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.
You answered your own question, "on their own platform". Apple developed, supports and provides "their own platform". Their platform, their rules. Don't like them, make your own or use some other "platform".
You’ve misread what I wrote or misunderstood the meaning. I’m referring to Epic providing a store front not connected to the App Store or companies choosing to distribute apps by means other than the App Store under Apple’s control. If a company wants to provide payment services using their own platform, why is that of concern to Apple? Do Amazon give Apple a 30% cut for all sales made through their Amazon app?
I wonder how people who defended Apple for not allowing applications being installed from different App Stores feel now the apps for the social media platforms they love are being kicked off the store?
I feel fine about it. It's about time apps that support lies and insurrection are thrown out.
Did you support Apple denying their users access to alternative stores on the users devices? Do you use any of the applications thrown off the App Store? If the answer to either question is no, you aren’t part of the group I’m commenting on.
YES - Apples platform, Apple's rules. Don't like it, build your own or use a different one.
YOU - Name the apps removed from Apple's App Store that you use and have issue with Apple removing them! If you name any at all (which I doubt), I would bet they all violated the terms of the contract they agreed to, or local law, when they published the app on Apple's App Store.
I wonder how people who defended Apple for not allowing applications being installed from different App Stores feel now the apps for the social media platforms they love are being kicked off the store?
LOL - the "social media platform" you are referring violated Apple's terms of agreement. Read up on contracts. You agree to them and you either follow them or you suffer the consequence - "being kicked off".
You’re missing the point of my post, again. This seems to be a theme with you? If apple’s customers were free to install apps from a source other than the Apple App Store, why should it matter if an app is approved by Apple or not? If they can distribute it themselves without using the App Store then Apple’s rules aren’t being violated and people can choose if they want to use the app or not.
I wonder how people who defended Apple for not allowing applications being installed from different App Stores feel now the apps for the social media platforms they love are being kicked off the store?
I feel fine about it. It's about time apps that support lies and insurrection are thrown out.
I didn’t realize Twitter, Facebook, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, etc have been thrown off the App Store.
Why should it matter, if people can choose to install apps from a difference source? If an app doesn’t comply with Apple’s rules, nobody needs to call for limits on Apple’s controls as a gatekeeper to be investigated. You just install the app from another source.
Did you support Apple denying their users access to alternative stores on the users devices? Do you use any of the applications thrown off the App Store? If the answer to either question is no, you aren’t part of the group I’m commenting on.
YES - Apples platform, Apple's rules. Don't like it, build your own or use a different one.
YOU - Name the apps removed from Apple's App Store that you use and have issue with Apple removing them! If you name any at all (which I doubt), I would bet they all violated the terms of the contract they agreed to, or local law, when they published the app on Apple's App Store.
As has been pointed out previously, if you have the ability to build your own it’s irrelevant because the option to install from another source isn’t an option.
The apps I use isn’t relevant to the argument. Firstly, I’m addressing people who were affected by the situation I described, second Apple are not a law enforcement agency. Laws differ across different jurisdictions so while you could argue Apple could be liable to legal action for hosting content which violates local laws it says nothing to whether the app should exist and people should be able to install it or not.
buying through apple in-app purchases is much better user experience. I am confident my kids can only "ask to buy" and me or my wife can then approve / reject. Epic games Direct Payment means I have to store my card details on my kids devices and I no longer have control of what they purchase / spend.
Apples payment system is much easier then any of the other platforms such as Nintendo & Sony Playstation
That’s fine, you can still purchase through the App Store, but other consumers may want to have the choice to purchase through Epic’s store instead. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to do what they want, when you can make your choice?
If you want to sell your own potatoes in your own store it is perfectly fine, but if you want me to sell your potatoes in my own store, then you have to know that:
1) You CAN NOT force me to do that if I don’t want 2) If I DECIDE to sell your potatoes in my store, it is more than obvious that you have to pay me a commission.
What Epic is trying to achieve in the court, is forcing AppStore to sell their potatoes without paying any commission!
So, you think this is fair?
Epic cannot have their own iOS app store. If they were able to then your first sentence would make sense and we'd have an acceptable solution. But they can't.
This is only Epic’s problem! Epic is free to create their own hardware and ecosystem with their own rules, or if not able to do so, to apply to the rules of someone who already did it. So simple it is. You can’t eat the cace and still have it whole
buying through apple in-app purchases is much better user experience. I am confident my kids can only "ask to buy" and me or my wife can then approve / reject. Epic games Direct Payment means I have to store my card details on my kids devices and I no longer have control of what they purchase / spend.
Apples payment system is much easier then any of the other platforms such as Nintendo & Sony Playstation
That’s fine, you can still purchase through the App Store, but other consumers may want to have the choice to purchase through Epic’s store instead. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to do what they want, when you can make your choice?
If you want to sell your own potatoes in your own store it is perfectly fine, but if you want me to sell your potatoes in my own store, then you have to know that:
1) You CAN NOT force me to do that if I don’t want 2) If I DECIDE to sell your potatoes in my store, it is more than obvious that you have to pay me a commission.
What Epic is trying to achieve in the court, is forcing AppStore to sell their potatoes without paying any commission!
So, you think this is fair?
Epic cannot have their own iOS app store. If they were able to then your first sentence would make sense and we'd have an acceptable solution. But they can't.
This is only Epic’s problem! Epic is free to create their own hardware and ecosystem with their own rules, or if not able to do so, to apply to the rules of someone who already did it. So simple it is. You can’t eat the cace and still have it whole
No need to get excited, I agree with you. But what you're saying now isn't what you originally said.
buying through apple in-app purchases is much better user experience. I am confident my kids can only "ask to buy" and me or my wife can then approve / reject. Epic games Direct Payment means I have to store my card details on my kids devices and I no longer have control of what they purchase / spend.
Apples payment system is much easier then any of the other platforms such as Nintendo & Sony Playstation
That’s fine, you can still purchase through the App Store, but other consumers may want to have the choice to purchase through Epic’s store instead. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to do what they want, when you can make your choice?
If you want to sell your own potatoes in your own store it is perfectly fine, but if you want me to sell your potatoes in my own store, then you have to know that:
1) You CAN NOT force me to do that if I don’t want 2) If I DECIDE to sell your potatoes in my store, it is more than obvious that you have to pay me a commission.
What Epic is trying to achieve in the court, is forcing AppStore to sell their potatoes without paying any commission!
So, you think this is fair?
Epic cannot have their own iOS app store. If they were able to then your first sentence would make sense and we'd have an acceptable solution. But they can't.
This is only Epic’s problem! Epic is free to create their own hardware and ecosystem with their own rules, or if not able to do so, to apply to the rules of someone who already did it. So simple it is. You can’t eat the cace and still have it whole
No need to get excited, I agree with you. But what you're saying now isn't what you originally said.
I wonder how people who defended Apple for not allowing applications being installed from different App Stores feel now the apps for the social media platforms they love are being kicked off the store?
LOL - the "social media platform" you are referring violated Apple's terms of agreement. Read up on contracts. You agree to them and you either follow them or you suffer the consequence - "being kicked off".
You’re missing the point of my post, again. This seems to be a theme with you? If apple’s customers were free to install apps from a source other than the Apple App Store, why should it matter if an app is approved by Apple or not? If they can distribute it themselves without using the App Store then Apple’s rules aren’t being violated and people can choose if they want to use the app or not.
Please no installation from other sources.
Developers will suffer, because the hacked apps will be installed. This would mean less profitable for developers, less developers, less competition, less choice for consumers. Consumers lose.
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?
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.
I wonder how people who defended Apple for not allowing applications being installed from different App Stores feel now the apps for the social media platforms they love are being kicked off the store?
I feel fine about it. It's about time apps that support lies and insurrection are thrown out.
I didn’t realize Twitter, Facebook, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, etc have been thrown off the App Store.
Why should it matter, if people can choose to install apps from a difference source? If an app doesn’t comply with Apple’s rules, nobody needs to call for limits on Apple’s controls as a gatekeeper to be investigated. You just install the app from another source.
Because Apple maintains iOS on their iOS devices. If you install an app from another store and it crashes iOS, who will fix it? YOU, LOL
Apple license the software that app developers uses to get a properly working app on iOS. Apple owns the copyright to that software and can dictate in the license agreement how it can be use. Want to write an app for iOS without that software, then reverse engineer iOS. It's the only legal way to do it.
It's not that Apple owns the only store that developers can use to get their apps onto iOS, it's that Apple owns iOS and agrees to maintain iOS for the useful life of the iOS device. Even if you're not the original owner. Even in the UK. If an app in the Apple App Store crashes iOS on your device, Apple will troubleshoot and fix iOS for free.
How would you feel if an app you downloaded from another source, crashes iOS on your idevice and Apple tells you're on your own. That's what Microsoft does if you run a third party program that crashes Windows on your PC. They'll tell you to seek support from the third party that sold you the program. You think the developer that sold you a $1.99 app from outside the Apple App Store, is going to fix your iOS device when their program crashes it. LOL
Developers aren't paying to have their software in the Apple App Store. They are paying to be on iOS. Apple don't have to allow anyone to use iOS for free.
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?
Because Apple maintains iOS on their iOS devices. If you install an app from another store and it crashes iOS, who will fix it? YOU, LOL
Sure, I'm fine with that. Same way as I'd accept if I download and install software from the web, or any other media, on my Mac and it crashes it's up to me to fix it. Either myself or by contacting the third party supplier. This is no different from an app downloaded from the official App Store, except I have more choice of the apps available for me to use on my device.
Apple license the software that app developers uses to get a properly working app on iOS. Apple owns the copyright to that software and can dictate in the license agreement how it can be use. Want to write an app for iOS without that software, then reverse engineer iOS. It's the only legal way to do it.
It's not that Apple owns the only store that developers can use to get their apps onto iOS, it's that Apple owns iOS and agrees to maintain iOS for the useful life of the iOS device. Even if you're not the original owner. Even in the UK. If an app in the Apple App Store crashes iOS on your device, Apple will troubleshoot and fix iOS for free.
This is irrelevant. iOS is not offered as a downloadable app on the store, nobody is talking about reverse engineering iOS except you. To the last part, are you suggesting Apple would troubleshoot crashes from third party developers? If that's what you're implying then I'd like to see some verifiable evidence where that is the case because I doubt that Apple is willing to support an army of tech help who have knowledge of every app on the store. If you mean they will troubleshoot an issue with iOS, then of course, that's their product. How is that any different to a third party supplier troubleshooting an issue a user has with their app, regardless of how it was installed?
How would you feel if an app you downloaded from another source, crashes iOS on your idevice and Apple tells you're on your own. That's what Microsoft does if you run a third party program that crashes Windows on your PC. They'll tell you to seek support from the third party that sold you the program.
What are you even trying to say here? This happens all the time, an app crashes and Apple will direct you to the third party developer to remedy it. Apple don't provide support for third party apps from other developers regardless of where it was purchased/installed. This is just not a thing and I don't know why you think it is. If you have an app which puts your device in a state where it stops working, if you take it to an Apple store, the most they will do is wipe the device, reinstall iOS and apply your last good backup. If they refused to do even this because I downloaded an app from an unofficial store, I accepted the risk and I'm capable of reinstalling the OS on my own device myself.
You think the developer that sold you a $1.99 app from outside the Apple App Store, is going to fix your iOS device when their program crashes it. LOL
What incentive is there for the developer of a $1.99 app to fix an iOS device if their program crashes it AND it was installed from the App Store? (Although from what you say above it seems you think they don't have to, because Apple will support it.
Developers aren't paying to have their software in the Apple App Store. They are paying to be on iOS. Apple don't have to allow anyone to use iOS for free.
No, developers are paying to access the Apple Developer Program, which allows them to submit apps to be considered for inclusion in the Apple App Store among other benefits, access to WWDC, enhanced developer support etc.
I feel fine about it. It's about time apps that support lies and insurrection are thrown out.
I agree, and as a European I think the “free speech” tag gets way too much use as a reason to excuse harmful speech. I also think it’s absolutely correct that Google, Apple and AWS have the right to decline hosting apps with content they don’t want on their platforms and we shouldn’t make laws to compel them to do so. Social media should be made to take all reasonable steps to moderate and remove posts which encourage violence or are intended to cause harm to others, and there shouldn’t be exemptions for users just because of their status in society.
The question should be, is it acceptable for Apple to have so much control over a platform that a decision they make would put another company out of business? Does this power give them an anticompetitive advantage or cause consumers harm? What if it was a news app, which published a story that put Apple in a bad light and they decided the app should be disqualified from inclusion in the App Store? Or force them to remove the news story? Where does Apple’s contract with developers and their “protection of their users” end, and my rights to use my device how I choose begin?
I have been a loyal Apple supporter and complete fanboy of Apple since I bought my the first 128K Mac. I never supported Epics's battle with Apple over their App Store policies. However, after what Tim Cook did to Parler in a Big Tech gang-up with Twitter, Google, FaceBook and Amazon by banning them from the App Store and thereby killing them as competition to Twitter and as a company, and even worse - selectively stopping free speech of political opponents. This is America - not a communist regime.
So now I understand and fully support Epic and understand their point now, Apple has complete monopoly power which they abuse, this has to be stopped. Personally I can't do much about this, however I will never buy another Apple product (our whole family has Macs, iPads, iPhones, watches, Apple TVs) and have cancelled all my Apple services. I will also tell this to everyone I know.
Tim Cook's saying Parler wasn't moderating their users enough doesn't hold up, Twitter has way worse and hateful stuff on their platform - I don't see Tim Cook banning Twitter from the App Store, Twitter selectively moderates against conservatives, everyone else is allowed free rein. This move by Tim Cook wasn't about public safety, it's completely political. No company should have this power to destroy other companies and thwart free speech to further their personal political agenda.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, just never expected it from Apple! So shocked and disappointed.
The "Think Different" advertisement (I have the poster) was brilliant as conceived by Steve Jobs, unfortunately Tim Cook changed the message - "Think different and you will be deleted!"
I've come realize that blockchain technologies may save mankind from itself, that is if governments, and big tech, don't manage to squash it like they did to Parler.
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.
An app store is not a platform. Developers do not have to change the software they are selling or giving away for free, based on what app store they are in. They needed to change their software based on what "platform" they want to run on. Whether they want it to run on Windows, OS X, iOS Android, X-Box, PlayStation, etc. Those are "platforms".
When a developer sells a physical copy of their software, do they have to change how their software is written based on where they sell that physical copy? Is the physical copy one buy for their PC from Best Buy, different than the ones sold for PC's at Walmart or Costco? Are you actually going to claim that stores like Best Buy, Costco, Target, and Walmart, are "platforms" for software developers?
Why don't you ask Epic, if they are fine with paying 30% "tax" in the MS X-Box Store and Sony Playstation Store, why are they so against paying the 30% in the Apple App Store?
The 30% "tax" is a commission for selling software or subscriptions from the Apple App Store. Apple charges developers a commission, not a fee. If Epic was making zero dollars from iOS users, then Epic would be paying zero dollars to Apple. but that's not the case. Epic is making tens of millions of dollars from being on the iOS "platform". A platform that Apple own and maintains.
Apple is not "choosing" what software you put in your iDevices. Apple only allow you to choose the software from developers that conforms to their license agreement, to be on iOS. Epic chose to not allow you to install Fortnight on your iDevices by not agreeing to that license. Apple did not make that choice for you.
There are games that are exclusive to and can only be played on an X-Box. Do you complain to Sony about why they will not allow you to put those games on your PlayStation? Sony has nothing to do with that. It's the software developer that made that choice for you. You think Microsoft would allow anyone to make an X-Box game and sell it at Best Buy because you think you can put any game you choose and play it, on an X-Box?
Epic has almost the same policy with their Unreal Engine. The Unreal Engine license is royalty free, up to $1M of sales. Once a developer make over $1M from selling a game or games using Epic Unreal Engine, they must pay Epic for a license. Why don't Epic charge a fee for every developer that uses their Unreal Engine? Specially the ones that provide their games for free, but make up for it with ads or collect personal data. Why is an Unreal Engine license free for small developers?
Plus Apple do not directly make any money that Epic make in royalty from developers using their Unreal Engine for games in iOS. Apple only make money from developers that uses Unreal Engine on games that they sell. Like any other game developer. Epic do not pay any of the 30% "tax" from the money they make with Unreal Engine licenses. You think Apple should be collecting a fee on all the money Epic makes from games that are sold for iOS (and OS X), that pays for an Unreal Engine license?
And yes, you are allow to install any software into your iPhone that you choose. It's YOUR iPhone. But you can't use iOS. iOS do not belong to you. You are only allow to use iOS under the license you agreed to in the EULA. Write your own OS for YOUR iPhone and install all the programs you want. But remember, you would still need to pay for a license from the likes of Apple, Qualcomm, Sony, TSMC, Imagination Technology, Nokia, Texas Instrument and all the other makers of the chips used in the iPhone. You may own all the physical chips in your iPhone, but you still don't own the software that those chips run on.
It's like buying a music CD or BluRay disc movie. You own the disc but not the music or movie on those disc. You can not do what you want with the music or movie, but you can do what you want with the disc. You can sell it, toss it in the trash, use it as a coaster, play Frisbee with it, etc.. But just try to use the music on the CD that you own, for a commercial about a product you are selling or for sing a song on it for your own music CD that you are planning to market or make copies of the CD to sell at the flea market, without the copyright holder permission. I like to see you try to convince copyright holders or any court, that you have every right to use the music as you wish, because you OWN the CD that it's on.
It is still beyond me how anyone, with access to the internet, can be so ignorant to think that owning the physical media that the software is on or running on, means that they own the software and they can do as they please with that software.
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.
An app store is not a platform. Developers do not have to change the software they are selling or giving away for free, based on what app store they are in. They needed to change their software based on what "platform" they want to run on. Whether they want it to run on Windows, OS X, iOS Android, X-Box, PlayStation, etc. Those are "platforms".
When a developer sells a physical copy of their software, do they have to change how their software is written based on where they sell that physical copy? Is the physical copy one buy for their PC from Best Buy, different than the ones sold for PC's at Walmart or Costco? Are you actually going to claim that stores like Best Buy, Costco, Target, and Walmart, are "platforms" for software developers?
Why don't you ask Epic, if they are fine with paying 30% "tax" in the MS X-Box Store and Sony Playstation Store, why are they so against paying the 30% in the Apple App Store?
The 30% "tax" is a commission for selling software or subscriptions from the Apple App Store. Apple charges developers a commission, not a fee. If Epic was making zero dollars from iOS users, then Epic would be paying zero dollars to Apple. but that's not the case. Epic is making tens of millions of dollars from being on the iOS "platform". A platform that Apple own and maintains.
Apple is not "choosing" what software you put in your iDevices. Apple only allow you to choose the software from developers that conforms to their license agreement, to be on iOS. Epic chose to not allow you to install Fortnight on your iDevices by not agreeing to that license. Apple did not make that choice for you.
There are games that are exclusive to and can only be played on an X-Box. Do you complain to Sony about why they will not allow you to put those games on your PlayStation? Sony has nothing to do with that. It's the software developer that made that choice for you. You think Microsoft would allow anyone to make an X-Box game and sell it at Best Buy because you think you can put any game you choose and play it, on an X-Box?
Epic has almost the same policy with their Unreal Engine. The Unreal Engine license is royalty free, up to $1M of sales. Once a developer make over $1M from selling a game or games using Epic Unreal Engine, they must pay Epic for a license. Why don't Epic charge a fee for every developer that uses their Unreal Engine? Specially the ones that provide their games for free, but make up for it with ads or collect personal data. Why is an Unreal Engine license free for small developers?
Plus Apple do not directly make any money that Epic make in royalty from developers using their Unreal Engine for games in iOS. Apple only make money from developers that uses Unreal Engine on games that they sell. Like any other game developer. Epic do not pay any of the 30% "tax" from the money they make with Unreal Engine licenses. You think Apple should be collecting a fee on all the money Epic makes from games that are sold for iOS (and OS X), that pays for an Unreal Engine license?
And yes, you are allow to install any software into your iPhone that you choose. It's YOUR iPhone. But you can't use iOS. iOS do not belong to you. You are only allow to use iOS under the license you agreed to in the EULA. Write your own OS for YOUR iPhone and install all the programs you want. But remember, you would still need to pay for a license from the likes of Apple, Qualcomm, Sony, TSMC, Imagination Technology, Nokia, Texas Instrument and all the other makers of the chips used in the iPhone. You may own all the physical chips in your iPhone, but you still don't own the software that those chips run on.
It's like buying a music CD or BluRay disc movie. You own the disc but not the music or movie on those disc. You can not do what you want with the music or movie, but you can do what you want with the disc. You can sell it, toss it in the trash, use it as a coaster, play Frisbee with it, etc.. But just try to use the music on the CD that you own, for a commercial about a product you are selling or for sing a song on it for your own music CD that you are planning to market or make copies of the CD to sell at the flea market, without the copyright holder permission. I like to see you try to convince copyright holders or any court, that you have every right to use the music as you wish, because you OWN the CD that it's on.
It is still beyond me how anyone, with access to the internet, can be so ignorant to think that owning the physical media that the software is on or running on, means that they own the software and they can do as they please with that software.
Sorry way way too long TL;DR, but I can assure you that incompatibility between two different operating systems isn't the definition of a platform. If it was, iOS and macOS are the same platform. Which they aren't. And yes, developers do have to change software to run on Epic games store vs Steam. Both have an API that's hooked into by the developer to ensure the game is being played on a computer with a valid Epic/Steam account.
And yes. Devs do change physical the software based on where it's sold.
Because Apple maintains iOS on their iOS devices. If you install an app from another store and it crashes iOS, who will fix it? YOU, LOL
Sure, I'm fine with that. Same way as I'd accept if I download and install software from the web, or any other media, on my Mac and it crashes it's up to me to fix it. Either myself or by contacting the third party supplier. This is no different from an app downloaded from the official App Store, except I have more choice of the apps available for me to use on my device.
Apple license the software that app developers uses to get a properly working app on iOS. Apple owns the copyright to that software and can dictate in the license agreement how it can be use. Want to write an app for iOS without that software, then reverse engineer iOS. It's the only legal way to do it.
It's not that Apple owns the only store that developers can use to get their apps onto iOS, it's that Apple owns iOS and agrees to maintain iOS for the useful life of the iOS device. Even if you're not the original owner. Even in the UK. If an app in the Apple App Store crashes iOS on your device, Apple will troubleshoot and fix iOS for free.
This is irrelevant. iOS is not offered as a downloadable app on the store, nobody is talking about reverse engineering iOS except you. To the last part, are you suggesting Apple would troubleshoot crashes from third party developers? If that's what you're implying then I'd like to see some verifiable evidence where that is the case because I doubt that Apple is willing to support an army of tech help who have knowledge of every app on the store. If you mean they will troubleshoot an issue with iOS, then of course, that's their product. How is that any different to a third party supplier troubleshooting an issue a user has with their app, regardless of how it was installed?
How would you feel if an app you downloaded from another source, crashes iOS on your idevice and Apple tells you're on your own. That's what Microsoft does if you run a third party program that crashes Windows on your PC. They'll tell you to seek support from the third party that sold you the program.
What are you even trying to say here? This happens all the time, an app crashes and Apple will direct you to the third party developer to remedy it. Apple don't provide support for third party apps from other developers regardless of where it was purchased/installed. This is just not a thing and I don't know why you think it is. If you have an app which puts your device in a state where it stops working, if you take it to an Apple store, the most they will do is wipe the device, reinstall iOS and apply your last good backup. If they refused to do even this because I downloaded an app from an unofficial store, I accepted the risk and I'm capable of reinstalling the OS on my own device myself.
You think the developer that sold you a $1.99 app from outside the Apple App Store, is going to fix your iOS device when their program crashes it. LOL
What incentive is there for the developer of a $1.99 app to fix an iOS device if their program crashes it AND it was installed from the App Store? (Although from what you say above it seems you think they don't have to, because Apple will support it.
Developers aren't paying to have their software in the Apple App Store. They are paying to be on iOS. Apple don't have to allow anyone to use iOS for free.
No, developers are paying to access the Apple Developer Program, which allows them to submit apps to be considered for inclusion in the Apple App Store among other benefits, access to WWDC, enhanced developer support etc.
Then ....... WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM? Really.
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?
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.
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.
Were talking iOS on iDevices here, not OS X on a Mac. Apple has very little control over third party software installed on a Mac with OS X.
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.
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. 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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Because Apple maintains iOS on their iOS devices. If you install an app from another store and it crashes iOS, who will fix it? YOU, LOL
Sure, I'm fine with that. Same way as I'd accept if I download and install software from the web, or any other media, on my Mac and it crashes it's up to me to fix it. Either myself or by contacting the third party supplier. This is no different from an app downloaded from the official App Store, except I have more choice of the apps available for me to use on my device.
Apple license the software that app developers uses to get a properly working app on iOS. Apple owns the copyright to that software and can dictate in the license agreement how it can be use. Want to write an app for iOS without that software, then reverse engineer iOS. It's the only legal way to do it.
It's not that Apple owns the only store that developers can use to get their apps onto iOS, it's that Apple owns iOS and agrees to maintain iOS for the useful life of the iOS device. Even if you're not the original owner. Even in the UK. If an app in the Apple App Store crashes iOS on your device, Apple will troubleshoot and fix iOS for free.
This is irrelevant. iOS is not offered as a downloadable app on the store, nobody is talking about reverse engineering iOS except you. To the last part, are you suggesting Apple would troubleshoot crashes from third party developers? If that's what you're implying then I'd like to see some verifiable evidence where that is the case because I doubt that Apple is willing to support an army of tech help who have knowledge of every app on the store. If you mean they will troubleshoot an issue with iOS, then of course, that's their product. How is that any different to a third party supplier troubleshooting an issue a user has with their app, regardless of how it was installed?
How would you feel if an app you downloaded from another source, crashes iOS on your idevice and Apple tells you're on your own. That's what Microsoft does if you run a third party program that crashes Windows on your PC. They'll tell you to seek support from the third party that sold you the program.
What are you even trying to say here? This happens all the time, an app crashes and Apple will direct you to the third party developer to remedy it. Apple don't provide support for third party apps from other developers regardless of where it was purchased/installed. This is just not a thing and I don't know why you think it is. If you have an app which puts your device in a state where it stops working, if you take it to an Apple store, the most they will do is wipe the device, reinstall iOS and apply your last good backup. If they refused to do even this because I downloaded an app from an unofficial store, I accepted the risk and I'm capable of reinstalling the OS on my own device myself.
You think the developer that sold you a $1.99 app from outside the Apple App Store, is going to fix your iOS device when their program crashes it. LOL
What incentive is there for the developer of a $1.99 app to fix an iOS device if their program crashes it AND it was installed from the App Store? (Although from what you say above it seems you think they don't have to, because Apple will support it.
Developers aren't paying to have their software in the Apple App Store. They are paying to be on iOS. Apple don't have to allow anyone to use iOS for free.
No, developers are paying to access the Apple Developer Program, which allows them to submit apps to be considered for inclusion in the Apple App Store among other benefits, access to WWDC, enhanced developer support etc.
Then ....... WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM? Really.
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?
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.
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.
Were talking iOS on iDevices here, not OS X on a Mac. Apple has very little control over third party software installed on a Mac with OS X.
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.
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. 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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Quick tip Davidw - you need to be way less verbose if you actually want anyone to respond to you. No one is going to reply to a wall of text that's longer than the original article.
You can split replies into different sections but as this forum software is the absolute worst I've ever known, it's a massive hassle, especially on mobile. Easier to just use the HTML mode and edit there.
Comments
YOU - Name the apps removed from Apple's App Store that you use and have issue with Apple removing them! If you name any at all (which I doubt), I would bet they all violated the terms of the contract they agreed to, or local law, when they published the app on Apple's App Store.
You’re missing the point of my post, again. This seems to be a theme with you? If apple’s customers were free to install apps from a source other than the Apple App Store, why should it matter if an app is approved by Apple or not? If they can distribute it themselves without using the App Store then Apple’s rules aren’t being violated and people can choose if they want to use the app or not.
Why should it matter, if people can choose to install apps from a difference source? If an app doesn’t comply with Apple’s rules, nobody needs to call for limits on Apple’s controls as a gatekeeper to be investigated. You just install the app from another source.
Epic is free to create their own hardware and ecosystem with their own rules, or if not able to do so, to apply to the rules of someone who already did it.
So simple it is. You can’t eat the cace and still have it whole
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.
Apple license the software that app developers uses to get a properly working app on iOS. Apple owns the copyright to that software and can dictate in the license agreement how it can be use. Want to write an app for iOS without that software, then reverse engineer iOS. It's the only legal way to do it.
It's not that Apple owns the only store that developers can use to get their apps onto iOS, it's that Apple owns iOS and agrees to maintain iOS for the useful life of the iOS device. Even if you're not the original owner. Even in the UK. If an app in the Apple App Store crashes iOS on your device, Apple will troubleshoot and fix iOS for free.
How would you feel if an app you downloaded from another source, crashes iOS on your idevice and Apple tells you're on your own. That's what Microsoft does if you run a third party program that crashes Windows on your PC. They'll tell you to seek support from the third party that sold you the program. You think the developer that sold you a $1.99 app from outside the Apple App Store, is going to fix your iOS device when their program crashes it. LOL
Developers aren't paying to have their software in the Apple App Store. They are paying to be on iOS. Apple don't have to allow anyone to use iOS for free.
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?
I've come realize that blockchain technologies may save mankind from itself, that is if governments, and big tech, don't manage to squash it like they did to Parler.
When a developer sells a physical copy of their software, do they have to change how their software is written based on where they sell that physical copy? Is the physical copy one buy for their PC from Best Buy, different than the ones sold for PC's at Walmart or Costco? Are you actually going to claim that stores like Best Buy, Costco, Target, and Walmart, are "platforms" for software developers?
Why don't you ask Epic, if they are fine with paying 30% "tax" in the MS X-Box Store and Sony Playstation Store, why are they so against paying the 30% in the Apple App Store?
The 30% "tax" is a commission for selling software or subscriptions from the Apple App Store. Apple charges developers a commission, not a fee. If Epic was making zero dollars from iOS users, then Epic would be paying zero dollars to Apple. but that's not the case. Epic is making tens of millions of dollars from being on the iOS "platform". A platform that Apple own and maintains.
Apple is not "choosing" what software you put in your iDevices. Apple only allow you to choose the software from developers that conforms to their license agreement, to be on iOS. Epic chose to not allow you to install Fortnight on your iDevices by not agreeing to that license. Apple did not make that choice for you.
There are games that are exclusive to and can only be played on an X-Box. Do you complain to Sony about why they will not allow you to put those games on your PlayStation? Sony has nothing to do with that. It's the software developer that made that choice for you. You think Microsoft would allow anyone to make an X-Box game and sell it at Best Buy because you think you can put any game you choose and play it, on an X-Box?
Epic has almost the same policy with their Unreal Engine. The Unreal Engine license is royalty free, up to $1M of sales. Once a developer make over $1M from selling a game or games using Epic Unreal Engine, they must pay Epic for a license. Why don't Epic charge a fee for every developer that uses their Unreal Engine? Specially the ones that provide their games for free, but make up for it with ads or collect personal data. Why is an Unreal Engine license free for small developers?
Plus Apple do not directly make any money that Epic make in royalty from developers using their Unreal Engine for games in iOS. Apple only make money from developers that uses Unreal Engine on games that they sell. Like any other game developer. Epic do not pay any of the 30% "tax" from the money they make with Unreal Engine licenses. You think Apple should be collecting a fee on all the money Epic makes from games that are sold for iOS (and OS X), that pays for an Unreal Engine license?
And yes, you are allow to install any software into your iPhone that you choose. It's YOUR iPhone. But you can't use iOS. iOS do not belong to you. You are only allow to use iOS under the license you agreed to in the EULA. Write your own OS for YOUR iPhone and install all the programs you want. But remember, you would still need to pay for a license from the likes of Apple, Qualcomm, Sony, TSMC, Imagination Technology, Nokia, Texas Instrument and all the other makers of the chips used in the iPhone. You may own all the physical chips in your iPhone, but you still don't own the software that those chips run on.
It's like buying a music CD or BluRay disc movie. You own the disc but not the music or movie on those disc. You can not do what you want with the music or movie, but you can do what you want with the disc. You can sell it, toss it in the trash, use it as a coaster, play Frisbee with it, etc.. But just try to use the music on the CD that you own, for a commercial about a product you are selling or for sing a song on it for your own music CD that you are planning to market or make copies of the CD to sell at the flea market, without the copyright holder permission. I like to see you try to convince copyright holders or any court, that you have every right to use the music as you wish, because you OWN the CD that it's on.
It is still beyond me how anyone, with access to the internet, can be so ignorant to think that owning the physical media that the software is on or running on, means that they own the software and they can do as they please with that software.
And yes. Devs do change physical the software based on where it's sold.
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?
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.
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.
Were talking iOS on iDevices here, not OS X on a Mac. Apple has very little control over third party software installed on a Mac with OS X.
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.
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. 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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
You can split replies into different sections but as this forum software is the absolute worst I've ever known, it's a massive hassle, especially on mobile. Easier to just use the HTML mode and edit there.