Hacker News Reader

>Epic now has a very good reason to collect a working email address from every past iOS customer

Not just epic but any business really that obtains most of their customer base through sign in with apple.

Losing your entire customer base because of making apple mad is a risk that most businesses will now be unwilling to take.

Does using Apple Sign in not share your email address/identity?

It can, but half the point of the service is that your personal email address is kept private. The service sees an obfuscated email address for the format <unique-alphanumeric-string>@privaterelay.appleid.com. Eg dpdcnf87nu@privaterelay.appleid.com.

I believe it generates a unique/obfuscated email address that is provided to the provider but their messages to that address arrive at your real icloud address. Edit0: reference https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210426

I think Epic absolutely needs other major game studios, and major software companies, to join in their protest to effect the desired change.

Interesting point about the looming iOS14 update. Makes you wonder whether Apple will ultimately fall at their privacy sword, similar to how Google fell at its own "Don't do evil" motto. E.g. it's meaningless bravado when not applied to universally to all countries, aka China.

I wish Mozilla would join them by publishing a Firefox for iOS with their own renderer and Javascript (which they have been prevented from doing). Get booted and join the lawsuit. That's the activist Mozilla I can get behind.

How is Mozilla to do that?

AFAIK Epic did their move by pushing "legal" iOS code, then doing an over-the-air update of adding non-Apple payment system.

Mozilla can't just push a rendering & JavaScript engine "over the air".

> AFAIK Epic did their move by pushing "legal" iOS code, then doing an over-the-air update of adding non-Apple payment system.

No, the code was hidden in the app itself, just disabled via server-side flag. After the app was approved they then flipped the flag to enable it.

Source: Epic admits this in their legal filings.

Can't they? Is app review actually disassembling the code to see what capabilities it has?

Just include both native renderer and webkit, and over the air switch which you use.

It’d get picked up by binary scanning tools. “Why did your ipa triple in size?”

Plus I doubt Mozilla is in the mode to burn months of programmers time on a stunt right now.

compile firefox to javascript, render to canvas, stream the browser on app open.

Ah, fair.

You think Mozilla still has it in them?

As a long time Apple user, and open software advocate I'd literally cry tears of joy. I'd also have to throw Zuck a bone if FB joined.

I really just want Apple to separate their code signing (Developer) service with their advertising and distribution service (App Store).

> I'd also have to throw Zuck a bone if FB joined.

As a user, it’s appalling to see developers taking the side of user-hostile companies in order to take down a company trying to protect users.

It makes me want to avoid any products from such companies and developers.

> I wish Mozilla would join them by publishing a Firefox for iOS with their own renderer and Javascript

It would likely be unusably slow if they did. Apple doesn’t allow apps in the store with the required entitlements to make an optimized JavaScript engine of entirely Mozilla’s design.

> I think Epic absolutely needs other major game studios, and major software companies, to join in their protest to effect the desired change.

Would Epic be willing to lead the fight against consoles as well (they charge 30%, too)? Oh, right...

oh man people assume they aren't fighting the consoles clearly have not read the lawsuits themselves

epic is proposing a 12% rate to all the stores and asked Google for it as well, they have fought playstation policies against crossplay and won in the past.

That would make this super interesting: https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/9/21318978/sony-epic-games-f...

> epic is proposing a 12% rate to all the stores and asked Google for it as well

"All stores" as in "actually all stores" or "Apple Store and Google Play Store only"? Their entire "fight" is very much targeted, and consoles (which are Epic's key partners) are not really targeted. Moreover, Epic goes out of its way to define consoles as something else.

To those who are downvoting, here's Epic's CEO on consoles:

--- start quotes ---

“The 30 per cent store tax is a high cost in a world where game developers’ 70 per cent must cover all the cost of developing, operating, and supporting their games,” he explains.

“There’s a rationale for this on console where there’s enormous investment in hardware, often sold below cost, and marketing campaigns in broad partnership with publishers. But on open platforms, 30 per cent is disproportionate to the cost of the services these stores perform, such as payment processing, download bandwidth, and customer service.” [1]

"Consoles are unique in that the hardware is sold at or below the cost of manufacturing, and is subsidized by software sales, whereas iOS and Android are insanely profitable for Apple and Google from just hardware sales and ads." [2]

--- end quotes ---

Regardless of your opinion on 30% cuts in AppStore and Play Store, these are some really shoddy arguments.

[1] 2018, https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-07-31-30-percent...

[2] 2020, https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/127327654856984166...

The reality is that you're not paying the 30% cut for nothing. Companies actually thought hard about how much they should charge and what they provide in return.

Consoles will become more expensive but games will cost $60. Payment processing fees have to be passed onto the customer. Your $0.99 game with 30% cut is now a $1.30 game because of credit card fees. No more Steam cards at retailers.

> Consoles will become more expensive but games will cost $60. Payment processing fees have to be passed onto the customer. Your $0.99 game with 30% cut is now a $1.30 game because of credit card fees. No more Steam cards at retailers.

All these statements require hard proof. Additionally, "you already earn more money than I'd like" is not exactly a valid case to make against a cut.

Epic can't afford to sue every store, even if it wanted to. Nor would this be legally helpful for anyone - it would just enrich the lawyers. It makes sense to have a main case to test the legal doctrine.

Apple is by far the most distinct case, so it perfectly reasonable to focus on Apple (Besides, I'm sure that Apple with its trillions can afford a legal defence). If Apple gets off, all other stores get off too since Apple is the most restrictive. If Epic wins, we can then discuss how to apply the legal doctrine to other cases.

They need more than gaming studios.

The top 100 apps on iOS need to do a 'blackout' and pull their apps from iOS for a week. That will make front page international headlines globally and involve the entire planet. That's the kind of scale necessary.

Legislators from around the world will take notice whereas right now, probably very few know or care.

Don't discount how little the public knows or cares about these kinds of things, most people are busy with their lives they are not paying attention. Few even know or understand the terms of the iOS store let alone what it means.

So a focused PR campaign and 'major action' by a lot of players is what is needed. FB, Wikipedia, Netflix, CNN etc. etc..

Do the top 100 apps on iOS feel the same way though? Does every developer out there think 30% commission on paid apps is tyranny?

I feel like it's a reasonable trade-off. Free apps don't cost you much (yes, $99 for dev tools is not much honestly. It keeps away spurious bots and spammy accounts). Paid apps cost 30% -- if the dev decides to charge outrageous prices then well, Apple will take an outrageous cut).

Most apps cost $1-$5 which is cheap. Of course, at a billion users it's hefty. But if you're grumpy about that then it just means you're grumpy about a shrewd for-profit company.

"Does every developer out there think 30% commission on paid apps is tyranny?"

Combined with the ambiguity, lack of choice, threats to business - absolutely yes, iOS is basically universally reviled by developers.

Nobody on this planet accepts that the 30% is necessary for anything ergo, it's a massive chunk out of profits.

Most companies are not hugely profitable.

In many cases, Apple is making considerable more profit off of apps than developers themselves.

For a $1 spent, about 25 cents to Apple mostly profit, then 70 cents to the dev which will mostly be dev., ad. and op. costs.

It wouldn't surprise met that Apple makes more surplus from Fornite than Fortnite makes off the platform.

Not to mention you require an apple machine to compile code for IOS (or rent a service that will compile it for you) - Also you need to PAY for a developer ID.

Their business model is munted. All because people are sheep. They advertised to moronic uni students who like shiny things, Their parents wanted to seem hip so they got on board.

I mean hell, you cant even use a cable they don't own.

Yeah, much easier to dismiss iOS users as fashion-conscious shiny-obsessed sheep rather than maybe talk to some iOS users and understand what exactly they prefer about the platform they use.

Because I rather like the fact the iOS devices get OS updates for about twice as long as Android devices. Android security was also a pretty bad joke for a very long time—it has started to change, but there's only so much they can fix. Google would release an OS (or even a security) update, then you'd have to wait for both the OEM and the network provider to pass the update on to end users. Google are changing this with security patches, but there's still a lot of Android devices running old versions with no prospect of any new features coming any time soon.

In iOS land, there's no OEM or network intermediaries (something Apple insisted on in all deals with networks from the first iPhone), so generally takeup of a new iOS version happens really promptly - as of June 2020, 81% of iOS users are on iOS 13.* That's good for the health of the platform as app developers can build on top of new OS features knowing a reasonable number of actual users can use those new features.

Also, there are a whole variety of suppliers of Lightning cables. Go to Amazon and search "MFi certified lightning cable".

* https://www.statista.com/statistics/565270/apple-devices-ios...

This is fine, but besides the point.

30% is outrageous and basically no developers want to pay it.

Were it 10%, all those things you mention would remain the same.

30% is the same amount Google takes from the Play Store.

Also, OP is stating that the only reason people buy iOS is because they're some kind of idiot fashionista sheeple etc. I was merely pointing out that there are compelling reasons to prefer iOS beyond, I dunno, the magic mind-control powers of the ghost of Steve Jobs.

"30% is the same amount Google takes from the Play Store."

Except that developers don't need to use the App Store a sales/distribution mechanism.

It's like saying "In one country, there is only one car, and it is $50 000". In another country, the same car exists, and yes, there are other $50 000 cars ... but there are also any number of other choices.

And FYI even Google is engaging in anticompetitive practices.

Both platforms should be required to allow the installation of any app vendor point they want as the default app store.

> 30% is outrageous and basically no developers want to pay it.

Boy will your world be shook when you discover the Xbox, PlayStation and Nintendo stores.

Uau, paying for tools what a crime.

I almost forgotten that here people want to get paid without paying for their own tools.

Ok, I can see that my opinion is getting super-downvoted. But I genuinely fail to understand why developers' opinions should be treated with so much reverence.

It sounds to me like the _only_ reason developers are clamoring against the App Store is because some fraction of developers are unhappy about a high commission. It's on the same lines are some people out there unhappy about Apple's high prices. In both cases, you should vote with your wallets -- do not buy Apple devices or develop for Apple devices.

>Combined with the ambiguity, lack of choice, threats to business Would you say that there was abundant choice for developers before the iPhone? What would you develop for -- Blackberry? Nokia? None of those manufacturers had anything remotely close to the iPhone. Right?

Would you say that a 3rd party developer who writes a "flashlight" app is really a legitimate business? Ok, I'll acknowledge the beef with Spotify and the threat an integrated platform can pose in that regard. So what would you propose Apple do? Pay software engineers on their payroll to help Spotify sell music on the iPod (oops; I mean iPhone)?

>Most companies are not hugely profitable. >In many cases, Apple is making considerable more profit off of apps than developers themselves. >For a $1 spent, about 25 cents to Apple mostly profit, then 70 cents to the dev which will mostly be dev., ad. and op. costs.

All this goes to show is that Apple is hugely expensive platform to develop for. Massively expensive! I am sincerely trying to understand _why_ would any developer _need_ to take this expense if they cannot afford it? Can't you develop a web app instead?

> Pay software engineers on their payroll to help Spotify sell music on the iPod (oops; I mean iPhone)?

Well, Microsoft did that, they developed the Spotify app for Windows Phone back in the day.

> I am sincerely trying to understand _why_ would any developer _need_ to take this expense if they cannot afford it? Can't you develop a web app instead?

I guess because such a large portion of phone users use iPhone, not developing for iOS means you remove yourself from competing about not only those customers but others as well. Say you develop a chat app (fat chance of that now but anyways), a large portion of Android users will say "It's nice and all but because some of my friends have iPhones I want to be able to chat with them as well."

So quite simply, you need to be where the customers are and customers want native apps not web apps. They don't want to open Safari or Chrome or Firefox, type in a URL and some login credentials. It's too much of a nuisance. So if you don't write a native app some one else will and then they take all your customers...

> > Pay software engineers on their payroll to help Spotify sell music on the iPod (oops; I mean iPhone)?

> Well, Microsoft did that, they developed the Spotify app for Windows Phone back in the day. I was trying to be _too clever_ in my reference. What I was trying to say is that there's no moral highground for the developer community to stand on and demand that Apple reduce their commission or allow sideloading on the iPhone. A similar argument demanding that Apple open up iPods for 3rd party apps would've never sounded reasonable when Apple had the largest revenue share or market share or whatever share of the digital music player market. The exact same situation applies to the iPhone as well.

What Microsoft did was because they had no leverage. Apple beat them to market and successfully attracted enough developers to write apps. Sure Apple's platforms benefit from having 3P developers, but that doesn't mean they should set prices based on what 3P devs feel is "fair". If devs don't like the iPhone they should've developed for Windows Phone.

>I guess because such a large portion of phone users use iPhone, not developing for iOS means you remove yourself from competing about not only those customers but others as well. Say you develop a chat app (fat chance of that now but anyways), a large portion of Android users will say "It's nice and all but because some of my friends have iPhones I want to be able to chat with them as well."

> So quite simply, you need to be where the customers are and customers want native apps not web apps. They don't want to open Safari or Chrome or Firefox, type in a URL and some login credentials. It's too much of a nuisance. So if you don't write a native app some one else will and then they take all your customers...

Yes I completely agree with all these points. That is precisely what costs 30% of your app's revenue. The argument around "fairness" doesn't apply because the value provided by the platform is massive. It's the same reason why any argument comparing the iPhone to a Mac or PC wouldn't apply either. You can always build a web-app that's based on open standards and pay the price of losing to a competitor who will build a richer native app.

I'm a legal expert or something. As a developer myself, I find the arguments presented by the dev community against the App store & it's commission self-serving and hypocritical. That's just the cost of doing business on an iPhone. It's expensive! So the best thing to do is to go out there and build for every other phone maker.

> iOS is basically universally reviled by developers.

No. No, it is not.

I am a developer, and I support iOS and Apple’s practices.

I know this comment will be buried; It’s ironic how the people supposedly championing freedom tries to bury any dissenting voices.

> In many cases, Apple is making considerable more profit off of apps than developers themselves.

Apple pays out more revenue to developers than the Play Store.

Back in the old days that was up to 80%, so no not all developers.

>grumpy about a shrewd for profit company.

Like Enron or something.

> I can't help but think that the whole thing is playing out exactly like Epic had hoped.

It seems to be hurting them more than Apple: Epic Games Asks Court to Allow Fortnite Back on the App Store: https://www.macrumors.com/2020/09/05/epic-injuction-fortnite...

> Meanwhile, Epic now has a very good reason to collect a working email address from every past iOS customer

One of the biggest reason I love using Sign-In With Apple is so that I don't have to give my email to any one else.

All of the other news, like hampering advertisers, is good for users but bad for companies and developers who like to prey on users.

> All of the other news, like hampering advertisers, is good for users but bad for companies and developers who like to prey on users.

I think it's all a mixed bag, and it might be naive of users to assume Apple is always going to protect them from things that go against their best interests.

Somehow Apple's arduous review process misses privacy exploits like when Facebook or Tiktok or some other random ad company does it. Shoot, they even rolled back some big privacy change in iOS 14 because Facebook complained about it.

I dunno, this will sound stupid, but my primary reason against the "closed ecosystem" is that I can't run a decent Tetris app on my iPhone. It must be the official N3twork licensed Tetris app or noooothing. That sucks.

> Shoot, they even rolled back some big privacy change in iOS 14 because Facebook complained about it.

I must have missed that news — could you share a link?

https://bgr.com/2020/09/03/ios-14-privacy-feature-apps-track...

It's super crappy, though, to screw users as collateral damage in an attempt to spite Epic.

I could see disabling new signups, but breaking existing users...geeze.

Do you remember the time when Google mass-banned people’s Google accounts for participating in a chat event with the YouTuber Markiplier?

When you restrict your logins to a single company’s OAuth, you’re giving that company incredible power over you- it’s generally not a good thing, except in, perhaps, corporate scenarios where revoking that power unilaterally is a good thing.

> One of the biggest reason I love using Sign-In With Apple is so that I don't have to give my email to any one else.

I have an infinite supply of email addresses so I can give a unique one to whoever asks and then kill it if it's abused. This way I don't have to tell Apple whenever I logon to Epic or fear that Apple will revoke my access to Epic because of a random adolescent outburst not really befitting of a company of that size.

Epic should take advantage of this momentum and launch their own gaming device, with Google/Apple stores saturated as they are, gamedevs like me will welcome it.

So another Stadia?

If they won't be able to support iOS, they can just launch their own "store" for Android. Similar to Amazon's. Though I'm half surprised Steam hasn't done this.

I do question the justification of the 30% cut they all seem to take.

Another "store" is fine. But another device is a very doubtful prospect.

From what I see, the resilience of the PC through the years only shows that people want less consoles, not more.

Yet most studios rather target consoles, because of the consistent hardware.

As for PC resilience, there are hardly any desktops left at most consumer stores, just tablets, 2-1 laptop hybrids and laptops that are either Windows or Mac, both of which are a hit-and-miss for anything else other that the OS version that the vendor shipped with the laptop.

Valve introduced Steam machines and those flopped.

I mean, I'm surprised they haven't created their own side-loaded android platform store.

Do it with Nvidia.

I would speculate that the disappearance of Fortnite from the App Store is a net positive for game developers there.

Fortnite sucks the air out of the room, as much as any #1 media property does to its category.

Besides, making an Unreal Engine game for iOS hardly ever makes sense. Those are always crummy ports.

You could argue Fortnite on mobile devices is itself a crummy port.

Do we need more virtual joystick games? Are we deprived of Battle Royales?

Ask film people whether we’d be better off without Disney, for example.

Listen Epic may be right in some ways, but if Apple just arbitrarily periodically removed the #1 apps from the App Store, I’ve got a surprise for you: it would be healthy for the app ecosystem.

What?

It's really quite absurd to wave away every unreal game disappearing from iOS as acceptable because they were all bad games anyway. It's likely the second most popular engine in the industry, there must be thousands of unreal games released on iOS every year.

Good for the ecosystem? How many people could be, through no fault of their own, locked out of an entire platform because of this?

you do realize Apple Park uses Unreal Engine in its AR map and many Unreal Engine games on iOS are the best in their class.

Metal + the Unreal shaders look wonderful almost 100% of the time

Especially if the alternatives to doing that means that the really large companies get exceptions that others do not. It's actually anti-competitive to have the App Store treating Epic favorably but not some new small company trying to compete.