Fortnite’s battle with Apple and Google could have an impact on news publishers
niemanlab.org
niemanlab.org
But to me (with my almost decade long iOS developer experience), the bigger problems are:
* You cannot install apps on an iPhone (even on a phone that you own) without paying Apple. Without a developer account, an app that you build and self sign works for only 7 days.
* If you are an app that exists on other platforms, and/or accepts payments on other platforms, you can't describe that or even link to it, from your iOS app. Your users need to know that the alternative options exist on their own. See the Netflix sign in screen for a nice example, but realize that 99% of apps won't get away with that, only apps the size of Netflix can.
* You can only ship apps that Apple's inconsistent review board agrees with. And of course, the rules and their inconsistent application keep changing in favor of Apple's competing apps, which of course have access to internal APIs and don't pay a 30% cut either. Spotify is a good example here, but it's worse for many smaller companies.
* And now macOS is adopting the worst of iOS' draconian policies. You won't be able to run non-notarized apps on macOS on Apple Silicon based computers at all.
Unfortunately there are many who drink the Apple koolaid about all of this being all about security. There are legitimately good things that Apple does which enhance user security, and I welcome changes like the new IDFA policy of iOS 14, but let's not pretend that Apple does those because they affect Apple's competitors' business and strengthen Apple's (you have to now use Apple's sdk for user tracking).
But none of the things I wrote about above are about the user, and some of them are actively worse for Apple's users (eg: not being able to buy a book on the Kindle app easily).
* Apple's payments API is very difficult to work with, especially compared to something like Stripe.
* Developers cannot disable their customers' subscriptions, or offer refunds. This has to be done through Apple. The leads to a poor customer service experience.
* If the customer uses their subscription through your website or moves to Android, they're still locked into the iOS subscription - making it impossible for them to upgrade/downgrade their plan.
* Customer's subscription is tied to their iTunes account. This leads to confusion if they sign into your app while signed into a different iTunes account.
I could go on. But having implemented Apple's subscription API, the frustration goes way beyond just the 30% fee (which is really my company's problem, not mine).
I was literally thinking this was like getting credit for a returned cable modem with comcast/etc
On the iPhone
settings -> click on your profile -> subscriptions.
THIS is the principal issue. I cannot indeed install what I want on a device that I own. This is absolutely ridiculous.
The problem is what you are calling a "flaw" is a feature to others. If you don't like that "feature", others are saying you should leave the ecosystem rather than lobby Apple to "fix" it.
>For the second one, this doesn't account for tens of great apps we miss out on because they just won't make it on AppStore's rules.
It's acceptable collateral damage, and if those apps are truly great then someone people will (and have) switch to another platform. Just like if I get an XBox I can't play Playstation games.
IMO, if this was truly a great issue, people wouldn't choose iPhones. If you really care about being able to install software on your device, then don't buy an iPhone. It's even easier to make this decision because there is very few iPhone exclusive applications that do not have alternatives on Android. To me however, it comes across as the same lip service Linux gets where for users all these "power features" are important, but everyone just buys a macbook instead.
As for lack of sideloading being a feature - lack of features is only a feature, when those features can get in the way. The ability to opt into sideloading - as it's done on Android and Win10 - is not intrusive for those users who choose to not enable it. So, no, this can't really be sold under the guise of caring about the users. It's a policy that is in place to protect Apple's interests, and benefits no-one else.
There's a weird dichotomy that comes up in those kinds of arguments, where we simultaneously assume that people are so smart they'll know exactly what phone ecosystem they're opting into and what the consequences are, but also so stupid that they can't be taught to make informed decisions about which app stores to use.
Not to mention that a giant chunk of Apple's user retention policy is to make it as difficult and annoying to get out of their ecosystem as possible, which (imo) makes the "users would just switch if they were unhappy" argument really disingenuous. Apple is now tying credit cards to their phones. You're really going to get rid of your credit card because you're unhappy with the app selection on your phone?
That kind of user lock-in can't be separated from their efforts to force developers to use Apple payments for recurring subscriptions -- it's not just about the 30% revenue. It's also a nice way to make sure that switching from iOS to Android means literally all of your digital subscriptions break, and that it's impossible for you to cancel them or migrate them without going through Apple.
Monopoly does not mean “popular product” Apple isn’t even market leading, let alone dominant, and even if your dominant in a market you still might not have a monopoly.
We're a long way from a flagship class phone that you can install distros as freely as you can on a PC. I'm well aware of the Pine Phone and Librem, but they're both rather slow compared to a 2019 or 2020 smartphone.
It's a pain. This is not a solution for the average user. I can't even use Uber, for example.
I loved using lineageos but still had a back up iPhone for some stuff. Stuff was constantly breaking.
I've since gone back to using just the iPhone.
I’ve been seriously looking at this: https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/
If we want an open ecosystem, we need to support it.
iPhones have 50% of the market in the US where I do business. Either I have to go through their review process or register for the Enterprise app development program. All for phones that they already made money on when they sold it to us.
Maybe another option for iPhone users is to form a giant co-op corporation, get a D&B number, "hire" everybody who wants custom apps as "employees" and start our own internal app store... it'll cost us $299 per year.
Anyone interested?
It sounds pretty ridiculous to type that... but it's the same basic argument. Apple is a minority player in the smartphone market. Every single person on this (HN) site has a competitive alternative if they don't like Apple policies. If it should be illegal for Apple to have a monopoly on their own product then it stands to reason that it should be illegal for Epic to have a monopoly on their own product.
If the only thing in the "Fortnite Store" is Epic's own products, that obviously isn't saying much and is incomparable to a store distributing third party software.
If the "Fortnite Store" is distributing third party software, and there is no viable alternative way to distribute that software, then it is a monopoly, because that's what a monopoly is. It's a thing with no reasonable substitutes.
The issue isn't that Apple has a monopoly on "their app store" but rather that they have a monopoly on distribution of apps to the set of customers with iOS devices. If there were competing app stores that could reach those customers or some other viable competing distribution method then they wouldn't have a monopoly on that market even if they still had complete control over "their app store" -- what makes it a monopoly is that there are no viable alternatives to it.
It's the same way that Comcast has a monopoly on the network path to Comcast subscribers and uses it to collect rents from e.g. Netflix. Netflix can't reach those subscribers through any other path, there is no competition. You can't reach Comcast subscribers by peering with Verizon.
You keep saying this but it's unlikely that the courts will see it this way. The US legal system generally doesn't consider an aftermarket of a single brand's product to be a valid antitrust market unless specific exceptions are met. I've explained why in detail elsewhere. [1]
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]
The court held that “the aftermarket is the relevant market for antitrust analysis only if the evidence supports an inference of monopoly power in the aftermarket that competition in the primary market appears unable to check.” [3]
When a manufacturer lacks market power in the primary market, an aftermarket restriction set forth in a purchase contract is generally safe from challenge under the antitrust laws. Numerous courts have rejected aftermarket claims based on contract provisions that exclude competition in an aftermarket. Because such restrictions are disclosed to customers at the time of purchase, customers can understand and plan for the aftermarket restriction before they are locked in. [4]
> what makes it a monopoly is that there are no viable alternatives to it.
The court will (correctly) point at Android and ask, "why isn't that a viable alternative"?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24193731
[2] https://casetext.com/case/metzler-v-bear-automotive-service-...
[3] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/us-submissions-... (This is an excellent read for anyone curious about how aftermarkets are treated in antitrust law, btw.)
[4] https://eu-competitionlaw.com/competitionantitrust-challenge...
Because flagship Android phones comparable to iPhone are not cheap enough to switch solely due to apps. This is a textbook monopolist argument: "if you don't like me, then you can always move out!"
That is a district court case with no value as precedent.
And in that case, like most of the others regarding aftermarkets, the monopoly in the aftermarket is obtained merely by refusing to sell OEM parts (and thereby monopolizing the repair market). Apple isn't refusing to sell OEM screens and batteries -- I mean they are, but that isn't what we're talking about today -- they're using technological measures to purposefully exclude competitors for app distribution. That's a lot more brazenly anti-competitive than merely not selling parts and service independently.
It's also questionable whether you can really get away with calling the entire software market an "aftermarket" of the device market. It's like claiming that online retail is an "aftermarket" of the real estate market because the goods get shipped there. That's not exactly the same thing as the "aftermarket" for copier service, is it? It claims too much.
> https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/us-submissions-...
This is, similarly, predominantly an analysis of lower appellate court cases narrowing the Supreme Court's Kodak decision. The one you're quoting from is a 1st Circuit decision, whereas the case Epic filed is under the 9th Circuit.
And this is from your link, Page 6 of the FTC paper:
> 13. In the context of aftermarkets, a key question regarding product market definition is whether the aftermarket constitutes a relevant product market separate from the foremarket. The hypothetical monopolist test can answer this question—if a profit-maximizing hypothetical monopolist of an aftermarket (that is not a monopolist in the foremarket) would raise prices by at least a small but significant and non-transitory amount, then foremarket competition is not sufficient to prevent against anticompetitive behavior in the aftermarket; thus it is appropriate to analyze competition in a separate relevant market comprising the aftermarket.
If there was any doubt that this is true for the app store market, wasn't this the very thing Epic went out of their way to empirically prove? Epic is willing to charge less than 30% to distribute apps, and thereby charge lower prices to consumers. If the hypothetical monopolist in the "aftermarket" couldn't have charged more than Epic without hurting their sales in the primary market then how is Apple actually doing that? The claim that they would be making up for it by charging less for the product in the "foremarket" would require them to actually be doing so -- does Apple charge less for its phones than its competitors? (No.)
Likewise:
> Even where the original equipment market is a monopoly, however, if buyers understand that they are locked in (hence vulnerable to hold up), there will be no additional harm from hold up in the aftermarket–the monopolist cannot charge more in total than the buyer’s reservation price for the services generated by the equipment over its lifetime.
This falls apart for the app store market because it's a market like web hosting where there are customers on both sides -- the person buying "hosting" might also be selling something, but they're still a customer. So to avoid the market effects that are supposed to be constraining them, they only need to charge the fee to the developers who don't get to choose which phone their own customers have.
And then that's in fact what they do -- it's the developers who pay the 30%, and they're even prohibited from providing the equivalent discount when the product is purchased from competing channels that charge less, so the phone customer can't choose a different phone that has cheaper apps or in-app purchases, because the developers aren't allowed to provide the discount.
The relevant cases are listed after the text I quoted, the quote is merely summarizing existing precedent.
> It's also questionable whether you can really get away with calling the entire software market an "aftermarket" of the device market.
I mean, it's your claim that the "iOS software distribution" market is a separate antitrust market that Apple has monopoly control over. Not the entire software market.
My point is that the courts are unlikely to see this narrow definition as a valid and separate market. If customers don't like the fact that they can only get apps from the App Store, they can simply buy a different phone that allows side-loading.
Otherwise, if we accept your premise that every company that controls the distribution of software on their own phone has an antitrust violating monopoly, then even a company with 1% smartphone marketshare would be liable, which makes no sense.
The rest of your post has to do with Apple's 30% commission and is kind of tangential to my main point. After all, even if they charged a 0% commission, according to your logic they would still "have a monopoly on distribution of apps to the set of customers with iOS devices ". For what it's worth I think Epic has a stronger case there.
Which market share definition, you ask? IMHO it is the definition that defines decision making for app developers, on whether they can skip the Apple platform or not.
So Apple's percentage of global smartphones doesn't matter, what matters is:
- Apple's 2/3 share of app store revenues.
- Apple's share of users in rich, developed markets such as US, Europe and Japan, which (source: ben-evans.com) varies between ~50-70%.
It is unaffordable for app developers to skip the Apple platform, since that's where the majority of paying users are. And as a result, they should fall under anti-trust laws that protect small players.
How many game developers will skip either Sony or MS unless they are paid for exclusives?
Why can’t Google and all of the Android manufacturers convince people with money that they should buy Android phones?
A phone is the average person's primary general computing device. Controlling what software they're "allowed" to run on it is wholly unacceptable, regardless of which laws are convenient to fix that issue.
They're the majority in the US (https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united...), which is relevant for US antitrust law.
> If it should be illegal for Apple to have a monopoly on their own product then it stands to reason that it should be illegal for Epic to have a monopoly on their own product.
Just because two cases can be abstracted to "monopoly on their own product" does not mean they are the same. Otherwise we'd already know the outcome from the US vs MS case.
[1] https://gs.statcounter.com/faq#methodology
[2] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...
https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh... https://www.statista.com/statistics/620805/smartphone-sales-... https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/vendor https://mobilestorm.com/digital-marketing-blog/u-s-smartphon...
What percentage of the Battle Royale genre does Fortnite own?
>Otherwise we'd already know the outcome from the US vs MS case
Microsoft had over 95% of the market and two decades later people are still arguing whether they actually had a monopoly.
This will be relevant when Fortnite becomes a general purpose platform hosting third party applications that is integrated into people’s life.
Wechat could be a better example, and yes, if we had the equivalent of wechat we’d be asking the same questions about their relations with third party apps.
Honestly, it would not be all that bad if the community could mod Fortnite to add their own skins, like you can in many other games.
Perhaps game developers should ship their games on the Epic Store, and use Epic's resources for management, distribution, discovery, and so on, but handle all transactions themselves so that Epic doesn't get any money out of it. That sounds fair, right?
I doubt that the accountants and marketing see it that way.
Where did you get that information and what makes Apple Silicon different here?
"any executable must be signed with a valid signature before it’s allowed to run"
Ok, not really true.
I am not sure if you can distribute ad-hoc signed apps - I think they are only signed for local use.
Just that now the linker automatically signs every binary. So that something like gatekeeper could disable it based on the signature.
That would be my non-"apple is draconian" interpretation, as I don't have an arm mac.
That is not the same as it signing "every binary", otherwise there would be no point in signing in the first place.
I'm not sure how I feel about it, personally. I think code signing is a great idea. I just don't believe this single authority approach is the way to do it. I totally understand that as you already trust apple to provide the OS, it makes sense that you can trust them to sign apps - but that shouldn't mean you cant (as a user) choose to trust other parties.
Of course, they don't actually check the apps aren't malicious - they don't even check that you are a real person when you create a dev account... But they do have a signature they can revoke if your software is exposed as malware.
They also say >enable the system to better detect code modifications.
So that part doesn't require any central authority and can be handled locally. (But I'm guessing there are more parts)
I guess this is a backwards-compatibility breaking change, but Apple Silicon is a new platform so there's nothing to break, all new binaries will have it from the start.
You cannot know what your apps are doing.
You cannot know when they are running.
You cannot know what communications are taking place in the background.
"content blockers" are opt-out. When combined with the above, how can you possibly opt-out?
Apple promotes "privacy" as a marketing term, yet actively creates systems to degrade your privacy (ibeacon bluetooth beacons, deep links, preview links, advertising identifiers) and prevents systems from helping your privacy (little snitch for ios? adblockers?)
We've seen, time and time again, Apple ban apps for their "corporate moralism" reasons. Most notably, they throw a fit about nudity and reject apps over it. (Including social media apps where such content is accessible.) They also started banning "vaping related" apps, some of which are for controlling hardware, apparently. Philosophically, I have an issue with a company gatekeeping the software you run on your computing device, for any reason. It's not anyone's place to do that.
This could all be avoided with a legal mandate blocking such gatekeeping. The 30% issue is mitigated if you can install apps over the web, as well.
I was excited to learn Swift last year but this killed my enthusiasm for making iOS apps.
Not a thing for me but I can see how those who don't aspire towards experrdom or even "well-educated amateur" would find it useful and call it such.
AFAIK mobile Safari is the primary source of vulnerabilities on iOS, zero days regarding it cost less than on other platforms on the black market (supposedly because they are easier to find/exploit) but Apple doesn't allow to replace it.
That's a serious security flaw in my opinion.
This is not true. You can still run non notarized apps by control (?) clicking the first time.
- Use codecs the underlying mobile safari browser can support.
- The browser stores your Epic login and launches to the default Epic homepage.
- Enable the Epic browser to generically surf the web to provide multipurpose functionality to follow existing precedent set by Firefox and Chrome on iOS Appstore.
At worst Epic can default to Mobile Safari itself if Apple still blocks a specific Epic browser (i.e. duplicate functionality) and show how people can make iOS safari shortcuts.
Long live mobile web apps!
I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. Apple changed the rules about account creation and outside payments/subscriptions in 2016(?) and they apply to every app now.
Do you have a source for this? I certainly haven't read this anywhere, but I also haven't been keeping a super close eye lately! This would both be really sad and would also essentially destroy the entire OSS community in macOS. (So I'd be very surprised if Apple actually made this change. It would also mean every numerical scientist would have to migrate off the Apple ecosystem, which would be a shame.)
"any executable must be signed with a valid signature before it’s allowed to run"
The same way that we believed the original signing requirements would only be used to block specific malware, and not to enforce general policies?
There are already system-level APIs that are restricted to the Mac app store[0]. If you want to use Wireguard on Mac without going through the store, your best option is probably using the command line. That's crazy; in order to get a free VPN client with a GUI running, I'm being forced to give Apple a credit card number and an email address, and there's nothing the devs can do to get around that requirement.
[0]: https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2019-February/00...
People have been saying exactly what you are saying since 2011.
This is literally what Epic just filed an injunction over. They're being blocked from Mac tools because of a dispute over payment methods, not because anyone thinks that Unreal Engine is literally malware.
https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/epic-v-apple-8-17-20-768927327...
> - Access to provisioning portal for certificate generation, and provisioning profilegeneration
> [...]
> - Access to Developer ID signing certificates and Kernel Extension signing certificates
Yes, people have been saying this since 2011, and an important component of that fact is that within the past few weeks, Apple did it.
It also wouldn't surprise me if Epic had been in touch with state AGs filing antitrust lawsuits. The timing is pretty suspicious, coming a week after Congressional hearings where Tim Cook said they don't do the exact thing they just did with Epic. You can't launch a new product in a week.
I don't think Apple is prepared for that future. I can imagine Google & Amazon making app stores that run on iOS, but I can't see Apple making an App Store For Android.
(Imagine if Google could also have an iOS App Store, and you could buy software once on Google Play Android, and the same purchase also ran on iOS devices via Google Play For iOS. Would you keep buying software from Apple?)
Nobody cares about other markets, but you can't even host your own app! You are forced to give up 30% of your app revenue just to be in their walled garden. That is monopolistic in every possible way. And stop with the childish "ooh we're gonna end up like Android". Android devices are more than capable to hold their own against Apple's offerings nowadays and I haven't heard anyone complain about viruses and malware in like five years now.
And when I want to install an open source app I can do so on Android but Apple wants to tell me I can't after I spent $1k on their shiny phone. Amazing stuff, let's not lose it for something silly like user and developers having a fucking choice.
Of course part of the reason for this is because Google put in a bunch of scary warnings when you try to install 3rd party apps, and Epic is so unhappy with these warnings making it difficult to distribute Fortnite outside of the Play Store that they decided to sue Google too.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/08/fortnites-android-vu...
But I personally would not like having the system I bought as a phone suddenly change in function allowing side-loaded software. (Similar to how I'm not happy that, in time, the PC-controlled Oculus hardware I've owned for several years will soon be useless without an FB account.)
I fail to see why people think this is such a problem on this forum. It’s as people think all hell and doom breaks lose if, god forbid, developers are able to distribute apps themselves.
It may be a problem to you, but for other people it's a feature. Some people have more involved threat models than you are keeping in mind. They don't want their device to be able to run arbitrary code or unsigned code. Having this feature but having a toggle to turn it off defeats the purpose.
Maybe you disagree, but HN is shockingly flippant about dismissing this extremely legitimate security concern, and comments like this are a perfect example.
Is that really so difficult for you? Why do you need to prevent me from installing other apps stores, when you can just not do that yourself.
If Apple made-good on Steve Jobs’ promise to make FaceTime an open standard and I could use it from Android devices and and PC then your argument would be stronger.
Apple put us in an unfortunate position where the strength of the iOS ecosystem means that many of us don’t have a choice in phone platform to buy into - which in turn opens us up to being exploited by their App Store practices.
Point is - I feel like I’m being dicked-over by Apple and the alternatives are just not feasible. Responses like “Just buy two phones lol” or “you still have a choice to use Android and not talk with your family at all” aren’t helpful or productive.
I’m sure the same arguments would have been made with Standard Oil when anti-trust law wasn’t on the books yet: arguably consumers and companies still had a choice to not use oil: they could use coal or natural-gas. People have a choice to drive a car or they could walk or ride a horse or take a train... hopefully you see why your argument is seen as being made in bad faith. We have a choice, yes - but it isn’t a free choice. We are being coerced into making a choice by our circumstances and Apple is taking an unreasonably unfair advantage of that.
You don’t lay any of the blame on Google’s inability you convince people that their phones are worth buying when you can afford to do otherwise?
How is any of that Google's fault? That's Apple entrenching their platform lock-in in a way that ultimately harms customers.
What you said can be applied to any other situation where a de-jure choice exists even when a de-facto choice does not:
> You don’t lay any of the blame on Netscape's inability to convince people that their Navigator browser is worth buying when you can afford to do otherwise?
What you said can be applied to any other situation where a de-jure choice exists even when a de-facto choice does not:
Google in fact was able to overtake IE on Windows so thoroughly that MS gave up and is now using Google’s engine.
Google Maps is quite popular on iOS devices.
The monopoly that Epic is complaining about is not a monopoly on smartphones or smartphone operating systems. It's a monopoly on selling iOS apps and processing payments for iOS apps and content.
You cannot allow a global duopoly of companies that managed to become the infrastructure for a large part of our economy to take a cut of all or most business that is done on top of that infrastructure.
Imagine we had allowed that to happen with telephone networks or roads. Whoever came first would have been able to suck the air out of the rest of the economy.
The same people claim the app store is this magically perfect service that provides infinite value for both developers and users. If that's the case no one would choose to use a 3rd party app store, so having the option would make no difference.
The reality IMO is that developers would try to flock to an app store with better terms and users would cling to the existing model.
To me, a fantastic outcome would be if Apple gets forced to allow developers to inform users they can pay for subscriptions outside the app store and to charge +30% to people that still want to use the app store. Then all the users defending Apple can put their money where their mouth is.
Then add in competing app stores that don't take a 30% cut and all of a sudden you'll have "dedicated" Apple users flocking to the new stores to save a buck.
Because they are buying a brand.
If Play Store will start selling iOS apps, the same iOS apps they already know, at a discount they will immediately buy them.
Because they are human after all.
Is there something similar to this for iOS apps?
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/5/21355997/microsoft-your-ph...
Apple announced that all iOS apps will run side by side with macOS apps when the ARM apps are released.
Microsoft Windows 10 can run on any compatible hardware I want, including virtual hardware (Mac OS cannot be legally virtualized on non Apple HW)
Microsoft doesn't make Android and doesn't even manufacturers smartphones anymore, they'll embraced it as a compatible platform, as they did with Linux.
From a developer standpoint that's a big step forward, from the user standpoint it reduces the friction between mobile and non mobile platforms, now they can run their apps on the most popular OS that they can run on practically any x86 HW they own. It's a pretty radical change.
Apple running Apple doesn't change much
Can you see the difference?
For me, the reason why iPhone are great are because of the hardware. FOSS alternatives to Apple's software that maintain compatibility are almost assured.
I want to increase choices, you want to reduce them.
But you are actually legally incorrect. A company has “no duty to deal”.
None of these are the main reason though.
The biggest reason you use an iPhone today is because it has Instagram on it, DoorDash on it, Amazon on it, Netflix on it, TikTok on it, and yes, even games like Fortnite on it.
And so... we get to this:
> Why can't you just leave us alone?
Because they want Apple to stop engaging in anti-competitive behavior. Without 3rd party apps, the iPhone is just a better phone. Being a general purpose computer is what makes it the behemoth it is today.
I'm actually kind of surprised Apple hasn't done this on Android yet, now that I think about it.
It's hard for me to root for either Apple/Google or Epic, but if Epic's action is the beginning of the end of exclusive stores, then go, Epic, go!
That's ironic given that the Epic Store is quite well known for buying exclusive rights to new game launches.
A game developer selling an exclusive to Epic is much different. They're not gatekeeping the platform which is the PC and no one is being forced to use the Epic store for distribution to get their games on the PC.
So to get access to 100% of the market on mobile platforms, you MUST deal with Apple AND Google. To get access to 100% of the market for anything on the PC platform you MAY deal with Epic, Steam, all of the above, or self-distribution. The difference is that developers get to choose which distribution strategy and platform makes the most sense for them in terms of cost, support, target audience, etc..
It's like if Walmart and Target were the only stores in North America and most buyers only shopped at one or the other. Would "choosing" not to sell your product at Walmart be a real option at that point?
There are so many ways to distribute PC games and software, you cannot even begin to enumerate half of them.
Mostly the same on Android too. With a simple toggle, you can then install other App Stores like Amazon's, etc. Many phones come with alternative App Stores pre-installed too.
Now, there may be some interesting changes for the players and I here I am genuinely unsure, which one is least bad .
I am watching this fight unfold and see no one I am willing to back here. But.. the resulting fight may end up having good results for the customer.
Time will tell.
This is why we can't have nice things.
It's entirely possible to lose money on consoles. Microsoft wrote off such a huge loss on the first XBOX, between $5bn and $7bn, that counting inflation on the losses they probably still haven't made a profit off it.
The other problem with that is it would make it flat out impossible for any other company ever to enter the console market. The up front cost is device losses would be staggering. It was bad enough for Microsoft as it is.
Not at all. I'm merely pointing on that their console business is composed of many streams and focusing on one part of it to the exclusion of others is deceiving. Supposedly, Return of the Jedi has never made money yet they kept making Star Wars movies.
> it would make it flat out impossible for any other company ever to enter the console market
I disagree. It's harder to compete with competitors that are selling their product below the cost of production. I've always wondered if an EU-based company came out with a console, what would happen? I think Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo would be forced to sell their consoles at or above cost in the EU or face dumping charges.
It is not suspicious, it is plain.
https://www.polygon.com/2018/9/26/17905770/fortnite-cross-pl...
The console market only works if you sell the hardware under cost and then charge up the ass for services to the game developers ($50,000 was the price point for pushing updates on PS4)
PS3 didn't regain profitability until the end.
PS4 as well: https://www.quora.com/How-will-Sony-make-money-off-the-PS5-b...
Only Xbox seems to be sold at loss at the moment: https://www.thurrott.com/games/xbox/xbox-one/118357/microsof...
The current system is structured to be as profitable as possible for Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo and to keep competitors out. These companies aren't good guys looking out for me and you, they are looking out for the interests of their shareholders.
If the $50k price for updates is true, that's awful. It sets up a lot of bad incentives for developers. Consumers deserve much better than that.
I am excited for third-party Fortnite skin stores.
If Epic can't get an indie title as an exclusive, they're not interested in having the game on their store.
ref. https://medium.com/@unfoldgames/why-i-turned-down-exclusivit...
I am not thrilled by the idea of uneven developer access to the primary channels. Now I pay Apple 100$ and the %30 commission and I have my apps right next to the big boys. Apparently the big boys are planning to get free of the %30 and have their own walled garden where potentially I am not allowed.
There's a risk of proliferation of a business model that is possible on the Epic Store but not on AppStore and I am not welcome to join.
As a developer I would prefer a regulation to the AppStore for even access instead of alternative appstores.
https://twitter.com/wilshipley/status/1270568780712706049
https://ericasadun.com/2015/11/11/finding-triviata-on-the-ap...
They still blocked few very controversial titles that include rape and some other crazy shit, but otherwise almost anything can be published on Steam.
How does also having the potential to distribute on another app store make it worse?
That's only good for having to say that you have an app. Putting that app in the hands of the people is a different story and it's the hard part.
When there are multiple app stores, you can only access the people on that app store which can drastically reduce your market size. It is not realistic to be able to make people install and set up an app store and then install your app. Yeah sure, you can convince few very interested people every now and then but on mobile this doesn't make a business.
It is likely that the original App Store will shrink as some people will move to other stores where you might not be allowed to publish. Also, multiple stores creates support nightmare for the users since they will no longer be able to talk to Apple and get their refunds. People would no longer be confident when doing a purchase. This is very bad for independent developers who are not hobbyist but hope to make living.
Sure, it would be nice for few hobbyists to get their torrent client in the iPhone but it would significantly disadvantage all small independent businesses. When you are small, the cuts and the commissions are not a problem, the reach and gaining trust is.
IMHO:
1) AppStore should be regulated to give equal opportunity to all. Right now there are some problems but it is not broken. An idea would be to have an special API to provide alternative appstore through backend integration but have all this completely invisible to the users. For example, maybe you should be able to link to an alternative appstore but the install process be exactly the same as the original AppStore, payments handled exactly the same but get the commisions to bare minimum when the provider is the alternative appstore. This is like the "repository" concept on Linux app stores, the problem is the customer support when something goes bad. It doesn't work well when the users don't have someone holding both the responsibility and the power to solve their problem. How is Apple supposed to handle the help request due to issues caused by other stores?
2) Jailbreaking should be an option provided by Apple. People should have the freedom to jailbreak their device and do whatever they want with it. Probably should be hard to do to make sure that it's done only by people who know what they are doing.
3) Commissions should probably differentiate for stuff like Spotify v.s. In game coins because on Spotify, they actually don't sell their original content but deal it by buying it from the musicians.
But that's the case with the current app store already isn't it? At least with competing app stores I could publish my app _somewhere_ if Apple rejects it.
I don't think regulating the app store or forcing them to transparently integrate other app stores would work either. Allowing _anyone_ to publish an app store would have it's own issues, so I think it would have to be gated by money. Ex: Apple can charge $1 million to publish your app store. That would exclude me from running an app store, but also excludes bad actors.
Apple also has a huge lead with services that support iOS devs, so it's not like someone will build a competing store that's on par immediately. If a new Epic store needed to re-implement everything Apple has _and_ provide those features via a stable API, they still have a huge uphill battle because if both stores are equal, devs will prefer the Apple version since it would be the default on all devices.
I don't really get the argument I see with people being reliant on Apple for refunds. On the PC, it's an expectation for a store to have a refund policy where you can automatically collect a refund. It would be the same on mobile if they wanted to compete. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on good customer service even though they've done a really good job of convincing people they do.
> Sure, it would be nice for few hobbyists to get their torrent client in the iPhone but it would significantly disadvantage all small independent businesses. When you are small, the cuts and the commissions are not a problem, the reach and gaining trust is.
I really disagree with that. Before Apple was successful with the walled garden approach I could develop and app and be 100% guaranteed I'd be able to publish it. Now I get no guarantees and since I'm a small developer I have no negotiating power. I don't have a big social media following and if Apple or Google refuse to publish my app it's tough luck for me. Large incumbent developers can pick up the phone and talk to someone at Apple or Google. Small developers can't.
I agree the pricing isn't much of an issue for small developers. You can plan around that and I think it's safe to assume prices aren't going up anytime soon. It's losing the ability to be guaranteed you can publish your app that's the problem. I said the same thing when the app store was new. If I'm developing a custom LoB (line of business) app for another small business, how can I guarantee them I'll be able to get it on their devices? I can't and the enterprise programs aren't an option for a one off LoB app. You'll notice that kind of stuff doesn't really exist on the mobile app stores and everything has trended to large SaaS offerings. There used to be a market for custom small business apps on the PC and that's completely disappeared in the last decade because of the walled garden app stores.
IMHO it would be possible for someone to run a better app store than Apple and that's what they're afraid of. Even though the "quality" of the app store is touted a lot around here it's filled with garbage. Watch a kid play a game for 30 minutes and you'll see a ton of ads for other low effort games where the whole ecosystem is similar to advertising click fraud. The number of un-closable, misleading, click incentivizing ads in kids games is appalling.
So I can imagine an app store that caters to high quality apps and games for kids where everything is paid up-front (no IAP) and there are no ads. It's that kind of niche, super high quality curation that I think Apple and Google are terrified of.
> Before Apple was successful with the walled garden approach I could develop and app and be 100% guaranteed I'd be able to publish it
Publish and do what with it? Collect kudos from strangers? That's not good, I can't live on kudos, I should be able to do business. Surely you can adopt a business model where you collect and sell data about your users or sell access to your users(known as browser extension business) but I find that business model unethical and I don't want to be involved in it.
Business happens when money change hands, writing code and putting it out there is not a business(unless you are payed to do it for someone but that's a different situation). After a communist revolution things may change but until then, that's how it is.
Would not be that much of a stretch to support also Android.
Between safe, secure payment technologies such as (heh) Apple Pay and and safe, secure login systems such as (heh) Login with Apple, then really its super easy to not worry too much about the signup friction.
Fortnite is a software platform and the market is part of the software.
Apple is an Hardware company which also chose the software you can run on it, which also owns the only market where you can buy software for.
That's a pretty different situation.
TLDR: Apple can sell Apple stuff exclusively on their e-store, they shouldn't force third party developers to sell their stuff only on their mobile store.
Because it's the part that people should own after they bought it.
You can play Fortnite without buying anything on the Epic store.
You can't use an iPhone without being forced by Apple to use the device the way they want.
Many probably like it that way, that's not the point, the point is that if Safari is the root of many exploit for iOS (https://twitter.com/Zerodium/status/1260541578747064326) users cannot disable it and replace it with something else, something more secure
That completely hinder the free (as in freedom) utilization of the device
> If Epic sold a "Fortnite tablet" would this somehow change the legality of Epic's monopoly on selling digital items in Fortnite?
Of course it would!
It would be a monopoly nonetheless
Even though a table that can only play Fortnite cannot clearly be classified as general computing platform.
But it would probably be based on Android, being iOS not available for third parties, and allow sideloading.
The same point could be made about Amazon and the Kindle, but Amazon allows self publishing and direct sell for free.
Why? Is that just an arbitrary principle? Why should "hardware" be something we have absolute control over, but "software" is not?
> You can play Fortnite without buying anything on the Epic store.
You can use an iPhone without using the App Store. But in both cases, it's probably just not as good of an experience.
> You can't use an iPhone without being forced by Apple to use the device the way they want.
That seems like some rhetorical gymnastics that could be applied to any product or service. You can't use cheating software in Fortnite either (or at least they presumably have measures in place to prevent it).
> Of course it would!
Okay, then you're consistent. I'll give you that. Presumably you think courts should require manufacturers of literally all electronic devices to provide an easy way for owners to run any software they want?
I don't disagree with the general sentiment but
1) hardware is your property, you buy it and you should be able to use it the way you want. Also it's harder to replace it, you can easily change the gas station, it's harder to change a car.
2) the problem with Apple (but also Google Play store in many ways) is that you buy hardware capable of doing something that the software doesn't permit. Not because it's not capable of doing it, but because the manufacturer don't want you to use it that way.
But in the general you're right, I'm a big advocate of free software, and I've been since the middle 90s, because I think you should have total control over it. Including changing the parts that don't fit your needs.
I'm also in favour of using cheats if you want to, but in a tournament things have to be fair and that's where I think you shouldn't use them, in the same way I think doping at the Olympic games should not be allowed.
Oh yeah I'm so excited at the thought of a second app store filled with "games" that have no guarantee they'll actually respect data collection, privacy, etc.
As a consumer I like that Apple keeps a firm hand on the standard of apps in the store, I have no guarantee that Epic will bother doing that at all.
I would say the whole thing was pretty well engineered and executed.
Kudos to Epic.
I'd always have the choice to install them, but I could continue to ignore them and still get the benefit of Apple's walled garden approach.
Matt Stoller (Journalist specializing in monopoly) https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/epic-games-kicks-off-the-...
iA (App developer) https://ia.net/topics/monopolies-apple-and-epic
Does anyone disagree that Apple and Google have the right to just go "this app store business is just not worth the headaches, we're gonna shut it all down."
When I read hackernews a lot, I get the impression folks think these app stores are some kind of public commons.
And my second question: Who do you think customers will blame when someone uses an alternative payment approach to steal from customers? Google/Apple? The app provider? Themselves?
Third question: What's a customers recourse once they are the victims of fraud or simply want a refund for whatever reason? How easy will it be for them to reason about what to do?
There might be legal issues with drastically reducing the functionality of devices after they've been sold, but I would imagine they could do this for new devices going forward. I think this points out a subtlety in the arguments of most people who take Epic's side in this struggle: it appears that Apple could avoid these allegations of anticompetitive behavior by either increasing or decreasing the restrictions placed on third-party software distribution. That's a little bizarre, but it surely must be the case, unless the argument is that all electronics manufacturers must provide an easy way to owners to run third-party software (think game console, GPS devices, stereo receivers, car infotainment systems, the microcontroller in every switching power supply, etc.). Presumably the response to this subtlety is that "iPhones are general-purpose computers, but game consoles, etc. aren't," but I disagree with that both in theory and in practice based on what buyers of these devices expect to be able to do with the devices.
Antitrust has always been about big companies abusing market power. These concepts are contestable, which means the law can only be enforced through expensive, time-consuming trials, but it doesn’t mean that the law is meaningless or not useful. The laws against assault and murder are also quite contestable in borderline cases of self-defence, but they are useful, and it’s easy to generate examples where the law is clearly not applicable just as with antitrust.
They would blame the person that ripped them off. If I take my car to a local garage and get defrauded it would be stupid to blame the car manufacturer.
> Third question: What's a customers recourse once they are the victims of fraud or simply want a refund for whatever reason? How easy will it be for them to reason about what to do?
You call the bank and say "hey, I have a fraudulent charge on my credit card" and they give you your money back. There's zero liability for the user. Plus, I'd way rather ask my bank to do a chargeback against a no name scammer than against Apple, Google, Amazon, or Microsoft.
What happens if your kid gets scammed via IAPs, spends $5k, and Apple sides with the developer? What's the result of a chargeback against Apple if you're massively invested in their platform?
Online payment processing is a solved problem. I think things like Apple Pay are fantastic as a system we can opt into, but I'd much rather have the current system of credit card processors with all the regulation and consumer protection that comes along with it.
Maybe something like "turns out games aren't a great fit for the app store." then they just boot the entire games category off the app store and only allow games on apple arcade.
The iPhone would no longer support third-party apps, and thus most iOS users will move to Android, and on Android, everyone will be familiar with installing apps from websites.
So in that world, all you need to do is develop only for Android and put up the .apk file on your website (using some sort of pre-made e-commerce software of your choice if you need to sell it), thereby getting rid of all censorship, friction, issues, rules, 30% fees, etc.
Every pre-installed Apple app has a better 3rd-party alternative, it would be no different for the store.
Undoubtedly if Apple allowed other companies to handle app discovery, the experience could be one or two order of magnitudes better, for both consumers and developers.
And then, how many bad experiences for these types of purchases (or articles about bad experiences) will customers tolerate before they stop trusting in-app or third party purchases? One? A hundred?
Or a real life analogy: every year someone drinks bleach and dies. I'd rather we didn't make bleach completely illegal.
Maybe Apple can do what the Mac does and have some prompts like "hey danger ahead".
Just to be clear, I'm just trying to understand if folks think the app store is a public commons or is it private property?
Lots of the comments on this issue imply that the store is a public commons. And I'm wondering if that's a common view.
Are they offering to allow a replacement to enter in or effectively bricking devices (well soft brick, as they can still call and text)?
In my mind, I'm toying over how committed Apple is to the customer experience. Apple always talks about the user experience first and if they honestly believe that a free and open store is a bad experience (just for the sake of discussion accept this point), would they consider ending the app store (say for all new devices) because they'd rather give a "great" experience rather than being forced to give one they believe is substandard. Essentially protect their brand.
I don't see Google ever doing something like that. But Apple... I dunno.
Its not a headache, it's basically a money grab at this point, 30% of sales of a digital-only product. They're laughing all the way to the bank.
>And my second question: Who do you think customers will blame when someone uses an alternative payment approach to steal from customers? Google/Apple? The app provider? Themselves?
>Third question: What's a customers recourse once they are the victims of fraud or simply want a refund for whatever reason? How easy will it be for them to reason about what to do?
There are many ways to build payment platforms without letting Apple rob 30% of your sales. For e.g. Paypal has consumer protection polices. Buyers can dispute transactions/services, etc.
Depends on what you mean by that. If you are saying that they have a right to not run any of their apps stores anymore, then sure.
But I do not agree that they should have to right to force me, by law to not install other app stores on my phone. If I bought the phone, then I should be allowed to do whatever I want with my own property, including installing other app stores that 3rd parties voluntarily offer me.
> think these app stores are some kind of public commons.
It is not about public commons. Instead, it is about physical property that I purchased, the device, that I own.
> Who do you think customers will blame when someone uses an alternative payment approach to steal from customers
I don't care. That is not my problem. That is not an excuse for apple or google to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own property.
> What's a customers recourse
If customers don't like a ceratain app store, or solution, then they don't have to use it. I am not trying to force other people to do anything with their own phones. I just want Apple to stop doing this to my devices, when they, for example, sue people who offer repair services.
This is an interesting answer. It sounds like you're not an app developer, so why do you care if Apple takes 30% cut of the developers app? Or is it that you're concerned about apps you like not being available due to contract disputes? Could you elaborate?
Because those costs inevitably either get passed down to the consumer, or mean that there are less resources to make the game, which results in a worse experience for me, the customer.
I don't want Apple to force everyone to give them a cut, because that is real money that would either stay in my pocket otherwise, or would provide more resources to game companies.
More money that stays in developers pockets means that they are incentivized to make more games or spend more resources on them. Or it can result in more developers entering the space, because there is more money overall to get.
Apple isn't providing any value to me here, that I could not get elsewhere, if there were competing app stores. I don't want them to force everyone to give them that money.
(And no, I dont' accept the argument that Apple's app store would always be significantly better than everyone else's, so much so that they deserve a full 30%, automatically. If they end up being better, thats fine, but I still want competition, and for other app stores to be able to compete fairly)
The stunt by Epic, aside, has that ever happened to you? Has your Netflix bill ever gone down because they secured a better discounting with their cloud service providers due to their growing volume?
That's never happened to me (but maybe my experience is unusual)
But for the sake of discussion, let's explore how this might play out.
If a developer switches to a different payment services or store, they'll have to make a decision - pocket all the cost savings (and hopefully pass it on) or take some percentage of that saving and channel into their new acquired support costs. They'll have to support refunds, false charges, etc, right?
The big developers will hopefully act responsibly and balance the savings with their new support costs.
But what about the small(er) ones? Will these 2-10 people developer shops be prepared for the support costs? What if the support costs are greater than the savings?
What's your take?
Think about the opposite situation.
Imagine that Apple charged 90% of the costs of having a game on the app store. How many game companies do you think would make games for that? My guess: probably not many.
> If a developer switches to a different payment services or store, they'll have to make a decision - pocket all the cost savings
Also, even in this situation, with the game developer pocketing all the savings, I would much rather prefer them doing this, than Apple taking the money.
To re-iterate, even if we agree that the money would not go to the consumer, and not trickle down at all, I still want this to happen.
This is because now there is more money in the gaming industry, which means that there is now more reason for game developers to make games. So I still want that to happen. Because it means that there is more reasons for developers to make games.
That is still much better than if Apple gets the money.
> They'll have to support refunds, false charges, etc, right?
Yes, and those costs are much much cheaper than 30%. It is not even close. Paypal charges 3% costs. So that is where the prices would probably go to.
> What if the support costs are greater than the savings?
They won't be. 30% is a very large number. But even if we agree that they are, in some small percentage of cases, then those companies can feel free to continue to put their service on the Apple app store. So you can't use that argument.
If other app stores are bad, then people will just list it on the app store instead, and you can't use this argument.
I don't want to force companies to put their app on other app stores. I just want it to be an option. That way the best app store wins. Problem solved.
So, to say again, even if the game developers pocket all of the money, I still rather that happen than Apple getting a dime, by forcing people to use their app store.
I will go even further, actually, and say that even if there is zero proven benefit to consumers, by either trickle down prices, or because of more games being produced (due to game devs having more resources, by pocketing everything, and using those resources to make better/more games), I would still rather my money go to game devs, because philosophically I consider it to be their game, and they deserve the money more than Apple.
As long as Apple controls the app store, this will always be an issue, and it doesn't matter precisely what the % cut is. The reality is, very few people would argue that Apple "deserves" some cut of app sales for developers who choose to use the Apple App store. But it's impossible to disentangle this issue from in-app payments. If in-app payments are royalty free, then every app will become "free" with an in-app purchase to make it do anything at all, to game the system. But if Apple gets a cut of in-app purchases, there will always be this grey area of "what if I purchase a subscription using another website" or "what if I use a free app to access my paid Netflix account", and so on.
Do we know how / if Apple charges SaaS companies who enable adding seats through their App Store apps? I'm thinking the likes of Slack, Trello, Zoom, Notion etc, I haven't heard that they get charged by Apple?
I'm quoting [1], but from my expirience that's true, the problem comes when you link to your website without giving the option to pay with Apple system. Slack doesn't have any direct link to add seats, I think that's how they avoid the 30%.
Why Spotify wouldn't do the same then ? I think maybe because they target a more mainstream public that will not understand that they have to go to website to pay and then go back to the app? Maybe they reckon that would be losing more than 30% without that flow, or I'm missing something.
[1]https://www.quora.com/How-does-Apple-determine-whether-a-ser...
iphones will only have apps produced by apple. If any other company, say a game producer wants their game on the phone then you have to license the game to apple for 30% royalties. Apple then makes the game available on the phone. Is this still an issue legally or in terms of fairness?
Sure Apple has a bad timeline but they did what they were allowed to do and Epic Games only attack is the environment it happened in.
In an incident where even fully US-based organizations were caving to maintain these Chinese market, Tim went full "I don't care what China thinks about what our players say on streams".
Pretty sure Tencent is just in it for the money, Epic's a pretty good investment.
It would be interesting if Fortnite allowed people to make/sell custom skins and see how they would react to a Winnie the Pooh/Xitler skin.
So to me it seems mostly Tim's personal battle. Obviously in the end it's all about money, but Tim seems to genuinely want all game developers (not just Epic) to get a larger cut of the pie as opposed to the platform holders.
The stated purpose of the Epic game store on PC is to give developers a larger cut compared to what Steam was giving them.
Tencent and Chinese companies would benefit from being allowed to operate their own app stores or side load apps, which would allow them to significantly reduce the impact of Trump’s current and future actions.
why would separate app stores limit government jurisdiction?
Whereas now, if the government tell Apple to remove an app from their App Store worldwide then it’s pretty much impossible for anyone to download it. In the past I don’t think the CCP minded - in fact, they were probably happy about it since it made it much easier to censor apps they didn’t like. Whereas now they’re freaking out since they risk having all their apps blocked from all Apple devices worldwide.
I don't think there's any reason to suspect a shadowy cabal of CCP interests when there's plenty of reason why Epic would want to do this out of self interest.
It might be that is just not worth for such a massive game to be free to play, if you can't extrat enough profit from paying users.
They are making lots of money.
I guess my point was, if what is left for shareholders is not "that much" compared with the opportunity cost (the loss of not being doing something else) then it might make sense to put the iOS on hold and let the lawyers fight.
But I'm speculating, I'm just trying to understand the incentives in play, becuase I don't buy the 1984 video, pretending they care about what is fair.