edit: I'm not saying that they're not allowed to profit. I just wanted to point out that the 30% isn't strictly necessary to run the app store.
Is Apple making a fortune by not having a competitive marketplace for software on iOS? Of course they are.
The hardest aspect of this to defend, and it's obviously not a use case that Epic are going to push because it hurts their potential to profit from this, is blocking services like xCloud and Stadia. Those services aren't downloading software to the user's device, and much like Netflix, the user is accessing a content catalogue administered and provided elsewhere.
Epic doesn't want democracy on Android and iOS, it wants its own store on both devices so it has a competitive advantage over both companies everywhere (if I can buy an app or a game from Epic rather than Apple, and know I can take that purchase with me to other platforms like Windows/Playstation or even if I switch phone eco-systems, that's what I'm going to do as a consumer).
A ruling in Epic's favour would almost certainly get the Epic store onto games consoles, too.
Essentially it does boil down to greedy corporation vs. greedy corporation. Part of me hopes that Epic wins both cases if only to force Google and Apple to separate their income streams from the security model, but Apple's not wrong here. Most users wouldn't understand any of what I've just said and won't take the time to learn so they are a danger to themselves. You would also be trusting Epic to curate content to the extent that Apple does when they have no financial incentive to do so, which is IMHO why the Play Store is so full of garbage.
Fortnite was a 5bn/year game that made only 7% of its revenue on iOS, but much more on consoles. This is just a the beginning of a huge fight over a market that has grown incredibly huge, and Epic having realised that access to hardware is crucial to their further growth.
I mean, they could simply make their own, but perhaps that's more risky than suing Apple, Sony, MS for access to their platforms.
The money is in the hardware but the value is in the software.
People will buy hardware thinking of that as their investment, without realising that the software is what extracts almost all of the revenue from them as a customer regardless.
Steve Jobs talking about this in 2007: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEeyaAUCyZs
As a customer and developer - yes please.
Arguments are made along the lines of "don't like the app store? make a web app"... but because of the restrictions, you are limited to a second-rate Webkit base web browser with limitations on bluetooth, game controller support, etc.
Not only are the profiting an obscene amount for services available elsewhere (And arguably better services across the board for stuff like payment options, ad options, browser options, email client options, etc) but they are doing so BECAUSE the better options are restricted or limited on their platform.
This would be like if Microsoft not only forced you to have IE6 installed... but then forced you to have other browsers simply be an IE6 reskin, forced other companies to not advertise about alternatives and then took a 30% cut of all things installed on Windows.
The level of profit goes beyond simply making 30%... it's making 30% after limiting viable options and then saying "we offer this stuff because it's better than the alternative".
I think Apple's point is they think users are too dumb to handle that and they don't want to take any chance of user ignorance reflecting poorly on them or their product experience.
And I sympathize with this argument, which is why I propose calling the outside-the-garden toggle “Developer Mode.” Apple already has “Pro” phones and headphones. This is just an extension of that.
So when the user toggles the Developer mode they get a dialog box that says we can’t do refunds or offer support until you turn this off, which will delete any 3P apps.
While Epic is suing Google right now, it's mostly for anti-competitive measures other than this, like threatening phone vendors to stop them from bundling Epic's store.
1.) Suspend the device warranty. The warranty on your device is suspended while in "Developer Mode" or whatever it is they want to call it. They can make switching over to "Developer Mode" go through various prompts to make sure you're okay with what you're doing.
2.) When launching the app that's not from the app store they can popup a warning informing you that this application was not obtained from the app store and therefore wasn't inspected by Apple. It may contain malware that dames your device or compromises your data.
3.) Periodically popup a window for a running application that wasn't obtained from the app store. If you leave the app running then maybe you get a daily reminder that the app is still running. Maybe you can get an activity report of sorts for it to - so you can see what the app has been up to.
4.) When disabling "Developer Mode" then list all the applications not obtained from the app store that will be removed from the device. Those applications will be removed when disabling "Developer Mode."
I think there's a way to do this that protect's everyone's interests and allows Apple's customers to make informed choices.
> Xbox retail consoles can have two modes, Retail Mode (1) and Developer Mode (2). In Retail Mode, the console is in its normal state: you can play games and run apps acquired through the Xbox store. In Developer Mode, you can develop and test software for the console, but you cannot play retail games or run retail apps.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/xbox-apps/devki...
Doesn't matter one whit what the actual cut is, there's absolutely no way to claim it's fair when you don't allow any competition in the space.
I won't buy Apple devices because you don't own that phone, you're just renting it from Apple. They own the phone.
(Microsoft is supporting Epic as well, yet argues that their own Xbox store should not have to open up either. Maybe that would be a good place for them to start?)
https://mspoweruser.com/epic-apple-app-store-xbox-playstatio...
it's always funny how Apple is the specific target of this rage and yet nobody makes such a fuss about these platforms, despite their exclusive control of developer freedoms on their own customer base... nobody gets themselves nearly as worked into a lather about the evils of Playstation, and yet these platforms are locked down even tighter than the iphone.
If you think the iPhone + iPad is basically a video game console, then yeah, you probably think Apple's rent-seeking monopoly is ok, because it's not much different than any Nintendo Switch or Sony PlayStation or similar. People generally live with those draconian restrictions, because it's understood to be subsidized by the exclusive titles, and arguably not of high importance (it plays games and media, it's "just for fun").
But if you think the iPhone + iPad is basically a computer/smartphone, then you probably think Apple's rent-seeking monopoly is evil, because it fundamentally breaks the promise those devices imply, and is wildly worse than any Google Android or Microsoft Windows device ever sold. These devices are considered "important", they get used for legal / government / business purposes, and not "just for fun".
So, is the iPhone/iPad a smartphone/computer? Or is the iPhone/iPad a video game console?
Apple's rocking the boat here by trying to have their cake and eat it too -- they want the sell something that is ostensibly a smartphone/computer device, but they want the monopoly control and legal treatment as if it were a video game console.
> it's always funny how Apple is the specific target of this rage. nobody gets themselves nearly as worked into a lather about the evils of Playstation
I mean, people really did get "worked into a lather about the evils of Playstation" too. Notably, for a hot minute, Sony positioned PlayStation 3 as a real smartphone/computer (and not just a video game console) with the release of their Linux setup, and Sony did get exactly the same heat Apple gets today when Sony restricted it, and then later killed it)
https://tedium.co/2020/11/27/sony-linux-otheros-geohot-histo...
the reason it's a "video game console" is precisely because it's so locked down, is it not? why does that starting point of unfreedom justify continued unfreedom for xbox, and yet not for iphone?
do you not have a moral right to the free-as-in-speech usage of the hardware you paid for, when you purchase an xbox? if not, why not apply this logic to the iphone?
would apple's lawyers not argue, in the same sense, that an iphone is a phone first and foremost, a tool that runs a limited selection of utilities that people find useful in their daily life, not a general computing platform?
why should iphone be forced to become an open, general computing platform, if Xbox should not?
if the difference is subsidies, that xbox is being sold below the actual cost of hardware (debatable, but for the sake of argument) - is that not "dumping" (in the anticompetitive sense) to secure a monopoly and then enforce anticompetitive lock-ins in the software marketplace and keep their competitors out? How is that a thing that we should be backing, that hardware sold at cost must allow competitors and yet hardware sold via anticompetitive dumping should be allowed to lock out their competitors?
the logic you very quickly come to is that this suit is actually not about freedom at all, it's about publishers who want to bypass app review so they can siphon data without apple interfering to protect their users, and to bypass the revenue cut so they can substitute their own. Because these publishers have no interest in the freedom of their own users at all, and took the exact same revenue cut themselves until the day they filed the lawsuit (and will raise their fees back up a year or two after the lawsuit is concluded).
again, if Microsoft and others were being forthright, it would be easy for themselves to open up their hardware for third-party app stores. The Zen architecture has great support for encrypted memory virtualization, this is extremely low-risk. They most certainly will not do that because - unlike revenue cuts - that's not a change they can go back on in a year or two once the lawsuit is concluded. Once they open pandora's box they can't close it again, and they have no real intention to actually open it. They will argue for the lines to be drawn exactly where it conveniences them while inconveniencing apple - that xbox is a "console" while iphone is a "general purpose device".
it's merely a convenient argument to exploit pro-software freedom advocates and anti-apple sentiment in order to lever open Apple's fortress while maintaining their own, not actually an honest argument. Tim Sweeny of all people is not actually making a good faith argument here, nor is microsoft.
It’s effectively going to destroy all the permissioning and security that defines the ios experience, for no real gain besides letting Facebook siphon a little more data. They’re going to do the exact same thing they’ve already had their hand slapped for doing, and this time Apple won’t be able to do anything, it’ll be “if you want to use Facebook then side load this and give it full permissions, btw we’re revoking the ability to use the website for iOS users”.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...
A world where every person is regulated to the position of "Consumer" and no one has the ability to create.
A world where you're taught to read, but the second you think of picking up a pencil to write, you're breaking the law.
----
No one I know from the software freedom camp is absolving those other companies of violating your privacy or selling your data, but the two issues are orthogonal. You can solve one without having to have the other.
---
Want to know something interesting though? Smart phones are the primary computing device in the majority of global households (Not a laptop, not a desktop - a tablet or phone).
No one gives a flying fuck about xbox because xbox is a niche product for rich Americans and Europeans. It's sold a whopping 200 million devices across all generations (original, 360, one) compared to the 2.2 billion iPhones Apple has shipped.
This has been explained multiple times. Xbox is a specific gaming platform. iPhone is a general computing platform. Where all kind of business from different industry ( Not just Games ) using Apps ( or anything connecting to the internet ) are relying on it in the modern society.
And one would have a very hard time to argue if iPhone was just a phone, in court or not.
And those who downvoted couldn't understand the difference as Appliance or platform based whether multiple industry interacts.
You've got it backwards—the only reason the Xbox is a gaming platform and not a computing platform is because Xbox doesn't want to allow other people to sell software on it. It's a distinction without a difference.
Yes. The locked-down-ness of consoles is exactly why I game on a PC and not on them.
I have a problem with Apple dictating their World View on me. May have been fine if they were apolitical during Steve Jobs era. But modern days Silicon Valley does not allow anything to be apolitical.
If any of those pillars fall I think Apple is off the hook here.
But if they allow alternative distribution channels, that would make the anti-trust case a lot more difficult both in actual court and in the court of legislative opinion. I have no problem with a 30% cut if alternative app distribution channels are allowed (a la Android).
This is the purpose of for profit corporations.
And no, competition doesn’t mean participants are forced to deliver better value for money.
And no, industry won’t regulate itself.
We need regulation to force market participants to participate in a way that even remotely resembles “fair”. The default mode of operation for suppliers in a market is “extract maximum value.”
Is this it? We are stuck with these two forever?
Many have tried and huge firms at that, to create an operating system and app store for phones, like Microsoft with Windows and Samsung with Bada (and I think they had another OS too). And you can't say they have no resources, money, marketing channels etc.
Who will manage to break this duopoly and when?
I think the only real chance is that web apps/PWAs get up to par with native apps. It's getting there, but Apple is also blocking this with limitations in their Safari browser (and the iOS version of Chrome (which apparently on iOS is just a wrapper around Safari) so also there they are hindering development).
App Store compared to Play Store regarding discovering apps is still much worse in my opinion.
I think it’s one of the biggest gripes I have after I switched to iPhone.
Auction houses such as Christie's take up to 25% for a similar service (connecting sellers with affluent buyers), although one that's probably far easier to replicate.
*robust meaning low switching costs, but it's hard to imagine how one could have low switching costs on smart phone platforms
When you want to place an item up for auction, there are more auction houses to use than only Christie's. That might be why their price fixing scandal was discovered in 2000.
But they also get money if the software for their hardware is easy to find and browsing the App Store is a fun experience instead of getting the same "few" apps. (No wonder apps like AppRaven exist.)
If the App Store was a different company unrelated to the hardware, I think it would be a different story. But since it's all tied together, it's like their own Sales platform.
Note that Apple could have designed it not to work this way - they didn't, they chose this more complex system because they're greedy and want 30%. This program really only benefits lifestyle businesses and businesses with like 1-6 employees. A more "honest" program would be "15% on your first million dollars per year" which would achieve the goal of helping small businesses and be simple.
Also note if your income is largely being passed on to third parties (processing transactions for charities or individual small businesses), this eats into both your margins and the profits of the companies you're passing the revenue on to. The only solution for that is for every customer to create their own developer account and upload bespoke apps for themselves - something Apple prohibits under current policies.
Epic is targeting kids with Fortnite and its their money that they're after. Impulse- and vanity purchases, much more than anything else.
Whereas, when buying a paid app, one usually gets real value. At least as I see it. But maybe this means i'm old :D
Do the math.
1. A Customer is not the same as a Sale. There can be muptiple Sales per Customer.
2. App Sales * Avg App Cost is not the same as Total Sales. There are also in-app sales.
I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
So it's fortnite and a bunch of other apps that make those 20 bn. Again, Fortnite alone made 300 M a year for epic, and 150M a year for Apple.
Actually I'd bet that the largest part of the revenue is generated by in-game purchases. Too easy to trigger addictive gaming with simple tricks like intermittent reward.
Apple and Epic both have those distribution numbers, and I wish those showed up in the trial. The distribution is going to vary wildly from app to app, and games like Fortnite allow you to earn currency in-game. While I know they are skewed from personal industry experience, any claim from me about the actual average would be complete speculation.
Personally I don't know anyone who spends huge sums on paid apps, but I know of cases where kids spend huge sums on in-game stuff on iOS.
So yes, it's based on anecdotal evidence, but I have yet to hear an account of someone who regularly spends more than a tenner per month (or even per year) on paid Apps.
On that basis and others, while I think it is appropriate for a company to make a profit, there has to be a thing as "too much".
Apple (according to evidence in this case) currently earns like 20 billion USD per year off the 30% cut. To me, this is absolutely more than necessary, and while it's not exactly the same as how the cost of insulin has gone from $0.05/unit in 1991 to ~$0.30/unit presently, apparently apps are essential, so it's worth asking just how much it's reasonable for Apple to skim off the top. In the end, the cost of that 30% fee will get passed on to the customer one way or another, and Apple allows that to happen as well.
I think in general people like you or me are savvy enough to not get harmed by these Apple policies, but court cases like this are about protecting everyone.