How is Epic's store approach to indies? Can a random person from nowhere pay some 100 bucks and get it's games into their store just as doing it with AppStore?
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.
Is this even working on Android or anywhere?
That's not that big a problem for established and big companies but it is something that I am not looking forward to.
They still blocked few very controversial titles that include rape and some other crazy shit, but otherwise almost anything can be published on Steam.
https://twitter.com/wilshipley/status/1270568780712706049
https://ericasadun.com/2015/11/11/finding-triviata-on-the-ap...
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.
To give you an example, I once sold a small, single screen app to a local business for about $2k.
That’s not great money, but at least is was something and still better than working a minimum wage job. Once I was done I knew 100% I could give them a Windows installer that would work for a very long time.
With the App Store model I don’t think I could have said yes to doing that work because the risk of not being able to deliver. The risks there would be eating the cost of the development and loss of reputation since they’d be annoyed at spending a bunch of time and getting nothing out of it.
Now things have come full circle and LoB apps would all be web apps.
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.