All: these Epic vs. Apple threads, and $BigCo vs. $BigCo threads in general, have unfortunately been seeing more name-calling, accusations of manipulation, flamebait/unsubstantive posts, and other things that break the HN guidelines. If you comment, can you please avoid that? Reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html would help.
The idea here is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. Remember that every post you make has a non-negligible impact on the community. If we all treat this place like the discussion forum we'd like to have, eventually we'll have it.
My feeling is that this whole situation is mostly going as Tim Sweeney intended. He was itching for a fight, wanted to sue Apple. The harsher that Apple retaliates, the better Epic's court case. Apple is playing right into his hands.
Did Sweeney anticipate Apple's threat to Unreal Engine? Maybe, maybe not. But the temporary restraining order did block that threat, at least for now.
I don't think Epic ever intended to release the new Fortnite season on Apple platforms.
This is a long play, not a short play. In the short term, Epic loses money by not having Fortnite on Apple devices. But in the long term, it's much better for Epic to break Apple's App Store monopoly.
Not sure why people are surprised or consider it giant news.
> The court recommended that Epic follow the App Store’s guidelines and policies while the case is in progress – the rules they followed over the past ten years until they created the current situation themselves. Epic refused.
Well duh, this is a show match court fight of Epic Games not liking the rules and not getting the special treatment they want. No matter what opinion one holds on mobile store rules, they are their rules and so far you have the choice of following them (which is also somewhat iffy) or not being on the store.
The whole goal of two post-capitalism enterprises having a fit is for one or more of them to make more money. The whole "it is good for consumers" or "good for developers" is just sprinkles and marketing to appeal to the public. Separate the issues and angles and see it for what it is: just a bunch of legal departments having a fight.
> No matter what opinion one holds on mobile store rules, they are their rules and so far you have the choice of following them (which is also somewhat iffy) or not being on the store.
A valid opinion is that those rules are illegal under current federal statue. Another one is that although they currently aren't, they should be.
> Separate the issues and angles and see it for what it is: just a bunch of legal departments having a fight.
Yes, but the only reason they get to adjudicate it in tax payer funded courts is precisely _because_ the decision will have a major impact on consumers and developers as as whole.
It's a surprise because typically these departments have a much larger incentive to settle, and not to create new case law. It's giant news because of the potential impact to many individuals and to the industry as a whole.
They are asking for the courts to curtail Apple's absolute power over how applications can be installed on an operating system designed for general computing.
That would be a game changer for the entire developer ecosystem.
Whether that's good or bad is another debate, but the industry-shifting impact it could have is undeniable.
Epic could have taken the matter directly to the courts and taken action (whatever it was) after a verdict. Heck, they could even have tried to make a case to the European Union, which seems to have a knack for pursuing this kind of thing. A ruling over there wouldn't directly impact the rest of the world, but it could get the ball rolling.
Instead, they decided to make a spectacle of this whole issue to try to rally customers to their cause. For that, I have no sympathy. Customers are being used as cannon fodder here. And it's not by Apple.
I agree that the App store cut is too high. But this is not the way to go about things.
What I don't get is: they pushed a noncompliant Fortnite update, and Apple took it down. So aren't they, in fact, not currently in violation? Since Fortnite is not on the store?
Is it not a valid response to Apple finding a violation to just say: "OK, then we just won't try to put it back up"?
I'm tired of these comments stating that the headline should not be surprising. Can you just accept that not everyone's life is fixated on the subject at hand, and that this still constitutes "news" for them?
Now that you can play Fortnight on iOS and on the console is it fair that Apple can force Epic to a sell vbucks through its App Store because the game exists on iOS?
I'm stepping out on a limb and saying Apple is going to end up settling with Epic so they don't have to host competing App Stores.
> The whole goal of two post-capitalism enterprises having a fit is for one or more of them to make more money. The whole "it is good for consumers" or "good for developers" is just sprinkles and marketing to appeal to the public. Separate the issues and angles and see it for what it is: just a bunch of legal departments having a fight.
I don't think this means I shouldn't vehemently support companies when their policy advances my interests.
I know it's very fashionable on Twitter to say the word "post-capitalism," but how is Epic in any way operating in a post-capitalist environment? They face heavy, almost capitalist-ideal levels of competition in every market where they compete.
Apple is truly doing themselves a disservice here, if Epic wins this battle Apple will undoubtedly be painted as the bad guy, and other major companies will smell blood in the water when it comes taking down a competitor.
Case in point; Tinder, Microsoft, Facebook, Spotify have all openly backed Epic and started to call attention to features that are impacted by this 30% fee. Status quo isn't going to cut it, and it would be in Apple's best interest to make a small concession to look like they're not so evil.
I'm actually happy Apple didn't make a small concession.
I can't quite have the resources to sue Apple by myself as a small user being prevented from using the device I have paid for the way I see fit. I'm very glad that EPIC is doing it on my behalf. I'm also kind of glad that Apple didn't simply cut a backroom deal with EPIC, but is instead going the full-monty on this.
Microsoft takes 30% on Xbox plus its much more expensive to develop and publish on that platform overall.
Neither Tinder nor Spotify will transfer any savings to the end users.
Spotify has been ramping their sub costs considerably my sub went up by like 150% in the UK over the past 3-4 years.
Tinder employs discriminatory pricing by charging certain genders, age groups and sexual orientations more for their premium services.
How Tinder hasn’t been sued to oblivion I’m still not sure it seems to violate even US anti discrimination laws, I guess were lucky that they don’t employ differential pricing based on race yet.
I would like the developer to have the choice of what percent Apple gets (e.g. slider from 10% -> 30%) and that also determines the level of support (and discoverability on the App store?) that Apple gives. Would that type of system work?
That's a big IF. You will find it damn-near-impossible to have any legal standing when you willfully violate the terms of service with a provider as openly as Epic did.
Apple is fully in the right here, and as a consumer I'm glad Apple isn't messing around with their software security. What Epic did was down right sneaky, and they are (rightfully) being punished for it.
Epic started this mess, the law and legal judgements have made it very clear how they could have avoided this, and they didn't. Your feelings, personal device choices do not change facts.
Of all the things about this, the fact that the Fortnite competitor PUBG is now being “featured” by Apple just ticks me off so much. Talk about being petty. Are there school-aged children running the App Store now (or the executive suite?).
I realize Apple has the right to decide who they feature but come on. Being featured is important, it’s a big deal and it can make a serious difference to any developer’s income and notoriety. The fact that Apple can just deposit something at the top of the list because they’re in a bad mood really says something about Apple: I don’t know, maybe that they’re a bit isolated and immature about this whole thing?
I wish every damn micro transaction app gets removed one day. Of course no one will do it but I simply hate everything about these apps forcing parents to pay small fees for stupid pixels because their kids begs them to do it.
Sorry, nothing else new to add to the topic, just venting and have absolutely no sympathy to apps tricking kids to spend money on tiny cellphone games.
My niece begged her mother to buy a roblox dress for $60, it is in a game, not a real dress. Another neighbor's kid spent over $600 for a game called soccer stars. The game is literally gambling. When I hear gaming apps with micro transactions removed I celebrate, no matter what the reason is.
Microsoft went from open options to package deals with no options. iOS (and vendored Android) started out with nothing, then added a store. There is no precedent on the platforms to point to an "it got worse" scenario.
The best (far-fetched) comparisons would be the inability to pick and choose TV packages from your local TV broadcast supplier. Or not having a choice on what firmware your car's infotainment system runs. Or what store you use on your Xbox/PlayStation/Nintendo. And for all of them: you can't run your own software of choice either.
While we might see a mobile phone as a collection of Application SoC, Baseband SoC, firmwares, boot loaders, OS, apps etc. the perspective of the actual markets where they sell like the hotcakes they are see it as a 'thing', a 'device'. There is no separation, no bundling and no concept of swappable components. It's the same people that see computers that way. There is no hardware + firmware + boot loader + OS + applications, it's "the computer".
I am not sure why this fallacy continues to be repeated in every Apple thread. Apple currently has 46% US market share [1] and 14% global market share [2]. This is far from monopoly power.
By contrast, Microsoft had 95% market share during their antitrust suit. [3]
Might be an unpopular opinion but I don’t think they are acting to the level of MSFT in the 90s. What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps. Also recall that Jobs was pretty adamant about allowing third-party apps in the beginning. Now, do I think 30% is ridiculous in 2020? Yes. But it made sense a decade ago when having a half decent working app almost guaranteed you revenue.
Android is another phone platform with a larger market share. This is hardly a monopoly.
Don’t buy an ios device if you want apps from vendors who don’t play by apples rules.
I hate the 30% fee as a developer and a user.
I was an ios jail breaker before the App Store launched. I used jailbreaking after the App Store launched to have a control panel and fast app switching. All that got baked into ios but I wish new innovations could make their way to the platform with an unofficial store.
I think that would ultimately be better for consumers.
I don't know if you remember the 90s, but at the time MS was the ONLY monopoly in personal computing. Intel was the other big force, but even they had competition on AMD. All other companies had not even a slim of hope of controlling the ecosystem like MS had. Now we have Apple, but you still can buy Google devices and do whatever you want outside their walled garden.
Well, I couldn't buy a computer from a major company with an alternate operating system without paying Microsoft in the 90's, so I'll say that's pretty damn abusive.
The monopoly word gets thrown around a lot in this context. But it's not clear where the monopoly is, in a legal, anti-competitive sense. Can you define what Apple's market monopoly is?
Super glad I cut all ties with Apple a few years back. They make great products for my parents, but they are increasingly hostile toward developers and tech savvy users.
I made a free mobile game that's in both the iOS and Play store, and after I realized the $99 fee is not just a one time fee but a recurring fee to keep the app in the store, well of course I let my developer account lapse. I'm not a charity, and it's not worth it for me to pay $100/year just so friends and family can download it. So, for now only Android users can play my game. And same with all of my future free software - it will never intentionally target Apple users, ever, unless Apple changes their ways.
IANAL and I cannot judge the legal merits of this case.
I did read Apple's response though and I found the argument not a compelling justification for their practices.
A big part of their response is to justify the need for the 30% as a mechanism to recoup costs. That sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize that Epic is not allowed to recoup its own costs for the higher App Store cost by increasing their product cost by 30%.
Instead it must take a loss on the product and charge the customer the same price as app stores that do not take as large a %. That makes little sense.
This is a blunder. Epic will do just fine without Apple, but Apple is alienating people like me who use their products and are predisposed to support them. Our eyes are opening to their true nature. Full disclosure: I worked for Apple for almost 20 years.
I'm surprised there's no effort by companies to negotiate collectively with Apple, as one entity. A single company means nothing to Apple, the company often risks a big chunk of their revenues, Apple risks basically nothing.
Surely there are things that such app developer organisation could do to make Apple change their terms? Quick idea: motivate users to switch to Android, by adding new features there first, exclusive deals, etc.
Can someone who's on Apple's side here elaborate on why they think the outcome for consumers would be worse if they're forced to loosen some of their restrictions?
It's very unlikely that app developers choose to forgo the AppStore since it will be driving the majority of app installs even in a completely open world for years to come. And if they do choose to forgo that distribution channel that should be seen as a very strong signal of how unhappy developers are with the current policies. So if you want to just keep doing what you've been doing and just use the AppStore not much should change, but at least now there's the possibility of competition.
I'm guessing Epic wants the court to break down Apple's monopoly on app sales on iPhones, potentially by requiring them to allow third party app sales via alternative marketplaces, then swoop in with their Epic Games iOS marketplace and capture a big chunk of Apple's in-app purchase lunch. Considering the sheer size of Apple's revenue from gaming despite not being a game development company[1], I'm guessing that Epic has weighed up the expectency of proceeding with this legal battle and decided its worth the risk.
I mean if this is their plan and they pull it off then hats off to them. As a consumer I welcome healthy competition.
I did something today that I never imagined I’d do in 10 years as an exclusive Apple user: I installed Windows 10 on my iMac so I could continue playing fortnite. I’m sure Mac had one of the smallest shares of users, but I was surprised by how much more performant the game was running on Windows compared to MacOS. The difference was incredibly noticeable. It’s weird to me that Apple is risking losing users to other platforms, but I guess the 30% is worth it to them.
Between this and the fact that Apple tried to kill Unreal Engine from its platform, I’d be really nervous to be a game dev trying to rely on Apple at this moment. Regardless of the outcome of the Epic suit, Apple hasn’t really acted like they take gaming seriously on Mac or iOS, as several big iOS games would’ve suffered a similar fate to fortnite if a judge hadn’t stepped in.
One thing I've seen Apple do more and more in recent times is the concept of introducing something for the good of the user with sometimes little regard to the impact shouldered by developers or businesses.
Sometimes they're smaller impacts - like the ability to only enable GPS when an App is actively being used. Other times they are larger - like the the changes to the Advertising and Device IDs.
I've read here that the loss of the singular, centralized and controlled store could potentially be an issue for things like malware, privacy, and some of the other causes Apple has come out to fight for on behalf of the user. Perhaps Apple forgot to consider its own behavior as a threat to those ideals? Could Apple have avoided all of this if they applied the principles they used in other cases to themselves?
If the store had a 12% rate would Epic have bothered to do this? Other decisions can come into play too, like no ability for upgrade pricing and how subscrption costs are handled. If we really look, the list could get long.
I guess what I'm trying to say is if Apple truly cares about the things that could be lost if the App ecosystem is altered, then perhaps it needs to take the same hit it has doled out to others in the name of that cause?
As an app developer, I'm moving to straight web apps. All the hoops, the review system,and ranking prejudice makes it an easy decision even outside of the 30% rake.
IMO, Apple is acting like a bully. It's using its position of power to coerce other into giving up a substantial amount of revenue for very little effort.
If they want to keep this monopoly, they should make their cost transparent and apply a reasonable markup. Otherwise they should be forced to allow competing stores. Anything else is ripe for abuse, as we can plainly see now.
Most of the comments defending apple, are people thinking that epic games does not want pay the 30% cut... but the problem is not that.. the problem is that apple demands that the price must be equal on all points of sale. ( Epic should be able to increase their price in 30% on apple plataform only, to cover apple fee )
I am a developer and I really can't understand the arguments against Apple.
And I have many apps on iOS store, and sure I would love to pay a less cut.
But Apple's pricing policy was the same way before they had 50% share of phones. Sure a monopoly must be regulated, but it doesn't mean that if a company has >50% share you can dictate how they should price their product.
Monopolies should be regulated so they don't increase prices or take advantage of their position. And if the policy is 10 years old this is obviously has nothing to do with bad practices of monopoly.
The one thing I don't understand about Apple's stance: why don't they let a device owner sideload things SAFELY on their own device? Something like the Apple Developer Account, but for free, and I get a certificate that works on a single device - my own - ONLY.
I still need to understand software development, and probably to own a Mac just to sign things and to upload them to my phone. They could even provide something like a web interface to perform the signing and/or notarization, so people cannot invent magical desktop software to make signing easier for random users.
This would effectively defeat the "walled garden" objection, but make things hard enough that 99.99% of iphone users wouldn't bother.
With the notarization system (is it applied to ios apps as well, I suppose, not just to Mac apps?) they could even prevent piracy.
[+] [-] dang|5 years ago|reply
The idea here is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. Remember that every post you make has a non-negligible impact on the community. If we all treat this place like the discussion forum we'd like to have, eventually we'll have it.
[+] [-] _qulr|5 years ago|reply
Did Sweeney anticipate Apple's threat to Unreal Engine? Maybe, maybe not. But the temporary restraining order did block that threat, at least for now.
I don't think Epic ever intended to release the new Fortnite season on Apple platforms.
This is a long play, not a short play. In the short term, Epic loses money by not having Fortnite on Apple devices. But in the long term, it's much better for Epic to break Apple's App Store monopoly.
[+] [-] oneplane|5 years ago|reply
> The court recommended that Epic follow the App Store’s guidelines and policies while the case is in progress – the rules they followed over the past ten years until they created the current situation themselves. Epic refused.
Well duh, this is a show match court fight of Epic Games not liking the rules and not getting the special treatment they want. No matter what opinion one holds on mobile store rules, they are their rules and so far you have the choice of following them (which is also somewhat iffy) or not being on the store.
The whole goal of two post-capitalism enterprises having a fit is for one or more of them to make more money. The whole "it is good for consumers" or "good for developers" is just sprinkles and marketing to appeal to the public. Separate the issues and angles and see it for what it is: just a bunch of legal departments having a fight.
[+] [-] akira2501|5 years ago|reply
A valid opinion is that those rules are illegal under current federal statue. Another one is that although they currently aren't, they should be.
> Separate the issues and angles and see it for what it is: just a bunch of legal departments having a fight.
Yes, but the only reason they get to adjudicate it in tax payer funded courts is precisely _because_ the decision will have a major impact on consumers and developers as as whole.
It's a surprise because typically these departments have a much larger incentive to settle, and not to create new case law. It's giant news because of the potential impact to many individuals and to the industry as a whole.
[+] [-] weixiyen|5 years ago|reply
They are not asking for special treatment.
They are asking for the courts to curtail Apple's absolute power over how applications can be installed on an operating system designed for general computing.
That would be a game changer for the entire developer ecosystem.
Whether that's good or bad is another debate, but the industry-shifting impact it could have is undeniable.
[+] [-] gameswithgo|5 years ago|reply
your cynical take is often very true but there are sometimes real human ideals behind things.
[+] [-] outworlder|5 years ago|reply
Epic could have taken the matter directly to the courts and taken action (whatever it was) after a verdict. Heck, they could even have tried to make a case to the European Union, which seems to have a knack for pursuing this kind of thing. A ruling over there wouldn't directly impact the rest of the world, but it could get the ball rolling.
Instead, they decided to make a spectacle of this whole issue to try to rally customers to their cause. For that, I have no sympathy. Customers are being used as cannon fodder here. And it's not by Apple.
I agree that the App store cut is too high. But this is not the way to go about things.
[+] [-] jacquesm|5 years ago|reply
At the expense of the users, in both the figurative and the literal sense of the word.
[+] [-] Dylan16807|5 years ago|reply
I don't think they want special treatment. I think they want the rules to change.
[+] [-] zerocrates|5 years ago|reply
Is it not a valid response to Apple finding a violation to just say: "OK, then we just won't try to put it back up"?
[+] [-] carabiner|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ccktlmazeltov|5 years ago|reply
this is pretty dismissive considering Apple is messing with every developers on their platform and their known not to give special treatment.
[+] [-] docv|5 years ago|reply
I'm stepping out on a limb and saying Apple is going to end up settling with Epic so they don't have to host competing App Stores.
[+] [-] colinmhayes|5 years ago|reply
I don't think this means I shouldn't vehemently support companies when their policy advances my interests.
[+] [-] asdfasgasdgasdg|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MaximumMadness|5 years ago|reply
Case in point; Tinder, Microsoft, Facebook, Spotify have all openly backed Epic and started to call attention to features that are impacted by this 30% fee. Status quo isn't going to cut it, and it would be in Apple's best interest to make a small concession to look like they're not so evil.
[+] [-] cnst|5 years ago|reply
I can't quite have the resources to sue Apple by myself as a small user being prevented from using the device I have paid for the way I see fit. I'm very glad that EPIC is doing it on my behalf. I'm also kind of glad that Apple didn't simply cut a backroom deal with EPIC, but is instead going the full-monty on this.
[+] [-] dogma1138|5 years ago|reply
Neither Tinder nor Spotify will transfer any savings to the end users.
Spotify has been ramping their sub costs considerably my sub went up by like 150% in the UK over the past 3-4 years.
Tinder employs discriminatory pricing by charging certain genders, age groups and sexual orientations more for their premium services.
How Tinder hasn’t been sued to oblivion I’m still not sure it seems to violate even US anti discrimination laws, I guess were lucky that they don’t employ differential pricing based on race yet.
[+] [-] scarface74|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m3kw9|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slivanes|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whazor|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjmlp|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] urda|5 years ago|reply
That's a big IF. You will find it damn-near-impossible to have any legal standing when you willfully violate the terms of service with a provider as openly as Epic did.
Apple is fully in the right here, and as a consumer I'm glad Apple isn't messing around with their software security. What Epic did was down right sneaky, and they are (rightfully) being punished for it.
Epic started this mess, the law and legal judgements have made it very clear how they could have avoided this, and they didn't. Your feelings, personal device choices do not change facts.
[+] [-] microtherion|5 years ago|reply
Oh, it's going to be so much fun when Epic wins and Taylor Swift decides to apply the same legal reasoning to the cut she pays Spotify for her music…
[+] [-] vernie|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] makecheck|5 years ago|reply
I realize Apple has the right to decide who they feature but come on. Being featured is important, it’s a big deal and it can make a serious difference to any developer’s income and notoriety. The fact that Apple can just deposit something at the top of the list because they’re in a bad mood really says something about Apple: I don’t know, maybe that they’re a bit isolated and immature about this whole thing?
[+] [-] system2|5 years ago|reply
Sorry, nothing else new to add to the topic, just venting and have absolutely no sympathy to apps tricking kids to spend money on tiny cellphone games.
My niece begged her mother to buy a roblox dress for $60, it is in a game, not a real dress. Another neighbor's kid spent over $600 for a game called soccer stars. The game is literally gambling. When I hear gaming apps with micro transactions removed I celebrate, no matter what the reason is.
[+] [-] leptoniscool|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oneplane|5 years ago|reply
The best (far-fetched) comparisons would be the inability to pick and choose TV packages from your local TV broadcast supplier. Or not having a choice on what firmware your car's infotainment system runs. Or what store you use on your Xbox/PlayStation/Nintendo. And for all of them: you can't run your own software of choice either.
While we might see a mobile phone as a collection of Application SoC, Baseband SoC, firmwares, boot loaders, OS, apps etc. the perspective of the actual markets where they sell like the hotcakes they are see it as a 'thing', a 'device'. There is no separation, no bundling and no concept of swappable components. It's the same people that see computers that way. There is no hardware + firmware + boot loader + OS + applications, it's "the computer".
[+] [-] nodamage|5 years ago|reply
By contrast, Microsoft had 95% market share during their antitrust suit. [3]
[1] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...
[2] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartphone-share...
[3] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=179876183890909...
[+] [-] bitxbit|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hnarayanan|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] godzillabrennus|5 years ago|reply
Don’t buy an ios device if you want apps from vendors who don’t play by apples rules.
I hate the 30% fee as a developer and a user.
I was an ios jail breaker before the App Store launched. I used jailbreaking after the App Store launched to have a control panel and fast app switching. All that got baked into ios but I wish new innovations could make their way to the platform with an unofficial store.
I think that would ultimately be better for consumers.
That’s long term better for Apple.
[+] [-] coliveira|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] protomyth|5 years ago|reply
Well, I couldn't buy a computer from a major company with an alternate operating system without paying Microsoft in the 90's, so I'll say that's pretty damn abusive.
[+] [-] ipv6ipv4|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] umvi|5 years ago|reply
I made a free mobile game that's in both the iOS and Play store, and after I realized the $99 fee is not just a one time fee but a recurring fee to keep the app in the store, well of course I let my developer account lapse. I'm not a charity, and it's not worth it for me to pay $100/year just so friends and family can download it. So, for now only Android users can play my game. And same with all of my future free software - it will never intentionally target Apple users, ever, unless Apple changes their ways.
[+] [-] Touche|5 years ago|reply
I did read Apple's response though and I found the argument not a compelling justification for their practices.
A big part of their response is to justify the need for the 30% as a mechanism to recoup costs. That sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize that Epic is not allowed to recoup its own costs for the higher App Store cost by increasing their product cost by 30%.
Instead it must take a loss on the product and charge the customer the same price as app stores that do not take as large a %. That makes little sense.
[+] [-] chmaynard|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RivieraKid|5 years ago|reply
Surely there are things that such app developer organisation could do to make Apple change their terms? Quick idea: motivate users to switch to Android, by adding new features there first, exclusive deals, etc.
[+] [-] librish|5 years ago|reply
It's very unlikely that app developers choose to forgo the AppStore since it will be driving the majority of app installs even in a completely open world for years to come. And if they do choose to forgo that distribution channel that should be seen as a very strong signal of how unhappy developers are with the current policies. So if you want to just keep doing what you've been doing and just use the AppStore not much should change, but at least now there's the possibility of competition.
[+] [-] dozzman|5 years ago|reply
I mean if this is their plan and they pull it off then hats off to them. As a consumer I welcome healthy competition.
[1]: https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/06/19/apple-is-fourth-l...
[+] [-] save_ferris|5 years ago|reply
Between this and the fact that Apple tried to kill Unreal Engine from its platform, I’d be really nervous to be a game dev trying to rely on Apple at this moment. Regardless of the outcome of the Epic suit, Apple hasn’t really acted like they take gaming seriously on Mac or iOS, as several big iOS games would’ve suffered a similar fate to fortnite if a judge hadn’t stepped in.
[+] [-] agent86|5 years ago|reply
Sometimes they're smaller impacts - like the ability to only enable GPS when an App is actively being used. Other times they are larger - like the the changes to the Advertising and Device IDs.
I've read here that the loss of the singular, centralized and controlled store could potentially be an issue for things like malware, privacy, and some of the other causes Apple has come out to fight for on behalf of the user. Perhaps Apple forgot to consider its own behavior as a threat to those ideals? Could Apple have avoided all of this if they applied the principles they used in other cases to themselves?
If the store had a 12% rate would Epic have bothered to do this? Other decisions can come into play too, like no ability for upgrade pricing and how subscrption costs are handled. If we really look, the list could get long.
I guess what I'm trying to say is if Apple truly cares about the things that could be lost if the App ecosystem is altered, then perhaps it needs to take the same hit it has doled out to others in the name of that cause?
[+] [-] brentis|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jpambrun|5 years ago|reply
If they want to keep this monopoly, they should make their cost transparent and apply a reasonable markup. Otherwise they should be forced to allow competing stores. Anything else is ripe for abuse, as we can plainly see now.
[+] [-] fabioyy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] risyachka|5 years ago|reply
And I have many apps on iOS store, and sure I would love to pay a less cut.
But Apple's pricing policy was the same way before they had 50% share of phones. Sure a monopoly must be regulated, but it doesn't mean that if a company has >50% share you can dictate how they should price their product.
Monopolies should be regulated so they don't increase prices or take advantage of their position. And if the policy is 10 years old this is obviously has nothing to do with bad practices of monopoly.
[+] [-] alanfranz|5 years ago|reply
I still need to understand software development, and probably to own a Mac just to sign things and to upload them to my phone. They could even provide something like a web interface to perform the signing and/or notarization, so people cannot invent magical desktop software to make signing easier for random users.
This would effectively defeat the "walled garden" objection, but make things hard enough that 99.99% of iphone users wouldn't bother.
With the notarization system (is it applied to ios apps as well, I suppose, not just to Mac apps?) they could even prevent piracy.