44 ms·

Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

• doublerabbit 6y ago
  "The Coalition for App Fairness", I cannot not laugh. On the stage you have: Epic - Trying to be the next Valve/Steam. Happy to rip off their customers via in-game transactions. Spotify - Who rip off artists by either failing or paying very little in royalties. Tinder - Sells sex. None of these companies have any care for the actual developer; who are the folk trying to make a living from their creations.
  • jeremiahlee 6y ago
    70% of Spotify's revenue goes to rights holders. That's not ripping off artists. Streaming royalties have been the largest segment of music rights holder revenue for several years. The record labels negotiated these deals and had all of the power. Also, all music streaming services have effectively the same deals. Spotify does not have preferential treatment. Artists can distribute their music without Spotify. Spotify cannot distribute its app to iOS users without Apple.
    • TylerE 6y ago
      That’s more representative of how the market has imploded. There were 900M CDs sold in the US in 2000. This year that number will be less than 25M
      • shadowgovt 6y ago
        Imploded or transformed? Music consumption hasn't gone down. Consumption of physical media that I can't slip in my pocket has.
        • TylerE 6y ago
          Spending on music is vastly down. The RIAA publishes numbers - https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/ https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/ Inflation adjusted we are down by over half from the peak. Subscription revenue is less that 30% of peak CD revenue.
    • acruns 6y ago
      Wouldn't that be the record companies though? I have heard Kanye is trying to get more money for artists but not really sure. I am puzzled why blockchain+streaming for music hasn't taken off. Artists would maintain rights and profits from what I can tell
      • ticmasta 6y ago
        Traditionally payment & accounting has never been a problem in the music business, so I think blockchain would not really help. The underlying economics is what has changed dramatically. Distribution is close to free, but unlike the ~ $1 an artist might have seen out of a CD sale (before discounting for costs & advances) they now see sub-cents on a single track. You used to pay $15-20 for an entire album to get 2 or 3 good songs; now you only stream everybody's top tracks and pay less than that a month. So the artist gets a couple of pennies for the period when they are hot, then nothing.
      • rblatz 6y ago
        Why would you put blockchain in this?
        • damnyou 6y ago
          For micropayments per stream, presumably.
          • rmah 6y ago
            Blockchain is not suitable for micropayments. The computing resource requirements are many orders of magnitude too high.
            • damnyou 6y ago
              A proof of work blockchain isn't suitable, but proof of work is one of many ways to reach distributed consensus.
    • ticmasta 6y ago
      70% of an apple purchase goes to the app developer. That's not ripping off developers.
      • christopherwxyz 6y ago
        Apple doesn’t charge itself a 30% fee when it competes with other developers for the same paying users.
        • sithlord 6y ago
          And you dont charge yourself what the lawn companies charge you to cut your yard. I don't really get your point.
          • christopherwxyz 6y ago
            Your example is faulty. No one pays you to cut your own lawn. People pay Apple to listen to Apple Music. People pay Apple to watch TV+. Other competitors have to pay 30% for every customer before they can even compete with their own product.
    • criddell 6y ago
      Spotify is complicated because the big record companies are also big shareholders. They have a conflict of interest. Also 70% doesn't mean anything without actual numbers. If they lowered their subscription to $1 / month and gave 80% to rights holders it wouldn't be an improvement. I'd be more interested if they reported how many plays per month it takes to earn as much as you would in a minimum wage job. Edit: I was curious about the minimum wage question so I looked it up. Assuming $15 / hour for minimum wage it would take 750,000 streams on Spotify and 430,000 streams on Apple Music to earn the same in a month as you would working a minimum wage job. https://soundcharts.com/blog/music-streaming-rates-payouts https://soundcharts.com/blog/music-streaming-rates-payouts
      • jeremiahlee 6y ago
        My understanding is that rights holders are paid by the percentage of all plays, not per play. Deezer is trying to fix this, but it requires the major labels to agree to the change. Deezer's user-centric payment system would apportion royalties based on an individual customer's play percentage instead of the total customer base's percentage. So if you only listen to 5 artists, all of your subscription's royalties would go to those 5 artists. More info on UCPS at https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/deezer-launches-initiative-for-user-centric-approach-to-distribute-royalties-883310/ https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/deezer-launches-initia... and https://www.deezer.com/ucps https://www.deezer.com/ucps
  • gostsamo 6y ago
    Many good things in history happened because bad people had interest of them happening. At hominem attacks does not invalidate a claim. P.S. I'm not downvoting but still trying to bring everyone down is a low-quality argument.
    • singularity2001 6y ago
      No hominem was attached
      • izacus 6y ago
        Attacking a companny/person behind an argument for unrelated issues is a definition of "ad hominem".
        • singularity2001 6y ago
          [deleted]
          • roblabla 6y ago
            They're the messenger. The idea behind an ad hominem is to attack the messenger instead of the message - whether the messenger is a human or corporation doesn't really matter. Who's behind the argument doesn't matter, if the argument is solid.
  • mFixman 6y ago
    All three allow games, music, and dating to happen outside of their platforms. The Apple equivalent would be Microsoft not allowing any program being installed from outside their store or Tinder closing down all bars in a city to lower competition.
    • dleslie 6y ago
      I can't sell my music streaming service on Spotify. I can't provide my own dating service on Tinder. I can't operate my own app store on EGS. Edit: what, I can't expect them to abide by their own demands of Apple?
    • zepto 6y ago
      What does apple not allow outside it’s platform? How would they even control that?
      • Floegipoky 6y ago
        There is nothing _but_ their platform- from the hardware, to OS, to app store, they're arguing that their platform encompasses an entire vertically-integrated business model. Microsoft got nailed for shipping their web browser with their OS (which users could easily replace), but it's fine for Apple to control all software a user can install? Take a monopoly and call it a platform, and it's fine? No. I have little love for Epic, but I'm glad somebody has the money to try to buy some law that will ultimately result in users having more control over the technology they depend on.
        • 52-6F-62 6y ago
          > users having more control over the technology they depend on. Bit of a chicken/egg problem there isn't it? I bought the iOS device and depend on it being as locked down as it is—that's why I bought it. I wasn't force to choose an iOS device for any reason. If I depended on more openness I could have gone with an Android or other device. Do I depend on having a phone? Yes. Does it matter which one? No—the choice is there.
      • 6y ago
  • speedgoose 6y ago
    Tinder sells rejections and disappointments too.
    • valvar 6y ago
      Or happiness. I met my wife on Tinder several years ago, and we know other couples who met the same way.
    • Kalium 6y ago
      Tinder doesn't sell sex. It sells access to a Skinner box with intermittent positive reinforcement and frequent negative reinforcement where the reward is human connection. Way, way more psychologically toxic.
  • asou 6y ago
    Considering Tinder's parent ( The Match Group ) got sued by the FTC for fraud, not very smart to include them. Intentionally making subscriptions hard to cancel is one of the behaviors Apple's payment system seeks to prevent. As much as I like Tim Sweeney's arguments for lower royalties, he doesn't have half a toe to stand on. Don't want to pay the Apple tax, make your own phone. This fairness coalition is free to manufacture Android phones with a no royalties store . Hogan's Law on YouTube has done a very good take on this. The government can not compel two companies to engage in a contract. If I set up a newspaper stand and decide anyone who wants to sell news papers needs to cut me in for 30%, you can't demand special treatment. I could see Apple making an example out of Epic and banning them for life. You don't sneak in hidden functionality, and then flick it on via a server side command
    • damnyou 6y ago
      In the world I inhabit, Apple is the one that intentionally makes it really hard to cancel subscriptions. You literally cannot cancel a subscription to an iOS app from an Android phone or Linux PC.
      • asou 6y ago
        You can't subscribe without an IOS Device , Mac or Windows PC. If your in some strange edge case where your subscribing to services and then discarding your IOS devices before canceling , that's on you. In a worst case scenario you could borrow a friend's Windows PC. As much as I love Linux I can't imagine most Linux users don't have at least one windows PC or Mac. If we really want to get technical, spin up an AWS instance, RDP into it, install iCloud for windows and then cancel your subscription.
        • kemayo 6y ago
          There are a few services you can sign up for without any of those... but Apple has a support page telling you how to unsubscribe from those from the devices you signed up from: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211011 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211011 Said support page also says you can contact Apple Support about it, which I imagine would also work for the "canceling an arbitrary in-app subscription" issue.
  • indigochill 6y ago
    I agree Epic's arguing in bad faith, but I also don't see why Apple (and other App Store companies, like Google) need to have change legislated upon them (or why this is something that needs to be protested). Apple got to where they are by being a successful platform that attracted users and developers with their walled garden ethos. If in fact that walled garden is bad for users/developers, then there are competitors. If Apple users felt they were getting ripped off (or Apple developers felt it wasn't worth it to develop for Apple platforms) they could go to Windows or Linux/Android. The only way I can interpret this is that Epic & Friends see Apple has a nice cake which they now want to both have and eat. Given that Apple made the cake and there are other cakes, I think they're being entirely unfair to Apple. If Epic & Friends don't like Apple's rules, they're welcome to get off Apple's platform and focus on other platforms. I personally don't think it's worth developing for Apple platforms myself, but the argument that developers somehow -have- to develop for Apple platforms is nonsense (the AAA market for games on PC vs Mac makes this obvious). That's only true if you decide you have to reach those users, which is only true if you as the developer decide it's economically worthwhile, in which case you have implicitly agreed that Apple's terms are economically justifiable.
    • lewdev 6y ago
      "walled garden ethos" I like that. Apple is all about exclusivity and premium priced products. It seems like developers develop for them and consumers buy for them for that reason. But expecting Apple to be a free, fair, and open company, is really going against their business model.
  • stephc_int13 6y ago
    As an actual game developer I can say that I am very happy to see this happening, and I know for a fact that this is the case of a very large number of devs.
  • bluedevil2k 6y ago
    > Happy to rip off their customers via in-game transactions. If people are happy and willingly buying skins, dances, and battle passes, that's not a rip-off.
    • pb7 6y ago
      How is this different than "if developers are happy and willingly develop for iOS then [the fees] are not a rip-off"?
      • bluedevil2k 6y ago
        The developers aren’t happy. No one forces a Fortnite player to buy skins or emotes, Apple forces developers to pay the fee.
        • DivisionSol 6y ago
          Er, no one is forcing any developer to make an app for iOS.
          • bluedevil2k 6y ago
            I see this type of comment a lot in these discussions on the App Store - "no one is forcing you to make an iOS app". No, no one is holding a gun to your head to make an iOS app. But you know what, people need to make money to pay the mortgage and feed their kids. If you're a programmer who has years of experience, who wants to make money in the field you have years of experience in, the field you likely enjoy doing and are good at, then YES you are forced to make an app on iOS because that's where the majority of the paying customers are. It's a bogus excuse to say "don't make an iOS app then". That's akin to telling a programmer "just learn to eat a little less".
            • pb7 6y ago
              Oh no, won't someone think of the... talented and skilled white-collar worker in one of the hottest and highest paying industries of all time that can work literally anywhere? Enough with the appeals to emotion.
  • Apocryphon 6y ago
    Basecamp, Tile, Protonmail are also some big names listed in the site. Even Prepear, the fairly obscure company that ran afoul of Apple’s aggressive trademark protection actions, is a founding member. I wonder if Telegram will join next. It’s as if they rallied together every company that’s had a news controversy with Apple this past year, at least the ones smaller than FANG.
  • cblconfederate 6y ago
    apparently neither does apple
• electriclove 6y ago
  Apple built their controlled ecosystem and set their rules. And now others are insisting that Apple should not have that control (even when they themselves are doing the same thing).
  • mFixman 6y ago
    It's a monopoly, and it's illegal.
    • dleslie 6y ago
      Apple clearly has competitors that have a much larger share of the market.
      • emptysongglass 6y ago
        They have one competitor on which users are allowed to install their own market (see F-Droid.) [1] [1] https://www.f-droid.org/ https://www.f-droid.org/
        • dleslie 6y ago
          F-Droid itself relies upon Android's openness to allow it to be installed. If you don't like Apple's walled garden then use Android.
          • im3w1l 6y ago
            And if you want to install whichever apps you want, AND not be spied on by your OS, there are basically no options. Linageos is a possibility, but with the play services situation, running any mainstream app without phoning home to google is if not impossible, extremely difficult and filled with footguns. Pine and Librem are exciting emerging possibilities but they have only been available for a very short time so it remains to be seen what will happen there.
            • 6y ago
• bilbo0s 6y ago
  Spotify? "The Coalition for", um, "App Fairness"? Yeah. I guess maybe sometimes you have to make a deal with the devil. But as a musician, I can't bring myself to do this one.
  • 52-6F-62 6y ago
    This take is as reasonable as any other. A musician wants to make more money and Spotify fails to pay according to that desire and the comment is rejected? A developer (or megacorp) wants to make more money and Apple fails to pay according to that desire and now we're in a legitimate discussion?
• danShumway 6y ago
  Can we just link directly to the advocacy group's page (https://appfairness.org/ https://appfairness.org/)? I'm not certain the article is adding anything. ---- I'm generally supportive of at least some of Epic's arguments towards Apple, and I do believe that Apple (and multiple other FAANG companies) are engaged in anti-competitive behavior that's currently hurting the market. But a lot of the arguments I'm reading on the App Fairness site in particular seem really poorly phrased, almost to the point of being incoherent. From their objection on "user freedom": > Think about this a little differently: A box of Cheerios costs about $3.00 at Kroger, but sometimes Cheerios offers a coupon which lowers the price to $2.50 at any store that offers Cheerios. What Apple is doing is basically like Kroger telling Cheerios that they’re not allowed to offer coupons, and if they do, Cheerios is at risk of being kicked out of the cereal aisle. Consumers wouldn’t stand for this type of monopolistic behavior over their cereal, so why should they allow it for the apps used on their mobile devices? I had to think really hard what they mean by this and how it actually relates to user freedom. Most resellers are allowed to choose their own prices for goods. I don't think this analogy corresponds at all to what Apple is doing. Apple is banning apps from telling consumers in app about other purchasing options. That's a totally different objection. I'm pleased to see developers banding together, but if this is the result then I wish they'd spend more time making more reasonable, understandable arguments. If this site was my first introduction to the debate over app store policies, I think I'd probably be on Apple's side.
  • chacha2 6y ago
    Website's broken on my Firefox, won't scroll.
    • nguyenkien 6y ago
      Same problem on Edge chromium.
      • dhagz 6y ago
        If you're not auto-accepting cookies, then the site won't let you scroll/do anything until you accept them.
• poorman 6y ago
  Inside the article: > Other founding members include ProtonMail email service owner Proton Technologies AG, trade group News Media Europe and project-management software maker Basecamp LLC. Link to the advocacy group page: https://appfairness.org/ https://appfairness.org/
• karpierz 6y ago
  If I build an operating system + hardware, should I be legally mandated to provide tooling to make it easy for users to find and install arbitrary software?
  • singularity2001 6y ago
    It should be mandatory to allow installing arbitrary apps, which has recently become nigh impossible, at least I couldn't find any way to distribute my rejected app.
    • jakeva 6y ago
      Any justification for forcing a hardware maker to allow arbitrary apps on their hardware, aside from your personal experience with being rejected?
      • ajconway 6y ago
        A single entity that only serves its shareholders is able to singlehandedly terminate almost any IT business out there... Sounds dangerous.
      • inigoalonso 6y ago
        I don't care about their hardware, I care about the hardware I own.
        • jakeva 6y ago
          Then it seems the rational thing for you to do is to buy hardware that allows arbitrary software to be run
  • grahamburger 6y ago
    There's quite a lot of grey area between "legally mandated to make it easy" and "legally mandated to not make it impossibly difficult."
• xlii 6y ago
  I just canceled Spotify membership I had for years for now. I don't have anything for Spotify or their fight with Apple. It makes sense. But on the other hand I refuse to help Epic in any initiative they take or to endorse companies that sides with them. Epic is in my eyes evil company and they done a lot of bad things in area I care about. I know that few of my friends do the same right now. It probably doesn't matter, but the only thing one can do is to vote with their wallet.
  • ketzu 6y ago
    > Epic is in my eyes evil company and they done a lot of bad things in area I care about. Can you elaborate on that? It's hard to follow for me. Also: You don't give money to epic, you also think the goal of spotify in that case makes sense. But you are willing to hurt a goal that you think makes sense because someone you don't like also thinks that goal is worth fighting for? This seems unnecessary and a bad strategy.
    • xlii 6y ago
      Epic introduced the concept of exclusivity on the PC gaming scene. Earlier Steam (which arguably is monopoly) provided option to buy games but those games could be distributed from outside - and many games did so. Right now Epic locks some of the games in their EGS store. Few kickstarted games were "bought" by Epic into (and which I personally backed, but I have no access to unless I accept their conditions). There is a lot to cover, if you're interested you could probably read a lot about people's game library being locked out due to some arbitrary reasons, cards details leaking out from EGS or people being charged twice and never refunded. Epic is a bully in a sheep's skin and they already proved that multiple times both in general and in direct way. As for the goal - the goal makes sense for Spotify, not me. I wouldn't condemn them for trying yet I don't have a stake there. They don't do this so that I can pay less, they do this so that they can earn more. I don't see why I should put my mind on helping huge, wealthy company to obtain their goals. Same goes with Apple.
      • ketzu 6y ago
        > As for the goal - the goal makes sense for Spotify, not me. I wouldn't condemn them for trying yet I don't have a stake there. They don't do this so that I can pay less, they do this so that they can earn more. I don't see why I should put my mind on helping huge, wealthy company to obtain their goals. Same goes with Apple. I personally think this is quite a far reaching issue we can and should form an opinion on. I don't own an apple device but I think it's an important issue of user freedom. It is a much stricter version of the exclusivity you consider a problem. But I overinterpreted your original statement. Sorry about that. Also: Thank you for elaborating on the issues. I was aware of those points. I just don't share your judgement about those issues, but there's no real point in discussing them further as it's super off-topic :)
• desmap 6y ago
  The most underrated thing we might get with multiple app stores: Devs do not need anymore XCode or a Mac to develop for iOS since Apple couldn't enforce any specific runtime or proprietary tool-chains anymore. I have an extra Macbook lying around here just for that reason. Who knows if Google will then offer Android Studio for iOS or Facebook a real React Native. Good times ahead and I cross my fingers. You don't have to like Epic, Spotify or Tinder but if they're successful developers in particular will benefit due to a richer iOS dev ecosystem.
  • Dahoon 6y ago
    That would be the day I might own my first Apple device or even release my apps on it.
• ajharrison 6y ago
  Ahahahahahahahahaha. I am always appalled by the level of entitlement these companies think they have. Guess what, this is Apple's market and they can choose the rules. Cry away.
• shadowgovt 6y ago
  Ah, okay. Now I begin to see their goals. I've been trying to wrap my head around why Epic would shoulder-tackle Apple in the space of app stores, when they have their own app store. Naively, I've been thinking that any ruling adverse to Apple here also impacts Epic's business model---if the government caps app store revenue cuts at, say, 10%, that's a slice off the top of what Epic can charge developers going through its store, too. But Epic is a game publisher first, app store owner second. A fair and regulated market is a win for them, because it decreases the barriers to competition in the app store space while, on average, probably diminishing store owner cuts, which benefits developers, of which Epic is one. So a more regulated market is a net positive for them.
  • krelian 6y ago
    Epic scored a lucky (?) hit with fortnite that brought them a lot of cash but I believe their bread and butter is their game engine where do they charge a percentage of the profits. Their store is more of a long-term investment, it might not bring a lot of revenue at the moment but if things go well for them it can easily convert to the top dog.
    • immigrantsheep 6y ago
      Epic doesn't take anything until your game makes $1,000,000 in gross revenue. After that they take 5%
  • conception 6y ago
    This is a good analysis but it always seemed so simple to me. If they win this ruling they overnight can make like a billion dollars more a year. Putting resources into this case makes more business sense then any other venture they could try.
  • m12k 6y ago
    It's highly unlikely that a regulator would cap Apple's cut at e.g. 10% like that. Apple is using a monopoly on distribution to enforce a monopoly on payments (and can thus monopolistically set prices arbitrarily) so it is most likely a regulator would force them to allow competition on distribution and payments, and thus allow the market to change the 30% organically, rather than just enforce a different arbitrary cut.
• Ericson2314 6y ago
  Regardless what you think of Tik Tok, realize that if people controlled the installations on their phones they way they did on their desktops, I don't think the government would make the threat it is. The choke point of a single app store enables lots of things.
• candiddevmike 6y ago
  Device freedom is a must. Any device should be completely controllable by the end user. There's two parts to this to me: app stores and the data collected by the devices. Users should have the freedom to install any software on their devices, period. Users should also have the freedom to stop all data collection by these devices. This applies to all electronics--video game consoles, TVs, printers, who knows what else in the future. If we keep letting manufacturers create these "walled gardens", we're not only creating a ton of trash because they will stop supporting them eventually, we're also stopping innovation and integration across platforms. Give me government mandated open protocols, open firmware, and let me install linux on my printer if I want. As devices get smarter, we should all reap the benefits of it through our own ingenuity and hacking.
  • sneak 6y ago
    If users didn’t want these things, users wouldn’t buy them. For the vast majority of people, and iPhone is way, way better than a computer that can run any app, precisely because it can’t run any app they click on. I’m a hacker, so I would love to be able to install any software I want on my iPhone, and introspect it in other ways. Most users, however, would have a way worse experience using their phone if they were given this option, because a non-trivial percentage of them would follow the tutorials online provided to them by malware authors to install their malware. This is precisely what happened to desktop computers. Has everyone forgotten about Bonsai Buddy? People who want a general purpose, configurable device that can run any code they want on it have options. They’re big, clunky, out of date phones. Apple is being punished for their success here. They happen to make the best phone hardware at the moment, and they bundle the best phone hardware with cryptographically-enforced editorial decisions about the best software that runs on it. I think the real danger here is that of censorship: if the state commands Apple to delete (or actively remote-disable) certain apps, a huge problem exists. Today it’s WeChat or TikTok. What if tomorrow it’s Signal? iMessage’s encryption has already been backdoored for the feds in the default configuration via iCloud Backup (which is not end to end encrypted and backs up the entirety of chat history from the device to Apple each night). The state could literally command Apple to prohibit any type of secure communication from the device via this method and they’d have to comply, and iPhone-owners would have no recourse due to the DRM. That’s the real danger. There’s a real argument to not allowing Apple to do this, but I don’t think “consumer choice” is it. Consumer choice chose the walled garden over the anarchy of Desktop Computer Malware.
• holoduke 6y ago
  Don't think epic really is in this for a better world. But heavily regulated app stores by public orgs. I am all for.
• nicetryguy 6y ago
  I'm surprised at all of the negativity here. The changes proposed would be great for developers, even if (most) of the companies involved are shady, their reasons are selfish, and the obvious "astroturfiness" of the website is laughably dissonant and reeks like a dirty think tank that hasn't been cleaned in months. Apple has no qualms about absolutely screwing developers historically. I'm happy to see some pushback.
  • tmotwu 6y ago
    Not exactly sure if it's astroturfing, but there's definitely been a lot of non-devs commenting on this issue. You can see this when they go off on some security tangent while the App Store is in fact host to thousands of malware in disguise. They trust that Apple is manually reviewing each and every App for security holes, that's why the App Store exists in the first place and totally why there's a 30% toll. I'm starting to imagine it's not really about security but about the illusion of security for a lot of people.
    • temp667 6y ago
      "illusion"? It's relative security. On the iphone, if I buy a used phone and a scammer has popped a cheapo battery in to show no battery life slow down - apple alerts me (also unpopular on HN BTW). If I buy an android phone from most carriers, their "security" involved pre-loading it with unremovable adware and tracking apps. This is more secure - are you serious? The google play store has less malware? The permissions process for android apps has been terrible. With apple, I can now give apps access to specific photos in my camera roll, it works great. It alerts me to folks doing background tracking and makes it easy to turn off (even after I said yes earlier). What's nuts is that developers don't understand why consumers benefit or like this and want the DOJ to blow open this little bubble of sanity so they can push their crapware through or their auto-billing app stores through.
      • tmotwu 6y ago
        In the meantime, nothing stops a scammer from selling you a jailbroken device. App permissioning has nothing to do with the App Store and it's hostile policies towards developers. You can set the same permissioning rules on rival devices as well. The false narrative that the App Store exists to protect you needs to be dispelled forever. The trust consumers have to install any App in the App Store is far more terrifying.
• bredren 6y ago
  Epic went about this all wrong. They should have started by making a public campaign touting their support of developers using Unreal Engine in the App Store. Epic should have started by offering to cover half of Apple's App Store fee for Unreal Engine devs, and made the story about supporting their own developers AND about how Apple was charging too much. Any coalition should have been with other companies doing the same thing with people building on their platforms. This would have gotten much more positive and sustainable publicity and would have allowed them to make the case that all developers should be paying less fees. Instead they made it about Fortnite and themselves. Epic blew this.
• vonwoodson 6y ago
  But, can we just say: fck Fortnite. This is the wolf calling for homes to be built of straw. We hate “free to play”/“pay to win” and in-app purchases. We HATE* them. Thank god that Apple is taking a stand. I haven’t been so happy with a company since they refused to unlock that dude’s phone in California a few years back. (Which, I know, the lawsuit ended the same day an iOS “security” patch came out.) Seriously. If you can’t make money by playing by the rules, GTFO.
  • mthoms 6y ago
    >Thank god that Apple is taking a stand. What exactly is Apple doing to combat the scourge of “free to play”/“pay to win” and in-app purchases? From where I'm sitting, they seem perfectly fine with it (as long as they get their cut).
  • la_oveja 6y ago
    How is Fortnite "pay to win"?
  • dragonwriter 6y ago
    > We hate “free to play”/“pay to win” and in-app purchases. While I'm not a Fortnite player, I thought Fortnite was known for not being pay-to-win, with IAP being for cosmetic options, not in-game advantages; basically selling digital collectibles you can show off while playing. I think there is a pretty big ethical differentiation between that and F2P games that have you pay for in-game advantages (with the Wargaming.net model where you pay for in-game options that are mostly not competitive advantages but broaden the scope of play choices [because most of the competitive advantage is compensated in matchmaking] somewhere in between.) Not all F2P + IAP models are the same.
  • strig 6y ago
    Completely disagree. Although I don't play Fortnite, their monetization model is fine. There is no pay to win (don't conflate that with free to play), the only things you can pay for are the battle pass and cosmetic skins. Apex and many other games use this model and it's ultimately good for the consumer in my experience.
  • 6y ago
• AlexandrB 6y ago
  From https://appfairness.org/our-vision/ https://appfairness.org/our-vision/ > No app store owner should prohibit third parties from offering competing app stores on the app store owner’s platform, or discourage developers or consumers from using them. I don't disagree but does this mean Sony should allow, for example, Steam to be installed on the PS5? Or is the definition of "App Store" used here narrow and arbitrary?
  • burlesona 6y ago
    Yes, it means Sony has to add Steam to PS5 or else it is narrow and arbitrary. To me the iPhone is a console, end of story. If you like the console experience, it’s a great device. If you don’t, there are a million android and even alternative OS based phones out there which are more like a PC. If you want your phone to be a PC, you should do what most people around the world do and buy one of those. Instead we have these companies who are trying to force Apple to sell PCs instead of consoles. It’s in their business interests, so I get it. But I hope it doesn’t work, because there are a lot of us (myself included) who really LIKE the console experience, both on iPhone and on PS4, and don’t want a PC experience on those devices.
    • Razengan 6y ago
      > To me the iPhone is a console, end of story. If you like the console experience, it’s a great device. If you don’t, there are a million android and even alternative OS based phones out there which are more like a PC. If you want your phone to be a PC, you should do what most people around the world do and buy one of those. This! A hundred times over, and over again. An iPhone is an iPhone, competing with a million other phones (well, maybe thousands). An iPad however, is another story, as Apple themselves like to push it as a general purpose "computer". Maybe that's why they forked out iPadOS, so that if they're ever forced to make changes based on device classification they could limit those changes to the iPad?
      • strictnein 6y ago
        The discussion here is about App Stores. Apple has one, which is the dominant one in the US. Most of the rest of the mobile app market is controlled by Google.
• temp667 6y ago
  Haha - this illustrates WHY the app store is so popular. You've got Match.com (owns tinder). Repeat FTC offender (most scammmers never get the FTC slap on the wrist). "Match Group also allegedly makes it too difficult to cancel a subscription through “confusing and cumbersome cancellation practices.” The FTC claims users must click through two pages of survey questions and cites a 2015 internal presentation that notes the cancellation flow as “hard to find, tedious and confusing.” “Members often think they’ve cancelled when they have not and end up with unwanted renewals,” More recently they were doing the fake match emails to generate signups. I'm not sure if that case has settled yet. You've got Epic. They are pretty famous for targeting kids and getting them to spend their parents money, auto-saving payment info parents may enter to allow a single purchase, microtransactions nightmare and using "v bucks" / bannanas etc to make it less transparent in terms of what things are actually costing. Refund / complaint procedures are horrible. "When Stecklare tried to request a refund from Epic Games, she says, it was like hitting a brick wall. She sent multiple emails over several days but says she received only boilerplate responses.".... Spotify They find no name bands they don't have to pay to do covers of major musical acts or replace the "best of..." albums with these trash albums. They've also been sued repeatedly over their royalty practices. The lawsuit (below) alleges that Spotify has participated in "an egregious, continuous and ongoing campaign of deliberate copyright infringement" around the mechanical license for many of the songs on its platform. Having these folks in charge of app subscriptions and setting standards inside the apple walled garden is going to be a TRAIN WRECK if they win this case. So much trust is going to be lost by users who are used to stuff in the apple world not having these and other scammers playing around in it.
  • izacus 6y ago
    Interesting how there's so many posts here attacking the companies behind the action (ad hominem style) by specifying actions that have nothing to do with the abuses Apple and AppStore do. Is this targeted?
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • ilikehurdles 6y ago
• itg 6y ago
  It boggles my mind that there are people rooting for Apple to "win" here. Whatever you think of Epic, Spotify, etc, the changes they propose would be a win for customers to use the devices the way they want to. If you only want to download apps from Apple's approved app store, they are not taking that away from you.
  • havelhovel 6y ago
    Not everyone values having an open device. Being my family and friends’ on-call tech support tells me this would in fact be a negative.
  • 52-6F-62 6y ago
    I bought an Apple phone specifically because it's not open. I think we should be allowed to have that as much as we're allowed to make a completely open and modular device. I like having the choice to have a locked down, simplistic device. The fewer openings, the better for me there.
• Razengan 6y ago
  Can users and developers who are in favor of keeping the App Store as is form an advocacy group too? I’ve been collecting a list of arguments in favor of maintaining the status quo on iOS and I’ve yet to see anyone offer a good solution to these: ---- The problems with letting all apps advertise external payment systems: • Someone may publish a free app to avoid paying anything to Apple, and then charge users [an asston of] money to ""unlock"" via an alternate payment system. • Users may not be able to see a list of all in-app purchases (and their guaranteed prices) as they can on the App Store, without downloading the app. • Sharing your payment details and other information with multiple entities, and having to continually trust each of them (e.g. to not abuse or leak). • Confused users may clog up Apple's customer support with complaints related to third-party payment systems. • Angry users may demand Apple to offer refunds for shit that was paid for via third-party payment systems. ---- The problems with allowing third-party app stores on iOS: • How will iOS sandboxing be enforced for apps delivered via third-party stores? Will those apps still have to be submitted to and signed by Apple? • Store apps would need the privilege to write binaries on your iPhone. How will that privilege be regulated to prevent abuse? e.g. what happens if a store starts writing malware? • Users may sometimes have to wait longer for an app to update on one store than on others (as already happens on Steam vs GoG). • Developers would no longer be assured that they will have access to literally all the users that iOS has, by publishing on just one store. • You would have to submit to each store, wait for approval on each of them, update for each of them... to come close to the userbase that you can currently access by just publishing once on the App Store. • Developers will no longer all play by the same rules. One store may allow some content while another may prohibit it. • Controversial content like porn may still ultimately be bound by Apple's ruling on such matters, rendering moot the freedom of third-party stores in what kind of apps they may offer. • iOS Parental Control and Screen Time restrictions may be ineffective on other stores (and browsers too if third-party rendering engines were allowed). • If an app or game is exclusive to a store that a user isn't already using, they would have to create a new account and maintain an additional app just to access that one exclusive. • Not all stores may be compatible with the iOS backup and restore system, or the APIs for app-thinning and on-demand resources. ---- To resolve many of those issues, Apple would have to ultimately step in anyway. The need for third-party stores is really not that great to offset the advantages offered by the current system.
• Imaiomus 6y ago
  fock, them, all
• Razengan 6y ago
  Oh fuck Tinder: In addition to being riddled with scammers and "escort" services in some regions and choosing to do nothing about it, older men are charged more for using Tinder's premium service: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24129986 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24129986 I do not respect Tinder at all. They have scummy practices and I actually got upset with Apple for giving them featured spots on the App Store so often. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! On the other hand, Apple unconditionally refunded my Tinder in-app purchase when I fell to one of their scams. Seeing Tinder in any group will just make me automatically align with that group's antipode.
  • _mkef 6y ago
    Chaotic evil. I'm all for them being shitty enough to drive people off the platform. https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/20/problem-in-tinder-dating-app-leaked-user-locations/ https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/20/problem-in-tinder-dating-a... Sounds real fun! Of course unless you do your research you'd never find out how little they care about user safety. Since I'm ranting, I don't see getting trapped in the Social Media matrix as being good for anyone. The old fashioned way to meet folks was to be active in your community. Since that's now seen as optional we have an entire generation of isolated miserable people. The Social Media Dilemma ( Netflix movie )goes into greater detail , but you need real life human interaction to function. I know I've had no issue making friends (etc), since I became social media free. The world is an awesome place. Instead of wasting money on Tinder Passport, you can get a real passport and see new places. A flight to Europe can be as low as 300$ !
• gpm 6y ago
  All the arguments about what company is most evil entirely miss the point. You don't make a decision on a specific issue based on what company you like more, you base it on who is right on the specific issue. From an ethical perspective that's what having a codified rule of laws is all about. Everyone get's the same rules no matter how much you like them. You don't arbitrarily punish people for doing things you don't like by denying them unrelated things that they are entitled to unless you go in front of a judge and get a judge to order that as a punishment for doing the thing you don't like. From a entirely practical and short term perspective these decisions do not just impact the companies you don't like, they also impact everyone else because our legal system puts a very heavy weight on precedent. I'm strongly reminded of the quote "Freedom of speech doesn't protect speech you like; it protects speech you don't like." (though obviously in this case it is applied to justice in general instead of speech in particular).
  • jlelse 6y ago
    > All the arguments about what company is most evil entirely miss the point. This!
  • geodel 6y ago
    > I'm strongly reminded of the quote "Freedom of speech doesn't protect speech you like; it protects speech you don't like... Modern addendum is "You can have Freedom Of Speech but no guarantee for Freedom After speech." Edit: Just to clarify, It is not my opinion. It is Social media warriors warning people "Free speech is not free of consequences"
    • DevKoala 6y ago
      I struggled to read your comment, but it shouldn’t be ignored. What you are saying is correct.
    • mercurysmessage 6y ago
      "Free speech is not free of consequences" This is absolutely true though? I fail to see your point. You are free to say what you want, and other people are free to criticize you for it. If you don't support the right to criticize, you don't support free speech.
• andromeduck 6y ago
  That's such an arbitrary delineation. What consoles or in-app markets? Should epic also be forced to allow arbitrary third party on fornite store for example and Nintendo the switch? And why limit it to digital markets? I feel like this is like trying to legislate walmart into leasing floor space to set up their own shops just because they don't want to pay their own stocking fees. It just makes no sense as anything other than a blatant attempt at regulatory capture which I'd argue is far more anti-competitive and extractive in spirit than what Apple/Google are doing. The pro competitive move for these companies should do is team up with each other and create their own ecosystem like what Google did with Chrome and Android when they were freaked out at the prospects of an Apple and Microsoft controlled mobile space. If they truly think they can provide so much more value to both devs and users but for the 30% app store fee then please actually do so and we'll all be better off. It's not like they're short on capital collectively.
• mola 6y ago
  A bunch of bullies whining about other bullies. I wish all parties involved a long and perilous battle.
• makerofthings 6y ago
  As a consumer, I really like how the AppStore works and I buy iPhones for me and for my family specifically because there is only one store and one way of subscribing and one way of using in-app purchases. I really, really hope Apple win this. I just don't want to have to deal with the possibility that every app is going to have its own in-app-purchase dark patterns. If everyone that wants to be able to side-load alternate app-stores could move to Android land and leave iOS alone, that would be great.
  • acomjean 6y ago
    So you like having only 1 app store for convince. I get that. But there is an legitimate argument to be made by those who do want it. The lack of competition is probably hurting you too, in the form of higher prices for everything. If there were alternatives you wouldn't be forecd to use them. What if apple starts trying to monetize in ways you don't like? (like trying even more aggressively to get appleTV/ AppleMusic subscriptions) You are putting a lot of trust in a company that may change its ways. If they change, where are you going to go?
    • makerofthings 6y ago
      I like that Apple forces app developers to use a system that is convenient and safe for me as the device owner. I don't think it would be a case of "ignore the alternatives", I expect many apps would abandon apple to save a few dollars and I would have to put my credit card into half the apps I currently use. I buy the phone and the apps for my benefit, not the benefit of Epic. I have to be honest, I subscribe to a lot more services through Apple than I would outside because I trust their cancellation mechanism. Developers may lose 30% on my purchases but they might not get anything outside of the walled garden. Also, I have a Sony Xperia running Sailfish, sat over there-->, for when I feel the need to tinker.
      • acomjean 6y ago
        Wouldn't it be nice to use old iPhones for tinkering instead? the hardware is pretty amazing. I guess I've decided the last few years to forsake some safety/connivance to ensure the right to use my hardware the way I want. Its harder. I have a linux notebook which is great, but requires a little more attention. As apple moves more into services its become less of a systems company, I'm not completely trusting of them.
• actuator 6y ago
  Why is Microsoft not in on this? Apple didn't allow Xbox Game Pass, while Samsung was proudly showcasing gaming on their phones on it. They seem to be the most hard done by unfair Apple practices. As far as I understand, they are not allowing the gaming service at all when it for all intents is nothing different from Netflix in principle. I certainly hope Microsoft joins in on this and not cut a side deal, it will hurt other devs in the long run.
  • cwhiz 6y ago
    Microsoft does not allow anyone else to sell digital Xbox games. This is the crux of all of this. Apple is doing what everyone else is doing. Google charges 30% and kicked Fortnite off the play store. Steam charges 15-30%. Microsoft and Sony have a monopoly on digital distribution of games on their console platforms, and charge some percent that I can't easily find. Hell, if you take this thought to conclusion, Epic has a monopoly on the Fortnite digital store. The idea that Apple is a monopoly is pretty silly. There is obviously smartphone competition, and Apple is a minority player. The idea that Apple has a monopoly on iOS and the App Store is true... but if that is illegal then it should also be illegal for Epic to have a monopoly on skins in Rocket League. I find that to be a pretty preposterous proposition.
    • actuator 6y ago
      > Apple is doing what everyone else is doing Microsoft has the Xbox Game Pass app on Android, Apple is doing the opposite. > but if that is illegal then it should also be illegal for Epic to have a monopoly on skins in Rocket League. I think the analogy doesn't fit. Like a laptop/desktop, smartphones are general computing platforms. Specific purpose devices like iPods, Nintendo Switch really don't fit into this category much less a game. Imagine if Microsoft had not allowed Windows to play nice with iPods, they wouldn't have sold the volumes they were able to move and Apple wouldn't have been able to built themselves back up. Smartphones/tablets have been the logical successors of desktops/laptops for a lot of consumers. They have to be open for others to flourish as well. The last thing I would want is for few companies to own everything, everyone should get a chance to compete on equal terms.
• shmerl 6y ago
  They should mandate that Apple must allow alternative stores. That will completely solve this problem and many other nasty problems Apple is causing.
• neonate 6y ago
  https://archive.is/4hWZj https://archive.is/4hWZj
• cblconfederate 6y ago
  I don't see why they would advocate Apple to change their app store. Is it possible for one corporate to meddle into the product of another? They are also unlikely to achieve anything on the legal side of things. Instead they 'd better spend for things like : - promote awareness of monopolistic tactics to apple device owners - create a well advertised web payments gateway where users can buy subscriptions to any app, and invite developers to join - syndicalize the hordes of developers to blackout their apps or sth here, i made a mockup: https://i.imgur.com/P6j3jnd.png https://i.imgur.com/P6j3jnd.png
  • gpm 6y ago
    > Is it possible for one corporate to meddle into the product of another Not really (except via negotiation), but it is possible for the government to. I'm not completely clear on the purpose of this coalition. Presumably it is either too fund lawsuits like Epic's (which is asking the government to stop Apple violating existing anti-trust laws), or to fund lobbying activities (which is asking the government to create stronger anti-trust laws, or to enforce them themselves instead of requiring a third party like Epic to step in and argue that they should be enforced). Or both.
• tehwebguy 6y ago
  Why don't they just get together and make a phone?
  • lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Everyone wants the recurring -as-a-service revenue without the R&D expense.
• vaccinator 6y ago
  Nice.
• tobr 6y ago
  The page is blocked by this message... > We use cookies to give you the best possible experience on our website. By continuing to browse this site, you give consent for cookies to be used. For more details, please read our Cookie Policy. ...with the only option being “I accept” (and by the way, you’re not allowed to read the cookie policy without first accepting it. Christ). Honestly, this thoroughly undermines the message about “consumer freedom”.
• capableweb 6y ago
  Totally off-topic but worth mentioning. If you click on the "Cookie Policy" link in the footer, it takes you to the right page, but on that page it's still asking for consent before I can actually read the policy. So many websites gets something so simple wrong, even Epic, Spotify and Tinder. Where are we going really?
• yladiz 6y ago
  Why should I read this website and take it seriously if I can't even read the cookie policy without accepting cookies, and when I actually do attempt to read the policy (thanks Reader Mode) I am told that to opt-out I have to disable cookies in my browser? Looking further and reading their privacy policy in the section titled "Your European Rights", I see this: > You have the right to ask us not to process your Personal Data for marketing purposes. We will usually inform you (before collecting your Personal Data) if we intend to use your Personal Data for such purposes or if we intend to disclose your information to any third party for such purposes. You can exercise your right to prevent such processing by checking certain boxes on the forms we use to collect your Personal Data. This is backwards. It is my right to not have you process my personal data for marketing purposes unless I opt-in, not my right to opt-out. This is an important distinction, and the fact that they have a poorly worded privacy policy on this makes me feel like they didn't really do their due diligence on this very basic stuff.
  • pb7 6y ago
    It's probably because they care very little about consumer rights and are just doing what companies do: attempt to make the most money possible.
    • sweezyjeezy 6y ago
      Do their motivations invalidate the argument?
      • pb7 6y ago
        Absolutely. I like the status quo and I'm not eager to find out what my new world will be like when the companies signaling that they don't really care about consumers have the power instead of Apple.
        • sweezyjeezy 6y ago
          The power to... not have to pay Apple so much for in app purchases in the app store? How does that hurt you, the consumer?
• revel 6y ago
  To me this seems pretty straightforward. App Stores are directly tied and bundled with the operating system. Within the device universe there are basically 2 choices of operating systems. This is an extremely concentrated industry with an extremely high HHI. Apple and Google favor their own products and discriminate against competitors and have done for years. They also extract rent from other companies forced to use their App Stores far in excess of the services they provide. MS vs European Commission found that the company illegally bundled Internet Explorer with their Operating System to the detriment of customer and at the expense of other businesses. Almost everything about current OS and App Store bundle seems essentially identical. To me this could not be more clear.
  • crazygringo 6y ago
    > To me this could not be more clear. The difference was that Microsoft monopolized the PC OS market. Apple does not monopolize the cell phone OS market. Consumers still have total choice between Apple and Android, so it's not an identical situation whatsoever. If Macs had had 50% market share way back when (instead of what, 5%?), Microsoft would never have been in legal trouble for bundling IE.
• dewey 6y ago
  https://appfairness.org/our-vision/ https://appfairness.org/our-vision/ On this page I can't even scroll, both with iPad and Mac.
• WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
  Funny thing about a site that is about fairness that doesn't let me 'not accept' the cookie popup at the bottom. Is this even GDPR compatible?
• KoftaBob 6y ago
  Maybe i’m oversimplifying the issue, but this can be solved by requiring Apple and Google to allow other app stores to operate on their operating systems.
• baby 6y ago
  Amazon needs to join. Can’t get books in the kindle app.
• seahawks78 6y ago
  Correct me if I am wrong but the advocacy group is essentially arguing that let me use your platform (marketplace) services and get a free ride doing so. Kind of like taking an Uber where at the end of the ride the driver just says: "you know what, lets ditch Uber, pull out your credit card and settle between the two of us. And I will charge you much lower!!" Aha.
  • joenathanone 6y ago
    The analogy only works if the only way to get to your destination was to use Uber. iOS doesn't allow app installs outside of the store.
    • _mkef 6y ago
      You don't need to use IOS to play games, listen to music or date. You could go down to a record store, hosting a trivia night, that's a game. Then buy some records, and talk to a nice potential partner. Done, you've accomplished all of these things without the use of IOS! Less cheeky , you can do all of those things on a PC, on an Android device, etc.
    • izolate 6y ago
      But it's not the only way to get to work. You can use Lyft (Android).
    • nickysielicki 6y ago
      The analogy works perfectly -- nobody has to buy an iPhone.
      • pornel 6y ago
        I bought an iPhone, and I'm not getting that 30% cut. Where's my money? Apple wants to get paid twice for the same thing. Apple sells me a device, and then they sell me (a device user) as their product to app developers.
        • 6y ago
• chaosharmonic 6y ago
  As an Android user, DAE wish we could see some similar collaboration across some of the vendors running downstream forks? The Apple tax comes up a lot, but there's a whole separate conversation to be had about Google Play APIs as a major choke point rendering other Android implementations "incompatible."
  • Apocryphon 6y ago
    That's a great idea, Google shouldn't be exempt from criticism and activism just because Android is more open than iOS. It's also a good way to put the irritating "why don't you go after Google too?" whataboutism that abounds in any discussion that critiques Apple.
    • chaosharmonic 6y ago
      It also would be better for the proliferation of actual specs if we had an industry group offering up alternatives to, say, Cast and Wear APIs. Never mind the dream that would be a sane alternative to SafetyNet.
• martini333 6y ago
  cry me a river
• dontspeak 6y ago
  I came hear for Epic vs Appstores but was served arguments on analogies.
• debug-desperado 6y ago
  Competition is good for consumers. It's very brave of Tim Sweeney et al. to take up this cause, and I hope they succeed. We shouldn't tolerate the monopolies, duopolies, and _opolies of our age. The early 20th century progressives understand how harmful they were to the common man.
• danoloan 6y ago
  > cookies consent prompt for a static website > fairness boo hoo keep crying, you are all accomplices
• Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
  This is what Epic should have done first, before going all guns on Apple. Perhaps Epic realised that passive approach to bring attention towards Apple's tax like Spotify isn't working and so decided to approach it legally. Then again, it's hard to believe that they thought they had a chance to get a verdict in their favour. But I don't think the attention they are trying to invoke is that of consumer, if anything it's impossible to invoke a consumer sentiment against Apple which is a aspirational buy for many and even religious investment to some. Epic seems to be targeting other app developers and so far doing a very bad job at it. IMO, It should have worked with Facebook silently even though it has more to loose with iOS 14's privacy settings than 30% cut[1] to get Facebook, instagram, WhatsApp banned on Appstore if necessary instead of depending upon a game played by children and adults who make money from children watching them play. Just ban WhatsApp in India and see what happens. But if Apple decides to charge tax for advertisements as well, then it could blow back for everyone who has advertising as business model. I wonder what consumers who buy for Apple's Privacy think about Apple essentially subsidising large advertising business, where as a one man developer has to pay 30% cut. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24297854 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24297854
  • ianlevesque 6y ago
    I don’t think they cared too much if they got a legal ruling on Fortnite in their favor. Fortnite is a fad that everyone has heard of but that is in decline. It was probably perfect for this purpose. I suspect they didn’t expect Apple to go thermonuclear war on them and revoke dev tools access entirely (impacting unreal engine).
• dasb 6y ago
  The root of this problem is that iPhones don't allow their owners to install software without jailbreaking their devices. Any real solution must be pointed at fixing that problem, either convincing people to stop buying Apple devices or beating Apple in the trade war they started.
  • Ensorceled 6y ago
    I bought iPhones for my parents precisely because they can't be tricked into installing software that hasn't been vetted by at least Apple and the software increasingly can't track them. I paid a premium for that peace of mind.
• redsolver 6y ago
  I think a solution to the App Store problem is to decentralize it, like the web. So I built a decentralized domain-based Android App Store: https://skydroid.app https://skydroid.app
  • capableweb 6y ago
    If Apple wanted, they could release a decentralized app store relatively quickly, by just allowing Cydia to exists and be installed without having to require root access to the device (actually don't know if Cydia still exists, basically a app for listing/searching/installing/removing apps from any repository online)
    • redsolver 6y ago
      Yep, that's basically what SkyDroid does, but it tries to be more user-friendly.
• tessela 6y ago
  from https://developer.apple.com/support/enrollment/ https://developer.apple.com/support/enrollment/ Do I need to enroll to install apps on a device? No. You can install apps on a device for free with Xcode. You’ll only need to enroll if you’d like to distribute apps, access beta software, and integrate with capabilities such as Siri, Apple Pay, and iCloud. So, Epic, Spotify and Tinder can make their stores, they just need to automate the process.
  • saurik 6y ago
    You are limited to three total apps installed for free with Xcode, they expire every seven days, have limited API surface access (you can't build a VPN app, for example), and among the things you can't integrate with is push notifications, which is one of the key reasons people build apps in the first place. So uhhh... thanks for playing, but that isn't helpful.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• TedShiller 6y ago
  If they don't like the App Store rules, those companies are free to develop, sell, and promote their own cell phone hardware and ecosystem. Nobody is forcing them to use Apple.
• newbie578 6y ago
  Good for Epic and co. I wish them the best, and I do hope change is coming.
• pokot0 6y ago
  To view the article, you need to accept the cookie policy. To read the cookie policy you need to accept the cookie policy. It's 2020. Ok.
• birdyrooster 6y ago
  Why don't they mention the company which started this 30% business? Why do they lie about Apple being the only company to charge 30% in any industry. What a load of rubbish.
• jeffrogers 6y ago
  LMAO. Love the consumer friendly positioning of the group. If at least two of the founding members weren’t data over-reachers, this might be good theater. As things are, these folks cannot claim they represent my best interests.
• mattfrommars 6y ago
  Simplest thing to do. Get out of Apple App store and move onto a Google Play, Galaxy store and plenty of stores out there. No need to stick to one.
• mastazi 6y ago
  Undismissable full-screen modal that forces me to get all cookies? Not gonna read it mate. You would expect an advocacy group to try and get their message out...
• neokrish 6y ago
  I'm not sure how I feel about this. I do appreciate that in the Apple ecosystem, "I'm not the product". There is a level of trust with their products and services that I do feel thankful for and will continue to pay for it. I do not want a different app store. I do not want to have apps direct access to the fundamental iOS services. Don't get me wrong, I really like a lot of the companies that have formed this coalition but I don't think their ask is right. I cannot honestly read about the impact to democracy, primarily because we are unable to define and protect what is private data and what is public, and then agree to what is being asked for by this coalition of partners. However they promise to safeguard the data, I don't think they have a sound business model / sound business principles / a long enough pedigree of protecting user data for me to trust them. I also see what all of this is about - just a redistribution of the pot of money. This is not about anti-competitiveness, this is not about an Apple Tax hurting consumers (https://www.theverge.com/21445923/platform-fees-apps-games-b https://www.theverge.com/21445923/platform-fees-apps-games-b...) I honestly hope that if Apple does lose the anti-trust case, that they split the iPhone into one that allows these non-Apple stores and services and another that offers a Apple managed ecosystem. I for sure will chose the one that is governed by Apple.
• apetrovic 6y ago
  I think that some of points are valid - especially the direct contact with the consumers. But the grand prize that Epic wants, the ability for anyone to put App store on iPhone, I hope that will never happen. I don't care about Epic, but the moment when that is allowed is the moment when three app stores into existence - Google's, Microsoft's and Facebook's. Most people can't avoid using software from these three companies, and right now, on iPhone, Google, FB and MS can track people only when their app is active. With always active app stores the ability for tracking and fingerprinting is much, much bigger, and would negate all recent privacy stuff from Apple.
  • WA 6y ago
    Why should an App Store need to be always active?
• can16358p 6y ago
  Don't want to pay 30%? Don't develop for the platform then. I really think all these guys trying to change a company's own ecosystem's rules that the company itself created, are paid actors. I haven't seen a more flawed argument then knowing the exact rules of the ecosystem, which is owned by a company, and trying to change it. It's their company, their platform, their rules. It's been the same way since the beginning. Get over it. Simple as that.
  • bogomipz 6y ago
    Agreed and I have to wonder how any of these companies would respond if it was their users who agreed and knew the terms of their ecosystem and were now asking these three companies to change their rules. Using Spotify as an example. I can't imagine Spotify responding favorably to a consortium of musicians who wanted to publish direct to the platform and receive a better royalty rate for instance. Spotify also doesn't seem to have any problem agreeing to the terms dictated by the Big three record labels that control and the majority of recorded music that they have no choice but to agree to.
• n_ 6y ago
  Does Apple allow developers to just charge 30% more when users sign up through iOS, and just note in the app that access to the service though iOS costs more? Seems fair to me, and let’s consumers know where the money is going (to Apple, presumably to pay for ecosystem things like app privacy and security reviews, billing, etc). If users don’t like it, then the market will do it’s thing right? It’s unclear to me what types of messaging Apple bans developers from adding though. Like is it ok with Apple for me to build an app available on web for a certain price, but block access via native iOS apps unless the user agrees to a 30% increase to cover the Apple tax? I think this is what I would want to do if I operated a subscription service available via native app in the app store.
  • nodamage 6y ago
    > Does Apple allow developers to just charge 30% more when users sign up through iOS, and just note in the app that access to the service though iOS costs more? You are allowed to do the former but not the latter.
    • n_ 6y ago
      I think that’s where I have a problem with the policy. I’d specify though, that it makes sense Apple would not allow developers to make the signup via web a work around, just to avoid paying Apple and still use my service through iOS. However, if I block access to my service from native iOS apps until a user agrees to pay the 30% extra, that feels fair and still follows the spirit of the rules IMO. Not letting me tell users what they are paying for, or why they can’t access my service on iOS until they cough up an extra 30%, that’s overreach.
• mirthflat83 6y ago
  It is very funny to see tile and prepear on the list. Can their intentions be any more clearer?
• intrasight 6y ago
  I get that Epic and Spotify may want to create their own "stores". I don't understand what kind of store Tinder would want to create - or perhaps I do ;)
• ajharrison 6y ago
  I find it laughable how some people, after decades of lambasting Apple for having a closer system and a walled garden approach, down right berating them for it and saying it’s the wrong move, now have come around to wanting to not only want their products, but have them be fully hackabale. Preposterous.
• valuearb 6y ago
  As a small app developer, I’m sure happy to have these three giant companies advocating for “my interests”. Sheez.
• martimarkov 6y ago
  I love how these companies are fighting the “good fight” but if I don’t accept their cookies with my Adblock on... oh well I can use the page. Even tried to only accept necessary cookies but nope... not working I just feel it’s a bit ironic. :D
• spo81rty 6y ago
  It is absolute insanity that they charge a 30% fee to buy some services like Fortnite, Tinder, etc, but then charge NOTHING if I buy from Amazon or Instacart.
• erwinkle 6y ago
  LOL why does their hero have an android phone
• lewdev 6y ago
  Instead of complaining to one company, why not start supporting existing alternative platforms and products that support their vision? Why not support open devices where developers and consumers will have freedom from exorbitant pricing?
• throw44422 6y ago
  pretty hilarious considering how quick these companies would be to sell data at the drop of a hat. virtue signaling pieces of ...
• ribosometronome 6y ago
  "Apple takes 30% of the purchase price. No other transaction fee — in any industry — comes close." Google's? All video game companies?
  • pfundstein 6y ago
    UberEats? Steam?
• hexbinencoded 6y ago
  Corporations can do whatever they want with regards to limiting speech and throwing people out. Depending on or demanding fairness from corporations is the fundamental problem. If you want fairness, nonprofit hardware and software platforms are the only way out. Unions, petitions, and PACs aren't going to change the profit motives of FAANG/YT.
• radicalriddler 6y ago
  Hilarious that this site doesn't work with Firefox. Animations don't appear to be starting on Firefox Developer Edition.
• Razengan 6y ago
  Ooh are we doing analogies? I’ve got one: Epic and Tinder are like crocodiles asking for bridges to be torn down so more people will swim through river. If any one thinks these guys are benign and not doing this for greed... then boy, I really hope you get what you want on Android or PC, but please, don’t loose those crocs into the only platform left in the world where they are not allowed free reign.
• ikurei 6y ago
  > For most purchases made within its App Store, Apple takes 30% of the purchase price. No other transaction fee — in any industry — comes close. Isn't this blatantly false? Android's Play Store takes the same 30%, as does Steam. I doubt most physical retailers get significantly less.
• eqtn 6y ago
  I like both sides of the argument. I would want the Steam store in Xbox or PS. But making that probably will increase the cost of console as they cannot subsidise it.
• matty22 6y ago
  I mean Epic, Spotify, and Tinder are wrong here. Apple built the hardware, and the distribution mechanism for software on that hardware platform. Apple has been a closed ecosystem from day 1. It shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone and they all knew when they decided to create apps for iOS that they were party to a closed system where Apple are the gatekeepers. Don't like their rules? Then, don't do business on their App Store. Simple as that really.
  • dimator 6y ago
    What happens if you are fine with those parameters, you build a business on iOS, and then apple decides that it wants to be in your business, so it makes their own competing app default and non removable? Then it adds hardware functionality to help its own software, but locks the hardware from you, so your business suffers? This is exactly the Tile example on the linked page. If that happened to your business, would you say "well we always knew they are a closed system, time to pack up and go home"?
    • matty22 6y ago
      If you create an app in a closed ecosystem knowing full well that this is Apple's world and they can do as they please, you shouldn't be surprised when they do as they please. This whole issue is children screaming because they broke the rules and Mommy and Daddy have put their foot down.
• tripu 6y ago
  OK, I get that most app publishers can't afford not to sell via the App Store and that iThings are ubiquitous, and I support freer options everywhere (even for Apple users)… But, come on — this initiative sounds a lot like: “Drat! We want people who, on their own volition, decided to go for an expensive, unaccountable, closed, locked system to be able to install and use our apps freely! Isn't that fair? I can has freedom?”. Read that naïve section “our vision”. A vision is something novel. Free software is 35+ years old. And there are open distribution platforms already. Reinventing the wheel.