Do you expect Apple to run Android apps or license their OS?
If I were running a business, why would I care about the low margin, no profit commodity PC or Android market.
If I were running a business, why would I care about the low margin, no profit commodity PC or Android market.
I do expect they will be forced to make at least sideloading possible
> If I were running a business, why would I care about the low margin, no profit commodity PC or Android market.
nobody expects businessmen to be decent human beings, nobody expects that from a US company, but Prada, for example, can't force you to wear Prada shoes if you bought a Prada dress.
If you wanna buy Gucci shoes, you don't have to go through the Prada store that charges you 30% just because you can't escape it.
What the majority of the people here are saying is that Apple margins are artificial and built on having an unescapable walled garden
It is like luring people in a Mall and closing the doors
Of course they are going to buy only from shops inside the Mall, but what if they could go shopping somewhere else?
Why is Apple so afraid of it?
If their product is superior, people will buy it anyway.
Right?
---
Of course there is more to it
Apple bluetooth profile has been for years not compatible with device to device transfer (I don knwow about the newer models)
Apple messaging platforms can't be made interoperable with Android because Apple does not want to.
Apple does not permit to advertise in apps different ways of creating an account on third party services, which obviously gives an unfair advantage to Apple, if you are Spotify and can't tell people how to create an account outside of the iOS is one thing, but if you are a news outlet and can't advertise your website (where you collect ads or advertise different payment profiles) that's really hindering publishers and user's rights (it costs more to buy NY Times subscription from the iOS app - to cover the Apple cut on it - and there is only one option available while there are more on their website)
Ny Times can maybe handle it, but what about smaller companies/publishers?
Apple thinks that if the app doesn't work user would think it's s device problem, but if buying things from apple store costs more, users will think that publishers are to blame, and publishers are usually not worth 2 trillions and can't afford the bad PR the same way Apple can.
You mean the same 30% margin that Google, Sony, Microsoft (Xbox), Nintendo, Spotify, etc. charge?
Apple bluetooth profile has been for years not compatible with device to device transfer (I don knwow about the newer models)
People still use slow BT transfers? Why? This isn’t 2004. There are much better ways to transfer files.
Apple messaging platforms can't be made interoperable with Android because Apple does not want to
Sure it is. SMS.
it costs more to buy NY Times subscription from the iOS app - to cover the Apple cut on it
It cost more to buy a soda from the convenience store than the grocery store. I couldn’t advertise at Best Buy that you can buy the same product cheaper at Amazon.
You mean the same argument that Apple fanboys have been repeating over and over, except that I can side load apps on Android and consoles are hardly needed (smartphones are)?
BTW I can buy new and used games at GameStop
Does an AppleStop exist?
Can I buy used apps on the aftermarket?
I can sell the same song on Spotify, Bandcamp, on my website directly and also have a patreon.
Can I do the same with an app for iPhone?
Spotify is also different because they mostly sell copyrighted material owned by a copyright holder which usually is not the author.
It's more like Apple music, which I don't have a problem with since there are alternatives and I can watch the content on other devices (the apps are available on the play store, for example) and Apple is making deals with labels, the same labels that sell to Spotify or YouTube
But to be completely honest, it would be great if MS, Sony, Spotify etc etc were forced to open up their platforms because they are found using unfair competition tactics.
But Apple IMO is the worst offender of the lot.
> Sure it is. SMS.
It isn't though...
My plan doesn't include SMS
I have unlimited data, unlimited phone calls, but no SMS
So, again, Apple is reducing user experience to lock users in.
also: SMS travel in clear text
So much for security...
> It cost more to buy a soda from the convenience store than the grocery store.
Because there is a grocery store available
Where is the Apple grocery store?
> I couldn’t advertise at Best Buy that you can buy the same product cheaper at Amazon.
That's because best buy and Amazon are competitors
And competition is good
Apple, on the other hand, don't like competitors, Apple loves a monopoly, and doesn't let you advertise your own website
So it's like you put your product at best buy and best buy put it out like it was a best buy product
Would you like it?
Of course you wouldn't, you would retire it immediately and sell it on the many other channels available, because there isn't only best buy.
But when it's about Apple you are ok with it.
I guess that's what happen when people suffer from Stockholm syndrome
But I prefer to think that it's just Apple forcing people to defend their abusive behaviour online
It makes me feel less sad for those who really believe Apple is the good guy
So it’s Apple’s fault that your plan doesn’t have SMS?
Where is the Apple grocery store?
It’s called Android, their are literally dozens of other phones out their from $50-$2000 in every shape and form you can imagine.
I wouldn’t complain because I couldn’t get pizza in a Chinese restaurant. I would go to a Pizza shop.
That's because best buy and Amazon are competitors And competition is good Apple, on the other hand, don't like competitors, Apple loves a monopoly, and doesn't let you advertise your own website
You are just as free to say that you can get a cheaper subscription on your one website as you can say you can buy a TV cheaper somewhere else - just not in a competitors store.
Apple, on the other hand, don't like competitors, Apple loves a monopoly, and doesn't let you advertise your own website
Apple has plenty of competition. I go into a cell phone store, I see dozens of phones besides iPhones. Just like when I go into GameStop I see three incompatible consoles.
Of course you wouldn't, you would retire it immediately and sell it on the many other channels available, because there isn't only best buy. But when it's about Apple you are ok with it.
I don’t complain on the internet about Android or Windows. I choose the alternative. I didn’t need the government for that. Free will is great isn’t it. I also didn’t complain back in the day that Nintendo only allowed certain types of games - I bought an alternate console.
Even when people were complaining that Microsoft was a monopoly. I had an MS free house.
I guess that's what happen when people suffer from Stockholm syndrome
What do you say about people that constantly complain about products that they don’t own?
If Apple is stifling competition, where all of the profitable, successful Android only apps?
It's Apple fault to not make an iMessage app for Android though
My friends with iPhones don't even know that when they are messaging with me I receive an SMS, because Apple never made it clear that iMessage is Apple only
SMS by the way is not a chat protocol, it's an alerting protocol
So Apple is using it wrong
> It’s called Android, their are literally dozens of other phones out their from $50-$2000 in every shape and form you can imagine.
Android is not Apple competitor.
Android is iOS competitor and prior was Windows Mobile or Blackberry competitor.
In fact you can install a different OS on Android phones, you can't on Apple phones and that's the point, if it's a closed platform, it's a closed market, different from other markets and Apple is a monopolist in it.
You are conflating you arguments with meaningless comparisons.
> I wouldn’t complain because I couldn’t get pizza in a Chinese restaurant. I would go to a Pizza shop.
You would if the chinese store forced you to buy pizza from them because you have chinese pottery at home
I don't know why is it so hard to understand that these arguments are childish at best
> You are just as free to say that you can get a cheaper subscription on your one website as you can say you can buy a TV cheaper somewhere else - just not in a competitors store.
No, you are not on Apple store.
From their developers' guidelines
Chapter 3, paragraph 3.1
> Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, such as license keys, augmented reality markers, QR codes, etc. Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase.
I imagined that before engaging in a discussion you read the relative documentation ...
I guess you didn't
> Apple has plenty of competition
It does not.
It's artificial competition.
The point is Apple is a market per se and is a monopolist in that market.
If only people could have some degree of freedom it would be a different situation.
> I choose the alternative.
THere's no alternative to Apple, Apple is a different closed ecosystem.
When you'll understand that, everything will be clearer.
> I didn’t need the government for that.
Iḿ sorry to state it like this, Iḿ Italian and my english is decent at best, but who cares what you need?
I don't need a doctor right now, but I'm happy the government of my country is funding a public healthcare that can take care for free of people who need it and/or couldn't afford it if it was an expensive procedure
> Even when people were complaining that Microsoft was a monopoly. I had an MS free house.
They weren't complaining, they were stating the obvious, in fact MS was sentenced for "abuse of dominant position"
Sun Microsystem raised the complain and won.
Epic is doing the same to Apple, and will probably get some satisfaction.
> What do you say about people that constantly complain about products that they don’t own?
What do you say of people that constantly assume?
> If Apple is stifling competition, where all of the profitable, successful Android only apps?
The same apps that are profitable on iOS are profitable on Android, but they cost less for the user and the developer have the possibility of earning more
You can play Fortnite on Android even if Google removes it from their store.
Can you do the same on iOS?
Let me tell you a little story about game call Tekken x Street Fighter. Back when I bought it was $40 from GameStop. But when you bought the physical game, 7 or 8 characters were locked until you paid for them digitally - another $15 in Sony’s “walled garden”. Guess what happened when you bought the game used? The next person still had to pay the $15. So sure you can buy the disc used but you can’t buy half the content.
Can I buy the Carlton dance on Fortnite used? Can I sell all of the virtual items I bought on Fortnite? Can I buy items and use them on the “Fortnite platform” without giving Epic a cut? Epic has just as much of a “monopoly” on the Fortnite platform as Apple does on iOS.
See how silly it sounds when you just arbitrarily use the term “monopoly”?
The in app purchase of digital goods is a can of worms on its own, but completely orthogonal to the issue at hands with Apple monopoly.
I would argue that the fact that Apple forces publishers to go through in app purchase for everything related to money exchange between the publisher and the user is even worse than being a monopoly
I think creating a walled garden where they are the sole ruler and dictator it's unfair, but profitting from shady practices like selling items in games that more oftne than not are played by kids, it's criminal
I don't like Sony, MS, Google, Facebook, Epic etc. etc. more than Apple.
Simply on this matter I think Epic is right and Apple wrong.
I don't take parts with companies, only my side as a user.
Killing Apple monopoly is better for the end users, full stop.
> See how silly it sounds when you just arbitrarily use the term “monopoly”?
It is silly to not understand context.
As a thought experiment, if that bothers you, imagine if Sony handled the same way your contacts, calendars, personal data and also removed the game from your console because you bought it in an non approved market.
Imagine they said it was for your own safety, because you are unable to discern good from bad, but at the same time dozen of celebrities had their private pictures and videos leaked because the Sony cloud is not as secure as they say...
Would you still trust Sony?
Isn’t this exactly what Epic is doing with Fortnite?
Killing Apple monopoly is better for the end users, full stop.
How is Apple’s “monopoly” on digital sells on its platform any different than Epic’s “monopoly” on buying digital goods on Fortnite? Could I set up a “virtual store” within Fortnite and sell “cool” dance moves? If they can make money off of selling the Carlton dance, why can’t I set up a storefront to sell the “Scarface dance” on their store? Can I resell virtual goods I buy in Fortnite?
As a thought experiment, if that bothers you, imagine if Sony handled the same way your contacts, calendars, personal data and also removed the game from your console because you bought it in an non approved market.
Apple didn’t remove the game from individuals devices. In fact, if you have already downloaded the game and you wipe your device, you can still redownload Fortnite from the App Store?
Isn't Apple asking for a 30% cut on that?
How it is that relevant to Apple monopoly?
> How is Apple’s “monopoly” on digital sells on its platform any different than Epic’s “monopoly
Well, I guess that if you are a functioning adult you are able to figure out yourself the difference between a game that you can only use for playing the game and a computing platform that you can use for practically everything
Of course Epic has a monopoly on Epic games, Apple has a monopoly on Apple Mail, that's how the author rights work
> If they can make money off of selling the Carlton dance, why can’t I set up a storefront to sell the “Scarface dance” on their store?
Sue them.
Or make Apple do it.
Can you guess why nobody is doing it?
Because you can https://www.epicgames.com/affiliate/en-US/overview
I thought you were working for a FAANG, how did you make it without being able to do a simple search?
> Apple didn’t remove the game from individuals devices
Not yet.
But they potentially could.
And you know why they haven't removed it?
Because the version available on people's phone still relies on their payment processor for in app payments.
I still have to give Epic a cut. Why can’t I accept credit cards on the Epic platform and bypass Epic’s “walled garden”?
Because the version available on people's phone still relies on their payment processor for in app payments.
The version on the phone allows people to bypass Apple’s in app payment.
Isn't Apple asking for a 30% cut on that?
The original sin was to allow in app purchases for consumables in games to fester on iOS in the first place. I would be fine if all games had to either be paid up front or allow you to pay for levels you keep.
Count to 10 and ask yourself the same question in front of a mirror
I'm sure you'll find the right answer
(Epic is not complaining that Apple takes a cut, but that the only way to ask for money to users is go through Apple store, which doesn't make Epic software, if Apple asked it only for Apple software, that would be much less of a problem)
Why do people think this is an effective argument? In any other context, noting that prices are standardized across the entire market would be strong evidence that the market was not competitive.
If you went into a shoe store and every shoe in the shop was $49.99, that's pretty good evidence that the shoe manufactures are not competing with each other over price the way that they should be.
You look at something like gas prices, service industries, physical goods, games, online payment providers -- you see lots of different prices and fees, deals, and marketing strategies. You don't see a standardized price that's universally applied to everyone, because the companies are actually competing with each other to attract customers with diverse offerings.
An unspoken agreement between every digital storefront to charge developers 30% fees on even unrelated services is bad. On more open platforms, you don't see that: Steam, Epic, GoG, Itch, and Humble all have different fees because they're actually competing with each other and it's actually possible for upstarts to disrupt the market.
Epic is actively suing Google for using anti-competitive practices to force phone makers not to include 3rd-party app stores on their phones[0].
One example they bring up:
> Epic struck a deal with OnePlus to make Epic games available on its phones through an Epic Games app. The Epic Games app would have allowed users to seamlessly install and update Epic games, including Fortnite, without obstacles imposed by Google’s Android OS. But Google forced OnePlus to renege on the deal, citing Google’s “particular[] concern” about Epic having the ability to install and update mobile games while “bypassing the Google Play Store”.
If you want to show that sideloading doesn't make a difference for storefront fees, you should pick a company not currently being sued for antitrust to demonstrate it.
----
> You have a choice of three consoles - why aren’t developers side loading there?
You can't sideload on a console, I don't know what you're getting at.
In regards to price fixing on consoles: you're right, the console situation is also bad. We effectively have only 3 major consoles, and a reasonably high barrier of entry into the space for similar reasons as mobile phones. Of course, the console space is better (in no small part because the PC market exists), and console manufacturers do compete more for developers than Apple and Google do. But it's not perfect, and as a result, you still see some issues around competition.
It took direct action from developers like Epic to even force the issue on cross-play, which is a decent sign that console manufactures really didn't feel like they needed to compete with each other in that area.
However, it is generally ill-advised to sue every single major games distributor at the same time, so it is perfectly reasonable for Epic to target what they see as the biggest problem-areas first.
The whataboutism doesn't really work here. Yes, console sideloading would probably be good for the market, it's just not as big and immediate of a problem as Apple is -- in part because more people own iPhones than an Xbox, in part because the barriers of entry to console competition are slightly lower, and in part because the PC games market provides somewhat of an escape hatch for console games, and that escape hatch isn't applicable to the mobile app market.
[0]: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21759099/f...
Epic is the problem in the case of Fortnite. They are no more ethical than the Candy Crush, Farmville’s of the world.
What happen to HN users who love Big Government wanting fo go after all of the “game” companies who were milking consumers selling loot boxes and virtual currency?
and that escape hatch isn't applicable to the mobile app market.
That escape hatch is called Android.
But it isn’t like we are talking about great innovative games for the most part on mobile. Mobile is mostly made up of pay to win games and “whales” buying virtual currency for dance moves. If the entire play to win games completely disappeared nothing of value would be loss.
If Apple made a rule banning in app purchases for games or at least banning consumables, it would be a better experience for customers. The entire pay to win mobile game ecosystem is a bigger stain on the iPhone than in app purchases.
I have sympathy for the Basecamp’s of the world. The Epics, not so much.
It’s strange
HN: We want government to be more involved in tech.
Government: okay let’s pass laws against net neutrality, against strong encryption, the DMCA, COPPA and force the sell of TikTok and the governmebt should get a cut.
HN: oh no. The government abuses power and doesn’t understand tech. But the government will get it right next time.
Did you watch the hearings of the four CEOs? The same hearing where the biggest concern on one side was that tech was being mean to conservatives and grilled Zuckerberg about Twitter’s treatment of Don Jr.? Is this the government you trust to regulate tech and not do more harm than good?
No one has been able to rise to the challenge - name one good law that the US government has passed in the last 40 years with regard to tech - either Democratic or Republican.
This is a weird take. Do you think net neutrality isn't a government regulation?
How can anyone look at the early Bell systems regulations, telephone breakups, forced network compatibility with 3rd-party answering phones and network devices and think, "now that's a market that thrived without the government?"
The entire history of the Internet and the tech industry, from regulations around smart-phone unlocking and number porting, to net neutrality itself is a giant example of how forcing the market to be competitive against its will is sometimes really good for both consumers and for innovation.
Currently being sued for antitrust.
> But it isn’t like we are talking about great innovative games for the most part on mobile. Mobile is mostly made up of pay to win games and “whales” buying virtual currency for dance moves.
It's almost like giving two companies a stranglehold over the entire mobile market means that only certain types of games can thrive, and that by and large more serious developers will be forced to abandon mobile games entirely.
You could almost imagine that in a world where quality games weren't constantly crowded out of the ecosystem, and where developers were free to be more creative, and where serious games could sell on serious storefronts that didn't force them to advertise right next to Candy Crush, that we'd have better games and less of a race to the bottom on price and ethics.
I'm having a really hard time reconciling, "Apple is great at managing an app store", with "everything on the app store is trash."
> I have sympathy for the Basecamp’s of the world. The Epics, not so much.
You shouldn't be deciding your legal principles based on whether or not you personally like the people involved.
This came up with Google vs Oracle as well. I don't really like Google as a company; that doesn't mean I wanted Oracle to win. I was able to look past my feelings, look at what the overall threat was to the entire industry, and treat the law as more than a popularity contest.
I really don't care whether or not people like Epic, it's not relevant to the conversation.