11 ms·

> US Government, please force Apple to open up iPhone to any software we want to install. It's a generic computer. You have bazillion types of generic computer

by comboy 6y ago

> US Government, please force Apple to open up iPhone to any software we want to install. It's a generic computer. You have bazillion types of generic computers to choose from. People pay huge overhead to apple exactly because apple makes choices for them - regarding what settings are reasonable to have, what software they want you to use etc. Personally I don't understand monopoly arguments. If we are talking about some ISP, something like Nestle or even social network/apps, I can somewhat understand it. But here? Users are people who bought Apple hardware to use it based on rules set up by Apple. I'm not much fan of Apple, I sincerely want to understand the monopoly argument. It seems to me as if people would want to split BMW because .. I don't know we want to be able to install our own custom AC. Because maintenance of the stock one is too expensive.

surfpel 6y ago
> People pay huge overhead to apple exactly because apple makes choices for them... That’s exactly why I use Apple products. I don’t have time to mess around with third party stores and risk security issues when I need an app that doesn’t want to be on the App Store. I’m ok with paying 30% more as a consumer for the simplicity and peace of mind. This isn’t the consumers getting angry - it’s developers. That’s why this comment and other dissenting opinions always get downvoted on HN. Not saying devs don’t matter, but there is another side to this that people here don’t want to consider.
- colinmhayes 6y ago
  I'm pretty unhappy as a consumer.
  - surfpel 6y ago
    A consumer can jailbreak their iPhone and install apps that way, or buy an Android phone. You have choices.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      > A consumer can jailbreak their iPhone Apple would prefer that you don't, and tries as hard as it possibly can to make this impossible.
      - surfpel 6y ago
        > or buy an android
        doublerabbit 6y ago
        Lesser of two evils. If anything this lawsuit should be both at both, Apple and Google. Both cripple your devices and both dump you in their walled garden. All applications should be universal as the same for game services like xbox live, psn and so.
        surfpel 6y ago
        > cripple your devices and both dump you in their walled garden What? This certainly doesn’t cripple the devices, and I’m the one who purchased products I knew would only work with Apple. That’s consumer choice.
    - munk-a 6y ago
      If a consumer does this they waive the right to all sorts of hardware warranties. Essentially, if they jailbreak their phone, Apple no longer recognizes it as an Apple Device so no, you don't effectively have a choice.
      - surfpel 6y ago
        > or buy an android
  - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
    I actually left Android for Apple because I can't stomach Google's hoovering up the entire world's data, but honestly I've gotten to the point that at least Google is the devil you know. I can do things on Android et al to control how much data Google gets about me. I can do nothing about Apple controlling how I am allowed to use my insanely expensive device. A few years ago it didn't matter so much. Apple's deal had its foibles, but recently they've gone full evil and I am seriously looking at my next device being Android and getting my entire family off Apple. The problem is that will bring with it months of "did I lose something?" and having to keep both phones around. I have resisted for a long time, it is not an easy process.
- janoc 6y ago
  The thing is, if Apple alienates developers enough/makes them go bankrupt, the only applications you will be able to use would be the first party Apple ones. That won't be a very enjoyable thing, would be? That's the entire problem. If a shopping mall was charging every store 30% of their revenue (not profit, revenue!), it would be very quickly going broke and empty. Yet Apple (and to a lesser degree Google, Facebook and a few others) is getting away with this - exactly because unlike the shopping mall, the developers don't have a choice. It is either play by Apple rules - or be excluded from a very sizeable part of the mobile market. When Microsoft was playing dirty and abusing its market dominance to put a squeeze on companies trying to ship other than Microsoft's software, they got hammered in court pretty bad. The anti-monopoly/abuse of dominant market position laws are there for a reason, even if you, as a consumer, don't see it (yet).
  - surfpel 6y ago
    I try to use first party apps because they’re usually better. When I can, I stick to the browser app - which doesn’t have a 30%/15% commission. If I can’t AND I need to pay, I’ll pay 30%/15% extra if I need to.
    - dhagz 6y ago
      The thing is, you're not paying 30%/15% extra - if I recall correctly, that is against the terms of the App Store. Developers/companies can't charge a markup to make up for the bit Apple skims off the top - so instead of, say, Spotify getting all of my $10 from an IAP Premium subscription, they get $7. If I sign up for their premium service on their website, however, they get all $10.
      - kn0where 6y ago
        Not true, for instance YouTube Premium charges more for subscriptions through the App Store than if you subscribe on YouTube.com
        RonanTheGrey 6y ago
- mike_d 6y ago
  I wish I could give comments gold on HN. My phone is the center of my life, and I genuinely appreciate that Apple does the work of vetting applications so I don't have to.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- greggman3 6y ago
  nothing would stop you continueing to use apple's curated store just like many people choose to go to sanitized Blockbuster Video instead of sleazy corner video store. That didn't mean other stores needed to get prevented so that you could go to a store you trusted
- onion2k 6y ago
  That’s exactly why I use Apple products. I don’t have time to mess around with third party stores and risk security issues when I need an app that doesn’t want to be on the App Store. I’m ok with paying 30% more as a consumer for the simplicity and peace of mind. That's great. You should have that choice. But it should be a choice. The issue is that Apple block apps that tell users that there's a non-Apple tax alternative. They should not be able to do that. Removing apps that inform the customer about alternatives to in-app purchases is clearly anti-competitive. The screen that offers the alternative would have absolutely no impact on you or your choice. It would have a huge impact on people who are less able to afford the higher Apple in-app-tax-burdened price.
  - spideymans 6y ago
    >That's great. You should have that choice. But it should be a choice. The choice is Android - the platform used by some 80 percent of software users. I don't see the argument for regulatory actions, when consumers can (and do) easily choose to use other mobile platforms, if they don't like the terms of the iOS App Store. If consumers want to be in the walled garden, great, they should be free to make that decision. If they don't want the walled garden, then great, they're free to pick other platforms. I don't see why the government should force this option upon consumers. This situation isn't like Microsoft Windows in the 90s, where consumers effectively had no choice but to use Windows.
    - nathankunicki 6y ago
      Consumers have the choice, but developers don't. Its been proven countless times over the years that Android users are much less likely to pay for applications than iOS users. As a developer, if you want to survive and make money from your application, you need to be on iOS, as Android is worthless in this regard. And so, Apple gets 30% of your in app purchase revenue, while providing little value other than being a payment processor, for which the normal charge is less than 2.5%.
      - spideymans 6y ago
        >Consumers have the choice, but developers don't. Its been proven countless times over the years that Android users are much less likely to pay for applications than iOS users. Why should it be Apple's problem that Google can't monetize their dominant market share?
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  Don't like third-party app stores? Don't use them. It would be nice if you had that option, wouldn't it?
  - joemi 6y ago
    Can't the same argument just be applied to the phone itself, though? Don't like phones that don't allow third-party app stores? Don't use them. Buy android instead.
    - CamperBob2 6y ago
      It could, but how do we as consumers benefit from allowing dominant vendors to tie completely unrelated aspects of functionality together? Security and utility are not terms in a zero-sum equation.
- jmvoodoo 6y ago
  Yes, but in this case Epic gave this decision to the customer. They could pay more and use Apple's payment rails. Apple killed it, which is what Epic needed to prove consumer harm. This is going to be a very interesting case.
  - mirthflat83 6y ago
    You seriously think Epic will magically cut down the price of their fake digital items by 30% once Apple gives them up? No, they're going to go straight into their pocket.
    - jmvoodoo 6y ago
      That's exactly what they did though[0]. They offered a 20% discount if you use the Epic payment system on iOS, and continued to offer items at the normal price through Apple's payment system. This is what got them kicked off of the app store. 0. https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-mega-drop-permanent-discounts-up-to-20-percent https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-m...
      - sosborn 6y ago
        I really have to marvel at how well planned this whole series of events is. This wasn't some knee jerk move by Epic, it is calculated and very well executed.
- nathankunicki 6y ago
  But you don't pay 30% more - if it was the case that devs were allowed to make the iOS in app purchases 30% more than the counterparts, that would be fine (well, not fine, but at least it would give the people options). Apple has blocked stores from doing so in the past, demanding that the iOS price be the same as outside iOS, effectively taking 30% of developers revenue when bought through the app store.
  - anticensor 6y ago
    Do you know any examples that app developer has entered into a deal with Apple to pay that 30% cut even for sales outside iOS or MacOS platforms?
    - nathankunicki 6y ago
      No, but I don't understand the relevance, much less why a developer would do that (or why Apple would ask for it)? Of course a developer could just raise prices elsewhere to make the cost equal to that on iOS if they raised the price to include Apple's 30% cut, but the problem would remain.
      - anticensor 6y ago
        A developer might voluntarily request that to make the payment infrastructure simpler by making the payment routing equal for everyone.
  - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
    And now they've taken that one step further and insist that if you accept payment anywhere outside of iOS, you are forced to accept payment on device as well, in order for Apple to get access to your market. For things like games where you're buying "5 more rings" or a "hat for your virtual pet" ok fine -- but for something where you're offering a subscription service to physical therapists where their subscription buys them things in the real world, this is completely unreasonable. We were forced to "include" this functionality in the app or Apple threatened to remove it, so we did and just made it impossible to find.
- FireBeyond 6y ago
  Evidently customers DO care. Or are you suggesting that the bulk of those customers paid $9.99 for the same items that they could have paid $7.99 for - inside the same app - just to thank Apple for their 'peace of mind'?? Epic gave the customer a choice. If the evidence doesn't show that the majority of customers still chose the $9.99 option, that's certainly bolstering their claim that Apple's decision to remove the ability to do so is harmful to consumers, not (just) developers.
  - makomk 6y ago
    That's the really, deeply cynical part of all this - in a world where Epic could use their own payment processing without Apple taking a cut, all their customers would be paying the full $9.99, not $7.99. It doesn't require much of a crystal ball at all to realize this, because it was the reality right up until the very instant that Epic Games needed to push the idea that Apple's cut was actually costing consumers money rather than them as part of this lawsuit and PR campaign. $9.99 everywhere, on PC direct from Epic, on consoles (which take a similar cut), Android, iOS, everywhere. The extra went straight into Epic Games' pockets.
    - FireBeyond 6y ago
      Certainly. But I don't think there's anything inherently immoral to that. Market value of item is X - that's what the customer will be paying. There's more value, theoretically, to the customer, in paying that to the producer directly - more income for them, more incentive to continue producing or improving. Similar for the producer, more revenue. No-one gains value out of rent-seeking middlemen but rent-seeking middlemen. Note: I am not saying the Apple Store doesn't not add value in terms of payment processing, exposure, bandwidth, and so on. But I will argue strongly that you'll have a hard time showing that this added value is _worth_ that thirty percent cut. I also highly doubt that should it be three percent (as indeed it is on the MAS!), this lawsuit, these arguments, would not be being had.
- ac29 6y ago
  > 30% more 1/0.7 = 1.43 You're not paying 30% more, you're paying 43% more. Maybe you're fine with paying even more than that, but lets keep the math clear.
  - surfpel 6y ago
    1/0.85 => 17% more. If we’re gonna nitpick, let’s not ignore that it’s 15% after a year.
- R0b0t1 6y ago
  It's against the Apple ToS to charge more on their app store.
- rpdillon 6y ago
  I guess I don't quite get this argument. Allowing users to install a third-party app store on a device they purchased doesn't impact another user's ability to use Apple's walled garden exclusively. As a customer, it's frustrating because I have to choose between Google's crazy surveillance and Apple's authoritarian regime. I'd really like to just buy a device and then do what I want with it, because I bought it. For example, if Apple were to allow me to install the equivalent of F-Droid on iOS, I would feel pretty differently about them as a company.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
Yeah, it makes no sense at all. Apple isn't even close to a majority in any markets! Desktops? Definitely not. Laptops? No. Tablets and Phones? Haha, no (Edit: Actually yes, if one only considers the US).
- reissbaker 6y ago
  iOS is literally the majority of the market in the USA. It has nearly 60% market share. https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america/ https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta... This is certainly something US courts would care about.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    Alright, well color me surprised because I wouldn't have guessed that at all. Still, 60% is hardly a monopoly either.
    - withinboredom 6y ago
      By definition, anything over 50% should give you de facto control. I'm curious what you mean by 60% not being a monopoly.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
        > the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service. 60% is not exclusive or even de-facto exclusive. The only thing Apple has a monopoly on is Apple products.
        reissbaker 6y ago
        The threshold the US government uses for market share is typically 50%, along with exclusionary conduct.
  - threeseed 6y ago
mcny 6y ago
> You have bazillion types of generic computers to choose from. People pay huge overhead to apple exactly because apple makes choices for them - regarding what settings are reasonable to have, what software they want you to use etc. I like the Android approach. "Unknown sources" are not allowed by default but you can enable them. Doesn't mean you have to enable them and I'd be ok with a bright red bar at the top of the screen all the time that you can't disable if you have unknown sources enabled.
- leadingthenet 6y ago
  Great. Get an Android then.
jefft255 6y ago
I disagree. I like Apple products, own an iPhone and iPad, but I wish I could run any code on it because they are my devices. Having a streamlined experience overall shouldn’t prevent me from installing an emulator, and shouldn’t trap businesses into paying ridiculous fees. Im hesitating buying a Mac as my next computer because of their locked down attitude, which could spill to MacOS (already has to some degree).
- mike_d 6y ago
  > I wish I could run any code on it But by extension that means any bad guy can run any unsigned code on it as well. Look at the prevalence of Android malware to iOS. The latter basically doesn't exist outside of well funded nation states.
  - munk-a 6y ago
    Apple does an extremely poor job of software inspection - they have API limiters that are quite effective at shutting down a lot of the malicious-to-device software people might write but privacy concerns are impossible for them to cover. Depending on how you define unsigned code your statement is either quite correct or extremely inaccurate and I think issues like privacy and data tracking are, honestly, more noticeable and impactful to the average non-techy user than your phone being part of a botnet.
    - mike_d 6y ago
      "Hide my Email for Sign in", killing advertising identifiers, preventing cross app tracking, etc. are all things that can only exist on a platform where code is signed and sandboxed. Is Apple's app store vetting or API restrictions perfect? No, of course not. But it is a million times better than any other platform.
  - Mindwipe 6y ago
    The former basically doesn't exist in Western nations either, so I'm not sure what the point is here. A well designed permissions system means what code runs is up to the user.
delroth 6y ago
You're generalizing your own opinion. If I could buy an iPhone and run Android on it, I would do that. Instead I'm stuck choosing between good hardware with crappy OS (Apple) vs. outdated hardware with an OS that fits my needs (all Android devices).
- viro 6y ago
  no you wouldn't apple devices are better BECAUSE of the software. On avg the hardware is under powered compered to android hardware.
  - delroth 6y ago
    This is blatantly wrong. Apple's CPU and GPU designs have been years ahead of Qualcomm/Samsung/... for years now, especially regarding single core performance. Check any mobile device benchmark.
    - viro 6y ago
      was that benchmark done on non-apple software?
      - fomine3 6y ago
        FYI: https://www.anandtech.com/show/14892/the-apple-iphone-11-pro-and-max-review/2 https://www.anandtech.com/show/14892/the-apple-iphone-11-pro... SPEC2006 is industrial standard, and other 3rd party benchmark tested.
    - HacklesRaised 6y ago
      Not really, Apple's CPU/GPU teams are very good, hey chaps and chapesses, but their primary advantage comes from the fact that Apple is looking at revenue for the entire device, the SOC is not the product. They can afford a little more cache etc. It's also right to point out that the margin is pretty narrow in A13 and Snapdragon 865 guise. So saying they are year(s) ahead is hyperbole, perhaps 6 months! In anycase the relatively close performance of the current SOCs makes me eager to see what they do with Apple Silicon in order to bridge the gap to Desktop/Laptop class performance? I do wonder whether the current cooling solutions in Apple's laptops are more about delivering the best product to the consumer or creating a favourable comparison to their own silicon. I found this LTT, https://youtu.be/MlOPPuNv4Ec?t=321 https://youtu.be/MlOPPuNv4Ec?t=321, intriguing and wonder if this is deliberate or a manufacturing defect. Note the gap between the CPU lid and the die. It's a fairly entertaining video, the things they try but that gap, the entire cooling solution actually, are a little hard to understand.
jedberg 6y ago
> I don't know we want to be able to install our own custom AC. Because maintenance of the stock one is too expensive. You can do that actually. There are laws in places specifically that allow you to do that, because BMW would otherwise stop you. The car industry is a perfect example. They had to put laws in place to allow you to change parts of your car, while still maintaining safety and integrity.
- FireBeyond 6y ago
  It wasn't that BMW would stop you, or that you weren't allowed to. It's that car manufacturers had to be stopped from claiming "you voided the warranty on your brakes by installing your own radio" (entirely egregious, I agree, but separate).
nabla9 6y ago
> Personally I don't understand monopoly arguments. Firstly, the term 'monopoly' is frequently used in the meaning of 'monopoly power' not as pure monopoly. Competition laws take effect long before full monopoly. Market failures can start appear even with 20% market share in some markets. Secondly, I suspect that you implicitly have some narrow definition of market in mind. In competition law, defining a relevant market is essential and nontrivial. You seem to think about smartphones as "the market". iOS app distribution can be also considered a market. Personal opinion: multiplayer game like Fortnight benefits from network effect. People are playing across devices and platforms. You could argue that Android and iPhone platforms are complement products in App Markets instead of substitutes. Restrictions in one may harm sales in the other. All game developers must sell to both platforms to be on the market. iOS App store relies on this effect. There is no choice.
grumple 6y ago
> You have bazillion types of generic computers to choose from. People pay huge overhead to apple exactly because apple makes choices for them - regarding what settings are reasonable to have, what software they want you to use etc. Strongly disagree. I have 4 MBPs. I can install whatever I want on them, thankfully. I write my own code and execute it on them. My iPhone? I don't want them telling me what I can do with it. I want the good hardware and OS compatibility with my MBPs. I also want to install whatever I want because I'm an adult and developer in a free economy.
- jki275 6y ago
  And you can do that just fine. You just can't tell them how to curate the App Store.
  - freehunter 6y ago
    So then they should allow a competing app store and Apple can just heavily curate their own app store.
    - jki275 6y ago
      I think you could actually do that. You can run your own code, Apple doesn't actually care what you run if you have a dev account and are compiling your own stuff to put on your machine. So what's to stop you from installing an app store, or at least some semblance of one that would let you run your own apps under an app you compile and put on your iOS device? I've never really thought about this before, but it seems like it's probably possible. Again, this doesn't help Epic -- they don't want to run apps on your phone, they want to monetize mass user phones, not give code to devs who are willing to put in the effort to install something through Xcode.
- sneak 6y ago
  You cannot. The T chip that boots the touchbar and fingerprint reader (and provides the firmware to the main CPU on boot) is just as locked down as any iPhone. If you try to modify its OS (BridgeOS, a modified iOS), your computer will not boot.
40four 6y ago
With all due respect... the statement that "People pay huge overhead to apple exactly because apple makes choices for them" is very silly.
- cjaybo 6y ago
  Could you explain how it is silly? I've seen that exact reason (or some variation of it) echoed by many consumers who prefer Apple products. Are you suggesting that these people do not exist, or are lying?
- LexGray 6y ago
  From my perspective Epic is shooting themselves and all other developers in the foot. Many app stores specialize in pirated software, fake in-app purchases, gaming assists, various troll and other bot automations. Users would be stuck with full screen popups, unwanted VPNs, bitcoin miners, government surveillance apps, and other malware in an effort to get a discount from the official Epic store. Developers will have more cheating, fraud, and store revenues will drop to Google levels as there are cheaper pirate stores. There will be no free apps because developers making a profit like Epic won't carry the rest.
mellow2020 6y ago
> People pay huge overhead to apple exactly because apple makes choices for them - regarding what settings are reasonable to have, what software they want you to use etc. Well, they think it gives them quality. Instead they kinda get fleeced and pushed into a threadmill of planned obsolescence, e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2_SZ4tfLns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2_SZ4tfLns
- surfpel 6y ago
  The only people who buy the idea of planned obsolescence are the ones who haven’t worked on products like that. Also, Apple doesn’t have to provide software support to 6 year old phones when nobody else does
  - mellow2020 6y ago
    > The only people who buy the idea of planned obsolescence are the ones who haven’t worked on products like that. So, how many Apple products Apple said could not be repaired have you repaired? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVAmnV65_zw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVAmnV65_zw There is nothing to "buy into", it's all in the open. There is something to be in denial about however, and you just offer an ad-hominem right out of the gate, plus the statement that phones failing when they cease to be "supported" is fine and normal; but somehow not planned, even predictable obsolescence. It's a shift from owning things that either break or last, to a constant churn, enforced by software where the hardware can't be made bad enough. Apple is hardly alone in this, but Apple is in it, for sure.
    - surfpel 6y ago
      > So, how many Apple products Apple said could not be repaired have you repaired? Ok so... A) Non-repairability is not planned obsolescence. At Apple’s scale, they can’t repair every breakage with the quality people expect, so they opt to replace. B) You’re making huge accusations, but it’s seriously unsubstantiated. I will say that I agree that products should last longer, but that’s a technical challenge not a financial decision.

by comboy 6y ago

surfpel 6y ago

> People pay huge overhead to apple exactly because apple makes choices for them... That’s exactly why I use Apple products. I don’t have time to mess around with third party stores and risk security issues when I need an app that doesn’t want to be on the App Store. I’m ok with paying 30% more as a consumer for the simplicity and peace of mind. This isn’t the consumers getting angry - it’s developers. That’s why this comment and other dissenting opinions always get downvoted on HN. Not saying devs don’t matter, but there is another side to this that people here don’t want to consider.

colinmhayes 6y ago
I'm pretty unhappy as a consumer.
- surfpel 6y ago
  A consumer can jailbreak their iPhone and install apps that way, or buy an Android phone. You have choices.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    > A consumer can jailbreak their iPhone Apple would prefer that you don't, and tries as hard as it possibly can to make this impossible.
    - surfpel 6y ago
      > or buy an android
      - doublerabbit 6y ago
        Lesser of two evils. If anything this lawsuit should be both at both, Apple and Google. Both cripple your devices and both dump you in their walled garden. All applications should be universal as the same for game services like xbox live, psn and so.
        surfpel 6y ago
        > cripple your devices and both dump you in their walled garden What? This certainly doesn’t cripple the devices, and I’m the one who purchased products I knew would only work with Apple. That’s consumer choice.
  - munk-a 6y ago
    If a consumer does this they waive the right to all sorts of hardware warranties. Essentially, if they jailbreak their phone, Apple no longer recognizes it as an Apple Device so no, you don't effectively have a choice.
    - surfpel 6y ago
      > or buy an android
- RonanTheGrey 6y ago
  I actually left Android for Apple because I can't stomach Google's hoovering up the entire world's data, but honestly I've gotten to the point that at least Google is the devil you know. I can do things on Android et al to control how much data Google gets about me. I can do nothing about Apple controlling how I am allowed to use my insanely expensive device. A few years ago it didn't matter so much. Apple's deal had its foibles, but recently they've gone full evil and I am seriously looking at my next device being Android and getting my entire family off Apple. The problem is that will bring with it months of "did I lose something?" and having to keep both phones around. I have resisted for a long time, it is not an easy process.
janoc 6y ago
The thing is, if Apple alienates developers enough/makes them go bankrupt, the only applications you will be able to use would be the first party Apple ones. That won't be a very enjoyable thing, would be? That's the entire problem. If a shopping mall was charging every store 30% of their revenue (not profit, revenue!), it would be very quickly going broke and empty. Yet Apple (and to a lesser degree Google, Facebook and a few others) is getting away with this - exactly because unlike the shopping mall, the developers don't have a choice. It is either play by Apple rules - or be excluded from a very sizeable part of the mobile market. When Microsoft was playing dirty and abusing its market dominance to put a squeeze on companies trying to ship other than Microsoft's software, they got hammered in court pretty bad. The anti-monopoly/abuse of dominant market position laws are there for a reason, even if you, as a consumer, don't see it (yet).
- surfpel 6y ago
  I try to use first party apps because they’re usually better. When I can, I stick to the browser app - which doesn’t have a 30%/15% commission. If I can’t AND I need to pay, I’ll pay 30%/15% extra if I need to.
  - dhagz 6y ago
    The thing is, you're not paying 30%/15% extra - if I recall correctly, that is against the terms of the App Store. Developers/companies can't charge a markup to make up for the bit Apple skims off the top - so instead of, say, Spotify getting all of my $10 from an IAP Premium subscription, they get $7. If I sign up for their premium service on their website, however, they get all $10.
    - kn0where 6y ago
      Not true, for instance YouTube Premium charges more for subscriptions through the App Store than if you subscribe on YouTube.com
      - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
mike_d 6y ago
I wish I could give comments gold on HN. My phone is the center of my life, and I genuinely appreciate that Apple does the work of vetting applications so I don't have to.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
greggman3 6y ago
nothing would stop you continueing to use apple's curated store just like many people choose to go to sanitized Blockbuster Video instead of sleazy corner video store. That didn't mean other stores needed to get prevented so that you could go to a store you trusted
onion2k 6y ago
That’s exactly why I use Apple products. I don’t have time to mess around with third party stores and risk security issues when I need an app that doesn’t want to be on the App Store. I’m ok with paying 30% more as a consumer for the simplicity and peace of mind. That's great. You should have that choice. But it should be a choice. The issue is that Apple block apps that tell users that there's a non-Apple tax alternative. They should not be able to do that. Removing apps that inform the customer about alternatives to in-app purchases is clearly anti-competitive. The screen that offers the alternative would have absolutely no impact on you or your choice. It would have a huge impact on people who are less able to afford the higher Apple in-app-tax-burdened price.
- spideymans 6y ago
  >That's great. You should have that choice. But it should be a choice. The choice is Android - the platform used by some 80 percent of software users. I don't see the argument for regulatory actions, when consumers can (and do) easily choose to use other mobile platforms, if they don't like the terms of the iOS App Store. If consumers want to be in the walled garden, great, they should be free to make that decision. If they don't want the walled garden, then great, they're free to pick other platforms. I don't see why the government should force this option upon consumers. This situation isn't like Microsoft Windows in the 90s, where consumers effectively had no choice but to use Windows.
  - nathankunicki 6y ago
    Consumers have the choice, but developers don't. Its been proven countless times over the years that Android users are much less likely to pay for applications than iOS users. As a developer, if you want to survive and make money from your application, you need to be on iOS, as Android is worthless in this regard. And so, Apple gets 30% of your in app purchase revenue, while providing little value other than being a payment processor, for which the normal charge is less than 2.5%.
    - spideymans 6y ago
      >Consumers have the choice, but developers don't. Its been proven countless times over the years that Android users are much less likely to pay for applications than iOS users. Why should it be Apple's problem that Google can't monetize their dominant market share?
CamperBob2 6y ago
Don't like third-party app stores? Don't use them. It would be nice if you had that option, wouldn't it?
- joemi 6y ago
  Can't the same argument just be applied to the phone itself, though? Don't like phones that don't allow third-party app stores? Don't use them. Buy android instead.
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    It could, but how do we as consumers benefit from allowing dominant vendors to tie completely unrelated aspects of functionality together? Security and utility are not terms in a zero-sum equation.
jmvoodoo 6y ago
Yes, but in this case Epic gave this decision to the customer. They could pay more and use Apple's payment rails. Apple killed it, which is what Epic needed to prove consumer harm. This is going to be a very interesting case.
- mirthflat83 6y ago
  You seriously think Epic will magically cut down the price of their fake digital items by 30% once Apple gives them up? No, they're going to go straight into their pocket.
  - jmvoodoo 6y ago
    That's exactly what they did though[0]. They offered a 20% discount if you use the Epic payment system on iOS, and continued to offer items at the normal price through Apple's payment system. This is what got them kicked off of the app store. 0. https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-mega-drop-permanent-discounts-up-to-20-percent https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-m...
    - sosborn 6y ago
      I really have to marvel at how well planned this whole series of events is. This wasn't some knee jerk move by Epic, it is calculated and very well executed.
nathankunicki 6y ago
But you don't pay 30% more - if it was the case that devs were allowed to make the iOS in app purchases 30% more than the counterparts, that would be fine (well, not fine, but at least it would give the people options). Apple has blocked stores from doing so in the past, demanding that the iOS price be the same as outside iOS, effectively taking 30% of developers revenue when bought through the app store.
- anticensor 6y ago
  Do you know any examples that app developer has entered into a deal with Apple to pay that 30% cut even for sales outside iOS or MacOS platforms?
  - nathankunicki 6y ago
    No, but I don't understand the relevance, much less why a developer would do that (or why Apple would ask for it)? Of course a developer could just raise prices elsewhere to make the cost equal to that on iOS if they raised the price to include Apple's 30% cut, but the problem would remain.
    - anticensor 6y ago
      A developer might voluntarily request that to make the payment infrastructure simpler by making the payment routing equal for everyone.
- RonanTheGrey 6y ago
  And now they've taken that one step further and insist that if you accept payment anywhere outside of iOS, you are forced to accept payment on device as well, in order for Apple to get access to your market. For things like games where you're buying "5 more rings" or a "hat for your virtual pet" ok fine -- but for something where you're offering a subscription service to physical therapists where their subscription buys them things in the real world, this is completely unreasonable. We were forced to "include" this functionality in the app or Apple threatened to remove it, so we did and just made it impossible to find.
FireBeyond 6y ago
Evidently customers DO care. Or are you suggesting that the bulk of those customers paid $9.99 for the same items that they could have paid $7.99 for - inside the same app - just to thank Apple for their 'peace of mind'?? Epic gave the customer a choice. If the evidence doesn't show that the majority of customers still chose the $9.99 option, that's certainly bolstering their claim that Apple's decision to remove the ability to do so is harmful to consumers, not (just) developers.
- makomk 6y ago
  That's the really, deeply cynical part of all this - in a world where Epic could use their own payment processing without Apple taking a cut, all their customers would be paying the full $9.99, not $7.99. It doesn't require much of a crystal ball at all to realize this, because it was the reality right up until the very instant that Epic Games needed to push the idea that Apple's cut was actually costing consumers money rather than them as part of this lawsuit and PR campaign. $9.99 everywhere, on PC direct from Epic, on consoles (which take a similar cut), Android, iOS, everywhere. The extra went straight into Epic Games' pockets.
  - FireBeyond 6y ago
    Certainly. But I don't think there's anything inherently immoral to that. Market value of item is X - that's what the customer will be paying. There's more value, theoretically, to the customer, in paying that to the producer directly - more income for them, more incentive to continue producing or improving. Similar for the producer, more revenue. No-one gains value out of rent-seeking middlemen but rent-seeking middlemen. Note: I am not saying the Apple Store doesn't not add value in terms of payment processing, exposure, bandwidth, and so on. But I will argue strongly that you'll have a hard time showing that this added value is _worth_ that thirty percent cut. I also highly doubt that should it be three percent (as indeed it is on the MAS!), this lawsuit, these arguments, would not be being had.
ac29 6y ago
> 30% more 1/0.7 = 1.43 You're not paying 30% more, you're paying 43% more. Maybe you're fine with paying even more than that, but lets keep the math clear.
- surfpel 6y ago
  1/0.85 => 17% more. If we’re gonna nitpick, let’s not ignore that it’s 15% after a year.
R0b0t1 6y ago
It's against the Apple ToS to charge more on their app store.
rpdillon 6y ago
I guess I don't quite get this argument. Allowing users to install a third-party app store on a device they purchased doesn't impact another user's ability to use Apple's walled garden exclusively. As a customer, it's frustrating because I have to choose between Google's crazy surveillance and Apple's authoritarian regime. I'd really like to just buy a device and then do what I want with it, because I bought it. For example, if Apple were to allow me to install the equivalent of F-Droid on iOS, I would feel pretty differently about them as a company.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

Yeah, it makes no sense at all. Apple isn't even close to a majority in any markets! Desktops? Definitely not. Laptops? No. Tablets and Phones? Haha, no (Edit: Actually yes, if one only considers the US).

reissbaker 6y ago
iOS is literally the majority of the market in the USA. It has nearly 60% market share. https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america/ https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta... This is certainly something US courts would care about.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  Alright, well color me surprised because I wouldn't have guessed that at all. Still, 60% is hardly a monopoly either.
  - withinboredom 6y ago
    By definition, anything over 50% should give you de facto control. I'm curious what you mean by 60% not being a monopoly.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
      > the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service. 60% is not exclusive or even de-facto exclusive. The only thing Apple has a monopoly on is Apple products.
      - reissbaker 6y ago
        The threshold the US government uses for market share is typically 50%, along with exclusionary conduct.
- threeseed 6y ago

mcny 6y ago

> You have bazillion types of generic computers to choose from. People pay huge overhead to apple exactly because apple makes choices for them - regarding what settings are reasonable to have, what software they want you to use etc. I like the Android approach. "Unknown sources" are not allowed by default but you can enable them. Doesn't mean you have to enable them and I'd be ok with a bright red bar at the top of the screen all the time that you can't disable if you have unknown sources enabled.

leadingthenet 6y ago
Great. Get an Android then.

jefft255 6y ago

I disagree. I like Apple products, own an iPhone and iPad, but I wish I could run any code on it because they are my devices. Having a streamlined experience overall shouldn’t prevent me from installing an emulator, and shouldn’t trap businesses into paying ridiculous fees. Im hesitating buying a Mac as my next computer because of their locked down attitude, which could spill to MacOS (already has to some degree).

mike_d 6y ago
> I wish I could run any code on it But by extension that means any bad guy can run any unsigned code on it as well. Look at the prevalence of Android malware to iOS. The latter basically doesn't exist outside of well funded nation states.
- munk-a 6y ago
  Apple does an extremely poor job of software inspection - they have API limiters that are quite effective at shutting down a lot of the malicious-to-device software people might write but privacy concerns are impossible for them to cover. Depending on how you define unsigned code your statement is either quite correct or extremely inaccurate and I think issues like privacy and data tracking are, honestly, more noticeable and impactful to the average non-techy user than your phone being part of a botnet.
  - mike_d 6y ago
    "Hide my Email for Sign in", killing advertising identifiers, preventing cross app tracking, etc. are all things that can only exist on a platform where code is signed and sandboxed. Is Apple's app store vetting or API restrictions perfect? No, of course not. But it is a million times better than any other platform.
- Mindwipe 6y ago
  The former basically doesn't exist in Western nations either, so I'm not sure what the point is here. A well designed permissions system means what code runs is up to the user.

delroth 6y ago

You're generalizing your own opinion. If I could buy an iPhone and run Android on it, I would do that. Instead I'm stuck choosing between good hardware with crappy OS (Apple) vs. outdated hardware with an OS that fits my needs (all Android devices).

viro 6y ago
no you wouldn't apple devices are better BECAUSE of the software. On avg the hardware is under powered compered to android hardware.
- delroth 6y ago
  This is blatantly wrong. Apple's CPU and GPU designs have been years ahead of Qualcomm/Samsung/... for years now, especially regarding single core performance. Check any mobile device benchmark.
  - viro 6y ago
    was that benchmark done on non-apple software?
    - fomine3 6y ago
      FYI: https://www.anandtech.com/show/14892/the-apple-iphone-11-pro-and-max-review/2 https://www.anandtech.com/show/14892/the-apple-iphone-11-pro... SPEC2006 is industrial standard, and other 3rd party benchmark tested.
  - HacklesRaised 6y ago
    Not really, Apple's CPU/GPU teams are very good, hey chaps and chapesses, but their primary advantage comes from the fact that Apple is looking at revenue for the entire device, the SOC is not the product. They can afford a little more cache etc. It's also right to point out that the margin is pretty narrow in A13 and Snapdragon 865 guise. So saying they are year(s) ahead is hyperbole, perhaps 6 months! In anycase the relatively close performance of the current SOCs makes me eager to see what they do with Apple Silicon in order to bridge the gap to Desktop/Laptop class performance? I do wonder whether the current cooling solutions in Apple's laptops are more about delivering the best product to the consumer or creating a favourable comparison to their own silicon. I found this LTT, https://youtu.be/MlOPPuNv4Ec?t=321 https://youtu.be/MlOPPuNv4Ec?t=321, intriguing and wonder if this is deliberate or a manufacturing defect. Note the gap between the CPU lid and the die. It's a fairly entertaining video, the things they try but that gap, the entire cooling solution actually, are a little hard to understand.

jedberg 6y ago

> I don't know we want to be able to install our own custom AC. Because maintenance of the stock one is too expensive. You can do that actually. There are laws in places specifically that allow you to do that, because BMW would otherwise stop you. The car industry is a perfect example. They had to put laws in place to allow you to change parts of your car, while still maintaining safety and integrity.

FireBeyond 6y ago
It wasn't that BMW would stop you, or that you weren't allowed to. It's that car manufacturers had to be stopped from claiming "you voided the warranty on your brakes by installing your own radio" (entirely egregious, I agree, but separate).

nabla9 6y ago

> Personally I don't understand monopoly arguments. Firstly, the term 'monopoly' is frequently used in the meaning of 'monopoly power' not as pure monopoly. Competition laws take effect long before full monopoly. Market failures can start appear even with 20% market share in some markets. Secondly, I suspect that you implicitly have some narrow definition of market in mind. In competition law, defining a relevant market is essential and nontrivial. You seem to think about smartphones as "the market". iOS app distribution can be also considered a market. Personal opinion: multiplayer game like Fortnight benefits from network effect. People are playing across devices and platforms. You could argue that Android and iPhone platforms are complement products in App Markets instead of substitutes. Restrictions in one may harm sales in the other. All game developers must sell to both platforms to be on the market. iOS App store relies on this effect. There is no choice.

grumple 6y ago

> You have bazillion types of generic computers to choose from. People pay huge overhead to apple exactly because apple makes choices for them - regarding what settings are reasonable to have, what software they want you to use etc. Strongly disagree. I have 4 MBPs. I can install whatever I want on them, thankfully. I write my own code and execute it on them. My iPhone? I don't want them telling me what I can do with it. I want the good hardware and OS compatibility with my MBPs. I also want to install whatever I want because I'm an adult and developer in a free economy.

jki275 6y ago
And you can do that just fine. You just can't tell them how to curate the App Store.
- freehunter 6y ago
  So then they should allow a competing app store and Apple can just heavily curate their own app store.
  - jki275 6y ago
    I think you could actually do that. You can run your own code, Apple doesn't actually care what you run if you have a dev account and are compiling your own stuff to put on your machine. So what's to stop you from installing an app store, or at least some semblance of one that would let you run your own apps under an app you compile and put on your iOS device? I've never really thought about this before, but it seems like it's probably possible. Again, this doesn't help Epic -- they don't want to run apps on your phone, they want to monetize mass user phones, not give code to devs who are willing to put in the effort to install something through Xcode.
sneak 6y ago
You cannot. The T chip that boots the touchbar and fingerprint reader (and provides the firmware to the main CPU on boot) is just as locked down as any iPhone. If you try to modify its OS (BridgeOS, a modified iOS), your computer will not boot.

40four 6y ago

With all due respect... the statement that "People pay huge overhead to apple exactly because apple makes choices for them" is very silly.

cjaybo 6y ago
Could you explain how it is silly? I've seen that exact reason (or some variation of it) echoed by many consumers who prefer Apple products. Are you suggesting that these people do not exist, or are lying?
LexGray 6y ago
From my perspective Epic is shooting themselves and all other developers in the foot. Many app stores specialize in pirated software, fake in-app purchases, gaming assists, various troll and other bot automations. Users would be stuck with full screen popups, unwanted VPNs, bitcoin miners, government surveillance apps, and other malware in an effort to get a discount from the official Epic store. Developers will have more cheating, fraud, and store revenues will drop to Google levels as there are cheaper pirate stores. There will be no free apps because developers making a profit like Epic won't carry the rest.

mellow2020 6y ago

> People pay huge overhead to apple exactly because apple makes choices for them - regarding what settings are reasonable to have, what software they want you to use etc. Well, they think it gives them quality. Instead they kinda get fleeced and pushed into a threadmill of planned obsolescence, e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2_SZ4tfLns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2_SZ4tfLns

surfpel 6y ago
The only people who buy the idea of planned obsolescence are the ones who haven’t worked on products like that. Also, Apple doesn’t have to provide software support to 6 year old phones when nobody else does
- mellow2020 6y ago
  > The only people who buy the idea of planned obsolescence are the ones who haven’t worked on products like that. So, how many Apple products Apple said could not be repaired have you repaired? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVAmnV65_zw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVAmnV65_zw There is nothing to "buy into", it's all in the open. There is something to be in denial about however, and you just offer an ad-hominem right out of the gate, plus the statement that phones failing when they cease to be "supported" is fine and normal; but somehow not planned, even predictable obsolescence. It's a shift from owning things that either break or last, to a constant churn, enforced by software where the hardware can't be made bad enough. Apple is hardly alone in this, but Apple is in it, for sure.
  - surfpel 6y ago
    > So, how many Apple products Apple said could not be repaired have you repaired? Ok so... A) Non-repairability is not planned obsolescence. At Apple’s scale, they can’t repair every breakage with the quality people expect, so they opt to replace. B) You’re making huge accusations, but it’s seriously unsubstantiated. I will say that I agree that products should last longer, but that’s a technical challenge not a financial decision.