8 ms·

It's the "best case scenario" for developers and Epic, but not for me as a customer. I vastly prefer the iPhone model where I can go to a single place to downlo

It's the "best case scenario" for developers and Epic, but not for me as a customer. I vastly prefer the iPhone model where I can go to a single place to download all the apps that I need with a single payment method. I don't have to go to a specific url in the browser, download an executable, install a separate store for each game I want, and then finally install the game from that separate store. I don't know who would call this as a superior user experience. You guys are acting like the existence of the App Store has jacked up the app prices by 200%, whereas in reality there hasn't remotely been such a thing since the inception of the App Store.

bryanlarsen 6y ago
> You guys are acting like the existence of the App Store has jacked up the app prices by 200% No, we got free to play with endless micro transactions instead. I would have preferred the price bump.
- pb7 6y ago
  Like Epic’s Fortnite?
- doytch 6y ago
  Well, that was because developers demanded it. Apple initially didn't allow in-app payments for free apps.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    No, developers demanded time-limited trials for paid apps, which we had for many years before the App Store. But Apple _never_ delivered on that. Instead, Apple pushed "subscriptions", which is just another name for rental.
    - falcolas 6y ago
      Apple, Adobe, Microsoft, Google... Subscription models produce lots of recurring revenue, so companies absolutely adore that model when they can get away with it.
_coveredInBees 6y ago
Erm... that's because that's always been baked into the price of software/apps on the app store since inception. Not sure how higher prices for consumer is great for the consumer. I get the convenience argument, but not every consumer is willing to pay higher prices just for that. There is a huge difference between a 2-5% fee like CC merchants charge and a 30% across the board fee on the app store.
- isodev 6y ago
  I've never made my users pay the difference. The App Store is also a service for distribution. If it wasn't there, I would be forced to invest much more in marketing, cloud services and all kinds of "small things" which are not the primary purpose of my apps. If anything, my apps would be more expensive outside the store.
  - ctvo 6y ago
    The parent comment stated the best solution was to allow both an app store and consumers the choice on how / where they get their apps. If the default app stores provides as much value as you claim, developers would continue to distribute there, pay the fees, and consumers would go there for discoverability and convenience. Let consumers decide. With options, consider maybe someone could provide those services even better / more cheaply and you also benefit as a developer.
enragedcacti 6y ago
> all the apps that I need Correction: all the apps that Apple thinks you need, regardless of whether or not it aligns with what you need or want.
- mirthflat83 6y ago
  Please give me examples of apps I’m missing out on as an average consumer because I’m all for missing out on malwares
  - simion314 6y ago
    Any example that will be provided the fanboys will explain why they themselves don't need that application. The big example are web browsers (but you all are happy with the new IE) , GPL apps and some very popular game called Fortnite you might have hear of. I am wondering if you can refund your iPhone because a month ago you could play this game and now it will be blocked.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      The new IE is Chrome actually. With 20% global market share, plenty of countries don't care about Safari support.
      - simion314 6y ago
        The new IE from the dragging things down point of view. Microsoft did not dare to not allow other browsers on Windows and because of that we can complain about Chrome.
        mytherin 6y ago
        Internet explorer was actually a decent browser in its peak. The whole "dragging things down" happened later on because people kept on using really old versions of IE (mostly the one bundled with Windows XP). The main problem with Internet Explorer in its hay day was that they did not play nice with other browser vendors and implemented features outside of the standard. Those features were then relied upon by website developers, causing many websites to only work on Internet Explorer. After all - most people were using internet explorer, why cater to anyone else? Chrome is not quite in the same position as Internet Explorer was back then, but it's getting frighteningly close. There are several websites that only work on Chrome, and despite me not using Chrome as my primary browser I do have Chrome installed because for some websites I simply need Chrome. This is obviously very dangerous to the freedom of the internet. Funnily enough Apple forcing iOS users to use Safari actually helps here. Because so many people use iOS and they need to use Safari, website developers need to cater to at least one non-Chrome web browser. That in turn makes it more likely they will also cater to others (e.g. Firefox) rather than relying on Chrome-only features.
kodablah 6y ago
Well of course you're going to prefer an anti-competitive approach if you view competition as burdensome. This has analogies in many industries. You should divorce your personal anti-competition desires from the non-personal discussion. Encouraging choice is often a better way to give more people what they want.
- ericmay 6y ago
  The competition is in the marketplace. I'm not sure what value there is in having an Epic store, an Apple store, a Google store, a Netflix store, a Microsoft Store... Having choice isn't always better. I think the Apple iOS store is a very clear example where choice leads to negative experience for users. As I've mentioned before, Apple collectively bargains on behalf of users against developers. They enforce (albeit imperfectly) certain standards and force nefarious developers to implement things like sign in with Apple. They only, and I mean only, affect of releasing developers from the App Store is that they'll sign on with some 3rd party store, and if you want to use Spotify, or Netflix, or Facebook you'll get it from a 3rd party store where they charge the exact same prices but then infest the applications with hostile anti-patterns, tracking, etc. That's it. When you advocate for "choice" here, you're simply advocating for the choice for users to pay the same prices they've been paying except also being exposed to anti-patterns that Apple is working to prevent. Choice in this case, is clearly bad. I'll also add, I have yet to hear a peep from Epic w.r.t having to go through Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo for releasing Fortnite via their locked-in app stores. The iPhone is no more or less a computing device than those are.
  - horsawlarway 6y ago
    This is the same kind of response that used to be used when Google was discussed. "Google is clearly making the right choice for me. Their motto is literally 'don't be evil'". And in some respects it's true - A benevolent dictatorship is undeniably a great form of governance. The problem (and this is a problem) is that benevolent dictatorships never, Never, NEVER stay benevolent. At some point the guiding principles will change, or you will change, and you'll find yourself outside of the bubble you were so comfortable to live in. Some of us are already outside of that bubble. I don't like not being able to run software of my choice on a device I (in theory only, in Apple's case) own. Basically - I find this argument extremely short-sighted. It's trading any sense of long term thinking for the immediate convenience of letting someone else do the work for you in the short term. I have very, very little respect for this argument.
Slartie 6y ago
I as a customer like the Epic Games Store. I even more like the GoG store. And I kind of like the Steam store, but least of these. When I shop for games, I never pay the list price - ever. Well, maybe once every few years when I buy a game in the GoG store made by CD Projekt Red, which run the store but are also a publisher of AAA titles I really, really love. I pay full price for them because they really deserve it, and they get 100% of the well-deserved money if I buy in their store. All the other games? I'll happily wait for a sale in one of the aforementioned stores, of which there are plenty and with huge rebates, because they must compete for me as a customer. First sales are usually coming just a few months after a games' release, and with lots of games to play still in my pipeline and less time to actually play them due to work, family and all that real-life stuff, I can usually muster the patience to wait for reduced prices.
simion314 6y ago
You can only use one store, it will have missing stuff but you should be used with that if you only use Apple approved App Stores. Also if I want to buy a subscription for soemthing like Intellij as a developer I would feel like garbage to use a store and give a 30% cut to Microsoft or Apple for the privilege of allowing me to install something, the developers deserve those money and a big corporation because they host some files.
Macha 6y ago
Apps that would have previously been one time purchases that are now subscriptions because upgrade pricing is not a viable model in the app store are one example of a price increase that the app store has created (after the initial launch pushed many apps to $0.99/$4.99, admittedly).
JamesSwift 6y ago
I really dont understand this argument. What about allowing alternatives forces the current state to go away? Why would other stores create a scenario where you _cant_ go to the Apple App Store and use your Apple pay and get your Apple approved apps? I saw the same thing come up when people talked about wanting to maintain status quo for in-app payment options. Because, again, adding additional choices does not just make your current choice go away. You can still choose that apple-blessed option if thats what you want. Unless, of course, it turns out that theres a lot of unnecessary margin being added on and its actually not a profitable business model when faced with competition.
ulucs 6y ago
> You guys are acting like the existence of the App Store has jacked up the app prices by 200%, Yes, I really enjoy ads every seven and a half seconds for games I am not even allowed to buy to remove ads.

bryanlarsen 6y ago

> You guys are acting like the existence of the App Store has jacked up the app prices by 200% No, we got free to play with endless micro transactions instead. I would have preferred the price bump.

pb7 6y ago
Like Epic’s Fortnite?
doytch 6y ago
Well, that was because developers demanded it. Apple initially didn't allow in-app payments for free apps.
- _qulr 6y ago
  No, developers demanded time-limited trials for paid apps, which we had for many years before the App Store. But Apple _never_ delivered on that. Instead, Apple pushed "subscriptions", which is just another name for rental.
  - falcolas 6y ago
    Apple, Adobe, Microsoft, Google... Subscription models produce lots of recurring revenue, so companies absolutely adore that model when they can get away with it.

_coveredInBees 6y ago

Erm... that's because that's always been baked into the price of software/apps on the app store since inception. Not sure how higher prices for consumer is great for the consumer. I get the convenience argument, but not every consumer is willing to pay higher prices just for that. There is a huge difference between a 2-5% fee like CC merchants charge and a 30% across the board fee on the app store.

isodev 6y ago
I've never made my users pay the difference. The App Store is also a service for distribution. If it wasn't there, I would be forced to invest much more in marketing, cloud services and all kinds of "small things" which are not the primary purpose of my apps. If anything, my apps would be more expensive outside the store.
- ctvo 6y ago
  The parent comment stated the best solution was to allow both an app store and consumers the choice on how / where they get their apps. If the default app stores provides as much value as you claim, developers would continue to distribute there, pay the fees, and consumers would go there for discoverability and convenience. Let consumers decide. With options, consider maybe someone could provide those services even better / more cheaply and you also benefit as a developer.

enragedcacti 6y ago

> all the apps that I need Correction: all the apps that Apple thinks you need, regardless of whether or not it aligns with what you need or want.

mirthflat83 6y ago
Please give me examples of apps I’m missing out on as an average consumer because I’m all for missing out on malwares
- simion314 6y ago
  Any example that will be provided the fanboys will explain why they themselves don't need that application. The big example are web browsers (but you all are happy with the new IE) , GPL apps and some very popular game called Fortnite you might have hear of. I am wondering if you can refund your iPhone because a month ago you could play this game and now it will be blocked.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    The new IE is Chrome actually. With 20% global market share, plenty of countries don't care about Safari support.
    - simion314 6y ago
      The new IE from the dragging things down point of view. Microsoft did not dare to not allow other browsers on Windows and because of that we can complain about Chrome.
      - mytherin 6y ago
        Internet explorer was actually a decent browser in its peak. The whole "dragging things down" happened later on because people kept on using really old versions of IE (mostly the one bundled with Windows XP). The main problem with Internet Explorer in its hay day was that they did not play nice with other browser vendors and implemented features outside of the standard. Those features were then relied upon by website developers, causing many websites to only work on Internet Explorer. After all - most people were using internet explorer, why cater to anyone else? Chrome is not quite in the same position as Internet Explorer was back then, but it's getting frighteningly close. There are several websites that only work on Chrome, and despite me not using Chrome as my primary browser I do have Chrome installed because for some websites I simply need Chrome. This is obviously very dangerous to the freedom of the internet. Funnily enough Apple forcing iOS users to use Safari actually helps here. Because so many people use iOS and they need to use Safari, website developers need to cater to at least one non-Chrome web browser. That in turn makes it more likely they will also cater to others (e.g. Firefox) rather than relying on Chrome-only features.

kodablah 6y ago

Well of course you're going to prefer an anti-competitive approach if you view competition as burdensome. This has analogies in many industries. You should divorce your personal anti-competition desires from the non-personal discussion. Encouraging choice is often a better way to give more people what they want.

ericmay 6y ago
The competition is in the marketplace. I'm not sure what value there is in having an Epic store, an Apple store, a Google store, a Netflix store, a Microsoft Store... Having choice isn't always better. I think the Apple iOS store is a very clear example where choice leads to negative experience for users. As I've mentioned before, Apple collectively bargains on behalf of users against developers. They enforce (albeit imperfectly) certain standards and force nefarious developers to implement things like sign in with Apple. They only, and I mean only, affect of releasing developers from the App Store is that they'll sign on with some 3rd party store, and if you want to use Spotify, or Netflix, or Facebook you'll get it from a 3rd party store where they charge the exact same prices but then infest the applications with hostile anti-patterns, tracking, etc. That's it. When you advocate for "choice" here, you're simply advocating for the choice for users to pay the same prices they've been paying except also being exposed to anti-patterns that Apple is working to prevent. Choice in this case, is clearly bad. I'll also add, I have yet to hear a peep from Epic w.r.t having to go through Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo for releasing Fortnite via their locked-in app stores. The iPhone is no more or less a computing device than those are.
- horsawlarway 6y ago
  This is the same kind of response that used to be used when Google was discussed. "Google is clearly making the right choice for me. Their motto is literally 'don't be evil'". And in some respects it's true - A benevolent dictatorship is undeniably a great form of governance. The problem (and this is a problem) is that benevolent dictatorships never, Never, NEVER stay benevolent. At some point the guiding principles will change, or you will change, and you'll find yourself outside of the bubble you were so comfortable to live in. Some of us are already outside of that bubble. I don't like not being able to run software of my choice on a device I (in theory only, in Apple's case) own. Basically - I find this argument extremely short-sighted. It's trading any sense of long term thinking for the immediate convenience of letting someone else do the work for you in the short term. I have very, very little respect for this argument.

Slartie 6y ago

I as a customer like the Epic Games Store. I even more like the GoG store. And I kind of like the Steam store, but least of these. When I shop for games, I never pay the list price - ever. Well, maybe once every few years when I buy a game in the GoG store made by CD Projekt Red, which run the store but are also a publisher of AAA titles I really, really love. I pay full price for them because they really deserve it, and they get 100% of the well-deserved money if I buy in their store. All the other games? I'll happily wait for a sale in one of the aforementioned stores, of which there are plenty and with huge rebates, because they must compete for me as a customer. First sales are usually coming just a few months after a games' release, and with lots of games to play still in my pipeline and less time to actually play them due to work, family and all that real-life stuff, I can usually muster the patience to wait for reduced prices.

simion314 6y ago

You can only use one store, it will have missing stuff but you should be used with that if you only use Apple approved App Stores. Also if I want to buy a subscription for soemthing like Intellij as a developer I would feel like garbage to use a store and give a 30% cut to Microsoft or Apple for the privilege of allowing me to install something, the developers deserve those money and a big corporation because they host some files.

Macha 6y ago

Apps that would have previously been one time purchases that are now subscriptions because upgrade pricing is not a viable model in the app store are one example of a price increase that the app store has created (after the initial launch pushed many apps to $0.99/$4.99, admittedly).

JamesSwift 6y ago

I really dont understand this argument. What about allowing alternatives forces the current state to go away? Why would other stores create a scenario where you _cant_ go to the Apple App Store and use your Apple pay and get your Apple approved apps? I saw the same thing come up when people talked about wanting to maintain status quo for in-app payment options. Because, again, adding additional choices does not just make your current choice go away. You can still choose that apple-blessed option if thats what you want. Unless, of course, it turns out that theres a lot of unnecessary margin being added on and its actually not a profitable business model when faced with competition.

ulucs 6y ago

> You guys are acting like the existence of the App Store has jacked up the app prices by 200%, Yes, I really enjoy ads every seven and a half seconds for games I am not even allowed to buy to remove ads.