including customers? i'm totally fine to see all the game companies fail. don't care about games, and my kids are not allowed to play any games either.
If Epic wants to characterize Apple as a monopoly because they control their own App Store, then Epic is a monopoly because they control FortNite. Epic should be broken up and copies of Fortnite given to several other game developers, so that Epic's Fortnite monopoly is finally ended!
In some seriousness, though... I actually think Apple would be wise to allow other app stores on their platforms, at least sort of.
Other app stores could be authorized to operate on iOS, and perhaps pay Apple a much smaller share of revenue than the Apple App Store gets. By disassociating the Apple brand from these other stores, Apple could get a share of revenue that hey otherwise might never get, because they could lower their content standards. In other words, Apple could finally make money off of porn! Also, Apple could require that other App Store operators accept liability for anything that goes wrong with the apps sold through their stores.
Meanwhile, Apple could more aggressively curate their own App Store for content quality, so that their store truly is the best.
There you completely ignore that for Apple to guarantee security and adherence to guidelines they still have to do the work vetting all apps (and all updates of said apps) themselves; so they are still doing the same work, they just don't get paid the same to do it (and according to your scheme they would also intentionally have to let less quality products get in, just to somehow prove their own superiority by applying the regular quality only in their own store).
If Epic wants to characterize Apple as a monopoly because they control their own App Store, then Epic is a monopoly because they control FortNite. Epic should be broken up and copies of Fortnite given to several other game developers, so that Epic's Fortnite monopoly is finally ended!
In some seriousness, though... I actually think Apple would be wise to allow other app stores on their platforms, at least sort of.
Other app stores could be authorized to operate on iOS, and perhaps pay Apple a much smaller share of revenue than the Apple App Store gets. By disassociating the Apple brand from these other stores, Apple could get a share of revenue that hey otherwise might never get, because they could lower their content standards. In other words, Apple could finally make money off of porn! Also, Apple could require that other App Store operators accept liability for anything that goes wrong with the apps sold through their stores.
Meanwhile, Apple could more aggressively curate their own App Store for content quality, so that their store truly is the best.
There you completely ignore that for Apple to guarantee security and adherence to guidelines they still have to do the work vetting all apps (and all updates of said apps) themselves; so they are still doing the same work, they just don't get paid the same to do it (and according to your scheme they would also intentionally have to let less quality products get in, just to somehow prove their own superiority by applying the regular quality only in their own store).
Have you ever used a Mac?
Not sure it's possible to even try to continue a discussion if you don't even begin to understand the difference between the platforms/OSes/devices.
How would consumers not win? Say Epic wins and they get the fee reduced, the ability for direct payments, or more hopefully, we get full sideloading on iOS. For the first situation we could get cheaper apps, as developers could reduce the price of the apps themselves or the price of In App Purchases, something good for the consumer. For the second we got proof that it would be better for the consumer, as the price of V-Bucks was cheaper with the option for directly purchasing the V-Bucks from Epic rather than through Apple's processor. For the third consumers wouldn't be beholden to the App Store. Stadia and Xcloud would be usable on iOS, Much more open source development could occur on iOS because developers wouldn't have to subscribe to a $100 fee to host their apps on the store. Hell, with sideloading we could get app stores that actually show off more than regurgitate the top apps of each category.
Sideloading isn’t a win for consumers, it introduces significant security risks.
I suppose macOS is a security risk then?
iOS and macOS are significantly different. On macOS you can build a whole application without using a single line of code from Apple, this is a full featured standardized UNIX operating system. You cannot do that on iOS, more than half of the code of an app belongs to Apple. Sometimes some curious developers dare to temper with those underlying undocumented and unpublished APIs and learn their lesson from Apple ! So this is not the phone Java of Y2K that makes an iOS app. To sideload an app into iOS you must first get a license from Apple to use that underlying code that you necessarily integrated into your app, and no law or government in the world can force Apple to give that license !
For those who don't want to use any line of code from iOS then there are web applications. Apple obviously do not charge anything for the sites the user browses. Steve Jobs' first insight was web applications and maybe he was right ?! Maybe the AppStore was a mistake and Apple must shut it down and replace the mainstream utility, productivity and entertainment apps with its own branded (or licensed) ones !
At the time the AppStore was the right thing, and it was required to get things going; but now… Web technologies/standards have evolved to the point where Apple seem to avoid implementing them just to force people into making "real" apps, and using the AppStore.
So that's where the real anti-competitive behaviour is; but no big companies want to take that fight, because they don't benefit from a real open solution.
How would consumers not win? Say Epic wins and they get the fee reduced, the ability for direct payments, or more hopefully, we get full sideloading on iOS. For the first situation we could get cheaper apps, as developers could reduce the price of the apps themselves or the price of In App Purchases, something good for the consumer. For the second we got proof that it would be better for the consumer, as the price of V-Bucks was cheaper with the option for directly purchasing the V-Bucks from Epic rather than through Apple's processor. For the third consumers wouldn't be beholden to the App Store. Stadia and Xcloud would be usable on iOS, Much more open source development could occur on iOS because developers wouldn't have to subscribe to a $100 fee to host their apps on the store. Hell, with sideloading we could get app stores that actually show off more than regurgitate the top apps of each category.
Sideloading isn’t a win for consumers, it introduces significant security risks.
I suppose macOS is a security risk then?
iOS and macOS are significantly different. On macOS you can build a whole application without using a single line of code from Apple, this is a full featured standardized UNIX operating system. You cannot do that on iOS, more than half of the code of an app belongs to Apple. Sometimes some curious developers dare to temper with those underlying undocumented and unpublished APIs and learn their lesson from Apple ! So this is not the phone Java of Y2K that makes an iOS app. To sideload an app into iOS you must first get a license from Apple to use that underlying code that you necessarily integrated into your app, and no law or government in the world can force Apple to give that license !
For those who don't want to use any line of code from iOS then there are web applications. Apple obviously do not charge anything for the sites the user browses. Steve Jobs' first insight was web applications and maybe he was right ?! Maybe the AppStore was a mistake and Apple must shut it down and replace the mainstream utility, productivity and entertainment apps with its own branded (or licensed) ones !
At the time the AppStore was the right thing, and it was required to get things going; but now… Web technologies/standards have evolved to the point where Apple seem to avoid implementing them just to force people into making "real" apps, and using the AppStore.
So that's where the real anti-competitive behaviour is; but no big companies want to take that fight, because they don't benefit from a real open solution.
I don't understand your point, why would Apple avoid implementing web technologies/standards, while there is a whole iWork suite, Pages, Numbers, Keynote, and Photos, Contacts etc... as web applications on iCloud.com?
If you mean by that the exclusion of "apps" that consist of a single web view, again I don't understand why that would be anti-competitive while the developers of those apps do not even need the AppStore, they can just deploy on the web. In contrast, it is certain that those web view apps present an unfair competition against native apps. The AppStore is not a venue to promote web sites.
How would consumers not win? Say Epic wins and they get the fee reduced, the ability for direct payments, or more hopefully, we get full sideloading on iOS. For the first situation we could get cheaper apps, as developers could reduce the price of the apps themselves or the price of In App Purchases, something good for the consumer. For the second we got proof that it would be better for the consumer, as the price of V-Bucks was cheaper with the option for directly purchasing the V-Bucks from Epic rather than through Apple's processor. For the third consumers wouldn't be beholden to the App Store. Stadia and Xcloud would be usable on iOS, Much more open source development could occur on iOS because developers wouldn't have to subscribe to a $100 fee to host their apps on the store. Hell, with sideloading we could get app stores that actually show off more than regurgitate the top apps of each category.
Sideloading isn’t a win for consumers, it introduces significant security risks.
I suppose macOS is a security risk then?
iOS and macOS are significantly different. On macOS you can build a whole application without using a single line of code from Apple, this is a full featured standardized UNIX operating system. You cannot do that on iOS, more than half of the code of an app belongs to Apple. Sometimes some curious developers dare to temper with those underlying undocumented and unpublished APIs and learn their lesson from Apple ! So this is not the phone Java of Y2K that makes an iOS app. To sideload an app into iOS you must first get a license from Apple to use that underlying code that you necessarily integrated into your app, and no law or government in the world can force Apple to give that license !
For those who don't want to use any line of code from iOS then there are web applications. Apple obviously do not charge anything for the sites the user browses. Steve Jobs' first insight was web applications and maybe he was right ?! Maybe the AppStore was a mistake and Apple must shut it down and replace the mainstream utility, productivity and entertainment apps with its own branded (or licensed) ones !
At the time the AppStore was the right thing, and it was required to get things going; but now… Web technologies/standards have evolved to the point where Apple seem to avoid implementing them just to force people into making "real" apps, and using the AppStore.
So that's where the real anti-competitive behaviour is; but no big companies want to take that fight, because they don't benefit from a real open solution.
I don't understand your point, why would Apple avoid implementing web technologies/standards, while there is a whole iWork suite, Pages, Numbers, Keynote, and Photos, Contacts etc... as web applications on iCloud.com?
If you mean by that the exclusion of "apps" that consist of a single web view, again I don't understand why that would be anti-competitive while the developers of those apps do not even need the AppStore, they can just deploy on the web. In contrast, it is certain that those web view apps present an unfair competition against native apps. The AppStore is not a venue to promote web sites.
The web is a lot more than just design nowadays; there are JavaScript APIs to access/do basically anything on a phone. Bluetooth, run in the background, access address book, and whatever.
That’s what Apple has been slow on even considering, all while Chrome isn’t allowed the access to be able to do it. We’re at least 5 years behind on where we’d been if Apple had been serious about the web.
How would consumers not win? Say Epic wins and they get the fee reduced, the ability for direct payments, or more hopefully, we get full sideloading on iOS. For the first situation we could get cheaper apps, as developers could reduce the price of the apps themselves or the price of In App Purchases, something good for the consumer. For the second we got proof that it would be better for the consumer, as the price of V-Bucks was cheaper with the option for directly purchasing the V-Bucks from Epic rather than through Apple's processor. For the third consumers wouldn't be beholden to the App Store. Stadia and Xcloud would be usable on iOS, Much more open source development could occur on iOS because developers wouldn't have to subscribe to a $100 fee to host their apps on the store. Hell, with sideloading we could get app stores that actually show off more than regurgitate the top apps of each category.
Sideloading isn’t a win for consumers, it introduces significant security risks.
I suppose macOS is a security risk then?
iOS and macOS are significantly different. On macOS you can build a whole application without using a single line of code from Apple, this is a full featured standardized UNIX operating system. You cannot do that on iOS, more than half of the code of an app belongs to Apple. Sometimes some curious developers dare to temper with those underlying undocumented and unpublished APIs and learn their lesson from Apple ! So this is not the phone Java of Y2K that makes an iOS app. To sideload an app into iOS you must first get a license from Apple to use that underlying code that you necessarily integrated into your app, and no law or government in the world can force Apple to give that license !
For those who don't want to use any line of code from iOS then there are web applications. Apple obviously do not charge anything for the sites the user browses. Steve Jobs' first insight was web applications and maybe he was right ?! Maybe the AppStore was a mistake and Apple must shut it down and replace the mainstream utility, productivity and entertainment apps with its own branded (or licensed) ones !
At the time the AppStore was the right thing, and it was required to get things going; but now… Web technologies/standards have evolved to the point where Apple seem to avoid implementing them just to force people into making "real" apps, and using the AppStore.
So that's where the real anti-competitive behaviour is; but no big companies want to take that fight, because they don't benefit from a real open solution.
I don't understand your point, why would Apple avoid implementing web technologies/standards, while there is a whole iWork suite, Pages, Numbers, Keynote, and Photos, Contacts etc... as web applications on iCloud.com?
If you mean by that the exclusion of "apps" that consist of a single web view, again I don't understand why that would be anti-competitive while the developers of those apps do not even need the AppStore, they can just deploy on the web. In contrast, it is certain that those web view apps present an unfair competition against native apps. The AppStore is not a venue to promote web sites.
The web is a lot more than just design nowadays; there are JavaScript APIs to access/do basically anything on a phone. Bluetooth, run in the background, access address book, and whatever.
That’s what Apple has been slow on even considering, all while Chrome isn’t allowed the access to be able to do it. We’re at least 5 years behind on where we’d been if Apple had been serious about the web.
I don’t want a web page I close continues to run on the background and mine Bitcoins or spy over Bluetooth. I want Apple curates whatever they allow to run on my iPhone. On the web this is not possible, so the web access to the hardware is not permitted.
The day I get to dictate what price I pay to sell stuff on eBay, Amazon, Etsy, Poshmark, Walmart, a flea market, etc. to the owners of those marketplaces is the day I side with these developers. Until then they can all take a flying leap.
But this is not something you are buying from amazon, eBay etc. this is an accessory to what you bought from them
Buying v-bucks in fortnite has absolutely nothing to do with apple doesn't go through their servers, doesn’t need to be checked by Apple like apps, requires zero effort from any Apple employee. So what am I paying Apple $3 for when I buy v-bucks? What service am I getting for that?
I believe this to be incorrect. As far as I understand, Apple actually takes care of the payment processing, also for in-app purchases.
And it's also a question about where the line between "no work" and "all the work" goes… If I release an app that is free, and then to be useful everyone had to buy in-app-bucks, would you still say that Apple should get zero money because it required zero effort?
The day I get to dictate what price I pay to sell stuff on eBay, Amazon, Etsy, Poshmark, Walmart, a flea market, etc. to the owners of those marketplaces is the day I side with these developers. Until then they can all take a flying leap.
But this is not something you are buying from amazon, eBay etc. this is an accessory to what you bought from them
Buying v-bucks in fortnite has absolutely nothing to do with apple
Are you buying those v-bucks in an app that runs on a platform developed and maintained by Apple? There's a link.
doesn't go through their servers, doesn’t need to be checked by Apple like apps, requires zero effort from any Apple employee. So what am I paying Apple $3 for when I buy v-bucks? What service am I getting for that?
You are getting the minimal friction that leads to people making a purchase. The longer it takes to make and process a sale, the longer the customer has to think about the transaction and this increases the possibility of the customer changing their mind. Apple's process is smooth, trusted and used by people who by and large have more disposable income than people on other platforms. And guess what? You can buy v-bucks on ANY platform that Fortnite operates on and they are tied to your Fortnite account. So customers DO NOT HAVE TO PAY on Apple's platform, but Epic makes a sizeable amount of revenue from providing that option. Apple is perfectly fine with payments being handled outside of the iOS store, but stipulates that an app cannot educate its users about this functionality - THAT is the more egregious behaviour that should be modified, but funnily enough Epic is not mentioning this in their allegations.
This is like amazon saying if you buy a digital camera from them, you can only buy memory cards for the camera from them. I doubt any of the Apple fanboys here would be ok with that no?
Nobody would be happy with that situation. But it's not what's happening here.
subscriptions being charged 30% by Apple is a rip off, plain and simple. And an abuse of their power as the only App Store you can get on their products, google is not the same, because you can download fortnite directly to your android phone, without going through play store. sure that’s why it’s much easier to infect an android, but that also puts google in a much better place as they are NOT a monopoly.
Developers aren't seeing the value of the 30% but that doesn't mean the value isn't there. It's about more than payment processing. And if the alternative is increased risk, then I think the vast majority of the planet's population would choose the higher price.
Apple saying we want 30% cut on anything sold on the App Store is completely, and justifiably owed to Apple . Fair and square. They run the Apple store, they pay hosting, they pay for staff, they check every app to make sure it’s safe which is why they have the best App Store out there. but subscriptions are not the same case.
Why not? The obvious loophole is that nobody sells an app (where they pay a commission), they just provide a subscription (where they pay a much lower commission). How does that sustain a platform, or a marketplace? Some compromises have to be made to a theoretical ideal to manage the practical implications.
i think the biggest loser of this case, if it does proceed, will be apple google can say hey, don’t like our rules? go straight to the consumer and have them load it directly from your website. Apple is in a much worse position, especially that they already had lawsuits about App Store being a monopoly.
Time will tell
Apple's biggest problem is that they let the story evolve around the percentage they charge rather than the value they provide. So they've already lost some measure of the general public's goodwill. My two cents is that Epic have launched this lawsuit knowing it will fail and hoping to ride the wave of public opinion to higher profits based on a higher public profile. And really, they might make more money from convincing one developer to use them as a publisher for a game that turns into a huge hit than they might lose from their current actions.
How would consumers not win? Say Epic wins and they get the fee reduced, the ability for direct payments, or more hopefully, we get full sideloading on iOS. For the first situation we could get cheaper apps, as developers could reduce the price of the apps themselves or the price of In App Purchases, something good for the consumer. For the second we got proof that it would be better for the consumer, as the price of V-Bucks was cheaper with the option for directly purchasing the V-Bucks from Epic rather than through Apple's processor. For the third consumers wouldn't be beholden to the App Store. Stadia and Xcloud would be usable on iOS, Much more open source development could occur on iOS because developers wouldn't have to subscribe to a $100 fee to host their apps on the store. Hell, with sideloading we could get app stores that actually show off more than regurgitate the top apps of each category.
Sideloading isn’t a win for consumers, it introduces significant security risks.
I suppose macOS is a security risk then?
iOS and macOS are significantly different. On macOS you can build a whole application without using a single line of code from Apple, this is a full featured standardized UNIX operating system. You cannot do that on iOS, more than half of the code of an app belongs to Apple. Sometimes some curious developers dare to temper with those underlying undocumented and unpublished APIs and learn their lesson from Apple ! So this is not the phone Java of Y2K that makes an iOS app. To sideload an app into iOS you must first get a license from Apple to use that underlying code that you necessarily integrated into your app, and no law or government in the world can force Apple to give that license !
For those who don't want to use any line of code from iOS then there are web applications. Apple obviously do not charge anything for the sites the user browses. Steve Jobs' first insight was web applications and maybe he was right ?! Maybe the AppStore was a mistake and Apple must shut it down and replace the mainstream utility, productivity and entertainment apps with its own branded (or licensed) ones !
At the time the AppStore was the right thing, and it was required to get things going; but now… Web technologies/standards have evolved to the point where Apple seem to avoid implementing them just to force people into making "real" apps, and using the AppStore.
So that's where the real anti-competitive behaviour is; but no big companies want to take that fight, because they don't benefit from a real open solution.
I don't understand your point, why would Apple avoid implementing web technologies/standards, while there is a whole iWork suite, Pages, Numbers, Keynote, and Photos, Contacts etc... as web applications on iCloud.com?
If you mean by that the exclusion of "apps" that consist of a single web view, again I don't understand why that would be anti-competitive while the developers of those apps do not even need the AppStore, they can just deploy on the web. In contrast, it is certain that those web view apps present an unfair competition against native apps. The AppStore is not a venue to promote web sites.
The web is a lot more than just design nowadays; there are JavaScript APIs to access/do basically anything on a phone. Bluetooth, run in the background, access address book, and whatever.
That’s what Apple has been slow on even considering, all while Chrome isn’t allowed the access to be able to do it. We’re at least 5 years behind on where we’d been if Apple had been serious about the web.
I don’t want a web page I close continues to run on the background and mine Bitcoins or spy over Bluetooth. I want Apple curates whatever they allow to run on my iPhone. On the web this is not possible, so the web access to the hardware is not permitted.
Don't be stupid; that's stuff that'd work just like the location api, where the web browser asks you to accept or not.
It'd be even more privacy forward than the AppStore as Apple has been real slow to implement proper security there; like with how any app for years has been able to spy on the clipboard, mined your photos for location data (just because you once picked a profile pic for the app), and so on.
How would consumers not win? Say Epic wins and they get the fee reduced, the ability for direct payments, or more hopefully, we get full sideloading on iOS. For the first situation we could get cheaper apps, as developers could reduce the price of the apps themselves or the price of In App Purchases, something good for the consumer. For the second we got proof that it would be better for the consumer, as the price of V-Bucks was cheaper with the option for directly purchasing the V-Bucks from Epic rather than through Apple's processor. For the third consumers wouldn't be beholden to the App Store. Stadia and Xcloud would be usable on iOS, Much more open source development could occur on iOS because developers wouldn't have to subscribe to a $100 fee to host their apps on the store. Hell, with sideloading we could get app stores that actually show off more than regurgitate the top apps of each category.
Sideloading isn’t a win for consumers, it introduces significant security risks.
I suppose macOS is a security risk then?
iOS and macOS are significantly different. On macOS you can build a whole application without using a single line of code from Apple, this is a full featured standardized UNIX operating system. You cannot do that on iOS, more than half of the code of an app belongs to Apple. Sometimes some curious developers dare to temper with those underlying undocumented and unpublished APIs and learn their lesson from Apple ! So this is not the phone Java of Y2K that makes an iOS app. To sideload an app into iOS you must first get a license from Apple to use that underlying code that you necessarily integrated into your app, and no law or government in the world can force Apple to give that license !
For those who don't want to use any line of code from iOS then there are web applications. Apple obviously do not charge anything for the sites the user browses. Steve Jobs' first insight was web applications and maybe he was right ?! Maybe the AppStore was a mistake and Apple must shut it down and replace the mainstream utility, productivity and entertainment apps with its own branded (or licensed) ones !
At the time the AppStore was the right thing, and it was required to get things going; but now… Web technologies/standards have evolved to the point where Apple seem to avoid implementing them just to force people into making "real" apps, and using the AppStore.
So that's where the real anti-competitive behaviour is; but no big companies want to take that fight, because they don't benefit from a real open solution.
I don't understand your point, why would Apple avoid implementing web technologies/standards, while there is a whole iWork suite, Pages, Numbers, Keynote, and Photos, Contacts etc... as web applications on iCloud.com?
If you mean by that the exclusion of "apps" that consist of a single web view, again I don't understand why that would be anti-competitive while the developers of those apps do not even need the AppStore, they can just deploy on the web. In contrast, it is certain that those web view apps present an unfair competition against native apps. The AppStore is not a venue to promote web sites.
The web is a lot more than just design nowadays; there are JavaScript APIs to access/do basically anything on a phone. Bluetooth, run in the background, access address book, and whatever.
That’s what Apple has been slow on even considering, all while Chrome isn’t allowed the access to be able to do it. We’re at least 5 years behind on where we’d been if Apple had been serious about the web.
I don’t want a web page I close continues to run on the background and mine Bitcoins or spy over Bluetooth. I want Apple curates whatever they allow to run on my iPhone. On the web this is not possible, so the web access to the hardware is not permitted.
Don't be stupid; that's stuff that'd work just like the location api, where the web browser asks you to accept or not.
It'd be even more privacy forward than the AppStore as Apple has been real slow to implement proper security there; like with how any app for years has been able to spy on the clipboard, mined your photos for location data (just because you once picked a profile pic for the app), and so on.
Ha ha... That’s Android security, ask the user ! That’s all you understand with security, you Android fans... I’m done with your fan fiction.
If Epic wants to characterize Apple as a monopoly because they control their own App Store, then Epic is a monopoly because they control FortNite. Epic should be broken up and copies of Fortnite given to several other game developers, so that Epic's Fortnite monopoly is finally ended!
In some seriousness, though... I actually think Apple would be wise to allow other app stores on their platforms, at least sort of.
Other app stores could be authorized to operate on iOS, and perhaps pay Apple a much smaller share of revenue than the Apple App Store gets. By disassociating the Apple brand from these other stores, Apple could get a share of revenue that hey otherwise might never get, because they could lower their content standards. In other words, Apple could finally make money off of porn! Also, Apple could require that other App Store operators accept liability for anything that goes wrong with the apps sold through their stores.
Meanwhile, Apple could more aggressively curate their own App Store for content quality, so that their store truly is the best.
There you completely ignore that for Apple to guarantee security and adherence to guidelines they still have to do the work vetting all apps (and all updates of said apps) themselves; so they are still doing the same work, they just don't get paid the same to do it (and according to your scheme they would also intentionally have to let less quality products get in, just to somehow prove their own superiority by applying the regular quality only in their own store).
Have you ever used a Mac?
Not sure it's possible to even try to continue a discussion if you don't even begin to understand the difference between the platforms/OSes/devices.
Apple chooses the differences, they are not some deep innate property of the universe. It sounds like you have a status quo fetish.
How would consumers not win? Say Epic wins and they get the fee reduced, the ability for direct payments, or more hopefully, we get full sideloading on iOS. For the first situation we could get cheaper apps, as developers could reduce the price of the apps themselves or the price of In App Purchases, something good for the consumer. For the second we got proof that it would be better for the consumer, as the price of V-Bucks was cheaper with the option for directly purchasing the V-Bucks from Epic rather than through Apple's processor. For the third consumers wouldn't be beholden to the App Store. Stadia and Xcloud would be usable on iOS, Much more open source development could occur on iOS because developers wouldn't have to subscribe to a $100 fee to host their apps on the store. Hell, with sideloading we could get app stores that actually show off more than regurgitate the top apps of each category.
Myopic & naive. If the fee were 15% they’d want 10% - for themselves, not the consumer. We don’t see being “beholden” to the App Store as an issue, because we’re not 12-year-olds with authority issues who think choice is self-determination. We also don’t want more crap produces by uncommitted developers on the Store.
If you want all this, just buy Android with all the mistakes of the previous generation of technology.
If Epic wants to characterize Apple as a monopoly because they control their own App Store, then Epic is a monopoly because they control FortNite. Epic should be broken up and copies of Fortnite given to several other game developers, so that Epic's Fortnite monopoly is finally ended!
In some seriousness, though... I actually think Apple would be wise to allow other app stores on their platforms, at least sort of.
Other app stores could be authorized to operate on iOS, and perhaps pay Apple a much smaller share of revenue than the Apple App Store gets. By disassociating the Apple brand from these other stores, Apple could get a share of revenue that hey otherwise might never get, because they could lower their content standards. In other words, Apple could finally make money off of porn! Also, Apple could require that other App Store operators accept liability for anything that goes wrong with the apps sold through their stores.
Meanwhile, Apple could more aggressively curate their own App Store for content quality, so that their store truly is the best.
There you completely ignore that for Apple to guarantee security and adherence to guidelines they still have to do the work vetting all apps (and all updates of said apps) themselves; so they are still doing the same work, they just don't get paid the same to do it (and according to your scheme they would also intentionally have to let less quality products get in, just to somehow prove their own superiority by applying the regular quality only in their own store).
Have you ever used a Mac?
Not sure it's possible to even try to continue a discussion if you don't even begin to understand the difference between the platforms/OSes/devices.
Apple chooses the differences, they are not some deep innate property of the universe. It sounds like you have a status quo fetish.
You under some delusion that OSes can quickly just be remade from scratch to work differently from the ground up, and still keep working with existing software etc?
If Epic wants to characterize Apple as a monopoly because they control their own App Store, then Epic is a monopoly because they control FortNite. Epic should be broken up and copies of Fortnite given to several other game developers, so that Epic's Fortnite monopoly is finally ended!
In some seriousness, though... I actually think Apple would be wise to allow other app stores on their platforms, at least sort of.
Other app stores could be authorized to operate on iOS, and perhaps pay Apple a much smaller share of revenue than the Apple App Store gets. By disassociating the Apple brand from these other stores, Apple could get a share of revenue that hey otherwise might never get, because they could lower their content standards. In other words, Apple could finally make money off of porn! Also, Apple could require that other App Store operators accept liability for anything that goes wrong with the apps sold through their stores.
Meanwhile, Apple could more aggressively curate their own App Store for content quality, so that their store truly is the best.
There you completely ignore that for Apple to guarantee security and adherence to guidelines they still have to do the work vetting all apps (and all updates of said apps) themselves; so they are still doing the same work, they just don't get paid the same to do it (and according to your scheme they would also intentionally have to let less quality products get in, just to somehow prove their own superiority by applying the regular quality only in their own store).
Have you ever used a Mac?
Not sure it's possible to even try to continue a discussion if you don't even begin to understand the difference between the platforms/OSes/devices.
Apple chooses the differences, they are not some deep innate property of the universe. It sounds like you have a status quo fetish.
You under some delusion that OSes can quickly just be remade from scratch to work differently from the ground up, and still keep working with existing software etc?
Nope.
Are you under the delusion that iOS has not become more like the Mac, and the Mac more like iOS, over time? Are you under the delusion that Apple cannot choose to continue to modify either or both in any way they please?
History has not ended, nor do we live in the best of all possible worlds. Progress and change will happen.
Here are a few examples of things that poseurs like you have said would NEVER happen, but people like me (who according to poseurs like you "just don't understand apple") have suggested could or should happen:
1. return of a big tower Mac Pro (I said this for years) 2. stylus for iPad (this wasn't my thing, but others have said it) 3. mouse/trackpad for iPad (ditto) 4. custom Apple SOCs for the Mac (I said this for years) 5. Apple making/owning their own content for Apple TV (I said this years ago)
These ideas, and many more, have been trashed by poseurs like you right up until they actually happened.
The day I get to dictate what price I pay to sell stuff on eBay, Amazon, Etsy, Poshmark, Walmart, a flea market, etc. to the owners of those marketplaces is the day I side with these developers. Until then they can all take a flying leap.
But this is not something you are buying from amazon, eBay etc. this is an accessory to what you bought from them
Buying v-bucks in fortnite has absolutely nothing to do with apple doesn't go through their servers, doesn’t need to be checked by Apple like apps, requires zero effort from any Apple employee. So what am I paying Apple $3 for when I buy v-bucks? What service am I getting for that?
I believe this to be incorrect. As far as I understand, Apple actually takes care of the payment processing, also for in-app purchases.
You are correct, my mistake but other payment processors (Visa, MasterCard, Amex) charge 1.5-3% not 30%
And it's also a question about where the line between "no work" and "all the work" goes… If I release an app that is free, and then to be useful everyone had to buy in-
app-bucks, would you still say that Apple should get zero money because it required zero effort?
They're hand-delivering the biggest and spendiest user base in the world that they've cultivated in over a three decades of building and seling quality hardware that everyone loves. It's quite the opposite of "zero effort".
Same argument can be made for amazon, eBay etc etc giving access to a user base, doesn’t mean you can earn money for anything that involves that user base using App Store, is a different matter, that’s earned
I guess a similar example is websites hosted on amazon web services do the websites give amazon a cut of their sales ?
And it's also a question about where the line between "no work" and "all the work" goes… If I release an app that is free, and then to be useful everyone had to buy in-
app-bucks, would you still say that Apple should get zero money because it required zero effort?
They're hand-delivering the biggest and spendiest user base in the world that they've cultivated in over a three decades of building and seling quality hardware that everyone loves. It's quite the opposite of "zero effort".
Remember when developers used to give Jobs/Cook raucous ovations when they announced at developers conferences the number of iPhone users with registered credit cards that the developers had access too - all ready to spend money, just one click away? Apple made the market and gave developers an avenue to make millions and millions of dollars...
But Apple isn’t the reason fortnite was a success its available on all platforms If we were talking about flapppy bird etc, then yes you are 100% correct
One way Apple could have avoided this was if from the beginning they had required all developers creating for iOS to only use Apple branding, not their own. If you want to develop for iOS, you submit a request, and if it’s approved, you create the app with Apple’s support (as they do now) and Apple puts in on the store as an Apple app and gives you 70% of the proceeds.
Obviously this is a sort of silly solution, I’m just saying it to add some perspective. Companies like Epic are taking a lot for granted and seeing things the way they want to see them, but they don’t have much of a leg to stand on. I think Apple will win this battle and emerge from it stronger, because other companies will be less inclined to try the same crap.
The problem is Apple calling out to Epic to negotiate.
Do small developers get this kind of treatment? They’re stuck with that 30% whereas the big boys might negotiate 15%. Not exactly a level playing field...
Volume discounting has been standard practice forever and if vendors choose to build niche products at high unit prices so why should the commodity end of the market forego it’s discounting? Apple needs to be more consistent with its application of bulk pricing.
Comments
So that's where the real anti-competitive behaviour is; but no big companies want to take that fight, because they don't benefit from a real open solution.
If you mean by that the exclusion of "apps" that consist of a single web view, again I don't understand why that would be anti-competitive while the developers of those apps do not even need the AppStore, they can just deploy on the web. In contrast, it is certain that those web view apps present an unfair competition against native apps. The AppStore is not a venue to promote web sites.
That’s what Apple has been slow on even considering, all while Chrome isn’t allowed the access to be able to do it. We’re at least 5 years behind on where we’d been if Apple had been serious about the web.
Nobody would be happy with that situation. But it's not what's happening here.
Developers aren't seeing the value of the 30% but that doesn't mean the value isn't there. It's about more than payment processing. And if the alternative is increased risk, then I think the vast majority of the planet's population would choose the higher price.
Why not? The obvious loophole is that nobody sells an app (where they pay a commission), they just provide a subscription (where they pay a much lower commission). How does that sustain a platform, or a marketplace? Some compromises have to be made to a theoretical ideal to manage the practical implications.
Apple's biggest problem is that they let the story evolve around the percentage they charge rather than the value they provide. So they've already lost some measure of the general public's goodwill. My two cents is that Epic have launched this lawsuit knowing it will fail and hoping to ride the wave of public opinion to higher profits based on a higher public profile. And really, they might make more money from convincing one developer to use them as a publisher for a game that turns into a huge hit than they might lose from their current actions.
It'd be even more privacy forward than the AppStore as Apple has been real slow to implement proper security there; like with how any app for years has been able to spy on the clipboard, mined your photos for location data (just because you once picked a profile pic for the app), and so on.
If the fee were 15% they’d want 10% - for themselves, not the consumer. We don’t see being “beholden” to the App Store as an issue, because we’re not 12-year-olds with authority issues who think choice is self-determination. We also don’t want more crap produces by uncommitted developers on the Store.
Are you under the delusion that iOS has not become more like the Mac, and the Mac more like iOS, over time?
Are you under the delusion that Apple cannot choose to continue to modify either or both in any way they please?
History has not ended, nor do we live in the best of all possible worlds. Progress and change will happen.
Here are a few examples of things that poseurs like you have said would NEVER happen, but people like me (who according to poseurs like you "just don't understand apple") have suggested could or should happen:
1. return of a big tower Mac Pro (I said this for years)
2. stylus for iPad (this wasn't my thing, but others have said it)
3. mouse/trackpad for iPad (ditto)
4. custom Apple SOCs for the Mac (I said this for years)
5. Apple making/owning their own content for Apple TV (I said this years ago)
These ideas, and many more, have been trashed by poseurs like you right up until they actually happened.
but other payment processors (Visa, MasterCard, Amex) charge 1.5-3%
not 30%
giving access to a user base, doesn’t mean you can earn money for anything that involves that user base
using App Store, is a different matter, that’s earned
I guess a similar example is websites hosted on amazon web services
do the websites give amazon a cut of their sales ?
its available on all platforms
If we were talking about flapppy bird etc, then yes you are 100% correct
Apple needs to be more consistent with its application of bulk pricing.