There is no solution to this problem that benefits everyone perfectly. There are only solutions which are better than the solution we have today.
Actually, there is one near-perfect solution; Apple reduces their cut to ~5% and stops enforcing their insane rules. But that's not happening.
You, and many others in this thread, are blaming Epic, Steam, Blizzard, etc. That's fundamentally flawed thinking. All of this is Apple's fault. 100%. If the government forces Apple to destroy the UX of iOS, its because of actions Apple took which forced their hand. There are actions Apple could take which would abate this. They aren't taking them. You should not be mad at developers; you should be mad at Apple.
Telling consumers they should be mad at Apple is absurd. I am not mad at Apple, I am mad at Epic for wasting everyone’s time with this case that they know they will lose, purely to shape public opinion. The judge so far seems to be projecting this is what will happen. I also don’t like relying on regulators to force changes in a market they know little about. Interfering with a successful model that consumers LIKE and WANT into something else does not benefit consumers.
Benefiting other developers is completely irrelevant to the point of antitrust. That’s just corporate welfare.
Apple would be best to lower their rate a bit, clarify certain inconsistent rules, and not abuse the review process, but otherwise I do not want multiple App stores and prefer Apple to regulate their store over the government. I guarantee you there are far more consumers that share this opinion than not. We really could care less what developers are whining about Apple’s policies or retail cut. If you can’t build for iOS at a profit, find something else to do.
The government isn’t going to force a change of the iOS UX, that’s a pipe dream localized to Hacker News and Epic’s board room. Apple isn’t a monopoly by any definition of the term. You could declare them a utility, but that won’t have the effect you expect.
To believe that iOS, a platform with 15% market share, somehow represents the end of platform history that needs government intervention, is the height of lazy thinking. Build a better ecosystem. Apple did it barely 14 years ago when they were a fraction of Microsoft’s size, and everyone said it was impossible.
Those "insane rules" are an example of that.
Is Apple one of them? The company which disobeys its own App Store rules in the usage of push messages for marking AppleCare, Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple Fitness, and Apple Arcade? The company which goes beyond this and into marketing these services within the literal Settings app of iOS, an avenue that no other developer has access to?
Is Apple putting the interests of their users "first" by restricting the distribution of cloud game streaming applications without being able to review the individual games within the service? How so? It doesn't put my interests first, and I'm an Apple user!
So, oof, ok, they're putting the interests of the nebulous, general, undefinable "prototypical user" first; not me, naturally, not millions of other users, but some unknown user out there. Though, by serving the interests of this unknown prototypical user, they're actively hurting my interests!
Is Apple putting the interests of users "first" by forcing a 30% tax onto any transaction made in the store? I mean, if one analyzes it with all the critical thinking of a seventh grader, sure. They're protecting their users! From the evil, icky "other" credit card processors like, uh, Visa! and Stripe! Those guys will steal your data... or, uh, I guess they wouldn't, actually they're fine, but then apps could use whatever processors they wanted, including ones which steal your data! I mean, lets ignore that Apple could require developers to use one of a set number of approved safe processors, because jeeze, that would destroy the whole argument, wouldn't want that.
Oh, right, I forgot, Apple is being Fair! They don't want to give special treatment to other payment networks, because then they'd have to pick which ones are safe and show favoritism. There we go, an Unassailable stance. Wait, but... Apple only enforces the IAP Framework requirement for Digital purchases... plenty of apps use whatever payment processor they want, including bad ones, as long as its for Physical goods. Weird... and didn't Apple give Amazon special treatment with Prime Video, for Digital goods, allowing them to bypass the IAP Framework? That's right, they did do that...
Jeeze, this is looking pretty bad for Apple. I mean, they're the ones making the rules, and they can't even operate in a position where the Nebulous and Undefinable Interests of Unknown and Uncountable Users is put "first". What hope does anyone else have?
Except, maybe, just maybe, their hope lies in not treating users like babies who need a nanny to make rules in the first place. I know, its crazy, but hear me out: there was that one time I was drinking from my bottle and the nipple fell off and I split milk everywhere, it was such a mess, my mommy was so mad! But, I'm still here. Growing. Learning. Making dumb, shitty comments on the internet. Capable of (most of the time) acting like an adult and making my own decisions. I'm capable of deciding for myself whether something is Safe, whether I want to take the risk, and hedging myself and my interests when those risks turn sour. Every human is. We can't operate in a nursery for our entire lives and expect to grow as people, or even as a species.
There is so much more that iPhones, and mobile computing in general, are capable of; so lets go do it, and lets not pay Apple 30% and deal with their App Review Team in the process. Because I already paid them fair and square for the phone. That should be enough.
So your perfect solution is to recreate the mess that's on the PC???
I don't think you understand - we don't want that. That's why people like me, my wife, my kids, my parents, my relatives, and most of my friends buy an iPhone - so we don't have to go through that hell.
The number of people who buy a iphone for sheer simplicity is enormous. My friend's Android has a better camera, a different friend's Android has some cool games that I can't get. But that's OK, and it's my trade-off to make.
If Blizzard really doesn't like Apple, when why don't they fork Android and make their own phone and have a cool backend like Unreal engine running it? They have the resources and the fans to do it. And frankly, it'd probably be really freakin cool.
And I’m not trying to understate the complexity, just saying they’d have a decent chance of making a great gaming device with phone capabilities.
And you are forgetting that 'too successful' in these cases is: literally has billions in profit uses market position in an anti competitive way
I bought this iPhone and I can't even run my own programs on it without asking for Apple's permission. This needs to be outlawed yesterday.
Apple is that gatekeeper because I, the user, want them to be. Apple has shown me, as a user, that the trade off they make between giving developers open access and protecting users from malware to be a sane one.
Does it make it harder to monetize an app? Totally, but for many iPhone users, that’s a feature, not a bug. The developers are not apple’s customer, so they’re not building a product around their needs — which we honestly need more of in tech. If I felt more strongly about Apple being a gatekeeper on its own platform, I might use Android in some flavor. But I just want a phone that works and has the apps I want to use without a bunch of garbage cluttering it up.
This is somewhat similar to "I don't want to buy an XBox just to play this one game". Of course the barrier there is often a monetary cost. The software platforms are free to download so there's no real barrier.
But for instance, I don't particularly like Epic Games attitude around buying exclusives so I don't use their store. I have missed out on some games I might have enjoyed as a result, but I still have lots to play elsewhere.
I know which one gives me more choice.
Choice is good when there's direct competition. Companies will compete to have better app stores if I can choose which app store I want to use. I as a consumer will get to choose what games I want to play. It's bad for me as a consumer that I also have to choose which app store I'm using to download that game.
Also both things can be bad, but I personally feel that the model where people like Apple due to the "ecosystem" seems to have worked pretty well for a lot of consumers. I don't think "more choice" is a good metric here at all because it's false. I don't care about having more choice in app stores(and I'm not getting to chose which app store I use under either model anyway), I care about my choice of apps. Which isn't really changing, companies will get their product to consumers.
What nobody is talking about is Epic could completely avoid the premium their complaining about by using a website for all transactions. Just like the Kindle App or Netflix etc. The only thing they get from this lawsuit is in app micro transactions. As such it’s really a question of business models not consumer choice.
Netflix is constantly at odds with Apple. You can't subscribe via the iOS app store and they don't even link to the Netflix website due to Apple's rules and how they want their 30% cut for app store-driven traffic.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/31/netflix-stops-paying-the-a...
Provides an article from 3 years ago during which time the sign-up flow has not changed and Netflix has exploded in growth.
> Trying to join Netflix?
>
> You can't sign up for Netflix in the app. We know it's a hassle.
What a goofy point of view.
If there are two restaurants in town, and only one grocery store, would you conclude that eating out is better than cooking your own meals because you have two restaurant options instead of just the one grocery store?
Epic would also need all paid transactions to originate entirely from said website - i.e. there would be no ability for their own apps to even send users to that website. There have been multiple horror stories about app developers trying this exact approach and Apple turning around with "nope, pay up your 30% cut".
Trying to join _? You can't sign up for _ in the app. We know it's a hassle.
Not:
Trying to join _? click here
But, actually following the acceptable approach and you don’t run into issues.
This is basically the right to repair / right to do whatever you want with your device debate. You can't force Apple to program the functionality for running other people's code into iOS, but it's legal if you figure out how. This is exactly what went down in 2010 with Cydia [0] - it's fair use to modify your own device, but that doesn't compel apple to make it easy to do so[1].
0: https://www.wired.com/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jailbreaking/
1: https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/07/dmcae...
Thankfully, we’ve had the EFF to campaign for exemptions, but it’s frustrating having to go through the whole ordeal every three years because Congress can’t be arsed to fix it.
17 U.S. Code §1201(a)(1)(C)[0]:
> (C) During the 2-year period described in subparagraph (A), and during each succeeding 3-year period, the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who shall consult with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce and report and comment on his or her views in making such recommendation, shall make the determination in a rulemaking proceeding for purposes of subparagraph (B) of whether persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by the prohibition under subparagraph (A) in their ability to make noninfringing uses under this title of a particular class of copyrighted works. In conducting such rulemaking, the Librarian shall examine—
(followed by a list of things the Librarian will consider)
Sure, you could go with AMD but does having other choices excuse a company? It certainly violates the spirit of anti-trust laws. Apple makes and controls 46% of all the mobile devices in the US. The nearest competitor is Samsung, who makes 25%.
If Apple allowed other OS's to operate on their phone, then they could say "If you don't like our integrated app store policies and policy of not allowing other app stores, use a different OS". But until they do that, the OS and the hardware have to be seen as one thing.
So this business model is possible. And it's the friendliest to end users, too.
But a number of high-profile publishers (Rockstar, Ubisoft, EA) force you to use their app platform even if you purchased the game on Steam. I bought Far Cry 5 on Steam, and running it first launches Ubisoft's launcher, which usually needs to update (why????), then I can launch the game. GTA Online freebie in Epic Store, first has to start Rockstar Social Club (which also usually needs to update), then finally runs the game. FIFA on Steam forces Origin, and so on.
It's a lot easier to deal with if you use a game launcher like Playnite, or should I say a launcher launcher, but with the rigarmarole you have to go through just to start one game suddenly your launcher launcher is now a launcher launcher launcher.
For the same experience as you get with an iPhone.
What about that video streaming app? Well, there's a new version, so you have to download that right now or you can't watch. Oh, and we logged you out. Get out your phone or computer and type in this link. Then log in there and type this code. Make sure you enable all javascript because otherwise this won't work. Also, there will be an awkward pause after the computer tells you you've activated where the console won't indicate the same and you'll wonder if it even worked.
Granted, some consoles handle this better than others.
Same with new games ... pop in the disc, run the install routine, download the day 1 patch...
Sometimes you can use another publisher app store. Which will in fact start another app store upon starting the game. In turn starting the game. And the game itself will also ask you for a game studio account. So you need 2 app store and 3 account to play the game. And I am talking about single player game here.
Not saying this doesn't ever happen, but I've used Steam for more than a decade now and not once have I seen that happen, ever.
Yes, some games have separate launchers, and yes, sometimes these have support for their own separate accounts and mod loaders and such, but not once have they actually been full-blown alternative app stores.
I don't buy very many modern AAA titles, though, so that might be part of it. Still, of the ones I do buy, none of them have installed some alternative store.
I actively avoid and don't buy/play games that require Origin or Uplay. Even when friends tell me about free games in Origin I don't give a fuck. And I'm a very active gamer.
You do have a choice. There are tons of awesome games out there.
On an iOS device, the entity that makes the app has no choice of what store to be in, they must be in Apple's. That is a monopoly.
As many have pointed out, if you only want to get your apps from one store-- like Apple's-- you could chose that. But currently you can't choose to use another app vendor.
The fact is the App Store helps everyone. It curates apps for most people, it helps developers make more money (as you said, double the revenue, well worth the 1/3 cut, that no longer applies to small apps), and it helps Apple innovate on their hardware product.
App Store does help developers make more money than if they were not on it, but being on it is the only practical way for them to gain access to iPhone users (they could ask users to jailbreak their phones instead but that is impractical for most). If the courts order Apple to allow competing app stores, users would still benefit from Apple's curation, and developers would still benefit from the distribution by using Apple App Store, but they would have a viable choice of picking another app store without having to change to another OS (for users) or abandoning the largest market (for developers).
> In this case, opening up the market to competition might be beneficial to existing App Store developers.
Only true if the 50% revenue increase disappears (Which is likely with a flood of free apps). Not only that, but more free apps = more privacy violations.
> App Store does help.....
So the App Store is a net benefit - what, exactly, is the problem? There is no demonstrable harm. The small apps got a cut on the fee earlier this year. Now it's just megacorps trying to get as much of the pie as they can, in a way that hurts consumers.
Also allowing 3rd party applications to control critical features is a privacy/security issue I haven't seen addressed.
That is not a sure thing. Having a wealthier customer base could be as much or even bigger a reason for the higher revenue. And curated apps still have to compete with each other.
> If there are free alternatives available everywhere, people will be less likely to pay.
If this were really the case, it would actually be an argument for increased competition because it would be better for the consumers. However, I do not think that it is true because almost 93% of apps in the App Store are already free.[1] So the 100% revenue difference probably would not disappear. And free apps would have to follow Apple's privacy rules, as they do now.
> So the App Store is a net benefit - what, exactly, is the problem?
Of course it is a net benefit. Even if overall fees were 99%, it would still be a net benefit to both consumers and developers because retaining 1% is still better than nothing for developers, and having a software repository is very valuable for users. No-one is suggesting shutting down the App Store. What is being suggested is for Apple to allow other firms to compete against it, because they control almost two-thirds of the market by revenue and can dictate the terms to the participants.
> There is no demonstrable harm.
That is for Epic to prove. They would try to demonstrate that they suffered harm after violating App Store terms by offering a competing payment method, and that it is anti-competitive for Apple to eject Epic's app, given its market position. Regulators would also have their own methods of determining whether harm occurred.
1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1020996/distribution-of-...
I understand what you wrote about the two companies' motivations but what do you mean when you write that Apple takes paid apps more seriously? What app store policy differences are you thinking of, for example, between Apple and Google, that suggest a more serious attitude?
Is that why I found a dozen Chinese knockoff BonziBuddy[1] clones on Apple's App Store?
There are a few reasons for the discrepancy though. Someone else already mentioned the higher average quality of apps on the App Store.
One facet is the difficulty involved in pirating iOS apps compared to Android, likely because Apple makes sideloading so difficult. Pretty much any kid can spend 20 minutes searching around on Google and figure out how to get paid games for free on their phone.
Another variable is average user affluence. Apple is popular in developed countries with sizable middle class populations, and they position themselves as more of a luxury brand. Android devices run the gamut from ultra premium to ultra budget, catering to user in every socioeconomic class. Apple users on average probably have more spare cash to spend on apps.
So, really what this is about is choice for the big app-manufacturers, including games. It has nothing to do with user choice at all, and the cost is borne by the user (who has a far shittier user-experience than they do now).
They want in on the platform, without paying the fees that being on the platform requires.
Argument for why is that happening: So Apple can make more money.
(Disclosure: I am an Apple shareholder.)
You’re also framing the market in an arbitrary way to support your conclusions. Every company could be said to have a monopoly over their own customers. Any argument that Apple monopolizes Apple customer, or that Google monopolizes Play Store customers could also be used to say Valve monopolizes Valve customers, or Sony monopolizes PlayStation customers, or that Samsung monopolizes the market of Samsung smart fridge customers.
You need a lot more than just that to make a compelling argument that the behaviour is illegally anti-competitive.
Amazon and other vendors have forked Android so that they can put there own store on it. Google does not open up its API enough that you can have the same functionality as the Google Play Store. I think you understand what I am saying, but just in case, it's really different than what you can do on Windows, Linux, MacOS.
I agree you can't have a monopoly by "customers". That's why I don't think Valve has a monopoly. PC users can can and do install games other ways. On the other hand, by my logic, Nintendo does have a monopoly on Switch users and PlayStation does have a monopoly on PlayStation owners. I think it matters a lot less in those cases because they aren't as ubiquitous as phones. In the US, Apple is 60% of the market, which is way past what the US used to define as a monopoly.
I am guessing you don't agree and don't think that is a problem. But I think I understand your point and respect the different point of view.
I think this reframes the issue even further. This changes the claim to being that they're anti-competitive by simply not distributing the competing software themselves. The typical workflow for downloading software on a PC is go to website > download software > install software. The typical workflow for "sideloading" an app is go to website > download software > install software.
I would suggest the reason consumers are inhibited from downloading alternative app stores is because they don't trust apps they've downloaded from alternative locations (you could say the security warnings are anti-competitive, but MacOS and Windows have similar warnings when installing software downloaded from the internet, and they don't seem to generate the same accusations). But in any case, the complaint "consumers trust Google, but they don't trust me, and that's not fair" is not a reasonable basis for a lawsuit.
You're only forced to use stuff when you're in the small minority that cares about not using stuff. Moxie Marlinspike explained it perfectly in his DEF CON 18 keynote.
Thing is, I don't think there's any conclusive proof that the majority of customer would be okay with what you're describing.
Most of us on PC are getting along just fine with one or two game launchers. I'm using GOG and Steam. My kid uses Steam and Epic.
When Funcom tried adding their own launcher for Conan Exiles, the vast majority of players berated them so hard on their forums that they removed it.
It's also a very good thing for game devs who aren't at the mercy of the whims of a single company. Steam no longer wants to work with you? Go to GOG, Epic or even self-publish.
The only way to truly improve it for consumer is to require that all platform's be open source. That I could get behind but it will never happen.
This is demonstrably not true. Epic's launcher has been a laughing stock since it was announced.
* It only recently got any form of Achievements (that are completely undiscoverable)
* It has no way to join a party with your friends. I think it has Friends support but am not sure because you can't do anything at all with your Friends so I never even look.
* It has no way to get support (their "troubleshoot" guide amounts to 'clear your cache, run as Admin, then try reinstalling: https://www.epicgames.com/help/en-US/epic-games-store-c73/la...)
* Half the time their UI elements don't work (I just went into the "Troubleshoot" section and the back button doesn't work, so I had to close the whole window and start over)
* There are no user reviews of games
* Their store and library sorting is a mess that makes it difficult to find anything
* They launched without even having cloud save support
Epic's game store is underpowered, buggy, and miserable to use - and plenty of companies still do exclusive deals with them because Epic holds a bag of gold in front of their face. They even do it when it breaks their own promises, like when IOI decided to launch Hitman 3 after promising they'd import Hitman 2 purchases - and then apparently totally forgot that Hitman 1 and 2 were on Steam and Hitman 3 was on Epic, so while XBox and Playstation users got their levels migrated on day one PC users are still out of luck a month later.
And I also should note, half of those items don't need to implemented in a store. People ask for them because they are implemented as extras in other stores, but strictly speaking the distribution and support are the only things the store needs to have to be called a store. Achievements, friend lists, user reviews, and cloud saves can be provided by separate services and work just as well, and could result in a higher cut for the vendors if the store doesn't have to shelter the cost for that.
Also, I doubt you would criticize an embedded OS for only having process scheduling and hardware access, because that's probably all it was designed to do. Similarly, a low-cost store may want to skip on providing all those extra features so they can keep prices down.
No user reviews, no easy help button for noobs, no cloud save, only recently got achievements, can't crush a friends party. all sound like little nice to haves that don't add much value. Does it allow me to find/play the game? Everything else takes time away from playing.
This would be like shipping an OS without internet access to end-users.
Nobody cares about centralised achievements any more, and most people don’t particularly like having different friends lists for each service.
People would rather organise a game through something like Discord that is entirely seperate to the store ecosystem.
I'm not saying you need a full social network on every platform, either.
Nintendo must have missed this.
I'm not sure you understand the market. If saving to the cloud is a must have feature your game will provide it. Ditto for multiplayer. No one is refusing to play a game because the platform you purchased the game on doesn't have an easy help button.
Paying for exclusives is a bit of a bummer but game development is pretty damn competitive as it is, Epic injecting a lot of money to secure exclusives might actually do some good for indie devs.
In my experience most of these exclusivity deals are temporary anyway, so you just have to wait 6 months to a year to get it on your store of choice. That's a fair compromise IMO, especially since nobody bothers to release finished games anymore anyway, so you might as well get the finished version on Steam on sale a year later.
To your first example: Most malware infections on PCs today are distributed by the Chrome Web Store. (Preventing malicious extensions was Google's excuse for blocking third party install... but since they don't even attempt to control malware they distribute first party, it's hilarious.) If they tell you they have a virus, open their Chrome extensions tab, remove everything, and you're good.
If anything, centralized app stores magnify the problem: By making every single app submitted look like it's coming from a reputable source. If app stores did any realistic good job at policing malware, instead of focusing on policing their revenue tax, they might be a benefit.
But again, malicious apps can have millions of installs and nobody does anything about it. Epic decides to charge 18% less and circumvent Google and Apple's taxation, and they act in less than 12 hours.
Bear in mind, if Google and Apple had to compete in this aspect, it's possible users would actually choose and prefer a third party store with better curation. So they'd have an incentive to improve their review processes.
I will need to see evidence Google employs people to review third-party software.
What is considered Android/iOS malware these days is much more tame than what malware used to be. A cryptolocker on iOS is basically impossible.
Another great example is the target of the Apple/Facebook spat currently - Apple has not just said that the developer needs to go through the OS-dialog approval to use the IDFA (identifier for advertising) to track users, but to do _any_ cross-organizational tracking, including using mechanisms that Apple does not have technical protections for.
Apple developer accounts involve real-world identity verification, so that (hopefully) abuse results in an actual ban of the company and people rather than just of a throwaway account.
This is the real UX problem.
I have no problem buying from a variety of stores. I do that in real life. Most required (pre-Covid) me to walk in each of their doors.
What's a problem is requiring the installed & running presence of a particular App Store to run an app.
If I legally purchased something, why is a particular App Store even still required? If I want to re-install (new device) then I can download it again?
If we're talking updates... I'm happy to forgo update pushing. And renting software with subscriptions just needs to die.
EGS "exclusives" are usually timed exclusives. You wait half a year or so, and get a more stable, better optimized and usually also cheaper version on Steam too. If you want to play an EGS exclusive game immediately, installing EGS isn't a big deal either.
So far, having multiple competing app stores on PC has been a win both for users and developers. Choice is always a good thing.
End of the day you have to have enough value to get people to inconvenience themselves - I'd rather that this value gets shelled out to users as enticement to install some app store than Apple capturing that money simply because their store is the only one allowed to exist on the platform.
The App Store is good because it is closed and curated. That's a main driver of the product experience. Removing the App Store irrecoverably damages the iPhone - a curated, non-malware infested, high quality phone with a consistent experience.
I have yet to see any argument how the App Store harms consumers. It helps developers make more money (Play Store revenue is half that of the App store's apps), it helps consumers stay protected from malware infested applications and is easy to use.
Where, exactly, is the harm? Now Epic with their gambling games will be able to rip off kids even more in their own store? Fantastic.
https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...
What I mean is, if Apple's cut was lesser / we had different app stores, prices could potentially be up to 30% lesser.
30% is more than fair. People spend more money on the App Store than competitors. Developers want access to that. it shouldn't be free.
Yes people spend more on the App Store and if the dev wants to use it to market their app they should go ahead and pay that 30%.
However if the devs dont want to access that, and/or consumers want to pay lesser, they should have the option to download from elsewhere.
In other words, any savings from the developer cut is simply kept by the developer, not passed onto the consumer.
Is that really true? Legitimate Steam keys are sold by stores other than Valve's Steam store, such as Humble Bundle, Green Man Gaming and Fanatical.
I shop at multiple stores that sell Steam keys, and I would say that I only buy less than 1/3rd of my games from Steam directly, due to heavy discounts via bundling and other sales at various online game stores. I find that the alternate "Steam" stores have sales more often than the official Steam store does.
https://www.pcgamer.com/lawsuit-claims-valve-is-abusing-its-...
You can have a properly curated store with 10% fees, for example. And you can block malware without blocking alternative web browsers or game streaming apps.
People on HN get mad when others make money, but they never get mad when they want to make money too.
> You can have a properly curated store with 10% fees, for example. And you can block malware without blocking alternative web browsers or game streaming apps.
It becomes much more difficult and time consuming, and why 10%? The service is unbelievable - it provides great access to a platform and its high spending users. That is worth more than 10%.
More than fair? Okay then, tell me what percent is fair.
> People on HN get mad when others make money, but they never get mad when they want to make money too.
The problem is not that they make money, it's that they are engineering a lack of competition in order to keep their prices arbitrarily high.
> It becomes much more difficult and time consuming, and why 10%? The service is unbelievable - it provides great access to a platform and its high spending users. That is worth more than 10%.
Charging a significant percentage for "providing access to users" is rent-seeking. That's not a good thing.
Apple is using it's market position and it's leading to inefficient pricing. I guarantee you if Apple was forced to allow other payment methods on their store that their % cut would go down because the convenience they offer is not worth 30%.
And App Store can be as curated as they want if they provide the hooks to allow third party stores and app deployments.
I generally agree that you have the device choice - but considering the size of this market and Apple market position this is a right place for regulators to step in and fix the market inefficiency - just like the Windows/IE thing. And while they are at it they should probably look at digital store policies in general to prevent this kind of thing, Google isn't much better than Apple and they keep bundling stuff with the phone as well.
Apple isn't ripping off anyone. They're taking their cut of sales based off the value of providing access to a high paying market that has a non-negligible cost. The point is - Epic is not doing this "for the market." They're doing it because they want more money for themselves - which is fair, but they are using a service which provides them revenue. That should not be free. For that matter, they have a monopoly over their store as well - should they have to allow third party "VBucks" stores? It's absurd.
> Apple is using it's market position.....
It clearly is worth that, in fact, probably much more - others on this thread that support your POV have said the App Store generates twice the revenue of Android. It's not just the convenience - it simply makes devs more money. Cutting the app store will tank developer value instantly. Developers will lose big time in this event. There will be many on here that will begin to complain as their salary dips. Also apple already cut the fee for smaller apps. So what's the real problem? I have yet to see any tangible evidence of consumer harm.
> And App Store can be as curated.....
That opens the door for malware and a poor customer experience. I can see my mom now being tricked into downloading a privacy invading app. my dad's android is a nightmare. It destroys the product.
> I generally agree that you have the device choice....
There isn't market inefficiency. It's hard to argue monopoly of a company that has 20% of the market. The IE/Windows debate is far different. Both DOMINATED the market. This simply isn't true in this case.
The fact is every time this comes up on HN people just hate Apple, but never look at the actual merit of the arguments. It isn't a monopoly (less than 20% global marketshare), its fees aren't exorbitant based on the value it provides developers, and end consumers get a clean, relatively safe experience. No one is losing, except megacorps like Epic who want to make a little more money.
Maybe the Apple App Store can get it's shit together and present a less hostile environment so these companies are able/willing to distribute on the Apple App Store again, and then you'll actually have a choice.
1. Apple wins = I have no choice but to use the app store.
2. Epic wins = I have no choice but to install multiple different app stores to run many different apps.
Continuing the analogy: Some people want a walled garden to keep their kids safe, but your suggesting to remove the walls and just advice kids to stay on the lawn instead.
You are not buying an iPhone and the software separately. It is one product. The App Store is the product.
I can't "buy" iOS and put it on any phone. The phone and software are inextricably linked. It is one product.
> The App Store is a service provided by Apple that you should have a choice to use or not. The Apple Tax is what you're 'buying' from Apple when using the App Store service.
You can extend this to any level. This is like complaining "I don't want to use Amazon to buy things on Amazon.com"
Now you can chose to buy en expensive device (or you did in the past and can't de-apple due to lock-in) or not. In the future you could chose not to buy photoshop because of their insistence on their app store dependency.
I think having a more granular choice is good. Like I said, that UX hit, imo, is less important than the monopolistic behavior displayed now:
The apple "tax" (including the rules around links to donation pages and similar nonsense). Curation that cannot be overridden by end-users. Unpredictable policy changes for developers. 1st party appropriation of successful independent applications. Unfair competing (think browser javascript engines).
I think bad UX is less important than those things listed above, that's the argument.
What I would do is force EA to put their games on all stores, then on their own store they can give you a 25% discount because they don't have to pay the tax. Then people could decide if they want store A, B or C version.
If the store tax would be low enough there would not be such a pressure from the giant publishers to avoid the store, as a person that don't like giants I hope that this giants fighting each other will benefit us by breaking the monopolies and ensuring that all stores will play by fair rules and respect all consumer rights.
About the argument that Apple,Valve gives you access to many users, sure that should be price correctly, developers could pay for getting promoted on the first page of the store, but Apple,Google should not get a cut for promoting my app if the user installed it starting from my own website.
That statement isn't true no matter how you slice it. Apple's largest competitor is Google so the idea that you can't compete with Apple is nonsense. And what countries does Apple have a 50% market share in?
I fucking can't compete with Apple, say I am a bank/store/club and my customers(not Apple ones) want a mobile app, how can I give the 50% of my customer my app without having to pay Apple , if I try to sell something or put a link to a page of mine for buying subscriptions or stuff Apple will demand a cut(I know they were forced to be less greedy lately).
2. You can't give your customers an app without paying Apple if your customers are demanding it work for Apple products. That doesn't mean you can't compete. You can still only sell to Android users and other phone users but you have to do so with the understanding of what that means. You're still competing. That's like saying you can't compete with Windows when you only release your app for Linux. That's your choice. You're still competing against Windows.
All that has to happen is that a company has significant market power.
And courts have held that 50% of a given geographic area can fall under anti trust laws.
Your second point is again invalid, say Apple is blocking my website because I said that they are greedy, this is fine in your opinion because I can still show my site to PC and Android users and you can't even see yet the abuse that is happening, Apple should not decide that they don't like the politics on an app or book and not allow the user the freedom to install it, they can block it from the store sure but the user should have the freedom to use his brain and install what he wants, The same for say a group of developers or musicians that want to compete with Apple products , like the Apple Store, or Apple Music or whatever games they have, it is actually ilegal for Apple to abuse their market share in smartphones to give it's own products an advantage. (yeah actually the law does not say you must have 50% +1 market share)
I take it you then also demand that Sirius and Comcast broadcast anyone who brings them any old content, then? Everything should public access?
For that matter, terrestrial radio stations also must broadcast the End is Nigh clapboard kooks, too, right?
I would appreciate if you try a bit more to make the distinction between Apple Store market and just he hardware(the laptop or phone).
So probably in your view this is evil, the people forced a private entity to not be a jerk and apply a big tax. Evil or not this is possible, a law can be made to limit the Google/Apple tax and the same law can be made to force side loading or block loot-boxes.
1. Huawei, in your example, didn't create the radio station platform. We're not talking about publicly accessible platforms, we're talking about a app platform that Apple created, cultivated, and maintains 100%.
2. Again, this analogy has the same issue. Apple doesn't own the entire internet. If Apple started blocking websites, that would be wrong because those websites existed and continue to exist without Apple. The App Store does not have that same providence and was 100% created by Apple.
No one ever said that you have to have 50% + 1 market share so I don't know where you're getting that from. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Amazon, Google... all these companies own the marketplaces for their devices. This is not illegal and there is precedent protecting it.
The difference is that laptops have always been able to run that stuff. iOS was setup from the beginning to only allow apps from the App Store.
If users want the freedom to install whatever they want on their devices, they can go with Android.
Why should be this true? Why a law that forbids radio and TV makers to lock their device is good for society but a similar law for phones is less good? What is the benefit? The only benefit is more money for Apple so maybe you love Apple more then people but it makes no sense, sorry.
Apple is a private company whose shareholders decide what's best based on the fact that they created the infrastructure and technology of their platform and they are the ones spending money and resources to ensure its quality and reliability.
If you want to pass laws to solve this problem, create a National App Store platform and then require companies to allow access to it. Forcing Apple to change their own App Store, though, is wrong. How much I love Apple or how much I love people has nothing to do with it.
And not to put to fine a point on it but you can do whatever you want with your iPhone after you've bought it. You can take it apart, swap out components, repair it yourself, jailbreak it, or whatever you want and Apple can't do anything about it (and won't). You're talking about forcing a company to change its own operations for their platform just because you don't like it or agree with the restrictions they've chosen to place on it. I would be really curious to see if you'd be willing to have a private company force you to do something you don't want to do with your own property or self.
The issue with the launchers is indeed a problem, the solution is to have the games run without the shitty launcher. So if you want to buy and play a game you can open your browser, find the best deal, buy the game and if you want do a direct download and play, or use a launcher, install the game then kill the launcher and play the game. This is the GOG model, you don't need the launcher.
So IMO the launcher issue should be addressed by fixing it, not by praying that there will be no competition in future so only my favorite launcher will exist.
Case in point, I bought DooM Eternal's Collector's Edition. I could not use Steam and had to activate the game through the Bethesda launcher. I can add the game to my Steam library as an "external" game but I can't play with my list of Steam friends or use the matchmaking tools built into Steam. I had to use Bethesda's platform and we, essentially, had to re-do all the connections and friends lists to duplicate them in Bethesda. I would have preferred not to do that. You may even be able to do that now but it was not an option at launch.
Also today there are many examples of PC players playing together with console players so there is no technical reason why someone that uses Steam should not be able to play multiplayer game with someone that bought on GOG or PlayStation Store.
Exactly. Yet these limitations exist. That's why people should vote with their wallets and not support games that artificially limit this and why, if people want phones that don't have walled gardens, they shouldn't buy an Apple product.
I agree people should vote with their money but also not ignore the actual voting, and demand that we pass laws in favor of the people. Americans could keep their locked iPhones and EU could have a law where a user would have the freedom to get his device rooted.
I could accept this if valve store didn't take 20 seconds to load on an 8-core machine.
Everything else you said is irrelevant.
But sure, if I put my app on the store I should pay for hosting it, for the updates and reviews, I should pay if I want it to be promoted on the store but I should not be forced to say pay Apple a tax for shit like soem subscriptions or books I sell from my app, I should pay Apple for the store services they offer.
Also Sony and Microsoft should not be immune either IMO
If you're selling them from within the app, you're making use of Apple's payment and subscription infrastructure and the customer base of iOS. Those things are not free.
I agree if you as a customer pay with Apple payment system Apple should charge you a fee, but you as a user should have the freedom to see a link to a product page.
Check all the rule changes Apple were forced to do, they reducing the tax and reducing the scope when to apply it, the Apple fans were sure that Apple was perfect before this changes and for some reason Apple changed it's perfection now and can it be more perfect??? Was the last change the last one, can't Apple be even more perfect then more perfect and offer the user the freedom that they do not deserve??
The changes in policy show that Apple was not in the right and it is not perfect and there is a large chance that the last changes were not enough and they need to slowly give up their control , but squeze as much money as possible because "this is the way"
That's a load of horseshit. You can't walk in to a Target and post an advertisement saying that the Walmart down the street or "Mom and Pop's General Store" sell the same items for cheaper or that they have x, y, z. Apple owns their App Store. It functions just like a regular store and they're allowed to decide what they want to allow on their store and what they don't.
Your position on this is wrong because it's based on assumptions you're making that are inaccurate. This a private platform. They're not abusing their power simply by operating their store and not allowing others to advertise their own outside goods inside of it.
There is an infinite difference with a physical Store, Apple and Google combined control the market where your local store might control a small area (in my little village there are at least 3 stores so there is more competition then in mobile market)
EA's Origin client also knows which EA games you have that were bought on Steam as well.
All Apple has to do is compromise on the 30% number. They've taken it to the extreme and demanded 30% of everything, 30% of subscriptions, 30% of every dollar.
It's outrageous and developers who are perfectly capable of either self-hosting or finding a solution for cheaper than 30% OF ALL REVENUE deserve to keep the 25% of that revenue that is pure profit to Apple.
Apple created this situation for themselves and they will have to give up sooner or later.
Steam makes plenty of concessions for the 30% number and now allows basically pass-through games so that a much more wide variety of titles can appear there even if they aren't paying a full tax to the storefront for appearing.
I mean, could you imagine a world where Wal-Mart was the only store your Toyota car was allowed to drive to, and Wal-Mart charged their suppliers 30% of all revenue to appear on the shelves?
What is happening with the App Store monopoly is truly outrageous, it's an unimaginable amount. 30% is why Apple is going to lose here. If they were willing to be reasonable, it wouldn't get to this point.