Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

I have never owned an Apple device, but they clearly believe locking them down is part of the appeal of the devices in the first place.

If you want an impartial platform get an android; if you want a curated ecosystem get an apple

Google, Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo

The ones that don't just prove that charging a lower rate doesn't actually change the price the consumer pays in any way.

I don't see how it hurts anyone to allow side-loading of apps on iOS devices. Even if you make it as hard as having a toggle behind a scary warning 2 layers deep in the menu, 95% of users will never use it, and it will open up a world of opportunities for people who actually want to create with their devices.

But it is actually you who want to control how other people use their own phone, that they own.

If you don't like Epic's store, just don't use it. Problem solved.

That way, people who want to trust apple get what they want, as well as people who want to trust other app stores.

Everyone wins, right? Why do you care so much about how other people use their own phone?

This is already true with the App Store today.

"All" that is going to happen if Epic gets their own store is there's going to be competition in what is now a monopoly. To say that the only difference will be lower quality is, at best, naive.

Also, as a parent, I consider it a useful feature that Apple makes it very hard for kids to buy things on the phone through any method other than the one that I am aware of.

I want my parents and non-techie friends and family to have the easy, stress-free, locked-down model that they enjoy and that works for them.

Source?

Epic already has a store of its own, and it charges developers 12%.

Moreover, Apple already has thousands of apps that are poorly designed, chew battery, and don't conform to Apple UX standards. Part of the reason for the pushback against the Apple tax is that Apple is objectively failing to perform many of the tasks it claims as justifications for the tax.

Ah yes, because that's where you'll find customers that use iOS.

Ok. Like the other 72% of users, I will.

News flash, Epic already runs a store, and competes with another store (Steam) which takes a 30% cut. How much of a cut does Epic take there? 12%.

There is a well known example of Epic in a similar situation specifically not doing what you say they will, so why assume they will do that? Or are you arguing without knowing this fairly common knowledge of this case?

> the user will get apps that are poorly designed, chew battery, and don’t conform to the UX standards that Apple has set

These are games. They already don't conform to the UI standards. They already chew battery by the nature of what they do, not because they are inefficient. That said, being the authors of the Unreal Engine, Epic is in a key position to make changes so the engine works better with iPhone norms, performs better, and uses less battery and many games would benefit from that. If only Epic had more financial incentive to focus work on the iOS platform...

> and exploit undocumented APIs which change from iOS version to version.

Doubtful. They need to make sure their product is stable across a wide swatch of iOS devices, as individual game makers that license their product will have different support policies and targets. You don't make a widely portable and stable engine across multiple architectures and operating systems by using hidden and unstable APIs unless you have some assurance they aren't going away.

> Epic will blame Apple for all these problems, Apple will blame Epic for not doing sufficient QC, and we’ll be back in court with various store managers demanding that Apple stop changing things.

The blaming I see going on is people that don't really understand the market, the problems, or the incentives making wild conjectures that not only aren't backed up by anything, whether that be logic or evidence, but seem to run counter to that.

> If you want third party stores, there’s the Android ecosystem.

They're being sued too. They take the same cut. You can put an alternate store on Android, but you can't have it function with the same permissions (you need to manually approve each install, and it can't auto-update). This is what keeps third party stores from actually being a reality there. I don't consider secondary stores that ship with the phone on purchase and are part of the customer OS shipped "third party", and that's what has to be done to really compete on the same level as the Play store, and even then, it's not like they're used much. This is all about control and Apple not wanting to give up that very lucrative 30% cut of in app purchases, and subscriptions.

If Chrome will get full access to iOS, we are back to the year 2000 with 1 company deciding what the standards regarding Web are and a standardization organization having nothing to say. Not saying that I love the walled garden (not saying the opposite too), but if we love the web, we have to keep this walled garden.

This is also, AFAIK, the biggest thing that differentiates Apple’s platform from every other mobile and game console app store regarding fees and whatnot.

In general, my biggest problem with Apple is their heavy handed approach to content. Whether it’s policing political content in a one-sided manner, or telling companies like Amazon they aren’t allowed to inform customers of other means of purchasing content, these policies seem more abusive, anti-customer, and anti-choice than anything else.

(That said, as a user, I would also love easier app side loading support, I just don’t think I’d like the consequences of that coming from a court ruling).

The entire case is just round 1 of an oracle-google style dispute, which (if I had to guess) will likely have a similar ultimate conclusion -- e.g. preserve the status quo with possibly minor adjustments.

Or I can go on the ebay iOS app and buy a PDF ebook from a seller.

The mechanism of "in-app purchases" doesn't scale to ebay or Amazon or any other store where you might have millions of SKUs. Not to mention that you can't even buy Kindle books on the iOS app, even if you already have credit on Amazon (gift card, rewards points, etc.).

I believe this accurately describes Epic Games Store, or any other games storefront like Steam, as they work on desktop platforms like Windows. The Store is free, then all the games are paid (or sometimes, free) "DLC". Is there a fundamental difference I'm missing?

That would make the "empty" app qualify as a general-purpose computer and therefore break Apple's ToS.

Oh, and if the app mentioned the possibility of going to the website, that would also break Apple's ToS.

The first clause of their Payments[1] guidelines explicitly states you're to use in-app purchases to unlock features and functionality within your app, while also forbidding you from linking to or directing users to any alternative purchasing mechanisms.

They then make limited exemptions for "reader apps"[2] to allow users to consume content they've previously purchased, and explicitly list which categories of content they consider allowable for this exemption. Games not being one of them. They also make an exemption for multi-platform services which isn't as restrictive as the reader app clause, but only if you also abide by the first clause of making it available as an in-app purchase as well (and not direct people to alternatives for purchase).

So this works for Amazon's Kindle app, but wouldn't for a gaming service. And even the way Amazon handles Kindle listings[3] in their main app is toeing the line of what Apple allows, and smaller companies would have a hard time pulling off.

And just for good measure, they also pretty much spell out exactly what you described in the first bullet under the Unacceptable clause[4]

[1] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#pay...

[2] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#rea...

[3] "This app does not support purchasing. Books purchased from Amazon are available to read in the Kindle app" is what they put on the listing page. It's not a direct call to action so isn't strictly against the guidelines, but such a thinly veiled insinuation is something few other companies would be able to get passed app review.

[4] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#una...

edit: You changed your comment and added your line about mom-and-pop stores. To which I reply that different rules should apply to multi-billion dollar corporations.

In the 80s and 90s breaking up AT&T local loop unbundling made a huge positive change in telco in the us.

Requiring the power company to rent pole space has a positive benefit.

I think the App Store is more like a utility pole than a Walmart. Forcing Apple to unbundle the infrastructure of delivery, payment and signing would allow for competitive forces and innovation.

The AppStore is all built around PKI. My company already operates an internal enterprise store — the metaphor exists. It would be pretty straightforward to evolve it into something different and arguably better.

You can think of the space within an ecosystem as virtual land. Apple has a monopoly on this virtual space. They can charge whatever they like, there is no competition.

The argument of choose another phone is different, because it requires spending a large amount of money for the right to entry. To many people this is cost prohibitive.

I don't have a personal stance on what the outcome should be either way, need to dig into it more.

Because Apple has a monopoly in that area. That's what antitrust law is all about - using monopoly power to raise prices.

Do you simply not believe in anti-trust law then?

What if microsoft forced you to pay them a 30 percent cut, for installing other web browsers, or apps? You would be ok with that?

Stop making their high margin hardware that integrates into paid Apple services? The same phone that works with other massively popular Apple hardware, such as Air Pods? Extremely doubtful.

Apple will not cut off their nose to spite their face.

Maybe you have less faith in Apple than I do. I believe they can succeed enormously without their monopoly. They make great products. Microsoft managed just fine (look at their market cap!)

edit: I'm confused. Are the downvotes from Apple fans that think the hardware sucks without the monopoly? And that Apple can't survive without it?

That's crazy talk. It's literally their most successful product line ever.

I then take my PS5 to the mall, because I carry it with me to do all of my financial transactions. Later, I log onto my PS5 bank account app to check my spending limits.

I check PS5 Yelp for a list of restaurants. I head out, but I'm careful to check my PS5 GPS to know where I'm headed. I fill up my car using PS5 pay, and as I leave get messages from potential romantic matches on PS5 Tinder.

Of course Sony gets a cut of every transaction and there are no other options than taking your PS5 with you everywhere.

Oh wait, there's Switch, Xbox, PC, Steam, Epic, GOG, ...? Lots of options for games. But what about email, finance, dating, and everything else I would do on my PS5? Gaming devices aren't general purpose computers and don't do general purpose business, communication, finance, etc.

Gaming is a toy and comparatively niche industry with lots of consumer choice. The iPhone is 50% of all commerce in all industries for all Americans.

Apple has locked down computing behind an iron curtain, and they're clawing away at more and more as the days go by. If the trend continues, every restaurant will be Apple (instead of Taco Bell), and you'll license your car and pay Apple by the mile. The signs you see out your window will have to pay Apple a licensing fee.

General-purpose computing is gradually being replaced by locked-down phones and tablets, and that's much more concerning.

The copyright industry allowed themselves this level of control via extensive government lobbying.

But when a business can run an operation in a market with 90% (or whatever) profit margins, it's an indication that the market isn't open to competition. Which is exactly why anti-trust law exists.

Why? Because competitors will see how much money Apple is making and move in to capitalize. I don't think computing devices should become walled gardens where companies are free to gouge their customers.

Fees are most assuredly passed onto consumers. They cut into the providers bottom line. Providers must charge at least 30% markup just to break even when offering through the app store. This is simple math, and self evident.

The app store itself is not a particularly great piece of technology either... it's simply a monopoly on the iPhone user audience. Could the app store improve if it had healthy competition? e.g. better searchability/functionality?

Personally I'm amazed at how bad app discovery still is on both iOS and Android app stores.

So? That's because the price of the products in that industry isn't based on the costs. What does a digital copy of a game cost? Practically nothing!

People seem to be focusing too much on whether or not 30% is too high or unfair. I don't think that's important; Apple should be able to charge whatever the hell they want, but they should not be immune from the competitive forces that would normally keep those types of things in check in a free market.

You might argue that, because the lower fee won't reduce game prices, the players will see the same price and won't buy from another store instead of the app store (since they cost the same). So Apple wouldn't feel "competitive forces" either way.

However, the thing to keep in mind is that those customers aren't buying from Apple, they're buying from the developer. So developers will be incentivized to move customers to a more profitable store, and they have many ways to do that that benefit consumers. A discount is the most obvious, but even without that a developer could offer exclusive content, early access, a better shopping experience, community features, and pretty much anything that will *provide value to consumers* in exchange for switching stores.

Alternate app stores will increase game industry profits, create jobs, provide value to consumers, lead to innovation (the damn app store has been the same boring thing for decades; there's a lot of room to innovate). There are literally no downsides whatsoever, except that Apple shareholders and fanboys will be unhappy.

So if the "Epic Phone" had the ability to install and run APKs, that'd be good enough.

Too bad Sony's executives are spineless and out of touch.