11 ms·

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

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.

ericmay 6y ago
> 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, maybe we haven't been clear enough though. Right, and the rest of us don't want that, and I also don't want games or apps that don't adhere to Apple's rules. You want another option of App Stores because you want don't want to pay for the user base that Apple created and maintains. You want to embed permanent location tracking in your apps, abuse user data, and not have to have your crappy practices out in the open when Apple shows the "nutrition scorecard" for your app. That's not what I want on my iPhone. If your app doesn't conform to the App Store, then that's your problem, not mine. I'll vote with my dollars here. I want the iPhone just the way it is, even if that means fewer apps from bad actors. > 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? Yes that's exactly what I want. I want Apple to have complete control over the ecosystem. They've earned my complete trust.
- immigrantsheep 6y ago
  Instagram and TikTok have been found guilty on collecting an absurd amount of data against user's wishes. How did Apple's policy prevent that? Also I don't see Apple banning TikTok or Instagram.
  - MR4D 6y ago
    Let's go with this for a start: https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/07/30/facebook-says-apples-ios-14-could-hinder-ad-revenue https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/07/30/facebook-says-app... Also, notice that FB has done everything possible to gather information. Frankly, the NSA should just hire FB to do their work - it'b be faster and cheaper. Locking stuff down is hard. Doing it with multiple app stores will be impossible.
    - sprafa 6y ago
      Isn’t PRISM basically using FB to do NSA work for them anyhow?
      - MR4D 6y ago
        Probably. Which was kinda my point - monitoring these rule breakers is hard.
        immigrantsheep 6y ago
        And yet even after these things surfaced, nothing happened to the apps. Not everyone is equal.
- martin8412 6y ago
  I can only say I agree. I don't want more actors in the appstore market. I prefer quality over quantity.
- enragedcacti 6y ago
  ...just don't use other app stores? Honest question, what do you lose by other people having the option?
lowbloodsugar 6y ago
>you're frightened that another company might get control and... offer better terms than we have right now? While some people here might fall for this simple propaganda, I doubt the courts will. It is totally expected of Epic that they will at the same time make the claim about "freedom" and "choice" while signing exclusive deals so that customers are required to install the Epic store if they wish to play certain games. If the real issue is my freedom, then let me play Fortnite on the App store thanks. But it's not about my freedom. It's about your $$$. You're certainly free to do so, and free to say whatever bullshit you think will help you, but you're not going to get a free pass from everybody here. >What specifically is the horror scenario that you're frightened of? Really? What sort of horror scenarios have happened with game installers on PCs and Android? Root kits. Spyware. Password capture. Camera activation. And you know this, so all you are doing is letting us know that you think we are stupid.
- danShumway 6y ago
  > while signing exclusive deals so that customers are required to install the Epic store if they wish to play certain games. A surprising number of people on Hackernews don't understand how Apple Arcade works. This isn't just specific to the mobile market. As an Open advocate and critic of DRM, it's been frustrating to watch gamers suddenly get very concerned about store choice and exclusives over the past few years, after over a decade of watching them dismiss the same arguments against Steam. I'm not going to read too far into that inconsistency, because I feel like doing so would skirt HN policies. But I will say that if you're worried about exclusives, giving more platform control to users and developers weakens exclusives, it doesn't strengthen them. > then let me play Fortnite on the App store thanks Epic didn't take Fortnite off of the App store. If it's about your freedom, then talk to the people who did take it off. > What sort of horror scenarios have happened with game installers on PCs and Android? Root kits. Spyware. Password capture. Camera activation. If you're going to try and argue to me that the games PC market would be better if we had fewer stores, then I need to see some seriously better arguments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24153897 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24153897 I do not believe reality in any way backs up the argument that giving users control over what code runs on their devices has hurt the games market or made it worse for consumers -- even with the increased risk of bad actors.
enra 6y ago
I think Apple clearly has their moat, but it's not the App Store. The whole stack, from hardware and OS, is their moat and one that makes them unique. Maybe I'm a fan, but the moat actually makes the user experience better. Epic's Store moat likely won't make anything better for anyone, expect for Epic. I personally don't enjoy the experience of managing my PC games in 5 different libraries which all log out almost every day, need to be updated every week, push ads, newsletters, free stuff, crashes etc. So I'm not worried how Epic store would somehow overrun App Store, I'm worried how it would degrade the user experience. If people want to side load apps, they can use Android. But even on Android, most people are happy using the Google Play. As a consumer there isn't much benefit for multiple app stores, since every app store will be essentially exclusive to another, so don't really have more choice, just more app stores to manage and get the apps from. My point was that Epic tries to make this some kind of crusade of freedom and developer rights, while their clear intention is actually get in to kingmaker position themselves that they can strong arm developers and competition to play by their rules (which they're already trying to do on the PC market). This fight is different from Hey's fight, who just wanted to have their app in the store and criticized the rules and way Apple manages the store. So I have very little sympathy for Epic in this and I hope the fail.
- danShumway 6y ago
  > I personally don't enjoy the experience of managing my PC games in 5 different libraries which all log out almost every day, need to be updated every week, push ads, newsletters, free stuff, crashes etc. But, do you enjoy having 5 times as many games? Do you enjoy having a ton of games from GoG updated and running on modern Windows? Do you enjoy having DRM-free options for many indie titles? Do you enjoy that it's at least possible now to buy some console-exclusive games like Journey for the PC? People get really bent out of shape about the idea that sticking to one storefront means they might need to skip games. But getting rid of the storefronts doesn't mean you'll get all of the games. It means those games that were made possible because of the other storefronts won't exist. You are already skipping games on iOS, because those games aren't being made. > Epic tries to make this some kind of crusade of freedom and developer rights, while their clear intention is actually get in to kingmaker position Correct, and my point was that these are not exclusive goals. Allowing multiple stores to fight over users is explicitly the outcome that we want. It's not a surprise to anyone advocating for developer rights that Epic wants to make a store and compete with Apple, because that is what we want them to do. None of us care about whether or not Epic is going to make any money in the process. > which they're already trying to do on the PC market I know that gamers hate Epic right now, but understand that when you look at the overall market and you talk to the developers themselves, Epic has been unambiguously good for the PC games market. You want to talk about kingmakers -- it is good that the entire success or failure of a PC game doesn't need to rely on Steam's decisions. It is good that Steam is being forced to negotiate better terms for developers right now. It is good that Epic is funding indie games that otherwise would not have been made. I don't like the exclusives either, neither as a developer nor as a gamer. But the exclusives are nothing compared to the amount of good Epic is doing right now for the PC game's market. If you're an indie developer and suddenly you can halve the cut that storefronts are taking from you? That's huge. But, to circle back around to my main point: > So I have very little sympathy for Epic You don't need to have sympathy, you need to have self-preservation instincts. You don't get the luxury of choosing who the champion is to take on Apple, nobody who fits your moral criteria is powerful enough to do the work.
mstolpm 6y ago
> For the record, we want there to be multiple app stores on iOS. Who is „we“? I know a lot of users that don‘t want or don‘t feel a need for other app stores. Of course, most developers would be glad to get alternatives or make more money. > 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? Not the original poster, but I would be worried that alternate app stores would as well lead to even more apps not honoring the user rights, spying on Location all the time, selling and monetizing user data and pushing even more IAP crap. Epic isn‘t really known as the Robin Hood of user rights and promptly, Spotify and Facebook, two other big players with black spots on their vests, called for the same. I have a hard time believing that everything Epic wants is just beneficial for the users.
MR4D 6y ago
> We want multiple stores on iOS. No no no no no no!!!!!! It's this type of thinking that has caused me to have more freaking messaging and video apps on my phone so I can talk to everyone: Zoom, Skype, Meet, Meetings, Facetime, Messenger, Chime,...etc, etc. etc. NO. I ABSOLUTELY do not want that. Freaking nightmare. When that happens I ditch my iPhone and buy a flip phone. Seriously - stop the insanity. There is no "choice" when we need to have every alternative installed in order to do the things we need to do. That's not choice - it's insanity.
- izacus 6y ago
  Are you also living in a crippling fear because you have the ability to buy things in multiple stores in your city? Is that a nightmare as well?
  - MR4D 6y ago
    Ha! That was pretty funny. :) But actually, there is a big difference - I can buy jeans anywhere. I can buy Levi jeans anywhere. If I had to go to Macy’s so that I could get a shirt (with no alternative), and then had to go to Nordstrom to get socks (with no alternative), and then..... then yeah, that would be crippling. There is a reason amazon and Walmart are so powerful - you can get anything in one stop. Bundling is important. It’s why people buy Comcast xfinity cable + internet or have all their family on one cell phone plan - it’s reduces effort, stress, and cognitive load. Apple vs Android is good choice. Having to go to ten app stores to get my apps is not - it’s just a pain in the butt masquerading as “choice”.
    - cycloptic 6y ago
      >it’s just a pain in the butt masquerading as “choice”. It's not when they actually have to compete on price. Then you pick the one which offers you the lowest price for what you're looking for.
      - MR4D 6y ago
        So when a friend of yours wants to message you and you don’t have the same app, what happens? Both apps are free. Now you have to download another App Store to download the messaging app. Price has no bearing here whatsoever.
earhart 6y ago
The problem is not that Epic would be able to prevent other stores from being installed. The problem is that if there are multiple app stores, it encourages a race-to-the-bottom for the app stores -- why go through Apple's store with all its vetting if you can release to the Epic store instead? So, yes, the worry is exactly that another company might offer better terms to developers -- because sometimes, those terms don't matter to users (e.g. the cut between the app store and the developer), but other times, those terms are absolutely at a cost to the users. If Epic has a way of offering multiple stores, while preventing that race-to-the-bottom from impacting the user experience, it'd be wonderful. But that doesn't seem to be what Epic is pushing for; Epic seems to be pushing for their own profit at a cost to Apple (which is fine, IMHO -- it's just business) and to the iOS ecosystem (which is much less fine, IMHO).
- chadcmulligan 6y ago
  I suppose one way to counteract this is for apple to license app stores and they have to have the same standards as apples store. I have no desire to have low quality stores on my phone, thats why I like the iPhone - I don't have to worry about all the nonsense android phone owners do.
  - bllguo 6y ago
    So many comments here to this effect and they're all so puzzling. I'd love to hear exactly what "nonsense" I'm supposedly worried about all the time. Relying solely on Google's store is perfectly usable. I wish I could find data on this but I'd confidently assert the vast vast majority of (non-Chinese) Android owners never use alternative stores.
    - chadcmulligan 6y ago
      The first one that comes to mind is how many android phones are out of date - upgrading to the latest version of android isn't a priority for mobile distributors and is a lot of work on some phones. So this causes a larger attack surface, Apple is very careful to make their phones all have the latest iOS - also makes it easier to develop to. Another issue is trust - who knows what google does with your data, their business model includes exploiting your personal data, Apple has a vested interest in keeping your personal data secure and doesn't keep the keys to it - its their business model. These two are enough for me, theres also a lot more reports of android apps with exploits - a google turns up a lot of them, less so with iPhone, and apple reacts if there is. Maybe these issues have been addressed in android, if so it's not something Google appears serious about, if they were then they'd be advertising how secure their phones are and how they don't touch your data - apple is very serious about keeping my data personal and has invested a lot of their business integrity in that. Edit: tl;dr - googles business model is built around exploiting your personal data, apples is built around keeping your personal data secure
ghostwriter 6y ago
We want a few more families to move into your house. We don't like the fact that you have a complete control over your home, and I think you're just frightened that other families could run your house better than you. And by the way, you've never invited us for a party, so it is extremely rude and unfair, and just shows your monopolistic stance, so we expect that other families will open the doors for anyone who needs a full access to your fridge and amenities. But don't be afraid, it's for the benefit of your neighbours that we all care about, and eventually you will get used to it too.
- danShumway 6y ago
  And if there were only two livable houses in the entire world, then that would be a completely reasonable position for someone to take. Apple is one half of a duopoly. People keep on bringing up these 'gotcha' arguments about, "how would you feel if Walmart was forced to stock everybody's stuff?" And that ignores the fact that it would be a serious problem if there were only two supermarkets that I could buy from. I would feel exactly the same way if one to two companies had the kind of stranglehold over physical supermarket goods as Apple has over the mobile app ecosystem. A physical duopoly of that scale would very clearly call for either breaking up the owners or regulating them to ensure that everyone had equal access to the market. Scenarios like that are why we have antitrust in the first place, particularly around the kind of vertical integration that Apple advocates hold in such high regard. I don't think the people who put forward these arguments have really thought them through. A duopoly is different from a house. If we could travel back 35-40 years through history, I have no doubt there'd be no shortage of people arguing that Bell's vertical integration of the Internet was the very reason why their service was so good, and that allowing people to hook their own 'unapproved' answering machines to their phone lines would just ruin the entire network, and that allowing one company to own all of the railroads would just mean that shipping became that much simpler and reliable for consumers. So be careful about making analogies to the physical world when you're supporting Apple, because people might just take them at face value.
  - ghostwriter 6y ago
    > And if there were only two livable houses in the entire world, then that would be a completely reasonable position for someone to take. There are more than two platforms out there. But even if there weren't, the fact that there's only N things in the world doesn't make your random claim on someone else's property any more valid. App Store is Apple's property. Build your own and host whoever you want there, but firstly you have to convince others that it is more valuable than the popular alternative. And if you fail to do that, it's not necessarily because the alternative is a monopoly, it may be and more likely is because your product is inferior. > And that ignores the fact that it would be a serious problem if there were only two supermarkets that I could buy from. Do you know the reason why it never happens though? Your examples from the past just demonstrate that no monopoly exists without a government acting as a gatekeeper, like it was in the case of Bell and Union Pacific, and even then there was a place for successful competitors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Railway_(U.S.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Railway_(U.S.) > So be careful about making analogies to the physical world when you're supporting Apple, because people might just take them at face value. likewise, learn what you are advocating for, because mere quantity of stuff out there is never a justification for taking it over (and neither is your convenience), which my analogy was all about.
hinkley 6y ago
I'm not at all enthused about Epic being one of those stores, but being able to download from Steam sure would be nice. If you were trying to remove the monopoly, I'd think you should start there, and then expand to other people who can prove they have their shit together. Epic let someone else use my email address to sign up for an account (and they only allow one account per email). That is serious amateur-hour territory. When they have figured out how to tie their own shoes we can talk about whether they should be in the running.
- paulmd 6y ago
  Pretty sure you can buy from Steam on the iOS app - Steam just has a revenue-sharing agreement with Apple. which is specifically the part that got Epic in trouble, they don't want to share revenue with Apple, and what's more they want to charge other developers a fee for the use of Epic's app store. the thought that Apple was just going to let this hilarious ToS breach lay was all wrong, absolutely not
  - ThatPlayer 6y ago
    Steam Link on iOS actually has to run a version of Steam Big Picture without a Store or Community option because of Apple's rules: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/05/apple-reversal-allows-valves-steam-link-streaming-app-on-ios-tvos/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/05/apple-reversal-allows... The Store application lets you buy games because you cannot consume them on the device, like how Amazon allows you to buy physical items but not Kindle books.

ericmay 6y ago

> 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, maybe we haven't been clear enough though. Right, and the rest of us don't want that, and I also don't want games or apps that don't adhere to Apple's rules. You want another option of App Stores because you want don't want to pay for the user base that Apple created and maintains. You want to embed permanent location tracking in your apps, abuse user data, and not have to have your crappy practices out in the open when Apple shows the "nutrition scorecard" for your app. That's not what I want on my iPhone. If your app doesn't conform to the App Store, then that's your problem, not mine. I'll vote with my dollars here. I want the iPhone just the way it is, even if that means fewer apps from bad actors. > 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? Yes that's exactly what I want. I want Apple to have complete control over the ecosystem. They've earned my complete trust.

immigrantsheep 6y ago
Instagram and TikTok have been found guilty on collecting an absurd amount of data against user's wishes. How did Apple's policy prevent that? Also I don't see Apple banning TikTok or Instagram.
- MR4D 6y ago
  Let's go with this for a start: https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/07/30/facebook-says-apples-ios-14-could-hinder-ad-revenue https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/07/30/facebook-says-app... Also, notice that FB has done everything possible to gather information. Frankly, the NSA should just hire FB to do their work - it'b be faster and cheaper. Locking stuff down is hard. Doing it with multiple app stores will be impossible.
  - sprafa 6y ago
    Isn’t PRISM basically using FB to do NSA work for them anyhow?
    - MR4D 6y ago
      Probably. Which was kinda my point - monitoring these rule breakers is hard.
      - immigrantsheep 6y ago
        And yet even after these things surfaced, nothing happened to the apps. Not everyone is equal.
martin8412 6y ago
I can only say I agree. I don't want more actors in the appstore market. I prefer quality over quantity.
enragedcacti 6y ago
...just don't use other app stores? Honest question, what do you lose by other people having the option?

lowbloodsugar 6y ago

>you're frightened that another company might get control and... offer better terms than we have right now? While some people here might fall for this simple propaganda, I doubt the courts will. It is totally expected of Epic that they will at the same time make the claim about "freedom" and "choice" while signing exclusive deals so that customers are required to install the Epic store if they wish to play certain games. If the real issue is my freedom, then let me play Fortnite on the App store thanks. But it's not about my freedom. It's about your $$$. You're certainly free to do so, and free to say whatever bullshit you think will help you, but you're not going to get a free pass from everybody here. >What specifically is the horror scenario that you're frightened of? Really? What sort of horror scenarios have happened with game installers on PCs and Android? Root kits. Spyware. Password capture. Camera activation. And you know this, so all you are doing is letting us know that you think we are stupid.

danShumway 6y ago
> while signing exclusive deals so that customers are required to install the Epic store if they wish to play certain games. A surprising number of people on Hackernews don't understand how Apple Arcade works. This isn't just specific to the mobile market. As an Open advocate and critic of DRM, it's been frustrating to watch gamers suddenly get very concerned about store choice and exclusives over the past few years, after over a decade of watching them dismiss the same arguments against Steam. I'm not going to read too far into that inconsistency, because I feel like doing so would skirt HN policies. But I will say that if you're worried about exclusives, giving more platform control to users and developers weakens exclusives, it doesn't strengthen them. > then let me play Fortnite on the App store thanks Epic didn't take Fortnite off of the App store. If it's about your freedom, then talk to the people who did take it off. > What sort of horror scenarios have happened with game installers on PCs and Android? Root kits. Spyware. Password capture. Camera activation. If you're going to try and argue to me that the games PC market would be better if we had fewer stores, then I need to see some seriously better arguments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24153897 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24153897 I do not believe reality in any way backs up the argument that giving users control over what code runs on their devices has hurt the games market or made it worse for consumers -- even with the increased risk of bad actors.

enra 6y ago

I think Apple clearly has their moat, but it's not the App Store. The whole stack, from hardware and OS, is their moat and one that makes them unique. Maybe I'm a fan, but the moat actually makes the user experience better. Epic's Store moat likely won't make anything better for anyone, expect for Epic. I personally don't enjoy the experience of managing my PC games in 5 different libraries which all log out almost every day, need to be updated every week, push ads, newsletters, free stuff, crashes etc. So I'm not worried how Epic store would somehow overrun App Store, I'm worried how it would degrade the user experience. If people want to side load apps, they can use Android. But even on Android, most people are happy using the Google Play. As a consumer there isn't much benefit for multiple app stores, since every app store will be essentially exclusive to another, so don't really have more choice, just more app stores to manage and get the apps from. My point was that Epic tries to make this some kind of crusade of freedom and developer rights, while their clear intention is actually get in to kingmaker position themselves that they can strong arm developers and competition to play by their rules (which they're already trying to do on the PC market). This fight is different from Hey's fight, who just wanted to have their app in the store and criticized the rules and way Apple manages the store. So I have very little sympathy for Epic in this and I hope the fail.

danShumway 6y ago
> I personally don't enjoy the experience of managing my PC games in 5 different libraries which all log out almost every day, need to be updated every week, push ads, newsletters, free stuff, crashes etc. But, do you enjoy having 5 times as many games? Do you enjoy having a ton of games from GoG updated and running on modern Windows? Do you enjoy having DRM-free options for many indie titles? Do you enjoy that it's at least possible now to buy some console-exclusive games like Journey for the PC? People get really bent out of shape about the idea that sticking to one storefront means they might need to skip games. But getting rid of the storefronts doesn't mean you'll get all of the games. It means those games that were made possible because of the other storefronts won't exist. You are already skipping games on iOS, because those games aren't being made. > Epic tries to make this some kind of crusade of freedom and developer rights, while their clear intention is actually get in to kingmaker position Correct, and my point was that these are not exclusive goals. Allowing multiple stores to fight over users is explicitly the outcome that we want. It's not a surprise to anyone advocating for developer rights that Epic wants to make a store and compete with Apple, because that is what we want them to do. None of us care about whether or not Epic is going to make any money in the process. > which they're already trying to do on the PC market I know that gamers hate Epic right now, but understand that when you look at the overall market and you talk to the developers themselves, Epic has been unambiguously good for the PC games market. You want to talk about kingmakers -- it is good that the entire success or failure of a PC game doesn't need to rely on Steam's decisions. It is good that Steam is being forced to negotiate better terms for developers right now. It is good that Epic is funding indie games that otherwise would not have been made. I don't like the exclusives either, neither as a developer nor as a gamer. But the exclusives are nothing compared to the amount of good Epic is doing right now for the PC game's market. If you're an indie developer and suddenly you can halve the cut that storefronts are taking from you? That's huge. But, to circle back around to my main point: > So I have very little sympathy for Epic You don't need to have sympathy, you need to have self-preservation instincts. You don't get the luxury of choosing who the champion is to take on Apple, nobody who fits your moral criteria is powerful enough to do the work.

mstolpm 6y ago

> For the record, we want there to be multiple app stores on iOS. Who is „we“? I know a lot of users that don‘t want or don‘t feel a need for other app stores. Of course, most developers would be glad to get alternatives or make more money. > 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? Not the original poster, but I would be worried that alternate app stores would as well lead to even more apps not honoring the user rights, spying on Location all the time, selling and monetizing user data and pushing even more IAP crap. Epic isn‘t really known as the Robin Hood of user rights and promptly, Spotify and Facebook, two other big players with black spots on their vests, called for the same. I have a hard time believing that everything Epic wants is just beneficial for the users.

MR4D 6y ago

> We want multiple stores on iOS. No no no no no no!!!!!! It's this type of thinking that has caused me to have more freaking messaging and video apps on my phone so I can talk to everyone: Zoom, Skype, Meet, Meetings, Facetime, Messenger, Chime,...etc, etc. etc. NO. I ABSOLUTELY do not want that. Freaking nightmare. When that happens I ditch my iPhone and buy a flip phone. Seriously - stop the insanity. There is no "choice" when we need to have every alternative installed in order to do the things we need to do. That's not choice - it's insanity.

izacus 6y ago
Are you also living in a crippling fear because you have the ability to buy things in multiple stores in your city? Is that a nightmare as well?
- MR4D 6y ago
  Ha! That was pretty funny. :) But actually, there is a big difference - I can buy jeans anywhere. I can buy Levi jeans anywhere. If I had to go to Macy’s so that I could get a shirt (with no alternative), and then had to go to Nordstrom to get socks (with no alternative), and then..... then yeah, that would be crippling. There is a reason amazon and Walmart are so powerful - you can get anything in one stop. Bundling is important. It’s why people buy Comcast xfinity cable + internet or have all their family on one cell phone plan - it’s reduces effort, stress, and cognitive load. Apple vs Android is good choice. Having to go to ten app stores to get my apps is not - it’s just a pain in the butt masquerading as “choice”.
  - cycloptic 6y ago
    >it’s just a pain in the butt masquerading as “choice”. It's not when they actually have to compete on price. Then you pick the one which offers you the lowest price for what you're looking for.
    - MR4D 6y ago
      So when a friend of yours wants to message you and you don’t have the same app, what happens? Both apps are free. Now you have to download another App Store to download the messaging app. Price has no bearing here whatsoever.

earhart 6y ago

The problem is not that Epic would be able to prevent other stores from being installed. The problem is that if there are multiple app stores, it encourages a race-to-the-bottom for the app stores -- why go through Apple's store with all its vetting if you can release to the Epic store instead? So, yes, the worry is exactly that another company might offer better terms to developers -- because sometimes, those terms don't matter to users (e.g. the cut between the app store and the developer), but other times, those terms are absolutely at a cost to the users. If Epic has a way of offering multiple stores, while preventing that race-to-the-bottom from impacting the user experience, it'd be wonderful. But that doesn't seem to be what Epic is pushing for; Epic seems to be pushing for their own profit at a cost to Apple (which is fine, IMHO -- it's just business) and to the iOS ecosystem (which is much less fine, IMHO).

chadcmulligan 6y ago
I suppose one way to counteract this is for apple to license app stores and they have to have the same standards as apples store. I have no desire to have low quality stores on my phone, thats why I like the iPhone - I don't have to worry about all the nonsense android phone owners do.
- bllguo 6y ago
  So many comments here to this effect and they're all so puzzling. I'd love to hear exactly what "nonsense" I'm supposedly worried about all the time. Relying solely on Google's store is perfectly usable. I wish I could find data on this but I'd confidently assert the vast vast majority of (non-Chinese) Android owners never use alternative stores.
  - chadcmulligan 6y ago
    The first one that comes to mind is how many android phones are out of date - upgrading to the latest version of android isn't a priority for mobile distributors and is a lot of work on some phones. So this causes a larger attack surface, Apple is very careful to make their phones all have the latest iOS - also makes it easier to develop to. Another issue is trust - who knows what google does with your data, their business model includes exploiting your personal data, Apple has a vested interest in keeping your personal data secure and doesn't keep the keys to it - its their business model. These two are enough for me, theres also a lot more reports of android apps with exploits - a google turns up a lot of them, less so with iPhone, and apple reacts if there is. Maybe these issues have been addressed in android, if so it's not something Google appears serious about, if they were then they'd be advertising how secure their phones are and how they don't touch your data - apple is very serious about keeping my data personal and has invested a lot of their business integrity in that. Edit: tl;dr - googles business model is built around exploiting your personal data, apples is built around keeping your personal data secure

ghostwriter 6y ago

We want a few more families to move into your house. We don't like the fact that you have a complete control over your home, and I think you're just frightened that other families could run your house better than you. And by the way, you've never invited us for a party, so it is extremely rude and unfair, and just shows your monopolistic stance, so we expect that other families will open the doors for anyone who needs a full access to your fridge and amenities. But don't be afraid, it's for the benefit of your neighbours that we all care about, and eventually you will get used to it too.

danShumway 6y ago
And if there were only two livable houses in the entire world, then that would be a completely reasonable position for someone to take. Apple is one half of a duopoly. People keep on bringing up these 'gotcha' arguments about, "how would you feel if Walmart was forced to stock everybody's stuff?" And that ignores the fact that it would be a serious problem if there were only two supermarkets that I could buy from. I would feel exactly the same way if one to two companies had the kind of stranglehold over physical supermarket goods as Apple has over the mobile app ecosystem. A physical duopoly of that scale would very clearly call for either breaking up the owners or regulating them to ensure that everyone had equal access to the market. Scenarios like that are why we have antitrust in the first place, particularly around the kind of vertical integration that Apple advocates hold in such high regard. I don't think the people who put forward these arguments have really thought them through. A duopoly is different from a house. If we could travel back 35-40 years through history, I have no doubt there'd be no shortage of people arguing that Bell's vertical integration of the Internet was the very reason why their service was so good, and that allowing people to hook their own 'unapproved' answering machines to their phone lines would just ruin the entire network, and that allowing one company to own all of the railroads would just mean that shipping became that much simpler and reliable for consumers. So be careful about making analogies to the physical world when you're supporting Apple, because people might just take them at face value.
- ghostwriter 6y ago
  > And if there were only two livable houses in the entire world, then that would be a completely reasonable position for someone to take. There are more than two platforms out there. But even if there weren't, the fact that there's only N things in the world doesn't make your random claim on someone else's property any more valid. App Store is Apple's property. Build your own and host whoever you want there, but firstly you have to convince others that it is more valuable than the popular alternative. And if you fail to do that, it's not necessarily because the alternative is a monopoly, it may be and more likely is because your product is inferior. > And that ignores the fact that it would be a serious problem if there were only two supermarkets that I could buy from. Do you know the reason why it never happens though? Your examples from the past just demonstrate that no monopoly exists without a government acting as a gatekeeper, like it was in the case of Bell and Union Pacific, and even then there was a place for successful competitors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Railway_(U.S.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Railway_(U.S.) > So be careful about making analogies to the physical world when you're supporting Apple, because people might just take them at face value. likewise, learn what you are advocating for, because mere quantity of stuff out there is never a justification for taking it over (and neither is your convenience), which my analogy was all about.

hinkley 6y ago

I'm not at all enthused about Epic being one of those stores, but being able to download from Steam sure would be nice. If you were trying to remove the monopoly, I'd think you should start there, and then expand to other people who can prove they have their shit together. Epic let someone else use my email address to sign up for an account (and they only allow one account per email). That is serious amateur-hour territory. When they have figured out how to tie their own shoes we can talk about whether they should be in the running.

paulmd 6y ago
Pretty sure you can buy from Steam on the iOS app - Steam just has a revenue-sharing agreement with Apple. which is specifically the part that got Epic in trouble, they don't want to share revenue with Apple, and what's more they want to charge other developers a fee for the use of Epic's app store. the thought that Apple was just going to let this hilarious ToS breach lay was all wrong, absolutely not
- ThatPlayer 6y ago
  Steam Link on iOS actually has to run a version of Steam Big Picture without a Store or Community option because of Apple's rules: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/05/apple-reversal-allows-valves-steam-link-streaming-app-on-ios-tvos/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/05/apple-reversal-allows... The Store application lets you buy games because you cannot consume them on the device, like how Amazon allows you to buy physical items but not Kindle books.