8 ms·

If a developer doesn't like Unreal's terms, there are other game engines. If a developer doesn't like Apple's terms, there are no viable alternatives for iOS d

If a developer doesn't like Unreal's terms, there are other game engines. If a developer doesn't like Apple's terms, there are no viable alternatives for iOS distribution.

ecf 6y ago
But there are other Smartphone platforms with their own store, correct? I don’t know why people feel it’s their undeniable right to be able to provide an app to iOS users.
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  Isn’t it the other way around that iOS users should be able to shop in competing stores for their apps? It’s just very few users have any real ability to affect that sort of change.
  - almost_usual 6y ago
    I wouldn’t be opposed to this but Apple could make a case that using a competing app store voids warranty or care because they can no longer guarantee the software is ‘safe’ for iOS.
    - damnyou 6y ago
      Yes, which is why they should be mandated by law to include them anyway. Maybe that will force them to figure out a better security strategy.
      - almost_usual 6y ago
        I don’t think our current law makers are technically competent enough to understand this.
    - meheleventyone 6y ago
      In a theoretical anti-trust investigation wouldn’t that been seen as extremely anti-competitive?
    - detaro 6y ago
      To a degree they could (although it'd be quite embarrassing for Apple to claim that their OS can't prevent apps from damaging phones), it could be somewhat similar to how Android manufacturers sometimes handle custom ROMs by having the unlock set a permanent flag somewhere. Doesn't necessarily give them an out of legally required warranties.
    - paulgb 6y ago
      General computing platforms, in which you can run arbitrary unsigned code without violating the warranty, exist. In fact, Apple has a major business in manufacturing them (MacBook, etc.)
      - almost_usual 6y ago
        This could fly for iPad, the iPhone they can make a case it jeopardizes the reliability in contacting emergency services. Overall this will go over most law makers heads because they are technically incompetent.
- HumblyTossed 6y ago
  It should be an undeniable right that I can use other app stores with my iOS device.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- daveidol 6y ago
  It's not an "undeniable right" but it's also not like there are a lot of other options. You can say "just move to another platform" or "then make your own platform" but you also have to be a realist. This is why antitrust laws exist - sometimes the market realities make this nearly impossible.
  - baddox 6y ago
    It’s no more realistic to say “if you don’t like the licensing terms of your game engine then just rewrite your game.”
    - detaro 6y ago
      End-customers are not locked into a specific game engine in any way, whereas mobile ecosystems have lock-in through devices and already-bought apps. That's a major difference for a software maker.
    - josephcsible 6y ago
      It's a LOT more realistic to rewrite your game than it is to tell all of your iOS customers that they have to jailbreak or switch platforms.
  - giarc 6y ago
    But where is the line of lots of options vs not a lot of options? iOS isn't even the most popular mobile operating system.
    - d0m 6y ago
      For some market it is. Our users were 80%+ on ios
      - jasonv 6y ago
        Seems to me the biggest hurdle to moving/finding customers via the Google/Android platform is that they won't spend money over there. The feature/capability parity between the platforms means they are, in fact, both capable of serving these markets. But people want to vote with their dollars in the iOS ecosystem, and now the players want to change that ecosystem. I'm not entirely convinced that this is Apple's problem, in as much as it is Google's fault for not fostering a properly competitive revenue delivery platform, even though it has the maturity and standing to do so.
- debacle 6y ago
  > I don’t know why people feel it’s their undeniable right to be able to provide an app to iOS users. Rephrased: > I don't know why people feel it's their undeniable right to install the apps they want on iOS.
- damnyou 6y ago
  iOS is the market leader by profit share and by amount of money spent on app stores, as Apple fans like to talk about all the time. In a sane world, being a market leader would mean that shareholder and corporate interests are kept in check by society.
- bohemian99 6y ago
  It's about monopolization. Should a company be able to vertically integrate and install a toll booth to profit off of all developers on their platform? Or does that hurt consumers more than it would hurt businesses to separate that power?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  It's not perfect but what else can we do? - Yes, every shmuck who buys only iOS cause Apple is the status symbol undermines everyone's ability to choose. But we'd need a consumer union to go after these monopoly-aiders as scabs. Ha ha ha not going to happen. - All the other hardware manufactures are so shitty and quality control and integration that they are also responsible. Do we wait for Moon's party to break up Samsung so Apple gets more competition? Tell Taiwan to break up TMSC or do more direct-to-consumer? Fundamentally we have the perfect storm of outsourcing and low quality, precarious Americans looking for status, and nationally-tinged monpolies. The idea solutions are just out of reach in the short term, so I support putting iOS on a stupid pedestal to break up Apple's exclusionary vertical integration.
- kllrnohj 6y ago
  Google Search should be free to only show location results from Google Maps, and ban Yelp, etc.. entirely from Google Search. After all, there's other search engines, right? There is a history here where using your market position in one area to force your product in another as being illegal (see the recent EU fine against Google for "abusing their Android monopoly" for example: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_4581 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_... ). Apple seems to be crossing that line rather brazenly.
- bachmeier 6y ago
  > I don’t know why people feel it’s their undeniable right to be able to provide an app to iOS users. If Apple is using its market power to increase profit at the expense of reducing selection and/or increasing prices for consumers, then that's a very serious problem. It's exactly the reason antitrust laws exist.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > But there are other Smartphone platforms with their own store, correct? But are they competing or parallel markets? Does Apple changing pricing or terms on the App Store drive business to other app stores, as replacements, or do software vendors choose which app stores to distribute with based on whether each provides a benefit worth the price, but not whether it is a better deal than some other store? I think that under market/pricing power tests, Apple’s software distribution business in the App Store is not that unlikely to be a monopoly. Now, establishing consumer harms from the way the leverage that monopoly to extract rents and dictate terms to software vendors might be less straightforward than it would be for a B2C monopoly, and in the US, at least, consumer harm is the key adverse impact from monopoly abuse that justifies legal consequences.
- dathinab 6y ago
  Because for many applications it's not viable to not provide service for iOs users, which is sad but true. Consider you not being able to: - buy train tickets under iOs - check-in into a hotel under iOs - do video conferences - chat with your friend - cross play with your friends - open your apartment doors - check your health data - do online banking - securely check your email - do Ueber, Rbnb, etc. - buy at Amazone - etc. Sure many (but not all) things might be doable over web interface but this crates often much more frictions and due to constraints put onto web interfaces and PWS also has often much worse UX, not providing service for millions of iOs users is often deadly and providing competitively shitty service isn't anygood either, even worse if you have to compete with Apple itself which gives there apps unfair advantages beyond not needing to pay the 30% cut. Let's be honest any marked which covers millions of people should be handled as a standalone marked even if you could argue it's just part of a bigger marked by any government or you fail your people (and the free marked idea IMHO, but reasoning about this is tricky as it involves considering how the marked dynamics have fundamentally changed and how thinks which would have worked in benefit for the population don't work anymore in the current times and therefore how the marked (laws) has to adapt to it).
yladiz 6y ago
It's a false dichotomy; the correct comparison is: If a developer doesn't like Apple's terms, there are other phone platforms.
- lazzlazzlazz 6y ago
  No, there is one other phone platform.
- gcheong 6y ago
  If you’re not published on Apple’s App Store then you can’t reach a huge segment of the market that would like to use your product. I don’t think Apple, Google, etc. , should be the gatekeepers between a developer and their customers.
  - dpkonofa 6y ago
    They're not. That's the whole point. These are Apple's customers since they're finding the app in the App Store. Epic has other customers that play Fortnite that are not Apple customers.
- chongli 6y ago
  No, that’s not a correct comparison. Consumers don’t buy a device from Epic in order to run Unreal engine games. Consumers don’t care at all what engine a game runs on, they only care about the game itself (and what platform it’s available on). If you forgo the iOS platform, you lose out on the vast majority of mobile app revenue. Android may have greater market share than Apple but iOS dominates the market among people who actually buy apps (mostly affluent people in western countries).
badwolf 6y ago
I think a more apt comparison would be... If a developer doesn't like Xbox's terms, there are other gaming platforms...
- 60secz 6y ago
  Game console to General computing device isn't exactly apples to apples. But yes, It'd be great if users could install unsigned apps on all the devices they own.
  - Noos 6y ago
    If by great you mean "great for malware makers" I guess so. HN has a big problem of pushing for changes hat benefit highly tech-literate people but in reality the majority of the market needs signed apps so they don't download harmful programs. I think people need to stop looking at their own immediate interests and start considering long term aspects of things. You can't just throw out technology now without understanding how it empowers bad actors, because it amplifies them too.
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      Perhaps if running unsigned apps became more widespread, businesses will spring up in the space to offer secure, curated apps as third-party app stores. Desktop software, for a long time, did not have the notion of specialized app stores or enforcing signed programs. Yes, Windows has loads of security issues. But surely this can be a problem that can be solved over time?
      - jachee 6y ago
        Why would John Q. Public trust a third party over the manufacturer of their device?
        Apocryphon 6y ago
        Why would anyone want to download Firefox or Chrome when you can just surf with IE?
baddox 6y ago
Okay, but imagine that Fortnite used Unreal but wasn’t created by the creators of Unreal. Do you think that Fortnite would be more comfortable playing chicken with the App Store and risking getting banned like this, or playing chicken with the game engine that their entire game is implemented with? In practice I would say a game engine has more leverage over a game developer than a single distribution platform.
- detaro 6y ago
  If Unreal were the problem, Fortnite could have chosen a different game engine at the start (this is not about terms changing after all) and it would not affect their options to sell to customers. And while porting would be expensive, it would be possible without loosing access to customers. Nobody doesn't buy a game because they bought an unreal-only PC somewhere.
  - baddox 6y ago
    > Fortnite could have chosen a different game engine at the start (this is not about terms changing after all) Right. Apple's terms were clear from the start, so Fortnite had no reasonable expectation to be allowed to violate them. Just like Fortnite could have chosen to use a different game engine if they didn't like the terms of a particular game engine, they could choose to focus on non-Apple platforms (or choose to abide by Apple's terms on Apple's platform) if they don't like Apple's terms. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
    - detaro 6y ago
      > and it would not affect their options to sell to customers [...] it would be possible without loosing access to customers. Nobody doesn't buy a game because they bought an unreal-only PC somewhere. Which is why the game engine comparison is a bad one.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
signal11 6y ago
> If a developer doesn't like Apple's terms, there are no viable alternatives for iOS distribution. Lots of opportunities for mobile distribution though. Apple is what, < 20% of the mobile market? (I know where you're coming from, but this is what Apple's legal team will say).
- detaro 6y ago
  Apple is also very proud of being a a lot larger share of the mobile apps/content market, which is what everyone elses legal team will say. (And which is why this is actually such a big thing: if loosing iOS customers meant loosing <20% of revenue, app makers would be a lot less fussed about this)
crazypython 6y ago
Most people don't have more than one phone. Phones are used for more than gaming. If a developer doesn't like Apple's terms, they can't distribute on iOS, except through a web app. Perhaps PWA+WebGPU will solve this.
- robgibbons 6y ago
  Except you're still locked into Apple's webview, thanks to their policy of disallowing other rendering engines. PWAs on iOS will only ever work as well as Apple allows them to.
m3kw9 6y ago
In this case alternate platform is android, PC, consoles
dathinab 6y ago
You are missing: .. not covering the iOS marked is for some products not viable and might literally lead to insolvency in the long run. Today you can tell people that you don't provide a game on e.g. X Box and they might not like but accept it. But you can not tell people that their premium mail service has no iOs app or that they team meating software has no iOs app or that their <insert any software covering a group of people> app doesn't work on iOs. Tbh. it's probably somewhat true for tipple A massive multiplayer games and games consoles, too.

If a developer doesn't like Unreal's terms, there are other game engines. If a developer doesn't like Apple's terms, there are no viable alternatives for iOS distribution.

ecf 6y ago

But there are other Smartphone platforms with their own store, correct? I don’t know why people feel it’s their undeniable right to be able to provide an app to iOS users.

meheleventyone 6y ago
Isn’t it the other way around that iOS users should be able to shop in competing stores for their apps? It’s just very few users have any real ability to affect that sort of change.
- almost_usual 6y ago
  I wouldn’t be opposed to this but Apple could make a case that using a competing app store voids warranty or care because they can no longer guarantee the software is ‘safe’ for iOS.
  - damnyou 6y ago
    Yes, which is why they should be mandated by law to include them anyway. Maybe that will force them to figure out a better security strategy.
    - almost_usual 6y ago
      I don’t think our current law makers are technically competent enough to understand this.
  - meheleventyone 6y ago
    In a theoretical anti-trust investigation wouldn’t that been seen as extremely anti-competitive?
  - detaro 6y ago
    To a degree they could (although it'd be quite embarrassing for Apple to claim that their OS can't prevent apps from damaging phones), it could be somewhat similar to how Android manufacturers sometimes handle custom ROMs by having the unlock set a permanent flag somewhere. Doesn't necessarily give them an out of legally required warranties.
  - paulgb 6y ago
    General computing platforms, in which you can run arbitrary unsigned code without violating the warranty, exist. In fact, Apple has a major business in manufacturing them (MacBook, etc.)
    - almost_usual 6y ago
      This could fly for iPad, the iPhone they can make a case it jeopardizes the reliability in contacting emergency services. Overall this will go over most law makers heads because they are technically incompetent.
HumblyTossed 6y ago
It should be an undeniable right that I can use other app stores with my iOS device.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
daveidol 6y ago
It's not an "undeniable right" but it's also not like there are a lot of other options. You can say "just move to another platform" or "then make your own platform" but you also have to be a realist. This is why antitrust laws exist - sometimes the market realities make this nearly impossible.
- baddox 6y ago
  It’s no more realistic to say “if you don’t like the licensing terms of your game engine then just rewrite your game.”
  - detaro 6y ago
    End-customers are not locked into a specific game engine in any way, whereas mobile ecosystems have lock-in through devices and already-bought apps. That's a major difference for a software maker.
  - josephcsible 6y ago
    It's a LOT more realistic to rewrite your game than it is to tell all of your iOS customers that they have to jailbreak or switch platforms.
- giarc 6y ago
  But where is the line of lots of options vs not a lot of options? iOS isn't even the most popular mobile operating system.
  - d0m 6y ago
    For some market it is. Our users were 80%+ on ios
    - jasonv 6y ago
      Seems to me the biggest hurdle to moving/finding customers via the Google/Android platform is that they won't spend money over there. The feature/capability parity between the platforms means they are, in fact, both capable of serving these markets. But people want to vote with their dollars in the iOS ecosystem, and now the players want to change that ecosystem. I'm not entirely convinced that this is Apple's problem, in as much as it is Google's fault for not fostering a properly competitive revenue delivery platform, even though it has the maturity and standing to do so.
debacle 6y ago
> I don’t know why people feel it’s their undeniable right to be able to provide an app to iOS users. Rephrased: > I don't know why people feel it's their undeniable right to install the apps they want on iOS.
damnyou 6y ago
iOS is the market leader by profit share and by amount of money spent on app stores, as Apple fans like to talk about all the time. In a sane world, being a market leader would mean that shareholder and corporate interests are kept in check by society.
bohemian99 6y ago
It's about monopolization. Should a company be able to vertically integrate and install a toll booth to profit off of all developers on their platform? Or does that hurt consumers more than it would hurt businesses to separate that power?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Ericson2314 6y ago
It's not perfect but what else can we do? - Yes, every shmuck who buys only iOS cause Apple is the status symbol undermines everyone's ability to choose. But we'd need a consumer union to go after these monopoly-aiders as scabs. Ha ha ha not going to happen. - All the other hardware manufactures are so shitty and quality control and integration that they are also responsible. Do we wait for Moon's party to break up Samsung so Apple gets more competition? Tell Taiwan to break up TMSC or do more direct-to-consumer? Fundamentally we have the perfect storm of outsourcing and low quality, precarious Americans looking for status, and nationally-tinged monpolies. The idea solutions are just out of reach in the short term, so I support putting iOS on a stupid pedestal to break up Apple's exclusionary vertical integration.
kllrnohj 6y ago
Google Search should be free to only show location results from Google Maps, and ban Yelp, etc.. entirely from Google Search. After all, there's other search engines, right? There is a history here where using your market position in one area to force your product in another as being illegal (see the recent EU fine against Google for "abusing their Android monopoly" for example: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_4581 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_... ). Apple seems to be crossing that line rather brazenly.
bachmeier 6y ago
> I don’t know why people feel it’s their undeniable right to be able to provide an app to iOS users. If Apple is using its market power to increase profit at the expense of reducing selection and/or increasing prices for consumers, then that's a very serious problem. It's exactly the reason antitrust laws exist.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> But there are other Smartphone platforms with their own store, correct? But are they competing or parallel markets? Does Apple changing pricing or terms on the App Store drive business to other app stores, as replacements, or do software vendors choose which app stores to distribute with based on whether each provides a benefit worth the price, but not whether it is a better deal than some other store? I think that under market/pricing power tests, Apple’s software distribution business in the App Store is not that unlikely to be a monopoly. Now, establishing consumer harms from the way the leverage that monopoly to extract rents and dictate terms to software vendors might be less straightforward than it would be for a B2C monopoly, and in the US, at least, consumer harm is the key adverse impact from monopoly abuse that justifies legal consequences.
dathinab 6y ago
Because for many applications it's not viable to not provide service for iOs users, which is sad but true. Consider you not being able to: - buy train tickets under iOs - check-in into a hotel under iOs - do video conferences - chat with your friend - cross play with your friends - open your apartment doors - check your health data - do online banking - securely check your email - do Ueber, Rbnb, etc. - buy at Amazone - etc. Sure many (but not all) things might be doable over web interface but this crates often much more frictions and due to constraints put onto web interfaces and PWS also has often much worse UX, not providing service for millions of iOs users is often deadly and providing competitively shitty service isn't anygood either, even worse if you have to compete with Apple itself which gives there apps unfair advantages beyond not needing to pay the 30% cut. Let's be honest any marked which covers millions of people should be handled as a standalone marked even if you could argue it's just part of a bigger marked by any government or you fail your people (and the free marked idea IMHO, but reasoning about this is tricky as it involves considering how the marked dynamics have fundamentally changed and how thinks which would have worked in benefit for the population don't work anymore in the current times and therefore how the marked (laws) has to adapt to it).

yladiz 6y ago

It's a false dichotomy; the correct comparison is: If a developer doesn't like Apple's terms, there are other phone platforms.

lazzlazzlazz 6y ago
No, there is one other phone platform.
gcheong 6y ago
If you’re not published on Apple’s App Store then you can’t reach a huge segment of the market that would like to use your product. I don’t think Apple, Google, etc. , should be the gatekeepers between a developer and their customers.
- dpkonofa 6y ago
  They're not. That's the whole point. These are Apple's customers since they're finding the app in the App Store. Epic has other customers that play Fortnite that are not Apple customers.
chongli 6y ago
No, that’s not a correct comparison. Consumers don’t buy a device from Epic in order to run Unreal engine games. Consumers don’t care at all what engine a game runs on, they only care about the game itself (and what platform it’s available on). If you forgo the iOS platform, you lose out on the vast majority of mobile app revenue. Android may have greater market share than Apple but iOS dominates the market among people who actually buy apps (mostly affluent people in western countries).

badwolf 6y ago

I think a more apt comparison would be... If a developer doesn't like Xbox's terms, there are other gaming platforms...

60secz 6y ago
Game console to General computing device isn't exactly apples to apples. But yes, It'd be great if users could install unsigned apps on all the devices they own.
- Noos 6y ago
  If by great you mean "great for malware makers" I guess so. HN has a big problem of pushing for changes hat benefit highly tech-literate people but in reality the majority of the market needs signed apps so they don't download harmful programs. I think people need to stop looking at their own immediate interests and start considering long term aspects of things. You can't just throw out technology now without understanding how it empowers bad actors, because it amplifies them too.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    Perhaps if running unsigned apps became more widespread, businesses will spring up in the space to offer secure, curated apps as third-party app stores. Desktop software, for a long time, did not have the notion of specialized app stores or enforcing signed programs. Yes, Windows has loads of security issues. But surely this can be a problem that can be solved over time?
    - jachee 6y ago
      Why would John Q. Public trust a third party over the manufacturer of their device?
      - Apocryphon 6y ago
        Why would anyone want to download Firefox or Chrome when you can just surf with IE?

baddox 6y ago

Okay, but imagine that Fortnite used Unreal but wasn’t created by the creators of Unreal. Do you think that Fortnite would be more comfortable playing chicken with the App Store and risking getting banned like this, or playing chicken with the game engine that their entire game is implemented with? In practice I would say a game engine has more leverage over a game developer than a single distribution platform.

detaro 6y ago
If Unreal were the problem, Fortnite could have chosen a different game engine at the start (this is not about terms changing after all) and it would not affect their options to sell to customers. And while porting would be expensive, it would be possible without loosing access to customers. Nobody doesn't buy a game because they bought an unreal-only PC somewhere.
- baddox 6y ago
  > Fortnite could have chosen a different game engine at the start (this is not about terms changing after all) Right. Apple's terms were clear from the start, so Fortnite had no reasonable expectation to be allowed to violate them. Just like Fortnite could have chosen to use a different game engine if they didn't like the terms of a particular game engine, they could choose to focus on non-Apple platforms (or choose to abide by Apple's terms on Apple's platform) if they don't like Apple's terms. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
  - detaro 6y ago
    > and it would not affect their options to sell to customers [...] it would be possible without loosing access to customers. Nobody doesn't buy a game because they bought an unreal-only PC somewhere. Which is why the game engine comparison is a bad one.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

signal11 6y ago

> If a developer doesn't like Apple's terms, there are no viable alternatives for iOS distribution. Lots of opportunities for mobile distribution though. Apple is what, < 20% of the mobile market? (I know where you're coming from, but this is what Apple's legal team will say).

detaro 6y ago
Apple is also very proud of being a a lot larger share of the mobile apps/content market, which is what everyone elses legal team will say. (And which is why this is actually such a big thing: if loosing iOS customers meant loosing <20% of revenue, app makers would be a lot less fussed about this)

crazypython 6y ago

Most people don't have more than one phone. Phones are used for more than gaming. If a developer doesn't like Apple's terms, they can't distribute on iOS, except through a web app. Perhaps PWA+WebGPU will solve this.

robgibbons 6y ago
Except you're still locked into Apple's webview, thanks to their policy of disallowing other rendering engines. PWAs on iOS will only ever work as well as Apple allows them to.

m3kw9 6y ago

In this case alternate platform is android, PC, consoles

dathinab 6y ago

You are missing: .. not covering the iOS marked is for some products not viable and might literally lead to insolvency in the long run. Today you can tell people that you don't provide a game on e.g. X Box and they might not like but accept it. But you can not tell people that their premium mail service has no iOs app or that they team meating software has no iOs app or that their <insert any software covering a group of people> app doesn't work on iOs. Tbh. it's probably somewhat true for tipple A massive multiplayer games and games consoles, too.