I'm not really sure which part you're talking about when you say "what is your problem". If you read and understood what I'd said you'd know, so I guess you're just ignoring what I say and filling with your own straw man arguments. Especially when you say things like this:
If you want all of that, then use what 75% of mobile device users use ...... an Android device. You have that choice. Apple hasn't taken that away from you or away from anyone. Take advantage of it. Why are you here complaining about how Apple is not running their business they way you would like them to, when Android is?
Here is my point in the simplest way I can make it:
DOES APPLE'S TYING THEIR DEVICES TO ONLY USE THEIR APP STORE CREATE AN ANTI-COMPETITIVE SITUATION OR ONE HARMFUL TO CONSUMERS.
I would argue yes it does.
The existence of another competitor doesn't mean there is choice or competition.
All the apps you want should be on Android because they are all available on the internet, right? Software developers can develop for 75% of the mobile market, without paying a commission to an app store to host their apps. So why would they even think about developing for iOS? Android users have to fix their own device when they accidentally download malware, without the help of Google or the phone maker. They can give their CC info to websites that might not be secure. They can deal with the developers for a refund. Just because you have no problem with that and Apple won't let you, doesn't mean that you can't, just use an Android device. You have a choice.
Again, the apparent existence of a competitor doesn't mean there is choice or competition.
Just exactly what do Apple iDevices have that appeals to you, that Android devices don't have? If nothing, then WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM? iDevices appeals to hundreds of millions just the way Apple wants it.
I would love to have the choice of the 4Matic drive train that's found on my wife's Mercedes SUV, factory installed on my Dodge mini van. But that's not going to happen. Dodge do not have to and can not give me that option. If I want to drive a car with a 4Matic drive train, I will have to switch to driving a Mercedes. Even though I find a mini van more useful to drive around in. Evidently, Mercedes has a monopoly on their 4Matic drive train.
Evidently you don't know what a monopoly is. It's perfectly acceptable for Mercedes not to be compelled to factory install their drive train into a Dodge mini van. BUT, you could BUY a Mercedes, remove the drive train and have it installed in a Dodge.
To be clear where this fits regarding App Stores and competition, the Dodge is your iPhone, the Mercedes drive train is an app, and the Mercedes dealer is another App Store.
If an app in the App Store crashes iDevices, then Apple will remove the app and get the developer to fix the app if they want to be on iOS. The developer do not have to fix the iOS on the device that crashed, if Apple allowed them into the App Store. The whole purpose of the App Store is so that iDevice users has some reasonable expectation that Apple have already done some testing and any app in the App Store won't do too much damage if their iDevice do crash from installing it. If the iDevice crashes because an app in the App Store found a bug with iOS, Apple will release an update to fix the bug. App developers aren't force to work around the bug.
You have only to look at cases where apps have been in the store for a long time and then someone discovers they are gathering data they shouldn't or sending data where they shouldn't to know that an app being in the store is no guarantee it's been "checked" by Apple. In fact, with the numbers of submissions the app store will receive, I'd say it's fanciful to believe it would even be possible to check such things.
Who checks if an app conform to Apple iOS security standards in an app store outside of Apple control? If you don't think Apple should be the "gatekeeper". It can crash tens of thousands of iPhones and still be available for days to those that haven't heard about it yet, because it's not in the Apple App Store where Apple is the "gatekeeper" and can stop its download as soon as they know about it. You think a developer selling $1.99 apps that didn't work is going to offer a refund or even a way to get a refund? I willing to bet Apple will refund to buyers iTunes accounts, even if the developer won't or it wasn't the developer's fault.
You think when Apple gives a refund it's coming from their pocket? Of course not, they reverse the transaction and claw back the amount from the developer's next app store cheque.
Who stops an app from outside the App Store, from purposely loading malware? Who will check to see if an app is not accessing personal data that they are not allowed to?
Apple don't even do this for apps submitted to their App Store, why should you require another store to do so? (See above). Having a condition that installing software from sources other than Apple absolves Apple of any claim if an app causes damage to my device would seem acceptable to me.
There's a reason why iOS is much less infected by malware than Android. No OS can stop malware from loading if the user agrees to download software that they didn't know was infected with malware. But with iOS, the users are limited to just one place where they can download apps for their device. And even for users that say that they will never download any app except from the App Store or a trusted site, if it's possible to download an app into an iDevice from elsewhere other than through the App Store, hackers will find a way to install their malware without the users even knowing they downloaded and installed the malware. Just like they do with Android. Google can probably make Android thousands of times more secure, if they just prevent the downloading and installation of apps off the internet. Like Apple does with iOS.
Correct, as you say NO OS CAN BE FREE OF MALWARE, so it's safe to dismiss everything you said after that as irrelevant.
If your iDevice crashes with an app that you downloaded from the App Store, bring it down to an Apple Store and they will try to fix it. At least they will try to recover your data from it if there's no other backup, before attempting a factory restore. What if the most recent backup doesn't include the data you need from yesterday. Apple might be able to force a BackUp. Bring in a jailbroken iPhone that crashed because you downloaded an app off the internet and Apple will most likely balk at fixing it. They might at least do a factory restore for you but won't work on recovering your data in the device or repair/replace any parts that was damaged due to the unauthorized download. Not even under warranty. Of course you can remove the jailbreak yourself before bringing it in by doing a restore to factory, but that's going to delete all the data you might be trying to save. When was the last time you heard of an Android user bringing their crashed Android device to a Google store to get help?
Isn't that what I said? If you bring your iOS device to Apple they will try and recover a backup, wipe and restore the phone. If I take a device to Apple after I've installed an app from a different source to the App Store, they won't touch it? And as I said, I'm fine with that. If the clutch went in your FrankenDodge and you took it to a dealer after installing a Mercedes drive chain, would you expect them to honour the warranty?
The cost of an Apple Developer Program is the cost of writing programs for iOS. Developers wouldn't pay for the program if they weren't planning on writing programs for iOS. There is no other reason for developers to have their apps in the App Store, other than they want their apps to be on iOS
There's no other way to distribute apps unless they are submitted to the app store, so whatever else you think the development fee pays for it most certainly is required to develop for iOS.
BTW- sorry for answering in this format. I have not yet figure out how to split the your quote into separate answerable sections, like you did. I knew how to do it in the old version by just clicking "q" in the menu bar with the cursor at the beginning of the quote and again at the end and then a window opens up right under, where I can respond. Or just highlighting the portion of the quote I want to respond to and clicking on "q". But "q" is now gone and I can't find it anywhere. It's probably simpler now, once I find out how it's done.
At least we can both agree that the forum system here is awful. I use the method Elijahg mentioned and edit the tags directly.
Free apps are free because the developers chose to make them free, not Apple. Apple choses to make some of their own apps free, some not. As for your first argument, Epic is NOT a platform. Epic does not have a distribution network as it relies on both Apple and Google to provide access to tis products. Epic seems to think that access should be free of charge. Epic also appears to want its own App Store on Apple’s distribution network, again for free. Epic’s entire motive here is to bypass Apple’s fee for hosting their products. As has been pointed out over and over again, grocery stores charge brands a fee for providing shelf space for the product. Why can’t Apple?
Finally, let me ask what you think of this situation. I can download the Microsoft Office suite for iOS through the App Store for free, and have use of the app. I can also unlock more features if I subscribe to Office 365 using the in-app purchase. I assume Apple get 30% of the sales Microsoft receive with this method. I can also purchase the same subscription through Microsoft’s website, or indeed a number of other retailers. I assume Apple don’t get a percentage of those sales. The app is available on the App Store so we can assume Apple is happy with this arrangement. Before it was removed from the App Store, I could download the Fortnite app, use the app for free, and if I want to unlock features, extra weapons, skins etc, I can do so using the in-app purchase. We know Apple are taking 30% from those sales. I can also purchase those same features through the Epic web store. This is unacceptable to Apple and Fortnite is removed from the app store. How are these two examples so different that one is allowed and the other isn’t?
If you purchase any features on any platform, you are allowed to use those features on any other platform you log on to with your Epic account, to play Fortnite. So I bet MS and Sony weren't to happy about Epic selling discounted Fortnite bucks to buy features that could also be used on their platforms. But what you can't use are the Fortnite bucks that you paid for on one platform, on another platform. In other words, if you purchased $20 worth of Fortnite bucks with your Epic account on an X-Box, Microsoft will take 30% of the cost of those $20 Fortnite bucks and you can only spend those Fortnight bucks while playing on an X-Box. But any features you purchased will appear on whatever platform you play. It was this the way before Fortnite was on iOS.
The reason why Epic had it like this was to make sure each platform got their 30% of the money spent on Fortnite bucks that are spent in their platform. Otherwise Microsoft and Sony would balk at allowing Fortnite to be played on their platforms. No way are they going to allow Epic to sell Fortnite buck at a discount on their own web site and then let the player spend those Fortnite bucks while playing on an X-Box or Playstation. What's in it for Microsoft and Sony if they don't get a commission on the money spent for the Fortnite bucks that are spent playing on their platform?
What was unacceptable to Apple was that Epic provided a direct link to their web site to purchase discounted Fortnite bucks, in their iOS app. A direct violation of Apple App Store policies that Epic agreed to when developing for iOS. Neither Google, MS or Sony would allow that either. That would be like Costco allowing Best Buy to enter a Costco and place little stickers on all of Costco electronics, advertising that these items are cheaper at Best Buy.
Apple has no problem with allowing Netflix subscribers paying for their subscription on Netflix own website or like me, auto direct billing to my CC every month. But Netflix is not being an asshole about it and advertising this on their iOS app nor providing a direct link to pay outside of the App Store. And neither is MS with their 360 subscription.
Plus, Netflix, Microsoft or most developers that has outside of App Store payment methods do not offer any discount when paying outside of the App Store. It's against App Store policy to do so. This was meant to protect iOS users from being charged the 30% commission the seller has to pay Apple. So if Epic want to sell discounted Fortnite bucks on their Website, then the same discount should apply to the price in the App Store during that time. Epic knew this when they signed their developer agreement to be in the App Store.
They also knew that if there wasn't a discount and direct link, most iOS players would just purchase their Fortnite bucks on iOS rather than to go to all the trouble of buying them on Epic Website and then can't spend those bucks while playing Fortnite on iOS anyway. In fact, I bet Fortnite bucks should also have been discounted on the MS Store and PlayStation Store at the same time. Unless Epic said it was just some one time special offer. It would also not be fair for MS and Sony, if Epic sold discounted Fortnite bucks to buy features on the Epic website, that could also be used on their platforms.
It seems only fair that Epic would treat Apple the same way as they have treated MS and Sony all these years and not bitch about paying the 30% commission to be on an X-Box or PlayStation.
I would love to have the choice of the 4Matic drive train that's found on my wife's Mercedes SUV, factory installed on my Dodge mini van. But that's not going to happen. Dodge do not have to and can not give me that option. If I want to drive a car with a 4Matic drive train, I will have to switch to driving a Mercedes. Even though I find a mini van more useful to drive around in. Evidently, Mercedes has a monopoly on their 4Matic drive train.
Evidently you don't know what a monopoly is. It's perfectly acceptable for Mercedes not to be compelled to factory install their drive train into a Dodge mini van. BUT, you could BUY a Mercedes, remove the drive train and have it installed in a Dodge.
To be clear where this fits regarding App Stores and competition, the Dodge is your iPhone, the Mercedes drive train is an app, and the Mercedes dealer is another App Store.
Here's where I'm getting with that. Of course Mercedes has a monopoly with their 4Matic. There are a lot of companies that have a monopoly with the products they own and market. BK has a monopoly with their Whopper, McDonalds with their Big Macs, Toyota with their Prius, Microsoft with their X-Box, Panasonic with their Lumix camera, , etc. But these monopolies are not the type that are subject to anti trust laws.
Mercedes owns 4Matic, it belong to them. 4Matic is not a product they sell but used to make their cars more competitive in the market they compete in. A market where they do not have a monopoly in. And like you say, it is perfectly acceptable for them to not have to let anyone else have access to their 4Matic. The government should not force Mercedes to be less competitive in their market, by forcing Mercedes to make 4Matic available to other car makers.
Apple owns iOS. It belongs to them. iOS is not a product they sell but used to make their iDevices more competitive in the market they compete in. A market where they do not have a monopoly in. It is perfectly acceptable for them to not have to let anyone else to have access to iOS. The government should not force Apple to be less competitive in their market, by forcing Apple to make iOS available to other mobile device makers.
Features in Mercedes cars with 4Matic and Apple iDevices with iOS are marketed as selling points in their respective market, to make them more competitive. The government should not get in the way and force Mercedes or Apple to diminish any of these features, so to make them less competitive.
Security is a main selling point for iDevices with iOS, in a market where they compete with Android devices. That is undeniable and proven no matter what metric you use. One of the reason is because Apple limits where apps can be downloaded from. This includes not allowing the downloading of apps from the internet.
The government should not force Apple to be less competitive in a market where they do not have a monopoly in, by forcing Apple to allow iOS capable of downloading apps from the internet, thus making iDevices less secure. It should be up to Apple if they want to make their iDevices more competitive in the market by either making it more secure or sacrificing some of that security by allowing the downloading of apps from the internet. It should not be determined as a result of a bunch of spoiled developers wanting to bypass the 30% commission of the Apple App Store, by claiming Apple has a monopoly with iOS. Evidently, the same monopoly Mercedes has with 4Matic. If enough iDevices users would rather have internet access for apps, than their iDevices being more secure, then I'm sure Apple will follow and change what's necessary in order to sell more iDevices. After all, Apple did eventually make a larger screen iPhone, when they said they weren't interested in doing it.
I would love to have the choice of the 4Matic drive train that's found on my wife's Mercedes SUV, factory installed on my Dodge mini van. But that's not going to happen. Dodge do not have to and can not give me that option. If I want to drive a car with a 4Matic drive train, I will have to switch to driving a Mercedes. Even though I find a mini van more useful to drive around in. Evidently, Mercedes has a monopoly on their 4Matic drive train.
Evidently you don't know what a monopoly is. It's perfectly acceptable for Mercedes not to be compelled to factory install their drive train into a Dodge mini van. BUT, you could BUY a Mercedes, remove the drive train and have it installed in a Dodge.
To be clear where this fits regarding App Stores and competition, the Dodge is your iPhone, the Mercedes drive train is an app, and the Mercedes dealer is another App Store.
Here's where I'm getting with that. Of course Mercedes has a monopoly with their 4Matic. There are a lot of companies that have a monopoly with the products they own and market. BK has a monopoly with their Whopper, McDonalds with their Big Macs, Toyota with their Prius, Microsoft with their X-Box, Panasonic with their Lumix camera, , etc. But these monopolies are not the type that are subject to anti trust laws.
Mercedes owns 4Matic, it belong to them. 4Matic is not a product they sell but used to make their cars more competitive in the market they compete in. A market where they do not have a monopoly in. And like you say, it is perfectly acceptable for them to not have to let anyone else have access to their 4Matic. The government should not force Mercedes to be less competitive in their market, by forcing Mercedes to make 4Matic available to other car makers.
Apple owns iOS. It belongs to them. iOS is not a product they sell but used to make their iDevices more competitive in the market they compete in. A market where they do not have a monopoly in. It is perfectly acceptable for them to not have to let anyone else to have access to iOS. The government should not force Apple to be less competitive in their market, by forcing Apple to make iOS available to other mobile device makers.
Features in Mercedes cars with 4Matic and Apple iDevices with iOS are marketed as selling points in their respective market, to make them more competitive. The government should not get in the way and force Mercedes or Apple to diminish any of these features, so to make them less competitive.
Security is a main selling point for iDevices with iOS, in a market where they compete with Android devices. That is undeniable and proven no matter what metric you use. One of the reason is because Apple limits where apps can be downloaded from. This includes not allowing the downloading of apps from the internet.
The government should not force Apple to be less competitive in a market where they do not have a monopoly in, by forcing Apple to allow iOS capable of downloading apps from the internet, thus making iDevices less secure. It should be up to Apple if they want to make their iDevices more competitive in the market by either making it more secure or sacrificing some of that security by allowing the downloading of apps from the internet. It should not be determined as a result of a bunch of spoiled developers wanting to bypass the 30% commission of the Apple App Store, by claiming Apple has a monopoly with iOS. Evidently, the same monopoly Mercedes has with 4Matic. If enough iDevices users would rather have internet access for apps, than their iDevices being more secure, then I'm sure Apple will follow and change what's necessary in order to sell more iDevices. After all, Apple did eventually make a larger screen iPhone, when they said they weren't interested in doing it.
It's up to the end user if they want to reduce security by installing apps from wherever. Just like on macOS. macOS is not full of malware. You still haven't answered why you think it's ok for Apple to decide what someone does with their own phone. Apple does have a monopoly on iOS app distribution. It's like Mercedes disallowing anyone except Mercedes to change the tyres, and then only allowing Mercedes approved tyres. And cars are a lot more dangerous than a phone. A bad tyre could cause a blowout and death, and yet non-manufacturer garages still exist. So obviously, the issue isn't anywhere near as bad as you speculate it would be. Non-rooted Android is pretty secure, except the bad apps that leak through Google's (poor) app vetting. So if Google can do it, why can't Apple?
Here's where I'm getting with that. Of course Mercedes has a monopoly with their 4Matic. There are a lot of companies that have a monopoly with the products they own and market. BK has a monopoly with their Whopper, McDonalds with their Big Macs, Toyota with their Prius, Microsoft with their X-Box, Panasonic with their Lumix camera, , etc. But these monopolies are not the type that are subject to anti trust laws.
Mercedes owns 4Matic, it belong to them. 4Matic is not a product they sell but used to make their cars more competitive in the market they compete in. A market where they do not have a monopoly in. And like you say, it is perfectly acceptable for them to not have to let anyone else have access to their 4Matic. The government should not force Mercedes to be less competitive in their market, by forcing Mercedes to make 4Matic available to other car makers.
No, these not examples of monopolies or restrictive monopolies. Like I said, you don’t understand what monopoly is, so stop saying things are monopolies when they aren’t.
Apple owns iOS. It belongs to them. iOS is not a product they sell but used to make their iDevices more competitive in the market they compete in. A market where they do not have a monopoly in. It is perfectly acceptable for them to not have to let anyone else to have access to iOS. The government should not force Apple to be less competitive in their market, by forcing Apple to make iOS available to other mobile device makers.
Stop. Nobody is saying Apple should be forced to licence iOS. Stop making strawman arguments.
Features in Mercedes cars with 4Matic and Apple iDevices with iOS are marketed as selling points in their respective market, to make them more competitive. The government should not get in the way and force Mercedes or Apple to diminish any of these features, so to make them less competitive.
Security is a main selling point for iDevices with iOS, in a market where they compete with Android devices.
Security is ONE of the features that Apple uses to market iOS. As the owner of an Apple device, if that feature is important to me and I trust that by only downloading apps from Apple’s App Store my device will be secure then that’s fine. Likewise if it isn’t important to me and I’m willing to accept the risk of downloading apps from other stores which I also trust it’s my decision and not Apple’s. Right now consumers don’t have a choice except to trust apps they are allowed to download from the Apple App Store.
One of the reason is because Apple limits where apps can be downloaded from. This includes not allowing the downloading of apps from the internet.
The government should not force Apple to be less competitive in a market where they do not have a monopoly in, by forcing Apple to allow iOS capable of downloading apps from the internet, thus making iDevices less secure. It should be up to Apple if they want to make their iDevices more competitive in the market by either making it more secure or sacrificing some of that security by allowing the downloading of apps from the internet. It should not be determined as a result of a bunch of spoiled developers wanting to bypass the 30% commission of the Apple App Store, by claiming Apple has a monopoly with iOS. Evidently, the same monopoly Mercedes has with 4Matic. If enough iDevices users would rather have internet access for apps, than their iDevices being more secure, then I'm sure Apple will follow and change what's necessary in order to sell more iDevices. After all, Apple did eventually make a larger screen iPhone, when they said they weren't interested in doing it.
This is becoming tiring, you don’t address any of the points which are made to you and instead make up your an argument to talk to instead. If you want to prove Apple doesn’t have a monopoly in Apps Stores on iOS, please point to the alternative App Stores which can be used to install apps on an Apple device and how Apple doesn’t restrict access to those alternative stores.
Should Amazon be told to let manufacturers sell their products on Amazon free of charge? If you want to sell your goods in someone’s store you have to give them the opportunity to make a profit.
That’s a straw man argument. The question ought to be why are Apple allowed to prevent other companies from selling items on their own platforms and the price they can charge.
Also, Apple don’t charge for all apps. Many are free. How would you translate that to your example?
Free apps are free because the developers chose to make them free, not Apple. Apple choses to make some of their own apps free, some not. As for your first argument, Epic is NOT a platform. Epic does not have a distribution network as it relies on both Apple and Google to provide access to tis products. Epic seems to think that access should be free of charge. Epic also appears to want its own App Store on Apple’s distribution network, again for free. Epic’s entire motive here is to bypass Apple’s fee for hosting their products. As has been pointed out over and over again, grocery stores charge brands a fee for providing shelf space for the product. Why can’t Apple?
The Epic Games Store is definitely a platform. And that platform is on macOS and Windows, where it competes with the Mac App Store and the Microsoft App Store. It does have a distribution network on Mac and Windows, and would on iOS if Apple gave them permission. Why is it fine to have their store & platform on macOS/Windows, and not on iOS? Epic doesn't rely on Apple/MS for distribution on desktops, so what makes you think they would on iOS too?
Why is Apple not charging developers with free apps on the App Store a fee, other than the yearly $99? Why is it ok that Facebook gets to use Apple's platform along with the costs of hosting for the same $99/year that a one-person dev does, except Facebook's ad revenue (a lot of which comes from iOS) entirely bypasses Apple's 30/15% and is in the billions. But a few bucks from a small dev for which Apple charges them is ok?
Also, why is it Apple gets to choose what software I put on *my* device. We don't rent phones from Apple, if we did it'd be different. But it's my phone, and I should be able to do with it as I wish.
Because it is NOT your phone - or at least most of it isn’t. It runs iOS which is 100% Apple’s intellectual property (IP). You do not own any of that. You license your use of that from Apple and the price of that is included in the price of the phone. Likewise it’s not just the software. Much of the hardware in the iPhone (and iPad etc) is in the same category (Apple’s IP, like the ROMs and other chips) and you do not own those parts either.
If you want to argue that you should be free to use the parts of the phone that ARE yours, then I don’t think anyone is stopping you. If you want to use the parts of the iPhone that you do own, without iOS or any of the other IP in it that you don’t own, then feel free to decline the end user LICENSE agreement (not ownership agreement) when you first turn it on and let us know what you can do with it under those circumstances.
The App Store... It’s not the iPhone App Store. It’s the iOS App Store. It’s the store for the iOS (and iPadOS) operating systems, of which Apple has 100% ownership.
Every argument here complaining about Apple controlling its own platform is empty. It is Apple’s IP and Apple has every right to protect it or run it In whatever way they like. Why shouldn’t they? Why should Epic be able to come in and sell stuff to the enormous customer base that APPLE built using all the convenience technologies that APPLE built, for free? It’s like Warner Bros setting up a cart selling DC merchandise in the middle of Disneyland.
Epic has no right to distribute anything to Apple’s customers on Apple’s hardware and through Apple’s operating system unless granted by Apple. If Epic wants direct access to APPLE’s customers that found Epic via Apple’s marketing, or Apple’s halo effect from Apple’s products, then Epic need to pay Apple a commission for that.
Now... ok... So Epic argues that Apple won’t let Epic deal with Epic’s customers directly. Bulls**t. Epic is not prohibited from selling anything to Epic’s customers for use on an iPhone. Epic has a website with a store on it that can open in any browser on an iPhone or iPad - even Apple’s browser - and Epic can sell its V-bucks and whatever else, that way to its own customers that Epic has acquired through its own marketing and sales efforts (without poaching Apple’s customers from Apple via Apple’s direct platform). And any revenue Epic makes selling through that channel, Epic keeps 100% of.
Free apps are free because the developers chose to make them free, not Apple. Apple choses to make some of their own apps free, some not. As for your first argument, Epic is NOT a platform. Epic does not have a distribution network as it relies on both Apple and Google to provide access to tis products. Epic seems to think that access should be free of charge. Epic also appears to want its own App Store on Apple’s distribution network, again for free. Epic’s entire motive here is to bypass Apple’s fee for hosting their products. As has been pointed out over and over again, grocery stores charge brands a fee for providing shelf space for the product. Why can’t Apple?
I’m going to skip past the majority of your post because others have addressed it as untrue or irrelevant. Going to the statement I’ve highlighted, yes I’m aware of the concept of “listing fees”. Actually, this wasn’t the previous argument. Previously it was said a store selling a product should be allowed to make a profit, through a commission or percentage of the selling price. This isn’t a listing fee, why is it necessary try and change the goalposts? I’m not arguing app stores shouldn’t be allowed to take a cut from sales made through the platform. Epic have their own store front platform to process sales on their own, for macOS, Windows and Android. Why should Apple feel entitled to a cut of those sales? This would be akin to selling your product through a store and allowing the store owner to take a commission to cover their costs of business, then deciding to open your own second channel of mail order sales and the store owner demanding the same commission from the sales YOU made.
So to address the specific claim you make, which I’ve already demonstrated isn’t the case here, all developers pay $99 per year to access the developer program and be able to submit apps for inclusion in the App Store. Epic already pay their developer fee, which would be the equivalent of your listing fee. The question should then be, why do they think they are entitled to any other fees? To pre-empt your response, developers benefit from sales made in-app using Apple’s payment services, so you Apple get a slice of those sales? Yes, of course they should. But this isn’t the argument here, what should happen with sales made independently by a developer using their own platform? Apple wants the same percentage from those sales too, even though they aren’t involved in processing the sale. Why is that fair? Ok, to make another pre-emptive assumption, “it’s Apple’s terms and conditions, don’t like it, don’t distribute your app on their App Store”. Correct. However due to Apple’s architecture, the only way to distribute and install an app on an Apple device it must be available on the Apple App Store. Is it bad for consumers, or anticompetitive for Apple to have such control over their devices owners that consumers have no other choice than to use the App Store?
Finally, let me ask what you think of this situation. I can download the Microsoft Office suite for iOS through the App Store for free, and have use of the app. I can also unlock more features if I subscribe to Office 365 using the in-app purchase. I assume Apple get 30% of the sales Microsoft receive with this method. I can also purchase the same subscription through Microsoft’s website, or indeed a number of other retailers. I assume Apple don’t get a percentage of those sales. The app is available on the App Store so we can assume Apple is happy with this arrangement. Before it was removed from the App Store, I could download the Fortnite app, use the app for free, and if I want to unlock features, extra weapons, skins etc, I can do so using the in-app purchase. We know Apple are taking 30% from those sales. I can also purchase those same features through the Epic web store. This is unacceptable to Apple and Fortnite is removed from the app store. How are these two examples so different that one is allowed and the other isn’t?
Some great arguments there, and well presented, except that they’re not all quite factually correct.
1. People equating that $99 with a listing fee is way off mark. The $99 is for use of Apple’s tools etc (eg Xcode, the notarizing certificates, hooking in to Apple’s API’s, getting Access to OS developer betas, etc etc) and have virtually nothing to do with distribution or selling apps or in-app purchases. Yes being able to submit your app to the App Store is part of what you get in the $99 Developer Subscription, but you pay the $99 go all the other stuff whether you submit apps to the store or not and you can’t even build an app to submit to the store without most of the rest of what you get for the $99. So it’s pretty meaningless. In short the $99 is not the listing fee, by any stretch.
2. Apple doesn’t feel entitled to a cut of anything Epic sells through its own channels. Epic gave away Fortnite for free on the iOS (and Google) App Stores and still gives it away everywhere else. Epic only makes money from the in-game currency they sell. If Epic wants, can sell those through their own channels - their own website (for which they pay hosting, payment processing fees, staff/developers to build, and many other costs). Or they could even sell them through other channels like gift cards in physical stores or whatever else (for which they would pay those other stores distribution fees etc.). Three sub-points here:
(a) distribution, payment processing, marketing, and other things are all costs that go into making those sales and Epic has to pay them one way or another, whether it’s paying for their own in-house resources to do it, or any other third party.
(b) Apple ONLY charges Epic (and everyone else) for distribution of any digital product or service sold through Apple's distribution channels to Apple's customers arising at least in part from Apple's marketing efforts. (Like the customer buying Kelloggs cereal off the Walmart shelf is Walmart's customer much more than Kelloggs' customer).
(c) If Epic acquires a customer outside of Apple's channels as a result of Epic's own marketing, and if Epic were to choose to sell something to that customer through Epic's own distribution, sales, payment, ec processes, then Apple doesn't require Epic pay them any of that. And contrary to your last point: this IS acceptable to Apple. Fortnite was removed from the Apple App Store (and Google's) for implementing in-app purchases to Apple's customers that bypassed Apple's processes. But Apple isn't stopping or trying o stop Epic or anyone else selling to their own customers from their own stores (you just can't point them there from within the app). Plenty of apps do that (eg. Netflix) and don't have to pay Apple anything.
Apple is simply taking the position that you either get your own customers yourself and not through Apple, or pay Apple's commissions. But Epic expects access to Apple's enormous customer base and Apple's convenience and user friendly systems (like the in-app purchase mechanism) that were all built with Apple's time, efforts, and dollars, without paying a fair market price for any of it (and 30% for all that is very reasonable),
I would love to have the choice of the 4Matic drive train that's found on my wife's Mercedes SUV, factory installed on my Dodge mini van. But that's not going to happen. Dodge do not have to and can not give me that option. If I want to drive a car with a 4Matic drive train, I will have to switch to driving a Mercedes. Even though I find a mini van more useful to drive around in. Evidently, Mercedes has a monopoly on their 4Matic drive train.
Evidently you don't know what a monopoly is. It's perfectly acceptable for Mercedes not to be compelled to factory install their drive train into a Dodge mini van. BUT, you could BUY a Mercedes, remove the drive train and have it installed in a Dodge.
To be clear where this fits regarding App Stores and competition, the Dodge is your iPhone, the Mercedes drive train is an app, and the Mercedes dealer is another App Store.
Here's where I'm getting with that. Of course Mercedes has a monopoly with their 4Matic. There are a lot of companies that have a monopoly with the products they own and market. BK has a monopoly with their Whopper, McDonalds with their Big Macs, Toyota with their Prius, Microsoft with their X-Box, Panasonic with their Lumix camera, , etc. But these monopolies are not the type that are subject to anti trust laws.
Mercedes owns 4Matic, it belong to them. 4Matic is not a product they sell but used to make their cars more competitive in the market they compete in. A market where they do not have a monopoly in. And like you say, it is perfectly acceptable for them to not have to let anyone else have access to their 4Matic. The government should not force Mercedes to be less competitive in their market, by forcing Mercedes to make 4Matic available to other car makers.
Apple owns iOS. It belongs to them. iOS is not a product they sell but used to make their iDevices more competitive in the market they compete in. A market where they do not have a monopoly in. It is perfectly acceptable for them to not have to let anyone else to have access to iOS. The government should not force Apple to be less competitive in their market, by forcing Apple to make iOS available to other mobile device makers.
Features in Mercedes cars with 4Matic and Apple iDevices with iOS are marketed as selling points in their respective market, to make them more competitive. The government should not get in the way and force Mercedes or Apple to diminish any of these features, so to make them less competitive.
Security is a main selling point for iDevices with iOS, in a market where they compete with Android devices. That is undeniable and proven no matter what metric you use. One of the reason is because Apple limits where apps can be downloaded from. This includes not allowing the downloading of apps from the internet.
The government should not force Apple to be less competitive in a market where they do not have a monopoly in, by forcing Apple to allow iOS capable of downloading apps from the internet, thus making iDevices less secure. It should be up to Apple if they want to make their iDevices more competitive in the market by either making it more secure or sacrificing some of that security by allowing the downloading of apps from the internet. It should not be determined as a result of a bunch of spoiled developers wanting to bypass the 30% commission of the Apple App Store, by claiming Apple has a monopoly with iOS. Evidently, the same monopoly Mercedes has with 4Matic. If enough iDevices users would rather have internet access for apps, than their iDevices being more secure, then I'm sure Apple will follow and change what's necessary in order to sell more iDevices. After all, Apple did eventually make a larger screen iPhone, when they said they weren't interested in doing it.
It's up to the end user if they want to reduce security by installing apps from wherever. Just like on macOS. macOS is not full of malware. You still haven't answered why you think it's ok for Apple to decide what someone does with their own phone. Apple does have a monopoly on iOS app distribution. It's like Mercedes disallowing anyone except Mercedes to change the tyres, and then only allowing Mercedes approved tyres. And cars are a lot more dangerous than a phone. A bad tyre could cause a blowout and death, and yet non-manufacturer garages still exist. So obviously, the issue isn't anywhere near as bad as you speculate it would be. Non-rooted Android is pretty secure, except the bad apps that leak through Google's (poor) app vetting. So if Google can do it, why can't Apple?
Referring to the highlighted part: It’s simple. And this has been answered countless times on this and other forums...
It is NOT your phone. The iPhone is full of technology that is Apple’s and others’ intellectual property. NOT yours.
Not the least of which is iOS. And we’re not discussing the iPhone App Store we’re discussing the iOS App Store.
You can’t walk into a restaurant and demand the chef give you the recipe for something just because you bought the meal.
There are countless other examples of things you pay for that are not yours.
If you and the others here arguing with Davidw can ever get your heads around that simple fact then all your other arguments are dead in the water.
It’s Apple’s iOS. Not yours. Contrary to yours and a few others entitled but incorrect opinions, Apple DOES have every right to decide what you can and can’t do with THEIR intellectual property. If you don’t like it, express your desires as requests on their feedback forms and they might change (eg. Bigger screen phones in 2014 and now a smaller one again finally in 2020). But they might not. So then if you don’t like it, you have the choice to buy (a license for) someone else’s. Or make your own. That’s two alternative choices you have in this free market.
But you have no right demanding they let you do whatever you want with their IP.
This is becoming tiring, you don’t address any of the points which are made to you and instead make up your an argument to talk to instead. If you want to prove Apple doesn’t have a monopoly in Apps Stores on iOS, please point to the alternative App Stores which can be used to install apps on an Apple device and how Apple doesn’t restrict access to those alternative stores.
What exactly has he not addressed? Davidw is making the most thought out and sensible answers and you and a couple of others are just blindly dismissing him with statements like “it’s irrelevant”.
Security isn’t just about downloading apps. The reason you can’t sell apps via distribution channels other than the App Store isn’t because Apple just blocks it at some high level permissions thing. If it were at that level any decent hacker could get around it. No, it’s because of fundamental walls etc. built in to the core of iOS at very low levels. If Apple allows publicly available side-loading apps then they can only do so by opening up security holes that can be hacked.
Incidentally, if you want to argue it’s your device and put aside the idea that iOS is not yours to do whatever you want with, it is actually possible to side load apps onto an iPhone. But you have to write them yourself or build them privately. I know a couple of developers that have done this - put custom apps on their own phones that they compiled and built themselves and loaded in with Xcode. You can also build React native apps for iPhone without having to sign them. And there are other similar avenues.
So let’s revisit that 4Matic in the dodge example again. Yes you can take it somewhere to install that, but it’s a very complex and expensive process to do it. And no one is mass producing or mass marketing that. And while Mercedes and Dodge might not care if you want to do it to your own cars (though they’re not going to honor any warranties obviously) neither company is going to allow anyone to come along and mass produce such a thing. Likewise you can install non-iOS-App-Store apps on your phone, you just can’t mass distribute them.
So this isn’t about you as a consumer not being able to do stuff to your own phone if you want. It’s about developers not being able to mass distribute apps through channels other than the iOS App Store.
No one needs to - nor is anyone trying to - prove that Apple doesn’t have a monopoly on iOS app stores. Of course they do. So my question is, why shouldn’t they? It’s their OS. But you and others seem to think there’s something fundamentally wrong about Apple having exclusive curation and distribution rights for products served up onto their platform.
How is it any different from not being able to buy a Big Mac - or a Pepsi (they only sell Coca Cola company products) - at Burger King? Or how is it different from a particular Italian restaurant with the perfect ambience choosing not to serve a particular type of pizza I wish they would.
Please point out any other particular points davidw has failed to address and perhaps I can point you to where he did, or perhaps I can address them myself.
Comments
The reason why Epic had it like this was to make sure each platform got their 30% of the money spent on Fortnite bucks that are spent in their platform. Otherwise Microsoft and Sony would balk at allowing Fortnite to be played on their platforms. No way are they going to allow Epic to sell Fortnite buck at a discount on their own web site and then let the player spend those Fortnite bucks while playing on an X-Box or Playstation. What's in it for Microsoft and Sony if they don't get a commission on the money spent for the Fortnite bucks that are spent playing on their platform?
What was unacceptable to Apple was that Epic provided a direct link to their web site to purchase discounted Fortnite bucks, in their iOS app. A direct violation of Apple App Store policies that Epic agreed to when developing for iOS. Neither Google, MS or Sony would allow that either. That would be like Costco allowing Best Buy to enter a Costco and place little stickers on all of Costco electronics, advertising that these items are cheaper at Best Buy.
Apple has no problem with allowing Netflix subscribers paying for their subscription on Netflix own website or like me, auto direct billing to my CC every month. But Netflix is not being an asshole about it and advertising this on their iOS app nor providing a direct link to pay outside of the App Store. And neither is MS with their 360 subscription.
Plus, Netflix, Microsoft or most developers that has outside of App Store payment methods do not offer any discount when paying outside of the App Store. It's against App Store policy to do so. This was meant to protect iOS users from being charged the 30% commission the seller has to pay Apple. So if Epic want to sell discounted Fortnite bucks on their Website, then the same discount should apply to the price in the App Store during that time. Epic knew this when they signed their developer agreement to be in the App Store.
They also knew that if there wasn't a discount and direct link, most iOS players would just purchase their Fortnite bucks on iOS rather than to go to all the trouble of buying them on Epic Website and then can't spend those bucks while playing Fortnite on iOS anyway. In fact, I bet Fortnite bucks should also have been discounted on the MS Store and PlayStation Store at the same time. Unless Epic said it was just some one time special offer. It would also not be fair for MS and Sony, if Epic sold discounted Fortnite bucks to buy features on the Epic website, that could also be used on their platforms.
It seems only fair that Epic would treat Apple the same way as they have treated MS and Sony all these years and not bitch about paying the 30% commission to be on an X-Box or PlayStation.
Mercedes owns 4Matic, it belong to them. 4Matic is not a product they sell but used to make their cars more competitive in the market they compete in. A market where they do not have a monopoly in. And like you say, it is perfectly acceptable for them to not have to let anyone else have access to their 4Matic. The government should not force Mercedes to be less competitive in their market, by forcing Mercedes to make 4Matic available to other car makers.
Apple owns iOS. It belongs to them. iOS is not a product they sell but used to make their iDevices more competitive in the market they compete in. A market where they do not have a monopoly in. It is perfectly acceptable for them to not have to let anyone else to have access to iOS. The government should not force Apple to be less competitive in their market, by forcing Apple to make iOS available to other mobile device makers.
Features in Mercedes cars with 4Matic and Apple iDevices with iOS are marketed as selling points in their respective market, to make them more competitive. The government should not get in the way and force Mercedes or Apple to diminish any of these features, so to make them less competitive.
Security is a main selling point for iDevices with iOS, in a market where they compete with Android devices. That is undeniable and proven no matter what metric you use. One of the reason is because Apple limits where apps can be downloaded from. This includes not allowing the downloading of apps from the internet.
The government should not force Apple to be less competitive in a market where they do not have a monopoly in, by forcing Apple to allow iOS capable of downloading apps from the internet, thus making iDevices less secure. It should be up to Apple if they want to make their iDevices more competitive in the market by either making it more secure or sacrificing some of that security by allowing the downloading of apps from the internet. It should not be determined as a result of a bunch of spoiled developers wanting to bypass the 30% commission of the Apple App Store, by claiming Apple has a monopoly with iOS. Evidently, the same monopoly Mercedes has with 4Matic. If enough iDevices users would rather have internet access for apps, than their iDevices being more secure, then I'm sure Apple will follow and change what's necessary in order to sell more iDevices. After all, Apple did eventually make a larger screen iPhone, when they said they weren't interested in doing it.
(a) distribution, payment processing, marketing, and other things are all costs that go into making those sales and Epic has to pay them one way or another, whether it’s paying for their own in-house resources to do it, or any other third party.
(b) Apple ONLY charges Epic (and everyone else) for distribution of any digital product or service sold through Apple's distribution channels to Apple's customers arising at least in part from Apple's marketing efforts. (Like the customer buying Kelloggs cereal off the Walmart shelf is Walmart's customer much more than Kelloggs' customer).
(c) If Epic acquires a customer outside of Apple's channels as a result of Epic's own marketing, and if Epic were to choose to sell something to that customer through Epic's own distribution, sales, payment, ec processes, then Apple doesn't require Epic pay them any of that. And contrary to your last point: this IS acceptable to Apple. Fortnite was removed from the Apple App Store (and Google's) for implementing in-app purchases to Apple's customers that bypassed Apple's processes. But Apple isn't stopping or trying o stop Epic or anyone else selling to their own customers from their own stores (you just can't point them there from within the app). Plenty of apps do that (eg. Netflix) and don't have to pay Apple anything.
Apple is simply taking the position that you either get your own customers yourself and not through Apple, or pay Apple's commissions. But Epic expects access to Apple's enormous customer base and Apple's convenience and user friendly systems (like the in-app purchase mechanism) that were all built with Apple's time, efforts, and dollars, without paying a fair market price for any of it (and 30% for all that is very reasonable),
It is NOT your phone. The iPhone is full of technology that is Apple’s and others’ intellectual property. NOT yours.
There are countless other examples of things you pay for that are not yours.
What exactly has he not addressed? Davidw is making the most thought out and sensible answers and you and a couple of others are just blindly dismissing him with statements like “it’s irrelevant”.
So let’s revisit that 4Matic in the dodge example again. Yes you can take it somewhere to install that, but it’s a very complex and expensive process to do it. And no one is mass producing or mass marketing that. And while Mercedes and Dodge might not care if you want to do it to your own cars (though they’re not going to honor any warranties obviously) neither company is going to allow anyone to come along and mass produce such a thing. Likewise you can install non-iOS-App-Store apps on your phone, you just can’t mass distribute them.