I guess calling it "Anti-App Store" is one way of spinning it. "Pro-consumer" is an equally correct way of spinning it. There's no reason why I should have to ask for Apple's permissions to install an app on a device I paid for with my own money. It would be no different than Subaru telling me I can only install kayak racks I bought from a Subaru dealer on my car.
You can do whatever you can do with your iPhone. Use it to mash potatoes or squash mosquitoes if you want. But you only have a license to use iOS and and the terms you agreed to was that Apple has ultimate control of what can and cannot be loaded on iOS.
And by the way, you can install any kayak rack on your car just as you can use any case, sticker, or external doodad with your iPhone. But if you install your own engine control software or software add-on on your Subaru (assuming you can build one or find one that works), Subaru is no longer legally responsible for the safety and operability of your car. Analogy crashes and burns.
You can attempt to minimize this and position it all you like. The fact remains, Apple is dictating to its users how they may use their devices that THEY paid for. It’s ridiculous.
That is not a fact. And you thinking so makes you clueless. You do not own iOS. You can not dictate how Apple wants iOS to run on the iDevices they sell. You did not PAY for iOS. Nor will you have to PAY for any iOS updates or upgrades (so long as the hardware can run the upgrades), for as long as you own an iPhone. Even the used ones given to you for free.
It amazing how so many that say that they OWN their iPhones and should be allow to do as they wish with it, alway comes up with some BS analogy that don't even come close to the situation at hand.
Here's a much closer analogy, using the Suburb you OWN. Say that you want to install a roof rack, but the dozens of roof racks that fits and sold at Subaru dealers, are not the one you want to install. The roof rack you want to install is the one given to you by a person that once owned a Honda and it does not fit because Subaru designed their gutters too shallow. So now you want Subaru to change the design of the gutters on all their cars, so that you can install the roof rack you want and don't have to pay for, because it's YOUR car and you should be able to install what roof rack you want. Subaru should not be able to dictate what roof rack you have to install.
Now, if you really want to use this free roof rack that don't fit on YOUR Subaru, you can bring YOUR car to a custom body shop and have them modify the gutters on YOUR Subaru so you can use the roof rack you want. Subaru will have no problem with that. It's YOUR Subaru. Or, you could have bought a Honda.
Now go jailbreak YOUR iPhone and install all the apps you want from where ever you want. Apple is not dictating that you can't do this with YOUR iPhone. Or use an Android device. But don't expect Apple to re-design THEIR iOS, so you can do this. You wouldn't expect Microsoft to re-design their X-Box platform so that it will play PlayStation games, would you? I'm sure there must be plenty of X-Box owners that would like to play PlayStations games on the X-Box they PAID for.
Good grief. The Epic folks need to grow the eff up. They wanna play in Apple's sandbox, they play by Apple's rules. No one's forcing them to participate in the Apple ecosystem. Besides, Apple has more robust security than any other platform, and by hosting everything on the App Store, they're putting their reputation behind any App that's sold.
I guess calling it "Anti-App Store" is one way of spinning it. "Pro-consumer" is an equally correct way of spinning it. There's no reason why I should have to ask for Apple's permissions to install an app on a device I paid for with my own money. It would be no different than Subaru telling me I can only install kayak racks I bought from a Subaru dealer on my car.
Do you want Subaru to be forced to let you replace the software on your Subaru's internal computers? Why or why not? After all, it's YOUR Subaru.
It's not that hard to understand the issue. The problem is that developers has no other avenue to sell their apps to IOS users. You have to use the app store if you want to sell anything that can be installed on an IPhone or Ipad. It doesn't even matter if the developer has the money or expertise to host, manage and advertise their app on their own system. You could be a multi billionaire, you could own your own hosting facility, your own advertising team and at the end of the day the only way you can get your app to any IOS users is through the app store. I'm sorry but that does sound a bit like a monopoly. And before anyone says "oh you can sell to android users, it's not a monopoly". No, this is about selling to IOS users and there is only one way.
developers who produce Mac OS applications can sell it anywhere and macbook users can buy it, download it and install it without having to go to the app store on the mac. Yet on IOS, developers are told that they can only reach IOS users if they use the official app store.
What most people with your thinking are failing to understand is that "iOS users" are not like the general public. "iOS users" are not like people walking along public sidewalks, in a shopping district of a city or town. Where anyone can walk up to them and try to sell them stuff. Or maybe place their products on a blanket on the public sidewalk.
"iOS users" are like people that enters a high end shopping mall, where they can only buy from stores that are paying rent to the mall owner. And with many of these malls, also a percentage of their gross sales. The mall owner provides parking, air conditioning, bathrooms, advertising, security, resting areas, food courts, kids play area, etc. to attract customers. Plus the mall owner can dictate what kind of stores are allowed in the their malls. If you want to sell your product or service to these shoppers, from inside the mall, you have to go through the mall owner and pay the rent.
"iOS users" are people that uses iDevices. There's no other way to be an "iOS user". The iDevice is the mall and if developers want access to iDevice users, they have to go through Apple. It cost Apple a lot to maintain iDevices. Apple spends a lot on advertising to sell more iDevices. Apple send a lot to keep the iOS on their iDevices secure with free updates. They offer support to iDevice users having trouble. Where possible, they offer free upgrades. So like the mall owner, Apple do not have to allow developers free access from inside the iDevice, to the people that chooses to use an iDevice, without going through Apple. Just like one would not expect to set up a sales booth inside a shopping mall, to get access mall shoppers, without going through the mall owner.
The App Store is not the high end shopping mall, the iDevice is the high end mall. And just like one can choose to shop at other malls, one can choose to use others mobile devices.
It is really no different than developers not having access to Fortnight game players from inside the Fortnight game. Developers can not demand Epic to allow them to open a store inside the Fortnight game. Those big spending Fortnight players belong to Epic. It's their game. They maintain it. It cost them to improve it. And they pay for the advertising to attract players. The Fortnight game is the mall. Therefore, developers have no right to open a store inside the Fortnight game, to sell stuff to people playing Fortnight, without going through Epic.
I guess calling it "Anti-App Store" is one way of spinning it. "Pro-consumer" is an equally correct way of spinning it. There's no reason why I should have to ask for Apple's permissions to install an app on a device I paid for with my own money. It would be no different than Subaru telling me I can only install kayak racks I bought from a Subaru dealer on my car.
You can do whatever you can do with your iPhone. Use it to mash potatoes or squash mosquitoes if you want. But you only have a license to use iOS and and the terms you agreed to was that Apple has ultimate control of what can and cannot be loaded on iOS.
And by the way, you can install any kayak rack on your car just as you can use any case, sticker, or external doodad with your iPhone. But if you install your own engine control software or software add-on on your Subaru (assuming you can build one or find one that works), Subaru is no longer legally responsible for the safety and operability of your car. Analogy crashes and burns.
You can attempt to minimize this and position it all you like. The fact remains, Apple is dictating to its users how they may use their devices that THEY paid for. It’s ridiculous.
I think Apple doesn't mind at all if you replace iOS with your own OS. They don't mind if you do it on the Mac. What you want is to make Apple's iOS meet all your personal terms and conditions.
It's not that hard to understand the issue. The problem is that developers has no other avenue to sell their apps to IOS users. You have to use the app store if you want to sell anything that can be installed on an IPhone or Ipad.
Correct. And who's to say that any developer has the "right" to install apps in iOS in the first place? The first version of iOS did not allow ANY apps on iOS. Were you mad about that? And are you mad that Apple currently has restrictions on gambling, violence and porn? Are you expecting third party app stores to have any or none of the same restrictions Apple has? Are you saying third party app stores should NOT be required to adhere to any of the same terms that the current App Store has?
If you expect the terms on all app stores to be identical, then why do you think we need third party app stores?
Basically what you really want is for Apple's iOS to be a duplicate of Android. Why do you want that forced upon all iOS users when we already have Android?
developers who produce Mac OS applications can sell it anywhere and macbook users can buy it, download it and install it without having to go to the app store on the mac. Yet on IOS, developers are told that they can only reach IOS users if they use the official app store.
Correct. And what's your point? Apple is not allowed to have two different operating systems? Is that your point?
Epic is essentially cluster-bombing everywhere in the hopes it gets one strike, and no matter how many losses it takes it will be that one (temporary) victory that the entire twitterverse and media outlets will focus on to get their web clicks. It doesn't matter that Epic will lose any victory in appeal. That's how it works.
Then of course, Epic loses... and the media will hope everyone forgets about it and hopes for the next cute-kitten video to distract the masses.
I noticed a couple of people making very similar points to my own today. I didn't see that until after I wrote my posts.
I still feel that Apple should physically allow users to replace iOS with Android on iPhones, but then not support the devices any more, and not allow iOS to be reinstalled after Android has been installed. This would get all these morons off Apple's back who are saying, "It's MY phone and I want Apple to let me do whatever I want with it." Let them all install Android and do whatever they want there.
For those people here who think that the consumer has a right to install anything they want on iOS, I have this new question:
Are you also arguing for the right of software developers to install all the tracking software they want? Should software developers be unrestricted by iOS from installing all the tracking features that they want? Should they be able to install anything they want because it's THEIR software? I'd love to hear your answer.
This isn’t about freedom for users or developers. Most developers and users are better off not having their own App Store. This was neatly carved out to not include consoles, which are still general purpose devices. This is about the ability to track you and do whatever they want. This about giving Facebook free reign. Just because develops have to work hard, doesn’t mean the stuff they put out isn’t garbage, bad for you or your device. Epic and Facebook are still developers.
...... and money! Sweeney is lucky that he is the CEO of Epic, otherwise he has been fired a long time ago. He is destroying Epic, just because of
his personal ego ambitions.
Epic has lost much more money to pay lawyers, from missed revenue from AppStore sales and from the loss of customers, than if Epic has kept paying the AppStore commission, like it did it over the last ten years.
Are you their accountant? Unless you are their accountant or the CEO or a board member you have no idea what the numbers are or how they calculated how much they are willing to invest in following this path. They have obviously calculated the investment to pursue this path is worth the financial risk and if they are successful they see the payoff as huge. If they lose, the cost will be written off against their profits which on an estimated $1 billion of revenue with gross margins over 50% is huge. They can afford to lose. I doubt you have much knowledge about who controls Epic and has the biggest chunk of ownership. Simply put, you have no idea whatsoever what the numbers and returns are either way it comes out.
No company goes into an action like this blind or without the support of its board.
You do not have to be accountant to know that you’re going to loose a lot of money when you are “investing in following this pad”.
Strange, you are calling the cheating efforts of Epic to avoid paying commission fees
for using someone’s products: investment. So what you are saying is: loosing money on cheating, or loosing money on developing is just the same. Congratulations, you are welcome to Epic. They need people like you
A reasonable middle ground here would be for Apple to offer something similar to boot camp on iOS. I'm not saying that they would have to provide device drivers for all the individual components in an iPhone, but just make it not crazy difficult to boot something like like a basic linux kernel with a command line. Perhaps supply the basic technical documentation for the hardware components so that a developer has a reasonable chance of being able to implement an OS. In a way, this would be seen as a service to the consumer, who would have the ability to create and run their own OS on the device they purchased.
Making the OS run well, have good support for all the specialised capabilities of iDevices and so on, would obviously be very difficult, so Apple would not have all that much to worry about with regards to competition. Just like most people buy a Mac BECAUSE it runs MacOS (even though you can run other OS:es on the hardware), only a small minority would choose to install other OS:es, or perhaps dual boot. This way, Sweeny and his whining friends would have the option, if they wanted to, to make the effort and develop an OS/Game Appstore that could run on Apple devices, and owners would have the option of installing that on the devices they own.
Epic would of course very quickly learn just how much of an effort it takes to build/maintain an OS, provide APIs and development tools to developers who want to build games for the platform etc. And if they were to go down that route, I seriously doubt that they would provide development tools and APIs free of charge to any other game developer who wanted to develop for the platform. They would have to figure out a way to finance the endeavour, in other words, charge the developers using some sort of business model. And then they would be in the same situation as Apple is currently in.
But at least this freedom would exist, and Apple wouldn't have to defend against all the childish complaints from companies that just want all the benefits without paying for or taking the responsibility to actually create those benefits in the first place.
...A reasonable middle ground here would be for Apple to offer something similar to boot camp on iOS. ...This way, Sweeny and his whining friends would have the option, if they wanted to, to make the effort and develop an OS ...Epic would of course very quickly learn just how much of an effort it takes to build/maintain an OS ...But at least this freedom would exist, and Apple wouldn't have to defend against all the childish complaints from companies
You're almost singing my tune, but Epic itself would consider that 100% inadequate because it doesn't meet Epic's stated needs, which is for Apple to modify iOS to make it free of all rules. So why should Apple do something that Epic doesn't even want? Do you think Epic would drop all its lawsuits worldwide for this? Epic has never said they want to build their own OS, they just want Apple to change all their App Store Guidelines.
Google might want to build an OS for iPhones, and Linux probably would too. But Apple should say to customers that it's EITHER OR, not BOTH iOS plus another OS through dual booting. It's in Apple's interest to wash its hands after a user changes its OS. It would cost Apple too much to support Boot Camp on iOS. And as far as I'm concerned Apple should not support reloading iOS after the user has dumped iOS (this might be tricky to implement but that should be their policy.)
Your idea is a good idea not just because Tim'S Whiney [sic] is on Apple's back, but several governments around the world are breathing down Apple's back too. By allowing Android/Linux on iPhones, this would halt some of the silly complaints that Apple has a monopoly for app distribution for the iPhone. This is probably an ace that Apple is reserving for a future emergency.
The judge in this case said Apple couldn't remove apps that use the Unreal Engine, but this is probably tentative to the ending of the case. If Apple wins the case, I think removing all apps which use the Unreal Engine is back on the table. AndI don't think any US judge has any jurisdiction over what Apple does in OTHER countries though, so Apple at any time could remove all apps for sale right now worldwide which use the Unreal Engine, except in the USA. This is another ace in Apple's sleeve.
I guess calling it "Anti-App Store" is one way of spinning it. "Pro-consumer" is an equally correct way of spinning it. There's no reason why I should have to ask for Apple's permissions to install an app on a device I paid for with my own money. It would be no different than Subaru telling me I can only install kayak racks I bought from a Subaru dealer on my car.
Yeah, not so much. As a consumer you are free to buy any device that's available. You are not free to buy a device and demand that manufacturer make it work in a way that was not guaranteed or intended. You buy it as is, if you don't like it, you return it. If Apple wants to limit how software is installed on their devices, they are free to do so. Anyone who does not like that limitation can choose to use another device. That's how the free market works. This is how Apple's iOS devices have ALWAYS worked (except when first released and you couldn't install ANY apps).
There is no argument or example that can demonstrate that Apple's decision to run their platform this way is restricting consumers (or developers outside their platform). The proof is in the fact that consumers choose Android over iOS by a wide margin. If there comes a time in that market where Apple's devices are nearly ubiquitous and consumers have very few alternative, non-Apple, devices to choose from, then there might be a problem about limiting software installation.
I guess calling it "Anti-App Store" is one way of spinning it. "Pro-consumer" is an equally correct way of spinning it. There's no reason why I should have to ask for Apple's permissions to install an app on a device I paid for with my own money. It would be no different than Subaru telling me I can only install kayak racks I bought from a Subaru dealer on my car.
Do you want Subaru to be forced to let you replace the software on your Subaru's internal computers? Why or why not? After all, it's YOUR Subaru.
This is an unfortunate analogy. You can already flash the ROM in your car with different software.
Comments
It amazing how so many that say that they OWN their iPhones and should be allow to do as they wish with it, alway comes up with some BS analogy that don't even come close to the situation at hand.
Here's a much closer analogy, using the Suburb you OWN. Say that you want to install a roof rack, but the dozens of roof racks that fits and sold at Subaru dealers, are not the one you want to install. The roof rack you want to install is the one given to you by a person that once owned a Honda and it does not fit because Subaru designed their gutters too shallow. So now you want Subaru to change the design of the gutters on all their cars, so that you can install the roof rack you want and don't have to pay for, because it's YOUR car and you should be able to install what roof rack you want. Subaru should not be able to dictate what roof rack you have to install.
Now, if you really want to use this free roof rack that don't fit on YOUR Subaru, you can bring YOUR car to a custom body shop and have them modify the gutters on YOUR Subaru so you can use the roof rack you want. Subaru will have no problem with that. It's YOUR Subaru. Or, you could have bought a Honda.
Now go jailbreak YOUR iPhone and install all the apps you want from where ever you want. Apple is not dictating that you can't do this with YOUR iPhone. Or use an Android device. But don't expect Apple to re-design THEIR iOS, so you can do this. You wouldn't expect Microsoft to re-design their X-Box platform so that it will play PlayStation games, would you? I'm sure there must be plenty of X-Box owners that would like to play PlayStations games on the X-Box they PAID for.
I really hope Apple shows its teeth here. Tim Cook should go thermo-nuclear on Epic, while quietly unwrapping a granola bar and eating it.
"iOS users" are like people that enters a high end shopping mall, where they can only buy from stores that are paying rent to the mall owner. And with many of these malls, also a percentage of their gross sales. The mall owner provides parking, air conditioning, bathrooms, advertising, security, resting areas, food courts, kids play area, etc. to attract customers. Plus the mall owner can dictate what kind of stores are allowed in the their malls. If you want to sell your product or service to these shoppers, from inside the mall, you have to go through the mall owner and pay the rent.
"iOS users" are people that uses iDevices. There's no other way to be an "iOS user". The iDevice is the mall and if developers want access to iDevice users, they have to go through Apple. It cost Apple a lot to maintain iDevices. Apple spends a lot on advertising to sell more iDevices. Apple send a lot to keep the iOS on their iDevices secure with free updates. They offer support to iDevice users having trouble. Where possible, they offer free upgrades. So like the mall owner, Apple do not have to allow developers free access from inside the iDevice, to the people that chooses to use an iDevice, without going through Apple. Just like one would not expect to set up a sales booth inside a shopping mall, to get access mall shoppers, without going through the mall owner.
The App Store is not the high end shopping mall, the iDevice is the high end mall. And just like one can choose to shop at other malls, one can choose to use others mobile devices.
It is really no different than developers not having access to Fortnight game players from inside the Fortnight game. Developers can not demand Epic to allow them to open a store inside the Fortnight game. Those big spending Fortnight players belong to Epic. It's their game. They maintain it. It cost them to improve it. And they pay for the advertising to attract players. The Fortnight game is the mall. Therefore, developers have no right to open a store inside the Fortnight game, to sell stuff to people playing Fortnight, without going through Epic.
I think Apple doesn't mind at all if you replace iOS with your own OS. They don't mind if you do it on the Mac. What you want is to make Apple's iOS meet all your personal terms and conditions.
Correct. And who's to say that any developer has the "right" to install apps in iOS in the first place? The first version of iOS did not allow ANY apps on iOS. Were you mad about that? And are you mad that Apple currently has restrictions on gambling, violence and porn? Are you expecting third party app stores to have any or none of the same restrictions Apple has? Are you saying third party app stores should NOT be required to adhere to any of the same terms that the current App Store has?
If you expect the terms on all app stores to be identical, then why do you think we need third party app stores?
Basically what you really want is for Apple's iOS to be a duplicate of Android. Why do you want that forced upon all iOS users when we already have Android?
Correct. And what's your point? Apple is not allowed to have two different operating systems? Is that your point?
https://www.imore.com/epic-games-losing-26-million-every-month-without-fortnite-ios
https://9to5mac.com/2020/01/22/apple-lobbying-spending-2019/
I still feel that Apple should physically allow users to replace iOS with Android on iPhones, but then not support the devices any more, and not allow iOS to be reinstalled after Android has been installed. This would get all these morons off Apple's back who are saying, "It's MY phone and I want Apple to let me do whatever I want with it." Let them all install Android and do whatever they want there.
Are you also arguing for the right of software developers to install all the tracking software they want? Should software developers be unrestricted by iOS from installing all the tracking features that they want? Should they be able to install anything they want because it's THEIR software? I'd love to hear your answer.
I beg you to answer this question.
Making the OS run well, have good support for all the specialised capabilities of iDevices and so on, would obviously be very difficult, so Apple would not have all that much to worry about with regards to competition. Just like most people buy a Mac BECAUSE it runs MacOS (even though you can run other OS:es on the hardware), only a small minority would choose to install other OS:es, or perhaps dual boot. This way, Sweeny and his whining friends would have the option, if they wanted to, to make the effort and develop an OS/Game Appstore that could run on Apple devices, and owners would have the option of installing that on the devices they own.
Epic would of course very quickly learn just how much of an effort it takes to build/maintain an OS, provide APIs and development tools to developers who want to build games for the platform etc. And if they were to go down that route, I seriously doubt that they would provide development tools and APIs free of charge to any other game developer who wanted to develop for the platform. They would have to figure out a way to finance the endeavour, in other words, charge the developers using some sort of business model. And then they would be in the same situation as Apple is currently in.
But at least this freedom would exist, and Apple wouldn't have to defend against all the childish complaints from companies that just want all the benefits without paying for or taking the responsibility to actually create those benefits in the first place.
Google might want to build an OS for iPhones, and Linux probably would too. But Apple should say to customers that it's EITHER OR, not BOTH iOS plus another OS through dual booting. It's in Apple's interest to wash its hands after a user changes its OS. It would cost Apple too much to support Boot Camp on iOS. And as far as I'm concerned Apple should not support reloading iOS after the user has dumped iOS (this might be tricky to implement but that should be their policy.)
Your idea is a good idea not just because Tim'S Whiney [sic] is on Apple's back, but several governments around the world are breathing down Apple's back too. By allowing Android/Linux on iPhones, this would halt some of the silly complaints that Apple has a monopoly for app distribution for the iPhone. This is probably an ace that Apple is reserving for a future emergency.
The judge in this case said Apple couldn't remove apps that use the Unreal Engine, but this is probably tentative to the ending of the case. If Apple wins the case, I think removing all apps which use the Unreal Engine is back on the table. And I don't think any US judge has any jurisdiction over what Apple does in OTHER countries though, so Apple at any time could remove all apps for sale right now worldwide which use the Unreal Engine, except in the USA. This is another ace in Apple's sleeve.
Yeah, not so much. As a consumer you are free to buy any device that's available. You are not free to buy a device and demand that manufacturer make it work in a way that was not guaranteed or intended. You buy it as is, if you don't like it, you return it. If Apple wants to limit how software is installed on their devices, they are free to do so. Anyone who does not like that limitation can choose to use another device. That's how the free market works. This is how Apple's iOS devices have ALWAYS worked (except when first released and you couldn't install ANY apps).
There is no argument or example that can demonstrate that Apple's decision to run their platform this way is restricting consumers (or developers outside their platform). The proof is in the fact that consumers choose Android over iOS by a wide margin. If there comes a time in that market where Apple's devices are nearly ubiquitous and consumers have very few alternative, non-Apple, devices to choose from, then there might be a problem about limiting software installation.