22 ms·

Imagine if Microsoft did this on PCs. a) prohibiting the installation of non-windows store software (sideloading) and b) insisting that all purchases done via a

Imagine if Microsoft did this on PCs. a) prohibiting the installation of non-windows store software (sideloading) and b) insisting that all purchases done via apps give them a 30% cut. I think this is a ridiculous practice on the behalf of Apple.

KMnO4 6y ago
Doesn’t Windows on ARM only allow apps through the Windows Store?
- opencl 6y ago
  No, you can install software outside the store. Either native ARM (though there isn't much available) or emulated x86 code. It does default to "S mode" which prevents installing apps from outside the store but it's just a settings toggle away like Android's "Unknown Sources".
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  That was "Windows RT" (not to be confused with "WinRT").
rvz 6y ago
Even worse. Imagine if the World Wide Web was not open and you had to go through a closed WWW like AOL and websites were "under review" by the providers and would take a 30% cut of your revenues or clicks on your web app or subscription service and websites require going only through that provider. Thank goodness that wasn't the case.
- Seirdy 6y ago
  It could be the case if AMP grows dominant; given the market share of Google Search, it could be enough to create a controlled (er, "curated") web in a similar spirit.
  - ultrarunner 6y ago
    We're closer than we have been in a long time to something like Google deciding to license Blink or Chromium. There are some good reasons that couldn't happen (yet), but what a world that would be.
    - sebmellen 6y ago
      I can't picture this happening due to the sheer size of the Electron ecosystem. Do you think there's any precedent for this?
      - social_quotient 6y ago
        John Deere saying you can’t work on your own tractor? 50 years ago this would have been an insane proposition. I know it’s not the same but something feels similar to me.
      - colejohnson66 6y ago
        Is there any reason Electron couldn’t switch to, say, Firefox?
        sebmellen 6y ago
        Electron is really 100% Chromium. I can't see them switching from it (though it would be nice to have a Firefox-base version).
        jw14 6y ago
        A Firefox based Electron was tried: Positron. It was scrapped for some reason or other (lack of traction?): https://github.com/mozilla/positron https://github.com/mozilla/positron
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      They can't retract the open source license that already exists for Chromium. Maybe Google could start adding proprietary features to Chrome and close-source those bits, but the code that's out there is already out there.
- dpkonofa 6y ago
  That's a little silly as an example because AOL was exactly like this back in the day and had curated channels. You could still access external sites if AOL was your ISP as well but anything inside of the AOL application was reviewed by AOL. Also, the web is not even a great analogy period since it wasn't created by a private company. Apple created their phones, their App Store, they maintain it, and they provide the infrastructure for it. That's nothing like the internet.
  - colesantiago 6y ago
    Hence the word 'Imagine', I guess GP mean't walled garden but that's the point. Also, GP didn't say anything about the internet.
  - WWLink 6y ago
    Yeah but this is as if you bought an AOL computer that did nothing but AOL. And AOL had absolute authority on what you could do on your computer. I know, I know, people who bought iPhones knew what they were buying into.
    - dwheeler 6y ago
      Actually, I don't think most people who buy iPhones have any idea what they're buying into. They're buying a phone. In some cases, they're buying an iPhone to access things like FaceTime. if they want to communicate with their friends then they must buy an iPhone.
      - kqvamxurcagg 6y ago
        Apple leverages user ignorance to create their demand-side app store monopoly. That's the entire point.
        scarface74 6y ago
        Right, because it couldn’t possibly be that most people don’t care about side loading apps?
- paulnechifor 6y ago
  Even worse. Imagine millions of people knowing this and still buying these inferior phones.
  - nicebill8 6y ago
    A more stable, frequently updated platform with decent hardware offerings and the fastest chips on the market does not amount to inferior phones.
    - paulnechifor 6y ago
      I'm not sure about any of that. Android phones are ridiculously diverse, from overpowered "gaming" behemoths to tiny ones like Unihertz Jelly. But in the end I guess what matters more is whether you want a single person to control what you view or not, like when they banned James Joyce because of an illustration of a man skinny dipping.
      - squeaky-clean 6y ago
        Your comment doesn't really disagree with theirs. One major reason Android feels so fragmented is all the different devices. My last Android phone was an LG G3 (yeah I know I'm out of date nowadays). It had a really good camera (for the time) with a fast laser autofocus. Turns out no app used the proper APIs to take advantage of laser autofocus. If I wanted to take a picture with an app, I would have to take a picture with the camera app, and then upload it. Except certain apps like Instagram didn't allow you to upload photos from your camera roll, so any instagram photo I took was not in focus. In my opinion iOS was far better when there were fewer different devices released every year, but it's still better today than Android.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Well, could it possibly be that people really don’t care about side loading apps?
  - dividedbyzero 6y ago
    Android phones don't suffer from this as much, though weird rejections from the Play Store do happen not infrequently, if HN front page can be trusted, and getting non-technical people to be comfortable with sideloading must be a huge security liability. Getting updates for the lifetime of my device and especially security patches, finding a phone with a decent user experience not marred by badly implemented manufacturer shells, that's still really hard though. Those have been significant problems for me with my Android phones, much more significant than not being able to sideload. I'd say it's not so black and white, both platforms have grave problems, with no immediate fix in sight.
- mlacks 6y ago
  I think you're onto something. Why is it that anyone can write a program for PC, but we failed to prevent a system from rising up that wouldn't let us do the same on mobile.
  - 205guy 6y ago
    I was thinking the same at first, then I realized: if Microsoft had created a secure OS, that worked quite well all the time, that did what people wanted, and that didn't NEED 3rd party anti-virus software just to be secure, then I wouldn't mind buying all my Windows software through the Windows app store for $1-$20 with 30% going to Microsoft. But they didn't, they had a crap platform and we had to rely on sketchy shareware apps from virus-laden uncertified 3rd party websites, and the anti-virus software became indistinguishable from the ransom-ware it was supposed to prevent, and the platform was so hard to develop for that most commercial software cost $50-$500, so it got pirated, and on and on. Instead, Apple invented a new computing platform and a new model to pay for it, it just worked, people were willing to pay for that, and we liked it.
- bishalb 6y ago
  You are trying to divert the topic to something that's likely never going to happen from something that gets HNers triggered all the time, even if it's just remotely related to Microsoft.
s3r3nity 6y ago
Imagine if Microsoft only had 14% global market share.* [*] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share
- thrwyoilarticle 6y ago
  Global market shares are the concern of global governments
- pier25 6y ago
  Why is market share relevant? Also, Apple has a much bigger market share in the US simply because most of the world cannot afford an iPhone.
  - pajeetLord666 6y ago
    Oh, but the rest of the world can afford a crapple phone just fine. They just are not gullible enough to fall for the iToddler toy phone meme.
  - __d 6y ago
    Because the only legal avenue to challenge Apple's policies is anti-trust law, and because Apple doesn't have a monopoly, it's hard to argue against them on anti-trust grounds.
- reissbaker 6y ago
  iOS market share in the US — which certainly is something US courts would care about — is nearly 60%. https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america/ https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta...
  - pneill 6y ago
    60% != 100%. There is consumer choice.
    - 6y ago
seniorsassycat 6y ago
Web browsers are apps, e-commerce is in-app purchasing. App stores get 30% of Amazon. Come to think of it, why are web browsers excluded from the in-app fee?
- dpkonofa 6y ago
  Because the rules of the App Store say that the apps that get charged the fee are those who rely on the purchases or payments as their primary function. Browsers have a different primary function.
  - Joeri 6y ago
    So why don’t I owe 30% to apple when I receive a payment through a qr code shown by my banking app? Let’s be honest here, the rules of the app store are arbitrary and designed to extract the maximum amount of revenue from the ecosystem, within the limits of what apple thought people would put it with. Turns out they may have miscalculated.
    - onemiketwelve 6y ago
      Easy now, don't give them any ideas
    - dpkonofa 6y ago
      Because that's not a "digital good" and you're not buying something from your bank. It's the same reason you don't pay Apple 30% to buy something with Best Buy's app or Target's app. The rules are not arbitrary. They're set up so that if an app is using Apple's store and infrastructure, it has to pay Apple for it and it can't circumvent that infrastructure. The alternative is a clusterfuck of payment systems and transactions with Apple as the middleman with no way to ensure any kind of experience for the customer.
- blisseyGo 6y ago
  The 30% cut only applies to in-app content. Doesn't apply to physical goods or services delivered via the app. So things like UBER, AirBnb, SkipTheDishes etc are not part of it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
eggbrain 6y ago
I mean, couldn't we just replace Microsoft->Sony and PC->Playstation and the argument falls apart a bit? > Imagine if Sony did this on Playstation. a) prohibiting the installation of non-PlayStation games and b) insisting that all purchases done via their store give them a 30% cut. Many platforms are like this -- and many also have the majority marketshare. Is this a call to redefine what platforms can and cannot control?
- sedatk 6y ago
  Arguably, Microsoft also does it on Xbox.
  - qayxc 6y ago
    AFAIK in-app purchases are no problem on XBox. You can buy your Fortnite V-Bucks anywhere and can use them on XBox just fine, no?
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  There is a distinction between a general purpose computing device and a gaming console. I depend on my computer for important aspects of my life, not just entertainment. I perceive capricious behaviour like this ad a threat to my liberty and well-being.
  - viro 6y ago
    "There is a distinction between a general purpose computing device and a gaming console." Whats the distinction? gaming console use x86 now. is it the keyboard support? the gpu ?
    - jchw 6y ago
      What its marketed as and who it is aimed at. Nobody ever bought a nintendo NES to use as a personal computing device, it wasn’t that they looked at the specsheet and it had a 6502. There were in fact PCs with 6502s and powerpcs as well. In any case, I still think video game consoles are stupid but they at least have some incentives to do a walled garden type thing (anti-cheat, anti-piracy) and lacking general code execution they actually stand a reasonable chance of accomplishing that (versus iOS where I am currently typing on a jailbroken device.)
recklesstodd 6y ago
Valve is anticipating such move in a near future and investing in gaming on Linux.
- immigrantsheep 6y ago
  AFAIK Valve already tried the whole Linux as a gaming platform thing and gave up completely a few months ago.
  - brnt 6y ago
    Where did you get this silly idea? Linux gaming has never been stronger than now, thanks to Steam's Proton.
    - dvtrn 6y ago
      Where did you get this silly idea? Valve's decision to no longer support Ubuntu as a first-class distribution, a year ago, probably. Though that's just one distribution, not Linux as a whole. https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/06/steam-announces-that-its-dropping-support-for-ubuntu https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/06/steam-announces-that-its...
      - kllrnohj 6y ago
        Worth noting that that's obsolete. Canonical has since walked back on 32-bit apps being available in Ubuntu, and as a result Valve as brought Steam back to Ubuntu: https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/06/valve-confrims-steam-linux-ubuntu-support https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/06/valve-confrims-steam-lin...
        dvtrn 6y ago
        Oh would you look at that! Thanks for the correction
    - paxys 6y ago
      The fact that they are starting to put resources behind Proton instead of Ubuntu/SteamOS is in fact a clear indication that they have given up on games written natively for Linux.
lopmotr 6y ago
It's only ridiculous if it's not good for their business. Maybe Microsoft is the one being ridiculous by leaving money on the table and not having a closed ecosystem. If your complaint is that it's bad for the app developers or users, then that's different, and maybe deserves criticism but not ridicule.
- bencollier49 6y ago
  The last time MS pulled this they got whipped for it. That's why they're reticent.
m0xte 6y ago
They would if they could get away with it. Look at telemetry and the general disrespect for users’ privacy preferences.
Guest42 6y ago
They have been shifting that direction with Windows 10 home edition, their "app" store, and reduced support of desktop development. It's a matter of time.
pneill 6y ago
Poor analogy. iOS does not have the market dominance that Windows/Microsoft has. In this case, iPhones represent about 15% of the global smartphone sales and I think that the OS (in the US) is a 60/40 iOS vs android split. There is a viable market. Developers, unwilling to pay the Apple fee, can switch to Android. If more apps are available on Android, that will shift the users away from iOS to Android. When I see folks complain about this, I like ask "what do you think is a reasonable fee for Apple to charge?" Zero is not a realistic answer as Apple does incur costs to run the app store. Moreover, they're entitled to make a profit off the marketplace they created and support. So what's a reasonable percentage?
- kwanbix 6y ago
  Ten % Is more than reasonable. But the point here is that not o my do they charge 30%, they forbide you from selling from outside their store.
  - pneill 6y ago
    Ok, 10% is your number. So after your app has been on the store for more than a year, Apple's fee falls to 15%. So you're arguing that the 5% difference is unreasonable. Let's put that % difference into perspective. Say you have an annual fee of $10. The first year, your users pay Apple $3 (you make $7), but after that for every user that subscribes you only pay $1.50 (you make $8.50). You're saying that Apples should only charge $1. You're arguing that fifty cents is the difference between life and death of your business? Really?
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      > So after your app has been on the store for more than a year, Apple's fee falls to 15%. That's not how it works. I doubt Epic would be making much complaint for 15% (since the app has been out more than a year). They suggest 12% after all. The 15% is for subscriptions and nothing else. And it's on a per-user basis.
      - 6y ago
nojs 6y ago
I fear that macOS is going this way. The amount of hoops to jump through to run third party apps seems to grow with every release.
- blkhp19 6y ago
  You literally just right click and open. Hardly a hoop.
  - nojs 6y ago
    Right, until the app needs to access a file, change a setting or do any number of other things.
    - blkhp19 6y ago
      Is clicking allow when it asks to access your documents folder that crazy? Is that really a hoop not worth jumping through? Those prompts show up after a clean install and on occasion when you install a new app. Those same prompts prevent you from giving ransomware access to your whole FS.
      - skuthus 6y ago
        How about when things move to Apple Silicon? Will they then not be just as locked down as iOS iPadOS? Subjected to the same limited app store?
        zapzupnz 6y ago
        No, why would you think that? Just because they’re on the same processor architecture? That’s a stretch. Macs are Macs whether they have Apple Silicon, Intel, or PowerPC inside; they remain the proverbial truck to iOS’ sleek car.
      - ptx 6y ago
        You seem to be arguing against each other without being in disagreement. They pointed out that there is a growing number of hoops and you replied, essentially, that the first hoop is fine and the second hoop is justified. Perhaps the hoops are fine and reasonable. That doesn't change the fact that hoops are being added.
2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
>Imagine if Microsoft did this on PCs. Just switch to a competitor! Go-to Linux or Mac. All good, no antitrust here. /s
fock 6y ago
imagine if you favourite drug dealer was part of an organisation, and had to pay his cut... oh wait...
Spooky23 6y ago
Try playing Minecraft between your non-Windows 10 PC and anything mobile, or between anything and a Mac.
- bencollier49 6y ago
  My kids both have Rasberry Pis running Gentoo and we play together, with me on a Mac (my last Mac, 2015 was the peak) via our shared server in the study.
  - Spooky23 6y ago
    My kids and their friends have PS4s, Switches, iOS, Mac, PC. There’s bullshit with each platform. PS4 can play, but not with servers, Mac can do Java, nothing else can but PC, etc.
- skuthus 6y ago
  Java edition will work on all x86 machines
  - oneplane 6y ago
    Try to play on ARM. Or use the non-Java version on something that isn't Windows. There are always arguments to be found, but most of them are tangential to the matter at hand.
    - houreaction 6y ago
      why doesn't it work on ARM? problems with lwjgl?
gameswithgo 6y ago
They have been working towards just that, and may manage it eventually.
dexen 6y ago
This is also a security vulnerability: one decision by Apple, or by a court of law in a far-away country, and an app is gone from your phone. You lose access to the data held by this app. Easy, reliably DoS -- and the user has no means of fixing this vulnerability, other than rooting the phone and hacking around. Which is made ever less feasible.
- tornato7 6y ago
  In this case, was the Fortnight app removed from phones or was it just removed for new downloads from the app store? It sounds like the latter but the article is unclear.
  - LordAtlas 6y ago
    The article actually is clear: "As of right now, those who have already downloaded Fortnite on iOS are still able to access the game; only new downloads are disabled as a result of Apple pulling the game from the App Store."
- tommymachine 6y ago
  You are confused. Apple never removes apps from users' devices simply because the new version did not pass review. Removing an app from the App Store, and removing it from user's devices are two very different things. When any app is removed in this fashion, all users who already have the app still have access to everything they had access to before. The app just isn't listed on the App Store for new downloads.
kqvamxurcagg 6y ago
Sorry to hijack but an outrageous example from Google: Chrome silently & automatically detects when you login to a google website and uses this to log you into Chrome with that same account. They then hide the option to disable this in advanced settings. They are now trying to create a monopoly in the browser and steal additional data.
rogerdickey 6y ago
Does Apple still sell phones at a loss? If so they are subsidizing eyeballs for app devs and need to somehow get paid back for this.
- dontblink 6y ago
  I was unaware they ever did? Source?
- noizejoy 6y ago
  Where did you get the idea that Apple is selling iPhones at a loss?
- V99 6y ago
  Apple has never sold phones at a loss.
- qeternity 6y ago
  No, they never have. iPhone hardware has basically been AAPL’s biggest cash cow with margins around 50%
- skuthus 6y ago
  iPhone is one of the highest margin products in apples ecosystem
- blihp 6y ago
  You're confusing carrier subsidies with Apple selling at a loss... Apple never sold phones at a loss, the carriers did. Apple always gets paid.
Krasnol 6y ago
I love that it needed a gaming company to stir up a discussion about all this and even put your comment on top on HN where it's usually the praise for this closed environment which ends up being upvoted! 2020 is really an interesting year.
boundaries99 6y ago
Apple only has 24% share of devices Microsoft ruled desktops If this were Target or Walmart, people wouldn’t be beefing at how they choose to stick their shelves “Let’s equivocate over how this should feel different!” Let’s stop ogling corporations altogether maybe. It’s all the paying attention to how they might be screwing you specifically in the context of money markets distracting from how the current admin is giving trillions away to buddies to manipulate markets in the old way you quit paying attention to with plain old corruption. Too boring! Let’s wax poetic about Apples slight to social correctness!
beardedscotsman 6y ago
This is exactly what Microsoft did with the first surface tablet running arm. The original plan was to go all in, but the backlash and support the. Was so bad they dropped the effort going into Windows 10.
mrkramer 6y ago
Apple says they do it because of security reasons. Windows' open and liberal way of doing things made it a fertile ground for millions of viruses. But I still think every OS should be open for developing and distribution of software no matter how serious malware threat is.
- Neil44 6y ago
  I think thats disengenuous by Apple. Security gets you 5%, maybe 10. Not 30%. Let's face it their service to developers isn't exactly first rate.
- tornato7 6y ago
  They say that, but this removal has exactly nil to do with security. Apple was getting $300m / year in revenue from this one app. Does it really cost that much to check this app for viruses? I don't think they'll be winning in court with this argument.
- dzonga 6y ago
  windows, is based because of the underlying os system fundamentals. once you've sandboxing in place. i.e apps are restricted to user level. then malware becomes something of the past.
  - mrkramer 6y ago
    Most of the modern Windows malware detects sandbox and never activates or some even escape sandbox environment.
beshrkayali 6y ago
As much as I know people who use windows would hate it, there’s really nothing preventing them from doing so morally. It’s their software, they steer it as they see fit. It would end up pushing a lot of people into Linux probably, or inspire the rise of something new.
newbie578 6y ago
But you don't understand, I want my uSeR eXpErIeNcE at the cost of choice and freedom. And your point is completely true, if Microsoft did this, all hell would break loose.
Entalpi 6y ago
Except Microsoft did not create and sol you the hardware?
- cecja 6y ago
  they did.
jay_kyburz 6y ago
Microsoft does do it on the Xbox.
simonh 6y ago
Microsoft already does exactly this on console. When will we see the Google Stadia game streaming app on the XBOX? Does Microsoft really not take a cut of VBucks bought on the Microsoft store? This is just three big corporations fighting over their respective slices of the pie, if you think any of this is being said or done for your benefit I’m sure Epic has a plentiful supply of really tasty Koolaid for you. But no pie, sorry.
- ngngngng 6y ago
  > Microsoft already does exactly this on console. I never thought about it like this. It could be viewed differently because the Xbox is a game console and the iphone is a general handheld computer, but perhaps it should be illegal to restrict users installing software on your device by any means they choose, though there's no reason for you to support those means.
  - bravoetch 6y ago
    Microsoft was dragged through court for it's aggressive browser install on windows back in the day. Now everybody is getting rich off apple stock and there's not much incentive to hold them to the same standard. They even started with a monopolistic policy - if it's duplicating functionality they'll remove it from the app store. People keep buying iPhones because they don't care.
    - mehrdada 6y ago
      The difference is market share. There was no effective alternative to Windows ecosystem at the time (arguably there still isn’t). The issue was also broader than just bundling the browsers: there were contracts with OEMs that effectively entrenched Windows as the only OS they were practically shipping (not dissimilar to Android contracts with the OEMs). Last time I checked most people don’t even have iPhones.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        Except that nobody is alleging they have a monopoly on phones. The market of concern is the app store. Which they obviously have a monopoly on because a customer with an iPhone can't use any other store, and a developer with customers who have iPhones can't distribute to them using any other store. It's like claiming that nobody can have a monopoly on electric car charging stations because the customer could just buy a gasoline powered car and electric cars don't even have majority market share. It's still a monopoly. It's a monopoly on charging stations, not a monopoly on cars.
pixelrevision 6y ago
Epic does charge a percentage of sales for use of the unreal engine....
- JiNCMG 6y ago
  Plus if your game is sold in their store you have to play a percentage as well.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
IAmGraydon 6y ago
The difference is that if you own an Apple device, you knew you were buying into a walled garden ecosystem. Windows was not sold that way, so for them to cut off unapproved apps would be a bait and switch.
- paulgb 6y ago
  If you're a Hacker News reader you do, but does the general population? The iPad Pro has been promoted as a laptop replacement, for example.
  - austhrow743 6y ago
    They might not be familiar with the term walled garden but I've definitely heard the non-tech savvy talk about iPhone being more restrictive. Even if they don't though, that's a marketing offence not a product one. If there's any government interference needed it's in the form of a mandatory "walled garden" label on the box.
adtac 6y ago
Microsoft Surface RT did exactly that.
addled 6y ago
This got me wondering... What happens when the price of an in-app purchase is negative? Does Apple pay the developer 30%?
- tommymachine 6y ago
  they don't have a price tier that goes negative
  - addled 6y ago
    Ah, thanks for clarifying, that makes sense.
copperx 6y ago
The only reason Microsoft and Apple don't do that in their desktop OSs is because they were products of their generation. They will probably will never have to do it anyways, because the marketshare of mobile will continue to grow as desktops slowly die. Eventually all major platforms will take a share.
inopinatus 6y ago
This misrepresents and skips over Apple’s great offence, which is why a bunch of others who don’t know the half of it are piping up with their comparisons to the PlayStation store etc. The most egregious part of Apple’s rules, and the reason that online service providers have a special loathing, is that apps are disallowed from linking to, advertising, or even mentioning that it is possible to sign up/subscribe/buy/rent outside of the app. This is why you won’t see MMOs like FFXIV through the App Store, and is why you can’t sign up for Netflix, or even follow a link to their sign-up, from within the app.
- dilandau 6y ago
  They would like to own every step of the process, and people actually put in the time to build apps on their platform and people line up to buy their hardware. Wake me up from this horrible nightmare.
- bob33212 6y ago
  10 years from now people will think it was crazy that you couldn't publish a totally legit app just because you had a payment button on the app. It would be one thing for APPL to charge a low fee for listing an app to cover their costs of hosting and review, but this is 100% about squeezing everyone, because they can
  - tommymachine 6y ago
    hosting & review are just the beginning. They also maintain substantial support around the App Store. So their costs will scale with number of downloads, usage, purchases, etc, which is why their fee scales with it too.
    - krrrh 6y ago
      The paid apps also subsidize the support and distribution of free apps. This makes the App Store and platform more attractive and helps developers in the end OTOH, it is pretty wild that Facebook has never paid a dime to Apple for software distribution, aside from $99 a year.
causality0 6y ago
I'm pretty sure that's the fantasy every UWP and Microsoft Store executive jerks off to.
cvandebroek 6y ago
Imagine Epic doing the same, with a 20% cut through the Epic Game Store, for PC games. And to ensure they are the Gatekeeper, they pay guarantees to Publishers/Developers to exclude retail and other platforms. Oopps... They do exactly this. This is not to defend Apple nor Google. But Epic is by no means better, just not as big as A/G.
- kayamon 6y ago
  But you don't _have_ to be on the Epic Game Store to sell a PC game. You can be on Steam. Or itch.io. Or make your own store. Or just host it on your own website.
a-p-o 6y ago
I recently learned Google Chrome does something similar with browser extensions[1]. You cannot[2] install .crx files that have not been published to the Chrome Web Store. [1] https://blog.chromium.org/2015/05/continuing-to-protect-chrome-users-from.html https://blog.chromium.org/2015/05/continuing-to-protect-chro... [2] Unless you're using Linux or the enterprise version of the browser.
- m4rtink 6y ago
  Sadly Mozilla seems to do something similar with Firefox, likely as another round of copying the most stupid Chrome decisions. The recently released new "stable" version of Firefox for Android that supports just 9 specific extensions at the moment might be actually even worse than Chrome.
api 6y ago
Tech-savvy and power users would hate it. It would represent both a loss of freedom and a loss of capability. Non-technical users would love it. It would offer them an environment much more secure and free of malware where they can install applications without fretting about getting the latest CryptoLocker type trojan. Finding Windows software on the open web is kind of like driving around the ghetto and cruising for drugs. Are you installing from firefox.com or fᎥrefοⅹ.com? Apple tries to walk the line and keep both these user groups happy. It's hard. So far they've handled it by designing MacOS more for the first group (it has an App Store and controls but they're optional) and iOS/iPadOS more for the second group.
ekianjo 6y ago
Epic is famous for buying exclusive rights for games to make people play on their store. I hope they like eating their own food now.
- EugeneOZ 6y ago
  Heh, game publishers are responsible for their decisions, not some "cruel" Epic who seduced little foolish publishers.
  - ekianjo 6y ago
    Epic is not a virtuous actor since it basically promotes exclusivity - we have seen that for a number of games, and more recently with Rocket League. Steam, for example, does no do that: you can sell your game on Steam and outside of Steam at the same time and Valve will have no problem with it.
    - EugeneOZ 6y ago
      Epic store is better because they're less greedy. I purchase new games in Epic just because I know that this way game developers will get a bigger percent of the money I pay.
- partiallypro 6y ago
  That's not right...but imagine that...but every app and mobile game in the world. That's Apple. It's different.
tommymachine 6y ago
Beyond the obvious difference that Microsoft has a monopoly marketshare on PCs, and Apple has a minority marketshare of mobile devices, mobile devices are categorically different because they are always with you. This generates a whole different slew of concerns around privacy and apps being able to access your information with or without your consent. By maintaining control over which apps can be sold to end users via the App Store, Apple is able to offer a layer of control over how these apps can access (or not) your personal data. There's nothing ridiculous about wanting to maintain data privacy/security on mobile devices, and that being of a higher priority with mobile than with a PC.
- harikb 6y ago
  That is the same argument that could have been applied to any one of the controversial tech monopoly issue before Wouldn’t MS want to secure its laptops by bundling a browser? Wouldn’t I have equally private and financial documents on a PC? location/gps can’t be that much of a differentiator. It is monopoly bullying whoever they can. They just happen to not directly affect us, unless we happen to be a developer making lot of money or compete with apple in any way.
  - tommymachine 6y ago
    Kids take their phones with them everywhere. Location tracking is a huge differentiator between mobile/pc. Front & rear facing cameras are another. I am an app developer for iOS. It does directly affect me.
    - houreaction 6y ago
      I don't know what to say to you that could possibly convince you otherwise. but if you actually believe this you are a complete tool. You don't have to vet every single program on a computer to prevent the use of peripherals like GPS and cameras. you could just make a feature of the operating system that lets the user control what programs have access to peripherals and when. And another thing: if your argument is that people are too dumb to know how to use a computer, then they shouldn't rely on computers at all! children shouldn't even be using smartphones in the first place. but I suppose that's a separate argument entirely.

KMnO4 6y ago

Doesn’t Windows on ARM only allow apps through the Windows Store?

opencl 6y ago
No, you can install software outside the store. Either native ARM (though there isn't much available) or emulated x86 code. It does default to "S mode" which prevents installing apps from outside the store but it's just a settings toggle away like Android's "Unknown Sources".
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
That was "Windows RT" (not to be confused with "WinRT").

rvz 6y ago

Even worse. Imagine if the World Wide Web was not open and you had to go through a closed WWW like AOL and websites were "under review" by the providers and would take a 30% cut of your revenues or clicks on your web app or subscription service and websites require going only through that provider. Thank goodness that wasn't the case.

Seirdy 6y ago
It could be the case if AMP grows dominant; given the market share of Google Search, it could be enough to create a controlled (er, "curated") web in a similar spirit.
- ultrarunner 6y ago
  We're closer than we have been in a long time to something like Google deciding to license Blink or Chromium. There are some good reasons that couldn't happen (yet), but what a world that would be.
  - sebmellen 6y ago
    I can't picture this happening due to the sheer size of the Electron ecosystem. Do you think there's any precedent for this?
    - social_quotient 6y ago
      John Deere saying you can’t work on your own tractor? 50 years ago this would have been an insane proposition. I know it’s not the same but something feels similar to me.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      Is there any reason Electron couldn’t switch to, say, Firefox?
      - sebmellen 6y ago
        Electron is really 100% Chromium. I can't see them switching from it (though it would be nice to have a Firefox-base version).
        jw14 6y ago
        A Firefox based Electron was tried: Positron. It was scrapped for some reason or other (lack of traction?): https://github.com/mozilla/positron https://github.com/mozilla/positron
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    They can't retract the open source license that already exists for Chromium. Maybe Google could start adding proprietary features to Chrome and close-source those bits, but the code that's out there is already out there.
dpkonofa 6y ago
That's a little silly as an example because AOL was exactly like this back in the day and had curated channels. You could still access external sites if AOL was your ISP as well but anything inside of the AOL application was reviewed by AOL. Also, the web is not even a great analogy period since it wasn't created by a private company. Apple created their phones, their App Store, they maintain it, and they provide the infrastructure for it. That's nothing like the internet.
- colesantiago 6y ago
  Hence the word 'Imagine', I guess GP mean't walled garden but that's the point. Also, GP didn't say anything about the internet.
- WWLink 6y ago
  Yeah but this is as if you bought an AOL computer that did nothing but AOL. And AOL had absolute authority on what you could do on your computer. I know, I know, people who bought iPhones knew what they were buying into.
  - dwheeler 6y ago
    Actually, I don't think most people who buy iPhones have any idea what they're buying into. They're buying a phone. In some cases, they're buying an iPhone to access things like FaceTime. if they want to communicate with their friends then they must buy an iPhone.
    - kqvamxurcagg 6y ago
      Apple leverages user ignorance to create their demand-side app store monopoly. That's the entire point.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        Right, because it couldn’t possibly be that most people don’t care about side loading apps?
paulnechifor 6y ago
Even worse. Imagine millions of people knowing this and still buying these inferior phones.
- nicebill8 6y ago
  A more stable, frequently updated platform with decent hardware offerings and the fastest chips on the market does not amount to inferior phones.
  - paulnechifor 6y ago
    I'm not sure about any of that. Android phones are ridiculously diverse, from overpowered "gaming" behemoths to tiny ones like Unihertz Jelly. But in the end I guess what matters more is whether you want a single person to control what you view or not, like when they banned James Joyce because of an illustration of a man skinny dipping.
    - squeaky-clean 6y ago
      Your comment doesn't really disagree with theirs. One major reason Android feels so fragmented is all the different devices. My last Android phone was an LG G3 (yeah I know I'm out of date nowadays). It had a really good camera (for the time) with a fast laser autofocus. Turns out no app used the proper APIs to take advantage of laser autofocus. If I wanted to take a picture with an app, I would have to take a picture with the camera app, and then upload it. Except certain apps like Instagram didn't allow you to upload photos from your camera roll, so any instagram photo I took was not in focus. In my opinion iOS was far better when there were fewer different devices released every year, but it's still better today than Android.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Well, could it possibly be that people really don’t care about side loading apps?
- dividedbyzero 6y ago
  Android phones don't suffer from this as much, though weird rejections from the Play Store do happen not infrequently, if HN front page can be trusted, and getting non-technical people to be comfortable with sideloading must be a huge security liability. Getting updates for the lifetime of my device and especially security patches, finding a phone with a decent user experience not marred by badly implemented manufacturer shells, that's still really hard though. Those have been significant problems for me with my Android phones, much more significant than not being able to sideload. I'd say it's not so black and white, both platforms have grave problems, with no immediate fix in sight.
mlacks 6y ago
I think you're onto something. Why is it that anyone can write a program for PC, but we failed to prevent a system from rising up that wouldn't let us do the same on mobile.
- 205guy 6y ago
  I was thinking the same at first, then I realized: if Microsoft had created a secure OS, that worked quite well all the time, that did what people wanted, and that didn't NEED 3rd party anti-virus software just to be secure, then I wouldn't mind buying all my Windows software through the Windows app store for $1-$20 with 30% going to Microsoft. But they didn't, they had a crap platform and we had to rely on sketchy shareware apps from virus-laden uncertified 3rd party websites, and the anti-virus software became indistinguishable from the ransom-ware it was supposed to prevent, and the platform was so hard to develop for that most commercial software cost $50-$500, so it got pirated, and on and on. Instead, Apple invented a new computing platform and a new model to pay for it, it just worked, people were willing to pay for that, and we liked it.
bishalb 6y ago
You are trying to divert the topic to something that's likely never going to happen from something that gets HNers triggered all the time, even if it's just remotely related to Microsoft.

s3r3nity 6y ago

Imagine if Microsoft only had 14% global market share.* [*] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share

thrwyoilarticle 6y ago
Global market shares are the concern of global governments
pier25 6y ago
Why is market share relevant? Also, Apple has a much bigger market share in the US simply because most of the world cannot afford an iPhone.
- pajeetLord666 6y ago
  Oh, but the rest of the world can afford a crapple phone just fine. They just are not gullible enough to fall for the iToddler toy phone meme.
- __d 6y ago
  Because the only legal avenue to challenge Apple's policies is anti-trust law, and because Apple doesn't have a monopoly, it's hard to argue against them on anti-trust grounds.
reissbaker 6y ago
iOS market share in the US — which certainly is something US courts would care about — is nearly 60%. https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america/ https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta...
- pneill 6y ago
  60% != 100%. There is consumer choice.
  - 6y ago

seniorsassycat 6y ago

Web browsers are apps, e-commerce is in-app purchasing. App stores get 30% of Amazon. Come to think of it, why are web browsers excluded from the in-app fee?

dpkonofa 6y ago
Because the rules of the App Store say that the apps that get charged the fee are those who rely on the purchases or payments as their primary function. Browsers have a different primary function.
- Joeri 6y ago
  So why don’t I owe 30% to apple when I receive a payment through a qr code shown by my banking app? Let’s be honest here, the rules of the app store are arbitrary and designed to extract the maximum amount of revenue from the ecosystem, within the limits of what apple thought people would put it with. Turns out they may have miscalculated.
  - onemiketwelve 6y ago
    Easy now, don't give them any ideas
  - dpkonofa 6y ago
    Because that's not a "digital good" and you're not buying something from your bank. It's the same reason you don't pay Apple 30% to buy something with Best Buy's app or Target's app. The rules are not arbitrary. They're set up so that if an app is using Apple's store and infrastructure, it has to pay Apple for it and it can't circumvent that infrastructure. The alternative is a clusterfuck of payment systems and transactions with Apple as the middleman with no way to ensure any kind of experience for the customer.
blisseyGo 6y ago
The 30% cut only applies to in-app content. Doesn't apply to physical goods or services delivered via the app. So things like UBER, AirBnb, SkipTheDishes etc are not part of it.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

eggbrain 6y ago

I mean, couldn't we just replace Microsoft->Sony and PC->Playstation and the argument falls apart a bit? > Imagine if Sony did this on Playstation. a) prohibiting the installation of non-PlayStation games and b) insisting that all purchases done via their store give them a 30% cut. Many platforms are like this -- and many also have the majority marketshare. Is this a call to redefine what platforms can and cannot control?

sedatk 6y ago
Arguably, Microsoft also does it on Xbox.
- qayxc 6y ago
  AFAIK in-app purchases are no problem on XBox. You can buy your Fortnite V-Bucks anywhere and can use them on XBox just fine, no?
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
There is a distinction between a general purpose computing device and a gaming console. I depend on my computer for important aspects of my life, not just entertainment. I perceive capricious behaviour like this ad a threat to my liberty and well-being.
- viro 6y ago
  "There is a distinction between a general purpose computing device and a gaming console." Whats the distinction? gaming console use x86 now. is it the keyboard support? the gpu ?
  - jchw 6y ago
    What its marketed as and who it is aimed at. Nobody ever bought a nintendo NES to use as a personal computing device, it wasn’t that they looked at the specsheet and it had a 6502. There were in fact PCs with 6502s and powerpcs as well. In any case, I still think video game consoles are stupid but they at least have some incentives to do a walled garden type thing (anti-cheat, anti-piracy) and lacking general code execution they actually stand a reasonable chance of accomplishing that (versus iOS where I am currently typing on a jailbroken device.)

recklesstodd 6y ago

Valve is anticipating such move in a near future and investing in gaming on Linux.

immigrantsheep 6y ago
AFAIK Valve already tried the whole Linux as a gaming platform thing and gave up completely a few months ago.
- brnt 6y ago
  Where did you get this silly idea? Linux gaming has never been stronger than now, thanks to Steam's Proton.
  - dvtrn 6y ago
    Where did you get this silly idea? Valve's decision to no longer support Ubuntu as a first-class distribution, a year ago, probably. Though that's just one distribution, not Linux as a whole. https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/06/steam-announces-that-its-dropping-support-for-ubuntu https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/06/steam-announces-that-its...
    - kllrnohj 6y ago
      Worth noting that that's obsolete. Canonical has since walked back on 32-bit apps being available in Ubuntu, and as a result Valve as brought Steam back to Ubuntu: https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/06/valve-confrims-steam-linux-ubuntu-support https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/06/valve-confrims-steam-lin...
      - dvtrn 6y ago
        Oh would you look at that! Thanks for the correction
  - paxys 6y ago
    The fact that they are starting to put resources behind Proton instead of Ubuntu/SteamOS is in fact a clear indication that they have given up on games written natively for Linux.

lopmotr 6y ago

It's only ridiculous if it's not good for their business. Maybe Microsoft is the one being ridiculous by leaving money on the table and not having a closed ecosystem. If your complaint is that it's bad for the app developers or users, then that's different, and maybe deserves criticism but not ridicule.

bencollier49 6y ago
The last time MS pulled this they got whipped for it. That's why they're reticent.

m0xte 6y ago

They would if they could get away with it. Look at telemetry and the general disrespect for users’ privacy preferences.

Guest42 6y ago

They have been shifting that direction with Windows 10 home edition, their "app" store, and reduced support of desktop development. It's a matter of time.

pneill 6y ago

Poor analogy. iOS does not have the market dominance that Windows/Microsoft has. In this case, iPhones represent about 15% of the global smartphone sales and I think that the OS (in the US) is a 60/40 iOS vs android split. There is a viable market. Developers, unwilling to pay the Apple fee, can switch to Android. If more apps are available on Android, that will shift the users away from iOS to Android. When I see folks complain about this, I like ask "what do you think is a reasonable fee for Apple to charge?" Zero is not a realistic answer as Apple does incur costs to run the app store. Moreover, they're entitled to make a profit off the marketplace they created and support. So what's a reasonable percentage?

kwanbix 6y ago
Ten % Is more than reasonable. But the point here is that not o my do they charge 30%, they forbide you from selling from outside their store.
- pneill 6y ago
  Ok, 10% is your number. So after your app has been on the store for more than a year, Apple's fee falls to 15%. So you're arguing that the 5% difference is unreasonable. Let's put that % difference into perspective. Say you have an annual fee of $10. The first year, your users pay Apple $3 (you make $7), but after that for every user that subscribes you only pay $1.50 (you make $8.50). You're saying that Apples should only charge $1. You're arguing that fifty cents is the difference between life and death of your business? Really?
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    > So after your app has been on the store for more than a year, Apple's fee falls to 15%. That's not how it works. I doubt Epic would be making much complaint for 15% (since the app has been out more than a year). They suggest 12% after all. The 15% is for subscriptions and nothing else. And it's on a per-user basis.
    - 6y ago

nojs 6y ago

I fear that macOS is going this way. The amount of hoops to jump through to run third party apps seems to grow with every release.

blkhp19 6y ago
You literally just right click and open. Hardly a hoop.
- nojs 6y ago
  Right, until the app needs to access a file, change a setting or do any number of other things.
  - blkhp19 6y ago
    Is clicking allow when it asks to access your documents folder that crazy? Is that really a hoop not worth jumping through? Those prompts show up after a clean install and on occasion when you install a new app. Those same prompts prevent you from giving ransomware access to your whole FS.
    - skuthus 6y ago
      How about when things move to Apple Silicon? Will they then not be just as locked down as iOS iPadOS? Subjected to the same limited app store?
      - zapzupnz 6y ago
        No, why would you think that? Just because they’re on the same processor architecture? That’s a stretch. Macs are Macs whether they have Apple Silicon, Intel, or PowerPC inside; they remain the proverbial truck to iOS’ sleek car.
    - ptx 6y ago
      You seem to be arguing against each other without being in disagreement. They pointed out that there is a growing number of hoops and you replied, essentially, that the first hoop is fine and the second hoop is justified. Perhaps the hoops are fine and reasonable. That doesn't change the fact that hoops are being added.

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago

>Imagine if Microsoft did this on PCs. Just switch to a competitor! Go-to Linux or Mac. All good, no antitrust here. /s

fock 6y ago

imagine if you favourite drug dealer was part of an organisation, and had to pay his cut... oh wait...

Spooky23 6y ago

Try playing Minecraft between your non-Windows 10 PC and anything mobile, or between anything and a Mac.

bencollier49 6y ago
My kids both have Rasberry Pis running Gentoo and we play together, with me on a Mac (my last Mac, 2015 was the peak) via our shared server in the study.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  My kids and their friends have PS4s, Switches, iOS, Mac, PC. There’s bullshit with each platform. PS4 can play, but not with servers, Mac can do Java, nothing else can but PC, etc.
skuthus 6y ago
Java edition will work on all x86 machines
- oneplane 6y ago
  Try to play on ARM. Or use the non-Java version on something that isn't Windows. There are always arguments to be found, but most of them are tangential to the matter at hand.
  - houreaction 6y ago
    why doesn't it work on ARM? problems with lwjgl?

gameswithgo 6y ago

They have been working towards just that, and may manage it eventually.

dexen 6y ago

This is also a security vulnerability: one decision by Apple, or by a court of law in a far-away country, and an app is gone from your phone. You lose access to the data held by this app. Easy, reliably DoS -- and the user has no means of fixing this vulnerability, other than rooting the phone and hacking around. Which is made ever less feasible.

tornato7 6y ago
In this case, was the Fortnight app removed from phones or was it just removed for new downloads from the app store? It sounds like the latter but the article is unclear.
- LordAtlas 6y ago
  The article actually is clear: "As of right now, those who have already downloaded Fortnite on iOS are still able to access the game; only new downloads are disabled as a result of Apple pulling the game from the App Store."
tommymachine 6y ago
You are confused. Apple never removes apps from users' devices simply because the new version did not pass review. Removing an app from the App Store, and removing it from user's devices are two very different things. When any app is removed in this fashion, all users who already have the app still have access to everything they had access to before. The app just isn't listed on the App Store for new downloads.

kqvamxurcagg 6y ago

Sorry to hijack but an outrageous example from Google: Chrome silently & automatically detects when you login to a google website and uses this to log you into Chrome with that same account. They then hide the option to disable this in advanced settings. They are now trying to create a monopoly in the browser and steal additional data.

rogerdickey 6y ago

Does Apple still sell phones at a loss? If so they are subsidizing eyeballs for app devs and need to somehow get paid back for this.

dontblink 6y ago
I was unaware they ever did? Source?
noizejoy 6y ago
Where did you get the idea that Apple is selling iPhones at a loss?
V99 6y ago
Apple has never sold phones at a loss.
qeternity 6y ago
No, they never have. iPhone hardware has basically been AAPL’s biggest cash cow with margins around 50%
skuthus 6y ago
iPhone is one of the highest margin products in apples ecosystem
blihp 6y ago
You're confusing carrier subsidies with Apple selling at a loss... Apple never sold phones at a loss, the carriers did. Apple always gets paid.

Krasnol 6y ago

I love that it needed a gaming company to stir up a discussion about all this and even put your comment on top on HN where it's usually the praise for this closed environment which ends up being upvoted! 2020 is really an interesting year.

boundaries99 6y ago

Apple only has 24% share of devices Microsoft ruled desktops If this were Target or Walmart, people wouldn’t be beefing at how they choose to stick their shelves “Let’s equivocate over how this should feel different!” Let’s stop ogling corporations altogether maybe. It’s all the paying attention to how they might be screwing you specifically in the context of money markets distracting from how the current admin is giving trillions away to buddies to manipulate markets in the old way you quit paying attention to with plain old corruption. Too boring! Let’s wax poetic about Apples slight to social correctness!

beardedscotsman 6y ago

This is exactly what Microsoft did with the first surface tablet running arm. The original plan was to go all in, but the backlash and support the. Was so bad they dropped the effort going into Windows 10.

mrkramer 6y ago

Apple says they do it because of security reasons. Windows' open and liberal way of doing things made it a fertile ground for millions of viruses. But I still think every OS should be open for developing and distribution of software no matter how serious malware threat is.

Neil44 6y ago
I think thats disengenuous by Apple. Security gets you 5%, maybe 10. Not 30%. Let's face it their service to developers isn't exactly first rate.
tornato7 6y ago
They say that, but this removal has exactly nil to do with security. Apple was getting $300m / year in revenue from this one app. Does it really cost that much to check this app for viruses? I don't think they'll be winning in court with this argument.
dzonga 6y ago
windows, is based because of the underlying os system fundamentals. once you've sandboxing in place. i.e apps are restricted to user level. then malware becomes something of the past.
- mrkramer 6y ago
  Most of the modern Windows malware detects sandbox and never activates or some even escape sandbox environment.

beshrkayali 6y ago

As much as I know people who use windows would hate it, there’s really nothing preventing them from doing so morally. It’s their software, they steer it as they see fit. It would end up pushing a lot of people into Linux probably, or inspire the rise of something new.

newbie578 6y ago

But you don't understand, I want my uSeR eXpErIeNcE at the cost of choice and freedom. And your point is completely true, if Microsoft did this, all hell would break loose.

Entalpi 6y ago

Except Microsoft did not create and sol you the hardware?

cecja 6y ago
they did.

jay_kyburz 6y ago

Microsoft does do it on the Xbox.

simonh 6y ago

Microsoft already does exactly this on console. When will we see the Google Stadia game streaming app on the XBOX? Does Microsoft really not take a cut of VBucks bought on the Microsoft store? This is just three big corporations fighting over their respective slices of the pie, if you think any of this is being said or done for your benefit I’m sure Epic has a plentiful supply of really tasty Koolaid for you. But no pie, sorry.

ngngngng 6y ago
> Microsoft already does exactly this on console. I never thought about it like this. It could be viewed differently because the Xbox is a game console and the iphone is a general handheld computer, but perhaps it should be illegal to restrict users installing software on your device by any means they choose, though there's no reason for you to support those means.
- bravoetch 6y ago
  Microsoft was dragged through court for it's aggressive browser install on windows back in the day. Now everybody is getting rich off apple stock and there's not much incentive to hold them to the same standard. They even started with a monopolistic policy - if it's duplicating functionality they'll remove it from the app store. People keep buying iPhones because they don't care.
  - mehrdada 6y ago
    The difference is market share. There was no effective alternative to Windows ecosystem at the time (arguably there still isn’t). The issue was also broader than just bundling the browsers: there were contracts with OEMs that effectively entrenched Windows as the only OS they were practically shipping (not dissimilar to Android contracts with the OEMs). Last time I checked most people don’t even have iPhones.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      Except that nobody is alleging they have a monopoly on phones. The market of concern is the app store. Which they obviously have a monopoly on because a customer with an iPhone can't use any other store, and a developer with customers who have iPhones can't distribute to them using any other store. It's like claiming that nobody can have a monopoly on electric car charging stations because the customer could just buy a gasoline powered car and electric cars don't even have majority market share. It's still a monopoly. It's a monopoly on charging stations, not a monopoly on cars.

pixelrevision 6y ago

Epic does charge a percentage of sales for use of the unreal engine....

JiNCMG 6y ago
Plus if your game is sold in their store you have to play a percentage as well.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

IAmGraydon 6y ago

The difference is that if you own an Apple device, you knew you were buying into a walled garden ecosystem. Windows was not sold that way, so for them to cut off unapproved apps would be a bait and switch.

paulgb 6y ago
If you're a Hacker News reader you do, but does the general population? The iPad Pro has been promoted as a laptop replacement, for example.
- austhrow743 6y ago
  They might not be familiar with the term walled garden but I've definitely heard the non-tech savvy talk about iPhone being more restrictive. Even if they don't though, that's a marketing offence not a product one. If there's any government interference needed it's in the form of a mandatory "walled garden" label on the box.

adtac 6y ago

Microsoft Surface RT did exactly that.

addled 6y ago

This got me wondering... What happens when the price of an in-app purchase is negative? Does Apple pay the developer 30%?

tommymachine 6y ago
they don't have a price tier that goes negative
- addled 6y ago
  Ah, thanks for clarifying, that makes sense.

copperx 6y ago

The only reason Microsoft and Apple don't do that in their desktop OSs is because they were products of their generation. They will probably will never have to do it anyways, because the marketshare of mobile will continue to grow as desktops slowly die. Eventually all major platforms will take a share.

inopinatus 6y ago

This misrepresents and skips over Apple’s great offence, which is why a bunch of others who don’t know the half of it are piping up with their comparisons to the PlayStation store etc. The most egregious part of Apple’s rules, and the reason that online service providers have a special loathing, is that apps are disallowed from linking to, advertising, or even mentioning that it is possible to sign up/subscribe/buy/rent outside of the app. This is why you won’t see MMOs like FFXIV through the App Store, and is why you can’t sign up for Netflix, or even follow a link to their sign-up, from within the app.

dilandau 6y ago
They would like to own every step of the process, and people actually put in the time to build apps on their platform and people line up to buy their hardware. Wake me up from this horrible nightmare.
bob33212 6y ago
10 years from now people will think it was crazy that you couldn't publish a totally legit app just because you had a payment button on the app. It would be one thing for APPL to charge a low fee for listing an app to cover their costs of hosting and review, but this is 100% about squeezing everyone, because they can
- tommymachine 6y ago
  hosting & review are just the beginning. They also maintain substantial support around the App Store. So their costs will scale with number of downloads, usage, purchases, etc, which is why their fee scales with it too.
  - krrrh 6y ago
    The paid apps also subsidize the support and distribution of free apps. This makes the App Store and platform more attractive and helps developers in the end OTOH, it is pretty wild that Facebook has never paid a dime to Apple for software distribution, aside from $99 a year.

causality0 6y ago

I'm pretty sure that's the fantasy every UWP and Microsoft Store executive jerks off to.

cvandebroek 6y ago

Imagine Epic doing the same, with a 20% cut through the Epic Game Store, for PC games. And to ensure they are the Gatekeeper, they pay guarantees to Publishers/Developers to exclude retail and other platforms. Oopps... They do exactly this. This is not to defend Apple nor Google. But Epic is by no means better, just not as big as A/G.

kayamon 6y ago
But you don't _have_ to be on the Epic Game Store to sell a PC game. You can be on Steam. Or itch.io. Or make your own store. Or just host it on your own website.

a-p-o 6y ago

I recently learned Google Chrome does something similar with browser extensions[1]. You cannot[2] install .crx files that have not been published to the Chrome Web Store. [1] https://blog.chromium.org/2015/05/continuing-to-protect-chrome-users-from.html https://blog.chromium.org/2015/05/continuing-to-protect-chro... [2] Unless you're using Linux or the enterprise version of the browser.

m4rtink 6y ago
Sadly Mozilla seems to do something similar with Firefox, likely as another round of copying the most stupid Chrome decisions. The recently released new "stable" version of Firefox for Android that supports just 9 specific extensions at the moment might be actually even worse than Chrome.

api 6y ago

Tech-savvy and power users would hate it. It would represent both a loss of freedom and a loss of capability. Non-technical users would love it. It would offer them an environment much more secure and free of malware where they can install applications without fretting about getting the latest CryptoLocker type trojan. Finding Windows software on the open web is kind of like driving around the ghetto and cruising for drugs. Are you installing from firefox.com or fᎥrefοⅹ.com? Apple tries to walk the line and keep both these user groups happy. It's hard. So far they've handled it by designing MacOS more for the first group (it has an App Store and controls but they're optional) and iOS/iPadOS more for the second group.

ekianjo 6y ago

Epic is famous for buying exclusive rights for games to make people play on their store. I hope they like eating their own food now.

EugeneOZ 6y ago
Heh, game publishers are responsible for their decisions, not some "cruel" Epic who seduced little foolish publishers.
- ekianjo 6y ago
  Epic is not a virtuous actor since it basically promotes exclusivity - we have seen that for a number of games, and more recently with Rocket League. Steam, for example, does no do that: you can sell your game on Steam and outside of Steam at the same time and Valve will have no problem with it.
  - EugeneOZ 6y ago
    Epic store is better because they're less greedy. I purchase new games in Epic just because I know that this way game developers will get a bigger percent of the money I pay.
partiallypro 6y ago
That's not right...but imagine that...but every app and mobile game in the world. That's Apple. It's different.

tommymachine 6y ago

Beyond the obvious difference that Microsoft has a monopoly marketshare on PCs, and Apple has a minority marketshare of mobile devices, mobile devices are categorically different because they are always with you. This generates a whole different slew of concerns around privacy and apps being able to access your information with or without your consent. By maintaining control over which apps can be sold to end users via the App Store, Apple is able to offer a layer of control over how these apps can access (or not) your personal data. There's nothing ridiculous about wanting to maintain data privacy/security on mobile devices, and that being of a higher priority with mobile than with a PC.

harikb 6y ago
That is the same argument that could have been applied to any one of the controversial tech monopoly issue before Wouldn’t MS want to secure its laptops by bundling a browser? Wouldn’t I have equally private and financial documents on a PC? location/gps can’t be that much of a differentiator. It is monopoly bullying whoever they can. They just happen to not directly affect us, unless we happen to be a developer making lot of money or compete with apple in any way.
- tommymachine 6y ago
  Kids take their phones with them everywhere. Location tracking is a huge differentiator between mobile/pc. Front & rear facing cameras are another. I am an app developer for iOS. It does directly affect me.
  - houreaction 6y ago
    I don't know what to say to you that could possibly convince you otherwise. but if you actually believe this you are a complete tool. You don't have to vet every single program on a computer to prevent the use of peripherals like GPS and cameras. you could just make a feature of the operating system that lets the user control what programs have access to peripherals and when. And another thing: if your argument is that people are too dumb to know how to use a computer, then they shouldn't rely on computers at all! children shouldn't even be using smartphones in the first place. but I suppose that's a separate argument entirely.