores particularly in Japan. The typical markup on these was 50% at the time, while typical retail markup is 40% for many types of goods. Consensus among pundits was that Apple would charge 50% and 30% was widely reported at the time as being surprisingly low.
Not to forget the 50% that telecom providers would demand for premium SMS / MMS (with one "chat" message costing 5€, half of it would get to the network provider). Which also explains why they had little incentive to prevent predatory services like SMS spam telling people to call / message high priced service numbers with subscription keywords.
There is precedent; the rate was actually much higher in previous mobile app stores (e.g. Symbian and ring tone stores).
Additionally, there is related precedent in areas like publishing (ebook stores usually charge 30% or more commission).
I don't think 30% is outlandish, though I do think it would be nice if Apple reduced that cut, especially if they wanted to consider some form of graduated rate.
Additionally, there is related precedent in areas like publishing (ebook stores usually charge 30% or more commission).
I don't think 30% is outlandish, though I do think it would be nice if Apple reduced that cut, especially if they wanted to consider some form of graduated rate.
Don’t forget that software publishers were an entire industry previously.
It is explained in Steve Jobs book. Steve wanted a 30% share on all deals where he has distribution.
The challenge was to massage the numbers of the deal so he could see his 30% and approve it.
Also the 30% is often the budget for the Sales and Marketing operation in a typical organization.
The challenge was to massage the numbers of the deal so he could see his 30% and approve it.
Also the 30% is often the budget for the Sales and Marketing operation in a typical organization.
Steam started selling games on their marketplace around 2005 to 2007, before the Apple app store.
They supposedly have a tiered cut, something like 30% off first X million, 25% of next X amount, etc.
They supposedly have a tiered cut, something like 30% off first X million, 25% of next X amount, etc.
Actually, there was precedent. Previously, if you wanted to reach a lot of people you had to package your product in physical boxes and get it into brick and mortar stores. The cut that distributors took for that was around 50-60%, and you only had access to them if you were already huge.
Having worked with low-end shareware payment processors at the time, they charged between 15 and 30% and most of them are now out of business.
I remember people complaining about the 15% cut, too. No matter how fair you make it, people will scream that it's too much. Even when it's free. Just look at how people complain about open source software that they don't pay for and don't contribute to. Nothing is ever fair for some people.
Having worked with low-end shareware payment processors at the time, they charged between 15 and 30% and most of them are now out of business.
I remember people complaining about the 15% cut, too. No matter how fair you make it, people will scream that it's too much. Even when it's free. Just look at how people complain about open source software that they don't pay for and don't contribute to. Nothing is ever fair for some people.
When Apple announced Apple news it was widely reported (there is no official figure) that they were demanding and getting a 50% cut.
Gawd I hope the web can remain competitive with the proprietary platforms!
Gawd I hope the web can remain competitive with the proprietary platforms!
The article tells you where the 30% came from. In the days of iTunes, a song was $0.99. Credit card transaction fees were around 2% + $0.25 per transaction.
The minimum price for an app was $0.99 as was the minimum in app purchase.
I am not saying it should scale as price scales to remain 30%.
The minimum price for an app was $0.99 as was the minimum in app purchase.
I am not saying it should scale as price scales to remain 30%.
This seems almost certainly correct. The 30% cut for the App Store had a precedent of a 30% cut for media in the iTunes Store. In the past I've jokes that the fees in the App Store were chosen so they could just use the existing infrastructure with as little change as possible -- and while it's a joke, it's not entirely a joke. It's pretty easy to see the execs at Apple looking at that and saying, "Hey, 30% is way cheaper than what physical software stores charge for shelf space, and it's in line with other digital media stores that handle not just payment processing but hosting, downloading, review aggregation, and marketing, so it's a great deal, right?"
And, IIRC at the time it was seen as a great deal. It may not be such a good deal now, though, and in-app purchases are really a whole other kettle of fish.
And, IIRC at the time it was seen as a great deal. It may not be such a good deal now, though, and in-app purchases are really a whole other kettle of fish.
It doesn't cost $450 to make an iPhone. That's insane. It may cost that in parts, but there are many, many highly paid engineers, designers, product managers, etc. who worked on those products. Those people's salaries must be accounted for somehow.
This is something that a commenter on Hacker News should understand!
All of those dumb cost breakdowns for what it "costs" to make iPhones or whatever always miss the fact that you actually have to design and build the software, hardware, and services that makes it all work. Not to mention shipping and other retail costs.
This is something that a commenter on Hacker News should understand!
All of those dumb cost breakdowns for what it "costs" to make iPhones or whatever always miss the fact that you actually have to design and build the software, hardware, and services that makes it all work. Not to mention shipping and other retail costs.
>This is something that a commenter on Hacker News should understand!
It pains me to see Computing, Tech, or Software Engineers that are the top paying job today and especially in Silicon Valley, are complaining about the cost of Hardware all while completely ignoring the Software Cost and Design Cost.
This left, free-ish mentality wasn't a thing 10 - 20 years ago. But has steadily getting mainstream. I have no idea why.
It pains me to see Computing, Tech, or Software Engineers that are the top paying job today and especially in Silicon Valley, are complaining about the cost of Hardware all while completely ignoring the Software Cost and Design Cost.
This left, free-ish mentality wasn't a thing 10 - 20 years ago. But has steadily getting mainstream. I have no idea why.
The $450 is the marginal cost of an iPhone.
That's typically the normal number cited for the "manufacturing cost" of a product, regardless of the level of R&D and marketing that goes into it.
That's typically the normal number cited for the "manufacturing cost" of a product, regardless of the level of R&D and marketing that goes into it.
GP claimed iOS was "free". Can't be both free, and the phone only costs its parts.
GP also said to cover cost of app store in the phone, despite only costing its parts.
I consider iOS to be one of the iPhone's parts. I don't understand why machinery engineered from metal is so different from that engineered from bits, that I must consider them two products instead of one. Metal, glass, silicon, bits: one PDA appliance.
GP also said to cover cost of app store in the phone, despite only costing its parts.
I consider iOS to be one of the iPhone's parts. I don't understand why machinery engineered from metal is so different from that engineered from bits, that I must consider them two products instead of one. Metal, glass, silicon, bits: one PDA appliance.
This is economics. The price of a product in a competitive market tends to its marginal cost -- the cost to produce one additional unit. The marginal cost of an iPhone is $450 in parts and labor. The R&D costs are fixed costs, not marginal costs, they don't vary whether you sell 1 million iPhones or 10 million iPhones.
Most of iOS's costs are fixed. Even if you amortize the cost of it across the number of phones sold each cycle, it will be insignificant.
Apple employs ~12,000 engineers. If all 12k cost $1million per year, it would cost Apple $12 billion a year. Apple revenue in 2019 was $260 billion, or 4.6% of revenues. Apple gross profit was $104 billion. So if Apple had to somehow cut some rent-seeking streams and eat $12 billion, their profits would only be reduced 12%
Now we know these figures are way overboard. Employee costs aren't $1 million per year for every engineer. All 12k engineers are not working on iOS or the App Store, etc.
Most of iOS's costs are fixed. Even if you amortize the cost of it across the number of phones sold each cycle, it will be insignificant.
Apple employs ~12,000 engineers. If all 12k cost $1million per year, it would cost Apple $12 billion a year. Apple revenue in 2019 was $260 billion, or 4.6% of revenues. Apple gross profit was $104 billion. So if Apple had to somehow cut some rent-seeking streams and eat $12 billion, their profits would only be reduced 12%
Now we know these figures are way overboard. Employee costs aren't $1 million per year for every engineer. All 12k engineers are not working on iOS or the App Store, etc.
> The price of a product in a competitive market tends to its marginal cost
Long run marginal cost. Which will be higher than the cost per unit. You can’t sustain a market when you can’t cover fixed costs. Just look at what happened to Detroit.
Long run marginal cost. Which will be higher than the cost per unit. You can’t sustain a market when you can’t cover fixed costs. Just look at what happened to Detroit.
I already showed they cover fixed costs with a mere 5% of revenue and 12% of gross profit (note their reported gross profits actually already removed the fixed costs)
This obviously comes from a misunderstanding of economics. The price of a good is what people are willing to pay for it. Why are people willing to pay more for Nike’s than Converse? There are literally hundreds of Android phones, yet people are willing to pay more for iPhones.
People have been paying a premium for Apple’s goods for forty years. Instead of complaining about the evilness of Apple, maybe the problem is the incompetence of the rest of the market to make something compelling.
People have been paying a premium for Apple’s goods for forty years. Instead of complaining about the evilness of Apple, maybe the problem is the incompetence of the rest of the market to make something compelling.
Not quite relevant, but Nike owns Converse
This is incredibly simplistic, and to say "this obviously comes from a misunderstaning of economics" seems ironic, to say the least.
You're completely ignoring price signalling for a start, which provide information to consumers about price elasticity. You're ignoring asymmetries between producers and consumers, which hide information from consumers about price elasticity (and thus affect what people are "willing to pay"). You're ignoring things like decoy effects, in which manufacturers deliberately offer extra items at different price points because of the known impact on consumer psychology. Basically, you write as if consumers are driven by a rational and fully informed decision making process, when we know with absolute certainty that this is not the case, and that manufacturers/sellers have considerable ability to shift "what people are willing to pay for it".
Also, vastly more people buy those Android phones than iPhones, which makes it less clear if the market has failed to "make something compelling" to compete with iOS, or if there is a subset of the population willing to pay a premium for specific perceived benefits, real or otherwise, in the case of iOS devices.
You're completely ignoring price signalling for a start, which provide information to consumers about price elasticity. You're ignoring asymmetries between producers and consumers, which hide information from consumers about price elasticity (and thus affect what people are "willing to pay"). You're ignoring things like decoy effects, in which manufacturers deliberately offer extra items at different price points because of the known impact on consumer psychology. Basically, you write as if consumers are driven by a rational and fully informed decision making process, when we know with absolute certainty that this is not the case, and that manufacturers/sellers have considerable ability to shift "what people are willing to pay for it".
Also, vastly more people buy those Android phones than iPhones, which makes it less clear if the market has failed to "make something compelling" to compete with iOS, or if there is a subset of the population willing to pay a premium for specific perceived benefits, real or otherwise, in the case of iOS devices.
If only Android was owned by a company with a popular website where they could inform consumers about the benefits of alternatives and if it has capital to produce a premium phone.
Do you really think consumers don’t know they are paying Apple a premium?
Do you really think consumers don’t know they are paying Apple a premium?
"There are literally hundreds of Android phones, yet people are willing to pay more for iPhones."
Because there are hundreds of manufacturers of Android ones, and only one for Apple. Microeconomics states that in a competitive market, price will tend to the marginal cost, and this is exactly what happened in Android. It is not "what people are willing to pay", it's that Android phones have competitive pressures that are downward on price. At the high end, people pay as much for Huawei Mate P30s as they do for iPhones, because there are few phones at that tier.
Your rebuttal actually proves my point exactly. If Apple licensed iOS, and let clone makers sell iPhone clones, the price would plummet, even if all of the features were the same -- same OS, same HW performance, etc.
Apple's creation of their own little walled garden, complete with path dependency, and slick marketing, has created a premium that would not exist if independent manufacturers could sell clones.
This is why PCs were cheaper than Macs, when clearly PCs had WAY WAY better HW than Macs, way better CPUs, GPUs, et al, for much lower price points, yet people paid more for Macs. Even back in the pre-OSX days, the PowerPC days, the Motorola days, people paid more for less, again, because of the way Apple locks in a chuck of their market with incompatible path-dependency.
I mean, I had an Amiga in the 80s, it had 4-channel stereo sound, 4096 colors, multitasking, awesome games, on a great C= monitor, and the comparable machine at the time was this tiny 128k 9" B&W display machine, which was hideously slow because it didn't even have enough RAM, and cost well over 200% more. Amiga had vertically integrated all-custom chips like Apple brags about today. It was the premium machine, so ask yourself why some people paid 200% more. It could do substantially less, graphically, and in terms of software available for it. And before you say "desktop publishing", in college I used TeX to do all of my work, and the output quality was superior with less effort. For the home PC user, it was way way overpriced for underpowered hardware and a paultry software selection. This is what Apple was competing against in the 80s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7rKj0DU8Xs
I'm an iPhone user, I've owned every iPhone since standing in line in 2007 to get one of the first. I use a Macbook as my primary laptop. So I'm not anti-Apple, but frankly all of the things I use iPhone or Macbooks for have NOTHING to do with their locked down App Store, refusal to allow me to install third party browser engines, or specify default apps, or side-load apps.
I want Apple to stop locking down freedom and when they sell me a computer or phone, let me OWN IT an do what I want with it. If Apple's ARM OSX Macs turn into a locked down system like their ARM iPad/iPhone, then this Macbook Pro and Mac Pro I own will be the last Apple devices I own, and it's hello Hackintosh or Linux desktop.
Because there are hundreds of manufacturers of Android ones, and only one for Apple. Microeconomics states that in a competitive market, price will tend to the marginal cost, and this is exactly what happened in Android. It is not "what people are willing to pay", it's that Android phones have competitive pressures that are downward on price. At the high end, people pay as much for Huawei Mate P30s as they do for iPhones, because there are few phones at that tier.
Your rebuttal actually proves my point exactly. If Apple licensed iOS, and let clone makers sell iPhone clones, the price would plummet, even if all of the features were the same -- same OS, same HW performance, etc.
Apple's creation of their own little walled garden, complete with path dependency, and slick marketing, has created a premium that would not exist if independent manufacturers could sell clones.
This is why PCs were cheaper than Macs, when clearly PCs had WAY WAY better HW than Macs, way better CPUs, GPUs, et al, for much lower price points, yet people paid more for Macs. Even back in the pre-OSX days, the PowerPC days, the Motorola days, people paid more for less, again, because of the way Apple locks in a chuck of their market with incompatible path-dependency.
I mean, I had an Amiga in the 80s, it had 4-channel stereo sound, 4096 colors, multitasking, awesome games, on a great C= monitor, and the comparable machine at the time was this tiny 128k 9" B&W display machine, which was hideously slow because it didn't even have enough RAM, and cost well over 200% more. Amiga had vertically integrated all-custom chips like Apple brags about today. It was the premium machine, so ask yourself why some people paid 200% more. It could do substantially less, graphically, and in terms of software available for it. And before you say "desktop publishing", in college I used TeX to do all of my work, and the output quality was superior with less effort. For the home PC user, it was way way overpriced for underpowered hardware and a paultry software selection. This is what Apple was competing against in the 80s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7rKj0DU8Xs
I'm an iPhone user, I've owned every iPhone since standing in line in 2007 to get one of the first. I use a Macbook as my primary laptop. So I'm not anti-Apple, but frankly all of the things I use iPhone or Macbooks for have NOTHING to do with their locked down App Store, refusal to allow me to install third party browser engines, or specify default apps, or side-load apps.
I want Apple to stop locking down freedom and when they sell me a computer or phone, let me OWN IT an do what I want with it. If Apple's ARM OSX Macs turn into a locked down system like their ARM iPad/iPhone, then this Macbook Pro and Mac Pro I own will be the last Apple devices I own, and it's hello Hackintosh or Linux desktop.
Ok, you don't like the single App store model for your phone. That's fine. However, I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that your desire is that of a tiny minority.
Due to Apple's extraordinary success and complete dominance of smartphone profits, I think it is safe to assume the vast majority of users love the App store model. They don't read Hacker News, they don't understand how computers work, and they don't care. What they know is find an app, hit a button, boom. No worries about payment security, malware, etc. (Ok, no malware is a slight overstatement, but not by much.) Software updates are handled automatically.
It is undeniable that people are willing to pay for the current experience. None of this other stuff is really relevant. If you want sideload capability, don't buy an iPhone. There is no deceptive marketing here. Everyone knows the deal with respect to software. The vast majority of users have no thought towards side loading or even what that means. I think any representative survey would find that the single app store model is a feature for the vast majority of their customers, not a detriment.
Due to Apple's extraordinary success and complete dominance of smartphone profits, I think it is safe to assume the vast majority of users love the App store model. They don't read Hacker News, they don't understand how computers work, and they don't care. What they know is find an app, hit a button, boom. No worries about payment security, malware, etc. (Ok, no malware is a slight overstatement, but not by much.) Software updates are handled automatically.
It is undeniable that people are willing to pay for the current experience. None of this other stuff is really relevant. If you want sideload capability, don't buy an iPhone. There is no deceptive marketing here. Everyone knows the deal with respect to software. The vast majority of users have no thought towards side loading or even what that means. I think any representative survey would find that the single app store model is a feature for the vast majority of their customers, not a detriment.
Windows used to completely dominate the world. Americans, when polled, often say they like their own health insurance.
None of this means it is a consumer desire, and none of this says consumers want only one way to pay for something and don't want side loading. For almost every case of something Apple doesn't have, you can make the same argument. So consumers don't want big screens right? Consumers don't want small tablets right?
This is the always the excuse with Apple. Anything they don't have, it's obviously because consumers don't want it -- right up until Apple introduces it, and then all of a sudden, it's what they wanted all along.
Steve Jobs said consumers shouldn't be trusted to know what they want.
Also, all of this is a complete SMOKESCREEN for the fact that Apple could easily introduce something like WebPayments, a driver model for payment providers, and reuse the same UI for Apple Pay to delegate to partners who are vetted.
Likewise, they already allow 'side loading' in the enterprise, so the question is, why can't they allow THOSE WHO WANT IT to flip a switch, own their smart phone fully, and side load, even if it invalidates the warranty. Let people jailbreak the devices they paid >$1000 for without relying on exploits.
None of this means it is a consumer desire, and none of this says consumers want only one way to pay for something and don't want side loading. For almost every case of something Apple doesn't have, you can make the same argument. So consumers don't want big screens right? Consumers don't want small tablets right?
This is the always the excuse with Apple. Anything they don't have, it's obviously because consumers don't want it -- right up until Apple introduces it, and then all of a sudden, it's what they wanted all along.
Steve Jobs said consumers shouldn't be trusted to know what they want.
Also, all of this is a complete SMOKESCREEN for the fact that Apple could easily introduce something like WebPayments, a driver model for payment providers, and reuse the same UI for Apple Pay to delegate to partners who are vetted.
Likewise, they already allow 'side loading' in the enterprise, so the question is, why can't they allow THOSE WHO WANT IT to flip a switch, own their smart phone fully, and side load, even if it invalidates the warranty. Let people jailbreak the devices they paid >$1000 for without relying on exploits.
Windows used to completely dominate the world.
And when it comes to PC operating systems, it still does even though according to you Apple has this magical ability to keep the masses ignorant and uninformed about alternatives.
Also, all of this is a complete SMOKESCREEN for the fact that Apple could easily introduce something like WebPayments, a driver model for payment providers, and reuse the same UI for Apple Pay to delegate to partners who are vetted.
Does any retailer have a method that allows consumers to avoid payments? Can I buy imaginary money from Epic from another payment provider and use within Fortnite?
Likewise, they already allow 'side loading' in the enterprise, so the question is, why can't they allow THOSE WHO WANT IT to flip a switch
You are perfectly allowed to buy an Android phone like 85% of the rest of the world.
And when it comes to PC operating systems, it still does even though according to you Apple has this magical ability to keep the masses ignorant and uninformed about alternatives.
Also, all of this is a complete SMOKESCREEN for the fact that Apple could easily introduce something like WebPayments, a driver model for payment providers, and reuse the same UI for Apple Pay to delegate to partners who are vetted.
Does any retailer have a method that allows consumers to avoid payments? Can I buy imaginary money from Epic from another payment provider and use within Fortnite?
Likewise, they already allow 'side loading' in the enterprise, so the question is, why can't they allow THOSE WHO WANT IT to flip a switch
You are perfectly allowed to buy an Android phone like 85% of the rest of the world.
Every single one of Apple’s competitors in the PC market were better capitalized in the 80s through 2005. Especially when Apple was almost bankrupt. The other companies were incompetent. They could have done the same thing.
There was no lock in with Macs - the same Software was available for Windows and more. Have you ever thought that it wasn’t just about the hardware?
Did Apple have a lock in on marketing that kept Microsoft and Google incapable of marketing their own devices?
Did Apple stop Commodore and Atari from executing?
There was no lock in with Macs - the same Software was available for Windows and more. Have you ever thought that it wasn’t just about the hardware?
Did Apple have a lock in on marketing that kept Microsoft and Google incapable of marketing their own devices?
Did Apple stop Commodore and Atari from executing?
> They could have done the same thing.
Nope, the MS-DOS and Windows market was too big by then to introduce a new incompatible system. Ask OS/2 how it worked out.
> There was no lock in with Macs
Sure there was. Firstly, many schools across the country had been convinced to by Macs through the educational discounts Apple gave, and school bureaucracies like all government bureaucracies move very slowly, so aren't going to switch, but simply maintain and grow the bureaucracy. Secondly, if you had actually invested in a bunch of Mac software and a LaserWriter, the sunk cost fallacy would lead many people to stay in.
And then there's Cognitive Dissonance.
> Have you ever thought that it wasn’t just about the hardware?
Mac software and hardware was inferior until the Intel switch-over. Sure, MacOS was more consistent, but the software available for the platform was worse. And in some categories, practically non-existent compared to Windows.
Almost every single response I see from you in threads is like a paleo-libertarian response that "things are the way they are because they are what the market intended" without almost no insight into how consumers can be manipulated by corporations.
Nope, the MS-DOS and Windows market was too big by then to introduce a new incompatible system. Ask OS/2 how it worked out.
> There was no lock in with Macs
Sure there was. Firstly, many schools across the country had been convinced to by Macs through the educational discounts Apple gave, and school bureaucracies like all government bureaucracies move very slowly, so aren't going to switch, but simply maintain and grow the bureaucracy. Secondly, if you had actually invested in a bunch of Mac software and a LaserWriter, the sunk cost fallacy would lead many people to stay in.
And then there's Cognitive Dissonance.
> Have you ever thought that it wasn’t just about the hardware?
Mac software and hardware was inferior until the Intel switch-over. Sure, MacOS was more consistent, but the software available for the platform was worse. And in some categories, practically non-existent compared to Windows.
Almost every single response I see from you in threads is like a paleo-libertarian response that "things are the way they are because they are what the market intended" without almost no insight into how consumers can be manipulated by corporations.
So please tell us one law that the government passed in the last 30 years related to technology that was actually good for consumers.
After everything you have seen the US government do with regards to technology, you still want more government power? I haven’t seen anyone on HN that supports the DMCA, laws trying to make encryption illegal, etc.
My fight against government control is because I don’t trust the government. I can more easily leave a company than I can a government.
Why was Apple able to survive the consolidation behind MS DOS and Atari, Commodore, etc. weren’t? They all started around the same place.
Don’t blame Apple for other company’s failures.
After everything you have seen the US government do with regards to technology, you still want more government power? I haven’t seen anyone on HN that supports the DMCA, laws trying to make encryption illegal, etc.
My fight against government control is because I don’t trust the government. I can more easily leave a company than I can a government.
Why was Apple able to survive the consolidation behind MS DOS and Atari, Commodore, etc. weren’t? They all started around the same place.
Don’t blame Apple for other company’s failures.
All good. But iOS has a marginal cost of essentially zero. So its presence (or absence) has effectively no impact on the marginal cost of an iPhone.
Given the ongoing security updates and years of upgrades provided to older phones, I would argue that the marginal cost of iOS is NOT zero nor anywhere close to it. Relatively low, sure, but one would need to figure the amortized cost of ~5–6 years of OS updates across the devices who are receiving the latest iOS this fall.
Apple has more products than an iPhone. In business you do not include the costs in that manner. Even without an iPhone, those costs exist and would be paid.
People used to pay money for Trumpet Winsock, then a TCP/IP stack became critical infrastructure, and you no longer paid for it. Web Browsers used to have a commercial model (Netscape), then the Web become so critical, it became commodity infrastructure. Disk compression and encryption? Table stakes. Video decompression/compression? I could go on and on, but ALOT of functionality that used to be commercial add-ons has become commodity, and required OS infra. It's just paid for, and no on charges.
Otherwise, hey, let's unbundle Mobile Safari, and Mail, and Maps, and when you buy an iPhone, the first thing you have to do is buy all the builtin default apps.
Otherwise, hey, let's unbundle Mobile Safari, and Mail, and Maps, and when you buy an iPhone, the first thing you have to do is buy all the builtin default apps.
The app store should be free as a complement to hardware sales.
"A complement is a product that you usually buy together with another product. Gas and cars are complements. Computer hardware is a classic complement of computer operating systems. And babysitters are a complement of dinner at fine restaurants. In a small town, when the local five star restaurant has a two-for-one Valentine’s day special, the local babysitters double their rates. (Actually, the nine-year-olds get roped into early service.)
All else being equal, demand for a product increases when the prices of its complements decrease."
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/
also, people should be speaking of monopsony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony
"A complement is a product that you usually buy together with another product. Gas and cars are complements. Computer hardware is a classic complement of computer operating systems. And babysitters are a complement of dinner at fine restaurants. In a small town, when the local five star restaurant has a two-for-one Valentine’s day special, the local babysitters double their rates. (Actually, the nine-year-olds get roped into early service.)
All else being equal, demand for a product increases when the prices of its complements decrease."
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/
also, people should be speaking of monopsony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony
>also, people should be speaking of monopsony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony
For some strange reason the term never really caught on, even having been reported and used multiple times in mainstream media.
I just wish more people understand and use it. Especially in discussions like the current issues.
For some strange reason the term never really caught on, even having been reported and used multiple times in mainstream media.
I just wish more people understand and use it. Especially in discussions like the current issues.
Why are the app store and iphone hardware 2 distinct products? the app store is simply a feature of the iPhone product.
But by selling apps, and driving the prices of these apps low or zero, the sales of iphones goes up.
price of jelly goes to zero, sales of peanut butter go up.
prices of software goes to zero, sales of hardware goes up.
when microsoft created the PC market it took the opposite approach -- commoditize pc hardware, drive the price as low as possible -- and OS sales will go up. It worked too.;
price of jelly goes to zero, sales of peanut butter go up.
prices of software goes to zero, sales of hardware goes up.
when microsoft created the PC market it took the opposite approach -- commoditize pc hardware, drive the price as low as possible -- and OS sales will go up. It worked too.;
So now we are telling companies what they should make?
We know that margins aren’t 64% - it’s right in their financial statements.
The costs to run the Apple store should be included as a sunk platform cost of the phone just like OSX. The cost to run the store is marginal. The cost to serve up an additional developer app, to review an additional app, and to let someone buy one, is an insignificant fraction.
Would Apple be in their right to charge $25K fee to use their SDK? We would they be within their right to charge a bandwidth fee like Amazon does with the Kindle?
Should all software companies only charge nominal fees because the cost of an additional customer is low?
The cost of credit card transaction is around 3% + $0.25/transaction. While of course that’s much less than 30% for anything over $1.00, most of the revenue from the App Store comes from crap like Candy Crush with in app purchases of gems. Especially since the major players like Netflix and Spotify don’t allow in app purchases.
Let’s not pretend that the money is coming from indy developers selling useful products - most of it is coming from the tokens and loot boxes bought by whales.
We know that margins aren’t 64% - it’s right in their financial statements.
The costs to run the Apple store should be included as a sunk platform cost of the phone just like OSX. The cost to run the store is marginal. The cost to serve up an additional developer app, to review an additional app, and to let someone buy one, is an insignificant fraction.
Would Apple be in their right to charge $25K fee to use their SDK? We would they be within their right to charge a bandwidth fee like Amazon does with the Kindle?
Should all software companies only charge nominal fees because the cost of an additional customer is low?
The cost of credit card transaction is around 3% + $0.25/transaction. While of course that’s much less than 30% for anything over $1.00, most of the revenue from the App Store comes from crap like Candy Crush with in app purchases of gems. Especially since the major players like Netflix and Spotify don’t allow in app purchases.
Let’s not pretend that the money is coming from indy developers selling useful products - most of it is coming from the tokens and loot boxes bought by whales.
> most of it is coming from the tokens and loot boxes bought by whales.
Apple's money is coming from where exactly ? At $1000+ price, in gaming terminology that is either "whales" or users who cannot afford it but are exploited/addicted to the "product". There are perfectly equivalent android phones for less than half that price. Ultimately apple and epic are lifestyle companies, you don't "need" either of them sure, that doesn't mean they are not providing value to the economy.
> Would Apple be in their right to charge $25K fee
I am sure Epic will gladly pay 25k or $250k fee which is exactly the point. $99 is great for indie developer not for large businesses. You may not want large businesses in the store, Many do, I want my apps not to stop working because the developer lost interest, I want the companies behind the apps not to go bankrupt .
> We would they be within their right to charge a bandwidth fee like Amazon does with the Kindle
Sure, the can charge reasonable or even cloud rates, or even better they don't need to provide the bandwidth at all or make it optional. Many developers I am sure are happy to host files with a CDN of their choosing, a provider they can negotiate their rate at scale .I am sure apple will object on user experience grounds. Google allows you to run your own store you can use your own CDN. Sure without playservices they make it hard, both Amazon and Samsung do deliver through it though.
> The cost of credit card transaction is around 3% + $0.25/transaction
That is the retail rate for a high end service provider like stripe. Apple (or any company doing $1M+/month) is not paying anywhere remotely close to that.
In any other industry price scales with usage. Enterprise/ high volume customers do not pay retail, retail rates have a big per unit CAC associated with it b2b sales have CAC but it is not any linearly correlated to units. Customers normally at decent volumes can negotiate, Apple will not give any volume discounts. They can get away with it because of their control over the market.
Epic does not care you and I are paying 30%. They care that they are paying the same 30%.
Apple also does not care small developers are paying 30% or not, they want 30% from epic size customers.
Apple's money is coming from where exactly ? At $1000+ price, in gaming terminology that is either "whales" or users who cannot afford it but are exploited/addicted to the "product". There are perfectly equivalent android phones for less than half that price. Ultimately apple and epic are lifestyle companies, you don't "need" either of them sure, that doesn't mean they are not providing value to the economy.
> Would Apple be in their right to charge $25K fee
I am sure Epic will gladly pay 25k or $250k fee which is exactly the point. $99 is great for indie developer not for large businesses. You may not want large businesses in the store, Many do, I want my apps not to stop working because the developer lost interest, I want the companies behind the apps not to go bankrupt .
> We would they be within their right to charge a bandwidth fee like Amazon does with the Kindle
Sure, the can charge reasonable or even cloud rates, or even better they don't need to provide the bandwidth at all or make it optional. Many developers I am sure are happy to host files with a CDN of their choosing, a provider they can negotiate their rate at scale .I am sure apple will object on user experience grounds. Google allows you to run your own store you can use your own CDN. Sure without playservices they make it hard, both Amazon and Samsung do deliver through it though.
> The cost of credit card transaction is around 3% + $0.25/transaction
That is the retail rate for a high end service provider like stripe. Apple (or any company doing $1M+/month) is not paying anywhere remotely close to that.
In any other industry price scales with usage. Enterprise/ high volume customers do not pay retail, retail rates have a big per unit CAC associated with it b2b sales have CAC but it is not any linearly correlated to units. Customers normally at decent volumes can negotiate, Apple will not give any volume discounts. They can get away with it because of their control over the market.
Epic does not care you and I are paying 30%. They care that they are paying the same 30%.
Apple also does not care small developers are paying 30% or not, they want 30% from epic size customers.
Apple's money is coming from where exactly ? At $1000+ price, in gaming terminology that is either "whales" or users who cannot afford it but are exploited/addicted to the "product".
So people are addicted to iPhones? Apple sells a $399 phone that is faster than any Android phone at any price.
Apple will not give any volume discounts. They can get away with it because of their control over the market.
Rumors are that they did in fact negotiate with Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu. They actually offered something of value.
So people are addicted to iPhones? Apple sells a $399 phone that is faster than any Android phone at any price.
Apple will not give any volume discounts. They can get away with it because of their control over the market.
Rumors are that they did in fact negotiate with Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu. They actually offered something of value.
Of course they are addicted to apple brand. People accessor-ize apple products. A lot of people buy apple because it is aspirational, same reason people buy skins in games and many times neither can really afford to spend that kind of money.
> Apple sells a $399 phone that is faster than any Android phone at any price.
Google Pixel 3A is similarly priced product , it has higher resolution(2220x1080 / 1337x750) better camera (12.2+8 / 12+7), lighter(147g / 148g), larger(5.6inch/4.7inch), larger battery, better processor, a headphone jack (like the jack or not, not having it means you need airpods headset easily another $150 compared to $20-30 I can spend on a wired headset.
And this is 2020 SE which Apple will typically for sell for next three years . Other competitors would have two more upgrades stretching the gap a lot more by 2022 when Apple will sell 2020 SE at the same price.
You can perhaps argue that form factor, processor or battery is actually better in Apple, but any objective reasonable metric Apple SE is not significantly better than similar android phones.
Apple is forced to deal with streaming companies, because they are not a large enough player, with big enough catalogue to dictate terms. Apple needs to license content from the same studios for themselves too, they screw over hulu, Apple TV is going to be screwed right back.
> Apple sells a $399 phone that is faster than any Android phone at any price.
Google Pixel 3A is similarly priced product , it has higher resolution(2220x1080 / 1337x750) better camera (12.2+8 / 12+7), lighter(147g / 148g), larger(5.6inch/4.7inch), larger battery, better processor, a headphone jack (like the jack or not, not having it means you need airpods headset easily another $150 compared to $20-30 I can spend on a wired headset.
And this is 2020 SE which Apple will typically for sell for next three years . Other competitors would have two more upgrades stretching the gap a lot more by 2022 when Apple will sell 2020 SE at the same price.
You can perhaps argue that form factor, processor or battery is actually better in Apple, but any objective reasonable metric Apple SE is not significantly better than similar android phones.
Apple is forced to deal with streaming companies, because they are not a large enough player, with big enough catalogue to dictate terms. Apple needs to license content from the same studios for themselves too, they screw over hulu, Apple TV is going to be screwed right back.
Who are you to tell Apple how to set their prices? Apple is an American company and we have free markets here. Price controls on luxury goods are completely against free market capitalism. If you don't like it, don't buy an iPhone. Good luck finding a better smart phone experience.
Well, I'm a customer and I can bitch and moan about their behavior all I want. How else will they improve if their customers don't have any complaints?
But again, we see the "love it or leave it" attitude. As in, you have no right to criticize the cherished totem that I have invested a huge portion of my self into.
But again, we see the "love it or leave it" attitude. As in, you have no right to criticize the cherished totem that I have invested a huge portion of my self into.
You work for Google and have the nerve to call a diatribe about Apple's profit margins a legitimate complaint? Cool. Well Google should charge less for advertising because they make too much money off ad clicks!
Ok let’s punish them for making money, how come no one complained when they first came out with this payment scheme? Yes, they covered their fixed costs and then some, are they supposed to lower the price so they barely make a profit? Capitalism doesn’t work like that.
Per page 19 of Apple's FY 2019 annual report [0], the net sales for the 'Services' category (consisting of the following) was $46.291 billion.
> Services net sales include sales from the Company’s digital content stores and streaming services, AppleCare, licensing and other services. Services net sales also include amortization of the deferred value of Maps, Siri and free iCloud services, which are bundled in the sales price of certain products.
Undoubtedly, the App Store makes up a large chunk of that $46.291 billion, but not all of it. We don't know how much money Apple actually makes off of the App Store. For all we know, Apple attributes 50% of the iPhone's profit margin to "Maps, Siri, and free iCloud services" which would dramatically skew the numbers. Services also includes digital media, AppleCare, and licensing which are all non-trivial sources of revenue.
[0]: https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0000320193/1a91911...
> Services net sales include sales from the Company’s digital content stores and streaming services, AppleCare, licensing and other services. Services net sales also include amortization of the deferred value of Maps, Siri and free iCloud services, which are bundled in the sales price of certain products.
Undoubtedly, the App Store makes up a large chunk of that $46.291 billion, but not all of it. We don't know how much money Apple actually makes off of the App Store. For all we know, Apple attributes 50% of the iPhone's profit margin to "Maps, Siri, and free iCloud services" which would dramatically skew the numbers. Services also includes digital media, AppleCare, and licensing which are all non-trivial sources of revenue.
[0]: https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0000320193/1a91911...
There is also the $99/year subscription to apple developer program
$300/year for us, and each additional client we choose to work with. This is the cost of obtaining what is effectively side-loading capability.
> A $1250 iPhone had a $450 cost to make...
Where do you even get numbers like this? Are you looking at the bill of materials cost and assuming that to be the cost of the device, ignoring the R&D, testing, iterations of development and tweaking, and many other factors (including marketing) that go into the price of a product (apart from profit margin)? If yes, that’s too naive an assumption and bordering on hyperbole.
This is like arguing that the ingredients for <your favorite dish> cost some low value whereas restaurants are selling it at several tens of times that cost. M
Where do you even get numbers like this? Are you looking at the bill of materials cost and assuming that to be the cost of the device, ignoring the R&D, testing, iterations of development and tweaking, and many other factors (including marketing) that go into the price of a product (apart from profit margin)? If yes, that’s too naive an assumption and bordering on hyperbole.
This is like arguing that the ingredients for <your favorite dish> cost some low value whereas restaurants are selling it at several tens of times that cost. M
I agree. I very much like the metaphor you're drawing here. Expecting a phone to cost as much as its materials is like expecting to go to a restaurant and being outraged when a steak and fries costs $25 when you can buy potatoes and a steak from your local supermarket for $8.
It's absolutely ignoring the overhead, R&D, etc; but I often also find iOS itself ignored in the built-in costs. I often find comparisons to costs of materials vs. MRSP bizarre at best, in any case.
It's absolutely ignoring the overhead, R&D, etc; but I often also find iOS itself ignored in the built-in costs. I often find comparisons to costs of materials vs. MRSP bizarre at best, in any case.
Apple's gross revenue was about $14 billion, not $50 billion. Total app store revenue in 2019 was $61 Billion. Apple received between 15% and 30% of that, depending upon the first year/later years subscription numbers. If we use 22.5%, Apple made $13.7 billion.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/15/21292203/apple-app-store-...
Follow the link to the cited study. Another data point is Apple's release that they paid developers $34 billion in 2018.
https://fortune.com/2019/01/28/apple-app-store-developer-ear...
Since the 15% subscription model was relatively newer in 2018, let's put the 2018 developer number at 75% of the total, so Apple made about $11.3 billion in 2018.
Also, we should not forget the huge overall R&D spend Apple is making to keep growing the iPhone/iPad market. Apple makes money off sales of course, but it is still a huge investment in the platform and that creates market for developers.
They have also just announced a new platform for Macs that will allow iPhone and iPad apps to run unaltered on the new Macs. Again, big R&D expense from Apple with upside for developers. In general, there have been big R&D expenditures in software SDKs in recent years for developers to get to a write once model so programs can run on all the platforms.
Apple also eats the 2.5% (typical number) credit card transaction costs. In addition, they deal with collecting and paying local sales taxes in every state and in 155 countries.
For the user, they provide a trusted payment processor and software source so they don't have to worry if the software will have embedded malware or if their credit card data will be handled appropriately.
They provide cloud servers for notifications, file storage, all of the software update processing, payment processing, and many other services.
The app store team performs about 100,000 reviews every week. Somewhat automated, but a lot of humans involved too.
After the first year, Apple's cut is 15%, so after all the other expenses of the app store I'd be surprised if they are clearing 10% after that. Whatever the exact number, it is far less than 30%.
The 2019 net prior to R&D and other expenses is probably around $12 to $13 billion best case. Developers made about $47 billion. At any rate, Apple is making money, but we should keep the right numbers in mind when we have these discussions.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/15/21292203/apple-app-store-...
Follow the link to the cited study. Another data point is Apple's release that they paid developers $34 billion in 2018.
https://fortune.com/2019/01/28/apple-app-store-developer-ear...
Since the 15% subscription model was relatively newer in 2018, let's put the 2018 developer number at 75% of the total, so Apple made about $11.3 billion in 2018.
Also, we should not forget the huge overall R&D spend Apple is making to keep growing the iPhone/iPad market. Apple makes money off sales of course, but it is still a huge investment in the platform and that creates market for developers.
They have also just announced a new platform for Macs that will allow iPhone and iPad apps to run unaltered on the new Macs. Again, big R&D expense from Apple with upside for developers. In general, there have been big R&D expenditures in software SDKs in recent years for developers to get to a write once model so programs can run on all the platforms.
Apple also eats the 2.5% (typical number) credit card transaction costs. In addition, they deal with collecting and paying local sales taxes in every state and in 155 countries.
For the user, they provide a trusted payment processor and software source so they don't have to worry if the software will have embedded malware or if their credit card data will be handled appropriately.
They provide cloud servers for notifications, file storage, all of the software update processing, payment processing, and many other services.
The app store team performs about 100,000 reviews every week. Somewhat automated, but a lot of humans involved too.
After the first year, Apple's cut is 15%, so after all the other expenses of the app store I'd be surprised if they are clearing 10% after that. Whatever the exact number, it is far less than 30%.
The 2019 net prior to R&D and other expenses is probably around $12 to $13 billion best case. Developers made about $47 billion. At any rate, Apple is making money, but we should keep the right numbers in mind when we have these discussions.
I don't think the number is around $50B but more likely $15B but you're still right; this is far more than enough to run the App Store. YT makes similar revenue to the App Store but likely spends considerably more OpEx given the nature of the service. But no one really expect YT to be net-loss for Google.
This is especially true as Apple consistently claims that the App Store is an integral, inseparable part from iPhone; so even if Apple loses a significant amount of money from the App Store it should be fine as long as iPhone can make ~$100B profit each year.
Of course, they could invalidate this logic by introducing some form of competing app stores, which would be just nominal in practice, but they didn't choose to do that. I don't know why; no one really can compete with Apple in the iOS ecosystem and this would significantly mitigate their legal risk.
This is especially true as Apple consistently claims that the App Store is an integral, inseparable part from iPhone; so even if Apple loses a significant amount of money from the App Store it should be fine as long as iPhone can make ~$100B profit each year.
Of course, they could invalidate this logic by introducing some form of competing app stores, which would be just nominal in practice, but they didn't choose to do that. I don't know why; no one really can compete with Apple in the iOS ecosystem and this would significantly mitigate their legal risk.
If you don't like it why don't you make your own phone platform and make its app store free.
It is easy to demand free shit from already established platforms since they don't strictly need it now, but it required a lot of capital and work to get to the point it is now and now you are expecting to get a free ride on top of that.
Then again this incident has nothing to do with Apple or Epic. This is essentially China vs USA case. Just another form of cyber warfare and comments like yours show that China is succeeding.
It is easy to demand free shit from already established platforms since they don't strictly need it now, but it required a lot of capital and work to get to the point it is now and now you are expecting to get a free ride on top of that.
Then again this incident has nothing to do with Apple or Epic. This is essentially China vs USA case. Just another form of cyber warfare and comments like yours show that China is succeeding.
Apple doesn’t make $50B a year from the App Store. That’s roughly it’s entire services revenues. It’s estimated that developers had gross sales of $50B from the AppStore last year, of which $15B is Apples share before expenses.
Apples audited financials tell us gross margins on services is 68%, and $9B of those services are from an annual payment from Google for search placement in Safari with a gross margin approaching 100%. So you can make up whatever numbers you want given your limited understanding of what services the App Store provides, but App Store gross margins are clearly likely to be in the 50-65% range, making its break even somewhere between 10-15% of developer revenues.
And lastly, gross margins aren’t net margins. Apple still has to pay for marketing, sales, admin, support, etc out of iPhone gross margins, and the App Store still needs to contribute to some if these as well.
Apples audited financials tell us gross margins on services is 68%, and $9B of those services are from an annual payment from Google for search placement in Safari with a gross margin approaching 100%. So you can make up whatever numbers you want given your limited understanding of what services the App Store provides, but App Store gross margins are clearly likely to be in the 50-65% range, making its break even somewhere between 10-15% of developer revenues.
And lastly, gross margins aren’t net margins. Apple still has to pay for marketing, sales, admin, support, etc out of iPhone gross margins, and the App Store still needs to contribute to some if these as well.
Apple Music and anything that has content rights are where low margins are going to be. Services margin will include new areas they are investing in and losing money as well.
There's zero percent chance the App Store is running at 50% margin. It's got to be closer to 80% than 50%, or they are doing something wrong.
There's zero percent chance the App Store is running at 50% margin. It's got to be closer to 80% than 50%, or they are doing something wrong.
You are correct Apple Music has low margins (Less than 30%), but it also only has 40M subscribers, which is likely less than $5B in annualized revenues, or roughly 10% of total services revenues.
So $50B in services at 68% margins equals $16B in expenses, deduct $4B in Apple Music expense and you have $12B left. Deduct $9B from revenues for Googles search engine placement, $5B more in revenues from Apple Music, and you have $36B in revenues left. That makes gross margins for the remaining services, which the App Store is 40%, 67%.
You are correct in that 67% is closer to 80% than 50%, but still a long way from it.
So $50B in services at 68% margins equals $16B in expenses, deduct $4B in Apple Music expense and you have $12B left. Deduct $9B from revenues for Googles search engine placement, $5B more in revenues from Apple Music, and you have $36B in revenues left. That makes gross margins for the remaining services, which the App Store is 40%, 67%.
You are correct in that 67% is closer to 80% than 50%, but still a long way from it.
>but App Store gross margins are clearly likely to be in the 50-65% range, making its break even somewhere between 10-15% of developer revenues.
Apple dont booked their customer's revenue, only their receiving ( i.e ~30% ) end. So those are close to 100% Margin as well.
There are additional $10 per Mac, iPhone, iPad, Apple TV per unit to Services for their OS, Cloud, Siri and Map Usage. That is close to $3B revenue, and again Gross is close to 100% margin.
The only thing that aren't 100% Gross is Apple Music. Where it has a clear unit cost and margin are likely to be Sub 20%. ( You can take a look at Spotify for margins, and Apple also pay labels a little more than competitors because it isn't part of their profit making branches ) And Apple TV+ which is Apple giving away their Services Profits for something given out for "Free". ( Which is one reason I hate Apple TV+ )
Apple are now basically subtracting all of their Software and Cloud Services Cost from Services Segment. Apple could argue part of the reason why you get 5 years worth of iOS update are from those revenue stream.
And yes, none of these Gross Margin takes into account R&D, marketing, operation and other expenses.
Personally I have no problem with Apple charging 30% for Games like Fornite. Which is the industry Standard across all gaming platform. I just wish they lowered the Apps section in the App Store ( Gaming being already in a separate section ) to 15% rather than 30%. And 10% for Subscription.
Considering the cost of running the App Store, and Apple's promotion of App Store credit. I felt 15% is a much fairer deal.
Apple dont booked their customer's revenue, only their receiving ( i.e ~30% ) end. So those are close to 100% Margin as well.
There are additional $10 per Mac, iPhone, iPad, Apple TV per unit to Services for their OS, Cloud, Siri and Map Usage. That is close to $3B revenue, and again Gross is close to 100% margin.
The only thing that aren't 100% Gross is Apple Music. Where it has a clear unit cost and margin are likely to be Sub 20%. ( You can take a look at Spotify for margins, and Apple also pay labels a little more than competitors because it isn't part of their profit making branches ) And Apple TV+ which is Apple giving away their Services Profits for something given out for "Free". ( Which is one reason I hate Apple TV+ )
Apple are now basically subtracting all of their Software and Cloud Services Cost from Services Segment. Apple could argue part of the reason why you get 5 years worth of iOS update are from those revenue stream.
And yes, none of these Gross Margin takes into account R&D, marketing, operation and other expenses.
Personally I have no problem with Apple charging 30% for Games like Fornite. Which is the industry Standard across all gaming platform. I just wish they lowered the Apps section in the App Store ( Gaming being already in a separate section ) to 15% rather than 30%. And 10% for Subscription.
Considering the cost of running the App Store, and Apple's promotion of App Store credit. I felt 15% is a much fairer deal.
The audited accounting is clear. Apple s gross margins on services are 68% on roughly $50B in service revenues. That’s roughly $16B in expenses.
Subtract $9B for Google safari payment, and you have $16B in expenses on $41B in remaining service revenues, or 60% gross margins.
Hosting and distribution of terabytes of data every hour costs money. Building and maintains hundreds of localized app stores costs money. Customer service costs money. App Review costs money. Developer support costs money. Maintaining Developer tools and store APIs costs money. Payment processing costs money, esp. on 99 cent purchases.
And why should Apple price these devices at a “fair price”? When you build a business from scratch that be ones far more successful than anyone thought possible, aren’t you allowed to keep the money people freely pay you?
Apple set the pricing at 30% day 1, and it hasn’t stopped a single developer from running to jump into the App Store goldmine. There has never been a more profitable software market for developers. I’d say Jobs clearly got the pricing right.
Subtract $9B for Google safari payment, and you have $16B in expenses on $41B in remaining service revenues, or 60% gross margins.
Hosting and distribution of terabytes of data every hour costs money. Building and maintains hundreds of localized app stores costs money. Customer service costs money. App Review costs money. Developer support costs money. Maintaining Developer tools and store APIs costs money. Payment processing costs money, esp. on 99 cent purchases.
And why should Apple price these devices at a “fair price”? When you build a business from scratch that be ones far more successful than anyone thought possible, aren’t you allowed to keep the money people freely pay you?
Apple set the pricing at 30% day 1, and it hasn’t stopped a single developer from running to jump into the App Store goldmine. There has never been a more profitable software market for developers. I’d say Jobs clearly got the pricing right.
No one is saying the App Store isn’t allowed to be profitable for Apple. Just countering the misinformation from the post and the wrong assumption that the App Stores only make 60% margin.
Developers pay to advertise their apps (some of it goes to Apple) Apple pays to market Apple TV, Apple Music. Apple doesn't need to take in revenue to market other people's apps, advertising them is a money maker for them.
Also, you are talking about the margins on all Apple's services, some of which are much more expensive than others. The margins that other digital software stores can charge suggest to me that they can be very profitable without the 30% cut.
Full disclosure: I am a longtime Apple shareholder.
Also, you are talking about the margins on all Apple's services, some of which are much more expensive than others. The margins that other digital software stores can charge suggest to me that they can be very profitable without the 30% cut.
Full disclosure: I am a longtime Apple shareholder.
No one is saying the App Store isn’t very profitable for Apple. Just countering the misinformation from n the original post and the blatantly wrong assumption that the App Stores only costs are payment processing.
Disclosure: I’m a long tine App Store developer.
Disclosure: I’m a long tine App Store developer.
On the wild assumption that the plist for macOS Safari at https://discussions.apple.com/thread/2813786 is used on iOS and it's derivatives, and that the <key>Default</key><true/> pair implements this on all platforms, given the $9 billion placement payment for Google, would that code section not be a contender for the most expensive lines of code in existence, and at $360 million per letter?
> They are already rich so they don't need a 30% cut of app purchases
Yes, I don't get why they don't just hand out phones and everything for free, duh. I mean surely they could do that for a while with all that revenue instead of theoretically buying 50 new data centers per year every year? Why I am not getting free stuff from rich people? What economic wizardry am I missing?
Yes, I don't get why they don't just hand out phones and everything for free, duh. I mean surely they could do that for a while with all that revenue instead of theoretically buying 50 new data centers per year every year? Why I am not getting free stuff from rich people? What economic wizardry am I missing?
> It should be free like the Web,
Lots of entitlement here. Apple does not owe you anything.
If you don't like Apple's terms, just don't buy their products. It really is that simple.
Lots of entitlement here. Apple does not owe you anything.
If you don't like Apple's terms, just don't buy their products. It really is that simple.
"Love it or leave it." Sure fire mark of tribalism. <plugs ears doesn't wanna hear criticism of sacred cow>
Honestly, i've been hearing the criticism "What you put a lot of work into accomplishing should be free" my whole life. There is a full sub-reddit for these things (/r/choosingbeggars).
Here's the thing. Even if you're OK with Apple (or whoever) controlling what you can run on your computers, this is a centralization of power that will be co-opted.
Let's say that Australia wants to ban consumer encryption. This would currently be difficult to enforce for PC software. But on mobile, this is easy. Just make Apple and Google enforce it! Make them ban such apps from their stores. Now you've achieved perfect enforcement on Apple hardware. Even on Android, where people could in theory side-load the banned apps, this would prevent those apps from achieving any scale or network effect.
That's what I think people are missing here. No matter how much you trust Apple, once the mechanisms for this kind of power are in place, you won't be able to control what happens next.
Let's say that Australia wants to ban consumer encryption. This would currently be difficult to enforce for PC software. But on mobile, this is easy. Just make Apple and Google enforce it! Make them ban such apps from their stores. Now you've achieved perfect enforcement on Apple hardware. Even on Android, where people could in theory side-load the banned apps, this would prevent those apps from achieving any scale or network effect.
That's what I think people are missing here. No matter how much you trust Apple, once the mechanisms for this kind of power are in place, you won't be able to control what happens next.
I feel like the core point of several arguments ITT skew towards the age old anti-trust laws without explicitly referring to it per se.
This is a good argument for enforcing open hardware at the boot loader level and requiring open driver specifications for the hardware.
It is a strong counter argument for requiring openness at the App store level.
It is a strong counter argument for requiring openness at the App store level.
I don't think you are using two points that are similar enough.
If Australia bans encryption, you as a consumer who resides in Australia has a high switching cost (moving, new job, residence, etc.) and thus the consumer loses out.
If Apple starts to use that power badly... you can switch to a number of competitor feature phones with largely the same feature and app capabilities (Android being the most obvious)
In a market with 2+ competitors and where its low switching costs (moving contacts is quite easy these days, not a lot of deep 2-year contracts for phones/providers) this point doesn't hold true
If Australia bans encryption, you as a consumer who resides in Australia has a high switching cost (moving, new job, residence, etc.) and thus the consumer loses out.
If Apple starts to use that power badly... you can switch to a number of competitor feature phones with largely the same feature and app capabilities (Android being the most obvious)
In a market with 2+ competitors and where its low switching costs (moving contacts is quite easy these days, not a lot of deep 2-year contracts for phones/providers) this point doesn't hold true
The points are not supposed to be similar... you're missing the part of the parent's argument where one is used as a tool to enforce the other, when otherwise it would be difficult/impossible to enforce.
There is only one real competitor: Android. Google would very much like to have the same degree of control that Apple does over their ecosystem, but they're holding back for now so that they can point to Apple as being worse when the congressional inquiries heat up.
Feature phones are not real competitors to smartphones.
There is only one real competitor: Android. Google would very much like to have the same degree of control that Apple does over their ecosystem, but they're holding back for now so that they can point to Apple as being worse when the congressional inquiries heat up.
Feature phones are not real competitors to smartphones.
I'd argue there is a third competitor in the form of Huawei/Xiaomi. Despite fears of spying by the Chinese, which might be justified, their phones tend to have better prices all the way to the ultra market, and due to the fact that they want to allow you to sideload GsmCore and Play Services, will never be locked down.
>If Australia bans encryption, you as a consumer who resides in Australia has a high switching cost (moving, new job, residence, etc.) and thus the consumer loses out.
>If Apple starts to use that power badly... you can switch to a number of competitor feature phones with largely the same feature and app capabilities (Android being the most obvious)
It depends, network are effects are strong on Apple (iMessage) and maybe you already bought tons of apps and software that you can't transfer to Android or Windows.
>If Apple starts to use that power badly... you can switch to a number of competitor feature phones with largely the same feature and app capabilities (Android being the most obvious)
It depends, network are effects are strong on Apple (iMessage) and maybe you already bought tons of apps and software that you can't transfer to Android or Windows.
I don't think getting a new phone necessarily has that low a switching cost for many people.
"you can switch to a number of competitor feature phones with largely the same feature and app capabilities"
How much does that cost? How does it work if the apps you rely on are iOS only? How do I transfer my app and subscription purchases to my new Android phone?
How much does that cost? How does it work if the apps you rely on are iOS only? How do I transfer my app and subscription purchases to my new Android phone?
Apple already actively censors political content in apps and actively works with Chinese government to censor content on Chinese AppStore.
A private company is already put themselves in plate to control software content that reaches millions of people without those people having the ability to choose anything else on their pocket computers.
A private company is already put themselves in plate to control software content that reaches millions of people without those people having the ability to choose anything else on their pocket computers.
> Apple already actively censors political content in apps...
This is true, which is why I surprised the other day when I found this app called "BLMovement" when I was looking around to see if anyone was making a completely distasteful joke...
https://apps.apple.com/uy/app/blmovement/id1517754969
As a "resource directory", it's not purely political but surely it skirts the line.
I'm certain that if some political movement had popular support Apple would forget the rules though.
(Although, I doubt they'd let this same app in the store if it was called AntifaMovement, QAnonMovement or NationalSocialistMovement.)
This is true, which is why I surprised the other day when I found this app called "BLMovement" when I was looking around to see if anyone was making a completely distasteful joke...
https://apps.apple.com/uy/app/blmovement/id1517754969
As a "resource directory", it's not purely political but surely it skirts the line.
I'm certain that if some political movement had popular support Apple would forget the rules though.
(Although, I doubt they'd let this same app in the store if it was called AntifaMovement, QAnonMovement or NationalSocialistMovement.)
> ban such apps from their stores
You could always use a website instead. Why is an app necessary?
You could always use a website instead. Why is an app necessary?
Lest your comment suggest the author of this article isn't aware of this point, he has made this argument precisely:
> Whereas China needed to control country-wide Internet access to achieve its censorship goals, Apple and Google have helpfully provided the Indian government with a one-stop shop. This also, for better or worse, gives a roadmap for how the U.S. government could respond to TikTok, if it chose to: there is no need to build a great firewall — simply give the order to Apple and Google. Centralization, at least from a central government’s perspective, has its uses.
https://stratechery.com/2020/india-bans-chinese-apps-the-app...
> Whereas China needed to control country-wide Internet access to achieve its censorship goals, Apple and Google have helpfully provided the Indian government with a one-stop shop. This also, for better or worse, gives a roadmap for how the U.S. government could respond to TikTok, if it chose to: there is no need to build a great firewall — simply give the order to Apple and Google. Centralization, at least from a central government’s perspective, has its uses.
https://stratechery.com/2020/india-bans-chinese-apps-the-app...
As part of selling on Apple's app store, you agree to follow the ToS. The ToS are very clear that you don't set up your own marketplace inside your app where Apple doesn't get a cut. This reaction (terminating Epic's account) was eminently foreseeable and completely justified. You do not fuck with Apple's cut. Don't like it, don't sell on the app store.
Epic thought they were big enough and valuable enough that they could bully their way through ToS violations. All the hip thinkpieces were saying that no matter what happens here Epic comes out on top, because Apple has everything to lose and blah blah.
Turns out nope, Epic's customers do need the app store after all, so Apple has the leverage here after all.
Epic thought they were big enough and valuable enough that they could bully their way through ToS violations. All the hip thinkpieces were saying that no matter what happens here Epic comes out on top, because Apple has everything to lose and blah blah.
Turns out nope, Epic's customers do need the app store after all, so Apple has the leverage here after all.
> But on mobile, this is easy. Just make Apple and Google enforce it!
This is exactly how Indian government has banned tiktok. They are never able to ban websites because the web is open. But apps they can ban easily because if Apple/Google say no, they will be squeezed.
This is exactly how Indian government has banned tiktok. They are never able to ban websites because the web is open. But apps they can ban easily because if Apple/Google say no, they will be squeezed.
Yep, I am really surprised about people demonising Google but apologising for Apple. They both constitute a duopoly in the mobile space.
But then again, I shouldn't be surprised since there are incentives to act this way.
But then again, I shouldn't be surprised since there are incentives to act this way.
The Hey saga emphasized that Apple has multiple products interacting in a single app store.
* Screened apps - Apple only lets "safe" apps into the store. * Discoverability - Apple in theory lets users find apps that they didn't know about before. Customer Acquisition * Payments - Apple makes it easy to accept payments, for their 30% fee.
One or all of those are useful and great. Where I have an issue is when they use one (the required screened apps aspect) for force you into the others.
Hey wanted an app on the store, as an extension to their primarily web based experience. But they couldn't purchase just the rubber-stamp that says they're not malware and the app store hosting. They were being forced to buy into all 3.
That feels like using an existing monopoly (actually a duopoly w/ google's similar practices) to force developers to purchase products they don't want. Hey didn't want to accept payments via apple, but Apple's market power and decisions were focused on forcing them to.
If Apple had a yearly fee of $1000 (arbitrary number, maybe pay per download or device or whatever), for an app to simply be reviewed & hosted, that would be reasonable. They provide a service, businesses can opt into that. But they're taking their core value prop of "closed app store helps customers" and forcing their way onto "and now you have to pay us a portion of revenue".
* Screened apps - Apple only lets "safe" apps into the store. * Discoverability - Apple in theory lets users find apps that they didn't know about before. Customer Acquisition * Payments - Apple makes it easy to accept payments, for their 30% fee.
One or all of those are useful and great. Where I have an issue is when they use one (the required screened apps aspect) for force you into the others.
Hey wanted an app on the store, as an extension to their primarily web based experience. But they couldn't purchase just the rubber-stamp that says they're not malware and the app store hosting. They were being forced to buy into all 3.
That feels like using an existing monopoly (actually a duopoly w/ google's similar practices) to force developers to purchase products they don't want. Hey didn't want to accept payments via apple, but Apple's market power and decisions were focused on forcing them to.
If Apple had a yearly fee of $1000 (arbitrary number, maybe pay per download or device or whatever), for an app to simply be reviewed & hosted, that would be reasonable. They provide a service, businesses can opt into that. But they're taking their core value prop of "closed app store helps customers" and forcing their way onto "and now you have to pay us a portion of revenue".
> That feels like using an existing monopoly (actually a duopoly w/ google's similar practices) to force developers to purchase products they don't want. Hey didn't want to accept payments via apple, but Apple's market power and decisions were focused on forcing them to.
In order to sell goods in a place like Walmart, a manufacturer is subject to onerous terms. Why is the app store different than a retailer limiting access to their shelf space? I personally feel they are different but I cannot put into words why.
In order to sell goods in a place like Walmart, a manufacturer is subject to onerous terms. Why is the app store different than a retailer limiting access to their shelf space? I personally feel they are different but I cannot put into words why.
Target is across the street from Walmart. But if someone has an iPhone they cannot shop at the Google Play store.
And Android, the only other realistic option, has effectively the same policies. Technically you can side load or use an alternative app store, but that means you don't get Play Services. And it's pretty impractical to develop apps without using those services.
Sure, in Mountain View, but otherwise the parent comment is correct. Charles Fishman’s book The Wal-Mart Effect[1] goes into great depth about how Wal-Mart suffocates smaller stores across America and turns around to arm-twist their suppliers.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wal-Mart_Effect
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wal-Mart_Effect
Even a frequent walmart buyer can still order online. On the other hand most people only own 1 phone and thus are a captive audience which limits the ways developers can reach them.
Because you can buy the same exact item on Zalando and put it on fire if you want to
Imagine if you could buy shoes only at Walmart because you bought the shoe rack there.
Imagine if you could buy shoes only at Walmart because you bought the shoe rack there.
That's some Ai-powered "Smart Shoe-Rack" with blockchain technology, running on some kubernetes clusters with 5G connectivity right there!
> Because you can buy the same exact item on Zalando and put it on fire if you want to
No you can't. Walmart often requires vendors to make a special Walmart-only version of their product. So there is nothing that's truly comparable.
No you can't. Walmart often requires vendors to make a special Walmart-only version of their product. So there is nothing that's truly comparable.
We are talking about the same exact item with the same exact features, just a different brand
There is no "vendor lock in" for t-shirts
You are not forced to buy walmart special editions using Walmart payment gateway and vendors don't have to pay Walmart a 30% cut, the opposite is true, Walmart HS to buy at least N items and pay in advance to be able to require a special edition, even though they don't know if they are going to sell all of them
There is no "vendor lock in" for t-shirts
You are not forced to buy walmart special editions using Walmart payment gateway and vendors don't have to pay Walmart a 30% cut, the opposite is true, Walmart HS to buy at least N items and pay in advance to be able to require a special edition, even though they don't know if they are going to sell all of them
Because Walmart owns the physical space but apple doesn’t own the physical device.... Apple has set up shop on the real-estate (the device) that it sold over to the user. I’ve seen this argument plenty of times and it rings hollow to me every time.
So, if they started renting the phone to you and everybody else, having a single Apple-controlled App Store would be acceptable?
(That may not even be 100% hypothetical. They have lots of money, so can afford getting delayed payment for phones. They might even be able to become a global phone company, too, and rent you a phone and a network subscription)
(That may not even be 100% hypothetical. They have lots of money, so can afford getting delayed payment for phones. They might even be able to become a global phone company, too, and rent you a phone and a network subscription)
This is how apps on phones worked for a really long time, each carrier ran its own App Store and in many cases you were renting the phone from them or getting it for free with your plan. Mobile carriers have begun merging into megacarriers over the last decade, but for a while you had a choice of at least 4 real carriers in the US.
Plus, you could unlock your phone (in some cases) and move to another carrier, which theoretically meant a different store! True freedom.
Of course actually using these phones and putting apps on them was MISERABLE, mostly because they were symbian and/or j2me apps
Plus, you could unlock your phone (in some cases) and move to another carrier, which theoretically meant a different store! True freedom.
Of course actually using these phones and putting apps on them was MISERABLE, mostly because they were symbian and/or j2me apps
I don't own a Walmart. I do own a phone. I'm largely restricted with what I can do on my phone.
Then why did you buy that phone knowing you had dozens of other alternatives?
Suppose Apple and Google started making cars and put every other car company out of business. Both made the rule that if you bought their car, every product or service that went into the car also had to be purchased through them. You preferred the Apple car world to the Google car world. (All Google cars streamed your location and live video of you and your facially recognized passengers back to Google for analysis of who you did what with where and when, for your "convenience", and Google was the only alternative to Apple.)
Avoiding Google surveillance meant you could only buy an Apple car. You could then only buy gasoline at Apple gas stations. People in your town who wanted to change your oil had to pay an annual fee to Apple to even be considered, would have to pay 30% of revenue to Apple if approved, and could be put out of business at any moment with no recourse by whatever happened in secret behind the Apple fortress walls.
You as a car owner could not choose to buy tires or get "your" car painted or even get your car washed by anyone without going through Apple. You paid Apple for the car wash, because (no matter what you or the people washing your car would prefer) you were Apple's customer and the car you paid for was Apple's car.
For your "safety", of course.
A phone is as fundamental to the infrastructure of your life today as a car. Any company that could utterly control it would probably become a trillion-dollar company.
Avoiding Google surveillance meant you could only buy an Apple car. You could then only buy gasoline at Apple gas stations. People in your town who wanted to change your oil had to pay an annual fee to Apple to even be considered, would have to pay 30% of revenue to Apple if approved, and could be put out of business at any moment with no recourse by whatever happened in secret behind the Apple fortress walls.
You as a car owner could not choose to buy tires or get "your" car painted or even get your car washed by anyone without going through Apple. You paid Apple for the car wash, because (no matter what you or the people washing your car would prefer) you were Apple's customer and the car you paid for was Apple's car.
For your "safety", of course.
A phone is as fundamental to the infrastructure of your life today as a car. Any company that could utterly control it would probably become a trillion-dollar company.
This is the first good analogy I’ve read for understanding Apple’s power in a way that non tech people can understand.
The problem with most comments shouting “30% is too high!” is that it’s impossible to throw out a better number that isn’t entirely arbitrary. The issue isn’t the number.
The issue is the mechanism by which that number can be enforced.
If we agree smartphones have become essential infrastructure, needed for the modern economy to function, we should not allow just 2 companies to have such power over it.
What makes people uncomfortable about this though, is that Apple has really done nothing wrong to get here. It’s just that their product and the App Store concept they popularized became so successful, that it’s now essential to modern life.
For the people arguing against regulation, I totally understand the uncomfortable feeling that creates.
The problem with most comments shouting “30% is too high!” is that it’s impossible to throw out a better number that isn’t entirely arbitrary. The issue isn’t the number.
The issue is the mechanism by which that number can be enforced.
If we agree smartphones have become essential infrastructure, needed for the modern economy to function, we should not allow just 2 companies to have such power over it.
What makes people uncomfortable about this though, is that Apple has really done nothing wrong to get here. It’s just that their product and the App Store concept they popularized became so successful, that it’s now essential to modern life.
For the people arguing against regulation, I totally understand the uncomfortable feeling that creates.
I bought my cash register at Wal-Mart and I happily send in 30 percent of my profits there every month.
> In order to sell goods in a place like Walmart
This analogy only works if Walmart had a contract with 50% of Americans to buy everything from Walmart only and nowhere else. Those people would not be allowed to even grow their own tomatoes in their gardens, unless they pay Walmart $99 per year for that privilege.
This analogy only works if Walmart had a contract with 50% of Americans to buy everything from Walmart only and nowhere else. Those people would not be allowed to even grow their own tomatoes in their gardens, unless they pay Walmart $99 per year for that privilege.
A $1000 fee, or fees per download, gets rid of hobbyists, passion projects, and open source apps. For example [Bookplayer.](https://github.com/TortugaPower/BookPlayer)
It should be worth it to Apple to review and host these apps just to benefit the platform which leads to users purchasing their products. The current $99 fee I imagine covers their costs to review and host most of these types.
It should be worth it to Apple to review and host these apps just to benefit the platform which leads to users purchasing their products. The current $99 fee I imagine covers their costs to review and host most of these types.
>Screened apps
Screened, primarily to be in agreement with Apple's business interests. The user's concerns (privacy, functionality, avoiding other types of malware) are given far less (inadequate) consideration. Worse, they are lulled into a false sense of security due to such memes.
Screened, primarily to be in agreement with Apple's business interests. The user's concerns (privacy, functionality, avoiding other types of malware) are given far less (inadequate) consideration. Worse, they are lulled into a false sense of security due to such memes.
As a user I'd much rather pay for a service used on my phone through Apple Pay and not have to worry about how the service is handling my card details/personal information. If I want to cancel any subscriptions I can easily do it from the one place inside my iPhone as well. I agree it's probably not worth paying 30% extra for though.
I think it’s absurd that you can neither buy a kindle book from the iOS kindle app nor the Amazon app. How user unfriendly!
And yet, Apple runs their own digitsl bookstore... since there’s no way to remove 30% revenue from apple’s own venture, they’re using a monopoly position to monopolize another market.
Oh, but Apple isn’t a monopoly because there’s Android.
Why did we think Microsoft was a monopoly? You could always buy a Mac and avoid the MS tax. But in the end the courts decided that MS was a monopoly unfairly restraining trade. We’ll have to see how this turns out. But by not allowing other app stores, Apple has put themselves at risk here.
And yet, Apple runs their own digitsl bookstore... since there’s no way to remove 30% revenue from apple’s own venture, they’re using a monopoly position to monopolize another market.
Oh, but Apple isn’t a monopoly because there’s Android.
Why did we think Microsoft was a monopoly? You could always buy a Mac and avoid the MS tax. But in the end the courts decided that MS was a monopoly unfairly restraining trade. We’ll have to see how this turns out. But by not allowing other app stores, Apple has put themselves at risk here.
Windows still has 87% market share on desktop and laptop web browsing statistics. It was higher at the time that trial took place, and cell phone web browsing wasn't as popular back then. iOS still has less than half of the smartphone market.
p.s. Right to Repair laws ought to make it illegal for Apple to prevent users from installing third-party software on the iPhone. This talk of them being some sort of "monopoly" is totally irrelevant.
p.s. Right to Repair laws ought to make it illegal for Apple to prevent users from installing third-party software on the iPhone. This talk of them being some sort of "monopoly" is totally irrelevant.
These arguments feel empty to me. There is only one source of software for the iPhone: Apple. The android ecosystem has no utility to the iPhone user. There is an Apple tax on every piece of software and every digital purchase on the platform. I don’t see where the competition is.
[deleted]
Yes, and when Microsoft was found to be abusing their monopoly position, they faced antitrust suit and lost. Epic thinks the same is now true of Apple.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
The key difference is that Microsoft had 90% market share in the operating system market. Apple's 46% market share in the smartphone market is not likely enough to be considered holding "monopoly power".
I don't think we need to stick to an existing law and second guess what courts think. We need new legislation that lowers the cost of switching across popular platforms down to a single click of a button. That'll solve a big chunk of the problem
> Why did we think Microsoft was a monopoly?
They had 94% market share in 1990's. They actually invested in Apple to keep them from going under.
They had 94% market share in 1990's. They actually invested in Apple to keep them from going under.
Sounds like OP thought Apple had the same market share back then as today.
I was asking rhetorically, because the counterpoint is the existence of competition. Are you any less locked into a platform that has 90% market share as opposed to one that has 50%? What matters is the degree of lock in, not total market share.
By the definition of 100% market share, Microsoft wasn’t a monopoly, and they argued this in court. They argued that Netscape was on a level playing field because, like AOL, they could carpet bomb the country with install disks, while MS could include their browser on 90+% of new computers sold.
By the definition of 100% market share, Microsoft wasn’t a monopoly, and they argued this in court. They argued that Netscape was on a level playing field because, like AOL, they could carpet bomb the country with install disks, while MS could include their browser on 90+% of new computers sold.
While I don't like Apple's 30% cut on multiplatform/subscription products, I think Epic's real motivation here is to run their own App Store, build a bigger moat and get the profits themselves (they take 12% cut, 5% if you use Unreal Engine, from developers in their store). They also make exclusive deals, bribing developers with funding/marketing support, so that the games can only bought in their store for 6-12mo. Clearly they are not welcoming to competition themselves.
Buying games on PC now means that you have to install 5 different app stores which are usually slow, buggy and not that well written cross-platform code (pretty much like Fortnite itself).
Tencent is also 40% shareholder in Epic, and there has been criticism on Epic sending user data back to China.
> In early December 2018, Epic Games announced that it would open a digital storefront to challenge Steam by using a 12% revenue split rather than Steam's 30%.[20] Epic also said that it would not impose digital rights management (DRM) restrictions on games sold through its platform.[20] The store opened days later, on December 6, 2018, as part of the Game Awards, with a handful of games and a short list of upcoming titles.[21][22] The store was open for macOS and Windows platforms before expanding to Android and other platforms.[20] Epic aims to release a storefront for Android devices, bypassing the Google Play Store, where it will similarly only take a 12% cut compared to Google's 30%. While Apple, Inc.'s monopoly on iOS currently makes it impossible for Epic to release an App Store there, analysts believe that if Google reacts to Epic's App Store by reducing their cut, Apple will be pressured to follow suit.
Buying games on PC now means that you have to install 5 different app stores which are usually slow, buggy and not that well written cross-platform code (pretty much like Fortnite itself).
Tencent is also 40% shareholder in Epic, and there has been criticism on Epic sending user data back to China.
> In early December 2018, Epic Games announced that it would open a digital storefront to challenge Steam by using a 12% revenue split rather than Steam's 30%.[20] Epic also said that it would not impose digital rights management (DRM) restrictions on games sold through its platform.[20] The store opened days later, on December 6, 2018, as part of the Game Awards, with a handful of games and a short list of upcoming titles.[21][22] The store was open for macOS and Windows platforms before expanding to Android and other platforms.[20] Epic aims to release a storefront for Android devices, bypassing the Google Play Store, where it will similarly only take a 12% cut compared to Google's 30%. While Apple, Inc.'s monopoly on iOS currently makes it impossible for Epic to release an App Store there, analysts believe that if Google reacts to Epic's App Store by reducing their cut, Apple will be pressured to follow suit.
Apple doesn’t always get 30%. Retailers take a cut when they sell iTunes gift cards. 15% discounts are common.
Epic should sell App Store gift cards.
Epic should sell App Store gift cards.
I'm going to heavy push back against both-sides-isms here.
> I think Epic's real motivation here is to run their own App Store
Yeah, you're right. That is the outcome that we want. We want multiple stores on iOS. I thought advocates for this position had been really clear, but maybe we haven't been clear enough.
For the record, we want there to be multiple app stores on iOS.
> build a bigger moat and get the profits themselves
You're worried that Epic's store is going to eventually overrun Apple's and then Epic will somehow prevent other stores from being installed on iOS devices? You're worried that we'll get a bigger moat than literally not being able to run any code on the device that doesn't pass through Apple's review process?
What on earth would that theoretical bigger moat even look like?
> and get the profits themselves (12% cut, 5% if you use Unreal Engine)
I want to follow up on this in the context of your worry about moats. We live in a world where Apple has complete control over the app ecosystem, and you're frightened that another company might get control and... offer better terms than we have right now?
What specifically is the horror scenario that you're frightened of?
> They also make exclusive deals, where the games can only bought in their store for 6-12mo.
I can only imagine how upset you're going to be when you learn about how Apple Arcade works.
> Tencent is also 40% shareholder in Epic
Apple actively censors thousands of apps in China from the app store right now. You are worried about accidentally funding censorship through indirect means, and your response to that is to directly take the side of one of the censors.
> I think Epic's real motivation here is to run their own App Store
Yeah, you're right. That is the outcome that we want. We want multiple stores on iOS. I thought advocates for this position had been really clear, but maybe we haven't been clear enough.
For the record, we want there to be multiple app stores on iOS.
> build a bigger moat and get the profits themselves
You're worried that Epic's store is going to eventually overrun Apple's and then Epic will somehow prevent other stores from being installed on iOS devices? You're worried that we'll get a bigger moat than literally not being able to run any code on the device that doesn't pass through Apple's review process?
What on earth would that theoretical bigger moat even look like?
> and get the profits themselves (12% cut, 5% if you use Unreal Engine)
I want to follow up on this in the context of your worry about moats. We live in a world where Apple has complete control over the app ecosystem, and you're frightened that another company might get control and... offer better terms than we have right now?
What specifically is the horror scenario that you're frightened of?
> They also make exclusive deals, where the games can only bought in their store for 6-12mo.
I can only imagine how upset you're going to be when you learn about how Apple Arcade works.
> Tencent is also 40% shareholder in Epic
Apple actively censors thousands of apps in China from the app store right now. You are worried about accidentally funding censorship through indirect means, and your response to that is to directly take the side of one of the censors.
> Yeah, you're right. That is the outcome that we want. We want multiple stores on iOS. I thought advocates for this position had been really clear, maybe we haven't been clear enough though.
Right, and the rest of us don't want that, and I also don't want games or apps that don't adhere to Apple's rules. You want another option of App Stores because you want don't want to pay for the user base that Apple created and maintains. You want to embed permanent location tracking in your apps, abuse user data, and not have to have your crappy practices out in the open when Apple shows the "nutrition scorecard" for your app.
That's not what I want on my iPhone. If your app doesn't conform to the App Store, then that's your problem, not mine. I'll vote with my dollars here. I want the iPhone just the way it is, even if that means fewer apps from bad actors.
> We live in a world where Apple has complete control over the app ecosystem, and you're frightened that another company might get control and... offer better terms than we have right now?
Yes that's exactly what I want. I want Apple to have complete control over the ecosystem. They've earned my complete trust.
Right, and the rest of us don't want that, and I also don't want games or apps that don't adhere to Apple's rules. You want another option of App Stores because you want don't want to pay for the user base that Apple created and maintains. You want to embed permanent location tracking in your apps, abuse user data, and not have to have your crappy practices out in the open when Apple shows the "nutrition scorecard" for your app.
That's not what I want on my iPhone. If your app doesn't conform to the App Store, then that's your problem, not mine. I'll vote with my dollars here. I want the iPhone just the way it is, even if that means fewer apps from bad actors.
> We live in a world where Apple has complete control over the app ecosystem, and you're frightened that another company might get control and... offer better terms than we have right now?
Yes that's exactly what I want. I want Apple to have complete control over the ecosystem. They've earned my complete trust.
I don't own an iPhone in large part because I cannot install an alternative app store or install non-Apple approved apps.
> Right, and the rest of us don't want that, and I also don't want games or apps that don't adhere to Apple's rules.
Why do you care? If you don't want to install a third-party app store, then don't. The games available on Apple's store will continue to adhere to Apple's rules, and if you want that curation, you still get it.
> They've earned my complete trust.
This blind devotion to the Apple Way is baffling, especially considering how Apple-approved apps are not free of the tracking and user-data abuse you (correctly!) rail against.
> Right, and the rest of us don't want that, and I also don't want games or apps that don't adhere to Apple's rules.
Why do you care? If you don't want to install a third-party app store, then don't. The games available on Apple's store will continue to adhere to Apple's rules, and if you want that curation, you still get it.
> They've earned my complete trust.
This blind devotion to the Apple Way is baffling, especially considering how Apple-approved apps are not free of the tracking and user-data abuse you (correctly!) rail against.
> Why do you care? If you don't want to install a third-party app store, then don't. The games available on Apple's store will continue to adhere to Apple's rules, and if you want that curation, you still get it.
Apple users care because if non-App Store distribution methods are banned, then developers are forced to go through Apple's process to get access to them. You can see complaints around this thread about how bad Epic's store on PC is. On iOS, they're forced to use Apple's purchase UI, subscription rules, privacy rules, etc.
Apple users care because if non-App Store distribution methods are banned, then developers are forced to go through Apple's process to get access to them. You can see complaints around this thread about how bad Epic's store on PC is. On iOS, they're forced to use Apple's purchase UI, subscription rules, privacy rules, etc.
If it provides that much consumer value then people shouldn't be worried about a little bit of competition. This feels more to me like a certain subset of users siding with Apple because their values happen to align with Apple's avenue for generating profit from the App Store.
If Apple's goal was protecting their consumers, they could easily roll back the contested parts of their policy while protecting consumers AND still make a profit.
If Apple's goal was protecting their consumers, they could easily roll back the contested parts of their policy while protecting consumers AND still make a profit.
If Apple doesn't want competition, maybe they should address the reasons why people want that competition. If the App Store's terms and review policies were attractive to these kinds of developers, they wouldn't push so hard to have their own store.
And if the only policies that these developers had to legitimately complain about were the ones that protect users, they'd be laughed out of town. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
And if the only policies that these developers had to legitimately complain about were the ones that protect users, they'd be laughed out of town. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
Epic's store has been incredible for PC gaming. Amazing for developers and quite good for consumers too. Taking down steam is the best thing to happen this decade.
If you don’t own an iPhone, then why do you care what Apple does?
Because it's antitrust issue. There's only one alternative.
And you chose the alternative - problem solved.
> If you don't want to install a third-party app store, then don't
I've been seeing this argument a lot and it makes the assumption that allowing alternative app stores has no impact on people who choose not to use them. I don't think this is true.
An app developer may decide to only list their app on an alternative store because they pay lower fees and they can handle payments themselves. As a user you now need to choose between not using the app or giving your credit card information to the app developer you may not trust.
If you get value out of the current App Store rules, like the person you replied to, then there is absolutely a cost to allowing alternative stores.
I've been seeing this argument a lot and it makes the assumption that allowing alternative app stores has no impact on people who choose not to use them. I don't think this is true.
An app developer may decide to only list their app on an alternative store because they pay lower fees and they can handle payments themselves. As a user you now need to choose between not using the app or giving your credit card information to the app developer you may not trust.
If you get value out of the current App Store rules, like the person you replied to, then there is absolutely a cost to allowing alternative stores.
> An app developer may decide to only list their app on an alternative store because they pay lower fees and they can handle payments themselves. As a user you now need to choose between not using the app or giving your credit card information to the app developer you may not trust.
But then this is competitive pressure for Apple to charge lower fees and allow apps to handle payments themselves, at which point the app would be back in Apple's store because the customer prefers to buy it from there. Everyone benefits (except Apple).
Meanwhile if you don't want to give the app your credit card number, you still don't have to. Refuse until they use Apple's payment method. If most users share your unwillingness then developers will still have to use a payment method you do trust. If they don't, what right do you have to constrain the choices of the other users?
But then this is competitive pressure for Apple to charge lower fees and allow apps to handle payments themselves, at which point the app would be back in Apple's store because the customer prefers to buy it from there. Everyone benefits (except Apple).
Meanwhile if you don't want to give the app your credit card number, you still don't have to. Refuse until they use Apple's payment method. If most users share your unwillingness then developers will still have to use a payment method you do trust. If they don't, what right do you have to constrain the choices of the other users?
> But then this is competitive pressure for Apple to charge lower fees and allow apps to handle payments themselves, at which point the app would be back in Apple's store because the customer prefers to buy it from there. Everyone benefits (except Apple).
No it isn't. The next moment Apple significantly lowers its comission, the same people will start whining about Apple "dumping the market" "to sink its competitors", and that it should be prosecuted under the same flawed anti-trust legislation. Been there, seen that: if your rates are too high you are a monopolist; if your rates are low you are dumping; and if your rates are the same as of your competitors then there's a "collusion".
No it isn't. The next moment Apple significantly lowers its comission, the same people will start whining about Apple "dumping the market" "to sink its competitors", and that it should be prosecuted under the same flawed anti-trust legislation. Been there, seen that: if your rates are too high you are a monopolist; if your rates are low you are dumping; and if your rates are the same as of your competitors then there's a "collusion".
If you’re a seemingly unstoppable corporate juggernaut, you’ll make enemies who think (rightly or wrongly) that your business practices are unfair, and they may successfully sue you using the laws intended to stop huge companies from engaging in unfair business practices.
I’m not sure what your point is here. That antitrust litigation is futile or counterproductive? The threat of it seems to be having positive effects already, looking at the front page of HN: https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/17/apple-expands-its-independ...
I’m not sure what your point is here. That antitrust litigation is futile or counterproductive? The threat of it seems to be having positive effects already, looking at the front page of HN: https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/17/apple-expands-its-independ...
It's counter-productive, it aims at punishing successful where mere "bigness" is used as the proof of "unfair". We don't know how much cheaper Apple products could be if it hadn't have to spread costs of lobbying its interests in Washington DC across their device prices.
> The threat of it seems to be having positive effects already, looking at the front page of HN
it depends on your reliance on that kind of services and varies greatly among the userbase. I'm using Apple since 2014, I've never needed to use any of these services, and I would prefer to have a device that is hard to disassemble and is cheaper to produce without a loss in quality.
> The threat of it seems to be having positive effects already, looking at the front page of HN
it depends on your reliance on that kind of services and varies greatly among the userbase. I'm using Apple since 2014, I've never needed to use any of these services, and I would prefer to have a device that is hard to disassemble and is cheaper to produce without a loss in quality.
It’s true that we can’t know how much cheaper Apple products would be if the antitrust laws didn’t exist, and that some people (and not only shareholders) benefit from or prefer a less competitive market. But conversely, we don’t know how much worse things might be if there were no laws to keep “bigness” in check. I am convinced by the history of antitrust that competition regulators do more good than harm.
> But conversely, we don’t know how much worse things might be if there were no laws to keep “bigness” in check.
We know it from history for sure, that "bigness" of an economic player is not a problem. There was no anti-trust legislation prior 1913, and Standard Oil was lowering prices for their oil and kerosine every year in order to compete with emerging oil wells developers, which kept popping up dispite Standard's dominance. [1] Customers, large and small, were benefiting along the way. But notice how governments-coordinated OPEC influences the prices and ability to enter the market:
[1] https://www.winton.com/longer-view/price-history-oil
We know it from history for sure, that "bigness" of an economic player is not a problem. There was no anti-trust legislation prior 1913, and Standard Oil was lowering prices for their oil and kerosine every year in order to compete with emerging oil wells developers, which kept popping up dispite Standard's dominance. [1] Customers, large and small, were benefiting along the way. But notice how governments-coordinated OPEC influences the prices and ability to enter the market:
[1] https://www.winton.com/longer-view/price-history-oil
Why is Apple unstoppable? Why can’t Google do better in the premium market? Why did Microsoft fail with a decade head start?
All very interesting questions, which Apple can raise in its defence to the lawsuit contending that the answer is “because of Apple’s unfair trade practices.”
I have no desire to constrain user choice. I do think there is value to users in putting some constraints on app developers. If you can accomplish that without also constraining user choice then that is the ideal outcome in my mind.
What people seem to be looking for here is some kind of purchasing co-op which can then have greater negotiating leverage with developers than an individual customer.
The problem is, Apple isn't that -- it doesn't have a duty to the user, it has a duty to Apple shareholders, so what it does will be for their benefit and not yours unless they happen to coincide. Which they won't in enough cases that you don't actually benefit on net. It's not in your interest to have developers paying 30% and destroying the marginal developer and providing other developers with fewer resources to make better apps, or to have apps rejected just because they compete with Apple's, or deterred from being developed because developers become unwilling to risk their investment being wiped out by the opaque rejection process.
Meanwhile if you want the purchasing co-op, go set it up. So that it's using the market power of all the store's customers to get concessions from developers (and Apple), but is a co-op owned by and acting in the interests of the users instead of a for-profit monopoly acting in the interests of itself. Unless Apple is preventing anyone from creating that, right?
The problem is, Apple isn't that -- it doesn't have a duty to the user, it has a duty to Apple shareholders, so what it does will be for their benefit and not yours unless they happen to coincide. Which they won't in enough cases that you don't actually benefit on net. It's not in your interest to have developers paying 30% and destroying the marginal developer and providing other developers with fewer resources to make better apps, or to have apps rejected just because they compete with Apple's, or deterred from being developed because developers become unwilling to risk their investment being wiped out by the opaque rejection process.
Meanwhile if you want the purchasing co-op, go set it up. So that it's using the market power of all the store's customers to get concessions from developers (and Apple), but is a co-op owned by and acting in the interests of the users instead of a for-profit monopoly acting in the interests of itself. Unless Apple is preventing anyone from creating that, right?
This view is equally flawed in my opinion. How many apps do you not have access to because their business model doesn't align with giving 30% of the revenue away, or is entirely banned a la XCloud?
Honestly not that many that I can think of. XCloud is a notable exception and I hope Apple changes their rules on game streaming services. I think many of the App Store rules have a benefit to end users but the “no game streaming services” rule seems like a loss for everyone involved.
> An app developer may decide to only list their app on an alternative store because they pay lower fees and they can handle payments themselves.
This is literally the point of allowing healthy competition. If Apple wants these games on their app store, they should offer terms that are competitive with the hypothetical third-party app stores.
This is literally the point of allowing healthy competition. If Apple wants these games on their app store, they should offer terms that are competitive with the hypothetical third-party app stores.
I’m 100% for Apple being pressured to have lower fees but less stoked about Apple being pressured to allow any payment processor. The root of my concern, I think, is that what is good for developers is not always what is good for users and alternative app stores will compete by doing what is good for developers at the expense of users.
> I’m 100% for Apple being pressured to have lower fees but less stoked about Apple being pressured to allow any payment processor.
You talk about developers if this is the only concern, but Apple is ultimately deciding it wants to not give money to certain social concerns or movements it doesn't like based on it's whim, and no corporation should have the power to do that for something as important as half of mobile telecoms.
You talk about developers if this is the only concern, but Apple is ultimately deciding it wants to not give money to certain social concerns or movements it doesn't like based on it's whim, and no corporation should have the power to do that for something as important as half of mobile telecoms.
You already have that problem: some apps only support android and some only support iOS.
You need to choose between not using the app, or buying a new phone and giving a developer you may not trust your credit card information
You need to choose between not using the app, or buying a new phone and giving a developer you may not trust your credit card information
Along those lines, you are no longer allowed to browse or post anywhere outside of HN, since your keyboard is only authorized for HN browsing and posting. Those other web-sites are insecure and HN has decided that you can no longer visit other websites.
Furthermore, Walmart has placed restrictions on all keyboards purchased from their stores. All online purchases made using their keyboards will now funnel 30% of the payment to Walmart.
Thank you for your business and absolute trust in our secure business model that we operate for your benefit.
Furthermore, Walmart has placed restrictions on all keyboards purchased from their stores. All online purchases made using their keyboards will now funnel 30% of the payment to Walmart.
Thank you for your business and absolute trust in our secure business model that we operate for your benefit.
...just don't use other app stores?
Honest question, what do you lose by other people having the option?
Honest question, what do you lose by other people having the option?
Because it leads to fragmentation.
If developers have a choice of app stores, then users have to install ALL app stores if they want access to the entire market. This happened with streaming services as well: when Netflix was the only prominent one, only that subscription was enough. Now you also need Amazon, Hulu, etc.
If developers have a choice of app stores, then users have to install ALL app stores if they want access to the entire market. This happened with streaming services as well: when Netflix was the only prominent one, only that subscription was enough. Now you also need Amazon, Hulu, etc.
> then users have to install ALL app stores if they want access to the entire market
You didn't have access to the entire market when Netflix was the only store. You had access to Netflix's market, and all of the other shows that are currently being funded by competitors didn't exist.
You could still use only Netflix today if you wanted to. The only difference is that now you are aware of what you are missing.
How many developers have consciously chosen to abandon the entire mobile market because of how toxic it is, because of how tailored the market is to a very specific sub-genre of mass-market apps and games? How many developers have abandoned iOS because their games touched on political or serious topics that Apple decided weren't suitable for their store? Many of us are not interested in creating the types of apps that thrive on the current mobile app stores, so we've abandoned the mobile market entirely.
When you can only see a tiny part of the world, you think that you have access to all of it. Once the walls get taken down and you realize how big the world is, then you realize how much of it you didn't have.
I completely sympathize with the frustration of not being able to get access to some of this stuff. I won't sign up for Netflix because of their DRM and anti-consumer practices. There are some shows I can't watch because of that. Trust me, I get the pain.
But having only one streaming platform forever would have been worse. So much of the original content that's coming out on Netflix only exists because Netflix had to compete. There are really good shows that are HBO/Hulu/Disney+ originals. I want that media to exist, even if I can't personally get at it right now.
You didn't have access to the entire market when Netflix was the only store. You had access to Netflix's market, and all of the other shows that are currently being funded by competitors didn't exist.
You could still use only Netflix today if you wanted to. The only difference is that now you are aware of what you are missing.
How many developers have consciously chosen to abandon the entire mobile market because of how toxic it is, because of how tailored the market is to a very specific sub-genre of mass-market apps and games? How many developers have abandoned iOS because their games touched on political or serious topics that Apple decided weren't suitable for their store? Many of us are not interested in creating the types of apps that thrive on the current mobile app stores, so we've abandoned the mobile market entirely.
When you can only see a tiny part of the world, you think that you have access to all of it. Once the walls get taken down and you realize how big the world is, then you realize how much of it you didn't have.
I completely sympathize with the frustration of not being able to get access to some of this stuff. I won't sign up for Netflix because of their DRM and anti-consumer practices. There are some shows I can't watch because of that. Trust me, I get the pain.
But having only one streaming platform forever would have been worse. So much of the original content that's coming out on Netflix only exists because Netflix had to compete. There are really good shows that are HBO/Hulu/Disney+ originals. I want that media to exist, even if I can't personally get at it right now.
It also leads to competition. Without alternative streaming services, we'd have a Netflix monopoly, and there's nothing stopping them from increasing prices like what happened with cable monopolies.
Look at how Netflix is still raising prices even with less content.
Look at how Netflix is still raising prices even with less content.
If enough users agree with the parent comment that the app store is the best way get software then companies can weigh that user base against the 30% cut. Why should we force the users who don't like the App Store (or want apps that are incompatible with Apple's business model) to suffer on behalf of the users who don't?
Nobody forces anyone into interaction with Apple ecosystem. People want to get onto App Store because they know they can benefit from it, financially big. And they subscribe voluntarily by the most fair means of it, by trading their money in exchange for the service under the rules that are mentioned prior the transaction takes place.
By omitting details and framing each transaction as an isolated incident, you can make almost any monopoly or anti-consumer practice sound like just another business.
Nobody forces anyone into interaction with Carnegie Steel. People want to use their steel because they know they can benefit from it, financially big. And they purchase it voluntarily by the most fair means of it, by trading their money in exchange for the steel under the rules that are mentioned prior the transaction takes place.
Nobody forces anyone into interaction with Carnegie Steel. People want to use their steel because they know they can benefit from it, financially big. And they purchase it voluntarily by the most fair means of it, by trading their money in exchange for the steel under the rules that are mentioned prior the transaction takes place.
so, where's the flaw? The fact that somebody sometime ago named another corporation a monopoly by the same ridiculous criterion as "too big" and discharged it, doesn't make it anyhow right. Was there gatekeeping from the government for new players to enter the same market? Any quotas or tariffs by chance?
> Was there gatekeeping from the government for new players to enter the same market?
That isn't what a monopoly is.
That isn't what a monopoly is.
Artificial inability to enter the market with a competing product is literally in the definition of a monopoly.
In a completely free market, monopolies are natural outcomes of some circumstances.
Apple could easily offer good enough terms on their app store that app developers would use them by free choice.
Then you could personally keep using a single app store and enjoy the non-monopolistic prices.
Then you could personally keep using a single app store and enjoy the non-monopolistic prices.
That would never happen because there will always be a market for other gatekeepers who want to try and build their own lock-in even if Apple charged nothing.
[deleted]
No corporation should ever have your "complete trust", because they do not value you above themselves.
This take is absolutely insane. Competition has never hurt consumers. There is no downside to more app stores, only huge upsides in the reduced fees.
Instagram and TikTok have been found guilty on collecting an absurd amount of data against user's wishes. How did Apple's policy prevent that? Also I don't see Apple banning TikTok or Instagram.
Let's go with this for a start: https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/07/30/facebook-says-app...
Also, notice that FB has done everything possible to gather information. Frankly, the NSA should just hire FB to do their work - it'b be faster and cheaper.
Locking stuff down is hard. Doing it with multiple app stores will be impossible.
Also, notice that FB has done everything possible to gather information. Frankly, the NSA should just hire FB to do their work - it'b be faster and cheaper.
Locking stuff down is hard. Doing it with multiple app stores will be impossible.
Isn’t PRISM basically using FB to do NSA work for them anyhow?
Probably. Which was kinda my point - monitoring these rule breakers is hard.
And yet even after these things surfaced, nothing happened to the apps. Not everyone is equal.
I can only say I agree. I don't want more actors in the appstore market. I prefer quality over quantity.
You’re certainly not speaking for me and the many many devs that were harmed by Apple’s arbitrary application of rules. I also want so see people get wild and creative with apps. This doesn’t happen if you’re pre-censoring because you’re unsure if Apple would allow the app.
To be charitable:
If the only people arguing about this lawsuit fell into either my camp or yours (ericmay's), I'd be a lot less irritated about this whole debate.
I fundamentally disagree with you, but at least your arguments are relatively internally consistent. At least I understand where you're coming from.
Give me a hundred people saying, "I like Apple being a dictator", just get rid of all the awful arguments about how, "there is no right side, and both of them are in the wrong."
I couldn't care less whether or not people like Epic in particular. If you spend all of your time getting picky about who can and can't advocate for you, then eventually people will stop advocating for you altogether.
If the only people arguing about this lawsuit fell into either my camp or yours (ericmay's), I'd be a lot less irritated about this whole debate.
I fundamentally disagree with you, but at least your arguments are relatively internally consistent. At least I understand where you're coming from.
Give me a hundred people saying, "I like Apple being a dictator", just get rid of all the awful arguments about how, "there is no right side, and both of them are in the wrong."
I couldn't care less whether or not people like Epic in particular. If you spend all of your time getting picky about who can and can't advocate for you, then eventually people will stop advocating for you altogether.
For someone who has a massive Steam library, why wouldn't they want their Steam games to be available on iOS as well? (For those games that have ports.) I think there's a huge number of people in this boat.
>Right, and the rest of us don't want that, and I also don't want games or apps that don't adhere to Apple's rules.
Then don't install them? But I fail to see why you (or Apple) should be in a position to tell other users what they can install or not.
>You want another option of App Stores because you want don't want to pay for the user base that Apple created and maintains.
lolwat Honestly, I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.
>You want to embed permanent location tracking in your apps, abuse user data, and not have to have your crappy practices out in the open when Apple shows the "nutrition scorecard" for your app.
This is a typical "think of the children" argument once more. Nobody forces you to install that tracking shit. You're free to not use apps that do that - e.g. get your apps from the Apple App Store, or make your own app if there is no such tracking free alternative. But those Apple App Store approved apps you seem to be so fond of... they do track you already ;)
>That's not what I want on my iPhone.
Then don't put use it on your iPhone.
>Yes that's exactly what I want. I want Apple to have complete control over the ecosystem. They've earned my complete trust.
Good for you. Nobody is stopping you from exercising your trust and only use Apple and/or Apple-approved software in the future.
Then don't install them? But I fail to see why you (or Apple) should be in a position to tell other users what they can install or not.
>You want another option of App Stores because you want don't want to pay for the user base that Apple created and maintains.
lolwat Honestly, I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.
>You want to embed permanent location tracking in your apps, abuse user data, and not have to have your crappy practices out in the open when Apple shows the "nutrition scorecard" for your app.
This is a typical "think of the children" argument once more. Nobody forces you to install that tracking shit. You're free to not use apps that do that - e.g. get your apps from the Apple App Store, or make your own app if there is no such tracking free alternative. But those Apple App Store approved apps you seem to be so fond of... they do track you already ;)
>That's not what I want on my iPhone.
Then don't put use it on your iPhone.
>Yes that's exactly what I want. I want Apple to have complete control over the ecosystem. They've earned my complete trust.
Good for you. Nobody is stopping you from exercising your trust and only use Apple and/or Apple-approved software in the future.
I think a good option here would be for Apple to sell jailbroken developer phones for say an additional 30% cut up front and a nice DEV brand on the back for bragging rights. The additional fee hurdle would discourage those who just want a cheap way to get paid software and whatever additional expenses from helping with malware.
> But I fail to see why you (or Apple) should be in a position to tell other users what they can install or not.
Because it's their platform, they created it, they grew it, they paid for its development out of their pocket, and they offered it as a unique market proposition that satisfies millions of users around the world. Apple doesn't force anyone into their platform, everyone involved are there voluntarily and solely because they know that it's beneficial for them to be on the platform.
Because it's their platform, they created it, they grew it, they paid for its development out of their pocket, and they offered it as a unique market proposition that satisfies millions of users around the world. Apple doesn't force anyone into their platform, everyone involved are there voluntarily and solely because they know that it's beneficial for them to be on the platform.
And how does having multiple app store would stop anything that you want? It wouldn't stop the Apple app store from existing with theses restrictions, they would still be there. You would still have access to the apps that Apple consider fine for their stores, without installing another app store. Win-win for everyone.
> You want to embed permanent location tracking in your apps, abuse user data, and not have to have your crappy practices out in the open when Apple shows the "nutrition scorecard" for your app.
How about stopping theses practice on the OS side of the device? Apple already do that there... I agree completely that it's crazy when an OS allow stuff that we don't want to allow, it's not curation that solve this, it's actually a secure system that does.
> You want to embed permanent location tracking in your apps, abuse user data, and not have to have your crappy practices out in the open when Apple shows the "nutrition scorecard" for your app.
How about stopping theses practice on the OS side of the device? Apple already do that there... I agree completely that it's crazy when an OS allow stuff that we don't want to allow, it's not curation that solve this, it's actually a secure system that does.
> Right, and the rest of us don't want that
Please stop speaking for others. I would certainly like to have the ability to install other sources for apps. Since I am part of "the rest of us", for any kind of "us" that came to my mind while reading your posting ("iPhone users" or "Apple customers" or "HN readers"), your statement is patently false.
> That's not what I want on my iPhone.
Then don't install additional stores. I also don't want most of the apps currently available in Apple's app store on my iPhone, but I'm far from demanding that they are to be banned and other people who want to use them should be prevented from doing so.
Also it's too sad you conspicuously skipped over danShumways question regarding the "bigger moat" - because I indeed would be interested in what moat you are imagining there, too.
Please stop speaking for others. I would certainly like to have the ability to install other sources for apps. Since I am part of "the rest of us", for any kind of "us" that came to my mind while reading your posting ("iPhone users" or "Apple customers" or "HN readers"), your statement is patently false.
> That's not what I want on my iPhone.
Then don't install additional stores. I also don't want most of the apps currently available in Apple's app store on my iPhone, but I'm far from demanding that they are to be banned and other people who want to use them should be prevented from doing so.
Also it's too sad you conspicuously skipped over danShumways question regarding the "bigger moat" - because I indeed would be interested in what moat you are imagining there, too.
> Please stop speaking for others.
Same to you and the GP here. And last I checked there aren’t a lot of customers really complaining about the App Store. It’s just big companies who, although they could have done this years ago, are now going against Apple’s customer protection because it degrades their crappy business practices.
> Then don’t install additional stores
Then buy a different phone?
I want any app that doesn’t follow Apple’s guidelines to be completely banned. Goodbye Epic. Nice knowing you. Don’t care. I don’t want apps spying on me, engaging in shitty business practices, scamming customers, and doing bad things. Apple is working to protect my privacy and safety. They’re not perfect, but that’s why I buy an iPhone and I want it to stay that way. If I wanted another App Store I’d buy a different phone, like you should.
Same to you and the GP here. And last I checked there aren’t a lot of customers really complaining about the App Store. It’s just big companies who, although they could have done this years ago, are now going against Apple’s customer protection because it degrades their crappy business practices.
> Then don’t install additional stores
Then buy a different phone?
I want any app that doesn’t follow Apple’s guidelines to be completely banned. Goodbye Epic. Nice knowing you. Don’t care. I don’t want apps spying on me, engaging in shitty business practices, scamming customers, and doing bad things. Apple is working to protect my privacy and safety. They’re not perfect, but that’s why I buy an iPhone and I want it to stay that way. If I wanted another App Store I’d buy a different phone, like you should.
Are you incapable of self control to the point of not being able to stop yourself from using a different app store? Or is it that you know Apple's cut is onerous enough that given competition, most the apps would leave? It feels like you want other users to suffer on the basis that your values happen to align with Apple's avenue for generating profit. If Apple were in it for your privacy and safety they could drop their cut substantially and kneecap most of the controversy.
A world where you have to buy a different phone just to use a different app store sounds pretty terrible.
It would be like having to buy a different laptop to use Amazon or Ebay.
It would be like having to buy a different laptop to use Amazon or Ebay.
> but that’s why I buy an iPhone and I want it to stay that way.
Ok. Now what if I were to tell you that you are perfectly capable of doing this, by simply not installing other app stores.
You dont need to metaphorically break into my house, and force me, at gun point to follow your rules as well.
You can do what you want with your phone, even if other people are able to do what they want with their own phone.
> If I wanted another App Store
Then just don't install the other app store? You have no said why you need to force me to do something, in order for you to get what you want.
Ok. Now what if I were to tell you that you are perfectly capable of doing this, by simply not installing other app stores.
You dont need to metaphorically break into my house, and force me, at gun point to follow your rules as well.
You can do what you want with your phone, even if other people are able to do what they want with their own phone.
> If I wanted another App Store
Then just don't install the other app store? You have no said why you need to force me to do something, in order for you to get what you want.
>you're frightened that another company might get control and... offer better terms than we have right now?
While some people here might fall for this simple propaganda, I doubt the courts will.
It is totally expected of Epic that they will at the same time make the claim about "freedom" and "choice" while signing exclusive deals so that customers are required to install the Epic store if they wish to play certain games.
If the real issue is my freedom, then let me play Fortnite on the App store thanks. But it's not about my freedom. It's about your $$$.
You're certainly free to do so, and free to say whatever bullshit you think will help you, but you're not going to get a free pass from everybody here.
>What specifically is the horror scenario that you're frightened of?
Really? What sort of horror scenarios have happened with game installers on PCs and Android? Root kits. Spyware. Password capture. Camera activation.
And you know this, so all you are doing is letting us know that you think we are stupid.
While some people here might fall for this simple propaganda, I doubt the courts will.
It is totally expected of Epic that they will at the same time make the claim about "freedom" and "choice" while signing exclusive deals so that customers are required to install the Epic store if they wish to play certain games.
If the real issue is my freedom, then let me play Fortnite on the App store thanks. But it's not about my freedom. It's about your $$$.
You're certainly free to do so, and free to say whatever bullshit you think will help you, but you're not going to get a free pass from everybody here.
>What specifically is the horror scenario that you're frightened of?
Really? What sort of horror scenarios have happened with game installers on PCs and Android? Root kits. Spyware. Password capture. Camera activation.
And you know this, so all you are doing is letting us know that you think we are stupid.
> while signing exclusive deals so that customers are required to install the Epic store if they wish to play certain games.
A surprising number of people on Hackernews don't understand how Apple Arcade works.
This isn't just specific to the mobile market. As an Open advocate and critic of DRM, it's been frustrating to watch gamers suddenly get very concerned about store choice and exclusives over the past few years, after over a decade of watching them dismiss the same arguments against Steam.
I'm not going to read too far into that inconsistency, because I feel like doing so would skirt HN policies. But I will say that if you're worried about exclusives, giving more platform control to users and developers weakens exclusives, it doesn't strengthen them.
> then let me play Fortnite on the App store thanks
Epic didn't take Fortnite off of the App store. If it's about your freedom, then talk to the people who did take it off.
> What sort of horror scenarios have happened with game installers on PCs and Android? Root kits. Spyware. Password capture. Camera activation.
If you're going to try and argue to me that the games PC market would be better if we had fewer stores, then I need to see some seriously better arguments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24153897
I do not believe reality in any way backs up the argument that giving users control over what code runs on their devices has hurt the games market or made it worse for consumers -- even with the increased risk of bad actors.
A surprising number of people on Hackernews don't understand how Apple Arcade works.
This isn't just specific to the mobile market. As an Open advocate and critic of DRM, it's been frustrating to watch gamers suddenly get very concerned about store choice and exclusives over the past few years, after over a decade of watching them dismiss the same arguments against Steam.
I'm not going to read too far into that inconsistency, because I feel like doing so would skirt HN policies. But I will say that if you're worried about exclusives, giving more platform control to users and developers weakens exclusives, it doesn't strengthen them.
> then let me play Fortnite on the App store thanks
Epic didn't take Fortnite off of the App store. If it's about your freedom, then talk to the people who did take it off.
> What sort of horror scenarios have happened with game installers on PCs and Android? Root kits. Spyware. Password capture. Camera activation.
If you're going to try and argue to me that the games PC market would be better if we had fewer stores, then I need to see some seriously better arguments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24153897
I do not believe reality in any way backs up the argument that giving users control over what code runs on their devices has hurt the games market or made it worse for consumers -- even with the increased risk of bad actors.
> Epic didn't take Fortnite off of the App store. If it's about your freedom, then talk to the people who did take it off.
This isn’t a good argument. Epic did something with the intention of getting removed from the store. Sure, Apple was the one who removed them, but Epic violates Apple’s TOS.
This isn’t a good argument. Epic did something with the intention of getting removed from the store. Sure, Apple was the one who removed them, but Epic violates Apple’s TOS.
> If you're going to try and argue to me that the games PC market would be better if we had fewer stores.
If you hang around gaming forums you'll see this echoed plenty. If I could buy every single game ever through Steam I would without hesitation. I don't want Origin or the Epic store but I don't get the choice.
I mean this isn't a super uncommon sentiment. Everyone has a preference but not everyone agrees. But regardless fragmentation hurts everyone.
I would be totally fine with multiple stores on iOS devices on the condition that every app is available on every store for the same price-ish (like you can't snub a store by making it 1000x because that effectively takes away choice).
If you hang around gaming forums you'll see this echoed plenty. If I could buy every single game ever through Steam I would without hesitation. I don't want Origin or the Epic store but I don't get the choice.
I mean this isn't a super uncommon sentiment. Everyone has a preference but not everyone agrees. But regardless fragmentation hurts everyone.
I would be totally fine with multiple stores on iOS devices on the condition that every app is available on every store for the same price-ish (like you can't snub a store by making it 1000x because that effectively takes away choice).
> If I could buy every single game ever through Steam I would without hesitation. I don't want Origin or the Epic store but I don't get the choice.
I know that some gamers feel this way, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Epic's entry into the market has been good for the PC games industry[0]. We have more games now from more developers covering more diverse genres. We've even managed to pull a few exclusives off of consoles and back onto PC.
As to your choice, I bring this up in another comment[1], but people should focus less on the percentage of the market they have access to, and more on the overall size of the market itself.
You do have a choice, you could buy all of your games through Steam and ignore the games on every other store. The only difference is that now you know what you're missing. Before, you couldn't see the games that weren't being made or ported.
Yes, it stinks to have some games exclusive to one storefront. I understand that, as someone who refuses to install DRM on my computers, I have been struggling to deal with Steam-exclusive games for a long time. I know the pain.
But having a diverse market of storefronts means that there are a ton of new games that exist that wouldn't otherwise exist. And even if you only get access to some of those games, that's still better than having none of them.
Now, if you want to talk about ending exclusives entirely, I'm not opposed to that goal. But a diverse market is a prerequisite for a federated market. How do you feel today about the Android games that don't come to iOS specifically because of Apple's terms? How do you feel about the exclusives Apple is signing for the Apple Arcade right now? Having one storefront doesn't get rid of exclusives; it just means you've traded an exclusive storefront problem for an exclusive market problem.
[0]: https://www.pcworld.com/article/3487735/a-year-in-the-epic-g...
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24192204
I know that some gamers feel this way, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Epic's entry into the market has been good for the PC games industry[0]. We have more games now from more developers covering more diverse genres. We've even managed to pull a few exclusives off of consoles and back onto PC.
As to your choice, I bring this up in another comment[1], but people should focus less on the percentage of the market they have access to, and more on the overall size of the market itself.
You do have a choice, you could buy all of your games through Steam and ignore the games on every other store. The only difference is that now you know what you're missing. Before, you couldn't see the games that weren't being made or ported.
Yes, it stinks to have some games exclusive to one storefront. I understand that, as someone who refuses to install DRM on my computers, I have been struggling to deal with Steam-exclusive games for a long time. I know the pain.
But having a diverse market of storefronts means that there are a ton of new games that exist that wouldn't otherwise exist. And even if you only get access to some of those games, that's still better than having none of them.
Now, if you want to talk about ending exclusives entirely, I'm not opposed to that goal. But a diverse market is a prerequisite for a federated market. How do you feel today about the Android games that don't come to iOS specifically because of Apple's terms? How do you feel about the exclusives Apple is signing for the Apple Arcade right now? Having one storefront doesn't get rid of exclusives; it just means you've traded an exclusive storefront problem for an exclusive market problem.
[0]: https://www.pcworld.com/article/3487735/a-year-in-the-epic-g...
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24192204
What about people who want to play games on Linux? Since 2018 Steam has made playing Windows games on Linux absolutely painless. How is Epic Games going to afford doing projects like proton with their cutthroat revenue cut? They can't. They charge extra depending on the payment method and from what I have heard they don't even have regional pricing so the vast majority of people can't even afford games on that store anyway.
Having some games not work on Linux is preferable to having fewer games exist.
Again, I understand the pain. I am currently only running Linux. If a game doesn't run in Linux without DRM, I can't play it. I know as well as anyone how bad it feels to see a game that I want to play, and can't, because the developer thought that Linux wasn't a big enough market to support.
Even so, it is better that there be a broad market where I can't access all of it, then there be a narrow market that only fits my criteria and can't grow. Some of the games that don't work on Linux will get ported later, or people will figure out how to get them working in Wine. I want those games to exist because eventually I'll get access to them.
> How is Epic Games going to afford doing projects like proton
They won't. Other platforms like Steam will do that. How is Steam going to afford to get old DOS games working on modern computers without DRM? They won't, GoG does that.
The market is better served when there are lots of people doing lots of different things. It's those conditions that force companies to innovate and find new market niches that were previously underserved.
Again, I understand the pain. I am currently only running Linux. If a game doesn't run in Linux without DRM, I can't play it. I know as well as anyone how bad it feels to see a game that I want to play, and can't, because the developer thought that Linux wasn't a big enough market to support.
Even so, it is better that there be a broad market where I can't access all of it, then there be a narrow market that only fits my criteria and can't grow. Some of the games that don't work on Linux will get ported later, or people will figure out how to get them working in Wine. I want those games to exist because eventually I'll get access to them.
> How is Epic Games going to afford doing projects like proton
They won't. Other platforms like Steam will do that. How is Steam going to afford to get old DOS games working on modern computers without DRM? They won't, GoG does that.
The market is better served when there are lots of people doing lots of different things. It's those conditions that force companies to innovate and find new market niches that were previously underserved.
I think Apple clearly has their moat, but it's not the App Store. The whole stack, from hardware and OS, is their moat and one that makes them unique. Maybe I'm a fan, but the moat actually makes the user experience better. Epic's Store moat likely won't make anything better for anyone, expect for Epic.
I personally don't enjoy the experience of managing my PC games in 5 different libraries which all log out almost every day, need to be updated every week, push ads, newsletters, free stuff, crashes etc. So I'm not worried how Epic store would somehow overrun App Store, I'm worried how it would degrade the user experience. If people want to side load apps, they can use Android. But even on Android, most people are happy using the Google Play. As a consumer there isn't much benefit for multiple app stores, since every app store will be essentially exclusive to another, so don't really have more choice, just more app stores to manage and get the apps from.
My point was that Epic tries to make this some kind of crusade of freedom and developer rights, while their clear intention is actually get in to kingmaker position themselves that they can strong arm developers and competition to play by their rules (which they're already trying to do on the PC market). This fight is different from Hey's fight, who just wanted to have their app in the store and criticized the rules and way Apple manages the store. So I have very little sympathy for Epic in this and I hope the fail.
I personally don't enjoy the experience of managing my PC games in 5 different libraries which all log out almost every day, need to be updated every week, push ads, newsletters, free stuff, crashes etc. So I'm not worried how Epic store would somehow overrun App Store, I'm worried how it would degrade the user experience. If people want to side load apps, they can use Android. But even on Android, most people are happy using the Google Play. As a consumer there isn't much benefit for multiple app stores, since every app store will be essentially exclusive to another, so don't really have more choice, just more app stores to manage and get the apps from.
My point was that Epic tries to make this some kind of crusade of freedom and developer rights, while their clear intention is actually get in to kingmaker position themselves that they can strong arm developers and competition to play by their rules (which they're already trying to do on the PC market). This fight is different from Hey's fight, who just wanted to have their app in the store and criticized the rules and way Apple manages the store. So I have very little sympathy for Epic in this and I hope the fail.
> I personally don't enjoy the experience of managing my PC games in 5 different libraries which all log out almost every day, need to be updated every week, push ads, newsletters, free stuff, crashes etc.
But, do you enjoy having 5 times as many games? Do you enjoy having a ton of games from GoG updated and running on modern Windows? Do you enjoy having DRM-free options for many indie titles? Do you enjoy that it's at least possible now to buy some console-exclusive games like Journey for the PC?
People get really bent out of shape about the idea that sticking to one storefront means they might need to skip games. But getting rid of the storefronts doesn't mean you'll get all of the games. It means those games that were made possible because of the other storefronts won't exist.
You are already skipping games on iOS, because those games aren't being made.
> Epic tries to make this some kind of crusade of freedom and developer rights, while their clear intention is actually get in to kingmaker position
Correct, and my point was that these are not exclusive goals. Allowing multiple stores to fight over users is explicitly the outcome that we want.
It's not a surprise to anyone advocating for developer rights that Epic wants to make a store and compete with Apple, because that is what we want them to do. None of us care about whether or not Epic is going to make any money in the process.
> which they're already trying to do on the PC market
I know that gamers hate Epic right now, but understand that when you look at the overall market and you talk to the developers themselves, Epic has been unambiguously good for the PC games market.
You want to talk about kingmakers -- it is good that the entire success or failure of a PC game doesn't need to rely on Steam's decisions. It is good that Steam is being forced to negotiate better terms for developers right now. It is good that Epic is funding indie games that otherwise would not have been made.
I don't like the exclusives either, neither as a developer nor as a gamer. But the exclusives are nothing compared to the amount of good Epic is doing right now for the PC game's market. If you're an indie developer and suddenly you can halve the cut that storefronts are taking from you? That's huge.
But, to circle back around to my main point:
> So I have very little sympathy for Epic
You don't need to have sympathy, you need to have self-preservation instincts. You don't get the luxury of choosing who the champion is to take on Apple, nobody who fits your moral criteria is powerful enough to do the work.
But, do you enjoy having 5 times as many games? Do you enjoy having a ton of games from GoG updated and running on modern Windows? Do you enjoy having DRM-free options for many indie titles? Do you enjoy that it's at least possible now to buy some console-exclusive games like Journey for the PC?
People get really bent out of shape about the idea that sticking to one storefront means they might need to skip games. But getting rid of the storefronts doesn't mean you'll get all of the games. It means those games that were made possible because of the other storefronts won't exist.
You are already skipping games on iOS, because those games aren't being made.
> Epic tries to make this some kind of crusade of freedom and developer rights, while their clear intention is actually get in to kingmaker position
Correct, and my point was that these are not exclusive goals. Allowing multiple stores to fight over users is explicitly the outcome that we want.
It's not a surprise to anyone advocating for developer rights that Epic wants to make a store and compete with Apple, because that is what we want them to do. None of us care about whether or not Epic is going to make any money in the process.
> which they're already trying to do on the PC market
I know that gamers hate Epic right now, but understand that when you look at the overall market and you talk to the developers themselves, Epic has been unambiguously good for the PC games market.
You want to talk about kingmakers -- it is good that the entire success or failure of a PC game doesn't need to rely on Steam's decisions. It is good that Steam is being forced to negotiate better terms for developers right now. It is good that Epic is funding indie games that otherwise would not have been made.
I don't like the exclusives either, neither as a developer nor as a gamer. But the exclusives are nothing compared to the amount of good Epic is doing right now for the PC game's market. If you're an indie developer and suddenly you can halve the cut that storefronts are taking from you? That's huge.
But, to circle back around to my main point:
> So I have very little sympathy for Epic
You don't need to have sympathy, you need to have self-preservation instincts. You don't get the luxury of choosing who the champion is to take on Apple, nobody who fits your moral criteria is powerful enough to do the work.
> Maybe I'm a fan, but the moat actually makes the user experience better.
But it doesn't. It makes it worse. I can't use cloud gaming services. I can't buy an ebook on Amazon or a comic on Comixology, without having to guess that I need to go to a website and buy it.
These are all bits of user experience that that are flat out better on Android, and the bad UI is directly caused by Apple's sole control of the app store.
But that pales in comparison to the rampant content censorship Apple causes (see Instagram admitting the clumsy, terrible policies that it implements are directly due to the Apple), or the geopolitical blocks that it causes on apps to help the populace of Hong Kong, or the apps that it permits (and blocks counter-software) to enable the misogynistic control of women's free movement in Saudi Arabia.
> As a consumer there isn't much benefit for multiple app stores, since every app store will be essentially exclusive to another, so don't really have more choice, just more app stores to manage and get the apps from.
There is a huge benefit to customers for multiple app stores - cheaper pricing, more competition on features and navigation, and most importantly editorial differences about what content will be allowed in the store. Don't agree with Apple's editorial censorship of code in the app store? Go and use someone else.
Apple will even be better off - without the coddling of the App Store being used to prop up it's poorer products it will actually have to make them good or have them die, much to it's long term benefit than turfing out poor quality software and the reputational damage that causes which has happened far too often recently.
But it doesn't. It makes it worse. I can't use cloud gaming services. I can't buy an ebook on Amazon or a comic on Comixology, without having to guess that I need to go to a website and buy it.
These are all bits of user experience that that are flat out better on Android, and the bad UI is directly caused by Apple's sole control of the app store.
But that pales in comparison to the rampant content censorship Apple causes (see Instagram admitting the clumsy, terrible policies that it implements are directly due to the Apple), or the geopolitical blocks that it causes on apps to help the populace of Hong Kong, or the apps that it permits (and blocks counter-software) to enable the misogynistic control of women's free movement in Saudi Arabia.
> As a consumer there isn't much benefit for multiple app stores, since every app store will be essentially exclusive to another, so don't really have more choice, just more app stores to manage and get the apps from.
There is a huge benefit to customers for multiple app stores - cheaper pricing, more competition on features and navigation, and most importantly editorial differences about what content will be allowed in the store. Don't agree with Apple's editorial censorship of code in the app store? Go and use someone else.
Apple will even be better off - without the coddling of the App Store being used to prop up it's poorer products it will actually have to make them good or have them die, much to it's long term benefit than turfing out poor quality software and the reputational damage that causes which has happened far too often recently.
> For the record, we want there to be multiple app stores on iOS.
Who is „we“? I know a lot of users that don‘t want or don‘t feel a need for other app stores. Of course, most developers would be glad to get alternatives or make more money.
> You're worried that Epic's store is going to eventually overrun Apple's and then Epic will somehow prevent other stores from being installed on iOS devices?
Not the original poster, but I would be worried that alternate app stores would as well lead to even more apps not honoring the user rights, spying on Location all the time, selling and monetizing user data and pushing even more IAP crap. Epic isn‘t really known as the Robin Hood of user rights and promptly, Spotify and Facebook, two other big players with black spots on their vests, called for the same. I have a hard time believing that everything Epic wants is just beneficial for the users.
Who is „we“? I know a lot of users that don‘t want or don‘t feel a need for other app stores. Of course, most developers would be glad to get alternatives or make more money.
> You're worried that Epic's store is going to eventually overrun Apple's and then Epic will somehow prevent other stores from being installed on iOS devices?
Not the original poster, but I would be worried that alternate app stores would as well lead to even more apps not honoring the user rights, spying on Location all the time, selling and monetizing user data and pushing even more IAP crap. Epic isn‘t really known as the Robin Hood of user rights and promptly, Spotify and Facebook, two other big players with black spots on their vests, called for the same. I have a hard time believing that everything Epic wants is just beneficial for the users.
> We want multiple stores on iOS.
No no no no no no!!!!!!
It's this type of thinking that has caused me to have more freaking messaging and video apps on my phone so I can talk to everyone: Zoom, Skype, Meet, Meetings, Facetime, Messenger, Chime,...etc, etc. etc.
NO. I ABSOLUTELY do not want that. Freaking nightmare.
When that happens I ditch my iPhone and buy a flip phone.
Seriously - stop the insanity. There is no "choice" when we need to have every alternative installed in order to do the things we need to do. That's not choice - it's insanity.
No no no no no no!!!!!!
It's this type of thinking that has caused me to have more freaking messaging and video apps on my phone so I can talk to everyone: Zoom, Skype, Meet, Meetings, Facetime, Messenger, Chime,...etc, etc. etc.
NO. I ABSOLUTELY do not want that. Freaking nightmare.
When that happens I ditch my iPhone and buy a flip phone.
Seriously - stop the insanity. There is no "choice" when we need to have every alternative installed in order to do the things we need to do. That's not choice - it's insanity.
> NO. I ABSOLUTELY do not want that. Freaking nightmare.
That's a bit extreme. It's less of a nightmare, and more of an annoyance, that is paid in exchange for competition and innovation.
That's a bit extreme. It's less of a nightmare, and more of an annoyance, that is paid in exchange for competition and innovation.
So, do you have a wallet with a dozen store credit cards or a wallet with a visa and/or MasterCard.
Imagine the former. No thanks.
Imagine the former. No thanks.
Wait, do we think the situation with Visa/MasterCard is good?
I'm discovering a number of people here who see the world very differently than me. I would have taken it as a given that most people would agree that it would be healthy for the US market overall if we shook up the payment industry and got some new options.
A lot of Visa/Mastercard's terms for businesses are really bad. There are entire industries that are being pushed out of the market right now. Not to mention that these cards come with a tremendous amount of user tracking that's basically impossible to opt out of if you want to buy anything online.
That's why people are throwing everything at the wall from Bitcoin to GNU Taler trying desperately to find any kind of Open alternative that might work for online micropayments.
I'm discovering a number of people here who see the world very differently than me. I would have taken it as a given that most people would agree that it would be healthy for the US market overall if we shook up the payment industry and got some new options.
A lot of Visa/Mastercard's terms for businesses are really bad. There are entire industries that are being pushed out of the market right now. Not to mention that these cards come with a tremendous amount of user tracking that's basically impossible to opt out of if you want to buy anything online.
That's why people are throwing everything at the wall from Bitcoin to GNU Taler trying desperately to find any kind of Open alternative that might work for online micropayments.
Are you also living in a crippling fear because you have the ability to buy things in multiple stores in your city? Is that a nightmare as well?
Ha! That was pretty funny. :)
But actually, there is a big difference - I can buy jeans anywhere. I can buy Levi jeans anywhere.
If I had to go to Macy’s so that I could get a shirt (with no alternative), and then had to go to Nordstrom to get socks (with no alternative), and then..... then yeah, that would be crippling.
There is a reason amazon and Walmart are so powerful - you can get anything in one stop.
Bundling is important. It’s why people buy Comcast xfinity cable + internet or have all their family on one cell phone plan - it’s reduces effort, stress, and cognitive load.
Apple vs Android is good choice. Having to go to ten app stores to get my apps is not - it’s just a pain in the butt masquerading as “choice”.
But actually, there is a big difference - I can buy jeans anywhere. I can buy Levi jeans anywhere.
If I had to go to Macy’s so that I could get a shirt (with no alternative), and then had to go to Nordstrom to get socks (with no alternative), and then..... then yeah, that would be crippling.
There is a reason amazon and Walmart are so powerful - you can get anything in one stop.
Bundling is important. It’s why people buy Comcast xfinity cable + internet or have all their family on one cell phone plan - it’s reduces effort, stress, and cognitive load.
Apple vs Android is good choice. Having to go to ten app stores to get my apps is not - it’s just a pain in the butt masquerading as “choice”.
>it’s just a pain in the butt masquerading as “choice”.
It's not when they actually have to compete on price. Then you pick the one which offers you the lowest price for what you're looking for.
It's not when they actually have to compete on price. Then you pick the one which offers you the lowest price for what you're looking for.
So when a friend of yours wants to message you and you don’t have the same app, what happens?
Both apps are free. Now you have to download another App Store to download the messaging app.
Price has no bearing here whatsoever.
Both apps are free. Now you have to download another App Store to download the messaging app.
Price has no bearing here whatsoever.
>So when a friend of yours wants to message you and you don’t have the same app, what happens?
I tell the friend to call, text or email me. Price doesn't have any bearing because the market on messaging apps has bottomed out, in part due to Apple's app store policies.
I tell the friend to call, text or email me. Price doesn't have any bearing because the market on messaging apps has bottomed out, in part due to Apple's app store policies.
I'm guessing you don't have friends spread out over several countries, where calling or texting is not a cheap (or even reliable) option.
And nobody checks email frequently enough.
But the point was a simple example. Clearly you seem to enjoy complexity more than me.
And nobody checks email frequently enough.
But the point was a simple example. Clearly you seem to enjoy complexity more than me.
The problem is not that Epic would be able to prevent other stores from being installed.
The problem is that if there are multiple app stores, it encourages a race-to-the-bottom for the app stores -- why go through Apple's store with all its vetting if you can release to the Epic store instead?
So, yes, the worry is exactly that another company might offer better terms to developers -- because sometimes, those terms don't matter to users (e.g. the cut between the app store and the developer), but other times, those terms are absolutely at a cost to the users.
If Epic has a way of offering multiple stores, while preventing that race-to-the-bottom from impacting the user experience, it'd be wonderful. But that doesn't seem to be what Epic is pushing for; Epic seems to be pushing for their own profit at a cost to Apple (which is fine, IMHO -- it's just business) and to the iOS ecosystem (which is much less fine, IMHO).
The problem is that if there are multiple app stores, it encourages a race-to-the-bottom for the app stores -- why go through Apple's store with all its vetting if you can release to the Epic store instead?
So, yes, the worry is exactly that another company might offer better terms to developers -- because sometimes, those terms don't matter to users (e.g. the cut between the app store and the developer), but other times, those terms are absolutely at a cost to the users.
If Epic has a way of offering multiple stores, while preventing that race-to-the-bottom from impacting the user experience, it'd be wonderful. But that doesn't seem to be what Epic is pushing for; Epic seems to be pushing for their own profit at a cost to Apple (which is fine, IMHO -- it's just business) and to the iOS ecosystem (which is much less fine, IMHO).
If alternative app stores are consistently lower quality than Apple's app store, why do you think consumers wouldn't notice them and avoid those stores?
I suppose one way to counteract this is for apple to license app stores and they have to have the same standards as apples store. I have no desire to have low quality stores on my phone, thats why I like the iPhone - I don't have to worry about all the nonsense android phone owners do.
So many comments here to this effect and they're all so puzzling. I'd love to hear exactly what "nonsense" I'm supposedly worried about all the time. Relying solely on Google's store is perfectly usable. I wish I could find data on this but I'd confidently assert the vast vast majority of (non-Chinese) Android owners never use alternative stores.
The first one that comes to mind is how many android phones are out of date - upgrading to the latest version of android isn't a priority for mobile distributors and is a lot of work on some phones. So this causes a larger attack surface, Apple is very careful to make their phones all have the latest iOS - also makes it easier to develop to.
Another issue is trust - who knows what google does with your data, their business model includes exploiting your personal data, Apple has a vested interest in keeping your personal data secure and doesn't keep the keys to it - its their business model.
These two are enough for me, theres also a lot more reports of android apps with exploits - a google turns up a lot of them, less so with iPhone, and apple reacts if there is. Maybe these issues have been addressed in android, if so it's not something Google appears serious about, if they were then they'd be advertising how secure their phones are and how they don't touch your data - apple is very serious about keeping my data personal and has invested a lot of their business integrity in that.
Edit: tl;dr - googles business model is built around exploiting your personal data, apples is built around keeping your personal data secure
Another issue is trust - who knows what google does with your data, their business model includes exploiting your personal data, Apple has a vested interest in keeping your personal data secure and doesn't keep the keys to it - its their business model.
These two are enough for me, theres also a lot more reports of android apps with exploits - a google turns up a lot of them, less so with iPhone, and apple reacts if there is. Maybe these issues have been addressed in android, if so it's not something Google appears serious about, if they were then they'd be advertising how secure their phones are and how they don't touch your data - apple is very serious about keeping my data personal and has invested a lot of their business integrity in that.
Edit: tl;dr - googles business model is built around exploiting your personal data, apples is built around keeping your personal data secure
Apple's business model is also built around exploiting your personal data, not at the same scale sure but still. Just look at the Siri recordings scandal
> Edit: tl;dr - googles business model is built around exploiting your personal data, apples is built around keeping your personal data secure
Unless you're Chinese, when it's not.
Unless you're Chinese, when it's not.
I if was Chinese then I probably couldn't say anything about it, but not sure how this is related to the current discussion - not much any of us can do about china - including apple
> I suppose one way to counteract this is for apple to license app stores and they have to have the same standards as apples store.
Absolutely not - that's the entire point of this action. Apple's "standards" are to block upgrade pricing and force developers down a path of microtransactions. Do we really want that to be carried over to other stores? Do we want other stores to have to live with Apple's decision to block apps to help dissidents in Hong Kong or the Middle East communicate?
A single point of decision-making on code always leads to terrible geopolitical outcomes. Always. That is the important part of what is happening here.
Absolutely not - that's the entire point of this action. Apple's "standards" are to block upgrade pricing and force developers down a path of microtransactions. Do we really want that to be carried over to other stores? Do we want other stores to have to live with Apple's decision to block apps to help dissidents in Hong Kong or the Middle East communicate?
A single point of decision-making on code always leads to terrible geopolitical outcomes. Always. That is the important part of what is happening here.
We want a few more families to move into your house. We don't like the fact that you have a complete control over your home, and I think you're just frightened that other families could run your house better than you. And by the way, you've never invited us for a party, so it is extremely rude and unfair, and just shows your monopolistic stance, so we expect that other families will open the doors for anyone who needs a full access to your fridge and amenities. But don't be afraid, it's for the benefit of your neighbours that we all care about, and eventually you will get used to it too.
And if there were only two livable houses in the entire world, then that would be a completely reasonable position for someone to take.
Apple is one half of a duopoly. People keep on bringing up these 'gotcha' arguments about, "how would you feel if Walmart was forced to stock everybody's stuff?" And that ignores the fact that it would be a serious problem if there were only two supermarkets that I could buy from. I would feel exactly the same way if one to two companies had the kind of stranglehold over physical supermarket goods as Apple has over the mobile app ecosystem.
A physical duopoly of that scale would very clearly call for either breaking up the owners or regulating them to ensure that everyone had equal access to the market. Scenarios like that are why we have antitrust in the first place, particularly around the kind of vertical integration that Apple advocates hold in such high regard.
I don't think the people who put forward these arguments have really thought them through. A duopoly is different from a house.
If we could travel back 35-40 years through history, I have no doubt there'd be no shortage of people arguing that Bell's vertical integration of the Internet was the very reason why their service was so good, and that allowing people to hook their own 'unapproved' answering machines to their phone lines would just ruin the entire network, and that allowing one company to own all of the railroads would just mean that shipping became that much simpler and reliable for consumers.
So be careful about making analogies to the physical world when you're supporting Apple, because people might just take them at face value.
Apple is one half of a duopoly. People keep on bringing up these 'gotcha' arguments about, "how would you feel if Walmart was forced to stock everybody's stuff?" And that ignores the fact that it would be a serious problem if there were only two supermarkets that I could buy from. I would feel exactly the same way if one to two companies had the kind of stranglehold over physical supermarket goods as Apple has over the mobile app ecosystem.
A physical duopoly of that scale would very clearly call for either breaking up the owners or regulating them to ensure that everyone had equal access to the market. Scenarios like that are why we have antitrust in the first place, particularly around the kind of vertical integration that Apple advocates hold in such high regard.
I don't think the people who put forward these arguments have really thought them through. A duopoly is different from a house.
If we could travel back 35-40 years through history, I have no doubt there'd be no shortage of people arguing that Bell's vertical integration of the Internet was the very reason why their service was so good, and that allowing people to hook their own 'unapproved' answering machines to their phone lines would just ruin the entire network, and that allowing one company to own all of the railroads would just mean that shipping became that much simpler and reliable for consumers.
So be careful about making analogies to the physical world when you're supporting Apple, because people might just take them at face value.
> And if there were only two livable houses in the entire world, then that would be a completely reasonable position for someone to take.
There are more than two platforms out there. But even if there weren't, the fact that there's only N things in the world doesn't make your random claim on someone else's property any more valid. App Store is Apple's property. Build your own and host whoever you want there, but firstly you have to convince others that it is more valuable than the popular alternative. And if you fail to do that, it's not necessarily because the alternative is a monopoly, it may be and more likely is because your product is inferior.
> And that ignores the fact that it would be a serious problem if there were only two supermarkets that I could buy from.
Do you know the reason why it never happens though?
Your examples from the past just demonstrate that no monopoly exists without a government acting as a gatekeeper, like it was in the case of Bell and Union Pacific, and even then there was a place for successful competitors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Railway_(U.S.)
> So be careful about making analogies to the physical world when you're supporting Apple, because people might just take them at face value.
likewise, learn what you are advocating for, because mere quantity of stuff out there is never a justification for taking it over (and neither is your convenience), which my analogy was all about.
There are more than two platforms out there. But even if there weren't, the fact that there's only N things in the world doesn't make your random claim on someone else's property any more valid. App Store is Apple's property. Build your own and host whoever you want there, but firstly you have to convince others that it is more valuable than the popular alternative. And if you fail to do that, it's not necessarily because the alternative is a monopoly, it may be and more likely is because your product is inferior.
> And that ignores the fact that it would be a serious problem if there were only two supermarkets that I could buy from.
Do you know the reason why it never happens though?
Your examples from the past just demonstrate that no monopoly exists without a government acting as a gatekeeper, like it was in the case of Bell and Union Pacific, and even then there was a place for successful competitors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Railway_(U.S.)
> So be careful about making analogies to the physical world when you're supporting Apple, because people might just take them at face value.
likewise, learn what you are advocating for, because mere quantity of stuff out there is never a justification for taking it over (and neither is your convenience), which my analogy was all about.
> There are more than two platforms out there
Such as? If I'm making a mobile game, what other phones can I realistically target other than Android and iPhone? You don't really think that the Librem 5 is a real competitor right now in this space, do you?
> because mere quantity of stuff out there is never a justification for taking it over
All of US antitrust law is based on the idea that the quantity of providers in a market matters. If you're arguing that we should get rid of antitrust entirely, fine. But be upfront about that, that's not a mainstream position to take.
> no monopoly exists without a government acting as a gatekeeper
I'm not going to derail things too much here, but I do have at least a few Libertarian bones inside of me. To the extent that I am sympathetic to your argument here, I would question why you think that Apple is different.
Apple's dominant market position exists in no small part based on its exploitation of copyright, the DMCA, import laws, and heavy lawsuits over trademark and cross-compatible app runtimes, all of which only work because of artificial government intervention into the market.
If you want to go full Libertarian, I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea, but then I'm also going to go full Libertarian and ask what your views are on abolishing copyright. Apple might not have such a stranglehold over the market if it was legal for other US companies to build iPhone emulators, hackintoshes, to distribute jailbreaks, and to build their own compatible phones that could run both iOS apps and apps from other markets.
If we're all OK with making that stuff legal, then I'm OK with dropping antitrust. If we're not OK with making that stuff legal, then I'm keeping antitrust. I'm OK with either having government regulation or not having it, but no halvsies.
Such as? If I'm making a mobile game, what other phones can I realistically target other than Android and iPhone? You don't really think that the Librem 5 is a real competitor right now in this space, do you?
> because mere quantity of stuff out there is never a justification for taking it over
All of US antitrust law is based on the idea that the quantity of providers in a market matters. If you're arguing that we should get rid of antitrust entirely, fine. But be upfront about that, that's not a mainstream position to take.
> no monopoly exists without a government acting as a gatekeeper
I'm not going to derail things too much here, but I do have at least a few Libertarian bones inside of me. To the extent that I am sympathetic to your argument here, I would question why you think that Apple is different.
Apple's dominant market position exists in no small part based on its exploitation of copyright, the DMCA, import laws, and heavy lawsuits over trademark and cross-compatible app runtimes, all of which only work because of artificial government intervention into the market.
If you want to go full Libertarian, I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea, but then I'm also going to go full Libertarian and ask what your views are on abolishing copyright. Apple might not have such a stranglehold over the market if it was legal for other US companies to build iPhone emulators, hackintoshes, to distribute jailbreaks, and to build their own compatible phones that could run both iOS apps and apps from other markets.
If we're all OK with making that stuff legal, then I'm OK with dropping antitrust. If we're not OK with making that stuff legal, then I'm keeping antitrust. I'm OK with either having government regulation or not having it, but no halvsies.
> Such as? If I'm making a mobile game, what other phones can I realistically target other than Android and iPhone? You don't really think that the Librem 5 is a real competitor right now in this space, do you?
Any phone that runs WebGL. Inconvenient? Tough life, why does Apple have to do anything about it for you?
> All of US antitrust law is based on the idea that the quantity of providers in a market matters.
US antitrust laws are deeply flawed and in no way serve the purpose they were enacted for. If your product (subjectively) costs too high you are a monopolist; if your product costs too low (hello IE) you are dumping the market; and if your product costs approximately the same as of your competitors then there's a "market collusion". You cannot win in this system if you are a successful economic player. The bottom line is this though - there was no time in history where monopoly existed without government's sanction and gate-keeping, and Union Pacific was a prime example of it.
> If you want to go full Libertarian
I don't as I'm not one of them, which doesn't negate the points that I've made before.
> Apple's dominant market position exists in no small part based on its exploitation of copyright, the DMCA, import laws, and heavy lawsuits over trademark and cross-compatible app runtimes, all of which only work because of artificial government intervention into the market.
Wasn't it the government that enacted them? Why asking for it from Apple?
> I'm also going to go full Libertarian and ask what your views are on abolishing copyright.
I'm not libertarian; if you are just asking, I'm for IP in principle, whether it's modern copyright laws or something else is another story.
> If we're all OK with making that stuff legal, then I'm OK with dropping antitrust. If we're not OK with making that stuff legal, then I'm keeping antitrust. I'm OK with either having government regulation or not having it, but no halvsies
with all respect, it really is a funny position. Everything you mentioned here is a product of federal legislature, yet you want to blame an economic player that acts according to the law, in a system that is designed to eventually punish successful.
Any phone that runs WebGL. Inconvenient? Tough life, why does Apple have to do anything about it for you?
> All of US antitrust law is based on the idea that the quantity of providers in a market matters.
US antitrust laws are deeply flawed and in no way serve the purpose they were enacted for. If your product (subjectively) costs too high you are a monopolist; if your product costs too low (hello IE) you are dumping the market; and if your product costs approximately the same as of your competitors then there's a "market collusion". You cannot win in this system if you are a successful economic player. The bottom line is this though - there was no time in history where monopoly existed without government's sanction and gate-keeping, and Union Pacific was a prime example of it.
> If you want to go full Libertarian
I don't as I'm not one of them, which doesn't negate the points that I've made before.
> Apple's dominant market position exists in no small part based on its exploitation of copyright, the DMCA, import laws, and heavy lawsuits over trademark and cross-compatible app runtimes, all of which only work because of artificial government intervention into the market.
Wasn't it the government that enacted them? Why asking for it from Apple?
> I'm also going to go full Libertarian and ask what your views are on abolishing copyright.
I'm not libertarian; if you are just asking, I'm for IP in principle, whether it's modern copyright laws or something else is another story.
> If we're all OK with making that stuff legal, then I'm OK with dropping antitrust. If we're not OK with making that stuff legal, then I'm keeping antitrust. I'm OK with either having government regulation or not having it, but no halvsies
with all respect, it really is a funny position. Everything you mentioned here is a product of federal legislature, yet you want to blame an economic player that acts according to the law, in a system that is designed to eventually punish successful.
> Inconvenient
Impossible. There's a difference.
There are no phones on the market where the web is a comparable platform to native mobile apps. There could be in a better world, but there aren't in this world. Talk to me in a couple of years when we have native storage ironed out and maybe that'll be different. Or talk to me in 5-10 years when Librem 5 has its issues worked out, and maybe things will be different then.
> why does Apple have to do anything about it for you?
It doesn't, not unless Apple enjoys the benefit of extensive government regulations that allow it to block and sue the competitors that do want to do something about it for me. Regulations like, for example, the DMCA.
Live by the government, die by the government. Companies don't get to pretend to be free-market Capitalists only when it's convenient for them.
> Everything you mentioned here is a product of federal legislature, yet you want to blame an economic player
No, I just want consistency. I want the government to get in the way or to get out of the way.
It is infeasible to get rid of antitrust unless we're also going to also get rid of the regulation and interference that keeps the market from working the way it was intended.
Getting rid of the regulations that protect us from the current smartphone duopoly while keeping the regulations that caused the smartphone duopoly isn't free market Capitalism, it's Feudalism. I don't have patience for an argument that it's a bridge too far for the government to stop Apple from exploiting developers/consumers, but perfectly fine for Apple to use the government to reinforce their market position.
I'm sympathetic to anti-regulation arguments and the people who make them, but I am not sympathetic to pro-monopoly arguments.
Impossible. There's a difference.
There are no phones on the market where the web is a comparable platform to native mobile apps. There could be in a better world, but there aren't in this world. Talk to me in a couple of years when we have native storage ironed out and maybe that'll be different. Or talk to me in 5-10 years when Librem 5 has its issues worked out, and maybe things will be different then.
> why does Apple have to do anything about it for you?
It doesn't, not unless Apple enjoys the benefit of extensive government regulations that allow it to block and sue the competitors that do want to do something about it for me. Regulations like, for example, the DMCA.
Live by the government, die by the government. Companies don't get to pretend to be free-market Capitalists only when it's convenient for them.
> Everything you mentioned here is a product of federal legislature, yet you want to blame an economic player
No, I just want consistency. I want the government to get in the way or to get out of the way.
It is infeasible to get rid of antitrust unless we're also going to also get rid of the regulation and interference that keeps the market from working the way it was intended.
Getting rid of the regulations that protect us from the current smartphone duopoly while keeping the regulations that caused the smartphone duopoly isn't free market Capitalism, it's Feudalism. I don't have patience for an argument that it's a bridge too far for the government to stop Apple from exploiting developers/consumers, but perfectly fine for Apple to use the government to reinforce their market position.
I'm sympathetic to anti-regulation arguments and the people who make them, but I am not sympathetic to pro-monopoly arguments.
> Impossible. There's a difference.
If I name you the companies that release WebGL games I would state impossible? Let's not get that low in this discussion.
> There are no phones on the market where the web is a comparable platform to native mobile apps.
Comparable based on what criteria? Oftentimes I wish companies stop bother me with their "bug fixes and performance improvements" every other day and provide a sleek Web experience instead. So far I just hear how you are saying that alternatives do exist, but they suck, hence Apple's ability to charge 30% on top of everything is a viable business model, because their platform doesn't suck that much. No issue here.
> Getting rid of the regulations that protect us from the current smartphone duopoly while keeping the regulations that caused the smartphone duopoly isn't free market Capitalism, it's Feudalism.
If you make this claim, then it's on you to prove that in the absence of regulations you won't be able to enter the market with your new competing platform. Apple with all its money is in no position to dictate the way you or anyone else establish a new ecosystem based on open standards and free licenses.
If I name you the companies that release WebGL games I would state impossible? Let's not get that low in this discussion.
> There are no phones on the market where the web is a comparable platform to native mobile apps.
Comparable based on what criteria? Oftentimes I wish companies stop bother me with their "bug fixes and performance improvements" every other day and provide a sleek Web experience instead. So far I just hear how you are saying that alternatives do exist, but they suck, hence Apple's ability to charge 30% on top of everything is a viable business model, because their platform doesn't suck that much. No issue here.
> Getting rid of the regulations that protect us from the current smartphone duopoly while keeping the regulations that caused the smartphone duopoly isn't free market Capitalism, it's Feudalism.
If you make this claim, then it's on you to prove that in the absence of regulations you won't be able to enter the market with your new competing platform. Apple with all its money is in no position to dictate the way you or anyone else establish a new ecosystem based on open standards and free licenses.
> because their platform doesn't suck that much
Apple is the reason why web experiences on iOS suck. They deliberately lag on web standards so that their browser experience is inferior to native apps. None of this accidental.
And no, it's not just inconvenience. There are things on iOS that are literally impossible to do in WebGL. Reliable, persistent offline storage on iOS is impossible to do from a web app. Reliable persistent login on iOS is impossible to do from a web app. Notifications are impossible to do on iOS from a web app. The APIs have not been added to the platform.
It's not inconvenient -- you literally can't do them. It is not a comparable platform, because Apple makes sure that it will never be a comparable platform. It's not that Apple made an amazing native experience and the web couldn't keep up. The reason the web can't keep up on iOS is because Apple deliberately hobbles its mobile browser.
> Apple with all its money is in no position to dictate the way you or anyone else establish a new ecosystem based on open standards and free licenses.
https://venturebeat.com/2019/08/16/apples-corellium-lawsuit-...
Imagine a world where I could build a phone that was compatible with every iOS app and Android app, where users didn't have to choose in advance which ecosystem they wanted to be a part of.
Imagine a world where I could build a competitor to iOS that allowed users to port the apps that they had already bought to their new phones outside of Apple's ecosystem, rather than spending hundreds of dollars buying all of them a second time.
Imagine a world where I could build and sell my own hardware that dual-booted iOS and Android.
Imagine a world where I could sell a TV/Phone that would play DRM-encumbered content from Apple devices and iTunes.
That would be a real free market. In the current market, any of those competitors would be sued into oblivion.
> If you make this claim, then it's on you to prove that in the absence of regulations you won't be able to enter the market with your new competing platform.
Give people a real free market, and then we'll find out whether or not in the absence of regulations they can compete.
You keep on repeating the exact same argument, that regulation is the problem. I'm not sure that you're following what I'm saying. All I'm advocating for is that we get rid of all of the regulation. If you have a problem with regulation, then fine, let's get rid of it, including the DMCA.
It doesn't sound like you have a problem with market regulation and interference though. It sounds like you have a problem with a very small subset of regulations.
Apple is the reason why web experiences on iOS suck. They deliberately lag on web standards so that their browser experience is inferior to native apps. None of this accidental.
And no, it's not just inconvenience. There are things on iOS that are literally impossible to do in WebGL. Reliable, persistent offline storage on iOS is impossible to do from a web app. Reliable persistent login on iOS is impossible to do from a web app. Notifications are impossible to do on iOS from a web app. The APIs have not been added to the platform.
It's not inconvenient -- you literally can't do them. It is not a comparable platform, because Apple makes sure that it will never be a comparable platform. It's not that Apple made an amazing native experience and the web couldn't keep up. The reason the web can't keep up on iOS is because Apple deliberately hobbles its mobile browser.
> Apple with all its money is in no position to dictate the way you or anyone else establish a new ecosystem based on open standards and free licenses.
https://venturebeat.com/2019/08/16/apples-corellium-lawsuit-...
Imagine a world where I could build a phone that was compatible with every iOS app and Android app, where users didn't have to choose in advance which ecosystem they wanted to be a part of.
Imagine a world where I could build a competitor to iOS that allowed users to port the apps that they had already bought to their new phones outside of Apple's ecosystem, rather than spending hundreds of dollars buying all of them a second time.
Imagine a world where I could build and sell my own hardware that dual-booted iOS and Android.
Imagine a world where I could sell a TV/Phone that would play DRM-encumbered content from Apple devices and iTunes.
That would be a real free market. In the current market, any of those competitors would be sued into oblivion.
> If you make this claim, then it's on you to prove that in the absence of regulations you won't be able to enter the market with your new competing platform.
Give people a real free market, and then we'll find out whether or not in the absence of regulations they can compete.
You keep on repeating the exact same argument, that regulation is the problem. I'm not sure that you're following what I'm saying. All I'm advocating for is that we get rid of all of the regulation. If you have a problem with regulation, then fine, let's get rid of it, including the DMCA.
It doesn't sound like you have a problem with market regulation and interference though. It sounds like you have a problem with a very small subset of regulations.
> Apple is the reason why web experiences on iOS suck. They deliberately lag on web standards so that their browser experience is inferior to native apps. None of this accidental.
I've never mentioned web experience on iOS, let's not add words into my replies for the convenience of your argument. Everyone is free to choose any other platform with a better web experience and to build on top of it, with all open standards and free licenses in mind. Apple won't be able to interfere.
> Imagine a world where I could build a phone that was compatible with every iOS app and Android app, where users didn't have to choose in advance which ecosystem they wanted to be a part of.
Build Linux phone instead and make it compatible with Android. Or a Windows-compatible phone on ReactOS. Why are you so fixated on Apple and iOS? At this point it just looks as a random wish that Apple implements your ideas. Sorry, no one is obliged to implement your wishes as you see them fit.
> Give people a real free market, and then we'll find out whether or not in the absence of regulations they can compete.
Just read how commerce existed prior 1913.
I've never mentioned web experience on iOS, let's not add words into my replies for the convenience of your argument. Everyone is free to choose any other platform with a better web experience and to build on top of it, with all open standards and free licenses in mind. Apple won't be able to interfere.
> Imagine a world where I could build a phone that was compatible with every iOS app and Android app, where users didn't have to choose in advance which ecosystem they wanted to be a part of.
Build Linux phone instead and make it compatible with Android. Or a Windows-compatible phone on ReactOS. Why are you so fixated on Apple and iOS? At this point it just looks as a random wish that Apple implements your ideas. Sorry, no one is obliged to implement your wishes as you see them fit.
> Give people a real free market, and then we'll find out whether or not in the absence of regulations they can compete.
Just read how commerce existed prior 1913.
> At this point it just looks as a random wish that Apple implements your ideas. Sorry, no one is obliged to implement your wishes as you see them fit.
You don't understand what I'm saying, and I don't know how to say it any more clearly.
I'm not asking Apple to do anything. I want to be able to do things myself without Apple using the government to attack my business.
This is worse than the Right to Repair debates -- people accuse us of trying to force Apple to fix our phones for free when in reality we just want to stop Apple from suing everyone who imports a 3rd-party battery.
Just let people compete, that's all I'm asking. Apple doesn't need to lift a finger. Let other people build emulators, port apps, display content, and make compatible phones. Apple doesn't need to fix my problems, but they shouldn't be able to use the government to stop other people from fixing my problems.
> Apple won't be able to interfere.
Again, I don't know if this is on purpose or not, but I just listed a few of the ways that Apple can interfere with Open standards, including suing competitors that use adversarial operability to get around network effects in an entrenched market.
> I've never mentioned web experience on iOS [...] Everyone is free to choose any other platform
We're talking in circles, but just to repeat -- when you say "any other platforms", that means Android or iOS. Those are the only two viable mobile platforms that exist right now. And good luck building a third when users have invested hundreds of dollars into closed app ecosystems that it will be illegal for you to interoperate with.
If you know a way to get around the problems listed at https://whatwebcando.today/, by all means let me know, I'd love to build some offline webapps for my phone. If you know a way to get reliable disk storage from a website on any mobile platform, please let me know, it would open up a world of possibilities for me as a developer.
But don't pretend the web is an escape hatch when its mobile support depends entirely on the two companies who have the most to gain from keeping its capabilities behind those of native apps.
> Just read how commerce existed prior 1913.
You keep trying to phrase this like I'm secretly being pro-regulation in this conversation. I'm willing to concede literally every single antitrust point I've raised in the comments above, and my only condition is that we get rid of all of the regulations including copyright.
At this point, you're arguing that market regulation is bad to someone who's proposing that an alternative to antitrust might be... to get rid of all market regulation.
What is your position? Do you think market regulation is bad or good? If you don't like regulation, then what do you disagree with me on? What do you oppose about the idea of stopping the government from using copyright to interfere with the free market?
You don't understand what I'm saying, and I don't know how to say it any more clearly.
I'm not asking Apple to do anything. I want to be able to do things myself without Apple using the government to attack my business.
This is worse than the Right to Repair debates -- people accuse us of trying to force Apple to fix our phones for free when in reality we just want to stop Apple from suing everyone who imports a 3rd-party battery.
Just let people compete, that's all I'm asking. Apple doesn't need to lift a finger. Let other people build emulators, port apps, display content, and make compatible phones. Apple doesn't need to fix my problems, but they shouldn't be able to use the government to stop other people from fixing my problems.
> Apple won't be able to interfere.
Again, I don't know if this is on purpose or not, but I just listed a few of the ways that Apple can interfere with Open standards, including suing competitors that use adversarial operability to get around network effects in an entrenched market.
> I've never mentioned web experience on iOS [...] Everyone is free to choose any other platform
We're talking in circles, but just to repeat -- when you say "any other platforms", that means Android or iOS. Those are the only two viable mobile platforms that exist right now. And good luck building a third when users have invested hundreds of dollars into closed app ecosystems that it will be illegal for you to interoperate with.
If you know a way to get around the problems listed at https://whatwebcando.today/, by all means let me know, I'd love to build some offline webapps for my phone. If you know a way to get reliable disk storage from a website on any mobile platform, please let me know, it would open up a world of possibilities for me as a developer.
But don't pretend the web is an escape hatch when its mobile support depends entirely on the two companies who have the most to gain from keeping its capabilities behind those of native apps.
> Just read how commerce existed prior 1913.
You keep trying to phrase this like I'm secretly being pro-regulation in this conversation. I'm willing to concede literally every single antitrust point I've raised in the comments above, and my only condition is that we get rid of all of the regulations including copyright.
At this point, you're arguing that market regulation is bad to someone who's proposing that an alternative to antitrust might be... to get rid of all market regulation.
What is your position? Do you think market regulation is bad or good? If you don't like regulation, then what do you disagree with me on? What do you oppose about the idea of stopping the government from using copyright to interfere with the free market?
> But even if there weren't, the fact that there's only N things in the world doesn't make your random claim on someone else's property any more valid.
It is notable that basically every functional democracy in the world disagrees with this statement.
It is notable that basically every functional democracy in the world disagrees with this statement.
I'm not at all enthused about Epic being one of those stores, but being able to download from Steam sure would be nice.
If you were trying to remove the monopoly, I'd think you should start there, and then expand to other people who can prove they have their shit together. Epic let someone else use my email address to sign up for an account (and they only allow one account per email). That is serious amateur-hour territory. When they have figured out how to tie their own shoes we can talk about whether they should be in the running.
If you were trying to remove the monopoly, I'd think you should start there, and then expand to other people who can prove they have their shit together. Epic let someone else use my email address to sign up for an account (and they only allow one account per email). That is serious amateur-hour territory. When they have figured out how to tie their own shoes we can talk about whether they should be in the running.
Pretty sure you can buy from Steam on the iOS app - Steam just has a revenue-sharing agreement with Apple.
which is specifically the part that got Epic in trouble, they don't want to share revenue with Apple, and what's more they want to charge other developers a fee for the use of Epic's app store.
the thought that Apple was just going to let this hilarious ToS breach lay was all wrong, absolutely not
which is specifically the part that got Epic in trouble, they don't want to share revenue with Apple, and what's more they want to charge other developers a fee for the use of Epic's app store.
the thought that Apple was just going to let this hilarious ToS breach lay was all wrong, absolutely not
Steam Link on iOS actually has to run a version of Steam Big Picture without a Store or Community option because of Apple's rules: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/05/apple-reversal-allows...
The Store application lets you buy games because you cannot consume them on the device, like how Amazon allows you to buy physical items but not Kindle books.
The Store application lets you buy games because you cannot consume them on the device, like how Amazon allows you to buy physical items but not Kindle books.
I don't get the whole objection to mutiple app stores.
Instead of clicking icon A, I click icon B and if I get a cheaper game, all power to Epic.
I don't spend time in an app store. I spend time playing the game.
Instead of clicking icon A, I click icon B and if I get a cheaper game, all power to Epic.
I don't spend time in an app store. I spend time playing the game.
So I recently built a living room gaming PC. Installed Steam, Epic Store, GOG, Origin, XBOX, Rockstar Social Club, even Twitch. Pretty much anything where I have a library of games. And let me tell you, what a pain in the ass it is!
I keep all the games organized in Playnite. If I try to launch Epic games from Playnite, most of the time nothing happens. So I start the epic client and... oh look, it logged me out again. So now to play Maneater or whatever I have to log into my password manager with its complicated passphrase from a tiny HTPC keyboard, grab the password, paste it into Epic, wait for Epic to update, click the game icon again, and now it launches. Heaven forbid I actually set up 2FA, cause then I'd have to go through that too!
To say nothing of the fact that the Epic store runs like ass on a brand new third-gen six-core Ryzen CPU with an current-gen GPU and 16gigs of RAM.
Some of the other game stores behave just as bad as this... the only ones that actually seem to work reliably are Steam and GOG, and they've been around a while. Origin constantly nags about updates and "you logged in from another PC" bullshit, Rockstar can't seem to hold on to a session cookie to save its life, and the Twitch client is just a mess all around. XBOX kind of sucked in Beta but they finally fixed the worst issues there.
Multiple launchers is NOT ideal. We all have this fantasy idea that competition will make everything better but really what it results in is now we have a bunch of garbage launchers running on startup (and if you don't have fun waiting for them to update every time you launch them). Just like with streaming... competition is making everything worse
If you "don't spend time in an app store" you're either only using one or two of those launchers or you're lying. The last time things "just worked" was when Steam reigned supreme and unchallenged. (And that's not necessarily a good thing, nearly everyone knows that Valve is a good citizen solely because of management, and I have no doubt that one day that will change and Steam will suck.)
I keep all the games organized in Playnite. If I try to launch Epic games from Playnite, most of the time nothing happens. So I start the epic client and... oh look, it logged me out again. So now to play Maneater or whatever I have to log into my password manager with its complicated passphrase from a tiny HTPC keyboard, grab the password, paste it into Epic, wait for Epic to update, click the game icon again, and now it launches. Heaven forbid I actually set up 2FA, cause then I'd have to go through that too!
To say nothing of the fact that the Epic store runs like ass on a brand new third-gen six-core Ryzen CPU with an current-gen GPU and 16gigs of RAM.
Some of the other game stores behave just as bad as this... the only ones that actually seem to work reliably are Steam and GOG, and they've been around a while. Origin constantly nags about updates and "you logged in from another PC" bullshit, Rockstar can't seem to hold on to a session cookie to save its life, and the Twitch client is just a mess all around. XBOX kind of sucked in Beta but they finally fixed the worst issues there.
Multiple launchers is NOT ideal. We all have this fantasy idea that competition will make everything better but really what it results in is now we have a bunch of garbage launchers running on startup (and if you don't have fun waiting for them to update every time you launch them). Just like with streaming... competition is making everything worse
If you "don't spend time in an app store" you're either only using one or two of those launchers or you're lying. The last time things "just worked" was when Steam reigned supreme and unchallenged. (And that's not necessarily a good thing, nearly everyone knows that Valve is a good citizen solely because of management, and I have no doubt that one day that will change and Steam will suck.)
> Multiple launchers is NOT ideal.
Absolutely agreed, but consider what would happen if only one of those game stores you mention were allowed to be installed on your gaming PC. Then you'd have to go through a single gatekeeper, and I bet you a bunch of the games you like just wouldn't be available at all, because they'd either have been capriciously rejected, or because their developers can't make the terms work to their satisfaction. But because this mythical single game store is the only game in town (heh), there's no recourse.
Or maybe most, or even all, of those games you play might be available on this single app store. But expect them to be worse, because their developers have to pay a middleman a larger fee for distribution, which leaves less money to build the game itself. Expect them to be missing features, because this gatekeeper makes it harder to build some features, even if it's through well-meaning policies.
It absolutely floors me that people on a site called Hacker News are praising the role of a gatekeeping corporation that locks down devices they own to the point that they don't even really own them.
Absolutely agreed, but consider what would happen if only one of those game stores you mention were allowed to be installed on your gaming PC. Then you'd have to go through a single gatekeeper, and I bet you a bunch of the games you like just wouldn't be available at all, because they'd either have been capriciously rejected, or because their developers can't make the terms work to their satisfaction. But because this mythical single game store is the only game in town (heh), there's no recourse.
Or maybe most, or even all, of those games you play might be available on this single app store. But expect them to be worse, because their developers have to pay a middleman a larger fee for distribution, which leaves less money to build the game itself. Expect them to be missing features, because this gatekeeper makes it harder to build some features, even if it's through well-meaning policies.
It absolutely floors me that people on a site called Hacker News are praising the role of a gatekeeping corporation that locks down devices they own to the point that they don't even really own them.
You phrase this as an either/or proposition... either 1 app store with its gatekeepers and rules (and frankly, the Steam supremacy was a good king to live under...)
The real answer is neither. Fuck all these proprietary launchers and app stores. There are other answers.... personally I feel like these platforms need to be run and controlled by a nonprofit, with a charter that holds customers' and business' needs equally without a primary duty to greedy shareholders. Either that or sideloading
edit- and I think most folks are OK with living under a good , just king. Steam is this, and many argue that Apple was this at some point in their past. Since we are all apparently too stupid to handle a truly distributed method of installing software like sideloading or old-school brick and mortar retail, we have to learn to live with a store of some kind, with all that entails. And in that case, we're OK if the platform is fair and just
> because they'd either have been capriciously rejected, or because their developers can't make the terms work to their satisfaction
edit2- this never really happened with Steam, amazingly enough. Surely there are edge cases, and there are certainly reports of Steam staff working with devs to ensure a positive release (which is a nice way of saying they have probably forced developers to alter their product), and Valve has certainly made some bad decisions (which they thankfully backed down on). But Steam was such an improvement over the old distribution model that its downsides were almost unfairly outweighed by its upsides. And now they own the market with such a large competitive moat that Epic has to give away boatloads of free games (and good ones too!) and a PR campaign of trashing competitors just to seed their userbase.
The real answer is neither. Fuck all these proprietary launchers and app stores. There are other answers.... personally I feel like these platforms need to be run and controlled by a nonprofit, with a charter that holds customers' and business' needs equally without a primary duty to greedy shareholders. Either that or sideloading
edit- and I think most folks are OK with living under a good , just king. Steam is this, and many argue that Apple was this at some point in their past. Since we are all apparently too stupid to handle a truly distributed method of installing software like sideloading or old-school brick and mortar retail, we have to learn to live with a store of some kind, with all that entails. And in that case, we're OK if the platform is fair and just
> because they'd either have been capriciously rejected, or because their developers can't make the terms work to their satisfaction
edit2- this never really happened with Steam, amazingly enough. Surely there are edge cases, and there are certainly reports of Steam staff working with devs to ensure a positive release (which is a nice way of saying they have probably forced developers to alter their product), and Valve has certainly made some bad decisions (which they thankfully backed down on). But Steam was such an improvement over the old distribution model that its downsides were almost unfairly outweighed by its upsides. And now they own the market with such a large competitive moat that Epic has to give away boatloads of free games (and good ones too!) and a PR campaign of trashing competitors just to seed their userbase.
With Apple's ecosystem, it is an either/or proposition. Thy don't allow third-party stores, period, so I don't see how my comparison is inadequate.
You're not taking into account the differences in how App Store and Steam behaved
App Store has a natural monopoly on the iDevices. (And I would love to see this broken, a jailbroken iPhone in the old days was a wondrous thing) This is because Apple owns the platform and are heavily incentivized to use that integration to maximize their own profit and growth.
There are no such incentives on an open platform like Windows. Steam had to be better than the status quo and it seems they took that to heart, so much that entire ecosystems have built up around Valve's generosity -- ecosystems that compete with Steam itself -- and that Valve could pull the plug on tomorrow. But I bet they won't, because they seem to be interested in a vibrant and healthy ecosystem, and because their attitude of good stewardship is apparently quite rare these days, giving them a significant competitive advantage with mindshare.
It's a totally different ballgame. Google uses anticompetitive dealmaking and sheer force of will to try and achieve a semblance of what App Store does, and up until recently their success in that area was mixed at best. Google Play is closer to Steam in that regard, but their execution sucks.
But even if Steam was as vertically integrated as Apple something tells me they would be a lot more permissive and generous in how others sell on their platform. Steam offers a ton of value-add and, while I don't hang out in gamedev circles, the only bitching about price and Steam's 30% cut I've seen comes from Tim Sweeney and noone else
App Store has a natural monopoly on the iDevices. (And I would love to see this broken, a jailbroken iPhone in the old days was a wondrous thing) This is because Apple owns the platform and are heavily incentivized to use that integration to maximize their own profit and growth.
There are no such incentives on an open platform like Windows. Steam had to be better than the status quo and it seems they took that to heart, so much that entire ecosystems have built up around Valve's generosity -- ecosystems that compete with Steam itself -- and that Valve could pull the plug on tomorrow. But I bet they won't, because they seem to be interested in a vibrant and healthy ecosystem, and because their attitude of good stewardship is apparently quite rare these days, giving them a significant competitive advantage with mindshare.
It's a totally different ballgame. Google uses anticompetitive dealmaking and sheer force of will to try and achieve a semblance of what App Store does, and up until recently their success in that area was mixed at best. Google Play is closer to Steam in that regard, but their execution sucks.
But even if Steam was as vertically integrated as Apple something tells me they would be a lot more permissive and generous in how others sell on their platform. Steam offers a ton of value-add and, while I don't hang out in gamedev circles, the only bitching about price and Steam's 30% cut I've seen comes from Tim Sweeney and noone else
> Absolutely agreed, but consider what would happen if only one of those game stores you mention were allowed to be installed on your gaming PC.
That is how it was several years back with Steam and everything was just fine. The new stores that popped up are, with the exception of GoG and Itch.io, in the service of large companies.
PC gaming wasn't a dystopia 5 years ago.
That is how it was several years back with Steam and everything was just fine. The new stores that popped up are, with the exception of GoG and Itch.io, in the service of large companies.
PC gaming wasn't a dystopia 5 years ago.
> PC gaming wasn't a dystopia 5 years ago.
Indeed, it was glorious. Another golden age suffocated by business interests
Indeed, it was glorious. Another golden age suffocated by business interests
No one wants multiple launchers, people want multiple stores. They're very different.
Once the app is installed, it should be easy to start the app.
Once the app is installed, it should be easy to start the app.
You could try organising your games with GOG Galaxy. I haven't tried it but I've heard good things.
https://www.gogalaxy.com/en/
https://www.gogalaxy.com/en/
As an aside, have you given GOG Galaxy a go as an alternative to Playnite? I've read good things about it.
I will only offer that finding content on Apple TV now that everyone has the ability to not only sell content but resell content (eg, HBO on Prime), it's gotten to the point where we sometimes give up on finding a particular movie or TV show and do something else.
I'd like other stores on iOS too, but there's a qualitative difference between 1, 3, and 6 vendors that doesn't necessarily make 6 better than 1. In fact 6 is probably default worse than 1, and requires active management and cooperation to make it behave.
I'd like other stores on iOS too, but there's a qualitative difference between 1, 3, and 6 vendors that doesn't necessarily make 6 better than 1. In fact 6 is probably default worse than 1, and requires active management and cooperation to make it behave.
You don't get a cheaper game, especially not if you live in India where Steam will basically give you a 66% discount on every single game automatically. The 18% fee reduction goes straight to the developer. I have spent quite a lot of time chatting with friends on my "App Store".
It creates a race-to-the-bottom for app stores.
Having everything locked behind a single App Store is the perfect way for the government to enforce bans without building a “great firewall”. It’s no coincidence that a few days after Trump signed an executive order to ban TikTok/WeChat then Epic (heavily backed by Tencent) engaged in a PR-focused lawsuit that would encourage Apple to allow side-loading apps, which, if implemented, would allow Chinese companies to easily bypass the ban. It’s also worth noting that apps are already violating people’s privacy in so many ways (the latest example is copying clipboard text while running in the background) - without the App Store then there’s no doubt that the privacy violations would become even worse.
> While I don't like Apple's 30% cut on multiplatform/subscription products, I think Epic's real motivation here is to run their own App Store, build a bigger moat and get the profits themselves (they take 12% cut, 5% if you use Unreal Engine, from developers in their store). They also make exclusive deals, bribing developers with funding/marketing support, so that the games can only bought in their store for 6-12mo.
Sounds great to me. Truly. Who loses here, other than Apple, one of the biggest, wealthiest companies on the planet?
> Buying games on PC now means that you have to install 5 different app stores which are usually slow, buggy and not that well written cross-platform code (pretty much like Fortnite itself).
It sucks that there's so much slow buggy software (with Steam being, by far, the biggest offender), isn't it great that we have such a thriving competitive market on PC? I think it's awesome. I think the PC gaming market has never been better.
Sounds great to me. Truly. Who loses here, other than Apple, one of the biggest, wealthiest companies on the planet?
> Buying games on PC now means that you have to install 5 different app stores which are usually slow, buggy and not that well written cross-platform code (pretty much like Fortnite itself).
It sucks that there's so much slow buggy software (with Steam being, by far, the biggest offender), isn't it great that we have such a thriving competitive market on PC? I think it's awesome. I think the PC gaming market has never been better.
> there has been criticism on Epic sending user data back to China.
This sounds like one of those tinfoil conspiracy theories. Has there been any evidence whatsoever that confirms this?
This sounds like one of those tinfoil conspiracy theories. Has there been any evidence whatsoever that confirms this?
Okay this is going to sound stupid but maybe someone else feels like me about it: I don't understand why Apple has to take such a big chunk from transactions of in-app purchases? Similarly Google.
Why 30%? Why not 5%? That feels like it would be more honest.
Is it just because "they can"?
Is it just because "they can"?
At launch, Apple operated the App Store hoping to break even, and 30% wasn't quite doing it at first.
On a $.99 app, they still might not. I mean, they might, given economies of scale, but barely. Free apps incur costs with zero compensation. If all apps cost 99 cents, I don't think we'd be having this conversation. If Apple were still operating the App Store at break-even, I don't think we'd be having this conversation.
Apps with IAPs that are $9.99, that's a lot of extra profit. Apple might argue that they help offset all of the free apps, but obviously a company like Epic is going to feel singled out.
Apple is no longer only trying to break even with the App Store. They have openly stated that it is profitable, and that they want it to be more so. Epic and others with higher-than-99-cents sales don't like giving up so much, and I can't say I blame them.
On a $.99 app, they still might not. I mean, they might, given economies of scale, but barely. Free apps incur costs with zero compensation. If all apps cost 99 cents, I don't think we'd be having this conversation. If Apple were still operating the App Store at break-even, I don't think we'd be having this conversation.
Apps with IAPs that are $9.99, that's a lot of extra profit. Apple might argue that they help offset all of the free apps, but obviously a company like Epic is going to feel singled out.
Apple is no longer only trying to break even with the App Store. They have openly stated that it is profitable, and that they want it to be more so. Epic and others with higher-than-99-cents sales don't like giving up so much, and I can't say I blame them.
The trouble is with the App Store that you can't charge more on the App Store than you do elsewhere to cover the costs of the App Store. This is perhaps the anti competitive part - if you could just pass on the App Store costs then the free market would reign.
This is not true.
It was true for a brief period of time, several publishers challenged Apple on it, and Apple relaxed that rule.
They still have several silly rules, but not this one.
It was true for a brief period of time, several publishers challenged Apple on it, and Apple relaxed that rule.
They still have several silly rules, but not this one.
Yes you can. In fact Spotify did just that before they stopped allowing in app purchases.
When it started, I think they needed that kind of share, and (obviously) everyone agreed (because they came in droves). Now that the thing is successful, they could surely reduce it. What I want to see is a sliding scale. If you're an Amazon, Netflix, or Epic, based on your sales, it should be an ever-decreasing percentage. I feel like that's how most any business would shape their fee structure, and I don't understand why Apple won't even consider it.
Partly because they can but also to prevent developers from gaming the system. Imagine a free app with an IAP to unlock features but Apple only takes 5% from the IAP.
Exactly this. If IAP was a different cut, all apps would go "free" overnight and require an IAP purchase to unlock most of the app.
Apple could try something like giving "consumable" IAP a different cut, but I'm sure devs would still try to game that too (e.g. having a consumable that unlocks the app for a set amount of time, rather than a permanent unlock).
Apple could try something like giving "consumable" IAP a different cut, but I'm sure devs would still try to game that too (e.g. having a consumable that unlocks the app for a set amount of time, rather than a permanent unlock).
Most apps are free already and use ads to generate revenue of which Apple gets $0.
BTW if Apple is protecting customers so much they should ban consumable IAPs because they're being used to drain money from people via addiction.
Consumables are used for more than just freemium games.
I really wish they would. I would be okay if games had to all be paid up front and there was upgrade pricing.
So they should take 5% of regular app purchases, too. Problem solved.
Would hardly even create a dent in Apple's revenue and they apparently don't know what to do with the money anyway except put it in a giant pile, so no loss for society.
Would hardly even create a dent in Apple's revenue and they apparently don't know what to do with the money anyway except put it in a giant pile, so no loss for society.
Part of the reason is that Apple & Google don't charge credit card processing fees. So for a $1 app, 30% is ~ their cost. Of course, that logic doesn't scale to things like $9.99/mo subscriptions and the like.
Apple could take out credit card processing fees and then charge 5%, but up until now they haven't had a reason to change. Perhaps we will see change here, who knows?
Apple could take out credit card processing fees and then charge 5%, but up until now they haven't had a reason to change. Perhaps we will see change here, who knows?
That logic doesn’t scale of for other countries that have friendly micro transactions platforms..
I assume their costs are just, Credit Card Fees, Infrastructure Fees (Bandwidth, Storage), Reviewers Salary. Not sure this adds up to 30%.
I think the real reason is that when the Apple store was started, they looked around at the current prices for "software distribution". Retail was like 70%, and other app stores; for example the Danger Hiptop / T-mobile Sidekick charged 60% for their apps store, and the carriers were worse. At the time, 30% was actually a lot cheaper than everyone else. Then I assume Google just copied Apple.
I think the real reason is that when the Apple store was started, they looked around at the current prices for "software distribution". Retail was like 70%, and other app stores; for example the Danger Hiptop / T-mobile Sidekick charged 60% for their apps store, and the carriers were worse. At the time, 30% was actually a lot cheaper than everyone else. Then I assume Google just copied Apple.
CC processing fees may exceed this. Just using Stripe [1] as an example, 2.9% + 0.30 per transaction means $.329 for retail CC pricing. Surely Apple gets a discount, but it's price of competitive alternative that matters.
Part of the problem with this whole market is that we're talking about zero marginal cost goods. Taking away frictional costs of transaction, distribution and support, the economic argument is for prices to trend towards $0. Hence the "race to the bottom" once the App Store made distribution "free" for free apps.
[1]: https://stripe.com/pricing
Part of the problem with this whole market is that we're talking about zero marginal cost goods. Taking away frictional costs of transaction, distribution and support, the economic argument is for prices to trend towards $0. Hence the "race to the bottom" once the App Store made distribution "free" for free apps.
[1]: https://stripe.com/pricing
The German GiroCard payment system is 0.125%.
The EU just limited credit card inter bank exchange fees to 0.2%.
The EU just limited credit card inter bank exchange fees to 0.2%.
$0.329 for one dollar.
$0.59 in CC fees for ten dollars. That's 5.9%
$0.735 in CC fees for $15: 4.9%
$0.59 in CC fees for ten dollars. That's 5.9%
$0.735 in CC fees for $15: 4.9%
What about other countries where micro transactions are not that expensive... eg. UPI of India.
Maintaining XCode, running iCloud app-facing services, building/maintaining SDKs, etc...
Apple has to pay for these somehow. They can either get the money by charging more for each iPhone or they can get the money from the real end-users of these products: Developers.
Apple has to pay for these somehow. They can either get the money by charging more for each iPhone or they can get the money from the real end-users of these products: Developers.
Or you know, they could get the money from the yearly fee they charge developers for exactly these reasons
$100?
20 Billion in 2018, but I read that in a similar thread here and sadly can't remember the source anymore
Apple has 200 million paying developers?
Yes, I'm sure you would buy an iPhone if Xcode didn't exist.
The iOS App Store supposedly grosses around $50 billion USD per year. Let's say that they were to halve their cut from 30% to 15% (very close to what players like Epic are asking for) - cutting Apple's take from $15 billion USD to 7.5 billion USD.
What is Apple spending 7.5 billion USD on such that they'd have to raise the price of iPhones? They have multiple other revenue sources as well, like developer program fees. None of those cover their costs either? Are you suggesting they're selling phones at a loss?
What is Apple spending 7.5 billion USD on such that they'd have to raise the price of iPhones? They have multiple other revenue sources as well, like developer program fees. None of those cover their costs either? Are you suggesting they're selling phones at a loss?
Programming languages, code editors and other developer tools exist for many platforms, without corporate backing. Developing apps for iOS would be very doable without Apple maintaining XCode.
But Apple are choosing to maintain XCode, not as a charity, but to make money selling phones -- $250 billion last year. It's not like they aren't getting paid for it…
But Apple are choosing to maintain XCode, not as a charity, but to make money selling phones -- $250 billion last year. It's not like they aren't getting paid for it…
The MAS fees add up to 3% with presumably similar service costs.
30% is just rent-seeking opportunism. 3% shows something far closer to Apple's true costs for all this when faced with the fact that the Mac App Store is (for now) not required.
30% is just rent-seeking opportunism. 3% shows something far closer to Apple's true costs for all this when faced with the fact that the Mac App Store is (for now) not required.
> Not sure this adds up to 30%.
It absolutely shouldn’t add up to 30% unless you believe Apple should be using the App Store as a pseudo-loss-leader for the iPhone.
It absolutely shouldn’t add up to 30% unless you believe Apple should be using the App Store as a pseudo-loss-leader for the iPhone.
This is something I hadn't thought about until the article pointed it out. According to the first link in google (https://www.braze.com/blog/in-app-purchase-stats/) the average iOS IAP in 2017 was $1.08. If you compare that to Square and Stripe's fee structure then the processing fees charged by the credit card processors is about 25%. This means Apple's taking for themselves much closer to a 5% cut which seems much more reasonable for the services provided.
Why Apple doesn't switch to a 5% + $0.29 structure is anybody's guess, however...
Why Apple doesn't switch to a 5% + $0.29 structure is anybody's guess, however...
Why compare to Square's or Stripe's fee structure? It's ridiculous to claim "This means Apple's taking for themselves much closer to a 5% cut" as if Apple is paying a $0.29 processing fee per IAP.
If developers had a choice in payment processors, they could choose one with smaller minimum per-transaction fees, aggregate multiple payments from the same customer, try out subscriptions instead of microtransactions so the payment processor takes a smaller cut, etc...
If developers had a choice in payment processors, they could choose one with smaller minimum per-transaction fees, aggregate multiple payments from the same customer, try out subscriptions instead of microtransactions so the payment processor takes a smaller cut, etc...
Sorry, I am not arguing that developers shouldn't be allowed to pick their payment processor on iOS, just doing some back-of-the-envelope math that tracked with the quote from the original article that 30% is not much higher than the processing fees in the first place on a $0.99 transaction. This was a surprising revelation to me since I hadn't considered that there were often flat fees of ~30 cents from card processors.
Having worked at a payment processor, if you are a medium to large business, you can cut deals with payment processors for a much lower fee. They are very competitive, and of course, Apple would be a special customer given very generous terms (assuming Apple are not processing the transactions themselves which is possible). This does not even take into account Apple store credit via gift cards and the like or purchasing different apps in one transaction which eliminates or lowers the fees.
Apple provides a ton of services besides the credit card processing.
- 24/7 worldwide availability, instant payment/app download
- Easy re-install after deletion, you still own the app even if deleted
- Region restriction
- Separate app pricing by region
- Revenues paid to developer from multiple region currencies without
conversion fees
- Tax calculation and collection
- Customer refunds
- User rankings and reviews
- App store advertising in category listings
- Video previews of the app in operation
- Packaging of media content allowing developers the ability to load game
levels as needed. This allows a user to start playing your game quickly.
- App sales statsMost of them are there either because local laws, or purely to benefit Apple, or both, e.g. region restriction helps Apple add content to their store, and circumvent local restrictions, if apply.
Call a spade a spade. Not even the mafia extorted businesses for 30%. I'd argue an act of digital eminent domain is in order. Imagine being a store owner and having to give a 30% kickback to your landlord.
Most shops do have to pay somewhere around 15% of the revenue in rent. In addition to the flat cost, there are tons of commercial leases that charge a percentage of profits on top of that.
well maybe the digital word needs Georgism too. The OP is exactly right, what Apple is doing is nothing else than the digital equivalent of extracting land rents.
If Apple, Google et al want to have control over their digital domains honestly instead of breaking them up let's just socialise the economic rents, or cap it at 2% or whatever.
If Apple, Google et al want to have control over their digital domains honestly instead of breaking them up let's just socialise the economic rents, or cap it at 2% or whatever.
> Call a spade a spade. Not even the mafia extorted businesses for 30%.
What do you call Steam, Xbox, Nintendo, Best Buy, Game Stop, Playstation, Microsoft...
What do you call Steam, Xbox, Nintendo, Best Buy, Game Stop, Playstation, Microsoft...
rent seekers. why, what do you call them?
Ok, and what exactly is your proposal?
well, for one get rid of laws that allow platform manufacturers to control who makes stuff that runs on their platform. (even stronger would be to mandate providing an open api or equivalent, but just getting saying interop trumped the dmca would be a great start). that would fix the issues with xbox, nintendo, playstation and ios immediately. best buy, game stop and steam aren't as bad, they don't have as many reasons they can't be competed against if someone was minded to.
Platforms.
Yes the are providing an eco system, customers and payment processing.
Apple's share of the hardware market is practically fully saturated. They're not going to sell 30% more phones or computers. They need some place to expand and grow, and services/payment processing is where they're doing it.
When they launched the App Store Apple took a risk - invested in the systems etc needed to support it and I think that at the time it would be possible to justify 30% as reasonable given these factors - and was comparable with other stores.
I think it would probably be hard to argue, given the market structure now, that the return relative to risk is still reasonable. Normally other entrants would join and exert some degree of pricing pressure on theses fees. The Google / Apple duopoly means that this isn't working.
I think it would probably be hard to argue, given the market structure now, that the return relative to risk is still reasonable. Normally other entrants would join and exert some degree of pricing pressure on theses fees. The Google / Apple duopoly means that this isn't working.
If I were an app developer who relied on in-app purchases, I would probably care a lot more. But as a consumer, I don’t, and I suggest the only reason consumers have to care is because app developers (understandably) want lower fees and are negotiating terms via PR.
You should care because in the end you are the one paying the 30%.
Actually I pay 100%. I don’t care how that 100% gets divided up; all I care is the actual price that 100% adds up to.
Are developers going to lower prices of in-app purchases if Apple’s cut goes down? Doubtful. But if they do I might buy more.
Are developers going to lower prices of in-app purchases if Apple’s cut goes down? Doubtful. But if they do I might buy more.
No because I don’t pay for loot boxes, gems, and other useless consumables.
Don't they need to pay for and take care of country specific sales tax for you? If you sold directly to customers within the EU for example, you'd be liable to pay ~20% VAT for sales to most countries as far as I understand.
I don't know if 30% is fair but there's value for sure in making tax returns easier.
I don't know if 30% is fair but there's value for sure in making tax returns easier.
Fundamentally, scale does matter.
If you have a small pub in the middle of nowhere you can be a selective as you want. If your pub chain feeds 50% of the people in the country you damn right will have to be heavily restricted in what you can do.
It doesn't matter if it's monopoly or not. After you cross a threshold the rules should be different and it's just amazing Apple has been allowed to grow so big with basically no oversight.
If you have a small pub in the middle of nowhere you can be a selective as you want. If your pub chain feeds 50% of the people in the country you damn right will have to be heavily restricted in what you can do.
It doesn't matter if it's monopoly or not. After you cross a threshold the rules should be different and it's just amazing Apple has been allowed to grow so big with basically no oversight.
Fully agree with this sentiment - if there is anything which becomes so common place like say a road, then I think there should be some kind of oversight.
Apple saying no to people being able to bring their own payment provider feels akin to saying the road provider only allows cars they vet, and then charge 30% car manufacturers 30% of the price of the car.
Apple saying no to people being able to bring their own payment provider feels akin to saying the road provider only allows cars they vet, and then charge 30% car manufacturers 30% of the price of the car.
It's a common meme that "With a free service you're not the customer, you're the product." Well, you may be Apple's customer at the beginning when you pay for the phone, but immediately afterward you become their product. You're being sold for the 30% tax. And to enforce that tax Apple maintains ultimate control over the hardware you supposedly bought, blocking you from doing things that would threaten Apple's revenue streams.
> "...immediately afterward you become their product. You're being sold for the 30% tax."
I don't understand the argument you're attempting. Apple doesn't sell my info "for the 30% tax." In fact, they charge app developers that 30% and then keep my data away from those same developers.
I don't understand the argument you're attempting. Apple doesn't sell my info "for the 30% tax." In fact, they charge app developers that 30% and then keep my data away from those same developers.
The same way that GMail isn't really "free", that 30% tax doesn't come from Apple or the Developer's pocket, it ultimately comes out of your pocket.
But I don’t pay for any Google product, so the comparison isn’t apt.
Apple sells access to your wallet, not data, similarly to how ad-supported services sell access to your eyeballs, not data.
To exclude other companies from accessing your wallet Apple must control the software running on your phone, which means blocking you from installing or modifying software on the device you supposedly own.
To exclude other companies from accessing your wallet Apple must control the software running on your phone, which means blocking you from installing or modifying software on the device you supposedly own.
Developers then asks users 30% more so in the end users pay it. It's the same with increasing government taxes - at the end of the day, the end user ends up paying those. :)
Well, we could make similar arguments about something like Chromebooks. You pay for the hardware, but then Google expects you to store personal data in a Google cloud data center. Your data and access to you is the product. They use pre-installed software, e.g., Chrome, as well as numerous other read-only, auto-running programs, and automatic updates, as a way to enforce control, including testing user behaviour through Chrome. The situation is even worse on Android phones.
You could but you would be wrong because Chromebooks and Android phones support alternative methods of app distribution including both sideloading and competing app stores. Plus, the operating system itself is open source and the hardware is unlockable to run your own modified OS builds under your own complete control.
In particular, Fortnite is still available on Android with its new payment system after being removed from the Play Store.
In particular, Fortnite is still available on Android with its new payment system after being removed from the Play Store.
Yes, but Google does not expect nor intend that users will use those alternative possibilities. The tests here are "Do they make it easy and encourage it?" and "What are the defaults?" The company does not support running an Android phone without using Google Play Store, does it? It is true Apple puts much more effort into locking users out, but to suggest because Google does not make that same effort the company is actually encouraging users (outside of Google) to run "modified OS builds" is not convincing. They neither encourage it nor expect it. Nor do they make it easy. The focus of the company is on encouraging users to accept the defaults. If those defaults were aimed at giving users "complete control" then there would be no need for the term "modified OS builds" because users would not need to make modifications. The defaults are aimed at sending data to the mothership. Google control.
If I want "complete control" I can use *BSD.
There are far more similarities than differences between the big tech companies. None of them offers the user anything approaching "complete control". Their employees must engage in no small amount of self-delusion to argue otherwise.
If Google is so different from Apple, why do they need a "Play Store" pre-installed on every mobile device. Where did they get that idea. Worse is that Google will use it to siphon more user data and feed its core business.
If I want "complete control" I can use *BSD.
There are far more similarities than differences between the big tech companies. None of them offers the user anything approaching "complete control". Their employees must engage in no small amount of self-delusion to argue otherwise.
If Google is so different from Apple, why do they need a "Play Store" pre-installed on every mobile device. Where did they get that idea. Worse is that Google will use it to siphon more user data and feed its core business.
> The company does not support running an Android phone without using Google Play Store, does it?
Of course running an Android phone without the Play Store is supported by AOSP.
Your bias is very clear, but even you have to admit the fact that Fortnite is still available to any Android user who wants it, thanks to features that Google intentionally develops and enables in Android for the explicit purpose of enabling alternative app distribution methods.
Of course running an Android phone without the Play Store is supported by AOSP.
Your bias is very clear, but even you have to admit the fact that Fortnite is still available to any Android user who wants it, thanks to features that Google intentionally develops and enables in Android for the explicit purpose of enabling alternative app distribution methods.
If you are suggested I have an Apple bias, you are dead wrong.
BSD bias, maybe. ;)
Show me a mobile device Google is selling that has no Play Store.
As I said, the differences between the companies are very small compared to the similarities.
But employees and fanboys on both sides love to try to make the differences seem profound. They're not.
Fortnite, nor any other software, should not even have to go through a company "store" approval to run on hardware the user bought. Even you have to admit that, since you are the one mentioning so-called "sideloading". Jumping through these hoops should not even be necessary and you know it.
BSD bias, maybe. ;)
Show me a mobile device Google is selling that has no Play Store.
As I said, the differences between the companies are very small compared to the similarities.
But employees and fanboys on both sides love to try to make the differences seem profound. They're not.
Fortnite, nor any other software, should not even have to go through a company "store" approval to run on hardware the user bought. Even you have to admit that, since you are the one mentioning so-called "sideloading". Jumping through these hoops should not even be necessary and you know it.
A pretty well-thought out article, given the inflammatory nature of the subject matter.
I think Apple is right on the line. But I don't see a good argument as to what their doing is being anti-competitive. ~2 million apps are on the app store. Charging a fee for giving developers a huge market that spends money is not exactly unfair. And the rules of engagement are generally applied equally to everyone - the exceptions are noted by the guidelines.
What would make it fair? Lowering the fee? If that were the case, then the problem isn't anti-competitive behavior. If it's the rules, what would fair rules look like that don't harm the end user or the product?
What actual harm is Apple inflicting on the market by their behavior? Developers make less money? That isn't good enough.
I think Apple is right on the line. But I don't see a good argument as to what their doing is being anti-competitive. ~2 million apps are on the app store. Charging a fee for giving developers a huge market that spends money is not exactly unfair. And the rules of engagement are generally applied equally to everyone - the exceptions are noted by the guidelines.
What would make it fair? Lowering the fee? If that were the case, then the problem isn't anti-competitive behavior. If it's the rules, what would fair rules look like that don't harm the end user or the product?
What actual harm is Apple inflicting on the market by their behavior? Developers make less money? That isn't good enough.
actual harm => consumers end up paying more for the apps because the app developers have to increase their price to cover Apple's cut (which is more like a shakedown).
I don't see any reason why a company needs to pay any percent of their revenue instead of a flat fee. You pay a % of revenue when someone is your partner or an investor in your company. Apple is neither. In fact, they've shown to be the opposite of a trusted investor/partner as they've copied successful apps and integrated them into their own platform.
The App Store should be a fixed fee, something like $19/month, for your app to be on sale there.
On another note, regarding your first comments, in the late 90's Microsoft went through DOJ depositions and demands for breaking up simply because they bundled Internet Explorer with their operating system. It didn't charge Netscape money for access to Windows and IE wasn't generating any income. But the furor at the time was huge and the anti-MSFT attitude has prevailed to this day. Why not the same feelings for Apple who's made this far more extreme and far more anti-competitive.
I don't see any reason why a company needs to pay any percent of their revenue instead of a flat fee. You pay a % of revenue when someone is your partner or an investor in your company. Apple is neither. In fact, they've shown to be the opposite of a trusted investor/partner as they've copied successful apps and integrated them into their own platform.
The App Store should be a fixed fee, something like $19/month, for your app to be on sale there.
On another note, regarding your first comments, in the late 90's Microsoft went through DOJ depositions and demands for breaking up simply because they bundled Internet Explorer with their operating system. It didn't charge Netscape money for access to Windows and IE wasn't generating any income. But the furor at the time was huge and the anti-MSFT attitude has prevailed to this day. Why not the same feelings for Apple who's made this far more extreme and far more anti-competitive.
> actual harm => consumers end up paying more for the apps because the app developers have to increase their price to cover Apple's cut (which is more like a shakedown).
So what? All markets work like this. Food prices go up whenever there fuel prices increase, so the grocery store increases the cost to cover the higher cut taken by the supply chain. Apple created this entire market - they could've been far more anti-competitive than they are. Why should the free advertising, access to a market that has users that spend more on average, be free to anyone?
> I don't see any reason why a company needs to pay any percent of their revenue instead of a flat fee.
You're the one making the claim - you have to prove why it's wrong to charge a percentage of revenue first.
The Internet Explorer argument just doesn't apply. They had market dominance - Apple does not.
So what? All markets work like this. Food prices go up whenever there fuel prices increase, so the grocery store increases the cost to cover the higher cut taken by the supply chain. Apple created this entire market - they could've been far more anti-competitive than they are. Why should the free advertising, access to a market that has users that spend more on average, be free to anyone?
> I don't see any reason why a company needs to pay any percent of their revenue instead of a flat fee.
You're the one making the claim - you have to prove why it's wrong to charge a percentage of revenue first.
The Internet Explorer argument just doesn't apply. They had market dominance - Apple does not.
> So what? All markets work like this. Food prices go up whenever there fuel prices increase
If it were a monopoly then anti-competitive practices, that would result in price increases, would be illegal .
> Apple created this entire market
It doesn't matter if they created the whole market. That is completely irrelevant to the legality of anti-competitive practices. Now, they are a monopoly, and they are no longer to allowed to engage in anti-competitive behavior.
> they could've been far more anti-competitive than they are
The idea that they could do worse, is not an argument against something as for why it is not bad.
Apple could do many things that are worse than what they are doing now. Maybe, in the future they will hire assassins to kill anyone who does not own an iphone. But that hypothetical world, does not make the current world any better. It is not an excuse.
> Why should the free advertising, access to a market that has users that spend more on average, be free to anyone?
Because the purpose of laws are to help consumers, not to protect apple. The reason why the law should force apple to allow competitors, is because by doing this, this helps consumers.
> They had market dominance - Apple does not.
Apple absolutely has market dominance over apps that are sold on the iphone. They prevent competitors from running app stores on that platform.
This is a huge market.
If it were a monopoly then anti-competitive practices, that would result in price increases, would be illegal .
> Apple created this entire market
It doesn't matter if they created the whole market. That is completely irrelevant to the legality of anti-competitive practices. Now, they are a monopoly, and they are no longer to allowed to engage in anti-competitive behavior.
> they could've been far more anti-competitive than they are
The idea that they could do worse, is not an argument against something as for why it is not bad.
Apple could do many things that are worse than what they are doing now. Maybe, in the future they will hire assassins to kill anyone who does not own an iphone. But that hypothetical world, does not make the current world any better. It is not an excuse.
> Why should the free advertising, access to a market that has users that spend more on average, be free to anyone?
Because the purpose of laws are to help consumers, not to protect apple. The reason why the law should force apple to allow competitors, is because by doing this, this helps consumers.
> They had market dominance - Apple does not.
Apple absolutely has market dominance over apps that are sold on the iphone. They prevent competitors from running app stores on that platform.
This is a huge market.
It's not a monopoly. There is an alternative which dominates the market share. This simply is not a monopoly.
> Apple absolutely has market dominance over apps that are sold on the iphone.
This is just wrong. This would hold true if no alternative exists. There currently is not an app the iPhone offers that isn't matched in functionality anywhere else.
This doesn't pass basic legal sniff tests.
> Apple absolutely has market dominance over apps that are sold on the iphone.
This is just wrong. This would hold true if no alternative exists. There currently is not an app the iPhone offers that isn't matched in functionality anywhere else.
This doesn't pass basic legal sniff tests.
> This is just wrong. This would hold true if no alternative exists. There currently is not an app the iPhone offers that isn't matched in functionality anywhere else.
There is no alternative for buying apps on the iPhone.
> It's not a monopoly. There is an alternative which dominates the market share.
Yes it is. There is not a single alternative, for buying apps on the iPhone. They control that market, and have 100% market share over the iPhone app store market.
There is no alternative for buying apps on the iPhone.
> It's not a monopoly. There is an alternative which dominates the market share.
Yes it is. There is not a single alternative, for buying apps on the iPhone. They control that market, and have 100% market share over the iPhone app store market.
> Apple created this entire market
Which market? 3rd party software on a computing device? Sorry, that was dozens of years prior. Packaged apps on a mobile device? Sorry, I had those on my Treo in 2001. They haven’t really created any market, they just created a software monopoly on their hardware using existing ideas.
Which market? 3rd party software on a computing device? Sorry, that was dozens of years prior. Packaged apps on a mobile device? Sorry, I had those on my Treo in 2001. They haven’t really created any market, they just created a software monopoly on their hardware using existing ideas.
Aside from trying to be smug, I'm not sure the point of this comment.
No one cares that a small handful of people owned a Treo in 2001. It wasn't relevant then and it isn't now. In any case, if it isn't a market, then there is no case here, so not sure what your comment means for you.
> They haven’t really created any market, they just created a software monopoly on their hardware using existing ideas.
The monopoly where the competitor has far, far higher marketshare. I'm sorry, I've never read about that in the history books.
No one cares that a small handful of people owned a Treo in 2001. It wasn't relevant then and it isn't now. In any case, if it isn't a market, then there is no case here, so not sure what your comment means for you.
> They haven’t really created any market, they just created a software monopoly on their hardware using existing ideas.
The monopoly where the competitor has far, far higher marketshare. I'm sorry, I've never read about that in the history books.
Treo’s were extremely relevant! It was a device that early adopters loved and inspired Apple to make the iPhone which “crossed the chasm” into the mainstream. (Read “Crossing the Chasm” to learn about early tech and its influence)
There are no competitors on the iPhone. The iPhone isn’t the anti-competitive issue, the App Store is! No one has a market share but Apple on that front.
There are no competitors on the iPhone. The iPhone isn’t the anti-competitive issue, the App Store is! No one has a market share but Apple on that front.
“consumers end up paying more for the apps because the app developers have to increase their price to cover Apple's cut”
I think it will be hard to defend that argument in court, given the historical development of prices for apps.
Also, Apple will likely argue that prices could go down because they provide developers a huge market relatively cheaply, so that they can make up Apple’s cut with increased number of sales.
I also think one could argue Apple is your partner when you publish on the App Store (evil partner, maybe, but developers sign a contract with them)
I think it will be hard to defend that argument in court, given the historical development of prices for apps.
Also, Apple will likely argue that prices could go down because they provide developers a huge market relatively cheaply, so that they can make up Apple’s cut with increased number of sales.
I also think one could argue Apple is your partner when you publish on the App Store (evil partner, maybe, but developers sign a contract with them)
This isn’t a clear argument.
Many customers and developers want the service the App Store provides and are willing to pay for it.
I.e. it’s not a shakedown, it’s a service just like any other.
But even if you argue that people should be allowed to have someone else provide a different service (which is technically problematic since they will still need to use Apple’s API’s), there is no reason to presume that more stores equates to lower prices.
It doesn’t in streaming for example, because of exclusive content.
It also means developers will need to support multiple stores and pass that cost on to the customers.
Many customers and developers want the service the App Store provides and are willing to pay for it.
I.e. it’s not a shakedown, it’s a service just like any other.
But even if you argue that people should be allowed to have someone else provide a different service (which is technically problematic since they will still need to use Apple’s API’s), there is no reason to presume that more stores equates to lower prices.
It doesn’t in streaming for example, because of exclusive content.
It also means developers will need to support multiple stores and pass that cost on to the customers.
They might want the App Store, we don't if they're willing to pay for it because they have no choice.
And it's absolutely a shakedown. It's not a service, it's a requirement. A service implies app developers have options. They do not. Apple could raise the price to 70% of the revenue and app developers would have no choice but to pay. It's not much different than the mob saying "it'd be a shame if this business went away for a while, wouldn't it" and demanded protection money.
And it's absolutely a shakedown. It's not a service, it's a requirement. A service implies app developers have options. They do not. Apple could raise the price to 70% of the revenue and app developers would have no choice but to pay. It's not much different than the mob saying "it'd be a shame if this business went away for a while, wouldn't it" and demanded protection money.
The App Store is as much the product as the iPhone.
Without the app store the iPhone is literally just a piece of hardware. The idea that the App Store isn't a product in and of itself is a falsehood.
> A service implies app developers have options. They do not.
They do - it's called Android.
Without the app store the iPhone is literally just a piece of hardware. The idea that the App Store isn't a product in and of itself is a falsehood.
> A service implies app developers have options. They do not.
They do - it's called Android.
I've heard this argument before...
Internet Explorer is as much the product as Windows.
Without Internet Explorer Windows is literally just a piece of software.
They have options - it's called a Mac
Internet Explorer is as much the product as Windows.
Without Internet Explorer Windows is literally just a piece of software.
They have options - it's called a Mac
Ah hah! I'm glad you brought this up.
What did Internet Explorer have? DOMINANT MARKETSHARE. That was the problem - not that a program came bundled with software. Such a basic fact conveniently ignored because Apple Bad.
> Without Internet Explorer Windows is literally just a piece of software.
A piece of software that can do many things - an iPhone without apps just doesn't work. Apps run everything - from making phone calls to keeping notes. Windows without internet can still be used. Bad analogy.
What did Internet Explorer have? DOMINANT MARKETSHARE. That was the problem - not that a program came bundled with software. Such a basic fact conveniently ignored because Apple Bad.
> Without Internet Explorer Windows is literally just a piece of software.
A piece of software that can do many things - an iPhone without apps just doesn't work. Apps run everything - from making phone calls to keeping notes. Windows without internet can still be used. Bad analogy.
Internet Explorer didn't have dominant market share; Windows did. You say the problem wasn't that a program came bundled with software, but that was literally the heart of the antitrust action: the government contended that Microsoft was using their defacto operating system monopoly of Windows to give IE a leg up on non-bundled competitors.
> An iPhone without apps just doesn't work.
Sure, but an iPhone without an App Store works fine -- that was literally the way the first iPhone shipped, remember? -- so I'm not quite sure your analogy is a slam dunk here. :)
> An iPhone without apps just doesn't work.
Sure, but an iPhone without an App Store works fine -- that was literally the way the first iPhone shipped, remember? -- so I'm not quite sure your analogy is a slam dunk here. :)
The iPhone without an App Store doesn’t work fine to install software.
Remember - they originally said - just use web apps, but developers demanded a way to install software, and Apple developed the App Store in response to that demand.
Remember - they originally said - just use web apps, but developers demanded a way to install software, and Apple developed the App Store in response to that demand.
We know some of them want it because a lot of them say so elsewhere in this threads.
Nobody is forcing developers to develop for iOS.
If Apple raised their rate to 70%, I’d build for the web or Android in a heartbeat.
It can be both a service and a requirement for iOS developers without being a shakedown.
Nobody is forcing developers to develop for iOS.
If Apple raised their rate to 70%, I’d build for the web or Android in a heartbeat.
It can be both a service and a requirement for iOS developers without being a shakedown.
I'm super amused by people bemoaning Apple's cut of sales on the App Store. I remember mobile software before the App Store. Buying software for a Palm or PocketPC device was a fucking shit show.
There were multiple competing stores and sometimes even the developer's own site. The prices were ridiculous, partly because everyone had to implement their own payment and distribution systems. If the software didn't work or there was a problem it was rare to get a refund. Most of the time your contact info was readily sold to "partners".
Apple's cut of sales for the service they provide is pretty small compared to the costs of doing it yourself. There's many of thousands of developers that are enabled by the fact they don't need to host their apps, handle billing, or handle user accounts and PII.
If you seriously think prices to end users would decrease if Apple took a smaller cut you're deluding yourself. If developers are making sales at current prices there's zero reason for them to drop prices even if their overhead drops. Prices are set by what the market will bear and only have their lower bound set by the developer's overhead.
There were multiple competing stores and sometimes even the developer's own site. The prices were ridiculous, partly because everyone had to implement their own payment and distribution systems. If the software didn't work or there was a problem it was rare to get a refund. Most of the time your contact info was readily sold to "partners".
Apple's cut of sales for the service they provide is pretty small compared to the costs of doing it yourself. There's many of thousands of developers that are enabled by the fact they don't need to host their apps, handle billing, or handle user accounts and PII.
If you seriously think prices to end users would decrease if Apple took a smaller cut you're deluding yourself. If developers are making sales at current prices there's zero reason for them to drop prices even if their overhead drops. Prices are set by what the market will bear and only have their lower bound set by the developer's overhead.
Prices are set by what the market will bear
That's the entire issue right there. When Apple is the market, then they can make it whatever they want. If Apple has to legitimately compete with other "App Stores", then the market will find a lower price than 30%.
That's the entire issue right there. When Apple is the market, then they can make it whatever they want. If Apple has to legitimately compete with other "App Stores", then the market will find a lower price than 30%.
Play charges 30% as well, it seems to be the market price.
If that is exorbitant, what SHOULD the price be?
If that is exorbitant, what SHOULD the price be?
Play is also an anti-competitive monopoly as well. Google was a bit smarter about avoiding potential anti-trust though, because they at least give the illusion of choice with 3rd party app stores.
There basically is not a competitive market for either app marketplace right now, so an accurate price can't be determined. Allow 3rd party marketplaces to be installed as easily as any other app and I'm certain prices will come down from where they are today.
There basically is not a competitive market for either app marketplace right now, so an accurate price can't be determined. Allow 3rd party marketplaces to be installed as easily as any other app and I'm certain prices will come down from where they are today.
> Google was a bit smarter about avoiding potential anti-trust though, because they at least give the illusion of choice with 3rd party app stores.
I'd argue the opposite -- one of Epic's allegations is that Google scuttled a deal Epic had reached with OnePlus to ship Epic's own Android app store.
I'd argue the opposite -- one of Epic's allegations is that Google scuttled a deal Epic had reached with OnePlus to ship Epic's own Android app store.
The illusion of choice has nothing to do with what is the default choice.
The choice is important. About 20% of apps on my Android phone come from F-Droid marketplace distributing free software and some of them are not distributed via Play store at all. And then there are Amazon App Store, Galaxy Store etc. (device-manufacturer stores) https://fossbytes.com/10-google-play-store-alternatives/
The fee should be whatever would the fee would be, if there were multiple app stores allowed on the iPhone.
I expect that number would drop to around 10%, for "premium" app stores, such as if Steam or the Epic app store were allowed on iPhones.
But also, I would expect there to be even lower priced competitors. Payment processors charge 3% of sales, so a competing app store could get pretty close to around 3%, if they wanted.
So the answer is 10% for "premium" app stores, and for the app stores that instead only doing payment processing, the price should be 3%.
I expect that number would drop to around 10%, for "premium" app stores, such as if Steam or the Epic app store were allowed on iPhones.
But also, I would expect there to be even lower priced competitors. Payment processors charge 3% of sales, so a competing app store could get pretty close to around 3%, if they wanted.
So the answer is 10% for "premium" app stores, and for the app stores that instead only doing payment processing, the price should be 3%.
A flat monthly fee
That doesn't answer the question. A flat monthly fee could be $1 dollar or $100,000.
> Apple's cut of sales for the service they provide is pretty small compared to the costs of doing it yourself
Pretty small? I think Epic, who makes billions and billions of dollars in overall sales (though revenue is unknown specific to Apple devices, but fair to say at least $100M), would strongly disagree with this point.
Pretty small? I think Epic, who makes billions and billions of dollars in overall sales (though revenue is unknown specific to Apple devices, but fair to say at least $100M), would strongly disagree with this point.
I couldn't possibly care less if Epic only makes $100m instead of $130m. Why are you carrying water for Epic which makes stupid amounts of money selling props for in-game toons? I'd be sympathetic if they sold anti-cancer drugs or built low income housing but they sell fake things to people in their own captive market.
2020 is very different from 2008. Palm and PocketPC devices were "organizers" and not primary computing devices (as smartphones are today, for some users), so there was a lot less at stake back then.
Additionally, companies like Stripe have made integrating payments _way_ easier than it was back then. Hosting downloads is not difficult either. As noted in the Stratechery article, developers not only give up 30%, but give up a customer relationship and can't even issue refunds! They can't do upgrades, either. It's not just the 30%, it's the flexibility in payment models as well.
I don't know that prices would drop, but more developers would have a sustainable business.
Additionally, companies like Stripe have made integrating payments _way_ easier than it was back then. Hosting downloads is not difficult either. As noted in the Stratechery article, developers not only give up 30%, but give up a customer relationship and can't even issue refunds! They can't do upgrades, either. It's not just the 30%, it's the flexibility in payment models as well.
I don't know that prices would drop, but more developers would have a sustainable business.
PocketPC apps were written using MFC and a subset of C# - the same APIs used for Windows. They were very much capable of general purpose apps.
Late model PDAs and early smartphones (Treo, Blackjack, N95, etc) were capable devices. The paid software for these you'd see were office suites, PIMs, e-mail clients, and games. Of course these weren't as capable as 2020 devices but we're not talking early Palm Pilots.
Payment processors like Stripe aren't new, there was PayPal, Kagi, and others before 2008. Handling payments is a non-trivial task for a small developer, the same goes for handling user accounts/data. They're not insurmountable problems but they're a lot more effort than Apple or Google just sending you money when people buy your app.
Hosting is worse than payments as it costs the developer money and keeps costing money. If your app gets a popularity spike instead of getting a revenue spike you get a huge hosting bill.
I think you've got it entirely backwards, more developers have sustainable businesses because of the App Store than without. Payment processing, hosting, managing user data? That shit is easy for big companies or it's an extant expense so mobile app sales aren't adding real overhead. So for Microsoft, Adobe, and Epic those aren't problems. They could easily sell their stuff without the App Store/Play Store and in fact currently do so. For the many thousands of small developers that aren't Epic payment processing and hosting are big costs as is advertising they need to even be found. Before the App Store mobile app aggregators charged money to get listed and wanted bribes to be featured.
Epic et all might see their overhead drop from Apple's 30% to maybe 10%. They pocket the extra revenue and prices don't change for consumers. For many thousands of developers their overhead goes from Apple's 30% to 50-60% doing it in house. So Epic rakes in even more money and small developers get the shaft.
Payment processors like Stripe aren't new, there was PayPal, Kagi, and others before 2008. Handling payments is a non-trivial task for a small developer, the same goes for handling user accounts/data. They're not insurmountable problems but they're a lot more effort than Apple or Google just sending you money when people buy your app.
Hosting is worse than payments as it costs the developer money and keeps costing money. If your app gets a popularity spike instead of getting a revenue spike you get a huge hosting bill.
I think you've got it entirely backwards, more developers have sustainable businesses because of the App Store than without. Payment processing, hosting, managing user data? That shit is easy for big companies or it's an extant expense so mobile app sales aren't adding real overhead. So for Microsoft, Adobe, and Epic those aren't problems. They could easily sell their stuff without the App Store/Play Store and in fact currently do so. For the many thousands of small developers that aren't Epic payment processing and hosting are big costs as is advertising they need to even be found. Before the App Store mobile app aggregators charged money to get listed and wanted bribes to be featured.
Epic et all might see their overhead drop from Apple's 30% to maybe 10%. They pocket the extra revenue and prices don't change for consumers. For many thousands of developers their overhead goes from Apple's 30% to 50-60% doing it in house. So Epic rakes in even more money and small developers get the shaft.
> actual harm => consumers end up paying more for the apps because the app developers have to increase their price to cover Apple's cut (which is more like a shakedown).
Out of all the arguments against Apple's App Store policies, this has always struck me as the weakest. I remember app prices for Palm Pilots, and for that matter, app prices in general before the App Store came along -- and they were way, way higher. In 2005, a program like Pixelmator for iOS would have at least been $40; on iOS, it's $5. And how much do you think LumaFusion, a multitrack video editor, would have gone for in 2005? If it had been under $200 reviews would have been calling it a steal. It's $30. And that seems insanely high.
So the problem with the "Apple's cut artificially inflates prices" argument is that prices have demonstrably been in free fall during the app era. We can argue that LumaFusion would be able to cut their price to $25, or Pixelmator to $4, and that somehow "proves" that developers have to increase their price, but it's not super compelling.
> I don't see any reason why a company needs to pay any percent of their revenue instead of a flat fee. You pay a % of revenue when someone is your partner or an investor in your company. Apple is neither.
Well, Apple is acting as a payment processor, and payment processors charge you a percent of revenue. I don't think anybody's gonna run credit cards for you for a flat $19 a month fee; if Apple charged only what Stripe did (30¢ + 2.9%), LumaFusion's fees would be over $19 on their 11th copy sold per month and Pixelmator would hit it on sale 65.
Out of all the arguments against Apple's App Store policies, this has always struck me as the weakest. I remember app prices for Palm Pilots, and for that matter, app prices in general before the App Store came along -- and they were way, way higher. In 2005, a program like Pixelmator for iOS would have at least been $40; on iOS, it's $5. And how much do you think LumaFusion, a multitrack video editor, would have gone for in 2005? If it had been under $200 reviews would have been calling it a steal. It's $30. And that seems insanely high.
So the problem with the "Apple's cut artificially inflates prices" argument is that prices have demonstrably been in free fall during the app era. We can argue that LumaFusion would be able to cut their price to $25, or Pixelmator to $4, and that somehow "proves" that developers have to increase their price, but it's not super compelling.
> I don't see any reason why a company needs to pay any percent of their revenue instead of a flat fee. You pay a % of revenue when someone is your partner or an investor in your company. Apple is neither.
Well, Apple is acting as a payment processor, and payment processors charge you a percent of revenue. I don't think anybody's gonna run credit cards for you for a flat $19 a month fee; if Apple charged only what Stripe did (30¢ + 2.9%), LumaFusion's fees would be over $19 on their 11th copy sold per month and Pixelmator would hit it on sale 65.
> consumers end up paying more for the apps because the app developers have to increase their price to cover Apple's cut.
I don’t think so. When we determined our app’s monthly price we have A/B tested several price like $5/month, $8/month, $15/month. And we have chosen the one that we earned most (It was the expensive one). If the Apple’s cut will become 10%, we won’t change our price because would earn less. Therefore, Apple’s cut won’t change most of the apps’ price.
I don’t think so. When we determined our app’s monthly price we have A/B tested several price like $5/month, $8/month, $15/month. And we have chosen the one that we earned most (It was the expensive one). If the Apple’s cut will become 10%, we won’t change our price because would earn less. Therefore, Apple’s cut won’t change most of the apps’ price.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly, people are free to chose other platforms. You can't claim harm on end-users due to higher costs when literally every single costumer of Apple chose their product and ecosystem despite it being more expensive.
> Why not the same feelings for Apple who's made this far more extreme and far more anti-competitive.
Because you can't abuse a monopoly when you don't have a monopoly. Apple isn't being anti-competitive. In fact by the very nature of your argument that they are hurting themselves by having high prices and are welcoming competition as consumers could chose cheaper alternatives, which most actually do as Apple only sits on like 14% of the market. Microsoft on the other hand tried to misuse their near 100% position one market to corner a different one in order to kill of competitors and take it for themselves.
> Why not the same feelings for Apple who's made this far more extreme and far more anti-competitive.
Because you can't abuse a monopoly when you don't have a monopoly. Apple isn't being anti-competitive. In fact by the very nature of your argument that they are hurting themselves by having high prices and are welcoming competition as consumers could chose cheaper alternatives, which most actually do as Apple only sits on like 14% of the market. Microsoft on the other hand tried to misuse their near 100% position one market to corner a different one in order to kill of competitors and take it for themselves.
> On another note, regarding your first comments, in the late 90's Microsoft went through DOJ depositions and demands for breaking up simply because they bundled Internet Explorer with their operating system.
The crucial point of the Microsoft case was that their operating system had 90% market share, which Apple does not.
The crucial point of the Microsoft case was that their operating system had 90% market share, which Apple does not.
At least in terms of their banning xCloud, they recently filed a patent to make their own cloud gaming service. I would definitely say that sounds anti-competitive to ban competitors that are ahead of you from your store, so you have time to make your own.
It depends on the reason for banning xCloud and if their product becomes market dominant. The rules are there. It seems unfair to punish Apple for someone else breaking an agreement.
Ah, so the key to a monopolistic company being a monopoly is that we have to wait for them to become a monopoly elsewhere, after they've banned their own competitors from the space they just entered/want to enter. Makes sense.
the solution is conceptually easy: carve the app store out of apple, and make it a separate company
if there is no monopoly, then little will change.
if there is, then consumers will win.
if there is no monopoly, then little will change.
if there is, then consumers will win.
[deleted]
> . ~2 million apps are on the app store.
Having a large customer base is not an argument against them being a monopoly. Quite the opposite, it is evidence of it being a monopoly.
> Charging a fee for giving developers a huge market that spends money is not exactly unfair.
It is unfair if they are engaging in anti-competitive practices to prevent competitions from competing.
> What would make it fair? Lowering the fee?
Allowing alternative apps stores to compete against apple's would make it fair, and giving users the option and ability to do this, easily. So, specifically I should be able to install a Steam, or epic app store, on the iphone, without apple having any ability at all to stop me, or take a cut.
> What actual harm is Apple inflicting on the market by their behavior? Developers make less money? That isn't good enough.
Of course it is. If you have a monopoly, then the harm is on the customers of the market. That includes both buyers and sellers. That is how monopolies work.
And also, it is not just developers making less money. Instead, the monopoly place in the market, prevents developers from passing on the savings to the consumer.
So the fee would have to be literally 0%, for me to even accept the idea that consumers aren't harmed by it.
Having a large customer base is not an argument against them being a monopoly. Quite the opposite, it is evidence of it being a monopoly.
> Charging a fee for giving developers a huge market that spends money is not exactly unfair.
It is unfair if they are engaging in anti-competitive practices to prevent competitions from competing.
> What would make it fair? Lowering the fee?
Allowing alternative apps stores to compete against apple's would make it fair, and giving users the option and ability to do this, easily. So, specifically I should be able to install a Steam, or epic app store, on the iphone, without apple having any ability at all to stop me, or take a cut.
> What actual harm is Apple inflicting on the market by their behavior? Developers make less money? That isn't good enough.
Of course it is. If you have a monopoly, then the harm is on the customers of the market. That includes both buyers and sellers. That is how monopolies work.
And also, it is not just developers making less money. Instead, the monopoly place in the market, prevents developers from passing on the savings to the consumer.
So the fee would have to be literally 0%, for me to even accept the idea that consumers aren't harmed by it.
A monopoly needs to dominate the market. Apple is not, it does not dominate the smartphone or mobile OS market. People on here can't get past this basic fact.
> It is unfair if they are engaging in anti-competitive practices to prevent competitions from competing.
Which has been proven untrue - because there are 2 million apps on the marketplace. The rules are out there. I haven't seen a case where the rules were violated and nothing was done.
> Allowing alternative apps stores to compete against apple's would make it fair, and giving users the option and ability to do this, easily. So, specifically I should be able to install a Steam, or epic app store, on the iphone, without apple having any ability at all to stop me, or take a cut.
This is a significant risk to the product. Opening it up means that the quality of the product and consumer suffers. The competing app store is the Play Store. Feel free to switch to that OS.
> Of course it is. If you have a monopoly, then the harm is on the customers of the market. That includes both buyers and sellers. That is how monopolies work.
Sigh. It isn't a monopoly, but I'll humor you. Go ask any iPhone user what they think about the app store. I highly doubt you'll find any significant figure upset.
> It is unfair if they are engaging in anti-competitive practices to prevent competitions from competing.
Which has been proven untrue - because there are 2 million apps on the marketplace. The rules are out there. I haven't seen a case where the rules were violated and nothing was done.
> Allowing alternative apps stores to compete against apple's would make it fair, and giving users the option and ability to do this, easily. So, specifically I should be able to install a Steam, or epic app store, on the iphone, without apple having any ability at all to stop me, or take a cut.
This is a significant risk to the product. Opening it up means that the quality of the product and consumer suffers. The competing app store is the Play Store. Feel free to switch to that OS.
> Of course it is. If you have a monopoly, then the harm is on the customers of the market. That includes both buyers and sellers. That is how monopolies work.
Sigh. It isn't a monopoly, but I'll humor you. Go ask any iPhone user what they think about the app store. I highly doubt you'll find any significant figure upset.
> This is a significant risk to the product. Opening it up means that the quality of the product and consumer suffers.
Thats still a monopoly on apps sold on the iPhone.
You are just giving arguments as for why you support Apple's monopoly on the iPhone app store market.
> A monopoly needs to dominate the market.
Also, related, there does not even need to be a monopoly for anti-competitive practices to be illegal. Anti-competitive behavior can still be illegal, even if there is not monopoly.
> the competing app store is the Play Store
No, actually. The play store cannot install apps on the iPhone. That is the market that Apple has a monopoly on.
Thats still a monopoly on apps sold on the iPhone.
You are just giving arguments as for why you support Apple's monopoly on the iPhone app store market.
> A monopoly needs to dominate the market.
Also, related, there does not even need to be a monopoly for anti-competitive practices to be illegal. Anti-competitive behavior can still be illegal, even if there is not monopoly.
> the competing app store is the Play Store
No, actually. The play store cannot install apps on the iPhone. That is the market that Apple has a monopoly on.
>The competing app store is the Play Store.
Not when they're different markets. Even EU's antitrust case against Google found that Google "dominant in the markets for [...] app stores for the Android mobile operating system." Which means Apple is the same for iOS app stores.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_...
Not when they're different markets. Even EU's antitrust case against Google found that Google "dominant in the markets for [...] app stores for the Android mobile operating system." Which means Apple is the same for iOS app stores.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_...
One problem is that Apple does not charge a 30% fee for its own services.
Thus, Apple music can be offered cheaper than Spotify. I'm not sure how exactly this applies to Fortnite, though.
Thus, Apple music can be offered cheaper than Spotify. I'm not sure how exactly this applies to Fortnite, though.
It is anticompetitive because there is no other way to get apps on iOS. If they would allow side loading and other store apps I would have nothing against them
In the spirit of this particular story, I'd like to ask HN the following question: Should closed hardware (that owns its entire stack) even be legal to sell?
Yes, it's legal today but should we make it illegal?
To try another example besides Apple iPhone, consider the $35000 Prima Cinema movie server to play 1st run movies at home on day of release: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22prima+cinema%22&source=ln...
In many iPhone debates, we throw around phrases such as, "unlike a game console, it's a general computer" and "I own the device so I should be able to put any software I want on it".
Understandable sentiments. So the question is, should consumers be able to knowingly buy restricted hardware such as Prima Cinema? They pay $35000 and own the computer but they know they can't sideload their own movies. They know can't pick another "movie store", or watch Youtube/Netflix on it, etc. The hardware has anti-tampering sensors so that it bricks itself if the owner tries to open it. The hardware is a "general pc". It runs Wind River Linux. I think the cpu is x86 but it might be ARM or something else.
You can't argue that Prima Cinema should not be locked down (claiming anti-competitive behavior) because the paranoid film studios wouldn't even license their content if it wasn't. If a buyer wants to have 1st run movies at home, all those restrictions in place is they only way to get it. It's more restrictive than iPhone in that sense.
Yes, it's legal today but should we make it illegal?
To try another example besides Apple iPhone, consider the $35000 Prima Cinema movie server to play 1st run movies at home on day of release: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22prima+cinema%22&source=ln...
In many iPhone debates, we throw around phrases such as, "unlike a game console, it's a general computer" and "I own the device so I should be able to put any software I want on it".
Understandable sentiments. So the question is, should consumers be able to knowingly buy restricted hardware such as Prima Cinema? They pay $35000 and own the computer but they know they can't sideload their own movies. They know can't pick another "movie store", or watch Youtube/Netflix on it, etc. The hardware has anti-tampering sensors so that it bricks itself if the owner tries to open it. The hardware is a "general pc". It runs Wind River Linux. I think the cpu is x86 but it might be ARM or something else.
You can't argue that Prima Cinema should not be locked down (claiming anti-competitive behavior) because the paranoid film studios wouldn't even license their content if it wasn't. If a buyer wants to have 1st run movies at home, all those restrictions in place is they only way to get it. It's more restrictive than iPhone in that sense.
What does banning closed hardware accomplish? It won't result in equivalent open hardware, except at the margin where it doesn't matter.
> Should closed hardware even be legal to sell?
I don't see why not. If it's a problem, then either a competitor will emerge, or people won't purchase the product.
If it's truly a bad business practice, it'll lose out in the end. Besides that I actually love the closed system of the iPhone + App Store, we can't just go around banning things anytime we think we might not like them. Every time I see this story it just annoys me. I want the iPhone and App Store to be a closed system. Opening it up is the bad idea here.
Philosophically, amazon.com and Facebook are closed systems too. As is Wal-Mart and UPS. I'm not sure why we're only focused on hardware systems here, what's the meaningful distinction?
I don't see why not. If it's a problem, then either a competitor will emerge, or people won't purchase the product.
If it's truly a bad business practice, it'll lose out in the end. Besides that I actually love the closed system of the iPhone + App Store, we can't just go around banning things anytime we think we might not like them. Every time I see this story it just annoys me. I want the iPhone and App Store to be a closed system. Opening it up is the bad idea here.
Philosophically, amazon.com and Facebook are closed systems too. As is Wal-Mart and UPS. I'm not sure why we're only focused on hardware systems here, what's the meaningful distinction?
Something can be both "good business" that is make you a lot of money, and a terrible thing for society.
There's an incredible amount of effort to prevent that - we can start with obligatory things like slavery, but there's a lot more - safety regulation in cars or airplanes, food safety, various environmental protections, employee protections, and so on.
"I want the iPhone and App Store to be a closed system." is kind of like saying "I want powerful car that doesn't have to follow emission limits." - I believe you that you want it, but you having it might hurt others, and that's why it's not allowed.
There's an incredible amount of effort to prevent that - we can start with obligatory things like slavery, but there's a lot more - safety regulation in cars or airplanes, food safety, various environmental protections, employee protections, and so on.
"I want the iPhone and App Store to be a closed system." is kind of like saying "I want powerful car that doesn't have to follow emission limits." - I believe you that you want it, but you having it might hurt others, and that's why it's not allowed.
> If it's truly a bad business practice, it'll lose out in the end.
Many bad business practices only lose out because they're made illegal. Protection rackets are great for the ones running them. Although one could quibble that the police is the cheapest universally available protection racket that pushes out all the competition.
Many bad business practices only lose out because they're made illegal. Protection rackets are great for the ones running them. Although one could quibble that the police is the cheapest universally available protection racket that pushes out all the competition.
It seems worth considering startups and entrenched near-monopoly situations differently. Competition is hard to bring back in the latter, and certainly consumers might well benefit from the right interventions. It doesn't mean a purist law to prohibit proprietary closed devices is necessary.
And I'd argue with your example of Facebook that they should at minimum be compelled to enable universal linking so that other app vendors can intercept outbound links directly, and users can choose their web browser etc.
And I'd argue with your example of Facebook that they should at minimum be compelled to enable universal linking so that other app vendors can intercept outbound links directly, and users can choose their web browser etc.
Hardware is a physical product you buy. You don't buy Amazon or Facebook. They are a service not a product. The meaningful distinction is that you should OWN the hardware you buy and thus it shouldn't be limited by the manufacturer except for things that are vital for product function.
We're mostly talking about the App Store, but even so I don't think there's much of a meaningful distinction. I can't choose to get a 12 pack of cola that's half Pepsi, 1/4th Mountain Dew, and 1/4 Cherry Coke either.
I can't choose to use iMessage with my non-existent Facebook account either. Why? Why are they allowed to lock in their software?
Same argument.
I can't choose to use iMessage with my non-existent Facebook account either. Why? Why are they allowed to lock in their software?
Same argument.
But I can choose to make myself a 12 pack of half Pepsi, 1/4th Mountain Dew, and 1/4 Cherry. That's the entire point. There is no artificial restriction that mixing Pepsi with some other soft drink results in a toxic mixture. But that is essentially what's happening on the App store/Phone hardware space.
IMessage facebook messenger case is not an artificial lock. They are fundamentally different protocols. It's not like IMessage supports facebook messenger and Apple just say no you can't use it. There is a real difference here.
Apple is artificially restricting usage of it's phones for no other reason then greed. If the app store would actually protect against malware I would agree that it might have some value but it really doesn't. The app store is filled with mountains and mountains of malware. But since it's malware that makes Apple money it's completely fine.
Apple mobile hardware is really amazing. The best there is in the world I think. But the software locks it down so much that it's essentially a paper weight compared to its potential.
IMessage facebook messenger case is not an artificial lock. They are fundamentally different protocols. It's not like IMessage supports facebook messenger and Apple just say no you can't use it. There is a real difference here.
Apple is artificially restricting usage of it's phones for no other reason then greed. If the app store would actually protect against malware I would agree that it might have some value but it really doesn't. The app store is filled with mountains and mountains of malware. But since it's malware that makes Apple money it's completely fine.
Apple mobile hardware is really amazing. The best there is in the world I think. But the software locks it down so much that it's essentially a paper weight compared to its potential.
> It's not like IMessage supports facebook messenger and Apple just say no you can't use it. There is a real difference here.
You can make a protocol then and Facebook won't allow you to use it. They're definitely artificially locking you in. It's no different.
> Apple is artificially restricting usage of it's phones for no other reason then greed.
Really? That's the only reason? Does it not seem odd to you that iPhones are considered safe devices, and that Apple goes to great lengths to protect them and user data and now companies are complaining about the App Store? Once they can circumvent the App Store, then can put all sorts of garbage tracking and malware into applications. iPhone and the App Store have been around for more than 10 years, and then over the last two years Apple requires no tracking, prompting of data usage, soon a data use "nutrition scorecard" and now just this year all of these companies are complaining about pricing? Give me a break. If you want to call Apple greedy, then it's just a case of pots calling kettles black. Notice how there aren't any customers complaining about this oh so bad and greedy practice? I don't care what developers want here. I want my iPhone the way it is, and changing the App Store is bad in my view. I'll vote with my wallet in this case. If that means fewer applications because they want to circumvent these things that I want Apple to do, then that's fine, good riddance.
These companies can partner with Samsung or something and make their own phones and app stores. That's fine. But this isn't about that. It's about them wanting money and to abuse user data on the platform that Apple built.
You can make a protocol then and Facebook won't allow you to use it. They're definitely artificially locking you in. It's no different.
> Apple is artificially restricting usage of it's phones for no other reason then greed.
Really? That's the only reason? Does it not seem odd to you that iPhones are considered safe devices, and that Apple goes to great lengths to protect them and user data and now companies are complaining about the App Store? Once they can circumvent the App Store, then can put all sorts of garbage tracking and malware into applications. iPhone and the App Store have been around for more than 10 years, and then over the last two years Apple requires no tracking, prompting of data usage, soon a data use "nutrition scorecard" and now just this year all of these companies are complaining about pricing? Give me a break. If you want to call Apple greedy, then it's just a case of pots calling kettles black. Notice how there aren't any customers complaining about this oh so bad and greedy practice? I don't care what developers want here. I want my iPhone the way it is, and changing the App Store is bad in my view. I'll vote with my wallet in this case. If that means fewer applications because they want to circumvent these things that I want Apple to do, then that's fine, good riddance.
These companies can partner with Samsung or something and make their own phones and app stores. That's fine. But this isn't about that. It's about them wanting money and to abuse user data on the platform that Apple built.
> You can make a protocol then and Facebook won't allow you to use it. They're definitely artificially locking you in. It's no different.
If the technical requirements are met and Facebook won't allow then it indeed is not an artificial lock in. But I doubt that Facebook messenger can talk to IMessage right now. It's not the responsibility of either Facebook or Apple to make those two apps work together. The only thing they should not do is go out of their way to not allow them to interface. I.e. It should be possible for a user to write a bridge between those two apps.
> Really? That's the only reason? Does it not seem odd to you that iPhones are considered safe devices, and that Apple goes to great lengths to protect them and user data and now companies are complaining about the App Store? Once they can circumvent the App Store, then can put all sorts of garbage tracking and malware into applications. iPhone and the App Store have been around for more than 10 years, and then over the last two years Apple requires no tracking, prompting of data usage, soon a data use "nutrition scorecard" and now just this year all of these companies are complaining about pricing? Give me a break. If you want to call Apple greedy, then it's just a case of pots calling kettles black. Notice how there aren't any customers complaining about this oh so bad and greedy practice? I don't care what developers want here. I want my iPhone the way it is, and changing the App Store is bad in my view. I'll vote with my wallet in this case. If that means fewer applications because they want to circumvent these things that I want Apple to do, then that's fine, good riddance.
I don't consider Apple safe devices because of the App store. Every single protection that is afforded by the app store is actually provided by the OS. With the exception of manual review and that is a subjective process full of holes.
Can you explain to me, since you believe Apple is actually not user hostile, why does it allow obvious malware in the app store such as apps that appear to be free but once you install them you end up in micro-transaction hell? Why do they allow micro-transactions at all? Micro-transactions are very rarely if ever beneficial to the user. What's up with the apps that promise a feature and don't deliver? I'm not joking when I say that the quality of apps I can download for free on my desktop is way higher then most stuff that is in the app store. App stores have brought down the quality of software significantly. It's so bad that my default stance on anything on the app store is that it must be trash because that's what it is usually.
If the technical requirements are met and Facebook won't allow then it indeed is not an artificial lock in. But I doubt that Facebook messenger can talk to IMessage right now. It's not the responsibility of either Facebook or Apple to make those two apps work together. The only thing they should not do is go out of their way to not allow them to interface. I.e. It should be possible for a user to write a bridge between those two apps.
> Really? That's the only reason? Does it not seem odd to you that iPhones are considered safe devices, and that Apple goes to great lengths to protect them and user data and now companies are complaining about the App Store? Once they can circumvent the App Store, then can put all sorts of garbage tracking and malware into applications. iPhone and the App Store have been around for more than 10 years, and then over the last two years Apple requires no tracking, prompting of data usage, soon a data use "nutrition scorecard" and now just this year all of these companies are complaining about pricing? Give me a break. If you want to call Apple greedy, then it's just a case of pots calling kettles black. Notice how there aren't any customers complaining about this oh so bad and greedy practice? I don't care what developers want here. I want my iPhone the way it is, and changing the App Store is bad in my view. I'll vote with my wallet in this case. If that means fewer applications because they want to circumvent these things that I want Apple to do, then that's fine, good riddance.
I don't consider Apple safe devices because of the App store. Every single protection that is afforded by the app store is actually provided by the OS. With the exception of manual review and that is a subjective process full of holes.
Can you explain to me, since you believe Apple is actually not user hostile, why does it allow obvious malware in the app store such as apps that appear to be free but once you install them you end up in micro-transaction hell? Why do they allow micro-transactions at all? Micro-transactions are very rarely if ever beneficial to the user. What's up with the apps that promise a feature and don't deliver? I'm not joking when I say that the quality of apps I can download for free on my desktop is way higher then most stuff that is in the app store. App stores have brought down the quality of software significantly. It's so bad that my default stance on anything on the app store is that it must be trash because that's what it is usually.
> I don't see why not. If it's a problem, then either a competitor will emerge, or people won't purchase the product.
Aka "the invisible hand will fix it". We have been waiting quite a few years for this and it did not happen. Instead we got the complete opposite: a duopoly of android and iOS which nobody, not even Microsoft, can compete against. At this point, we have to acknowledge that simply waiting is not going to fix anything.
Aka "the invisible hand will fix it". We have been waiting quite a few years for this and it did not happen. Instead we got the complete opposite: a duopoly of android and iOS which nobody, not even Microsoft, can compete against. At this point, we have to acknowledge that simply waiting is not going to fix anything.
But Android in general doesn’t have these restrictions. Plenty of phones (including Google’s flagships!) support rooting, and you can install a third-party App Store like F-droid even when they only support sideloading. So that’s not really a good example of market forces failing to solve the unlocked hardware availability problem.
It works most of the time, actually. I'm not against regulation (I argue that companies like Facebook and other social media companies shouldn't be able to merge or acquire each other, for example), but it needs to be sensible regulation.
I also don't think a duopoly is necessarily bad, and in this case I think it's not even a duopoly long-term. It is right now because Google and Apple are the leaders, but it's only a matter of time until other large companies (Samsung, Huawei, etc.) gain a foothold and market share. Being a local duopoly (in the US) is one thing versus being a global duopoly.
Further, I'm not really convinced that this duopoly we have is even bad. Why is it bad that we have a duopoly? Is it only acceptable if we have 3 large players? Why aren't we complaining about the Microsoft and Apple duopoly with computers? I think this is just arbitrary really and it won't be long-lived anyway.
I also don't think a duopoly is necessarily bad, and in this case I think it's not even a duopoly long-term. It is right now because Google and Apple are the leaders, but it's only a matter of time until other large companies (Samsung, Huawei, etc.) gain a foothold and market share. Being a local duopoly (in the US) is one thing versus being a global duopoly.
Further, I'm not really convinced that this duopoly we have is even bad. Why is it bad that we have a duopoly? Is it only acceptable if we have 3 large players? Why aren't we complaining about the Microsoft and Apple duopoly with computers? I think this is just arbitrary really and it won't be long-lived anyway.
There's nothing stopping you from putting a Blu-ray player in your rack next to the Prima box and the cost is trivial.
There's a common-sense argument that a person is only going to have one phone, one phone carrier, one ISP, etc. and thus those companies shouldn't hold their customers hostage. Turning that into a legal principle is left as an exercise for the reader.
There's a common-sense argument that a person is only going to have one phone, one phone carrier, one ISP, etc. and thus those companies shouldn't hold their customers hostage. Turning that into a legal principle is left as an exercise for the reader.
There's nothing stopping you from putting a Blu-ray player in your rack next to the Prima box and the cost is trivial.
There's nothing stopping an iPhone owner from also buying an Android phone, and the cost is trivial.
There's a common-sense argument that a person is only going to have one phone, one phone carrier
There are hundreds of thousands of people in the United States, maybe even millions, who have more than one phone.
There's nothing stopping an iPhone owner from also buying an Android phone, and the cost is trivial.
There's a common-sense argument that a person is only going to have one phone, one phone carrier
There are hundreds of thousands of people in the United States, maybe even millions, who have more than one phone.
This is a common argument, but it's wrong IMO
iPhone is not an Android competitor, iPhone is a Samsung/Huawei/LG etc competitor
Android competes with iOS
If I could install iOS on a Samsung device or Android on an iPhone that would be different
But I can't
iPhone is not an Android competitor, iPhone is a Samsung/Huawei/LG etc competitor
Android competes with iOS
If I could install iOS on a Samsung device or Android on an iPhone that would be different
But I can't
If I could install iOS on a Samsung device or Android on an iPhone that would be different
I'm with you there. I'm so mad that I can't install iOS on any device I want. My Android phone? Nope. My HP laptop? Nope. My car entertainment system? Nope. My TRS-80? Nope. My waffle maker? Nope.
I even tried to install iOS on my cat, and she rebooted all over the rug.
Clearly this is a massive conspiracy by the Apple industrial complex to control what I do with the things I bought and paid for with my own money.
I'm with you there. I'm so mad that I can't install iOS on any device I want. My Android phone? Nope. My HP laptop? Nope. My car entertainment system? Nope. My TRS-80? Nope. My waffle maker? Nope.
I even tried to install iOS on my cat, and she rebooted all over the rug.
Clearly this is a massive conspiracy by the Apple industrial complex to control what I do with the things I bought and paid for with my own money.
> My HP laptop?
Yes.
You could.
Hackintosh do exist, you know?
Buut it's illegal because Apple doesn't want to.
So blame Apple for your cat.
Yes.
You could.
Hackintosh do exist, you know?
Buut it's illegal because Apple doesn't want to.
So blame Apple for your cat.
Some customers buy into the Apple ecosystem because of its walled garden. Not despite of it.
Really? Who?
Not my sole reason, but since you asked, here I am. I give my children iPhones. I like having certain family controls over what they use, and further controls over what appears in the app store to begin with.
I like having a single vendor for all my software purchases, that I can trust to issue refunds and discontinue subscriptions promptly.
I spend all day thinking about computers, I don't want to also be my own IT professional and security team, especially for a slab of glass I hold in my hand. I accept that I have to do some IT and security thinking about my iOS devices, but the more the walled garden provides, the less is on me.
I understand that with this "safety" comes a loss of "liberty," but I find that an acceptable tradeoff for consumer hardware in my personal life. I don't automatically assume that the right tradeoffs for me are also the right tradeoffs for everyone else.
If someone wants to sideload apps and/or develop their own custom apps without some kind of special developer status, I have no problem suggesting they buy something else.
I accept that I am not the typical HN reader.
I like having a single vendor for all my software purchases, that I can trust to issue refunds and discontinue subscriptions promptly.
I spend all day thinking about computers, I don't want to also be my own IT professional and security team, especially for a slab of glass I hold in my hand. I accept that I have to do some IT and security thinking about my iOS devices, but the more the walled garden provides, the less is on me.
I understand that with this "safety" comes a loss of "liberty," but I find that an acceptable tradeoff for consumer hardware in my personal life. I don't automatically assume that the right tradeoffs for me are also the right tradeoffs for everyone else.
If someone wants to sideload apps and/or develop their own custom apps without some kind of special developer status, I have no problem suggesting they buy something else.
I accept that I am not the typical HN reader.
> …that I can trust to issue refunds and discontinue subscriptions promptly.
This is a big one. I'm significantly more likely to subscribe to a service/app if I'm able to do so through iTunes, because it means the app developer can't directly reach into my wallet. If I hit "Cancel Subscription" in the iTunes subscription panel, it's canceled, no ifs, ands, or buts, and no hidden unsubscribe links or intentionally obtuse unsubscription processes to have to contend with.
This is a huge thing for consumers to give up for the sake of developer freedom. If Apple begins to allow third party payment systems, developers should be required to connect said payment systems to Apple-provided standardized subscription control APIs so strong user control is maintained.
This is a big one. I'm significantly more likely to subscribe to a service/app if I'm able to do so through iTunes, because it means the app developer can't directly reach into my wallet. If I hit "Cancel Subscription" in the iTunes subscription panel, it's canceled, no ifs, ands, or buts, and no hidden unsubscribe links or intentionally obtuse unsubscription processes to have to contend with.
This is a huge thing for consumers to give up for the sake of developer freedom. If Apple begins to allow third party payment systems, developers should be required to connect said payment systems to Apple-provided standardized subscription control APIs so strong user control is maintained.
To your point, and more to the dispute with Epic:
I’m sure you also want to make sure your kids aren’t spending all your money on dumb in-app purchases. Having a controlled mechanism for that provides an actual value to you, and letting companies circumvent it would make things harder for you. Are the fees for that mechanism fair? That’s a business negotiation.
I’m sure you also want to make sure your kids aren’t spending all your money on dumb in-app purchases. Having a controlled mechanism for that provides an actual value to you, and letting companies circumvent it would make things harder for you. Are the fees for that mechanism fair? That’s a business negotiation.
Should a parent really get their children iPhones?
If you are a parent, you decide for yourself.
I question the validity of presuming this question has a correct answer for all parents under all circumstances.
I question the validity of presuming this question has a correct answer for all parents under all circumstances.
[deleted]
Should a parent really get their children iPhones?
Not your kids. Not your business.
Not your kids. Not your business.
Maybe, maybe not, but by like 5th grade most of them seem to have one regardless. Many younger kids have one. By 7th it's practically all of them (a smartphone, that is, though yeah, often an iPhone)
Our school assigns every kid an iPad. In Kindergarten. Good idea? I kinda don't think so, though it's been useful this year, of course. But it happens.
Increasingly parents have trouble letting kids wander the neighborhood on their own without a tracker/communication-device on them, and a smartphone's really good at serving that role. There are other options but kids want to have their smartphone on them, and as soon as you want them to be able to do one other smartphone-thing any other option starts to look kinda pointless.
(just relating observations of parenting in the wild, not my own parenting approach)
Our school assigns every kid an iPad. In Kindergarten. Good idea? I kinda don't think so, though it's been useful this year, of course. But it happens.
Increasingly parents have trouble letting kids wander the neighborhood on their own without a tracker/communication-device on them, and a smartphone's really good at serving that role. There are other options but kids want to have their smartphone on them, and as soon as you want them to be able to do one other smartphone-thing any other option starts to look kinda pointless.
(just relating observations of parenting in the wild, not my own parenting approach)
Why this can’t be a part of parental control function where you can restrict certain function on devices you control?
I will add to this: I wish my parents had stuck with iPhones. The amount of IT support that I had to do after they switched went up quite a bit. It's been a few years so they've adjusted (and I've just ignored their complaints and told them to fix it themselves) but who knows what garbage they've installed on their phones! They're not tech savvy. It would be quite nice if they had stuck with iPhones.
I remember they got Samsung tablets and when I had looked at them to see if I would like to buy one... I saw they were completely full of - essentially - spyware and malware.
I remember they got Samsung tablets and when I had looked at them to see if I would like to buy one... I saw they were completely full of - essentially - spyware and malware.
> I give my children iPhones. I like having certain family controls over what they use, and further controls over what appears in the app store to begin with.
Okay.. then their opinion is what's relevant here, not yours.
> I like having a single vendor for all my software purchases, that I can trust to issue refunds and discontinue subscriptions promptly.
Weren't they in hot water recently for forcing developers to use their deceptive subscription trial system?
Okay.. then their opinion is what's relevant here, not yours.
> I like having a single vendor for all my software purchases, that I can trust to issue refunds and discontinue subscriptions promptly.
Weren't they in hot water recently for forcing developers to use their deceptive subscription trial system?
[deleted]
Raises hand.
I don't wanna have to worry about stupid computer shit when I'm just trying to use my iPad or iPhone as a tool to accomplish something else. Drawing, playing music, reading, writing, edutainment for the kids, very occasionally a game. Maybe the odd SSH session. If I decide I want some software to help me with any of those things I just want it to be in the App Store, and I just want it to use the App Store payment system. I don't want competing app stores because that might mean that sometimes what I want isn't on the Apple one, following Apple's rules about spying on my and otherwise behaving as badly as desktop software and webapps do these days. It means I have to search more than one store. Now we're veering into the stupid computer shit I don't want to have to worry about, again.
I don't wanna have to worry about stupid computer shit when I'm just trying to use my iPad or iPhone as a tool to accomplish something else. Drawing, playing music, reading, writing, edutainment for the kids, very occasionally a game. Maybe the odd SSH session. If I decide I want some software to help me with any of those things I just want it to be in the App Store, and I just want it to use the App Store payment system. I don't want competing app stores because that might mean that sometimes what I want isn't on the Apple one, following Apple's rules about spying on my and otherwise behaving as badly as desktop software and webapps do these days. It means I have to search more than one store. Now we're veering into the stupid computer shit I don't want to have to worry about, again.
That doesn't address the issue: those who would can't.
You don't lose anything if you don't want to.
You should have to keep doing what you already do.
You don't lose anything if you don't want to.
You should have to keep doing what you already do.
> That doesn't address the issue: those who would can't.
Then buy any other general computing product on the market. I'd be more sympathetic to this concern if Android didn't exist. Meanwhile it does, and the users who picked Apple did it because they don't care about this, they don't care very much about this, or because they actively want the App Store restrictions and the ecosystem that they create.
> You don't lose anything if you don't want to.
I very well might, though. Changes to rules change how actors behave in a system. The way software developers and publishers behave on iOS could change in ways that I don't like if they're able to viably distribute software outside the App Store. That might be OK, except forcing developers and publishers to follow the App Store rules is part of the appeal of the devices. If that'd been a major sticking point for me, I could have bought Android.
Then buy any other general computing product on the market. I'd be more sympathetic to this concern if Android didn't exist. Meanwhile it does, and the users who picked Apple did it because they don't care about this, they don't care very much about this, or because they actively want the App Store restrictions and the ecosystem that they create.
> You don't lose anything if you don't want to.
I very well might, though. Changes to rules change how actors behave in a system. The way software developers and publishers behave on iOS could change in ways that I don't like if they're able to viably distribute software outside the App Store. That might be OK, except forcing developers and publishers to follow the App Store rules is part of the appeal of the devices. If that'd been a major sticking point for me, I could have bought Android.
>Changes to rules change how actors behave in a system. The way software developers and publishers behave on iOS could change in ways that I don't like
Probably most apps would still be on store and hopefully you would get a cheaper version from the developer website.
What is clear but you probably don't want to admit is Apple is not fighting here for your safety but for extracting mroe money, if they were not that greedy Epic,Spotify would not have started this wars and you would have been safe in the wallgarden and extremely satisfied that the other people inside can't escape either.
Probably most apps would still be on store and hopefully you would get a cheaper version from the developer website.
What is clear but you probably don't want to admit is Apple is not fighting here for your safety but for extracting mroe money, if they were not that greedy Epic,Spotify would not have started this wars and you would have been safe in the wallgarden and extremely satisfied that the other people inside can't escape either.
> What is clear but you probably don't want to admit is Apple is not fighting here for your safety but for extracting mroe money, if they were not that greedy Epic,Spotify would not have started this wars and you would have been safe in the wallgarden and extremely satisfied that the other people inside can't escape either.
Why wouldn't I admit that? Of course the situation benefits them. I just doubt there's a way to give me all the aspects of their devices & ecosystem that I value, that doesn't also benefit them. I'd love to see them drop the cut they take, for instance. That being so high benefits me not at all, so far as I can tell.
... and if someone comes out with devices that actually compete with the specific sort of product they offer, including the integrated & closed app store and restrictions on what apps are allowed to do, and takes a lower cut of app store sales, then Apple might have to reduce their cut, too. Or this current scuffle might end up not changing the app store rules much, but dropping the cut they take substantially—personally, that's an outcome I'd love.
Why wouldn't I admit that? Of course the situation benefits them. I just doubt there's a way to give me all the aspects of their devices & ecosystem that I value, that doesn't also benefit them. I'd love to see them drop the cut they take, for instance. That being so high benefits me not at all, so far as I can tell.
... and if someone comes out with devices that actually compete with the specific sort of product they offer, including the integrated & closed app store and restrictions on what apps are allowed to do, and takes a lower cut of app store sales, then Apple might have to reduce their cut, too. Or this current scuffle might end up not changing the app store rules much, but dropping the cut they take substantially—personally, that's an outcome I'd love.
IMO the ideal situation for Apple fans is that Apple is forced to offer a choice to developers, either pay a fair fixed charge(like you would pay for webhosting, you have different tiers or plans and fortuneteller with web hosting you have true competition) or a developer could decide to give Apple 30% cut. Probably most developers would chose to pay the fixed fee and the Apple users will have cheaper apps and subscriptions(in app payments) while enjoying the restrictions that nobody can have the option to escape the wallgarden(not sure how are you happy with this though, say in a country Apple is forced to remove all chat apps that are encrypted including browsers and then Apple fans would just say `you should have predicted this,sell the phone and use Android`)
> Then buy any other general computing product on the market
That's not how free market works.
And it's a very silly objection.
Android is a licensed platform.from Google, but Google does not make the majority of devices.
Apple manufacturs the devices, but they sell them to me locked in the ecosystem they profit from.
Imagine being unable of refueling because your car does not work with standard oil pumps and you had to go to Apple licensed gas station whom Apple charges 30% to.
They would be prohibited from selling the car.
> I very well might, though.
But you wouldn't if you don't change your behaviour.
> Changes to rules change how actors behave in a system
That's exactly what many want from Apple.
Change the rules.
Nobody is asking Apple to relax their safety rules inside their walled garden.
If they can't allow sideloading, they're not as good as I thought.
> I could have bought Android.
I don't buy it.
If Apple sold Android powered iPhones you would still buy an iPhone, you're are buying the brand, not the product.
That's not how free market works.
And it's a very silly objection.
Android is a licensed platform.from Google, but Google does not make the majority of devices.
Apple manufacturs the devices, but they sell them to me locked in the ecosystem they profit from.
Imagine being unable of refueling because your car does not work with standard oil pumps and you had to go to Apple licensed gas station whom Apple charges 30% to.
They would be prohibited from selling the car.
> I very well might, though.
But you wouldn't if you don't change your behaviour.
> Changes to rules change how actors behave in a system
That's exactly what many want from Apple.
Change the rules.
Nobody is asking Apple to relax their safety rules inside their walled garden.
If they can't allow sideloading, they're not as good as I thought.
> I could have bought Android.
I don't buy it.
If Apple sold Android powered iPhones you would still buy an iPhone, you're are buying the brand, not the product.
> That's not how free market works.
It... isn't? How not?
> Imagine being unable of refueling because your car does not work with standard oil pumps and you had to go to Apple licensed gas station whom Apple charges 30% to.
Then I'd probably buy a competing brand of car, if that bothered me? You know, one of my other choices on the market? Like how there are a bunch of Android device vendors and a couple Linux mobile vendors that I could choose if Apple's App Store model bothered me, rather than being something I actively want? I am 100% not following how this isn't a market working. The choices people are making may not be the ones you prefer—happens to me all the time with markets—but there are choices.
> That's exactly what many want from Apple.
> Change the rules.
Many developers and publishers, maybe. I'm very much unconvinced that's what the subset of users who are aware of this issue in the first place, want, for the most part. I think if it were a major problem for them they'd have bought an Android device, or something else.
> If they can't allow sideloading, they're not as good as I thought.
They do allow sideloading, it's just fairly inconvenient. They can't allow a form of it that's convenient enough to allow other app stores to thrive, without changing the character of the ecosystem for their users. I don't think any amount of being "good" at what they do would change that.
> If Apple sold Android powered iPhones you would still buy an iPhone, you're are buying the brand, not the product.
OK, cool, guess continuing this exchange is pointless.
It... isn't? How not?
> Imagine being unable of refueling because your car does not work with standard oil pumps and you had to go to Apple licensed gas station whom Apple charges 30% to.
Then I'd probably buy a competing brand of car, if that bothered me? You know, one of my other choices on the market? Like how there are a bunch of Android device vendors and a couple Linux mobile vendors that I could choose if Apple's App Store model bothered me, rather than being something I actively want? I am 100% not following how this isn't a market working. The choices people are making may not be the ones you prefer—happens to me all the time with markets—but there are choices.
> That's exactly what many want from Apple.
> Change the rules.
Many developers and publishers, maybe. I'm very much unconvinced that's what the subset of users who are aware of this issue in the first place, want, for the most part. I think if it were a major problem for them they'd have bought an Android device, or something else.
> If they can't allow sideloading, they're not as good as I thought.
They do allow sideloading, it's just fairly inconvenient. They can't allow a form of it that's convenient enough to allow other app stores to thrive, without changing the character of the ecosystem for their users. I don't think any amount of being "good" at what they do would change that.
> If Apple sold Android powered iPhones you would still buy an iPhone, you're are buying the brand, not the product.
OK, cool, guess continuing this exchange is pointless.
> Then I'd probably buy a competing brand of car, if that bothered me?
But you also bought Apple approved tires, Apple approved child seat, Apple approved free miles on the highway and Apple approved breaking fluid
You can't use them anywhere else, maybe you can sell them, but you have to reset the car to factory settings
Whatever you bought cannot be used anywhere else, except another Apple car
That's how vendor lock in works, I'm European but I know US laws don't appreciate when a company locks users in
But you also bought Apple approved tires, Apple approved child seat, Apple approved free miles on the highway and Apple approved breaking fluid
You can't use them anywhere else, maybe you can sell them, but you have to reset the car to factory settings
Whatever you bought cannot be used anywhere else, except another Apple car
That's how vendor lock in works, I'm European but I know US laws don't appreciate when a company locks users in
Nothing what you say has absolutely ANYTHING to do with you being locked out from ever running your own software on Apple devices.
This is a completely false argument you're putting up - you can HAVE all of those protections while STILL having the option of replacing protected software with less safe one.
Please stop peddling this false argument.
This is a completely false argument you're putting up - you can HAVE all of those protections while STILL having the option of replacing protected software with less safe one.
Please stop peddling this false argument.
On the Mac, where the App store is not required, a great deal of software is not in the App store and as a result the user does not benefit from App Store policies for said software. By forbidding sideloading, it forces developers to meet the App Store standards or not play at all. There are developers whose software is present on the iOS app store but the companion Mac app is not.
I don't like the complete lockout either. I like being able to run my apps on my device. But it is most definitely true that the ability to sideload apps results, in practice, in some developers opting out of providing App Store protected apps in favor of asking you to sideload.
I don't like the complete lockout either. I like being able to run my apps on my device. But it is most definitely true that the ability to sideload apps results, in practice, in some developers opting out of providing App Store protected apps in favor of asking you to sideload.
It's not false though? Games are a thing. In the sense of how systems run and how actors make decisions in it, not in terms of video games. Any change that makes it convenient to run a competing app store will almost certainly change the experience of using iOS, even for those who choose not to use an alternative app store.
If there's a way to allow easily & conveniently running one's own software without letting competing app stores work, I'm all for it. In fact there is a way to run your own software, it's just inconvenient, because time-limited so you have to re-install it periodically, which effectively kills any possibility of running a successful app store via that method.
If there's a way to allow easily & conveniently running one's own software without letting competing app stores work, I'm all for it. In fact there is a way to run your own software, it's just inconvenient, because time-limited so you have to re-install it periodically, which effectively kills any possibility of running a successful app store via that method.
You're right in theory, but possibly not in practice.
Consider two vendors: A and G.
A provides a full walled garden. G provides a walled garden, but lets you side-load whatever you like, you can ignore the apps in the garden.
Everyone making apps for A puts them in the walled garden, so if you own an A, you buy an app from the garden.
For G, vendors decide for themselves whether to use the walled garden. Many choose to sell direct and avoid both the markup and the hassle of getting their apps approved.
They also get to make even more money by embedding surveillance capitalism into their apps if they sell direct. Or include completely unmoderated and unregulated adtech.
As a user, isn't G better than A, since I have the choice?
It is better than A, provided that every app in A's walled garden is also in G's walled garden. However, if in practice the apps I want to use are in A's walled garden, but sold direct on G to avoid the 30% hit, then in practice, as a user, I am better off with A if what I want are apps from the walled garden.
Of course, I can always do my research to figure out whether a side-loaded app on G is safe to use. But if what I wanted was to buy apps without having to think about them, then I can be better off with A in practice even though in theory, G provides everything A provides, and more.
Now, is there really a problem getting all the apps I use on A from G's walled garden? I don't personally know, since I don't want to go to the trouble of sorting out what is available in G's store versus what I have to sideload. So there's plenty of room to argue that in practice, G is superior to A.
But I do not think it is necessarily superior.
Consider two vendors: A and G.
A provides a full walled garden. G provides a walled garden, but lets you side-load whatever you like, you can ignore the apps in the garden.
Everyone making apps for A puts them in the walled garden, so if you own an A, you buy an app from the garden.
For G, vendors decide for themselves whether to use the walled garden. Many choose to sell direct and avoid both the markup and the hassle of getting their apps approved.
They also get to make even more money by embedding surveillance capitalism into their apps if they sell direct. Or include completely unmoderated and unregulated adtech.
As a user, isn't G better than A, since I have the choice?
It is better than A, provided that every app in A's walled garden is also in G's walled garden. However, if in practice the apps I want to use are in A's walled garden, but sold direct on G to avoid the 30% hit, then in practice, as a user, I am better off with A if what I want are apps from the walled garden.
Of course, I can always do my research to figure out whether a side-loaded app on G is safe to use. But if what I wanted was to buy apps without having to think about them, then I can be better off with A in practice even though in theory, G provides everything A provides, and more.
Now, is there really a problem getting all the apps I use on A from G's walled garden? I don't personally know, since I don't want to go to the trouble of sorting out what is available in G's store versus what I have to sideload. So there's plenty of room to argue that in practice, G is superior to A.
But I do not think it is necessarily superior.
On every discussion about this topic on HN, there has been at least one but typically many more commenters saying they love the walled garden and they would pay a premium for it. They trust Apple so they are OK with paying them 30% more instead of paying the app developers directly. They would never dare recommend Windows or Linux or Android to their parents but they would happily recommend them to get iPhones and iPads because they would not end up with a virus-ridden device.
Personally, this is so different from the way I think that I find it utterly surprising, much more so from the tech savvy audience of HN. But apparently preferring walled gardens and being willing to pay extra to obtain one and even more every time you buy something on it is not an uncommon opinion to have.
Personally, this is so different from the way I think that I find it utterly surprising, much more so from the tech savvy audience of HN. But apparently preferring walled gardens and being willing to pay extra to obtain one and even more every time you buy something on it is not an uncommon opinion to have.
Personally, this is so different from the way I think that I find it utterly surprising
Seven billion people on the planet. It shouldn't be surprising to learn that not everyone thinks the way that you do.
I wonder if it's an age thing. When you're young and have more time than money, tinkering with the technical hassles of your phone is worth it to save a buck or two. When you're older and have more money than time, you happily pay $399 for an iPhone if it means getting hours or days of your life to spend on other things.
Seven billion people on the planet. It shouldn't be surprising to learn that not everyone thinks the way that you do.
I wonder if it's an age thing. When you're young and have more time than money, tinkering with the technical hassles of your phone is worth it to save a buck or two. When you're older and have more money than time, you happily pay $399 for an iPhone if it means getting hours or days of your life to spend on other things.
Age was it, in part, for me. I used to do lots of hardware and OS tinkering. Now the last goddamn thing I want to do is troubleshoot graphical glitches in x-windows, or try to get my audio to handle changing outputs correctly, or cross my fingers while "dist-upgrade" runs, or fix scaling and font rendering in GTK apps, or whatever, when I'm just trying to do something else.
At some point I became acutely aware of every time I was doing something with a computer that was simply fucking with the computer, and not actually getting anything that I wanted or needed to get done, except to the extent that making my computer be not-broken is required for those things. Around that time I was exposed to macOS and iOS and finally had an actual choice to (mostly) not have to do that when I don't want to, and if I decide I would like to tinker then I can use... any other option on the market.
I'd probably be screwing around with trying to run NetBSD on Android phones and turn them into mobile computers I can plug monitors and keyboards into and embedding RPis and Arduinos in all kinds of crap around the house, if I were 16 again.
At the age I am now, though, you'd literally have to pay me to even think about doing any of that. Even when I screw around with getting allegedly set-it-and-forget-it RPi media projects (think: kodi, lakka) working I usually end up regretting it. I do know how to work with those sorts of things. I also very much don't want to any more, but do still want computer-things doing stuff for me with few or no hassles. Luckily these days you can pay to get that, in some categories at least. Largely from Apple, if you want them to last a while—I do wish they had actual competition in that sense. More options that don't spy (much) and Just Work (mostly), please.
At some point I became acutely aware of every time I was doing something with a computer that was simply fucking with the computer, and not actually getting anything that I wanted or needed to get done, except to the extent that making my computer be not-broken is required for those things. Around that time I was exposed to macOS and iOS and finally had an actual choice to (mostly) not have to do that when I don't want to, and if I decide I would like to tinker then I can use... any other option on the market.
I'd probably be screwing around with trying to run NetBSD on Android phones and turn them into mobile computers I can plug monitors and keyboards into and embedding RPis and Arduinos in all kinds of crap around the house, if I were 16 again.
At the age I am now, though, you'd literally have to pay me to even think about doing any of that. Even when I screw around with getting allegedly set-it-and-forget-it RPi media projects (think: kodi, lakka) working I usually end up regretting it. I do know how to work with those sorts of things. I also very much don't want to any more, but do still want computer-things doing stuff for me with few or no hassles. Luckily these days you can pay to get that, in some categories at least. Largely from Apple, if you want them to last a while—I do wish they had actual competition in that sense. More options that don't spy (much) and Just Work (mostly), please.
You just described why i switched to Mac OS from Linux :)
First, I embrace your choice to not go with a locked down, un-free device. That is entirely within the spirit of being a hacker.
Second, I very much argue that if there was no app store, consumers would pay 30% less. The app store and ecosystem provide something for developers, and if you remove the app store, the developers either do it for themselves, or pay somebody else to do it for them.
Of course, if there was meaningful competition, the fees might be less, or the value provided to developers might be more. But I doubt that prices would drop the full 30%.
I say this as someone who worked in tech distribution. Great things can happen when you cut out a middleman, but it's often surprising how difficult it is to replicate the middleman's distribution advantages.
All that being said, I'm not here to debate whether prices would fall 30%, 27.2%, or even 10%. I agree with your basic premise: tech-savvy people have less upside and more downside from owning locked-down devices.
Second, I very much argue that if there was no app store, consumers would pay 30% less. The app store and ecosystem provide something for developers, and if you remove the app store, the developers either do it for themselves, or pay somebody else to do it for them.
Of course, if there was meaningful competition, the fees might be less, or the value provided to developers might be more. But I doubt that prices would drop the full 30%.
I say this as someone who worked in tech distribution. Great things can happen when you cut out a middleman, but it's often surprising how difficult it is to replicate the middleman's distribution advantages.
All that being said, I'm not here to debate whether prices would fall 30%, 27.2%, or even 10%. I agree with your basic premise: tech-savvy people have less upside and more downside from owning locked-down devices.
Hmm... I'm pretty tech savvy I'd say, but I don't think there's anyway the benefits I'd gain outside Apple's wall garden would compare to the ecosystem I live in now.
Apple's rent seeking a bit with the App Store, but I have faith in their privacy protections, that they'll continue to support my devices for a long time after purchase, and that they'll be fairly prompt with security updates to all my devices.
And cobbling together the connections between ear phones, watch, phone, computer and TV would be quite tedious, probably no where near as smooth, and a pain in the ass to upkeep.
At the end of the day, besides my computer, I don't really give a hoot about side loading apps from different app stores, or I dunno... customizing things more I guess? I'm not really sure.
There is the possibility increased app store competition (say, if it was ruled anti-competitive to only allow Apple's App Store on Apple Products) would make Apple's App Store better though. Discovery can be kind of a pain in my opinion.
So, I'm not opposed to there being more app stores, but it'd probably take a fair amount of nudging to get me to actually try one.
Apple's rent seeking a bit with the App Store, but I have faith in their privacy protections, that they'll continue to support my devices for a long time after purchase, and that they'll be fairly prompt with security updates to all my devices.
And cobbling together the connections between ear phones, watch, phone, computer and TV would be quite tedious, probably no where near as smooth, and a pain in the ass to upkeep.
At the end of the day, besides my computer, I don't really give a hoot about side loading apps from different app stores, or I dunno... customizing things more I guess? I'm not really sure.
There is the possibility increased app store competition (say, if it was ruled anti-competitive to only allow Apple's App Store on Apple Products) would make Apple's App Store better though. Discovery can be kind of a pain in my opinion.
So, I'm not opposed to there being more app stores, but it'd probably take a fair amount of nudging to get me to actually try one.
Just to make a vast generalisation with no hard evidence: I wouldn’t be surprised if it often came down to age. When I was younger, I had the desire, and more importantly the time, to keep everything I used as open source as I could afford.
Fast forward a decade (or maybe 2) and while I am still very pro open-all-the-things, I am happy to pay more for a controlled environment to run things I rely on but don’t care to spend time on maintaining and configuring.
Fast forward a decade (or maybe 2) and while I am still very pro open-all-the-things, I am happy to pay more for a controlled environment to run things I rely on but don’t care to spend time on maintaining and configuring.
I also like having a car with an automatic transmission and engine instrumentation that tells me when to get the oil changed and perform maintenance. My interaction with my car is strictly monetary and burns none of my mental cycles.
I have 4 other people in my house, plus I'm the "tech guy" for maybe another dozen people. I appreciate how simple that job is when everyone has iPhones.
I have 4 other people in my house, plus I'm the "tech guy" for maybe another dozen people. I appreciate how simple that job is when everyone has iPhones.
I'm curious, how many apps do you have installed on your phone, and how many of them are paid ones? Especially, ones using subscription models? Less than 10, or dozens?
I have over a dozen and I really appreciate the ability to manage (or at least view) those in one place. Managing my non-app (website) subscriptions is quite a mess.
And it is only one advantage of the walled garden. I don't have to think much when I install an app - is it from the developer, or someone has tampered with it?
I have over a dozen and I really appreciate the ability to manage (or at least view) those in one place. Managing my non-app (website) subscriptions is quite a mess.
And it is only one advantage of the walled garden. I don't have to think much when I install an app - is it from the developer, or someone has tampered with it?
Me for one. I don't want to deal with several different terms of service, different ways of payment, lack of clarity on if an app is trustworthy or not.
Apple is simple. I trust Apple to protect me and honestly based on the stories I read about Google's Play Store I feel more confident in Apple to do the right thing for consumers in the long run. Their incentive is aligned to my needs (good safe hardware that protects me from making potentially poor choices -- even as someone who is in the "tech" world)
Apple is simple. I trust Apple to protect me and honestly based on the stories I read about Google's Play Store I feel more confident in Apple to do the right thing for consumers in the long run. Their incentive is aligned to my needs (good safe hardware that protects me from making potentially poor choices -- even as someone who is in the "tech" world)
Is Apple's app store actually protecting you from anything, or do you just get the illusion that its protecting you?
Although the situation has gotten much better the past couple years, its still not uncommon to find apps on the app store that charge like 10$ a month for some wallpapers or something of a similar nature. Furthermore, every few months there are new news articles coming out about how ""XYZ"" app is collecting ""ABC"" data from iPhone users(like apps scraping clipboard data, or apps trying to access the microphone or camera when the user thinks there should be no recording going on).
The claim that the iOS is actually protecting users seems dubious at best. Apple tends to exert control over the app store, but it always seems to be in response to users finding out that some app is doing something evil rather then Apple protecting users up front to begin with.
Although the situation has gotten much better the past couple years, its still not uncommon to find apps on the app store that charge like 10$ a month for some wallpapers or something of a similar nature. Furthermore, every few months there are new news articles coming out about how ""XYZ"" app is collecting ""ABC"" data from iPhone users(like apps scraping clipboard data, or apps trying to access the microphone or camera when the user thinks there should be no recording going on).
The claim that the iOS is actually protecting users seems dubious at best. Apple tends to exert control over the app store, but it always seems to be in response to users finding out that some app is doing something evil rather then Apple protecting users up front to begin with.
“Apple does an imperfect job of delivering that value proposition, therefore it should be illegal to even try” is quite the take. Keep in mind that there are huge confirmation biases here; when Apple blocks scammy or insecure apps before they even come out, nobody notices, but if they miss a single one, everyone notices.
iOS is protecting me WAY more than Google Play store. I also read plenty about Apple being TOO strict on developers more than I read them being loose. (which sorry to the developers out there and definitely an area that apple can and should improve on)
Your point that some bad actors get through doesn't invalidate that Apple seems to be doing the best job of keeping the app store secure and consumer friendly.
Your point that some bad actors get through doesn't invalidate that Apple seems to be doing the best job of keeping the app store secure and consumer friendly.
It's providing me with a unified experience, which is a benefit. You might not value it but others do.
Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom, as Kierkegaard said. But freedom is an incredibly worthwhile thing, so much so that anxiety is the cost society should for it.
The costs of Apple's walled garden have become so obscene at this point that I consider the pro-Apple position to be immoral.
The costs of Apple's walled garden have become so obscene at this point that I consider the pro-Apple position to be immoral.
Me.
I buy Apple products not because it's a walled garden per se, but because it's Apple's walled garden. Apple has been the only vendor to provide me with a consistently top-quality user experience, so I trust them to make decisions that benefit me. I don't have the same trust relationship with other software and hardware vendors, so their walled gardens I would protest against.
I buy Apple products not because it's a walled garden per se, but because it's Apple's walled garden. Apple has been the only vendor to provide me with a consistently top-quality user experience, so I trust them to make decisions that benefit me. I don't have the same trust relationship with other software and hardware vendors, so their walled gardens I would protest against.
Me. My life is too full of other things to want to worry about the latest bit of malware floating around on Android, or whether my phone will stop getting updates a year or two after I own it.
To me, a phone should work for me, not the other way around. I'd rather spend my time living my life than fussing with the technicalities of my phone. I'm willing to pay extra for it.
I also went with iPhone because I trust Apple to vet its apps better than any other vendor. When someone else does as good a job, I'll head over there. But for now, iPhone is where it's at.
To me, a phone should work for me, not the other way around. I'd rather spend my time living my life than fussing with the technicalities of my phone. I'm willing to pay extra for it.
I also went with iPhone because I trust Apple to vet its apps better than any other vendor. When someone else does as good a job, I'll head over there. But for now, iPhone is where it's at.
Me. It limits the attack surface and all the problems that come with openness, very visible in the Android world.
The problem is that giving a choice to users is risky and not acceptable at scale because people are not smart, they do dumb things all the time; like pasting untrusted scripts into devtools console and getting hacked. Or replying to mail scams.
So I am happy I can hand an iPad to my parent and not be there to secure all activities they do online.
The problem is that giving a choice to users is risky and not acceptable at scale because people are not smart, they do dumb things all the time; like pasting untrusted scripts into devtools console and getting hacked. Or replying to mail scams.
So I am happy I can hand an iPad to my parent and not be there to secure all activities they do online.
We used to joke about the fact that no matter what you do to educate users, if told that to see a video of funny dancing pigs[1] all they have to do is give the installer root privileges...
Users will give the installer root privileges.
History bore this out over and over and over again.
—
[1]: See also: Crapware-laden browser toolbars, Java runtimes, Adobe Reader, Windows crapware, Smart TVs, ...
Users will give the installer root privileges.
History bore this out over and over and over again.
—
[1]: See also: Crapware-laden browser toolbars, Java runtimes, Adobe Reader, Windows crapware, Smart TVs, ...
Me. I like the sandboxing. I like Apple Pay (especially for subscriptions). I like the new random-gen email addresses system. I like that apps have to use these things and can't just opt-out, because I may have to use the app for work or something.
It's not the only thing I care about, but it's not all just strict downside.
It's not the only thing I care about, but it's not all just strict downside.
Me, without a doubt. I'm too old and busy to worry about configuring my phone or making sure that it's safe / clean.
I also buy it for my parents for the same reason.
I also buy it for my parents for the same reason.
To be fair, this is a somewhat common sentiment that I’ve seen on HN. Similar is the “non tech oriented parent” point, where you don’t have to worry about your parents phone getting a virus.
Me also. I don't want to spend another second of my life dealing with malware.
Me.
For some background, I’m a longtime hardware and (more frequently) software developer. I also do quite a bit of ML consulting.
I was gifted a MacBook Air many years ago. I was an avid Ubuntu (and, to a much lesser extent, Windows) user and developer at the time so I didn’t know what to make of it. I certainly didn’t expect to be blown away and switch to all Apple devices.
Eight years later and I’m solidly in the Apple ecosystem. I have an open mind about switching but I love the reliability and consistency of the user experience. I can count on the core apps that I frequently reach for to just work. And if they don’t work there’s almost always an obvious, low-time, solution to fix them. I still do a great deal of development in Windows, but it’s exclusively in a Parallels VM on a MacBook and I’ve long since abandoned my desktop for development.
The Apple ecosystem has built up enough trust with me that I also use it when flying (Foreflight on an iPad). You couldn’t pay me to switch to an android tablet as an alternative for that use case.
My largest complaint is python development is not great on OS X out of the box. But that’s easy enough to work around.
For some background, I’m a longtime hardware and (more frequently) software developer. I also do quite a bit of ML consulting.
I was gifted a MacBook Air many years ago. I was an avid Ubuntu (and, to a much lesser extent, Windows) user and developer at the time so I didn’t know what to make of it. I certainly didn’t expect to be blown away and switch to all Apple devices.
Eight years later and I’m solidly in the Apple ecosystem. I have an open mind about switching but I love the reliability and consistency of the user experience. I can count on the core apps that I frequently reach for to just work. And if they don’t work there’s almost always an obvious, low-time, solution to fix them. I still do a great deal of development in Windows, but it’s exclusively in a Parallels VM on a MacBook and I’ve long since abandoned my desktop for development.
The Apple ecosystem has built up enough trust with me that I also use it when flying (Foreflight on an iPad). You couldn’t pay me to switch to an android tablet as an alternative for that use case.
My largest complaint is python development is not great on OS X out of the box. But that’s easy enough to work around.
The "walled garden" isn't really the issue most at stake here, it's the in-app purchases. To me, it's hard to argue against the benefits of having a one-stop-shop safe-and-secure place to download apps on your phone which contains all your personal information.
However, to me, it's hard to argue that Apple should keep getting money from you once you've established a loyal customer base and they are giving you money.
And as a not-so-crazy take on this issue, why isn't Apple insisting on taking a cut of, say, the check I'm depositing into Chase and just uploaded a photograph of it. It's revenue, it's in the app ... why isn't Apple taking a piece of that?
However, to me, it's hard to argue that Apple should keep getting money from you once you've established a loyal customer base and they are giving you money.
And as a not-so-crazy take on this issue, why isn't Apple insisting on taking a cut of, say, the check I'm depositing into Chase and just uploaded a photograph of it. It's revenue, it's in the app ... why isn't Apple taking a piece of that?
The only people paying the cost of that are companies like Epic, and if their games aren’t available for iOS that will affect the popularity of the iPhone. Maybe Apple backs down on the in-app purchases, or maybe they don’t and that decision drives away developers followed by users. Until then, we’re just seeing them negotiate with each other via PR.
Indeed, that is exactly the argument made by the article.
If Apps are delivering new content and functionality in response to users directly giving them money then in what way is the walled garden walled? Just download the "door" app - now you're downloading arbitrary apps from a 3rd party. What happens when you download steam and suddenly people are downloading totally arbitrary code. Oh and that arbitrary code is hijacking whatsapp and sending itself to all your contacts?
Would that apply to anything electrical, or with integrated circuits, or with a port or antenna, or connected to the Internet? Is there an exception for ROM? What about device-specific IDs or keys?
And I wonder what test the courts would accept (which the manufacturers would then build to): that the device can run arbitrary code? That each feature of the device is easily accessible via FOSS library or API? That access to each feature in the device could theoretically be reverse-engineered by a sufficiently motivated expert?
Interesting thought experiment.
And I wonder what test the courts would accept (which the manufacturers would then build to): that the device can run arbitrary code? That each feature of the device is easily accessible via FOSS library or API? That access to each feature in the device could theoretically be reverse-engineered by a sufficiently motivated expert?
Interesting thought experiment.
I'm really happy with my closed hardware as the tightly controlled environment promises the customer that the software run in it will be high quality and on some level will be vetted before allowed to the platform. This also attracts other developers to create high-quality software, as those good enough will be highlighted by the platform owner, which in turn means increased sales.
And I really can't say the same about open platforms, which usually UX-wise are awful and for that I'm willing to give away the "freedom" some other platform might provide.
And I really can't say the same about open platforms, which usually UX-wise are awful and for that I'm willing to give away the "freedom" some other platform might provide.
i haven’t found that utopia you describe on either the apple of google play store.
> I'm really happy with my closed hardware as the tightly controlled environment promises the customer that the software run in it will be high quality and on some level will be vetted before allowed to the platform. This also attracts other developers to create high-quality software,
I am not sure whether this is sarcasm or not.
Since it seems like it is not, let me say that most closed platforms are absolutely garbage. Let us not think only of the iPhones and the Androids of the world, and instead focus on everything else. Think industrial control. Even the cinema stuff mentioned by the GP I'm sure contains software of the worst quality.
I am not sure whether this is sarcasm or not.
Since it seems like it is not, let me say that most closed platforms are absolutely garbage. Let us not think only of the iPhones and the Androids of the world, and instead focus on everything else. Think industrial control. Even the cinema stuff mentioned by the GP I'm sure contains software of the worst quality.
All you have to do is compare the Apple AppStore with the Android AppStore. How many apps on Android have been found to contain malware? also when it comes to quality and design, Android AppStore is terrible compared to apple.
Considering Android is also mostly closed hardware, and that the Android store is exactly as "tightly controlled" as Apple's, thanks for proving my point. If now this was sarcasm, sorry.
Nope. If a person "owns" a piece of hardware, it should be legal to jailbreak it without any consequences (except perhaps lack of support for 3rd party software) and companies that sell products that build off of jailbroken products should be 100% legal. Edge case products like Prima Cinema can simply lease the hardware with restrictions on how can be used under the terms of the lease. If Apple feels so strongly about locking down their platform, they can adjust their business model and lease their hardware to customers. However, companies should not be able to legally "sell" products that transfer ownership if they are going to include "strings" restricting the usage of the product.
>Nope. If a person "owns" a piece of hardware, it should be legal to jailbreak it without any consequences (except perhaps lack of support for 3rd party software) and companies that sell products that build off of jailbroken products should be 100% legal.
All of those things are true today.
The question was: >Should closed hardware (that owns its entire stack) even be legal to sell?
And the answer to that is: obviously it should be, if you care about competition and innovation. The only people that disagree with this are the tech people who have had problems with Apple's business on ideological grounds for decades (people like Richard Stallman and saurik).
But outside that one particularly small constituency, there's no good public policy reason to actually make it illegal, and plenty of reasons not to.
All of those things are true today.
The question was: >Should closed hardware (that owns its entire stack) even be legal to sell?
And the answer to that is: obviously it should be, if you care about competition and innovation. The only people that disagree with this are the tech people who have had problems with Apple's business on ideological grounds for decades (people like Richard Stallman and saurik).
But outside that one particularly small constituency, there's no good public policy reason to actually make it illegal, and plenty of reasons not to.
Correct. It's been perfectly legal since 2010.
>The U.S. Librarian of Congress ruled on Monday that consumers who circumvent digital protections on smartphones to install unapproved applications—a practice often colloquially known as “jailbreaking”—for noninfringing reasons should be exempted from prosecution under the anti-circumvention section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
https://www.macworld.com/article/1152935/jailbreak_exemption...
>The U.S. Librarian of Congress ruled on Monday that consumers who circumvent digital protections on smartphones to install unapproved applications—a practice often colloquially known as “jailbreaking”—for noninfringing reasons should be exempted from prosecution under the anti-circumvention section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
https://www.macworld.com/article/1152935/jailbreak_exemption...
If you can figure it out, you can jailbreak it; but there is no reason why jailbreaking a device is inherently possible: jailbreaks for iOS are happening later and later in the boot cycle and so are more and more limited, and we have had a single bootrom exploit in like a decade. If you want to be able to jailbreak a device it must be illegal to lock it down like that, not merely legal for someone to figure out how to maybe break the lock after you build it.
>If you want to be able to jailbreak a device it must be illegal to lock it down like that
I'm not sure why you're putting this in terms of iOS, since many Android devices also ship with a locked bootloader.
>there is no reason why jailbreaking a device is inherently possible
Any iDevice with an A11 or earlier has an unpatchable bootloader flaw that absolutely makes it inherently jailbreakable. Apple cannot prevent you from jailbreaking those devices, nor can it patch the flaw with a future version of the OS.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/09/devel...
I'm not sure why you're putting this in terms of iOS, since many Android devices also ship with a locked bootloader.
>there is no reason why jailbreaking a device is inherently possible
Any iDevice with an A11 or earlier has an unpatchable bootloader flaw that absolutely makes it inherently jailbreakable. Apple cannot prevent you from jailbreaking those devices, nor can it patch the flaw with a future version of the OS.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/09/devel...
Yes, the "consumers" should be exempted, not anyone selling solutions to do this or just giving them up for free. Which essentially means that unless you are an uber hacker that does this for their iPhones, nobody else can do it. It's pretty pointless in practice.
You don't have to be any sort of hacker. A jailbreaking app like Checkra1n will step you through the process.
https://www.idownloadblog.com/2019/11/10/how-to-jailbreak-wi...
https://www.idownloadblog.com/2019/11/10/how-to-jailbreak-wi...
That exception is for Smart Phones, and I think has expired even
This would not apply to something like Prima Cimea, nor a John Deere Tractor, or 1000's of other things.
Also the wording of the exception bu LoC was very open to interpretation and not as powerful as people commonly think
This would not apply to something like Prima Cimea, nor a John Deere Tractor, or 1000's of other things.
Also the wording of the exception bu LoC was very open to interpretation and not as powerful as people commonly think
At the beginning you said nope but based on your explanation I feel like you meant to say yep... e.g. yes, we should make it illegal.
Ahh, I see the problem - thanks Osiris - there are 2 questions, each of them opposite.
> Should closed hardware (that owns its entire stack) even be legal to sell?
and
> Yes, it's legal today but should we make it illegal?
Good thing I'm not a lawyer!
Ahh, I see the problem - thanks Osiris - there are 2 questions, each of them opposite.
> Should closed hardware (that owns its entire stack) even be legal to sell?
and
> Yes, it's legal today but should we make it illegal?
Good thing I'm not a lawyer!
> Should closed hardware (that owns its entire stack) even be legal to sell?
His answer: Nope.
His answer: Nope.
[deleted]
I think that the right legal and political concept to accomplish essentially the same goal is the “right to repair”. This is a concept that lots of people (outside of technology) have an immediate connection to, and the downsides of not having it are more clear (waste, less competition, bricking when companies go out of business).
From a regulatory standpoint, it seems easier than attempting to hand ‘closed’ hardware - less line drawing on what counts as firmware and more focus on what consumers need to properly use and maintain a device over a long period of time.
From a regulatory standpoint, it seems easier than attempting to hand ‘closed’ hardware - less line drawing on what counts as firmware and more focus on what consumers need to properly use and maintain a device over a long period of time.
> So the question is, should consumers be able to knowingly buy restricted hardware such as Prima Cinema?
If this would be restricted then you should keep it legal to buy but illegal to sell. Making the purchase illegal would only further criminalize the consumer.
If this would be restricted then you should keep it legal to buy but illegal to sell. Making the purchase illegal would only further criminalize the consumer.
So, the core issue, it seems to me, is one of outcomes. Do we want a locked down future? Or do we want an open one? Do we even want to have a choice?
That last question is actually important - maybe "the market" (meaning whoever is positioned at time) should decide. Maybe "we" already have "decided" and the rest is just that decision playing out.
But I don't think this discussion is that useful without specifics. Imagine 10 years forward - Amazon, Facebook and Google all require locked down (you do not have root) hardware to access anything they store for you/to buy anything. Maybe you can still give your Raspberry Pi an IP and send packets, but interaction with any mainstream entity requires signing your traffic with a key on a chip. ("To solve identity theft" "for the children" "do you want the terrorists to win?")
Is that a world you want to live in?
That last question is actually important - maybe "the market" (meaning whoever is positioned at time) should decide. Maybe "we" already have "decided" and the rest is just that decision playing out.
But I don't think this discussion is that useful without specifics. Imagine 10 years forward - Amazon, Facebook and Google all require locked down (you do not have root) hardware to access anything they store for you/to buy anything. Maybe you can still give your Raspberry Pi an IP and send packets, but interaction with any mainstream entity requires signing your traffic with a key on a chip. ("To solve identity theft" "for the children" "do you want the terrorists to win?")
Is that a world you want to live in?
> Yes, it's legal today but should we make it illegal?
IMO, yes. We make it illegal for someone to come into your home and take your stuff, which ends up with you losing control over it (you have no more access to your stuff), so it also makes sense to make it illegal for someone to decide to not allow you install or modify the stuff you have (again taking control away from you).
The way most of these platforms run is like buying something but by doing so you also give an implicit permission for the seller to come in your house and modify or even forbid you from using what you bought if they do not like what you are doing with it.
Imagine if you bought an oven and you could only bake specific recipes that the over manufacturer allowed. And when you complained you had others telling you "just buy another oven" (until all oven manufacturers were into the game because it made them more money - especially those who are also into selling ingredients - and you had no other options, except perhaps a few cheap models that had a tendency to explode every now and then and their only usefulness is to be used as skapegoats whenever "monopoly" is brought up).
And yes, i know the above comparisons aren't 100% fitting, software isn't a physical product, it is special, but it still feels very wrong to buy a device (be it a phone, gaming console, TV or whatever) and have no control over what you can install or even -in some cases- do with it.
IMO, yes. We make it illegal for someone to come into your home and take your stuff, which ends up with you losing control over it (you have no more access to your stuff), so it also makes sense to make it illegal for someone to decide to not allow you install or modify the stuff you have (again taking control away from you).
The way most of these platforms run is like buying something but by doing so you also give an implicit permission for the seller to come in your house and modify or even forbid you from using what you bought if they do not like what you are doing with it.
Imagine if you bought an oven and you could only bake specific recipes that the over manufacturer allowed. And when you complained you had others telling you "just buy another oven" (until all oven manufacturers were into the game because it made them more money - especially those who are also into selling ingredients - and you had no other options, except perhaps a few cheap models that had a tendency to explode every now and then and their only usefulness is to be used as skapegoats whenever "monopoly" is brought up).
And yes, i know the above comparisons aren't 100% fitting, software isn't a physical product, it is special, but it still feels very wrong to buy a device (be it a phone, gaming console, TV or whatever) and have no control over what you can install or even -in some cases- do with it.
If it was clearly stated before I bought the oven that it was limited to a certain number of recipes that the manufacturer provided, I actually don’t see the problem. You knew from the start what you were paying for.
And for your complaint that all the other ovens are crap and explode. Shouldn’t you take that up with the people making those ovens, not the one that made the locked oven? Maybe it’s very very hard to make ovens that don’t explode from time to time when people can cook whatever they want in them?
If someone came after you paid them and said, btw, you can’t make muffins in this oven, then I think it’s fair to be upset. But in the current situation, no.
And for your complaint that all the other ovens are crap and explode. Shouldn’t you take that up with the people making those ovens, not the one that made the locked oven? Maybe it’s very very hard to make ovens that don’t explode from time to time when people can cook whatever they want in them?
If someone came after you paid them and said, btw, you can’t make muffins in this oven, then I think it’s fair to be upset. But in the current situation, no.
> We make it illegal for someone to come into your home and take your stuff
It's not illegal however if you signed a contract to that effect, which is what you did when you started using the platform.
A better analogy is that you're renting some furniture and the furniture is found to be unsafe. The company can come and take it away, either replacing it with something else or refunding you.
In the software world nobody but the creators or IP holders of the software actually owns the software. They just provide you the license to use it.
It's illegal in many countries to modify the software so if you had a closed-source word processing application it would be illegal to mod it or to use it as part of a data transformation pipeline. You can only use it for the purposes stated when you bought it.
If there was a way to limit your oven to bake recipes the manufacturer allowed or to use specific approved ingredients, and would come with some sort of value-add to make consumers ignore that as a problem, I'm sure someone would actually do this.
(please note that I am stating facts as I see them and not necessarily agreeing with the state of affairs)
It's not illegal however if you signed a contract to that effect, which is what you did when you started using the platform.
A better analogy is that you're renting some furniture and the furniture is found to be unsafe. The company can come and take it away, either replacing it with something else or refunding you.
In the software world nobody but the creators or IP holders of the software actually owns the software. They just provide you the license to use it.
It's illegal in many countries to modify the software so if you had a closed-source word processing application it would be illegal to mod it or to use it as part of a data transformation pipeline. You can only use it for the purposes stated when you bought it.
If there was a way to limit your oven to bake recipes the manufacturer allowed or to use specific approved ingredients, and would come with some sort of value-add to make consumers ignore that as a problem, I'm sure someone would actually do this.
(please note that I am stating facts as I see them and not necessarily agreeing with the state of affairs)
The question above was about if something should be made illegal, not what the current state of affairs is.
Also i'm not arguing about who owns the software, i never asked for ownership of the software, i ask for being able to be in control of the software that runs in the hardware i do actually own. This does not require me owning the OS that runs in my hardware.
And yes, i'm sure someone would do the oven stuff if it was possible and making that illegal would also be something that would be needed.
Also i'm not arguing about who owns the software, i never asked for ownership of the software, i ask for being able to be in control of the software that runs in the hardware i do actually own. This does not require me owning the OS that runs in my hardware.
And yes, i'm sure someone would do the oven stuff if it was possible and making that illegal would also be something that would be needed.
>It's not illegal however if you signed a contract to that effect, which is what you did when you started using the platform.
Contracts are not above the law. Or: you can't contradict laws with your contract.
Contracts are not above the law. Or: you can't contradict laws with your contract.
Sure you can. Just look at arbitration. It’s not right, but it’s incorrect to say that a contact can’t remove your rights.
Only to the extent that the law permits arbitration clauses.
The part of that argument I have trouble with is the “until all oven manufacturer were into the game” part. Do you have an example where an entire class of computer hardware became impossible to buy without firmware restrictions? This alarm bell has been sounded as “The War on General Purpose Computing” for over a decade for different pieces of hardware (laptops, desktops, routers, phones, etc.) but it still hasn’t really trended negatively (phones and routers in particular have many more unlocked options today that they did in the early 2000s), let alone come close to extinction for any of them. The broadest category you could make a case for is specifically x86 processors, but only the IME/PSP/SMM components.
I think the reality is there just isn’t as much business incentive to do these kind of things to computing devices as much as people imagine, and instead the arguments tend to paint the would-be oppressors as cartoon villains that want to remove these abilities from the world just because. Android phones that can root or at least sideload have been numerous forever; somehow nobody has bothered to create a halfway serious Google Play Store competitor anyway. Why would every business move to quash something which ultimately isn’t a universal threat? What Epic wants isn’t sideloading or rooting their way on to iPhones, they want Apple themselves to have to let users install Epic’s store through normal channels.
I think the reality is there just isn’t as much business incentive to do these kind of things to computing devices as much as people imagine, and instead the arguments tend to paint the would-be oppressors as cartoon villains that want to remove these abilities from the world just because. Android phones that can root or at least sideload have been numerous forever; somehow nobody has bothered to create a halfway serious Google Play Store competitor anyway. Why would every business move to quash something which ultimately isn’t a universal threat? What Epic wants isn’t sideloading or rooting their way on to iPhones, they want Apple themselves to have to let users install Epic’s store through normal channels.
Game consoles, right? Back in the day things like the Commodore were often sold as game systems and computers (the NES wasn’t but you could still run unlicensed software). Nowadays, good luck running something on your PS4/Switch that the company didn’t approve (unless you have a hackable switch I guess, but that’s extremely fiddly).
That’s a good point, but the incentives there make more sense: game piracy has been a huge issue for publishers on every gaming platform (PC included) that didn’t put serious hardware roadblocks to it. They also sell the hardware at a loss, which means locking it down if you don’t want someone to build a supercomputer out of it on your dime.
The NES could not run unlicensed software. In fact, the NES arguably invented the App Store licensing model. Every console (save for the toploaders) has a lockout chip that resets the CPU every second or so unless it's able to exchange encrypted data with a companion lockout chip in the cartridge. Nintendo used this to "protect" the US gaming market from games they didn't approve of.
Technically, the Family Computer (Famicom) could run unlicensed software. It even had a BASIC interpreter and a keyboard controller. Nintendo realized their mistake very quickly, however, which is why the NES has a lockout chip and the disk add-on for the Famicom also locked out third-party disks. (Note that part of the system was the ability to buy blank disks and pay to download games onto them via a Disk Writer kiosk, hence why the disks were proprietary, not just the games.) A number of game developers in Japan found that to be a bit of a shock, from what I've heard.
Technically, the Family Computer (Famicom) could run unlicensed software. It even had a BASIC interpreter and a keyboard controller. Nintendo realized their mistake very quickly, however, which is why the NES has a lockout chip and the disk add-on for the Famicom also locked out third-party disks. (Note that part of the system was the ability to buy blank disks and pay to download games onto them via a Disk Writer kiosk, hence why the disks were proprietary, not just the games.) A number of game developers in Japan found that to be a bit of a shock, from what I've heard.
In my opinion there is an important difference between purpose-built entertainment devices like consoles where sometimes HW cost is donated by the manufacturer and a multi-functional generic computer like laptop/desktop and partly smartphone. I care less about locked PS4 ecosystem than smartphonrs and computers.
From a legal perspective, you have complete control over what you do with it. You just don’t control what “it” is in the first place.
While I'm sympathetic to this idea, one thing that I get hung up on is game consoles. I enjoy multiplayer shooters, and I like knowing that none of my opponents are using bots. So the fact that the console is locked down is part of the value proposition for me. It's a pro, rather than a con.
> I enjoy multiplayer shooters, and I like knowing that none of my opponents are using bots. So the fact that the console is locked down is part of the value proposition for me.
The issue here is that you're using "locked down" too generically. What you actually want is something like remote attestation. The device can assert with a signature that it's running a particular version of the OS and a particular version of the game and in so doing allows you to know that the user isn't cheating by using some other software.
That has nothing at all to do with whether you can install arbitrary software on the device or who gets a percentage of what. Even if you could install the Amazon store on your PlayStation and the install Cheat App from there, the device wouldn't then assert that you're running the official game (because you're not), and then the other players would know that and be able to boot you out. You don't need the other player's console to refuse to install an arbitrary app for that, only for it to be able to tell you when that has happened.
The issue here is that you're using "locked down" too generically. What you actually want is something like remote attestation. The device can assert with a signature that it's running a particular version of the OS and a particular version of the game and in so doing allows you to know that the user isn't cheating by using some other software.
That has nothing at all to do with whether you can install arbitrary software on the device or who gets a percentage of what. Even if you could install the Amazon store on your PlayStation and the install Cheat App from there, the device wouldn't then assert that you're running the official game (because you're not), and then the other players would know that and be able to boot you out. You don't need the other player's console to refuse to install an arbitrary app for that, only for it to be able to tell you when that has happened.
FYI you can reboot every retail xbox into DEV mode and run your own games and code:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/xbox-apps/devki...
Switching back and forth between retail and DEV mode is as easy as rebooting.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/xbox-apps/devki...
Switching back and forth between retail and DEV mode is as easy as rebooting.
I don't see a huge issue there. You need not necessarily be able to run your code in parallel to game, the console could provide the option to run either your game or other code.
Of course you can now make the argument that any form of code execution increases the attack surface. And you're right but hypervisors can be quite effective. Also the XBOX One can be put in developer mode to run arbitrary UWP apps and has not yet had any major exploits (to my knowledge), where the PS4 has no similar features, but has had several firmware versions with significant security flaws.
Of course you can now make the argument that any form of code execution increases the attack surface. And you're right but hypervisors can be quite effective. Also the XBOX One can be put in developer mode to run arbitrary UWP apps and has not yet had any major exploits (to my knowledge), where the PS4 has no similar features, but has had several firmware versions with significant security flaws.
Or you can just play with friends who don't cheat. Cheaters are only a problem if your friends are jackasses or you play with strangers.
So... we're gonna throw out the freedom to play with non-cheating strangers when your friends are all busy, in order that every computing device, instead of just lots and lots of them, can have arbitrary software installed on it?
This feels like losing options, not gaining them.
This feels like losing options, not gaining them.
> we're gonna throw out the freedom to play with non-cheating strangers
Freedom? No. Opportunity? Maybe. I think communities would arise to fill the demand though. Pseudo-anonymous reputation systems tied to matchmaking could fill the roll. I have a group of pseudo-anonymous friends/acquaintances I frequently play games with online. None of us cheat and if any of us did, we'd stop playing with them. We don't need big brother. We don't need technical solutions to social problems.
Freedom? No. Opportunity? Maybe. I think communities would arise to fill the demand though. Pseudo-anonymous reputation systems tied to matchmaking could fill the roll. I have a group of pseudo-anonymous friends/acquaintances I frequently play games with online. None of us cheat and if any of us did, we'd stop playing with them. We don't need big brother. We don't need technical solutions to social problems.
Maybe they could form a company for this purpose, and then sell a product that fills that need?
That only works if you have friends to play both your teammates and the enemy team which is a very tall order. Most people play with strangers overall, and most people who play with friends just have them as teammates against stranger opponents.
So then the value add is that you can play with orders of magnitude more people than just the ones you happen to know and won’t cheat?
Do you have 150 friends to play battle royale?
First of all; Yes in my opinion.
But just as a devil's advocate; what about rentals? You can't just put new wheels on your ZipCar. If we made locked platforms illegal, they would simply become rentals. But at least it would be explicit then.
But just as a devil's advocate; what about rentals? You can't just put new wheels on your ZipCar. If we made locked platforms illegal, they would simply become rentals. But at least it would be explicit then.
> closed hardware (that owns its entire stack) even be legal to sell?
Two thoughts:
1 - As software goes into everything, keep in mind that the universe of devices to which this applies will grow to include the set of "non-organic physical objects."
2 - And this will means that surprising outcomes could come of requiring everything to be open. Who do you trust to verify the software in your used car/refrigerator/lightswitch/water heater/etc? For devices where physical safety is at play, how do you verify that the (possibly aftermarket) software is up to code or other certification? Imagine every car sale or home inspection required a software assurance verification of every embedded system. Closed systems implicitly provide some level of assurance here.
Two thoughts:
1 - As software goes into everything, keep in mind that the universe of devices to which this applies will grow to include the set of "non-organic physical objects."
2 - And this will means that surprising outcomes could come of requiring everything to be open. Who do you trust to verify the software in your used car/refrigerator/lightswitch/water heater/etc? For devices where physical safety is at play, how do you verify that the (possibly aftermarket) software is up to code or other certification? Imagine every car sale or home inspection required a software assurance verification of every embedded system. Closed systems implicitly provide some level of assurance here.
>Closed systems implicitly provide some level of assurance here.
No they don't as I can't verify any of that. A perfect counterexample is the VW dieselsoftware.
No they don't as I can't verify any of that. A perfect counterexample is the VW dieselsoftware.
(Edit: I did not downvote, this is a legitimate counterpoint.)
> perfect counterexample is the VW dieselsoftware
This is a great counterexample that inadvertently proves the point because in that case a) the software in question was exactly as delivered by the manufacturer so that b) consumers were able to receive compensation from rich VW for the faulty software.
If the software stack was open, a malfunction could be caused by aftermarket software (think: downloaded from Sourceforge) and therefore consumers would have no real remedy.
I suppose I could have been clearer on what's being assured. There is (obviously) value in being assured that you are buying what the manufacturer intended!
> perfect counterexample is the VW dieselsoftware
This is a great counterexample that inadvertently proves the point because in that case a) the software in question was exactly as delivered by the manufacturer so that b) consumers were able to receive compensation from rich VW for the faulty software.
If the software stack was open, a malfunction could be caused by aftermarket software (think: downloaded from Sourceforge) and therefore consumers would have no real remedy.
I suppose I could have been clearer on what's being assured. There is (obviously) value in being assured that you are buying what the manufacturer intended!
With an open system, that flaw would have been detected way earlier. Now the original post was about closed hardware, so I'm not sure if this was the case here. I have never tried flashing some motor control of a car, but it's possibly not even restricted, so "open system" would more likely refer to "open source".
While there might be an incentive to restrict modifications (at least on a car, which is potentially dangerous), I don't see counterpoints to open-sourceing the software that runs on (the car in this example).
While there might be an incentive to restrict modifications (at least on a car, which is potentially dangerous), I don't see counterpoints to open-sourceing the software that runs on (the car in this example).
I think this comparison is in bad faith. I would put it like this, it should definitely be illegal to be anti-competitive on general computing devices once you hit a significant revenue(the revenue bit only to allow small players to compete first and not be stifled).
Devices like Kindle are one purpose devices. It is supposed to be a replacement for a book. The integration with Kindle Store for ebooks can be complained about, but Amazon gives you the freedom to use ebooks from anywhere, infact if you can live with the bad experience you can use the browser itself to download them on the device.
iPhone is a different ballgame, it is an ecosystem creating device. I have no problem with them restricting the APIs for third party developers if it improves security on the device, that's a good thing. But then the rent seeking on apps like Spotify is just bad for upcoming companies and would be for users in the end. This is not just limited to software, they can use the same leverage to even kill companies in hardware space.
Sure, Apple doesn't have a monopoly in terms of device share, but they absolutely are in a position to kill a company.
Devices like Kindle are one purpose devices. It is supposed to be a replacement for a book. The integration with Kindle Store for ebooks can be complained about, but Amazon gives you the freedom to use ebooks from anywhere, infact if you can live with the bad experience you can use the browser itself to download them on the device.
iPhone is a different ballgame, it is an ecosystem creating device. I have no problem with them restricting the APIs for third party developers if it improves security on the device, that's a good thing. But then the rent seeking on apps like Spotify is just bad for upcoming companies and would be for users in the end. This is not just limited to software, they can use the same leverage to even kill companies in hardware space.
Sure, Apple doesn't have a monopoly in terms of device share, but they absolutely are in a position to kill a company.
As long I own it the vendor should unlock it, it the past the phones were locked to work only with SIM cards from the provider you bought the phone, when the contract expired the phone still remained locked and you had to find someone to unlock it for you, Then (hope my memory is not mistaken) something changed(probably laws) so carriers had to provide you with a code to unlock your phone when the contract was over. I think should be the same with game consoles if and only if they are subsidized , when I paid the full price then is my hardware. Preventing piracy should not affect my property rights and hardware should not brick itself if somehow detects I want to use it as I want. If Sony does not like this they could rent me the hardware for cheap or free because the bastards are locking already online features behind subscriptions.
> "You can't argue that Prima Cinema should not be locked down (claiming anti-competitive behavior)"
Yes I can.
> because the paranoid film studios wouldn't even license their content if it wasn't
That's fine by me.
Yes I can.
> because the paranoid film studios wouldn't even license their content if it wasn't
That's fine by me.
Back in the heyday of the Bell system, telephones were owned by the phone company and you leased them as part of your phone service. That’s why they were made of indestructible steel and you could hang up by slamming the handset down on the receiver at full force if you were really ticked off at a telemarketer or something. That also meant phone phreaks tampering with their own phones were in dubious legal territory because they didn’t own the phones.
I think people should have the freedom to consent to buy whatever products they like so long as the functionality of the product is not kept secret. They also should (and do) have the freedom to try and jailbreak it but not to the point of obligating the manufacturer to produce an open system. But even if there is some sort of law that you can’t sell closed-stack systems, you could just migrate everything to equipment leases. IMO this would make matters much, much worse for the consumer in terms of having control over their own equipment (though maybe some equipment would be made to last again).
I think people should have the freedom to consent to buy whatever products they like so long as the functionality of the product is not kept secret. They also should (and do) have the freedom to try and jailbreak it but not to the point of obligating the manufacturer to produce an open system. But even if there is some sort of law that you can’t sell closed-stack systems, you could just migrate everything to equipment leases. IMO this would make matters much, much worse for the consumer in terms of having control over their own equipment (though maybe some equipment would be made to last again).
How about don't buy it? Here's another question. Is it reasonable to buy a product, knowing that it works a particular way, and then expect the law to change in order to change the way that product works?
> Is it reasonable to buy a product, knowing that it works a particular way, and then expect the law to change in order to change the way that product works?
if we agree as a society that the way the product work does not fit with our society ideals, then yes, definitely ? Especially when the person buying it will likely not have a lot of information / put a lot of thought in the issue. Laws are meant to protect people from that.
if we agree as a society that the way the product work does not fit with our society ideals, then yes, definitely ? Especially when the person buying it will likely not have a lot of information / put a lot of thought in the issue. Laws are meant to protect people from that.
I’m not sure if all cases need to be handled this way, with the Prima Server the main transaction seems to be the right to access the movies.
With a device that needs to be used in every day life (proof: smart phone penetration in many countries, more recently, access to certain locations only with a Covid app) it makes sense to have stronger protections for consumers and other businesses.
With a device that needs to be used in every day life (proof: smart phone penetration in many countries, more recently, access to certain locations only with a Covid app) it makes sense to have stronger protections for consumers and other businesses.
IMO, In most circumstances companies shouldn't need to document their products to the point that anyone can recreate them or modify them. But I don't think companies should actively create mechanisms (legal or otherwise) that prevent tinkerers.
No, Can you Imagine a consumer PC manufacturer demanding such fee for Softwares using their hardware 10 years back and getting away with it? But in the age of Appstore(s), it would not be that alarming anymore if the computer manufacturer suddenly decides to lock the computer for non-store softwares instead of what's happening now(Warning, having to right-click to open etc.).
But the thing is, Apple has been stomping little guys forever and these Billion dollar gaming companies got benefited from it and only when the 30% cut has become too big of a chunk of their revenue; they are now making it as a David vs Goliath story. I had a retro arachnoid type game in Appstore for years which was under 'Arcade' category, when apple branded its gaming subscription service as 'Arcade', it forced me to change it to an irrelevant category.
But the thing is, Apple has been stomping little guys forever and these Billion dollar gaming companies got benefited from it and only when the 30% cut has become too big of a chunk of their revenue; they are now making it as a David vs Goliath story. I had a retro arachnoid type game in Appstore for years which was under 'Arcade' category, when apple branded its gaming subscription service as 'Arcade', it forced me to change it to an irrelevant category.
>In the spirit of this particular story, I'd like to ask HN the following question: Should closed hardware (that owns its entire stack) even be legal to sell?
You can have both ways. You can sell, but after 1 year (or 2) it becomes open.
You can have both ways. You can sell, but after 1 year (or 2) it becomes open.
What does the "entire stack" mean? Does it apply to e.g. cars?
> Should closed hardware (that owns its entire stack) even be legal to sell
Yes (practically), but with a small exception.
If you are the only provider of the hardware. For example if you own a single patent protecting any component of the hardware. You are the sole manufacturer of any reasonably unique component of the hardware. You are the only manufacturer putting components together in this combination. Etc. Then it should be illegal. It should be an anti-trust violation. You are using your monopoly on the hardware to create a monopoly on the software running on the hardware. Moreover attempting to do so should constitute patent misuse and invalidate any patents that you previously owned on the hardware [1].
If the hardware is completely commoditized, consumers have the option to buy practically identical hardware from a competitor, then it should not be illegal. It's hard to come up with examples of such hardware
[1] Patent misuse is a doctrine where if you attempt to use a patent to create a monopoly on something else, you lose the patent. It is rarely but not never used by the courts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_misuse
(I acknowledge this is a fairly extreme position, and that it is partially created by motivated reasoning. But it is the most principled position I can find to reach the conclusion that I want)
Yes (practically), but with a small exception.
If you are the only provider of the hardware. For example if you own a single patent protecting any component of the hardware. You are the sole manufacturer of any reasonably unique component of the hardware. You are the only manufacturer putting components together in this combination. Etc. Then it should be illegal. It should be an anti-trust violation. You are using your monopoly on the hardware to create a monopoly on the software running on the hardware. Moreover attempting to do so should constitute patent misuse and invalidate any patents that you previously owned on the hardware [1].
If the hardware is completely commoditized, consumers have the option to buy practically identical hardware from a competitor, then it should not be illegal. It's hard to come up with examples of such hardware
[1] Patent misuse is a doctrine where if you attempt to use a patent to create a monopoly on something else, you lose the patent. It is rarely but not never used by the courts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_misuse
(I acknowledge this is a fairly extreme position, and that it is partially created by motivated reasoning. But it is the most principled position I can find to reach the conclusion that I want)
> Should closed hardware (that owns its entire stack) even be legal to sell?
No.
> You can't argue that Prima Cinema should not be locked down (claiming anti-competitive behavior) because the paranoid film studios wouldn't even license their content if it wasn't.
You can actually. They demand this kind of DRM because they know the customer would sooner say yes to it than not get the movie. But that's only because they're in the better bargaining position as the only source for the movie -- it's leveraging the copyright monopoly into perfidious control over the device market. But they still, at the end of the day, want your money. Which means that if the thing they're insisting on is prohibited, they'll make it work without it.
Consider the general argument you're making. It's basically that if DRM was prohibited by law then Hollywood wouldn't distribute movies at all. But that's farcical -- they would have no revenue. Instead they would just distribute them without it, because they'd have no other option.
Okay, but what about your edge case, the really fancy one with the hardware anti-tampering. Wouldn't they at least not have that one? Still no, because it's still the same thing. The only point in having that is to try to push back the day when the movie is on all the pirate sites. But it's only to push it back while they're still distributing it using the higher margin distribution channels. If DRM was prohibited whatsoever then they couldn't use it there, so they would distribute it even there without it because otherwise there is no high margin early release market to protect.
No.
> You can't argue that Prima Cinema should not be locked down (claiming anti-competitive behavior) because the paranoid film studios wouldn't even license their content if it wasn't.
You can actually. They demand this kind of DRM because they know the customer would sooner say yes to it than not get the movie. But that's only because they're in the better bargaining position as the only source for the movie -- it's leveraging the copyright monopoly into perfidious control over the device market. But they still, at the end of the day, want your money. Which means that if the thing they're insisting on is prohibited, they'll make it work without it.
Consider the general argument you're making. It's basically that if DRM was prohibited by law then Hollywood wouldn't distribute movies at all. But that's farcical -- they would have no revenue. Instead they would just distribute them without it, because they'd have no other option.
Okay, but what about your edge case, the really fancy one with the hardware anti-tampering. Wouldn't they at least not have that one? Still no, because it's still the same thing. The only point in having that is to try to push back the day when the movie is on all the pirate sites. But it's only to push it back while they're still distributing it using the higher margin distribution channels. If DRM was prohibited whatsoever then they couldn't use it there, so they would distribute it even there without it because otherwise there is no high margin early release market to protect.
Which makes me think, what prevents me from putting a lens in front to the projector and directly imaging the projection into a camera sensor? Modern cameras can record lossless 48bpp equiv. video in 4K, it would pretty much be a 1:1 copy given sufficiently sophisticated optics.
Which leads me to the conclusion that the only reason why no one is ripping movies using Prima Cinema projectors and commodity grade hardware is the price. If they removed DRM it wouldn't make much of a difference, the limiting factor is already the price of the projector.
Which leads me to the conclusion that the only reason why no one is ripping movies using Prima Cinema projectors and commodity grade hardware is the price. If they removed DRM it wouldn't make much of a difference, the limiting factor is already the price of the projector.
I honestly think that DRM is very much like antivirus in the sense that the only reason anybody buys into it is that the companies who develop it pay sales reps to convince corporations that it's something they need when it's really just poisonous snake oil and paying money to someone to shoot you in the foot.
Well, there's some practical considerations - getting the refresh rate sync'd up, avoiding or filtering moire patterns out, getting the colors and such just right, things like that. However, it's possible enough that most theater projectors already have DRM restrictions that shut the system down if you start fiddling with the image path. The password to authorize an image path change is only handed out to supervisors. Evidently, access to such codes were so uncommon that, during the 3D movies era of last decade, most projectionists wouldn't bother swapping out 3D stereographic filters for 2D showings because it would require getting management involved.
Modern cameras will actually automatically sync their shutter rates to any flickering light sources. As for colors, they are designed to let you apply lookup-table based corrections by providing huge amounts of color information you can correct later.
Crucially, this approach wouldn't trigger anything because all of the equipment would work outside of the projector. You would add the lenses and camera aligned and just after the projector. In effect, the system would take the place of the screen in the image path. I don't know of any protected image screen that can detect tampering.
Crucially, this approach wouldn't trigger anything because all of the equipment would work outside of the projector. You would add the lenses and camera aligned and just after the projector. In effect, the system would take the place of the screen in the image path. I don't know of any protected image screen that can detect tampering.
The movies are probably watermarked, so they'd know who leaked them, and then sue the leakers for all they're worth.
This is how some video game demos are managed. Subtle color variations are used throughout the game window to uniquely finger print each copy of the game during media blackout.
Indeed. There are, however, ways around that.
I would be surprised if there wasn’t a theater projectionist in the warez scene that has a setup like the one you describe.
DRM is ridiculous because consuming the product is a side channel.
DRM is ridiculous because consuming the product is a side channel.
> Should closed hardware (that owns its entire stack) even be legal to sell?
I think the problem here arises not from the DRM (which I tend to believe is OK for clear cut cases like the above movie player), but from the universality of the smartphone device. Because of this universality, the phone is in a way "essential", so the "contract" you (as an end user) have with Apple is not able to encompass every use case of the device.
In this particular case, you might have bought the phone/tablet with the sole (or main - I know kids) purpose to play Fortnite on it. Now, because of politics, you can no longer use the phone for your initial intended purpose. Not because something you did, but because of something Apple and Epic did.
So it should be either forbidden for Apple, or they should be obliged to fully refund you, because the device is no longer usable for the original purpose you used it.
In an "ideal" world (with much less regulation), Apple would not be protected from such litigation (and now they are, because of the fine print) where users demand refund because of such things, but the world is not ideal. The regulation is there, so we should extend it onto Apple, who need to be "reduced" to something more like a utility company.
I think the problem here arises not from the DRM (which I tend to believe is OK for clear cut cases like the above movie player), but from the universality of the smartphone device. Because of this universality, the phone is in a way "essential", so the "contract" you (as an end user) have with Apple is not able to encompass every use case of the device.
In this particular case, you might have bought the phone/tablet with the sole (or main - I know kids) purpose to play Fortnite on it. Now, because of politics, you can no longer use the phone for your initial intended purpose. Not because something you did, but because of something Apple and Epic did.
So it should be either forbidden for Apple, or they should be obliged to fully refund you, because the device is no longer usable for the original purpose you used it.
In an "ideal" world (with much less regulation), Apple would not be protected from such litigation (and now they are, because of the fine print) where users demand refund because of such things, but the world is not ideal. The regulation is there, so we should extend it onto Apple, who need to be "reduced" to something more like a utility company.
No, we should not make it illegal.
They maybe should have to say their product cannot be modified on the tin. That'd let consumers choose. It'd also let competitors advertise an advantage, if it is such.
I am in favor of right-to-repair, but that's a different concern than what you're asking about.
They maybe should have to say their product cannot be modified on the tin. That'd let consumers choose. It'd also let competitors advertise an advantage, if it is such.
I am in favor of right-to-repair, but that's a different concern than what you're asking about.
> Moreover, Amazon couldn’t even tell users to visit Amazon.com, much less offer a link or, as Android allows, a webview of the store.
I was recently baffled by this on the Bandcamp app. You can't purchase music through their iOS app, and there isn't even a link to the website where you can purchase it. Instead there's just a "purchasing music is not supported on this device" message.
Likewise, on my own app, I had a blog post (webview) about our patreon (with a link, of course). And Apple flagged it during a random bug fix app update. So I had to edit the blog post and remove the link to our Patreon. And from what I could tell, there isn't even a way to use the proper Apple Pay/whatever system with Patreon subscriptions.
I was recently baffled by this on the Bandcamp app. You can't purchase music through their iOS app, and there isn't even a link to the website where you can purchase it. Instead there's just a "purchasing music is not supported on this device" message.
Likewise, on my own app, I had a blog post (webview) about our patreon (with a link, of course). And Apple flagged it during a random bug fix app update. So I had to edit the blog post and remove the link to our Patreon. And from what I could tell, there isn't even a way to use the proper Apple Pay/whatever system with Patreon subscriptions.
"This case asks us to draw the line between anticompetitive behavior, which is illegal under federal antitrust law, and hypercompetitive behavior, which is not."
I feel this contradiction within me when I find myself promoting and praising the growth hacks and 'doing whatever it takes' mentality startups employ and then subsequently realizing that at the same time I would probably shame and criticize the same tactics if the same company got large.
I feel this contradiction within me when I find myself promoting and praising the growth hacks and 'doing whatever it takes' mentality startups employ and then subsequently realizing that at the same time I would probably shame and criticize the same tactics if the same company got large.
You should not shame and criticize Apple for being anticompetitive, you should lament that the US is not a fair playing field when it comes to anti-trust investigations.
Apple is under no obligation to behave fairly. Many (not me) would argue the opposite.
Apple is under no obligation to behave fairly. Many (not me) would argue the opposite.
That's why I try to reflect on my feelings when I can because they aren't rational. I have to remind myself it's the fiduciary duty of companies to take legal advantage of any opportunity the law gives it.
I’m not confident that’s an accurate description. Companies are certainly beholden to their shareholders, but e.g. there’s no legal requirement to maximize profits.
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co...
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co...
That is not a pragmatic view. Law works on assumption that most of the society will follow them (under moral or social pressure) and few rogue people will be punished appropriately. If everyone starts breaking the law, no Police/Govt will be able to contain it.
That gets at the crux of the problem: hyper-competitive behavior can become anti-competitive when you are powerful enough and have enough leverage to make anti-competitive behavior part of your strategy. The line between "anti-competitive" and "hyper-competitive" today isn't a line, it's a big messy gray area.
It's pretty hard for an underdog or tiny startup to be anti-competitive because they simply don't have the leverage to do it. They can still be dishonest or immoral, it's just hard to be monopolistic when you're not anywhere close to being a monopoly.
It's pretty hard for an underdog or tiny startup to be anti-competitive because they simply don't have the leverage to do it. They can still be dishonest or immoral, it's just hard to be monopolistic when you're not anywhere close to being a monopoly.
Uber is the prime example of this. They broke many laws and regulations in order to provide a better product/user experience without much punishment to get to where they are today. If Uber started breaking more laws today they would be shot down very quick.
> If Uber started breaking more laws today they would be shot down very quick.
Unfortunately, I don’t see this as being true. I’d be willing to bet they’re still breaking laws and ordinances today and we’re just not aware of it.
Part of it is the news cycle today, we’d never see a story about Uber breaking some municipal laws with the state of the world as it is. And after all, they have tons of cash, which is what breaking laws requires.
Until they suffer material operational pain from doing wrong, they’re not going to change.
Unfortunately, I don’t see this as being true. I’d be willing to bet they’re still breaking laws and ordinances today and we’re just not aware of it.
Part of it is the news cycle today, we’d never see a story about Uber breaking some municipal laws with the state of the world as it is. And after all, they have tons of cash, which is what breaking laws requires.
Until they suffer material operational pain from doing wrong, they’re not going to change.
Besides for the employee/contractor stuff, I thought Uber was mostly exploiting a legal loophole for cars for hire v. hailed taxi distinction.
The problem is that we’re terrible at assessing the morality of companies. We tend not to care about what startups do, even though the “doing whatever it takes” mentality sometimes leads to deeply concerning behavior (i.e. Instacart/door dash tipping dark patterns, Zoom security practices, online advertising startups generally, etc.)
Part of it is that business models are getting increasingly complex, and it’s getting harder for laypeople to really grok how a particular company makes money, especially when consumer data is involved.
The public tolerates quite a bit of unethical behavior by companies if they determine the value of the product to be worth it (i.e. Facebook). And some entrepreneurs see these examples and think that there are no consequences. There really is no concrete mechanism to assess morality in companies. Marketing gets to dictate most of that.
Part of it is that business models are getting increasingly complex, and it’s getting harder for laypeople to really grok how a particular company makes money, especially when consumer data is involved.
The public tolerates quite a bit of unethical behavior by companies if they determine the value of the product to be worth it (i.e. Facebook). And some entrepreneurs see these examples and think that there are no consequences. There really is no concrete mechanism to assess morality in companies. Marketing gets to dictate most of that.
I think that's ok though. I think that we handicap ourselves by trying to find universalizing systems and rules, and then throwing our hands up when we can't do so. I also think that this sort of thing is tacitly encouraged by incumbents because usually giving up benefits them.
Size matters. If a child hits you, you scold them and tell them not to do it, but you're likely no worse for wear. If an adult hits you, they could kill you, we call it assault and it has legal consequences.
The contradiction you feel is like saying "well I don't think we should punish children the same way we punish adults, so maybe we shouldn't punish anyone?". I know that when I put it into this type of metaphor it seems obvious, I'm not trying to be insulting, merely that when you change the context we suddenly see that it does makes sense to weigh different situations with different consequences differently.
Trying to find a common legal framework to cover a 2 person ramen startup and the continent spanning wealth and power of Jeff Bezos and Amazon, or Tim Cook and Apple is something that seems fraught, and the consequences for the actions that each group takes are vastly different. I think we shouldn't be afraid to judge or regulate them differently as well.
Size matters. If a child hits you, you scold them and tell them not to do it, but you're likely no worse for wear. If an adult hits you, they could kill you, we call it assault and it has legal consequences.
The contradiction you feel is like saying "well I don't think we should punish children the same way we punish adults, so maybe we shouldn't punish anyone?". I know that when I put it into this type of metaphor it seems obvious, I'm not trying to be insulting, merely that when you change the context we suddenly see that it does makes sense to weigh different situations with different consequences differently.
Trying to find a common legal framework to cover a 2 person ramen startup and the continent spanning wealth and power of Jeff Bezos and Amazon, or Tim Cook and Apple is something that seems fraught, and the consequences for the actions that each group takes are vastly different. I think we shouldn't be afraid to judge or regulate them differently as well.
A lot of things are totally fine until they get too large (cancer).
A lot of the time, the only rule for healthy ecosystem is that players don’t get too big. Players getting too big means monopoly, cartel, etc.
A lot of the time, the only rule for healthy ecosystem is that players don’t get too big. Players getting too big means monopoly, cartel, etc.
>This is not a console you play to entertain yourself, or even a PC for work: it is the foundation of modern life
OMFG. Is it just because I'm 56? Is it just because I've spent my entire adult life connected to the internet (barring a few early years where it was just Bitnet)? Is it because I helped start the biggest e-commerce company in the anglo/eurosphere? Is it that I spend all day in front of screens, connected to the entire goddam planet? Is it that I'm a grumpy old curmudgeon ?
The idea that the iPhone (or any network-connected portabl computing device) is the center of modern life just needs to die already.
If this pandemic didn't provide it already, just these few things are far more "central to modern life" than your goddam smartphone:
Your smartphone is not the center of your life. You have a variety of options for contemporary communication, and the fact that a bunch of you have decided that the most important one is the one that fits in your pocket and works anywhere there's a cell tower within range doesn't change the fact that it's the icing on top of the cake that is the rest of your life. It is totally amazing to be able to do what you can do with a contemporary smartphone, and no doubt they will get even more amazing.
But they are NOT the center of modern life, they are the black mirror-becoming-black hole sucking so many other components of human existence into their mundane, pedestrian and constrained vision of life.
OMFG. Is it just because I'm 56? Is it just because I've spent my entire adult life connected to the internet (barring a few early years where it was just Bitnet)? Is it because I helped start the biggest e-commerce company in the anglo/eurosphere? Is it that I spend all day in front of screens, connected to the entire goddam planet? Is it that I'm a grumpy old curmudgeon ?
The idea that the iPhone (or any network-connected portabl computing device) is the center of modern life just needs to die already.
If this pandemic didn't provide it already, just these few things are far more "central to modern life" than your goddam smartphone:
* a stable, diverse healthy food supply
* trash pickup
* a functioning, non-overloaded, sensibly priced and paid for healthcare system
* a mail/package distribution system
* fuel stations for your vehicle, if you have one
* investigative, non-suck-up journalism
* electricity (to charge your smartphone, naturally)
Your smartphone is not the center of your life. You have a variety of options for contemporary communication, and the fact that a bunch of you have decided that the most important one is the one that fits in your pocket and works anywhere there's a cell tower within range doesn't change the fact that it's the icing on top of the cake that is the rest of your life. It is totally amazing to be able to do what you can do with a contemporary smartphone, and no doubt they will get even more amazing.
But they are NOT the center of modern life, they are the black mirror-becoming-black hole sucking so many other components of human existence into their mundane, pedestrian and constrained vision of life.
It is honestly the center of modern life to many young people.
Half the things you mention are oblivious to the younger population. They don't have a vehicle, don't use physical mail (paper letters), and couldn't care less about journalism.
Consider somebody trying to get a job in modern society. The phone is needed to apply. The phone is needed to do the interview. The phone is needed to take a picture of your id and receive the contract when you're hired.
Half the things you mention are oblivious to the younger population. They don't have a vehicle, don't use physical mail (paper letters), and couldn't care less about journalism.
Consider somebody trying to get a job in modern society. The phone is needed to apply. The phone is needed to do the interview. The phone is needed to take a picture of your id and receive the contract when you're hired.
>Consider somebody trying to get a job in modern society. The phone is needed to apply. The phone is needed to do the interview. The phone is needed to take a picture of your id and receive the contract when you're hired.
That makes it a very useful tool in modern life. Not the center of modern life.
>They don't have a vehicle
Fuel for the bus or subway, then.
>don't use physical mail (paper letters)
and they don't vote? or participate in the census?
>couldn't care less about journalism.
doesn't match the young people I know.
That makes it a very useful tool in modern life. Not the center of modern life.
>They don't have a vehicle
Fuel for the bus or subway, then.
>don't use physical mail (paper letters)
and they don't vote? or participate in the census?
>couldn't care less about journalism.
doesn't match the young people I know.
Dopamine addiction is a real thing and most people are completely unaware they even have it. That's why they think so highly of phones.
Recently linked on HN:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/2017...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/2017...
Closed hardware should be opened when unsupported... meaning if apple cannot support old hardware anymore they should open it by law. There are so many ipads and phones that could still be in use but arent because you need to run their software. We need to stop the planet to be an electronics garbage bin. Same when they start with the new chip on apple computers.
They’re discontinued, but they don’t prevent you from doing what you want to those old devices. Sure, a first generation iPhone/iPod touch only runs iPhone OS 3.1.3, but you can still jailbreak it and do what you want.
People don't get the console difference
I have a PS4
I can buy the game digitally from Sony
I can buy the digital code which activates on PS4 from Amazon or sometimes even straight from the publisher
I can buy a physical copy from countless retail stores both off and online from Walmart to BestBuy to Amazon to Gamestop
I can sell my used physical copy on Facebook Marketplace, Ebay, or Craigslist
This is the difference. And it's much bigger than people realize.
I have a PS4
I can buy the game digitally from Sony
I can buy the digital code which activates on PS4 from Amazon or sometimes even straight from the publisher
I can buy a physical copy from countless retail stores both off and online from Walmart to BestBuy to Amazon to Gamestop
I can sell my used physical copy on Facebook Marketplace, Ebay, or Craigslist
This is the difference. And it's much bigger than people realize.
Every one of those other than the used physical copy involves a large cut to Sony.
It is true, there is no physical media for Android or iOS purchases.
It is true, there is no physical media for Android or iOS purchases.
I have a PS4
I can pay Sony to take a cut from the developer.
I can pay Amazon and Sony to take a cut from the developer.
I can pay retail stores to take a 50% or more cut, and then Sony takes a cut.
I can regain some of the cut that I paid to a retail store, so that the developer gets nothing, by selling it on Ebay or craigslist.
You are always buying the game from Sony, and Sony is always getting their cut. Your options are whether to involve other rent seekers or to just fuck over the developers completely.
I can pay Sony to take a cut from the developer.
I can pay Amazon and Sony to take a cut from the developer.
I can pay retail stores to take a 50% or more cut, and then Sony takes a cut.
I can regain some of the cut that I paid to a retail store, so that the developer gets nothing, by selling it on Ebay or craigslist.
You are always buying the game from Sony, and Sony is always getting their cut. Your options are whether to involve other rent seekers or to just fuck over the developers completely.
all this because Epic didn't want to pay apple's app store cut and thought they could bully their way through blatant ToS violations. Move fast and ask forgiveness later, the Silicon Valley way!
It's pretty funny to look back and read the "whether or not apple backs down, Epic will have won a victory!" thinkpieces from last week.
Epic thought they could leverage their IPs into forcing Apple to play ball. Surely Apple wouldn't dare let Fortnite get deplatformed (as the game updates on without iOS). Surely Apple wouldn't dare let Unreal Engine get deplatformed as the OS updates onwards without it.
Turns out Apple does dare, and now third party developers are going to pay the price for Epic's arrogance. To be very clear: nothing is going to piss Apple off quicker than fucking with their cut of the revenue, this was eminently foreseeable and a blatant violation of ToS and there was no way Apple wasn't going to react. You should be mad at Epic here for trying to play silicon valley games with your products, not Apple.
The fact that Epic would then take cuts from third party developers in this app store is just the icing on this cake. They want to be the ones running the walled garden, nothing more.
Steam manages to get along with Apple just fine - they went ahead and made a revenue sharing agreement, and they haven't had a problem. Epic wanted to keep it all themselves, be the ones running the walled garden.
This is Epic trying to run the playbook that many of you have normalized, no different from Uber trying to bully their way out of background checks by threatening to pull out of Dallas, or threatening to pull out of California to bully their way out of paying for their employees' healthcare. Then cue the waterworks about those heartless regulators putting all those innocent employees at risk.
Only this time - it’s Epic who’s using your livelihoods as leverage for their power play. Very ironic!
All so that they can make $1 off a llama skin for bideo james instead of $0.92. Just like the Uber thing is so Uber doesn’t have to pay 20 bucks to run a background check. Playing games with people's lives so you can run a little fatter profit margin, that's the silicon valley way.
It's pretty funny to look back and read the "whether or not apple backs down, Epic will have won a victory!" thinkpieces from last week.
Epic thought they could leverage their IPs into forcing Apple to play ball. Surely Apple wouldn't dare let Fortnite get deplatformed (as the game updates on without iOS). Surely Apple wouldn't dare let Unreal Engine get deplatformed as the OS updates onwards without it.
Turns out Apple does dare, and now third party developers are going to pay the price for Epic's arrogance. To be very clear: nothing is going to piss Apple off quicker than fucking with their cut of the revenue, this was eminently foreseeable and a blatant violation of ToS and there was no way Apple wasn't going to react. You should be mad at Epic here for trying to play silicon valley games with your products, not Apple.
The fact that Epic would then take cuts from third party developers in this app store is just the icing on this cake. They want to be the ones running the walled garden, nothing more.
Steam manages to get along with Apple just fine - they went ahead and made a revenue sharing agreement, and they haven't had a problem. Epic wanted to keep it all themselves, be the ones running the walled garden.
This is Epic trying to run the playbook that many of you have normalized, no different from Uber trying to bully their way out of background checks by threatening to pull out of Dallas, or threatening to pull out of California to bully their way out of paying for their employees' healthcare. Then cue the waterworks about those heartless regulators putting all those innocent employees at risk.
Only this time - it’s Epic who’s using your livelihoods as leverage for their power play. Very ironic!
All so that they can make $1 off a llama skin for bideo james instead of $0.92. Just like the Uber thing is so Uber doesn’t have to pay 20 bucks to run a background check. Playing games with people's lives so you can run a little fatter profit margin, that's the silicon valley way.
It seems like Epic is engaged in some hypocrisy here. From what i can tell, if I want to generate content for Fortnite (skins, mods, etc) I can do so, but their terms are that I give it to them and they can turn around and commercialize it for their benefit. I do not see a way that I could monetize my creation. So in the platform that is Fortnite, they do not even allow me to make 70%, instead taking any contribution as their property without remuneration. I prefer Apple's model to this by far.
Honestly, I don't see the big deal. You pay for vendor lock-in, you get vendor lock-in. Apple doesn't have a "monopoly" on smartphones. If anybody wants variety, they can get an android or invest in a PinePhone or Librem5.
Epic complaining about being shut out of the App store is like Dominoes complaining about being shut out of that private university where all the rich kids go. They should just go over to Android where, if they want to, they can make their own app store.
> My preferred outcome would see Apple maintaining its control of app installation. I treasure and depend on the openness of PCs and Macs, but I am also relieved that the iPhone is so dependable for those less technically savvy than me.
This, I certainly don't agree with. Android has more app stores and is still quite easy to use and dependable for the less technically savvy. Apple getting more App stores won't change how "easy" the iPhone is to use.
Epic complaining about being shut out of the App store is like Dominoes complaining about being shut out of that private university where all the rich kids go. They should just go over to Android where, if they want to, they can make their own app store.
> My preferred outcome would see Apple maintaining its control of app installation. I treasure and depend on the openness of PCs and Macs, but I am also relieved that the iPhone is so dependable for those less technically savvy than me.
This, I certainly don't agree with. Android has more app stores and is still quite easy to use and dependable for the less technically savvy. Apple getting more App stores won't change how "easy" the iPhone is to use.
It's weird how Epic has no problem with closed hardware consoles...
How big of a cut do they have to pay on closed hardware consoles?
30%, amazingly enough.
I'm sure they do but the situation is a bit different. Its a bigger leap for the consoles to implement a third party store than Apple. They don't allow unsigned code on consumer devices and the cert process is even more entailed than Apple. There's no tooling or infrastructure to install third party apps onto the consoles outside of the first party store. Apple has a ready made developer flow that is artificially blocked through provisioning profiles and the like.
If I wanted a PS4 game I could go to gamestop or walmart and buy it. I can buy games used. As closed as consoles are there's much more choice in where you get your software than iOS devices.
Regardless of where you buy it, Sony takes a cut--unless you buy used.
And IAP, which is the subject under discussion, is 100% through Sony, and Sony still gets 30%.
And IAP, which is the subject under discussion, is 100% through Sony, and Sony still gets 30%.
This is what screams "publicity stunt" to me. Especially the 2-tier pricing in the iOS app, whereas on consoles everyone[1] got the 20% discount even though Epic is still paying Sony/Microsoft their 30% cut.
[1] https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-m...
[1] https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-m...
The counter argument (from the article). Emphasis mine.
>[smartphones are] not a console you play to entertain yourself, or even a PC for work: it is the foundation of modern life
IMHO, this is a perfectly valid argument.
To be clear, I have no idea how that could be legislated, nor do I necessarily think it should be. I'm only saying that it's easy to see why they aren't the same thing.
>[smartphones are] not a console you play to entertain yourself, or even a PC for work: it is the foundation of modern life
IMHO, this is a perfectly valid argument.
To be clear, I have no idea how that could be legislated, nor do I necessarily think it should be. I'm only saying that it's easy to see why they aren't the same thing.
A lot of the posts here are making points that I don't think a judge or jury will care for. This is clearly a case of two companies trying to commoditize their complements. End of story.
Epic doesn't have a problem with Apple running an app store, despite what their marketing on this legal issue makes out. Epic has an app store and they charge ~12%. Given my experience with Epic, I am certain that if they had gotten here first, they would be charging the same 30% that Valve charges. Epic's problem is that Apple wont let them run their app store on Apple's stack. Epic wants to run their software everywhere, and commoditize the platforms/OS/hardware.
Apple wants to do the opposite.
IANAL, but I haven't seen any evidence that Apple should not be allowed to do so.
If Apple were the only mobile device available, then we might have a monopoly conversation. But it isn't, so we wont. It isn't even the majority platform in the US.
Where are these points coming from? They aren't from the perspective of a customer.
I am a customer, and I will continue to buy iPhone because of their total integration. Android is a shitshow and you are welcome to it. "Well, I want iOS, except for..." yeah that is Android.
So what is really underneath all this? The money. Epic wants to make more money from Apple's customers. And it wants to do so by destroying the value that Apple customers like me choose over Android.
Samsung makes phones that are at least as good as iPhone.
Android is an OS that lets owners do all of the things that people here are demanding Apple allow them to do.
Yet, strangely, rather than everyone here advocating that we all move to Android, instead, we are demanding that Apple become like Android.
Because nobody here is actually interested in what Apple customers want. They just want access to those customers, even if it means fucking those customers over.
Epic doesn't have a problem with Apple running an app store, despite what their marketing on this legal issue makes out. Epic has an app store and they charge ~12%. Given my experience with Epic, I am certain that if they had gotten here first, they would be charging the same 30% that Valve charges. Epic's problem is that Apple wont let them run their app store on Apple's stack. Epic wants to run their software everywhere, and commoditize the platforms/OS/hardware.
Apple wants to do the opposite.
IANAL, but I haven't seen any evidence that Apple should not be allowed to do so.
If Apple were the only mobile device available, then we might have a monopoly conversation. But it isn't, so we wont. It isn't even the majority platform in the US.
Where are these points coming from? They aren't from the perspective of a customer.
I am a customer, and I will continue to buy iPhone because of their total integration. Android is a shitshow and you are welcome to it. "Well, I want iOS, except for..." yeah that is Android.
So what is really underneath all this? The money. Epic wants to make more money from Apple's customers. And it wants to do so by destroying the value that Apple customers like me choose over Android.
Samsung makes phones that are at least as good as iPhone.
Android is an OS that lets owners do all of the things that people here are demanding Apple allow them to do.
Yet, strangely, rather than everyone here advocating that we all move to Android, instead, we are demanding that Apple become like Android.
Because nobody here is actually interested in what Apple customers want. They just want access to those customers, even if it means fucking those customers over.
Here I give my analysis of what the best solution could be. Would like to know your thoughts too.
0. Lower rate from 30% to 15% -Apple still has monopoly, nothing changes.
1. Side loading apps: Not good! malicious apps can run amok, eg. $BIG_CORP$ will say - you will get 20$ credits if you sideload our app, and then surveil everything that is possible on the device. Here, we expect an average user to give all the permission that the app requests for.
2. allow secondary app stores: -not good as it depends on the quality of enforcement in secondary app store. For Apple, it is in their interest to maintain app quality in their appstore to maintain overall good user experience in their device, but motivations are not same for secondary app store. May allow malicious apps which deteriorate the user experience/privacy similar to 1. And there will be a state where you will have to install 10s of app store just to install specific programs which is also not ideal.
3. Allow secondary payment methods: -Average user will have to give up their payment info to everyone who asks for it. Most of them will not be trustworthy nor we can expect all of them to maintain good security standards for saving payment info.
The biggest culprit of all this drama is Apple does not allow secondary payment inside apps AND also, if you have secondary payment outside of app, they do not allow that price to be lower. There is no competition, thus Apple can get away with whatever it chooses to. Thus the monopoly.
4. SOLUTION:
a) charge a flat fee for reviewing/serving apps. If necessary, linearly increase it based on daily active users if they need more resource to support that app.
b) allow secondary payment providers (whitelisted only).
c) allow secondary payment price to be lower than Apple.
With this solution, there will be competition between payment providers which will drive the price down. Only whitelisting few payment methods which are trustable eg applepay, googlepay, paypal, stripe, etc will maintain security of payment data.
0. Lower rate from 30% to 15% -Apple still has monopoly, nothing changes.
1. Side loading apps: Not good! malicious apps can run amok, eg. $BIG_CORP$ will say - you will get 20$ credits if you sideload our app, and then surveil everything that is possible on the device. Here, we expect an average user to give all the permission that the app requests for.
2. allow secondary app stores: -not good as it depends on the quality of enforcement in secondary app store. For Apple, it is in their interest to maintain app quality in their appstore to maintain overall good user experience in their device, but motivations are not same for secondary app store. May allow malicious apps which deteriorate the user experience/privacy similar to 1. And there will be a state where you will have to install 10s of app store just to install specific programs which is also not ideal.
3. Allow secondary payment methods: -Average user will have to give up their payment info to everyone who asks for it. Most of them will not be trustworthy nor we can expect all of them to maintain good security standards for saving payment info.
The biggest culprit of all this drama is Apple does not allow secondary payment inside apps AND also, if you have secondary payment outside of app, they do not allow that price to be lower. There is no competition, thus Apple can get away with whatever it chooses to. Thus the monopoly.
4. SOLUTION:
a) charge a flat fee for reviewing/serving apps. If necessary, linearly increase it based on daily active users if they need more resource to support that app.
b) allow secondary payment providers (whitelisted only).
c) allow secondary payment price to be lower than Apple.
With this solution, there will be competition between payment providers which will drive the price down. Only whitelisting few payment methods which are trustable eg applepay, googlepay, paypal, stripe, etc will maintain security of payment data.
Allow side loading of apps. But broadcast that this device has sideloaded apps via an API. So banking apps can be disabled themselves if there are sideloaded apps. Block iOS updates. Also voids warranty.
Secondary payment method can be implemented along with apple's own payment system just like how it is for `Sign in with Apple` . If you have `Login with Facebook`, then there should be `Sign in with Apple`. The alternative payment option can be turned on and off in settings. If it is turned on, then no more Support from Apple
Secondary payment method can be implemented along with apple's own payment system just like how it is for `Sign in with Apple` . If you have `Login with Facebook`, then there should be `Sign in with Apple`. The alternative payment option can be turned on and off in settings. If it is turned on, then no more Support from Apple
> but the benefit [the App Store arrangement gave] to developers was much less clear cut.
I disagree, I think the fact that so many developers built apps for iPhone supports my point. Apple gave developers everything they needed, users with dollars to spend.
I disagree, I think the fact that so many developers built apps for iPhone supports my point. Apple gave developers everything they needed, users with dollars to spend.
Those users would always be there. If there was another App Store instead they would be there. If there were app stores competing there would be users with dollars to spend on both. The App Store doesn't provide users because it does something special, it provides them because there is no other option to install apps on your expensive smart phone/tablet without using it.
> My preferred outcome would see Apple maintaining its control of app installation. I treasure and depend on the openness of PCs and Macs, but I am also relieved that the iPhone is so dependable for those less technically savvy than me.
I think people overestimate the importance/benefit of such level of control over instalation of apps. Yes, Wintel was plagued by malware viruses but Mac/Linux/Unix wasn't. I don't think the benefit (protecting users from threats) outweighs the drawbacks (not having control of device, not allowing ecosystem of paid thinkerers to help Muggles personalize their devices) of having such closed approach.
I think people overestimate the importance/benefit of such level of control over instalation of apps. Yes, Wintel was plagued by malware viruses but Mac/Linux/Unix wasn't. I don't think the benefit (protecting users from threats) outweighs the drawbacks (not having control of device, not allowing ecosystem of paid thinkerers to help Muggles personalize their devices) of having such closed approach.
[deleted]
I find the comparison that many people make to game consoles very short minded.
It should be clear to everyone that the smartphone will become more and more integrated into our lives to a point where at some point you cannot participate in society without a phone. Sure, many things have alternative options or are limited to tech enthusiasts but other options become less favorable more and more.
The alarm clock in the morning, communicating with friends and family, paying for things, doing your taxes, unlocking your door. Also unlocking your car is coming and there is even early talk of putting your driver’s license in your phone. Getting driving directions, some people use their phone as an artificial pancreas system. (https://androidaps.readthedocs.io/en/latest/)
The smartphone has become the personal computing device.
A gaming console is something completely different, there I'm perfectly fine if a company wants to control the environment. I would prefer an open system but Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft controlling the games I can play is not even close to the limitations apple creates with their ecosystems on society. Google allows for third-party stores on their Android system, I would be doable for Apple to allow the same.
It should be clear to everyone that the smartphone will become more and more integrated into our lives to a point where at some point you cannot participate in society without a phone. Sure, many things have alternative options or are limited to tech enthusiasts but other options become less favorable more and more.
The alarm clock in the morning, communicating with friends and family, paying for things, doing your taxes, unlocking your door. Also unlocking your car is coming and there is even early talk of putting your driver’s license in your phone. Getting driving directions, some people use their phone as an artificial pancreas system. (https://androidaps.readthedocs.io/en/latest/)
The smartphone has become the personal computing device.
A gaming console is something completely different, there I'm perfectly fine if a company wants to control the environment. I would prefer an open system but Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft controlling the games I can play is not even close to the limitations apple creates with their ecosystems on society. Google allows for third-party stores on their Android system, I would be doable for Apple to allow the same.
Epic has billions of dollars and a lot of customers. Microsoft has billions of dollars.
There are a wide range of other parties that dislike Apple’s policies.
Why don’t they build their own platform with their own exclusive and attractive content?
I can see two options:
1. A full blown phone. Hard to do? Perhaps, but if Apple and a Google really aren’t competitive, then it should be possible to take customers away from Apple over the next few years, especially if your device has the games that teens want and can’t get from Apple.
2. Don’t start when a phone. Make a gaming handheld with exclusive content - Epic’s super popular titles, plus XBox streaming. Sell it for $200. Basically an iPod for games, done right. If Nintendo can sell handheld consoles it’s obvious Epic and Microsoft can.
Then just build this out with phone functions, and a great browser for SPA’s etc, leveraging flutter, and eat Apple’s lunch from the bottom up in classic low-end disruption style.
Bonus: have an open bootloader - bootcamp style so that enthusiasts can hack the thing.
#2 seems like they could have a product on the market next year if they wanted.
I could see this strategy easily forking the market into iPhones for productivity and Epic devices for fun, and causing both segments to improve at a greater pace.
Apple simply isn’t unassailable if people are willing to put in the sustained effort needed to compete with them, but to do so will take a similar sustained effort over a similar time period to what it took them to obtain their position.
There are a wide range of other parties that dislike Apple’s policies.
Why don’t they build their own platform with their own exclusive and attractive content?
I can see two options:
1. A full blown phone. Hard to do? Perhaps, but if Apple and a Google really aren’t competitive, then it should be possible to take customers away from Apple over the next few years, especially if your device has the games that teens want and can’t get from Apple.
2. Don’t start when a phone. Make a gaming handheld with exclusive content - Epic’s super popular titles, plus XBox streaming. Sell it for $200. Basically an iPod for games, done right. If Nintendo can sell handheld consoles it’s obvious Epic and Microsoft can.
Then just build this out with phone functions, and a great browser for SPA’s etc, leveraging flutter, and eat Apple’s lunch from the bottom up in classic low-end disruption style.
Bonus: have an open bootloader - bootcamp style so that enthusiasts can hack the thing.
#2 seems like they could have a product on the market next year if they wanted.
I could see this strategy easily forking the market into iPhones for productivity and Epic devices for fun, and causing both segments to improve at a greater pace.
Apple simply isn’t unassailable if people are willing to put in the sustained effort needed to compete with them, but to do so will take a similar sustained effort over a similar time period to what it took them to obtain their position.
A Nintendo like gaming device with decent phone can be a viable alternative. Gaming i think generates a huge revenue for both iOS and Play Store. Those powerful cpu/gpu are simply getting wasted with current mobile games.
>Why don’t they build their own platform with their own exclusive and attractive content?
They don't want to spend their cash to do the R&D, and build up the network of stores and customer support required to be able to compete with Apple.
They don't want to spend their cash to do the R&D, and build up the network of stores and customer support required to be able to compete with Apple.
Apple has a monopoly on making apple products to sell in apple stores? Quick call the feds!
Seriously, the game Apple/Google/etc have been playing has been pretty anti-consumer at times, and downright unjust at other times. That said, Epic's (cough cough tencent's) only move here is to turn this dumpster into a dumpster fire and I don't see that as a particularly helpful direction to go in.
Seriously, the game Apple/Google/etc have been playing has been pretty anti-consumer at times, and downright unjust at other times. That said, Epic's (cough cough tencent's) only move here is to turn this dumpster into a dumpster fire and I don't see that as a particularly helpful direction to go in.
Int the US, I believe it accounts for about 70% of ponds, which is a lot. Globally not so much but still the biggest by revenue, and has all the elites.
Part of the problem I have with the notion that Apple (and Google) need such tight control over their app stores is that they do such a bad job of it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/technology/more-iphone-fa... https://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/... https://www.wired.com/story/apple-app-store-malware-click-fr... https://crappygames.miraheze.org/wiki/Category:IOS_Games
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/technology/more-iphone-fa... https://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/... https://www.wired.com/story/apple-app-store-malware-click-fr... https://crappygames.miraheze.org/wiki/Category:IOS_Games
How is this any different from PlayStation, Nintendo, and Xbox services? Not only do they get a cut of all of that revenue from those services and DLC, but the companies have to even pay for the right to make software for these devices. so are we going to start attacking Nintendo now? At some point I think a manufacturer should be allowed to manage this kind of stuff.
Those aren't general purpose devices, but also they've got a smaller userbase. iPhones and iPads have sold more than two billion devices. All the consoles combined probably do not come close. Especially in an anti-trust lawsuit, a bigger target is easier.
Software is speech
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-estab....
You can read any book, watch any movie, listen to any music, but not run any code. That limits expression. Plenty of topics are off limits because the only way to run them is as apps and apple doesn't allow them.
Some of you would apparently be okay of Apple restricted movies, music, and books to only movies, music, and books apple sells and made it impossible to view/read/listen otherwise including removing the browser? Because that's effectively what they've done for apps.
There should be no distinction. Either the platform is open to all media or the platform is a form of suppression and control of ideas those in control don't approve of.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-estab....
You can read any book, watch any movie, listen to any music, but not run any code. That limits expression. Plenty of topics are off limits because the only way to run them is as apps and apple doesn't allow them.
Some of you would apparently be okay of Apple restricted movies, music, and books to only movies, music, and books apple sells and made it impossible to view/read/listen otherwise including removing the browser? Because that's effectively what they've done for apps.
There should be no distinction. Either the platform is open to all media or the platform is a form of suppression and control of ideas those in control don't approve of.
I think apple's 30% cut of app purchases is too much and I think they know this. With that being said I think this is part of apple for a long-term plan.
iPhones are getting more expensive to build considering all the tech their cramming into each iPhone and other products. eventually they might get so expensive that Apple would be forced to sell them at a price that will not work well wih consumers. If you think about how much apple has invested in services that only function on their devices, I think apple will start selling products at a loss, with the plan to make that money back and more through services they offer on devices. In the same way that Sony and Microsoft lose money with every console sold, but recoup those loses many times over with games purchase fees.
iPhones are getting more expensive to build considering all the tech their cramming into each iPhone and other products. eventually they might get so expensive that Apple would be forced to sell them at a price that will not work well wih consumers. If you think about how much apple has invested in services that only function on their devices, I think apple will start selling products at a loss, with the plan to make that money back and more through services they offer on devices. In the same way that Sony and Microsoft lose money with every console sold, but recoup those loses many times over with games purchase fees.
A 30% just seems wrong to me. It just screams: we have a monopoly, if you want to build something that everybody around can you use, if you want to be a successful startup, you’ll have to give us a third of what you charge. There’s no other way: we’ll be your middle man forever.
Apple lost track of their value exchange proposition and has now resorted to extortion. Yay 2020.
IANAL, but I think the strategy epic will use is called tying in anti-trust law. That means obtaining an unfair advantage for one line of business by requiring its use in another line of business. The android app market is big in numbers, even bigger than the number of iPhones, and therefore it may be difficult to call the App Store a monopoly. In Epic’s case, while the App Store may or may not be a monopoly, forcing anyone who uses the App Store to use Apple’s payment services as well may be the illegal part in the eyes of the court.
I see streaming video games as simply videos that the user is able to interact with. Perhaps this is a false comparison, but does Apple collection commission on ad revenue from YouTube ads?
Unfortunately the App Store 30% cut is Apple's revenue cocaine and it will be really hard for the rest of us to stop such addiction without multi-national governments help.
Simplest compromise I've heard so far is for Apple's cut to scale with size of IAP/subscription.
30% cut starting at $0.99 purchases. As mentioned this barely covers processing fees.
20% cut starting at $9.99.
10% cut starting at $49.99.
Not only does this fix the Epic, Netflix, Hey, etc issue where high value or high volume txns get unfairly middlemanned by Apple. It also incentivizes developers away from the "race to the bottom" effect that made everything a crummy $0.99 microtransaction in the first place.
30% cut starting at $0.99 purchases. As mentioned this barely covers processing fees.
20% cut starting at $9.99.
10% cut starting at $49.99.
Not only does this fix the Epic, Netflix, Hey, etc issue where high value or high volume txns get unfairly middlemanned by Apple. It also incentivizes developers away from the "race to the bottom" effect that made everything a crummy $0.99 microtransaction in the first place.
The simplest compromise is to let me easily install what I need from whatever source I want on the goddamn hardware that I own. The rest will follow from that.
Not versed enough in law to argue about this, but from a customer point of view, I hope that Apple wins as I would hate the iOS ecosystem to end up being a Wild West like the Android.
I am happy to pay for a premium to have peace of mind. To give an analogy it’s kind of like gaming console vs PC gaming where I am happy to sacrifice a bit of performance in exchange of getting rid of all shady game-specific launchers
I am happy to pay for a premium to have peace of mind. To give an analogy it’s kind of like gaming console vs PC gaming where I am happy to sacrifice a bit of performance in exchange of getting rid of all shady game-specific launchers
You're not addressing the real issue here though - should Apple get a cut of the revenue from in game purchases? Once you download the game and are looking to purchase more of the game you've already let the app pass your "shady wild west" internal warning system.
Yes, for the simple reason that if they don’t, it opens a loophole for everyone to avoid the 30% cut altogether.
Also from customer prospective, I feel more comfortable knowing the payment will go through Apple.
Also from customer prospective, I feel more comfortable knowing the payment will go through Apple.
> , it opens a loophole for everyone to avoid the 30% cut altogether.
But this is a good thing, not a bad thing. Literally the purpose of all this, is to get around this cut. It is better for developers and consumers, to take whatever actions possible, to support loopholes, that get around this 30% cut.
This is the explicit goal here, and the reasons why it is good. The loophole would be a good thing.
But this is a good thing, not a bad thing. Literally the purpose of all this, is to get around this cut. It is better for developers and consumers, to take whatever actions possible, to support loopholes, that get around this 30% cut.
This is the explicit goal here, and the reasons why it is good. The loophole would be a good thing.
Its interesting if Epic's and Xbox's long term plan should be to enable cloud gaming support via the browser. Basically the Google Stadia approach (cloud based rendering and only controls/decompression of the rendering down on the device).
Basically figure out how to make mobile gaming available via Mobile Safari, Mobile Edge or Mobile Chrome browsers.
Basically figure out how to make mobile gaming available via Mobile Safari, Mobile Edge or Mobile Chrome browsers.
> But Apple needs to fund the App Store. XCode, payment processing, reviewers, it all costs money
This is the investment Apple has to put in to make sure there are apps on their platform.
Their "funding" for this is iPhone and iPad sales.
This is the investment Apple has to put in to make sure there are apps on their platform.
Their "funding" for this is iPhone and iPad sales.
The entire way Epic went about this has me scratching my head. Just looks like a lose-lose situation to me. They lose out on 70% of their revenue on iOS now and likely lose a lawsuit later.
I’m guessing they are very confident in their legal position.
Just think how much it would be worth to Epic to run their own Games store on iOS - literally billions.
This is big brain thinking from Tim Sweeney.
Just think how much it would be worth to Epic to run their own Games store on iOS - literally billions.
This is big brain thinking from Tim Sweeney.
They’re definitely taking a gamble, rooting for them but I wouldn’t bet against Apple on this one. Also seems like you would have better odds if you took on only Apple or Google instead of both at the same time.
Oh, I completely agree, and I really can't see a solid foundation for Epic's claims at all.
But, on the other hand, anti-trust was never my area of legal practice, it's a highly specialized area of US law (something I'm not familiar with in the slightest), and thousands of (billable!) man-hours would have already been spent researching, crafting and refining their argument.
In other words, my legal opinion is meaningless here. I'm interested to see how it plays out.
But, on the other hand, anti-trust was never my area of legal practice, it's a highly specialized area of US law (something I'm not familiar with in the slightest), and thousands of (billable!) man-hours would have already been spent researching, crafting and refining their argument.
In other words, my legal opinion is meaningless here. I'm interested to see how it plays out.
Does Epic allow players to buy Fortnite content from outside of Fortnite, without giving Epic any money?
Do Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo allow other stores on their consoles?
How much % do they take from console game sales?
Do Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo allow other stores on their consoles?
How much % do they take from console game sales?
I really love all the financial experts on this thread, both pro, and con.
Most of the discussion on this topic has been around who is morally right, but I've been curious to find out how strong Epic's legal case is.
Epic's lawsuit alleges antitrust violations in two different markets: 1) the "iOS App Distribution Market" and 2) the "iOS In-App Payment Processing Market". Proving a violation in one of these markets may be a lot more challenging than the other.
A. Monopoly Power
The first step in proving a monopolization offense under the Sherman Act is proving the company possesses "monopoly power in the relevant market". In determining monopoly power, the courts start by examining market share, but "but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area." [1]
Obviously, with Apple's current market share of 46% [2] in the United States, they are unlikely to be considered possessing monopoly power in the smartphone market.
B. The "iOS App Distribution" Market and Aftermarkets
Since proving Apple's monopoly power in the smartphone market seems unlikely, Epic instead alleges Apple has monopoly power over a different market: "iOS App Distribution". Since Apple has complete control over iOS App Distribution, problem solved, right? Not so fast.
Much like razor blades and razors or printers and ink, "app distribution" would be considered an aftermarket of the smartphone market. Aftermarkets are very common in antitrust cases, and in general, the US legal system does not allow you to define an aftermarket in the context of a single brand's product unless very specific rules are met:
> Because it would be inappropriate to punish a firm for its natural monopoly in its own products, courts embraced a sweeping prohibition against analyzing alleged anticompetitive activity by focusing on single-brand relevant markets: "[A]bsent exceptional market conditions, one brand in a market of competing brands cannot constitute a relevant product market." [3]
A good summary on antitrust issues in aftermarkets can be found here. [4] Of particular relevance is that an aftermarket monopoly based on a customer's voluntary agreement to a contract is not considered a "relevant market" for antitrust purposes.
In Blizzard Entertainment Inc. v. Ceiling Fan Software LLC [5], Ceiling Fan Software attempted to argue that Blizzard held monopoly power in the market of "add-on software for WoW", and preventing them from releasing their own WoW add-on was a violation of antitrust law. Blizzard argued (successfully) that the "WoW add-on" market was not the relevant market because WoW users voluntarily agreed to a EULA stipulating they would only used Blizzard authorized add-ons when they initially purchased the game, and if they wanted to use third-party add-ons they could have purchased another game instead.
In Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp. [6], Psystar Corp attempted to argue that Apple held monopoly power in the "Mac OS" market and used it to unfairly block competition in the "hardware that runs Mac OS" aftermarket. The court ruled that Apple's monopoly power in the "hardware that runs Mac OS" aftermarket was based on the EULA that customers of Mac OS agreed when they purchased Mac OS, and was again not a relevant market for antitrust purposes, because "customers knowingly agree to the challenged restraint". In other words, if they didn't like the restriction of not being able to install Mac OS on non-Apple hardware, they could have purchased an alternative operating system instead.
Circling back to the iPhone and its app distribution aftermarket, it seems the same reasoning would apply here. If the iPhone EULA specifically states that customers can only install apps via the App Store, and the customer knowingly purchases the product knowing such limitations are in place, it seems very unlikely that a court would agree that "iOS App Distribution" is actually a relevant market for antitrust purposes.
C. The "iOS In-App Payment Processing Market"
On the other hand, the antitrust claims Epic makes regarding this market are much more compelling because unlike the app distribution market, customers have no information about the restrictions in the relationship between the developer and Apple, and they certainly did not agree to any such restrictions when they purchased their phones. Without a contractual restriction in place, the determination of whether the "iOS In-App Payment Processing Market" is a relevant market depends on multiple factors which I won't go into too much detail here or this post will be even longer than it already is, but suffice to say they have a much higher chance of successfully making this argument.
Epic also has a strong argument here that Apple requiring in-app payments to go through the App Store and taking a 30% cut of each payment directly harms consumers by increasing prices, and lacks any justification other than to hurt competition. And the rebuttal that you can buy a different product without this restriction falls flat because the other major product on the market also charges the same cut.
The upshot of all of this is it seems unlikely that Epic will be able to compel Apple to permit third-party app installation on the iPhone, but they may be able to successfully argue against the restriction that all in-app purchasing must go through the App Store.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
[2] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...
[3] https://casetext.com/case/metzler-v-bear-automotive-service-...
[4] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/us-submissions-...
[5] https://casetext.com/case/blizzard-entmt-inc-v-ceiling-fan-s...
[6] https://casetext.com/case/apple-2
Epic's lawsuit alleges antitrust violations in two different markets: 1) the "iOS App Distribution Market" and 2) the "iOS In-App Payment Processing Market". Proving a violation in one of these markets may be a lot more challenging than the other.
A. Monopoly Power
The first step in proving a monopolization offense under the Sherman Act is proving the company possesses "monopoly power in the relevant market". In determining monopoly power, the courts start by examining market share, but "but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area." [1]
Obviously, with Apple's current market share of 46% [2] in the United States, they are unlikely to be considered possessing monopoly power in the smartphone market.
B. The "iOS App Distribution" Market and Aftermarkets
Since proving Apple's monopoly power in the smartphone market seems unlikely, Epic instead alleges Apple has monopoly power over a different market: "iOS App Distribution". Since Apple has complete control over iOS App Distribution, problem solved, right? Not so fast.
Much like razor blades and razors or printers and ink, "app distribution" would be considered an aftermarket of the smartphone market. Aftermarkets are very common in antitrust cases, and in general, the US legal system does not allow you to define an aftermarket in the context of a single brand's product unless very specific rules are met:
> Because it would be inappropriate to punish a firm for its natural monopoly in its own products, courts embraced a sweeping prohibition against analyzing alleged anticompetitive activity by focusing on single-brand relevant markets: "[A]bsent exceptional market conditions, one brand in a market of competing brands cannot constitute a relevant product market." [3]
A good summary on antitrust issues in aftermarkets can be found here. [4] Of particular relevance is that an aftermarket monopoly based on a customer's voluntary agreement to a contract is not considered a "relevant market" for antitrust purposes.
In Blizzard Entertainment Inc. v. Ceiling Fan Software LLC [5], Ceiling Fan Software attempted to argue that Blizzard held monopoly power in the market of "add-on software for WoW", and preventing them from releasing their own WoW add-on was a violation of antitrust law. Blizzard argued (successfully) that the "WoW add-on" market was not the relevant market because WoW users voluntarily agreed to a EULA stipulating they would only used Blizzard authorized add-ons when they initially purchased the game, and if they wanted to use third-party add-ons they could have purchased another game instead.
In Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp. [6], Psystar Corp attempted to argue that Apple held monopoly power in the "Mac OS" market and used it to unfairly block competition in the "hardware that runs Mac OS" aftermarket. The court ruled that Apple's monopoly power in the "hardware that runs Mac OS" aftermarket was based on the EULA that customers of Mac OS agreed when they purchased Mac OS, and was again not a relevant market for antitrust purposes, because "customers knowingly agree to the challenged restraint". In other words, if they didn't like the restriction of not being able to install Mac OS on non-Apple hardware, they could have purchased an alternative operating system instead.
Circling back to the iPhone and its app distribution aftermarket, it seems the same reasoning would apply here. If the iPhone EULA specifically states that customers can only install apps via the App Store, and the customer knowingly purchases the product knowing such limitations are in place, it seems very unlikely that a court would agree that "iOS App Distribution" is actually a relevant market for antitrust purposes.
C. The "iOS In-App Payment Processing Market"
On the other hand, the antitrust claims Epic makes regarding this market are much more compelling because unlike the app distribution market, customers have no information about the restrictions in the relationship between the developer and Apple, and they certainly did not agree to any such restrictions when they purchased their phones. Without a contractual restriction in place, the determination of whether the "iOS In-App Payment Processing Market" is a relevant market depends on multiple factors which I won't go into too much detail here or this post will be even longer than it already is, but suffice to say they have a much higher chance of successfully making this argument.
Epic also has a strong argument here that Apple requiring in-app payments to go through the App Store and taking a 30% cut of each payment directly harms consumers by increasing prices, and lacks any justification other than to hurt competition. And the rebuttal that you can buy a different product without this restriction falls flat because the other major product on the market also charges the same cut.
The upshot of all of this is it seems unlikely that Epic will be able to compel Apple to permit third-party app installation on the iPhone, but they may be able to successfully argue against the restriction that all in-app purchasing must go through the App Store.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
[2] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...
[3] https://casetext.com/case/metzler-v-bear-automotive-service-...
[4] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/us-submissions-...
[5] https://casetext.com/case/blizzard-entmt-inc-v-ceiling-fan-s...
[6] https://casetext.com/case/apple-2
Essentially, it's a win-win for Epic.
If they win the lawsuit they will (probably) be able to have more control over how they want to distribute their iOS apps.
If they lose, they won't have to deal with iOS anymore. Free players cost money too, and it's possible iOS is not so interesting to Epic with the %30 Apple cut.
Also, since their business model is based on microtransactions, most of their revenue must come from whales. These are committed players who will most likely go get their Fornite fix somewhere else. Specially if Apple wins. Most gamers will always side with Epic here.
If they win the lawsuit they will (probably) be able to have more control over how they want to distribute their iOS apps.
If they lose, they won't have to deal with iOS anymore. Free players cost money too, and it's possible iOS is not so interesting to Epic with the %30 Apple cut.
Also, since their business model is based on microtransactions, most of their revenue must come from whales. These are committed players who will most likely go get their Fornite fix somewhere else. Specially if Apple wins. Most gamers will always side with Epic here.
They made several million dollars daily. I think you severely underestimate the gaming market.
Yes, but those millions come from whales which will most likely follow Fortnite to other platforms.
You think Epic would start a lawsuit without having done their math and willingly decide to lose millions daily plus the legal fees?
You think Epic would start a lawsuit without having done their math and willingly decide to lose millions daily plus the legal fees?
This particular company decided to grow financially by cutting apple from a revenue stream. Apple invested billions of dollars in rnd, PR , legal protection, security, servers etc... Behemoth like Epic decided to ignore that, at the same time still using apple services and platforms. Such a simple case to me. The funny part is I never heard from small company that gain traction from apple store that it's bad. It's a social lift for them. But once you grow , you forget about it... and start complaining...
And they didn't even start with the lawsuit, they just broke the terms of service explicitly and then surprise pikachu faced when Apple slapped them down.
They weren't surprised at all by the lawsuit. They wanted a lawsuit. The only person who could change the TOS was a judge and Epic could only sue if Apple enforced the TOS on them.
Plus, if you don't think Epic had already talked to lawyers and lobbyists in Washington DC and already been given a heads-up that they might win, then you don't know business that well.
Plus, if you don't think Epic had already talked to lawyers and lobbyists in Washington DC and already been given a heads-up that they might win, then you don't know business that well.
They were well prepared for this, with what must've taken months of planning. They added the payment option, got banned, filed the lawsuit and published their 1984 parody ad, all within 24 hours.
I think I am with Apple for this one.
It has always been a 30% cut, even when it launched.
Apple did not raise the cut when the iOS app market got bigger.
Apple pricing is not cost-based, it is value-based.
Why should their pricing be cost-based? Why should they try to do an Amazon by sucking all the air in the room?
If that value-based pricing strategy translates into billions earned, great for Apple.
It could also have translated into billions lost, if their app store had turned into a ghost town. I’m sure it happened to other platforms.
I can care less if Apple has high or low costs to maintain their platform. That’s their problem, not mine. If I buy something it is because I want it at that price. If the price point is above my perceived value, I will not buy and both Apple and Epic will lose revenue but again, that’s their problem.
Epic has the option not to use IAPs if that sales model is not profitable for them at any price point.
It has always been a 30% cut, even when it launched.
Apple did not raise the cut when the iOS app market got bigger.
Apple pricing is not cost-based, it is value-based.
Why should their pricing be cost-based? Why should they try to do an Amazon by sucking all the air in the room?
If that value-based pricing strategy translates into billions earned, great for Apple.
It could also have translated into billions lost, if their app store had turned into a ghost town. I’m sure it happened to other platforms.
I can care less if Apple has high or low costs to maintain their platform. That’s their problem, not mine. If I buy something it is because I want it at that price. If the price point is above my perceived value, I will not buy and both Apple and Epic will lose revenue but again, that’s their problem.
Epic has the option not to use IAPs if that sales model is not profitable for them at any price point.
>That means, for example, allowing purchases via webviews, particularly for products and experiences that are not zero marginal costs. Sure, that could mean less App Store revenue in the short run, but Apple would be well-served having to build more and better products to win developers over. At the end of the day, squeezing businesses that can stomach the cost of Apple development, both in terms of implementing in-app purchase and that 30%, by definition has less ultimate upside than growing the pie for everyone.
Apple shouldn't have to enable you to undermine their business with their own property. And no court would ever require them to.
The fact is that Apple hasn't changed the terms. It's been the same since the App Store began (technically it's become more generous to developers with the reduction in the fee for subscriptions after the first year). Meanwhile the iPhone installed base is magnitudes larger than it was in 2008, making it more lucrative for developers than ever. Apple would be well within their right to raise the fee, but the fee has only ever gone down.
That's addressing the moral argument of their business model. Legally, Epic has no case.
Apple shouldn't have to enable you to undermine their business with their own property. And no court would ever require them to.
The fact is that Apple hasn't changed the terms. It's been the same since the App Store began (technically it's become more generous to developers with the reduction in the fee for subscriptions after the first year). Meanwhile the iPhone installed base is magnitudes larger than it was in 2008, making it more lucrative for developers than ever. Apple would be well within their right to raise the fee, but the fee has only ever gone down.
That's addressing the moral argument of their business model. Legally, Epic has no case.
Reviewers? A staff of 10,000 fulltime reviewers paid $200k per year would cost $2 billion.
Sorry, I'm not buying this excuse. OSX/iOS is free for every piece of HW, and it surely has much much larger costs to staff.
A $1250 iPhone had a $450 cost to make, giving Apple a staggering 64% gross margin, and $800 gross profit.
The costs to run the Apple store should be included as a sunk platform cost of the phone just like OSX. The cost to run the store is marginal. The cost to serve up an additional developer app, to review an additional app, and to let someone buy one, is an insignificant fraction.
It should be free like the Web, or some extremely low cost to cover CC processing fees (~3%) and electricity to keep the lights on.
I'm shocked at the number of apologists who think this 30% cut is somehow necessary for poor little Apple, with a hole in the pocket, with living on their spare change. It's egregious and unnecessary, and exists for one reason only: rent-seeking behavior. iPhones are reaching saturation, and Apple can either find ways to raise the price of the phone even more, lower the costs more, or increase service revenues, in order to keep their stock going up.
That's why you see focus on service revenues, because they can't really lower costs much to make the devices, and they can't really increase the price much more.