84 ms·

Apple, Epic, and the App Store

• kanobo 6y ago
  "This case asks us to draw the line between anticompetitive behavior, which is illegal under federal antitrust law, and hypercompetitive behavior, which is not." I feel this contradiction within me when I find myself promoting and praising the growth hacks and 'doing whatever it takes' mentality startups employ and then subsequently realizing that at the same time I would probably shame and criticize the same tactics if the same company got large.
  • jgon 6y ago
    I think that's ok though. I think that we handicap ourselves by trying to find universalizing systems and rules, and then throwing our hands up when we can't do so. I also think that this sort of thing is tacitly encouraged by incumbents because usually giving up benefits them. Size matters. If a child hits you, you scold them and tell them not to do it, but you're likely no worse for wear. If an adult hits you, they could kill you, we call it assault and it has legal consequences. The contradiction you feel is like saying "well I don't think we should punish children the same way we punish adults, so maybe we shouldn't punish anyone?". I know that when I put it into this type of metaphor it seems obvious, I'm not trying to be insulting, merely that when you change the context we suddenly see that it does makes sense to weigh different situations with different consequences differently. Trying to find a common legal framework to cover a 2 person ramen startup and the continent spanning wealth and power of Jeff Bezos and Amazon, or Tim Cook and Apple is something that seems fraught, and the consequences for the actions that each group takes are vastly different. I think we shouldn't be afraid to judge or regulate them differently as well.
  • debacle 6y ago
    You should not shame and criticize Apple for being anticompetitive, you should lament that the US is not a fair playing field when it comes to anti-trust investigations. Apple is under no obligation to behave fairly. Many (not me) would argue the opposite.
    • kanobo 6y ago
      That's why I try to reflect on my feelings when I can because they aren't rational. I have to remind myself it's the fiduciary duty of companies to take legal advantage of any opportunity the law gives it.
      • macintux 6y ago
        I’m not confident that’s an accurate description. Companies are certainly beholden to their shareholders, but e.g. there’s no legal requirement to maximize profits. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co...
        • kanobo 6y ago
          Thanks for the link! Looks like I was holding on to an assumption I never actually verified.
          • macintux 6y ago
            It’s a common assumption.
    • blackoil 6y ago
      That is not a pragmatic view. Law works on assumption that most of the society will follow them (under moral or social pressure) and few rogue people will be punished appropriately. If everyone starts breaking the law, no Police/Govt will be able to contain it.
  • munchbunny 6y ago
    That gets at the crux of the problem: hyper-competitive behavior can become anti-competitive when you are powerful enough and have enough leverage to make anti-competitive behavior part of your strategy. The line between "anti-competitive" and "hyper-competitive" today isn't a line, it's a big messy gray area. It's pretty hard for an underdog or tiny startup to be anti-competitive because they simply don't have the leverage to do it. They can still be dishonest or immoral, it's just hard to be monopolistic when you're not anywhere close to being a monopoly.
  • jtokoph 6y ago
    Uber is the prime example of this. They broke many laws and regulations in order to provide a better product/user experience without much punishment to get to where they are today. If Uber started breaking more laws today they would be shot down very quick.
    • save_ferris 6y ago
      > If Uber started breaking more laws today they would be shot down very quick. Unfortunately, I don’t see this as being true. I’d be willing to bet they’re still breaking laws and ordinances today and we’re just not aware of it. Part of it is the news cycle today, we’d never see a story about Uber breaking some municipal laws with the state of the world as it is. And after all, they have tons of cash, which is what breaking laws requires. Until they suffer material operational pain from doing wrong, they’re not going to change.
    • rileymat2 6y ago
      Besides for the employee/contractor stuff, I thought Uber was mostly exploiting a legal loophole for cars for hire v. hailed taxi distinction.
  • save_ferris 6y ago
    The problem is that we’re terrible at assessing the morality of companies. We tend not to care about what startups do, even though the “doing whatever it takes” mentality sometimes leads to deeply concerning behavior (i.e. Instacart/door dash tipping dark patterns, Zoom security practices, online advertising startups generally, etc.) Part of it is that business models are getting increasingly complex, and it’s getting harder for laypeople to really grok how a particular company makes money, especially when consumer data is involved. The public tolerates quite a bit of unethical behavior by companies if they determine the value of the product to be worth it (i.e. Facebook). And some entrepreneurs see these examples and think that there are no consequences. There really is no concrete mechanism to assess morality in companies. Marketing gets to dictate most of that.
  • baby 6y ago
    A lot of things are totally fine until they get too large (cancer). A lot of the time, the only rule for healthy ecosystem is that players don’t get too big. Players getting too big means monopoly, cartel, etc.
• jasode 6y ago
  In the spirit of this particular story, I'd like to ask HN the following question: Should closed hardware (that owns its entire stack) even be legal to sell? Yes, it's legal today but should we make it illegal? To try another example besides Apple iPhone, consider the $35000 Prima Cinema movie server to play 1st run movies at home on day of release: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22prima+cinema%22&source=lnms&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=%22prima+cinema%22&source=ln... In many iPhone debates, we throw around phrases such as, "unlike a game console, it's a general computer" and "I own the device so I should be able to put any software I want on it". Understandable sentiments. So the question is, should consumers be able to knowingly buy restricted hardware such as Prima Cinema? They pay $35000 and own the computer but they know they can't sideload their own movies. They know can't pick another "movie store", or watch Youtube/Netflix on it, etc. The hardware has anti-tampering sensors so that it bricks itself if the owner tries to open it. The hardware is a "general pc". It runs Wind River Linux. I think the cpu is x86 but it might be ARM or something else. You can't argue that Prima Cinema should not be locked down (claiming anti-competitive behavior) because the paranoid film studios wouldn't even license their content if it wasn't. If a buyer wants to have 1st run movies at home, all those restrictions in place is they only way to get it. It's more restrictive than iPhone in that sense.
  • noncoml 6y ago
    Some customers buy into the Apple ecosystem because of its walled garden. Not despite of it.
    • baby 6y ago
      Really? Who?
      • braythwayt 6y ago
        Not my sole reason, but since you asked, here I am. I give my children iPhones. I like having certain family controls over what they use, and further controls over what appears in the app store to begin with. I like having a single vendor for all my software purchases, that I can trust to issue refunds and discontinue subscriptions promptly. I spend all day thinking about computers, I don't want to also be my own IT professional and security team, especially for a slab of glass I hold in my hand. I accept that I have to do some IT and security thinking about my iOS devices, but the more the walled garden provides, the less is on me. I understand that with this "safety" comes a loss of "liberty," but I find that an acceptable tradeoff for consumer hardware in my personal life. I don't automatically assume that the right tradeoffs for me are also the right tradeoffs for everyone else. If someone wants to sideload apps and/or develop their own custom apps without some kind of special developer status, I have no problem suggesting they buy something else. I accept that I am not the typical HN reader.
• maxdo 6y ago
  This particular company decided to grow financially by cutting apple from a revenue stream. Apple invested billions of dollars in rnd, PR , legal protection, security, servers etc... Behemoth like Epic decided to ignore that, at the same time still using apple services and platforms. Such a simple case to me. The funny part is I never heard from small company that gain traction from apple store that it's bad. It's a social lift for them. But once you grow , you forget about it... and start complaining...
  • cmiller1 6y ago
    And they didn't even start with the lawsuit, they just broke the terms of service explicitly and then surprise pikachu faced when Apple slapped them down.
    • bluedevil2k 6y ago
      They weren't surprised at all by the lawsuit. They wanted a lawsuit. The only person who could change the TOS was a judge and Epic could only sue if Apple enforced the TOS on them. Plus, if you don't think Epic had already talked to lawyers and lobbyists in Washington DC and already been given a heads-up that they might win, then you don't know business that well.
    • gfosco 6y ago
      They were well prepared for this, with what must've taken months of planning. They added the payment option, got banned, filed the lawsuit and published their 1984 parody ad, all within 24 hours.
• ngngngng 6y ago
  > but the benefit [the App Store arrangement gave] to developers was much less clear cut. I disagree, I think the fact that so many developers built apps for iPhone supports my point. Apple gave developers everything they needed, users with dollars to spend.
  • johnnyfaehell 6y ago
    Those users would always be there. If there was another App Store instead they would be there. If there were app stores competing there would be users with dollars to spend on both. The App Store doesn't provide users because it does something special, it provides them because there is no other option to install apps on your expensive smart phone/tablet without using it.
• ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  A pretty well-thought out article, given the inflammatory nature of the subject matter. I think Apple is right on the line. But I don't see a good argument as to what their doing is being anti-competitive. ~2 million apps are on the app store. Charging a fee for giving developers a huge market that spends money is not exactly unfair. And the rules of engagement are generally applied equally to everyone - the exceptions are noted by the guidelines. What would make it fair? Lowering the fee? If that were the case, then the problem isn't anti-competitive behavior. If it's the rules, what would fair rules look like that don't harm the end user or the product? What actual harm is Apple inflicting on the market by their behavior? Developers make less money? That isn't good enough.
  • bluedevil2k 6y ago
    actual harm => consumers end up paying more for the apps because the app developers have to increase their price to cover Apple's cut (which is more like a shakedown). I don't see any reason why a company needs to pay any percent of their revenue instead of a flat fee. You pay a % of revenue when someone is your partner or an investor in your company. Apple is neither. In fact, they've shown to be the opposite of a trusted investor/partner as they've copied successful apps and integrated them into their own platform. The App Store should be a fixed fee, something like $19/month, for your app to be on sale there. On another note, regarding your first comments, in the late 90's Microsoft went through DOJ depositions and demands for breaking up simply because they bundled Internet Explorer with their operating system. It didn't charge Netscape money for access to Windows and IE wasn't generating any income. But the furor at the time was huge and the anti-MSFT attitude has prevailed to this day. Why not the same feelings for Apple who's made this far more extreme and far more anti-competitive.
    • ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      > actual harm => consumers end up paying more for the apps because the app developers have to increase their price to cover Apple's cut (which is more like a shakedown). So what? All markets work like this. Food prices go up whenever there fuel prices increase, so the grocery store increases the cost to cover the higher cut taken by the supply chain. Apple created this entire market - they could've been far more anti-competitive than they are. Why should the free advertising, access to a market that has users that spend more on average, be free to anyone? > I don't see any reason why a company needs to pay any percent of their revenue instead of a flat fee. You're the one making the claim - you have to prove why it's wrong to charge a percentage of revenue first. The Internet Explorer argument just doesn't apply. They had market dominance - Apple does not.
• turtlesdown11 6y ago
  It's weird how Epic has no problem with closed hardware consoles...
  • baby 6y ago
    Do these take a 30% cut from online purchases as well?
    • wmf 6y ago
      Yes.
  • sdsvsdgggggg 6y ago
    How big of a cut do they have to pay on closed hardware consoles?
    • pwinnski 6y ago
      30%, amazingly enough.
  • jayd16 6y ago
    I'm sure they do but the situation is a bit different. Its a bigger leap for the consoles to implement a third party store than Apple. They don't allow unsigned code on consumer devices and the cert process is even more entailed than Apple. There's no tooling or infrastructure to install third party apps onto the consoles outside of the first party store. Apple has a ready made developer flow that is artificially blocked through provisioning profiles and the like.
  • wpurvis 6y ago
    If I wanted a PS4 game I could go to gamestop or walmart and buy it. I can buy games used. As closed as consoles are there's much more choice in where you get your software than iOS devices.
    • pwinnski 6y ago
• orliesaurus 6y ago
  Okay this is going to sound stupid but maybe someone else feels like me about it: I don't understand why Apple has to take such a big chunk from transactions of in-app purchases? Similarly Google. Why 30%? Why not 5%? That feels like it would be more honest. Is it just because "they can"?
  • wmf 6y ago
    Partly because they can but also to prevent developers from gaming the system. Imagine a free app with an IAP to unlock features but Apple only takes 5% from the IAP.
    • lilyball 6y ago
      Exactly this. If IAP was a different cut, all apps would go "free" overnight and require an IAP purchase to unlock most of the app. Apple could try something like giving "consumable" IAP a different cut, but I'm sure devs would still try to game that too (e.g. having a consumable that unlocks the app for a set amount of time, rather than a permanent unlock).
      • wmf 6y ago
        BTW if Apple is protecting customers so much they should ban consumable IAPs because they're being used to drain money from people via addiction.
        • lilyball 6y ago
          Consumables are used for more than just freemium games.
        • scarface74 6y ago
          I really wish they would. I would be okay if games had to all be paid up front and there was upgrade pricing.
      • rstupek 6y ago
        Most apps are free already and use ads to generate revenue of which Apple gets $0.
• Despegar 6y ago
  >That means, for example, allowing purchases via webviews, particularly for products and experiences that are not zero marginal costs. Sure, that could mean less App Store revenue in the short run, but Apple would be well-served having to build more and better products to win developers over. At the end of the day, squeezing businesses that can stomach the cost of Apple development, both in terms of implementing in-app purchase and that 30%, by definition has less ultimate upside than growing the pie for everyone. Apple shouldn't have to enable you to undermine their business with their own property. And no court would ever require them to. The fact is that Apple hasn't changed the terms. It's been the same since the App Store began (technically it's become more generous to developers with the reduction in the fee for subscriptions after the first year). Meanwhile the iPhone installed base is magnitudes larger than it was in 2008, making it more lucrative for developers than ever. Apple would be well within their right to raise the fee, but the fee has only ever gone down. That's addressing the moral argument of their business model. Legally, Epic has no case.
• cschneid 6y ago
  The Hey saga emphasized that Apple has multiple products interacting in a single app store. * Screened apps - Apple only lets "safe" apps into the store. * Discoverability - Apple in theory lets users find apps that they didn't know about before. Customer Acquisition * Payments - Apple makes it easy to accept payments, for their 30% fee. One or all of those are useful and great. Where I have an issue is when they use one (the required screened apps aspect) for force you into the others. Hey wanted an app on the store, as an extension to their primarily web based experience. But they couldn't purchase just the rubber-stamp that says they're not malware and the app store hosting. They were being forced to buy into all 3. That feels like using an existing monopoly (actually a duopoly w/ google's similar practices) to force developers to purchase products they don't want. Hey didn't want to accept payments via apple, but Apple's market power and decisions were focused on forcing them to. If Apple had a yearly fee of $1000 (arbitrary number, maybe pay per download or device or whatever), for an app to simply be reviewed & hosted, that would be reasonable. They provide a service, businesses can opt into that. But they're taking their core value prop of "closed app store helps customers" and forcing their way onto "and now you have to pay us a portion of revenue".
  • vageli 6y ago
    > That feels like using an existing monopoly (actually a duopoly w/ google's similar practices) to force developers to purchase products they don't want. Hey didn't want to accept payments via apple, but Apple's market power and decisions were focused on forcing them to. In order to sell goods in a place like Walmart, a manufacturer is subject to onerous terms. Why is the app store different than a retailer limiting access to their shelf space? I personally feel they are different but I cannot put into words why.
    • wmf 6y ago
      Target is across the street from Walmart. But if someone has an iPhone they cannot shop at the Google Play store.
      • treis 6y ago
• baby 6y ago
  A 30% just seems wrong to me. It just screams: we have a monopoly, if you want to build something that everybody around can you use, if you want to be a successful startup, you’ll have to give us a third of what you charge. There’s no other way: we’ll be your middle man forever.
• tc 6y ago
  Here's the thing. Even if you're OK with Apple (or whoever) controlling what you can run on your computers, this is a centralization of power that will be co-opted. Let's say that Australia wants to ban consumer encryption. This would currently be difficult to enforce for PC software. But on mobile, this is easy. Just make Apple and Google enforce it! Make them ban such apps from their stores. Now you've achieved perfect enforcement on Apple hardware. Even on Android, where people could in theory side-load the banned apps, this would prevent those apps from achieving any scale or network effect. That's what I think people are missing here. No matter how much you trust Apple, once the mechanisms for this kind of power are in place, you won't be able to control what happens next.
  • newyorker2 6y ago
    I feel like the core point of several arguments ITT skew towards the age old anti-trust laws without explicitly referring to it per se.
  • zepto 6y ago
    This is a good argument for enforcing open hardware at the boot loader level and requiring open driver specifications for the hardware. It is a strong counter argument for requiring openness at the App store level.
  • darkwizard42 6y ago
    I don't think you are using two points that are similar enough. If Australia bans encryption, you as a consumer who resides in Australia has a high switching cost (moving, new job, residence, etc.) and thus the consumer loses out. If Apple starts to use that power badly... you can switch to a number of competitor feature phones with largely the same feature and app capabilities (Android being the most obvious) In a market with 2+ competitors and where its low switching costs (moving contacts is quite easy these days, not a lot of deep 2-year contracts for phones/providers) this point doesn't hold true
    • ohazi 6y ago
      The points are not supposed to be similar... you're missing the part of the parent's argument where one is used as a tool to enforce the other, when otherwise it would be difficult/impossible to enforce. There is only one real competitor: Android. Google would very much like to have the same degree of control that Apple does over their ecosystem, but they're holding back for now so that they can point to Apple as being worse when the congressional inquiries heat up. Feature phones are not real competitors to smartphones.
• noncoml 6y ago
  Not versed enough in law to argue about this, but from a customer point of view, I hope that Apple wins as I would hate the iOS ecosystem to end up being a Wild West like the Android. I am happy to pay for a premium to have peace of mind. To give an analogy it’s kind of like gaming console vs PC gaming where I am happy to sacrifice a bit of performance in exchange of getting rid of all shady game-specific launchers
  • bluedevil2k 6y ago
    You're not addressing the real issue here though - should Apple get a cut of the revenue from in game purchases? Once you download the game and are looking to purchase more of the game you've already let the app pass your "shady wild west" internal warning system.
    • noncoml 6y ago
      Yes, for the simple reason that if they don’t, it opens a loophole for everyone to avoid the 30% cut altogether. Also from customer prospective, I feel more comfortable knowing the payment will go through Apple.
      • stale2002 6y ago
        > , it opens a loophole for everyone to avoid the 30% cut altogether. But this is a good thing, not a bad thing. Literally the purpose of all this, is to get around this cut. It is better for developers and consumers, to take whatever actions possible, to support loopholes, that get around this 30% cut. This is the explicit goal here, and the reasons why it is good. The loophole would be a good thing.
• quijoteuniv 6y ago
  Closed hardware should be opened when unsupported... meaning if apple cannot support old hardware anymore they should open it by law. There are so many ipads and phones that could still be in use but arent because you need to run their software. We need to stop the planet to be an electronics garbage bin. Same when they start with the new chip on apple computers.
  • colejohnson66 6y ago
    They’re discontinued, but they don’t prevent you from doing what you want to those old devices. Sure, a first generation iPhone/iPod touch only runs iPhone OS 3.1.3, but you can still jailbreak it and do what you want.
• Razengan 6y ago
  Does Epic allow players to buy Fortnite content from outside of Fortnite, without giving Epic any money? Do Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo allow other stores on their consoles? How much % do they take from console game sales?
• zepto 6y ago
  Epic has billions of dollars and a lot of customers. Microsoft has billions of dollars. There are a wide range of other parties that dislike Apple’s policies. Why don’t they build their own platform with their own exclusive and attractive content? I can see two options: 1. A full blown phone. Hard to do? Perhaps, but if Apple and a Google really aren’t competitive, then it should be possible to take customers away from Apple over the next few years, especially if your device has the games that teens want and can’t get from Apple. 2. Don’t start when a phone. Make a gaming handheld with exclusive content - Epic’s super popular titles, plus XBox streaming. Sell it for $200. Basically an iPod for games, done right. If Nintendo can sell handheld consoles it’s obvious Epic and Microsoft can. Then just build this out with phone functions, and a great browser for SPA’s etc, leveraging flutter, and eat Apple’s lunch from the bottom up in classic low-end disruption style. Bonus: have an open bootloader - bootcamp style so that enthusiasts can hack the thing. #2 seems like they could have a product on the market next year if they wanted. I could see this strategy easily forking the market into iPhones for productivity and Epic devices for fun, and causing both segments to improve at a greater pace. Apple simply isn’t unassailable if people are willing to put in the sustained effort needed to compete with them, but to do so will take a similar sustained effort over a similar time period to what it took them to obtain their position.
  • hesarenu 6y ago
    A Nintendo like gaming device with decent phone can be a viable alternative. Gaming i think generates a huge revenue for both iOS and Play Store. Those powerful cpu/gpu are simply getting wasted with current mobile games.
  • lotsofpulp 6y ago
    >Why don’t they build their own platform with their own exclusive and attractive content? They don't want to spend their cash to do the R&D, and build up the network of stores and customer support required to be able to compete with Apple.
• pier25 6y ago
  Essentially, it's a win-win for Epic. If they win the lawsuit they will (probably) be able to have more control over how they want to distribute their iOS apps. If they lose, they won't have to deal with iOS anymore. Free players cost money too, and it's possible iOS is not so interesting to Epic with the %30 Apple cut. Also, since their business model is based on microtransactions, most of their revenue must come from whales. These are committed players who will most likely go get their Fornite fix somewhere else. Specially if Apple wins. Most gamers will always side with Epic here.
  • emsy 6y ago
    They made several million dollars daily. I think you severely underestimate the gaming market.
    • pier25 6y ago
      Yes, but those millions come from whales which will most likely follow Fortnite to other platforms. You think Epic would start a lawsuit without having done their math and willingly decide to lose millions daily plus the legal fees?
• modeless 6y ago
  It's a common meme that "With a free service you're not the customer, you're the product." Well, you may be Apple's customer at the beginning when you pay for the phone, but immediately afterward you become their product. You're being sold for the 30% tax. And to enforce that tax Apple maintains ultimate control over the hardware you supposedly bought, blocking you from doing things that would threaten Apple's revenue streams.
  • jagged-chisel 6y ago
    > "...immediately afterward you become their product. You're being sold for the 30% tax." I don't understand the argument you're attempting. Apple doesn't sell my info "for the 30% tax." In fact, they charge app developers that 30% and then keep my data away from those same developers.
    • unchar1 6y ago
      The same way that GMail isn't really "free", that 30% tax doesn't come from Apple or the Developer's pocket, it ultimately comes out of your pocket.
      • colejohnson66 6y ago
        But I don’t pay for any Google product, so the comparison isn’t apt.
    • modeless 6y ago
      Apple sells access to your wallet, not data, similarly to how ad-supported services sell access to your eyeballs, not data. To exclude other companies from accessing your wallet Apple must control the software running on your phone, which means blocking you from installing or modifying software on the device you supposedly own.
    • neop1x 6y ago
      Developers then asks users 30% more so in the end users pay it. It's the same with increasing government taxes - at the end of the day, the end user ends up paying those. :)
• fierarul 6y ago
  Fundamentally, scale does matter. If you have a small pub in the middle of nowhere you can be a selective as you want. If your pub chain feeds 50% of the people in the country you damn right will have to be heavily restricted in what you can do. It doesn't matter if it's monopoly or not. After you cross a threshold the rules should be different and it's just amazing Apple has been allowed to grow so big with basically no oversight.
  • kartayyar 6y ago
    Fully agree with this sentiment - if there is anything which becomes so common place like say a road, then I think there should be some kind of oversight. Apple saying no to people being able to bring their own payment provider feels akin to saying the road provider only allows cars they vet, and then charge 30% car manufacturers 30% of the price of the car.
• somethoughts 6y ago
  Its interesting if Epic's and Xbox's long term plan should be to enable cloud gaming support via the browser. Basically the Google Stadia approach (cloud based rendering and only controls/decompression of the rendering down on the device). Basically figure out how to make mobile gaming available via Mobile Safari, Mobile Edge or Mobile Chrome browsers.
• 627467 6y ago
  > My preferred outcome would see Apple maintaining its control of app installation. I treasure and depend on the openness of PCs and Macs, but I am also relieved that the iPhone is so dependable for those less technically savvy than me. I think people overestimate the importance/benefit of such level of control over instalation of apps. Yes, Wintel was plagued by malware viruses but Mac/Linux/Unix wasn't. I don't think the benefit (protecting users from threats) outweighs the drawbacks (not having control of device, not allowing ecosystem of paid thinkerers to help Muggles personalize their devices) of having such closed approach.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• txr 6y ago
  I find the comparison that many people make to game consoles very short minded. It should be clear to everyone that the smartphone will become more and more integrated into our lives to a point where at some point you cannot participate in society without a phone. Sure, many things have alternative options or are limited to tech enthusiasts but other options become less favorable more and more. The alarm clock in the morning, communicating with friends and family, paying for things, doing your taxes, unlocking your door. Also unlocking your car is coming and there is even early talk of putting your driver’s license in your phone. Getting driving directions, some people use their phone as an artificial pancreas system. (https://androidaps.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ https://androidaps.readthedocs.io/en/latest/) The smartphone has become the personal computing device. A gaming console is something completely different, there I'm perfectly fine if a company wants to control the environment. I would prefer an open system but Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft controlling the games I can play is not even close to the limitations apple creates with their ecosystems on society. Google allows for third-party stores on their Android system, I would be doable for Apple to allow the same.
• williesleg 6y ago
  Epic = China Let the flame wars begin. Also, please post first if you're a CCP member first, so we all know.
• haunter 6y ago
  People don't get the console difference I have a PS4 I can buy the game digitally from Sony I can buy the digital code which activates on PS4 from Amazon or sometimes even straight from the publisher I can buy a physical copy from countless retail stores both off and online from Walmart to BestBuy to Amazon to Gamestop I can sell my used physical copy on Facebook Marketplace, Ebay, or Craigslist This is the difference. And it's much bigger than people realize.
  • pwinnski 6y ago
    Every one of those other than the used physical copy involves a large cut to Sony. It is true, there is no physical media for Android or iOS purchases.
  • lowbloodsugar 6y ago
    I have a PS4 I can pay Sony to take a cut from the developer. I can pay Amazon and Sony to take a cut from the developer. I can pay retail stores to take a 50% or more cut, and then Sony takes a cut. I can regain some of the cut that I paid to a retail store, so that the developer gets nothing, by selling it on Ebay or craigslist. You are always buying the game from Sony, and Sony is always getting their cut. Your options are whether to involve other rent seekers or to just fuck over the developers completely.
• enra 6y ago
  While I don't like Apple's 30% cut on multiplatform/subscription products, I think Epic's real motivation here is to run their own App Store, build a bigger moat and get the profits themselves (they take 12% cut, 5% if you use Unreal Engine, from developers in their store). They also make exclusive deals, bribing developers with funding/marketing support, so that the games can only bought in their store for 6-12mo. Clearly they are not welcoming to competition themselves. Buying games on PC now means that you have to install 5 different app stores which are usually slow, buggy and not that well written cross-platform code (pretty much like Fortnite itself). Tencent is also 40% shareholder in Epic, and there has been criticism on Epic sending user data back to China. > In early December 2018, Epic Games announced that it would open a digital storefront to challenge Steam by using a 12% revenue split rather than Steam's 30%.[20] Epic also said that it would not impose digital rights management (DRM) restrictions on games sold through its platform.[20] The store opened days later, on December 6, 2018, as part of the Game Awards, with a handful of games and a short list of upcoming titles.[21][22] The store was open for macOS and Windows platforms before expanding to Android and other platforms.[20] Epic aims to release a storefront for Android devices, bypassing the Google Play Store, where it will similarly only take a 12% cut compared to Google's 30%. While Apple, Inc.'s monopoly on iOS currently makes it impossible for Epic to release an App Store there, analysts believe that if Google reacts to Epic's App Store by reducing their cut, Apple will be pressured to follow suit.
  • username3 6y ago
    Apple doesn’t always get 30%. Retailers take a cut when they sell iTunes gift cards. 15% discounts are common. Epic should sell App Store gift cards.
  • danShumway 6y ago
    I'm going to heavy push back against both-sides-isms here. > I think Epic's real motivation here is to run their own App Store Yeah, you're right. That is the outcome that we want. We want multiple stores on iOS. I thought advocates for this position had been really clear, but maybe we haven't been clear enough. For the record, we want there to be multiple app stores on iOS. > build a bigger moat and get the profits themselves You're worried that Epic's store is going to eventually overrun Apple's and then Epic will somehow prevent other stores from being installed on iOS devices? You're worried that we'll get a bigger moat than literally not being able to run any code on the device that doesn't pass through Apple's review process? What on earth would that theoretical bigger moat even look like? > and get the profits themselves (12% cut, 5% if you use Unreal Engine) I want to follow up on this in the context of your worry about moats. We live in a world where Apple has complete control over the app ecosystem, and you're frightened that another company might get control and... offer better terms than we have right now? What specifically is the horror scenario that you're frightened of? > They also make exclusive deals, where the games can only bought in their store for 6-12mo. I can only imagine how upset you're going to be when you learn about how Apple Arcade works. > Tencent is also 40% shareholder in Epic Apple actively censors thousands of apps in China from the app store right now. You are worried about accidentally funding censorship through indirect means, and your response to that is to directly take the side of one of the censors.
• lowbloodsugar 6y ago
  A lot of the posts here are making points that I don't think a judge or jury will care for. This is clearly a case of two companies trying to commoditize their complements. End of story. Epic doesn't have a problem with Apple running an app store, despite what their marketing on this legal issue makes out. Epic has an app store and they charge ~12%. Given my experience with Epic, I am certain that if they had gotten here first, they would be charging the same 30% that Valve charges. Epic's problem is that Apple wont let them run their app store on Apple's stack. Epic wants to run their software everywhere, and commoditize the platforms/OS/hardware. Apple wants to do the opposite. IANAL, but I haven't seen any evidence that Apple should not be allowed to do so. If Apple were the only mobile device available, then we might have a monopoly conversation. But it isn't, so we wont. It isn't even the majority platform in the US. Where are these points coming from? They aren't from the perspective of a customer. I am a customer, and I will continue to buy iPhone because of their total integration. Android is a shitshow and you are welcome to it. "Well, I want iOS, except for..." yeah that is Android. So what is really underneath all this? The money. Epic wants to make more money from Apple's customers. And it wants to do so by destroying the value that Apple customers like me choose over Android. Samsung makes phones that are at least as good as iPhone. Android is an OS that lets owners do all of the things that people here are demanding Apple allow them to do. Yet, strangely, rather than everyone here advocating that we all move to Android, instead, we are demanding that Apple become like Android. Because nobody here is actually interested in what Apple customers want. They just want access to those customers, even if it means fucking those customers over.
• annexrichmond 6y ago
  I see streaming video games as simply videos that the user is able to interact with. Perhaps this is a false comparison, but does Apple collection commission on ad revenue from YouTube ads?
• ecocentrik 6y ago
  Apple lost track of their value exchange proposition and has now resorted to extortion. Yay 2020.
• aaanotherhnfolk 6y ago
  Simplest compromise I've heard so far is for Apple's cut to scale with size of IAP/subscription. 30% cut starting at $0.99 purchases. As mentioned this barely covers processing fees. 20% cut starting at $9.99. 10% cut starting at $49.99. Not only does this fix the Epic, Netflix, Hey, etc issue where high value or high volume txns get unfairly middlemanned by Apple. It also incentivizes developers away from the "race to the bottom" effect that made everything a crummy $0.99 microtransaction in the first place.
  • huhtenberg 6y ago
    The simplest compromise is to let me easily install what I need from whatever source I want on the goddamn hardware that I own. The rest will follow from that.
• ryantgtg 6y ago
  > Moreover, Amazon couldn’t even tell users to visit Amazon.com, much less offer a link or, as Android allows, a webview of the store. I was recently baffled by this on the Bandcamp app. You can't purchase music through their iOS app, and there isn't even a link to the website where you can purchase it. Instead there's just a "purchasing music is not supported on this device" message. Likewise, on my own app, I had a blog post (webview) about our patreon (with a link, of course). And Apple flagged it during a random bug fix app update. So I had to edit the blog post and remove the link to our Patreon. And from what I could tell, there isn't even a way to use the proper Apple Pay/whatever system with Patreon subscriptions.
• cromwellian 6y ago
  "But Apple needs to fund the App Store. XCode, payment processing, reviewers, it all costs money". Yes, very little in comparison. Apple made $50 billion in revenue from the App Store in 2019. $50 BILLION. The data centers costs to serve up this are miniscule in comparison. Apple could build 50 datacenters PER YEAR EVERY YEAR for that revenue. Reviewers? A staff of 10,000 fulltime reviewers paid $200k per year would cost $2 billion. Sorry, I'm not buying this excuse. OSX/iOS is free for every piece of HW, and it surely has much much larger costs to staff. A $1250 iPhone had a $450 cost to make, giving Apple a staggering 64% gross margin, and $800 gross profit. The costs to run the Apple store should be included as a sunk platform cost of the phone just like OSX. The cost to run the store is marginal. The cost to serve up an additional developer app, to review an additional app, and to let someone buy one, is an insignificant fraction. It should be free like the Web, or some extremely low cost to cover CC processing fees (~3%) and electricity to keep the lights on. I'm shocked at the number of apologists who think this 30% cut is somehow necessary for poor little Apple, with a hole in the pocket, with living on their spare change. It's egregious and unnecessary, and exists for one reason only: rent-seeking behavior. iPhones are reaching saturation, and Apple can either find ways to raise the price of the phone even more, lower the costs more, or increase service revenues, in order to keep their stock going up. That's why you see focus on service revenues, because they can't really lower costs much to make the devices, and they can't really increase the price much more.
  • bttrfl 6y ago
    Following your logic, Fortnite's add-ons should clearly be free since the cost to make and sell them is minuscule in comparison to 400M Epic made in April alone [0]. [0] https://venturebeat.com/2020/06/15/epic-games-shareholders-seeking-to-sell-stake-for-750-million-at-17-billion-valuation/ https://venturebeat.com/2020/06/15/epic-games-shareholders-s...
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • naikrovek 6y ago
      You may not know how to follow logic. No one is saying that Epic are doing bad things in order to maintain their monopoly position. Epic doesn't have a monopoly on any market. People ARE saying that Apple are doing bad things to maintain their monopoly position, and others are justifying that by saying that "running a business is expensive" as if that justifies a monopoly or monopolistic actions.
• LockAndLol 6y ago
  Honestly, I don't see the big deal. You pay for vendor lock-in, you get vendor lock-in. Apple doesn't have a "monopoly" on smartphones. If anybody wants variety, they can get an android or invest in a PinePhone or Librem5. Epic complaining about being shut out of the App store is like Dominoes complaining about being shut out of that private university where all the rich kids go. They should just go over to Android where, if they want to, they can make their own app store. > My preferred outcome would see Apple maintaining its control of app installation. I treasure and depend on the openness of PCs and Macs, but I am also relieved that the iPhone is so dependable for those less technically savvy than me. This, I certainly don't agree with. Android has more app stores and is still quite easy to use and dependable for the less technically savvy. Apple getting more App stores won't change how "easy" the iPhone is to use.
• caiobegotti 6y ago
  Unfortunately the App Store 30% cut is Apple's revenue cocaine and it will be really hard for the rest of us to stop such addiction without multi-national governments help.
• jarvar 6y ago
  I think apple's 30% cut of app purchases is too much and I think they know this. With that being said I think this is part of apple for a long-term plan. iPhones are getting more expensive to build considering all the tech their cramming into each iPhone and other products. eventually they might get so expensive that Apple would be forced to sell them at a price that will not work well wih consumers. If you think about how much apple has invested in services that only function on their devices, I think apple will start selling products at a loss, with the plan to make that money back and more through services they offer on devices. In the same way that Sony and Microsoft lose money with every console sold, but recoup those loses many times over with games purchase fees.
• AcerbicZero 6y ago
  Apple has a monopoly on making apple products to sell in apple stores? Quick call the feds! Seriously, the game Apple/Google/etc have been playing has been pretty anti-consumer at times, and downright unjust at other times. That said, Epic's (cough cough tencent's) only move here is to turn this dumpster into a dumpster fire and I don't see that as a particularly helpful direction to go in.
  • Synaesthesia 6y ago
    Int the US, I believe it accounts for about 70% of ponds, which is a lot. Globally not so much but still the biggest by revenue, and has all the elites.
• projektfu 6y ago
  I think it’s absurd that you can neither buy a kindle book from the iOS kindle app nor the Amazon app. How user unfriendly! And yet, Apple runs their own digitsl bookstore... since there’s no way to remove 30% revenue from apple’s own venture, they’re using a monopoly position to monopolize another market. Oh, but Apple isn’t a monopoly because there’s Android. Why did we think Microsoft was a monopoly? You could always buy a Mac and avoid the MS tax. But in the end the courts decided that MS was a monopoly unfairly restraining trade. We’ll have to see how this turns out. But by not allowing other app stores, Apple has put themselves at risk here.
  • notriddle 6y ago
    Windows still has 87% market share on desktop and laptop web browsing statistics. It was higher at the time that trial took place, and cell phone web browsing wasn't as popular back then. iOS still has less than half of the smartphone market. p.s. Right to Repair laws ought to make it illegal for Apple to prevent users from installing third-party software on the iPhone. This talk of them being some sort of "monopoly" is totally irrelevant.
    • projektfu 6y ago
      These arguments feel empty to me. There is only one source of software for the iPhone: Apple. The android ecosystem has no utility to the iPhone user. There is an Apple tax on every piece of software and every digital purchase on the platform. I don’t see where the competition is.
      • notriddle 6y ago
        You didn't have to buy an iPhone.
        • efreak 6y ago
          You didn't have to use Windows either. Linux, BSD, etc have been around for quite a while.
• PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  >This is not a console you play to entertain yourself, or even a PC for work: it is the foundation of modern life OMFG. Is it just because I'm 56? Is it just because I've spent my entire adult life connected to the internet (barring a few early years where it was just Bitnet)? Is it because I helped start the biggest e-commerce company in the anglo/eurosphere? Is it that I spend all day in front of screens, connected to the entire goddam planet? Is it that I'm a grumpy old curmudgeon ? The idea that the iPhone (or any network-connected portabl computing device) is the center of modern life just needs to die already. If this pandemic didn't provide it already, just these few things are far more "central to modern life" than your goddam smartphone: * a stable, diverse healthy food supply * trash pickup * a functioning, non-overloaded, sensibly priced and paid for healthcare system * a mail/package distribution system * fuel stations for your vehicle, if you have one * investigative, non-suck-up journalism * electricity (to charge your smartphone, naturally) I could go on. Your smartphone is not the center of your life. You have a variety of options for contemporary communication, and the fact that a bunch of you have decided that the most important one is the one that fits in your pocket and works anywhere there's a cell tower within range doesn't change the fact that it's the icing on top of the cake that is the rest of your life. It is totally amazing to be able to do what you can do with a contemporary smartphone, and no doubt they will get even more amazing. But they are NOT the center of modern life, they are the black mirror-becoming-black hole sucking so many other components of human existence into their mundane, pedestrian and constrained vision of life.
  • whywhywhywhy 6y ago
    Dopamine addiction is a real thing and most people are completely unaware they even have it. That's why they think so highly of phones.
    • PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
      Recently linked on HN: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201701/no-dopamine-is-not-addictive https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/2017...
  • 6y ago
• antaviana 6y ago
  I think I am with Apple for this one. It has always been a 30% cut, even when it launched. Apple did not raise the cut when the iOS app market got bigger. Apple pricing is not cost-based, it is value-based. Why should their pricing be cost-based? Why should they try to do an Amazon by sucking all the air in the room? If that value-based pricing strategy translates into billions earned, great for Apple. It could also have translated into billions lost, if their app store had turned into a ghost town. I’m sure it happened to other platforms. I can care less if Apple has high or low costs to maintain their platform. That’s their problem, not mine. If I buy something it is because I want it at that price. If the price point is above my perceived value, I will not buy and both Apple and Epic will lose revenue but again, that’s their problem. Epic has the option not to use IAPs if that sales model is not profitable for them at any price point.
• Kocrachon 6y ago
  How is this any different from PlayStation, Nintendo, and Xbox services? Not only do they get a cut of all of that revenue from those services and DLC, but the companies have to even pay for the right to make software for these devices. so are we going to start attacking Nintendo now? At some point I think a manufacturer should be allowed to manage this kind of stuff.
  • ThatPlayer 6y ago
    Those aren't general purpose devices, but also they've got a smaller userbase. iPhones and iPads have sold more than two billion devices. All the consoles combined probably do not come close. Especially in an anti-trust lawsuit, a bigger target is easier.
• paulmd 6y ago
  all this because Epic didn't want to pay apple's app store cut and thought they could bully their way through blatant ToS violations. Move fast and ask forgiveness later, the Silicon Valley way! It's pretty funny to look back and read the "whether or not apple backs down, Epic will have won a victory!" thinkpieces from last week. Epic thought they could leverage their IPs into forcing Apple to play ball. Surely Apple wouldn't dare let Fortnite get deplatformed (as the game updates on without iOS). Surely Apple wouldn't dare let Unreal Engine get deplatformed as the OS updates onwards without it. Turns out Apple does dare, and now third party developers are going to pay the price for Epic's arrogance. To be very clear: nothing is going to piss Apple off quicker than fucking with their cut of the revenue, this was eminently foreseeable and a blatant violation of ToS and there was no way Apple wasn't going to react. You should be mad at Epic here for trying to play silicon valley games with your products, not Apple. The fact that Epic would then take cuts from third party developers in this app store is just the icing on this cake. They want to be the ones running the walled garden, nothing more. Steam manages to get along with Apple just fine - they went ahead and made a revenue sharing agreement, and they haven't had a problem. Epic wanted to keep it all themselves, be the ones running the walled garden. This is Epic trying to run the playbook that many of you have normalized, no different from Uber trying to bully their way out of background checks by threatening to pull out of Dallas, or threatening to pull out of California to bully their way out of paying for their employees' healthcare. Then cue the waterworks about those heartless regulators putting all those innocent employees at risk. Only this time - it’s Epic who’s using your livelihoods as leverage for their power play. Very ironic! All so that they can make $1 off a llama skin for bideo james instead of $0.92. Just like the Uber thing is so Uber doesn’t have to pay 20 bucks to run a background check. Playing games with people's lives so you can run a little fatter profit margin, that's the silicon valley way.
• nodamage 6y ago
  Most of the discussion on this topic has been around who is morally right, but I've been curious to find out how strong Epic's legal case is. Epic's lawsuit alleges antitrust violations in two different markets: 1) the "iOS App Distribution Market" and 2) the "iOS In-App Payment Processing Market". Proving a violation in one of these markets may be a lot more challenging than the other. A. Monopoly Power The first step in proving a monopolization offense under the Sherman Act is proving the company possesses "monopoly power in the relevant market". In determining monopoly power, the courts start by examining market share, but "but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area." [1] Obviously, with Apple's current market share of 46% [2] in the United States, they are unlikely to be considered possessing monopoly power in the smartphone market. B. The "iOS App Distribution" Market and Aftermarkets Since proving Apple's monopoly power in the smartphone market seems unlikely, Epic instead alleges Apple has monopoly power over a different market: "iOS App Distribution". Since Apple has complete control over iOS App Distribution, problem solved, right? Not so fast. Much like razor blades and razors or printers and ink, "app distribution" would be considered an aftermarket of the smartphone market. Aftermarkets are very common in antitrust cases, and in general, the US legal system does not allow you to define an aftermarket in the context of a single brand's product unless very specific rules are met: > Because it would be inappropriate to punish a firm for its natural monopoly in its own products, courts embraced a sweeping prohibition against analyzing alleged anticompetitive activity by focusing on single-brand relevant markets: "[A]bsent exceptional market conditions, one brand in a market of competing brands cannot constitute a relevant product market." [3] A good summary on antitrust issues in aftermarkets can be found here. [4] Of particular relevance is that an aftermarket monopoly based on a customer's voluntary agreement to a contract is not considered a "relevant market" for antitrust purposes. In Blizzard Entertainment Inc. v. Ceiling Fan Software LLC [5], Ceiling Fan Software attempted to argue that Blizzard held monopoly power in the market of "add-on software for WoW", and preventing them from releasing their own WoW add-on was a violation of antitrust law. Blizzard argued (successfully) that the "WoW add-on" market was not the relevant market because WoW users voluntarily agreed to a EULA stipulating they would only used Blizzard authorized add-ons when they initially purchased the game, and if they wanted to use third-party add-ons they could have purchased another game instead. In Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp. [6], Psystar Corp attempted to argue that Apple held monopoly power in the "Mac OS" market and used it to unfairly block competition in the "hardware that runs Mac OS" aftermarket. The court ruled that Apple's monopoly power in the "hardware that runs Mac OS" aftermarket was based on the EULA that customers of Mac OS agreed when they purchased Mac OS, and was again not a relevant market for antitrust purposes, because "customers knowingly agree to the challenged restraint". In other words, if they didn't like the restriction of not being able to install Mac OS on non-Apple hardware, they could have purchased an alternative operating system instead. Circling back to the iPhone and its app distribution aftermarket, it seems the same reasoning would apply here. If the iPhone EULA specifically states that customers can only install apps via the App Store, and the customer knowingly purchases the product knowing such limitations are in place, it seems very unlikely that a court would agree that "iOS App Distribution" is actually a relevant market for antitrust purposes. C. The "iOS In-App Payment Processing Market" On the other hand, the antitrust claims Epic makes regarding this market are much more compelling because unlike the app distribution market, customers have no information about the restrictions in the relationship between the developer and Apple, and they certainly did not agree to any such restrictions when they purchased their phones. Without a contractual restriction in place, the determination of whether the "iOS In-App Payment Processing Market" is a relevant market depends on multiple factors which I won't go into too much detail here or this post will be even longer than it already is, but suffice to say they have a much higher chance of successfully making this argument. Epic also has a strong argument here that Apple requiring in-app payments to go through the App Store and taking a 30% cut of each payment directly harms consumers by increasing prices, and lacks any justification other than to hurt competition. And the rebuttal that you can buy a different product without this restriction falls flat because the other major product on the market also charges the same cut. The upshot of all of this is it seems unlikely that Epic will be able to compel Apple to permit third-party app installation on the iPhone, but they may be able to successfully argue against the restriction that all in-app purchasing must go through the App Store. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... [2] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh... [3] https://casetext.com/case/metzler-v-bear-automotive-service-equipment-co https://casetext.com/case/metzler-v-bear-automotive-service-... [4] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/us-submissions-oecd-2010-present-other-international-competition-fora/aftermarkets.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/us-submissions-... [5] https://casetext.com/case/blizzard-entmt-inc-v-ceiling-fan-software-llc https://casetext.com/case/blizzard-entmt-inc-v-ceiling-fan-s... [6] https://casetext.com/case/apple-2 https://casetext.com/case/apple-2
• dubious_one 6y ago
  It seems like Epic is engaged in some hypocrisy here. From what i can tell, if I want to generate content for Fortnite (skins, mods, etc) I can do so, but their terms are that I give it to them and they can turn around and commercialize it for their benefit. I do not see a way that I could monetize my creation. So in the platform that is Fortnite, they do not even allow me to make 70%, instead taking any contribution as their property without remuneration. I prefer Apple's model to this by far.
• cwyers 6y ago
  Part of the problem I have with the notion that Apple (and Google) need such tight control over their app stores is that they do such a bad job of it. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/technology/more-iphone-fake-retail-apps-before-holidays.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/technology/more-iphone-fa... https://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/gambling-apps-sneak-top-100-hundreds-fake-apps-spread-app-store-google-play/ https://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/... https://www.wired.com/story/apple-app-store-malware-click-fraud/ https://www.wired.com/story/apple-app-store-malware-click-fr... https://crappygames.miraheze.org/wiki/Category:IOS_Games https://crappygames.miraheze.org/wiki/Category:IOS_Games
• lajawfe 6y ago
  Here I give my analysis of what the best solution could be. Would like to know your thoughts too. 0. Lower rate from 30% to 15% -Apple still has monopoly, nothing changes. 1. Side loading apps: Not good! malicious apps can run amok, eg. $BIG_CORP$ will say - you will get 20$ credits if you sideload our app, and then surveil everything that is possible on the device. Here, we expect an average user to give all the permission that the app requests for. 2. allow secondary app stores: -not good as it depends on the quality of enforcement in secondary app store. For Apple, it is in their interest to maintain app quality in their appstore to maintain overall good user experience in their device, but motivations are not same for secondary app store. May allow malicious apps which deteriorate the user experience/privacy similar to 1. And there will be a state where you will have to install 10s of app store just to install specific programs which is also not ideal. 3. Allow secondary payment methods: -Average user will have to give up their payment info to everyone who asks for it. Most of them will not be trustworthy nor we can expect all of them to maintain good security standards for saving payment info. The biggest culprit of all this drama is Apple does not allow secondary payment inside apps AND also, if you have secondary payment outside of app, they do not allow that price to be lower. There is no competition, thus Apple can get away with whatever it chooses to. Thus the monopoly. 4. SOLUTION: a) charge a flat fee for reviewing/serving apps. If necessary, linearly increase it based on daily active users if they need more resource to support that app. b) allow secondary payment providers (whitelisted only). c) allow secondary payment price to be lower than Apple. With this solution, there will be competition between payment providers which will drive the price down. Only whitelisting few payment methods which are trustable eg applepay, googlepay, paypal, stripe, etc will maintain security of payment data.
  • CMGPwned 6y ago
    Allow side loading of apps. But broadcast that this device has sideloaded apps via an API. So banking apps can be disabled themselves if there are sideloaded apps. Block iOS updates. Also voids warranty. Secondary payment method can be implemented along with apple's own payment system just like how it is for `Sign in with Apple` . If you have `Login with Facebook`, then there should be `Sign in with Apple`. The alternative payment option can be turned on and off in settings. If it is turned on, then no more Support from Apple
• RyanShook 6y ago
  The entire way Epic went about this has me scratching my head. Just looks like a lose-lose situation to me. They lose out on 70% of their revenue on iOS now and likely lose a lawsuit later.
  • nmfisher 6y ago
    I’m guessing they are very confident in their legal position. Just think how much it would be worth to Epic to run their own Games store on iOS - literally billions. This is big brain thinking from Tim Sweeney.
    • RyanShook 6y ago
      They’re definitely taking a gamble, rooting for them but I wouldn’t bet against Apple on this one. Also seems like you would have better odds if you took on only Apple or Google instead of both at the same time.
      • nmfisher 6y ago
        Oh, I completely agree, and I really can't see a solid foundation for Epic's claims at all. But, on the other hand, anti-trust was never my area of legal practice, it's a highly specialized area of US law (something I'm not familiar with in the slightest), and thousands of (billable!) man-hours would have already been spent researching, crafting and refining their argument. In other words, my legal opinion is meaningless here. I'm interested to see how it plays out.
• tomcam 6y ago
  IANAL, but I think the strategy epic will use is called tying in anti-trust law. That means obtaining an unfair advantage for one line of business by requiring its use in another line of business. The android app market is big in numbers, even bigger than the number of iPhones, and therefore it may be difficult to call the App Store a monopoly. In Epic’s case, while the App Store may or may not be a monopoly, forcing anyone who uses the App Store to use Apple’s payment services as well may be the illegal part in the eyes of the court.
• josteink 6y ago
  > But Apple needs to fund the App Store. XCode, payment processing, reviewers, it all costs money This is the investment Apple has to put in to make sure there are apps on their platform. Their "funding" for this is iPhone and iPad sales.
• sunkenvicar 6y ago
  I hope the federal government takes care of these rogue Chinese Companies.
• asiachick 6y ago
  Software is speech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-established-code-speech#:~:text=One%20of%20EFF's%20first%20major,way%20for%20international%20e%2Dcommerce https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-estab.... You can read any book, watch any movie, listen to any music, but not run any code. That limits expression. Plenty of topics are off limits because the only way to run them is as apps and apple doesn't allow them. Some of you would apparently be okay of Apple restricted movies, music, and books to only movies, music, and books apple sells and made it impossible to view/read/listen otherwise including removing the browser? Because that's effectively what they've done for apps. There should be no distinction. Either the platform is open to all media or the platform is a form of suppression and control of ideas those in control don't approve of.
• greyhair 6y ago
  I really love all the financial experts on this thread, both pro, and con.