14 ms·

Good. The sooner a big well-funded company hits this duopoly wall, the better. They will have the resources to fight this, and the outcome will hopefully be p

by blunte 6y ago

Good. The sooner a big well-funded company hits this duopoly wall, the better. They will have the resources to fight this, and the outcome will hopefully be positive for all other developers. Apple and Google are gatekeepers to all mobile devices (practically), but the value they add as gatekeepers is questionable. Certainly there is some value in their delivery (and much lesser so, their security) service; but their fees are not market set (since they are effectively monopolies by device type). If there were actual competitors, their rates would be much lower... around 2-5% probably.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
Another interesting thing this could do is get some momentum behind alternative app stores on Android. They exist but they're not popular. But suppose some of the big names who are tired of Google's fees go together, choose one and put all their apps there instead. That could be enough to get people to start using it. At which point, if it was charging e.g. 5% instead of 30%, many other apps would move there too. It could be the best thing to happen in this space for a while.
- Nuzzerino 6y ago
  If you want the alternative app stores to become more popular like you say, there's no better place to actually name some of them than in the comment you just made.
  - ampdepolymerase 6y ago
    A lot of the 'alternative' app stores are either for piracy or for heavily fringe content (think NSFW) or open source only like F-droid. There are also app stores that are region specific e.g. east asia or Russian-speaking. It is difficult to find international, mainstream general purpose app stores.
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      That's because Google made it so third party app stores can't install apps in the background, auto-upgrade or batch install multiple apps. Users expect to be able to do that, so it is a non-starter to run a commercial app store that Google's already turned into a second class citizen on Android.
      - enos_feedler 6y ago
        I think if there was truly a great alternative store, these features would not block it’s initial success.
        heavyset_go 6y ago
        I think it is impossible to have a "truly great alternative" app store that doesn't include basic functionality that all the competing App Stores have, and Linux has had for decades. Surely other app stores should be able to compete on an even playing field with Google, and be allowed to implement background installation, auto-upgrading and batch installation of apps.
        ampdepolymerase 6y ago
        You can include such features if you are an OEM vendor e.g. Samsung can install their own app store as root and give access to all the above features.
        perryizgr8 6y ago
        They do and it's quite popular. That's the reason fortnite is still avaliable to all Samsung users.
- dnissley 6y ago
  Why bother when you can just install apks directly?
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    Updates
- hiram112 6y ago
  Would it even matter? Google has tied so much critical functionality into their Play API that they could probably just flip a switch, and any app that didn't go through their own store would lose huge amounts of capabilities that Google has locked up. This is a fine - even advantageous - for open stores like F-Droid, as the target market is users who explicitly don't want more Google spyware on their phone. But for large software companies pushing out profitable apps that require Play apis, it wouldn't be feasible.
- tick_tock_tick 6y ago
  Other stores aren't allowed to auto update apps which is a pretty big disadvantage.
hangonhn 6y ago
Dumb question but if there is no collusion between the companies in a duopoly, is it still illegal in the US? Or does it have to be a monopoly to be illegal?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- amiga_500 6y ago
  They both carefully added up all their costs and each independently arrived at a fair 30% fee, even though entire physical supply chains can undercut this percent.
  - asldkjaslkdj 6y ago
    This happens often without direct collusion. You see it commonly in retail. Not sure anyone can outlaw unspoken pricing standoffs like this.
    - amiga_500 6y ago
      They can do it indirectly by breaking them up.
      - asldkjaslkdj 6y ago
        There are already alternative app stores on Android (perhaps most notably, Amazon) and that hasn't impacted their 30%... so what exactly are you expecting?
        RealStickman_ 6y ago
        These alternative App Stores are heavily restricted when it comes to updating or even just installing apps, unless they were installed into the system and the system was patched by the OEM.
- not2b 6y ago
AznHisoka 6y ago
“ Apple and Google are gatekeepers to all mobile devices (practically), but the value they add as gatekeepers is questionable” If you own an app and remove it from all App Stores, you’ll quickly see what value they add. It’s the millions of users who are able to download your product.
- amiga_500 6y ago
  This kind of gatekeeping / rentier activity is not good for economic activity. There are two big players. Amazing coincidence that both charge 30%, isn't it?
  - kmonsen 6y ago
    It's not a coincidence and I have never heard a claim it was. Apple set it at 30% and Google decided not to compete on price. Of course it is legal to set the price of your product based on a competitor.
    - amiga_500 6y ago
      I don't think that is a good situation. It's basically an open duopoly.
      - kmonsen 6y ago
        I actually don't disagree with this, I just said it is not some "coincidence". Apple was first, Google decided to follow. Good for consumers? Probably not.
    - chc 6y ago
      When competitors non-coincidentally decide to set their prices the same arbitrary number, that's called "price fixing" and it is potentially an antitrust issue.
      - amiga_500 6y ago
        Exactly, crazy people are arguing otherwise.
simonh 6y ago
Android has a plethora of app stores, there have always been tons of them. Some phones have shipped with three or more, one from Google, one from the phone manufacturer and one from the network. Then you could add another one from Amazon, etc, etc. Google Play Store won out on Android simply because the multitude of stores was a nightmare for customers. They don’t want multiple stores, they want one store on this phone, that will also be on their next phone. Any ‘monopoly’ wasn’t seized by Google, it was pushed eagerly on them by customers craving consolidation and simplicity. Same for me, I don’t want 5 blasted stores on my iPhone. I want one store and run by someone I trust. The same goes for my Switch too, I’m quite happy for Nintendo to run the store for it. If I don’t like how they run it, I’ll get a PS 5 or XBOX. That’s where the competition is. I have plenty of choices thanks.
- kuon 6y ago
  I can understand that having multiple store can be frustrating for the user, but why not have multiple stores with federation? You have one app implementing the federated store protocol, and you and browse all federated stores. This would allow multiple actors to be present, while keeping things simple for the users.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Who sets the rules for the federated storefront? The store design has a lot to do with which apps get attention.
  - m4rtink 6y ago
    This already exists on desktop Linux - all the deb/RPM/Flatpak repositories each have a standardized metadata format, so you just add a URL to the given repo and the OS will work with it the same way as with the default repositories.
- ISL 6y ago
  I'm really interested in a Debian-quality DFSG Android app store. Debian's apt repository is truly the "app store" that I have chosen to trust.
ckastner 6y ago
> If there were actual competitors, their rates would be much lower... around 2-5% probably. Now that's an interesting (though highly impractical) idea! Imagine both app stores on every phone, providing the exact same service. There's probably no room for price fixing here, because Apple's market share is far smaller than Android's, so Apple would have a significant incentive to reduce the fees (and snatch some of Google's customers. Now add two or three other "app store providers", and things get interesting.
rdiddly 6y ago
Gatekeeping is never about adding value; it's about removing or keeping out [whatever is the opposite of value]. A subtle difference but one to keep in mind.
- Ductapemaster 6y ago
  The fact that you phrase this in such a binary fashion invalidates your point. Decisions are never so one sided. Apple's version of gatekeeping is a balance between providing a user experience that they control and design, and managing/controlling competition.
  - rdiddly 6y ago
    Keeping out bad (in their opinion) UX constitutes the valid part of their gatekeeping because it subtracts negative value, which almost amounts to adding value, but is subtly different, like I said. Keeping out competition is a little harder to justify since it presumably only benefits them. And that does tend to be a temptation for all gatekeepers. But in neither case is value really being added directly, was my only point.
- millzlane 6y ago
  Agree it's a subtle difference. It reminds me of the internet filters at large companies. Keeps out the filth and bad actors at the detriment of being on a truly free internet. That makes sense when it's the companies computers. But not so much when you own the device.
- wombatmobile 6y ago
  Not subtle - a fundamental point. Thank you for putting it so succinctly, rdiddly.
- morei 6y ago
  I'm not sure that's true? Gatekeeping is definitely about keeping out/removing, but that doesn't mean that it has zero or negative value? For example, there's absolutely positive value for users in filtering spam. This tends to be negative value for spam senders, but that doesn't detract from the user value.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
danilocesar 6y ago
Although I agree with you that is good that a big company did hit both walls at the same time, and that might benefit developers in the long term, It doesn't seem fair to compare Google's behavior and Apple's. In the Android world, you still have an option. The option isn't good, you might end up limited, the user have to enable a scary checkbox, but you have an option. If Epic wants, they can create a micro store for android. The same thing they do with PCs today. But you can't do it with an apple device. You have no option, no workaround. That's the monopoly that needs to be destroyed. Even if both companies behaviors are detrimental for developers, Apple is way, way worst. That all said: Sadly, this is not about freedom but about money. My bet is that Apply will lose the restrictions for Epic and they will drop the case.
- millzlane 6y ago
  >My bet is that Apply will lose the restrictions for Epic and they will drop the case. They will have to do it for all dev's. Not just the big house name brands. This is probably going to fundamentally change the landscape. Congress accused the big players including Apple of anti consumer behavior. Not being in control of your own device (Read: not being able to side load software without paying a fee.) will be the downfall of the app store.
tzs 6y ago
> If there were actual competitors, their rates would be much lower... around 2-5% probably Maybe for the more expensive apps, but not for the $0.99 apps that consumers love. For those, 2-5% doesn't come anywhere near covering the credit card processing costs.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  this has a pretty trivial workaround, get in-store credits with a one-time payment and then keep paying the 1$ apps with that like any other store that has a wallet system/micro transactions.
  - m463 6y ago
    I have an electric car charging account with chargepoint. They see how much usage you have and predictively fund your balance periodically. When I first used it, I wouldn't use very much and I would get notices from time to time that $10 was added to my account. When my usage went up, they did $20 for a while, and at one point I hit $50. I think this is reasonable and if it makes the overall cost of a service lower I am all for it.
- nmfisher 6y ago
  Keep in mind that Apple is slugging developers $150 every year just to get their foot in the door of the App Store. That's not an insignificant sum. No developer or company is happy with the way Apple runs the App Store. Their commission is outrageously high, their approval process is slow and often arbitrary, and their tooling is god-awful. We all just put up with it because the iPhone/iPad install base is so large, we don't really have a choice. That being said, I'm very reluctant to demand regulation that interferes with a private company's right to run its own products. After all, maybe Apple's attitude is precisely why their install base is so large. But God I wish there was a competitor that knocked them down the leaderboard a few pegs. Android is great, but the ecosystem is too fractured for the market to force Apple to change.
  - ecf 6y ago
    > No developer or company is happy with the way Apple runs the App Store. The App Store isn’t made with developers in mind. It’s made for the average user. And right now the average user is pretty damn happy with Apple.
zemo 6y ago
> If there were actual competitors, their rates would be much lower... around 2-5% probably. probably not. Visa takes a bigger cut than 2% when you buy a hamburger.
- KptMarchewa 6y ago
  Those fees are fixed at 0.2% in EU.
  - jen20 6y ago
    Do you have a source for this?
    - kevindong 6y ago
      > As a general rule, the Regulation will cap interchange fees at 0.2% of the transaction value for consumer debit cards and at 0.3% for consumer credit cards. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/lt/IP_15_4585 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/lt/IP_15_...
jassinpain 6y ago
You do realize that credit card processors take 2-3% alone? Honestly I agree with Apple and google one this one.
georgespencer 6y ago
1. What's the evidence to support a view that Apple and Google would charge 2-5%? Steam charges 30%. Epic takes 12%. Origin/EA takes 30%. Amazon takes an average 13% but it scales up to 25%. 2. Nobody gives a shit if this is better for developers, do they? Epic could charge +30% on IAP and use the Apple IAP system which is orders of magnitude better than anything else in the market. Developers set the pricing, and Apple handles security, authentication, refunds, etc. Consumers know it's a consistent experience across the platform. 3. The only benefit anyone seems to be able to come up with here is "choice" and a misguided belief that prices would come down as if by magic. Video game publishers took up to 60% of video game sales in physical stores, but the ARP of a video game has risen since 2008 and the advent of Steam and other online stores. 4. Seems like Apple has built a successful hardware/software play at least partially based on the fact that consumers don't have to do bullshit things like entering credit card details into some third party payment gateway to buy things, or deal with different refund policies from different folks. Consumers have flocked to the platform and now its success is being used as the basis of an attempt to strip it of its competitive advantage. 5. Same thing happened in the UK with sports coverage. The English Premier League was only broadcast on Sky until a few years ago. £29.99 a month got you all the live televised top flight soccer. Now to watch all of the televised soccer in the UK you need Sky Sports, Amazon Prime Video, and BT Sport. And Sky Sports prices have not decreased in real terms. (Oh, and BT's tech infrastructure is hot garbage.) I don't know anyone who loves the experience of having three different services to deal with and paying more money. Nobody is bleating about "choice" now. 6. I object to this on exactly the same terms as I object to Spotify's bitching that IAP margins -- which have been the same since before Spotify launched -- are too thin. They operate a business where they pay sixty cents of every dollar they make to rights holders for fuck's sake. Why are they bitching at Apple telling them that if they want to do a monthly subscription and net £9.99, they need to charge £14.28? Why can Spotify try to tell Apple that the HomePod -- a fucking speaker -- should let Spotify onto the device natively (when you can already connect via Bluetooth)? 7. Nearly every online store has serious arbitrary limitations placed on it by the operator of the store. Many of these are to do with the user experience, but many of them are a means of paying the bills for something they fund (hosting, marketing, app review team, developers working on APIs). It helps them sell phones, but it's intertwined with the user experience. 8. Gruber's point stands: if you think it's OK for Microsoft to prevent Sony from selling a PlayStation game streaming service on the Xbox Store, I don't see why you have an issue with this. It's not the same as Netflix: it's more like an app store within an app store.
FriendlyNormie 6y ago
Shut up you faggot. Every whiny cunt who gets removed from these app stores just makes room for struggling indies who are ecstatic over being dinged a mere 30% to ride on the app train. It’s pathetic how shitheads like you pretend to be all about justice for the underdog when in reality you’re just another corporate bootlicker who wants the real little guys to struggle in obscurity and starve. Please kill yourself.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
harry8 6y ago
The really tragic part about this comment is the idea that what was needed was a "big, well funded company" to hit the duopoly. The law exists that the strongest might not always get their way. Literally anyone hitting it /should/ have the same claims, rights, laws, and the same process as the very rich and strong when up against these enormous "legal persons". It's an ideal and we won't achieve perfection in trying to get there and there are tradeoffs with other ideals. But let's never lose sight of the ideal of equality before the law and the strongest should not always get their way. It's just so important. Without it, we end up with people as the enemy of the state with its monopoly on violent enforcement, then on to revolution and all that horror. I think it's an ideal that is slightly more important than the desire and profit of google and apple claiming the right to tax success and profit as though they were nation-states and the welfare of other big, well-funded profitable companies that don't like that. Regulatory capture is a disaster and an even bigger one that it first appears, be you leftist, rightist, collectivist, rugged individualist or, more hopefully, someone not so easy to label who thinks about individual issues and wants an outcome approximating what you think is best for everyone. We're all united against corruption, I have no doubt, we only disagree on whether particular cases are or are not that. The unity opposed to corruption is a thing that gets lost quite often as the division are imposed on us.
zepto 6y ago
Why would more competitors drive the price down? Developers will have to support Google and Apple’s stores regardless of whether they lower the rate. If the rate mattered, Google would have lowered it to compete with Apple for developers.
hellisothers 6y ago
2-5%? Where did you pull that number from? Credit card fees alone are 2-3%, and besides payment processing Apple/Google obviously has other costs (at the least distribution). Let’s not forget, you can frame this as a “cost” to developers, but it can just as easily be framed as a convenience fee to consumers, I as a consumer am happy to pay it.
ace_of_spades 6y ago
It’s astonishing how the most people here look at this whole situation just from the perspective of a developer and mostly tune out the implications for society and consumers. Case in point: You discount the value of security compared to delivery which is ridiculous. Apple does a much better job at the former and look at the societal outcomes. The value generated by a relatively safe computing platform is ENORMOUS. Even a developer should be able to acknowledge as much. I agree that fees seem somewhat high but we might be underestimating the cost it takes to check all the apps. One reasonable change of law could be a requirement for cost and revenue transparency for app stores and if we are hell bent on lowering prices maybe even a stipulation that margins must remain reasonable or even that stores must be run by a separate nonprofit with its own goals and guidelines. However, all of this seems to be more in the realm of congress and law making rather than the courts. I don’t think that there are many good legal grounds for epic here. Everyone is paying... they can’t really claim damages in a competitive market sense as they are not worse of than any competitor.
anupamchugh 6y ago
I don't think Epic Games is doing this to get the rates for the whole market down. They're just looking to get their tax cut reduced and increase profits. Once its down, they won't even look at indie developers and smaller firms.
AnonHP 6y ago
> If there were actual competitors, their rates would be much lower... around 2-5% probably. You can only get nothing for 2-5% because that barely meets the payment processing fees (of course, a large company can negotiate a lower rate). If you’re saying 2-5% plus payment processing fees, then that might be possible depending on the solution and what’s provided to users and developers.

by blunte 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

Another interesting thing this could do is get some momentum behind alternative app stores on Android. They exist but they're not popular. But suppose some of the big names who are tired of Google's fees go together, choose one and put all their apps there instead. That could be enough to get people to start using it. At which point, if it was charging e.g. 5% instead of 30%, many other apps would move there too. It could be the best thing to happen in this space for a while.

Nuzzerino 6y ago
If you want the alternative app stores to become more popular like you say, there's no better place to actually name some of them than in the comment you just made.
- ampdepolymerase 6y ago
  A lot of the 'alternative' app stores are either for piracy or for heavily fringe content (think NSFW) or open source only like F-droid. There are also app stores that are region specific e.g. east asia or Russian-speaking. It is difficult to find international, mainstream general purpose app stores.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    That's because Google made it so third party app stores can't install apps in the background, auto-upgrade or batch install multiple apps. Users expect to be able to do that, so it is a non-starter to run a commercial app store that Google's already turned into a second class citizen on Android.
    - enos_feedler 6y ago
      I think if there was truly a great alternative store, these features would not block it’s initial success.
      - heavyset_go 6y ago
        I think it is impossible to have a "truly great alternative" app store that doesn't include basic functionality that all the competing App Stores have, and Linux has had for decades. Surely other app stores should be able to compete on an even playing field with Google, and be allowed to implement background installation, auto-upgrading and batch installation of apps.
        ampdepolymerase 6y ago
        You can include such features if you are an OEM vendor e.g. Samsung can install their own app store as root and give access to all the above features.
        perryizgr8 6y ago
        They do and it's quite popular. That's the reason fortnite is still avaliable to all Samsung users.
dnissley 6y ago
Why bother when you can just install apks directly?
- im3w1l 6y ago
  Updates
hiram112 6y ago
Would it even matter? Google has tied so much critical functionality into their Play API that they could probably just flip a switch, and any app that didn't go through their own store would lose huge amounts of capabilities that Google has locked up. This is a fine - even advantageous - for open stores like F-Droid, as the target market is users who explicitly don't want more Google spyware on their phone. But for large software companies pushing out profitable apps that require Play apis, it wouldn't be feasible.
tick_tock_tick 6y ago
Other stores aren't allowed to auto update apps which is a pretty big disadvantage.

hangonhn 6y ago

Dumb question but if there is no collusion between the companies in a duopoly, is it still illegal in the US? Or does it have to be a monopoly to be illegal?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
amiga_500 6y ago
They both carefully added up all their costs and each independently arrived at a fair 30% fee, even though entire physical supply chains can undercut this percent.
- asldkjaslkdj 6y ago
  This happens often without direct collusion. You see it commonly in retail. Not sure anyone can outlaw unspoken pricing standoffs like this.
  - amiga_500 6y ago
    They can do it indirectly by breaking them up.
    - asldkjaslkdj 6y ago
      There are already alternative app stores on Android (perhaps most notably, Amazon) and that hasn't impacted their 30%... so what exactly are you expecting?
      - RealStickman_ 6y ago
        These alternative App Stores are heavily restricted when it comes to updating or even just installing apps, unless they were installed into the system and the system was patched by the OEM.
not2b 6y ago

AznHisoka 6y ago

“ Apple and Google are gatekeepers to all mobile devices (practically), but the value they add as gatekeepers is questionable” If you own an app and remove it from all App Stores, you’ll quickly see what value they add. It’s the millions of users who are able to download your product.

amiga_500 6y ago
This kind of gatekeeping / rentier activity is not good for economic activity. There are two big players. Amazing coincidence that both charge 30%, isn't it?
- kmonsen 6y ago
  It's not a coincidence and I have never heard a claim it was. Apple set it at 30% and Google decided not to compete on price. Of course it is legal to set the price of your product based on a competitor.
  - amiga_500 6y ago
    I don't think that is a good situation. It's basically an open duopoly.
    - kmonsen 6y ago
      I actually don't disagree with this, I just said it is not some "coincidence". Apple was first, Google decided to follow. Good for consumers? Probably not.
  - chc 6y ago
    When competitors non-coincidentally decide to set their prices the same arbitrary number, that's called "price fixing" and it is potentially an antitrust issue.
    - amiga_500 6y ago
      Exactly, crazy people are arguing otherwise.

simonh 6y ago

Android has a plethora of app stores, there have always been tons of them. Some phones have shipped with three or more, one from Google, one from the phone manufacturer and one from the network. Then you could add another one from Amazon, etc, etc. Google Play Store won out on Android simply because the multitude of stores was a nightmare for customers. They don’t want multiple stores, they want one store on this phone, that will also be on their next phone. Any ‘monopoly’ wasn’t seized by Google, it was pushed eagerly on them by customers craving consolidation and simplicity. Same for me, I don’t want 5 blasted stores on my iPhone. I want one store and run by someone I trust. The same goes for my Switch too, I’m quite happy for Nintendo to run the store for it. If I don’t like how they run it, I’ll get a PS 5 or XBOX. That’s where the competition is. I have plenty of choices thanks.

kuon 6y ago
I can understand that having multiple store can be frustrating for the user, but why not have multiple stores with federation? You have one app implementing the federated store protocol, and you and browse all federated stores. This would allow multiple actors to be present, while keeping things simple for the users.
- zepto 6y ago
  Who sets the rules for the federated storefront? The store design has a lot to do with which apps get attention.
- m4rtink 6y ago
  This already exists on desktop Linux - all the deb/RPM/Flatpak repositories each have a standardized metadata format, so you just add a URL to the given repo and the OS will work with it the same way as with the default repositories.
ISL 6y ago
I'm really interested in a Debian-quality DFSG Android app store. Debian's apt repository is truly the "app store" that I have chosen to trust.

ckastner 6y ago

> If there were actual competitors, their rates would be much lower... around 2-5% probably. Now that's an interesting (though highly impractical) idea! Imagine both app stores on every phone, providing the exact same service. There's probably no room for price fixing here, because Apple's market share is far smaller than Android's, so Apple would have a significant incentive to reduce the fees (and snatch some of Google's customers. Now add two or three other "app store providers", and things get interesting.

rdiddly 6y ago

Gatekeeping is never about adding value; it's about removing or keeping out [whatever is the opposite of value]. A subtle difference but one to keep in mind.

Ductapemaster 6y ago
The fact that you phrase this in such a binary fashion invalidates your point. Decisions are never so one sided. Apple's version of gatekeeping is a balance between providing a user experience that they control and design, and managing/controlling competition.
- rdiddly 6y ago
  Keeping out bad (in their opinion) UX constitutes the valid part of their gatekeeping because it subtracts negative value, which almost amounts to adding value, but is subtly different, like I said. Keeping out competition is a little harder to justify since it presumably only benefits them. And that does tend to be a temptation for all gatekeepers. But in neither case is value really being added directly, was my only point.
millzlane 6y ago
Agree it's a subtle difference. It reminds me of the internet filters at large companies. Keeps out the filth and bad actors at the detriment of being on a truly free internet. That makes sense when it's the companies computers. But not so much when you own the device.
wombatmobile 6y ago
Not subtle - a fundamental point. Thank you for putting it so succinctly, rdiddly.
morei 6y ago
I'm not sure that's true? Gatekeeping is definitely about keeping out/removing, but that doesn't mean that it has zero or negative value? For example, there's absolutely positive value for users in filtering spam. This tends to be negative value for spam senders, but that doesn't detract from the user value.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

danilocesar 6y ago

Although I agree with you that is good that a big company did hit both walls at the same time, and that might benefit developers in the long term, It doesn't seem fair to compare Google's behavior and Apple's. In the Android world, you still have an option. The option isn't good, you might end up limited, the user have to enable a scary checkbox, but you have an option. If Epic wants, they can create a micro store for android. The same thing they do with PCs today. But you can't do it with an apple device. You have no option, no workaround. That's the monopoly that needs to be destroyed. Even if both companies behaviors are detrimental for developers, Apple is way, way worst. That all said: Sadly, this is not about freedom but about money. My bet is that Apply will lose the restrictions for Epic and they will drop the case.

millzlane 6y ago
>My bet is that Apply will lose the restrictions for Epic and they will drop the case. They will have to do it for all dev's. Not just the big house name brands. This is probably going to fundamentally change the landscape. Congress accused the big players including Apple of anti consumer behavior. Not being in control of your own device (Read: not being able to side load software without paying a fee.) will be the downfall of the app store.

tzs 6y ago

> If there were actual competitors, their rates would be much lower... around 2-5% probably Maybe for the more expensive apps, but not for the $0.99 apps that consumers love. For those, 2-5% doesn't come anywhere near covering the credit card processing costs.

Barrin92 6y ago
this has a pretty trivial workaround, get in-store credits with a one-time payment and then keep paying the 1$ apps with that like any other store that has a wallet system/micro transactions.
- m463 6y ago
  I have an electric car charging account with chargepoint. They see how much usage you have and predictively fund your balance periodically. When I first used it, I wouldn't use very much and I would get notices from time to time that $10 was added to my account. When my usage went up, they did $20 for a while, and at one point I hit $50. I think this is reasonable and if it makes the overall cost of a service lower I am all for it.
nmfisher 6y ago
Keep in mind that Apple is slugging developers $150 every year just to get their foot in the door of the App Store. That's not an insignificant sum. No developer or company is happy with the way Apple runs the App Store. Their commission is outrageously high, their approval process is slow and often arbitrary, and their tooling is god-awful. We all just put up with it because the iPhone/iPad install base is so large, we don't really have a choice. That being said, I'm very reluctant to demand regulation that interferes with a private company's right to run its own products. After all, maybe Apple's attitude is precisely why their install base is so large. But God I wish there was a competitor that knocked them down the leaderboard a few pegs. Android is great, but the ecosystem is too fractured for the market to force Apple to change.
- ecf 6y ago
  > No developer or company is happy with the way Apple runs the App Store. The App Store isn’t made with developers in mind. It’s made for the average user. And right now the average user is pretty damn happy with Apple.

zemo 6y ago

> If there were actual competitors, their rates would be much lower... around 2-5% probably. probably not. Visa takes a bigger cut than 2% when you buy a hamburger.

KptMarchewa 6y ago
Those fees are fixed at 0.2% in EU.
- jen20 6y ago
  Do you have a source for this?
  - kevindong 6y ago
    > As a general rule, the Regulation will cap interchange fees at 0.2% of the transaction value for consumer debit cards and at 0.3% for consumer credit cards. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/lt/IP_15_4585 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/lt/IP_15_...

jassinpain 6y ago

You do realize that credit card processors take 2-3% alone? Honestly I agree with Apple and google one this one.

georgespencer 6y ago

1. What's the evidence to support a view that Apple and Google would charge 2-5%? Steam charges 30%. Epic takes 12%. Origin/EA takes 30%. Amazon takes an average 13% but it scales up to 25%. 2. Nobody gives a shit if this is better for developers, do they? Epic could charge +30% on IAP and use the Apple IAP system which is orders of magnitude better than anything else in the market. Developers set the pricing, and Apple handles security, authentication, refunds, etc. Consumers know it's a consistent experience across the platform. 3. The only benefit anyone seems to be able to come up with here is "choice" and a misguided belief that prices would come down as if by magic. Video game publishers took up to 60% of video game sales in physical stores, but the ARP of a video game has risen since 2008 and the advent of Steam and other online stores. 4. Seems like Apple has built a successful hardware/software play at least partially based on the fact that consumers don't have to do bullshit things like entering credit card details into some third party payment gateway to buy things, or deal with different refund policies from different folks. Consumers have flocked to the platform and now its success is being used as the basis of an attempt to strip it of its competitive advantage. 5. Same thing happened in the UK with sports coverage. The English Premier League was only broadcast on Sky until a few years ago. £29.99 a month got you all the live televised top flight soccer. Now to watch all of the televised soccer in the UK you need Sky Sports, Amazon Prime Video, and BT Sport. And Sky Sports prices have not decreased in real terms. (Oh, and BT's tech infrastructure is hot garbage.) I don't know anyone who loves the experience of having three different services to deal with and paying more money. Nobody is bleating about "choice" now. 6. I object to this on exactly the same terms as I object to Spotify's bitching that IAP margins -- which have been the same since before Spotify launched -- are too thin. They operate a business where they pay sixty cents of every dollar they make to rights holders for fuck's sake. Why are they bitching at Apple telling them that if they want to do a monthly subscription and net £9.99, they need to charge £14.28? Why can Spotify try to tell Apple that the HomePod -- a fucking speaker -- should let Spotify onto the device natively (when you can already connect via Bluetooth)? 7. Nearly every online store has serious arbitrary limitations placed on it by the operator of the store. Many of these are to do with the user experience, but many of them are a means of paying the bills for something they fund (hosting, marketing, app review team, developers working on APIs). It helps them sell phones, but it's intertwined with the user experience. 8. Gruber's point stands: if you think it's OK for Microsoft to prevent Sony from selling a PlayStation game streaming service on the Xbox Store, I don't see why you have an issue with this. It's not the same as Netflix: it's more like an app store within an app store.

FriendlyNormie 6y ago

Shut up you faggot. Every whiny cunt who gets removed from these app stores just makes room for struggling indies who are ecstatic over being dinged a mere 30% to ride on the app train. It’s pathetic how shitheads like you pretend to be all about justice for the underdog when in reality you’re just another corporate bootlicker who wants the real little guys to struggle in obscurity and starve. Please kill yourself.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

harry8 6y ago

The really tragic part about this comment is the idea that what was needed was a "big, well funded company" to hit the duopoly. The law exists that the strongest might not always get their way. Literally anyone hitting it /should/ have the same claims, rights, laws, and the same process as the very rich and strong when up against these enormous "legal persons". It's an ideal and we won't achieve perfection in trying to get there and there are tradeoffs with other ideals. But let's never lose sight of the ideal of equality before the law and the strongest should not always get their way. It's just so important. Without it, we end up with people as the enemy of the state with its monopoly on violent enforcement, then on to revolution and all that horror. I think it's an ideal that is slightly more important than the desire and profit of google and apple claiming the right to tax success and profit as though they were nation-states and the welfare of other big, well-funded profitable companies that don't like that. Regulatory capture is a disaster and an even bigger one that it first appears, be you leftist, rightist, collectivist, rugged individualist or, more hopefully, someone not so easy to label who thinks about individual issues and wants an outcome approximating what you think is best for everyone. We're all united against corruption, I have no doubt, we only disagree on whether particular cases are or are not that. The unity opposed to corruption is a thing that gets lost quite often as the division are imposed on us.

zepto 6y ago

Why would more competitors drive the price down? Developers will have to support Google and Apple’s stores regardless of whether they lower the rate. If the rate mattered, Google would have lowered it to compete with Apple for developers.

hellisothers 6y ago

2-5%? Where did you pull that number from? Credit card fees alone are 2-3%, and besides payment processing Apple/Google obviously has other costs (at the least distribution). Let’s not forget, you can frame this as a “cost” to developers, but it can just as easily be framed as a convenience fee to consumers, I as a consumer am happy to pay it.

ace_of_spades 6y ago

It’s astonishing how the most people here look at this whole situation just from the perspective of a developer and mostly tune out the implications for society and consumers. Case in point: You discount the value of security compared to delivery which is ridiculous. Apple does a much better job at the former and look at the societal outcomes. The value generated by a relatively safe computing platform is ENORMOUS. Even a developer should be able to acknowledge as much. I agree that fees seem somewhat high but we might be underestimating the cost it takes to check all the apps. One reasonable change of law could be a requirement for cost and revenue transparency for app stores and if we are hell bent on lowering prices maybe even a stipulation that margins must remain reasonable or even that stores must be run by a separate nonprofit with its own goals and guidelines. However, all of this seems to be more in the realm of congress and law making rather than the courts. I don’t think that there are many good legal grounds for epic here. Everyone is paying... they can’t really claim damages in a competitive market sense as they are not worse of than any competitor.

anupamchugh 6y ago

I don't think Epic Games is doing this to get the rates for the whole market down. They're just looking to get their tax cut reduced and increase profits. Once its down, they won't even look at indie developers and smaller firms.

AnonHP 6y ago

> If there were actual competitors, their rates would be much lower... around 2-5% probably. You can only get nothing for 2-5% because that barely meets the payment processing fees (of course, a large company can negotiate a lower rate). If you’re saying 2-5% plus payment processing fees, then that might be possible depending on the solution and what’s provided to users and developers.