14 ms·

I really wish there was a third party - the customer - actually represented in this trial. Apple and Epic arguing over what is best for the customer, while clea

• jjcon 6y ago
  > Let‘s see how valuable everybody thinks the App Store is when they actually have to pay an access fee directly to Apple They do, it’s called buying an iphone
  • hnra 6y ago
    I bought an iPhone despite the App Store, so I don't think that logic really holds.
    • AlphaSite 6y ago
      I don’t know if what you’re saying holds generally. I don’t know if people buy it for the AppStore, but I strongly suspect that most people don’t buy it despite the App Store.
      • morsch 6y ago
        They might resent the app store more if they knew Apple gets 30%. Which is why nobody is supposed to tell.
        • chipotle_coyote 6y ago
          The 30% cut was literally announced on stage by Steve Jobs when they introduced the App Store in 2008, and again when in-app purchases were introduced in (I think) 2009. It's been in public coverage for years. They talk about it regularly; remember, Apple's position has been to say, loudly and repeatedly, that this is just a terrific deal for everybody. The fees are not secret. Also, remember that in practice, the vast majority of people downloading applications on Android are doing so through Google Play, which charges the same 30% fee for both apps and in-app purchases. If people resent Apple more than Google in this context, it's probably more to do with the companies' respective public images than concrete reality. I suspect you're remembering recent news about Apple preventing Facebook from putting a notice in the Facebook iOS app about Apple taking 30% of the cut from event tickets purchased through the app. While that was arguably a bad move on Apple's part from a PR standpoint -- lately they've been seriously violating the First Rule of Holes[1] -- there's little indication it's a change in policy. [1] When you're in one, stop digging.
          • virgilp 6y ago
            I don't understand your point. You seem to know that Apple denied an application that was merely stating the "widely known" fact that Apple takes 30% cut; yet you brush that off as irrelevant and "little indication that it's a change in policy"... what policy? The policy of NOT letting users know that Apple takes a cut?
          • gsich 6y ago
            The niche tech audience knows that. Apple blocked apps that showed a "30% goes to Apple" or similar. So yes, they don't want ordinary people to know.
      • toxik 6y ago
        Definitely there are more lemons on Apple’s App Store these days, but it’s still the case that fragmentation in the kingdom of the fruits is so much lower that producing a decent app is just easier than on the Google stack.
      • seventhtiger 6y ago
        Just add a billing item "30% Apple Fee" and you'll know their true feelings.
        • lawtalkinghuman 6y ago
          The app store: now with the usability of US sales taxes.
          • ac29 6y ago
            Not really, US local sales taxes are added after sale to the advertised price and can change from one side of a street to the other. App store fees are included in the price and the same everywhere.
            • lawtalkinghuman 6y ago
              ...and the proposal was to split it out, so at that point it would no longer be "included in the price".
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • baq 6y ago
      Me too more or less, I’ve got an iPhone because it mostly just works and I can expect to get 5 years of life out of it, which makes it more affordable than most android phones, flagship or not. (My last Android was a nexus 5x.)
    • valuearb 6y ago
      You bought a phone whose major customer value is it’s walled garden, but you don’t want a walled garden? That doesn’t seem right.
      • rimliu 6y ago
        It is like vaccination: "look, there is no smallpox or measles, why do we need a vaccination for?"
    • wruza 6y ago
      We all sometimes buy products that are of partial value for us, but that doesn't break the logic for those who value an entire product. Problems arise only when we try to sit on two different chairs at the same time. Right now I am experimenting with an android phone, and its hardware is not bad (very good) for its 0.3x price of an actual iphone with similar specs. It also allows all that "control over the device" that everyone wants here. But after an iphone I don't really feel that I'm finally free. It is a constant fight for privacy, for being adfree, for apps that do not abuse permissions and/or "cloudness", etc. I wait for a new iphone because I got nothing out of promises of a freedom that android users around told me with an excitement. It is basically the same brick, but with a jerky scroll and an ability to install ads and low-functional spyware after hours of searching and comparison.
• canofbars 6y ago
  The real problem here is that companies are forced to accept apples terms. Because apple controls every level of the stack, to opt out of the App store ToS you have to opt out of the store, the OS, and the hardware. If there was a way to install apps outside of the store this would not be an issue. Most users and developers would still use the app store since it provides value but devs who feel that they can supply their own marketing and payment processing can do it themselves.
  • applecrazy 6y ago
    > devs who feel that they can supply their own marketing and payment processing can do it themselves. The issue I have with that is that then a ton of companies think it's a good idea to ship a crappy "launcher" that needs to run on startup, taking up resources in the background while providing little to no added functionality. We can see that with PC games; it used to be just Steam, but now there's the Epic Games Launcher, Origin, GoG, and a bunch of more obscure launchers that need to be installed to play particular games.
    • vbezhenar 6y ago
      If you don't like their launchers, don't use their apps, it's simple as that. They're free to create a software in a way they feel appropriate. You're free to use or not to use that software.
      • DonaldPShimoda 6y ago
        If you don't like the App Store, don't use an iPhone, it's simple as that. They're free to manage their platform in a way they feel appropriate. You're free to use or not use that platform. --- I'm not necessarily saying I think Apple is in the right, but your argument doesn't hold because it works equally well when applied at a higher level, which runs counter to your point.
        • canofbars 6y ago
          >If you don't like the App Store, don't use an iPhone This is not the main issue, its on the other end. If you are a developer, and you don't like the App Store, you have no options. You can't publish on an alt store because those are not allowed. So your only option is to not provide services to 50% of your customers and thats assuming the google play store doesn't have the same issue you are avoiding. A real world example of this is vape companies provide an app which lets you do things like lock your vape so kids can't use it. Apple said those apps are not allowed on the app store. The vape company has no options, they just can't sell products to apple users now. The problem is these tech companies hold way to much power. It would be like if 2 landlords owned literally every single block of land in the entire country. Now normally it would be fair for the landlord to pick which types of businesses to rent out to but when both options say your business isn't accepted and the only alternative is to build your own island in the ocean and create a civilisation on it so you can open your store then something is seriously wrong.
• tylorr 6y ago
  > Let‘s see how valuable everybody thinks the App Store is when they actually have to pay an access fee directly to Apple Many apps compensate for the apple fees by increasing the IAP prices. So they already do but may not be aware of it I guess.
  • colejohnson66 6y ago
    I’m partial to Apple in this case, but one of the arguments against Apple is that those higher costs harm consumers by making them pay more than they can somewhere else.
• wruza 6y ago
  I actually like it the way it is now. You don't hear our arguments, you only want to be represented in that court without us. But conscious apple users are not all pro-sideload. if the App Store is such a tremendous value, why don‘t you ask users to pay for access to that App Store directly Because the value is not in the appstore itself, but in an inability to push uncontrolled spy/trick/crap-ware through side channels, so that thieves and con artists have no way to trick or force a user out of safety.
  • horsawlarway 6y ago
    Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. --- You have not changed the end result, simply moved the goal posts for safety. Malicious apps can and do get approved. Malware has been signed by Apple. Millions are still tricked through websites loaded in the browser. You have NOT solved security or safety by sticking with a single store. In return for the pretense of safety, you no longer own your device. You no longer have any choice in what software you can use on it. You have moved from owner to renter. A digital slave to shitty piece of silicon that only obeys the masters with the signing keys. Nothing against you as a person, but I find your argument morally reprehensible.
    • wruza 6y ago
      This is quoted often, but doesn't take any subject or reality detail into account. It is simply not true. I'll show you why. Goals and outcomes have to be realistic, not idealistic. All parties considered, and given how app/media world works, there are two major models that are represented by two big players (google, apple). First one is to build a garden that, barring little fuckups, mostly works in favor of a money-spending user and has no economics in selling them out. Another is a "free as in cheese" model where everything costs less, and is less- or un- controlled, so that various third-party economics who are another giant's infotrade puppets play their game at relaxed rules or at will. This includes phone vendors, other stores and software packages from the internet. There is a third model, a PC, that has a rich history not worth exposing again to an innocent user. And fourth, ubuntu, which had essentially zero economics. For the context, I own both android and ios devices (and mac, and pc). And android's agenda of being free and doing everything you want simply isn't real. There is basically no possibilities ("freedoms") without some sticky strings attached. I could bring a metaphor of being an android user, but it hardly fits hn format. Let's say that an android user has to make bodily compromises along the way of searching for "freedom", but never finding it. Because no one in the world needs you to be free and happy for free, and your market data costs more than you. They will either sell you a big margin, or monetize it by digging in your laundry. So basically, there is no choice at all, from the perspective of goals you (and I, ideally) chase. The world and its needs simply do not work like that. I'm not exchanging freedom for safety, I'm exchanging money for privacy, and "free as in freedom" is not an option at all. And I wouldn't even mind if such ideal world existed, where everyone just writes an app that does great things, then sells/gifts it on an open mobile store and everyone to be happy. But by giving up on a walled garden IRL, I give up on a walled garden and freedom and privacy and hygiene. I'd better not own my device rather than not owning my privacy or checking constantly where my info leaks. Hope that clears my views.
• dep_b 6y ago
  260 million earned by Apple by charging the 30% commission on 116 million users means Apple received US$2.24 per user and then has to deduct all costs of running the App Store before a profit remains. And this is just for Fortnite, a profitable game. All of the games and apps that are either not profitable or are free also need to be paid from the money earned on whales like Fortnite. They now want Apple to serve 116 millions of users updates that usually run into the hundreds of megabytes for games without paying more than US$100 a year. Epic runs it's own game store on 12% commission, but most of those games are paid and games are the biggest earners in any App Store, so only the most profitable category.
  • andy_ppp 6y ago
    But Apple’s costs are tiny compared to their margins, this isn’t logical as Apple can’t lose money on anything in the App Store, they didn’t invest in making the games did they? They are rent seeking to juice up their profits, it’s a great scam but I’d rather they concentrate on selling more hardware than ripping off developers.
    • dep_b 6y ago
      If Epic itself cannot do it for less than 12% selling only the best earning category and serving barely any free games when they're trying to _prove_ that it can be done for less than 30% apparently running an App Store isn't as trivial as most people at HN make it appear to be. Also the 30% "rent seeking" happens on any platform Epic is on except the PC and Mac. They tried to go around the Google Play Store and pivoted on that decision. I would like to see the % go down, I think they can run it for 20% without much trouble but when the kickback on titles goes down the price of the hardware goes up. So you can have a "cheap" Playstation with expensive games or an expensive Playstation with cheaper games.
      • andy_ppp 6y ago
        >>> Epic itself cannot do it for less than 12% What makes you think this? How do you know they cannot do an App Store for less than 12%? Also there is such a thing as economies of scale - the app store probably sells many times more things than the Epic version. You seem to mistakenly think the cost of selling X items on an App Store has a cost that is "cost of app store per thing" * "number of things sold". This isn't true, the cost of the App Store is fixed and has almost NOTHING to do with number of things sold. I just think using your market dominance to squeeze developers who provide services for your users is kind of sick. Apple should be providing the App Store for free and thanking developers for selling so many phones, not ripping people off.
• thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > I really wish there was a third party - the customer - actually represented in this trial. Isn't this the entire concept of amicus briefs?
• tobyhinloopen 6y ago
  Meanwhile the Apple AppStore is terrible for finding anything. It’s just a horrible list of most downloaded apps and a search bar, and even the search feature is bad. For every other purpose like getting proper recommendations, you have to consult the internet. Imagine having a “we think you will like these games because you played...” feature that works as well as Spotify’s or Steam’s recommendation engine. That will be a game changer for everyone, both consumers and developers. I hope Apple will be forced to allow 3rd party stores, so we can get an Epic Games Store app, or a Steam Games Store app on our mobile devices. The only thing worse than having multiple game launchers like we have on PC is having only one, and you cannot bypass it, and it’s awful, and it still asks for 30%. I want multiple stores. Or I want Apple to seriously rethink their shitty store app. Preferably both.
  • tuatoru 6y ago
    Yes! Good grief, Amazon is terrible for finding things, but the Apple App Store is several degrees worse. I do a search for an app that is in a top apps list, and it doesn't show up in the search results. WTF? The whole App Store experience shows major contempt for your customers, Apple. That sound in the distance is chickens coming home to roost.
  • encom 6y ago
    I have just given up on the Apple app store entirely at this point. It feels like 99% of it is pure garbage, and a significant portion of that garbage is trying to trick me with in-app-purchases. Every time I think "I bet there's an app for that", I go away disappointed. It sounds so hollow when the Supreme Leader of Apple brags about their store having 10.000.000.000 apps. Sure you do, and maybe 20 of them aren't total crap.
• jpambrun 6y ago
  That's not very fair. The main value of the App store is that it is the only store. Let other store on iOS, then we will see which one provide the best value.
• glenstein 6y ago
  >I think if the App Store is such a tremendous value, why don‘t you ask users to pay for access to that App Store directly. Let‘s see how valuable everybody thinks the App Store is when they actually have to pay an access fee directly to Apple. Right. If the problem is that people are insufficiently appreciative of having access 'for free' and should therefore leave complaints unstated and unaddressed, Apple can fix that by imposing a fee, so they can no longer use "for free" as something to hold against app-store users to short-circuit complaints.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]