5 ms·

Epic stated that they want to create their own separate app store outside of apple, but are unable to because apple does not allow sideloading. So no, Epic doe

Epic stated that they want to create their own separate app store outside of apple, but are unable to because apple does not allow sideloading. So no, Epic doesn't want to run on Big Brother's platform.

cjaybo 6y ago
iOS is the platform in the parent's analogy, not the app store.
- AdamJacobMuller 6y ago
  iPhone is the platform too! All the investments apple make in custom silicon and hardware are a big part of it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jsjohnst 6y ago
> Epic stated that they want to create their own separate app store outside of apple, but are unable to because apple does not allow sideloading. That argument would ring less hollow had they done that on the platform that does allow side loading, but they eventually published on the Google Play store.
- gpm 6y ago
  They do also still allow sideloading on android. Which was actually what their update did on Apple too (you can buy things via apple pay, or directly from us for less money) Actually they just got banned on android as well, so now they only allow sideloading on android.
  - jsjohnst 6y ago
    > They do also still allow sideloading on android. My point was, they had the chance and in fact did go completely sideloading on Android, but eventually caved and joined the Play store. Obviously there’s value enough for them to take Google’s 30% cut in the Play store, so why did they do it? Why wasn’t staying sideload only enough, especially when they are arguing they should be able to do it on iOS. > Which was actually what their update did on Apple too Sorry, but that’s 100% false. Adding an extra payment option in your app is not the same thing as sideloading and not going through the App Store for publishing and distribution. Apples and Oranges so you speak.
- ehnto 6y ago
  Epic has a platform on PC, I imagine they just see the writing on the wall for phone app stores and held off.
AdamJacobMuller 6y ago
The platform is not merely the App Store. The hardware, the OS, the APIs, they are all part of the platform.
- gpm 6y ago
  The hardware is not Apple's, it belongs to the owner of the device. Arguably I think there would be a reasonable anti-trust suit against the OS as well, it's not clear to me why it isn't illegal to utilize their monopoly on their hardware to create a monopoly on the OS running on the device.
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    > their monopoly on their hardware This way of viewing things leads to some really silly conclusions. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the iPhone, the premise is intrinsically absurd. By this argument literally any non-commodity product is a "monopoly" of the company that distributes it. Moreover, what Apple sells isn't hardware, it's hardware with software on it. That's the product. As far as I know there is no official way to buy either iOS or an iPhone that doesn't have iOS installed. Sometimes companies take an opinionated stance on how they distribute their products, like a firearm manufacturer that only manufactures firearms that have a safety. Framing that sort of thing as an antitrust issue is unreasonable.
    - yvdriess 6y ago
      Monopoly is indeed not technically the right term, but it's not necessarily a monopoly itself that causes antitrust issues, it's the business practices that are enabled by it. A large player in a market that uses business practices to capture and hold more of that market by erecting barriers of entry are definitely sailing into antitrust waters. In essence, any practice that helps compete in the market by other ways than increasing value to the consumer is suspect. Incidentally, this is a double edges sword, as this is the interpretation of the antitrust laws that has enabled the rise of so many monopoly-like companies in the last few decades. (e.g. Amazon: we're increasing value to customers because we can offer lower prices if we're larger)

cjaybo 6y ago

iOS is the platform in the parent's analogy, not the app store.

AdamJacobMuller 6y ago
iPhone is the platform too! All the investments apple make in custom silicon and hardware are a big part of it.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jsjohnst 6y ago

> Epic stated that they want to create their own separate app store outside of apple, but are unable to because apple does not allow sideloading. That argument would ring less hollow had they done that on the platform that does allow side loading, but they eventually published on the Google Play store.

gpm 6y ago
They do also still allow sideloading on android. Which was actually what their update did on Apple too (you can buy things via apple pay, or directly from us for less money) Actually they just got banned on android as well, so now they only allow sideloading on android.
- jsjohnst 6y ago
  > They do also still allow sideloading on android. My point was, they had the chance and in fact did go completely sideloading on Android, but eventually caved and joined the Play store. Obviously there’s value enough for them to take Google’s 30% cut in the Play store, so why did they do it? Why wasn’t staying sideload only enough, especially when they are arguing they should be able to do it on iOS. > Which was actually what their update did on Apple too Sorry, but that’s 100% false. Adding an extra payment option in your app is not the same thing as sideloading and not going through the App Store for publishing and distribution. Apples and Oranges so you speak.
ehnto 6y ago
Epic has a platform on PC, I imagine they just see the writing on the wall for phone app stores and held off.

AdamJacobMuller 6y ago

The platform is not merely the App Store. The hardware, the OS, the APIs, they are all part of the platform.

gpm 6y ago
The hardware is not Apple's, it belongs to the owner of the device. Arguably I think there would be a reasonable anti-trust suit against the OS as well, it's not clear to me why it isn't illegal to utilize their monopoly on their hardware to create a monopoly on the OS running on the device.
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  > their monopoly on their hardware This way of viewing things leads to some really silly conclusions. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the iPhone, the premise is intrinsically absurd. By this argument literally any non-commodity product is a "monopoly" of the company that distributes it. Moreover, what Apple sells isn't hardware, it's hardware with software on it. That's the product. As far as I know there is no official way to buy either iOS or an iPhone that doesn't have iOS installed. Sometimes companies take an opinionated stance on how they distribute their products, like a firearm manufacturer that only manufactures firearms that have a safety. Framing that sort of thing as an antitrust issue is unreasonable.
  - yvdriess 6y ago
    Monopoly is indeed not technically the right term, but it's not necessarily a monopoly itself that causes antitrust issues, it's the business practices that are enabled by it. A large player in a market that uses business practices to capture and hold more of that market by erecting barriers of entry are definitely sailing into antitrust waters. In essence, any practice that helps compete in the market by other ways than increasing value to the consumer is suspect. Incidentally, this is a double edges sword, as this is the interpretation of the antitrust laws that has enabled the rise of so many monopoly-like companies in the last few decades. (e.g. Amazon: we're increasing value to customers because we can offer lower prices if we're larger)