9 ms·

From https://appfairness.org/our-vision/ https://appfairness.org/our-vision/ > No app store owner should prohibit third parties from offering competing app sto

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.
- Dahoon 6y ago
  No it does not. Sony isn't like Apple. I can freely buy things in / for PlayStation games with my credit card. Not so in iOS apps. There all payment goes through Apple, taking an additional 30% cut above the 30% cut of the app price. Neither Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo does this.
  - joshstrange 6y ago
    This is not true, they all take a cut, please provide proof of an app/game on one of these platforms not taking a cut if you are going to make a claim like that. It's ~30% but it can vary.
  - sithlord 6y ago
    pretty sure if you buy an item (game, controller, etc) FOR a playstation, they are paying sony a royalty to produce that item.
- izacus 6y ago
  > To me the iPhone is a console, end of story. This would be true if iPhone would be only a toy. But it's also the only source of person-to-person communication, source of news and primary computing device for large part of USA population. And that makes it very different from a PS5. By market share. By use. By impact. And IMPACT is what we're measuring here.
  - M4v3R 6y ago
    Where do you draw the line, though? PlayStation / Xbox are basically computers from a technical standpoint. They have hundreds of millions of users. They also store your personal data and credit card information should you provide it.
    - mantap 6y ago
      The only people who have only a PlayStation or Xbox as their single computer - no phone, no laptop, just a games console - are kids.
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      Apple seems to be portraying them as (potentially) life-saving technologies, for one thing https://www.macrumors.com/2018/12/06/apple-watch-real-stories-videos/ https://www.macrumors.com/2018/12/06/apple-watch-real-storie...
      - threeseed 6y ago
        That article is referring to the Apple Watch.
        Apocryphon 6y ago
        Sure- a device that relies on iOS and iPhones (for now) to operate.
  - burlesona 6y ago
    The fact that is is my primary communication device is the REASON I want my iPhone to be a console. I'm paying extra for it. But this is very important: Nobody has to buy an iPhone. The majority of people around the world buy Android, which does allow side-loading. If you need side-loading as a feature, you have many, many options available. There's no coercion of consumers going on. There's no mandate to buy an iPhone or to use any part of the Apple ecosystem, and there are abundant alternatives. Ultimately these arguments against the Apple model are very judgmental and paternalistic. "I think that Experience X is the only morally right thing, thus society must prohibit people who bought and like Experience Y from enjoying it, because I think it's morally wrong." To me that's a really dangerous line of thinking, and I hope it fails in court.
- realusername 6y ago
  > To me the iPhone is a console, end of story. Not to consumers, it's replacing the computer market (especially in the developed world) and even Apple themselves market their products as computer replacements.
  - vlozko 6y ago
    But that shouldn’t be an imposition on Apple to make an identical experience to what it’s replacing. It can be both a console and a replacement to a computer. The intended purpose of the two can be the same but have a different way of going about it.
- gowld 6y ago
  "console" doesn't mean much. Phone is special because for how humans actually live, having one phone is strong preferred over 5. But habit consoles isn't as much of a big deal. And despite what the binary thinkers claim, how humans actually live matters in law, at least as long as companies insist upon the peculiar formation of intellectual property rights.
- mthoms 6y ago
  >To me the iPhone is a console, end of story. I'm so tired of hearing this ridiculous analogy. From a purely technical stand point it may be true, but for a large chunk of the population, the smartphone is their one and only connection to the digital world. It controls their connection to their bank accounts, governments, news/discourse, family, friends, dating life, education (formal and informal), medical information, insurance policies, wayfinding, weather forecasts and emergency services. For those with disabilities, it affords them a quality of life they might not otherwise have. For others still, it contains their most personal thoughts, ideas, dreams and memories. One can certainly argue that because of all that, the app ecosystem should be tightly controlled. That's fair. But the smartphone has grown beyond a simple "nice-to-have" utility. It's a base-level necessity for modern life. Since this trend is only accelerating, we need to recognize that and frame our discussions accordingly.
  - DivisionSol 6y ago
    Making laws based on ephemeral societal standards lays groundwork for abuse. I would rather a law on the technicality of things, than opinions and feelings.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    Only 10 years ago, none of what you said was true. Who knows what the world will look like 10 years from now. Basing policy on the current ephemeral norms rather than consistently applied principles seems ill-advised. Also, even in a world where the mobile phone is that ubiquitous and important, there's no inherent societal obligation that one absolutely NEEDS to use a particular company's phone, especially in a market that has plenty of alternatives.
    - mthoms 6y ago
      My comment was not about a particular company, nor was it advocating for any specific policy. It was merely illustrating why equating smartphones with consoles is foolish and lazy. >Basing policy on the current ephemeral norms rather than consistently applied principles seems ill-advised. I agree. What "consistently applied principle" did you interpret my comment to be against?
- gowld 6y ago
  How does letting me have a PC experience hurt your console experience? What gives you the right to force Epic into a console experience for everyone?
  - vlozko 6y ago
    Because it can’t be both ways. If tomorrow Facebook decides to only offer its app only through Epic App Store, consumers now have reckon with a privacy compromised app. And Apple now has to spend tons more resources playing a failing game of whack a mole closing all sorts of security and privacy holes that could have been avoided if the misbehaving apps weren’t allowed in the first place. Lots of people buy an iPhone for the walled garden, peace of mind experience.
    - Aldo_MX 6y ago
      Most of the recent jailbreaks involve Safari vulnerabilities, so you don't even need to install an app to compromise your iPhone, the walled garden is just security through obscurity.
      - abc-xyz 6y ago
        Let’s compare malware on Windows, OSX, Android vs iOS, shall we?
        Aldo_MX 6y ago
        That's like saying "let's compare species of ants on Africa, Asia, America vs Antarctica", you would need to melt the ice first; iOS is uncharted territory.
        abc-xyz 6y ago
        No it isn’t. iOS have had malware problems as well as a result of people jailbreaking their device to install software from third-parties. Apple fortunately makes it increasingly difficult to jailbreak it. We can also see that Apple were unable to protect their OSX devices as a result of allowing third-party app installations.
- sushid 6y ago
  This is so ridiculous. Do you sign into your bank or trade stocks on your XBox? Where would you access important documents outside of your desktop/laptop?
  - M4v3R 6y ago
    Playstation Network does store my credit card details on file for future purchases. It stores my personal data. It also has a web browser that could be used for pretty much anything.
- ksk 6y ago
  Well, then the good thing for you is that you have to simply not install those other stores, and keep buying from Apple's official app store. Why prevent other users/devs from using them?
AlexandrB 6y ago
From https://appfairness.org/issues/30-app-tax/ https://appfairness.org/issues/30-app-tax/ > For most purchases made within its App Store, Apple takes 30% of the purchase price. No other transaction fee — in any industry — comes close. This is a straight-up lie and Epic, being in the gaming industry, knows it. Steam takes the same 30% (unless you're huge) and is Epic's direct competitor on PC. Not to mention every other gaming platform[1]. [1] https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...
- Dahoon 6y ago
  It isn't a lie. Steam takes a cut too yes, but Apple takes a cut after that 30% you mention. You don't pay 30% to Steam from in-app purchases. No one except Apple force you to use its payment system and take an additional 30% cut after the first 30% cut of the app price. Unless you are a small indie developer you end up paying way more to Apple than any other platform.
  - fhood 6y ago
    I don't think this is true. I don't own that many games on steam that offer in-app purchases, but monster hunter's redirect you to the steam storefront, and steam definitely takes their cut of those.
  - tannedNerd 6y ago
    What? They still force you to list DLC in steam store listings and to use the steam system (aka 30%) unless you have a special contract with them like apple does with Amazon.
- foota 6y ago
  It might be that steam doesn't consider it a transaction fee? (Which is weasley wording imo)
  - mthoms 6y ago
    I generally support the "fight" against the Apple tax but I'd have to agree that this is grossly misleading. Apple is doing much more than providing transaction services in exchange for their cut. Whether or not what they do is actually worth 30% is up for debate (IMHO), but it's dishonest to say that that their cut is merely a "transaction fee".
Shivetya 6y ago
Well they never want to take this to its logical conclusion which is every manufacturer would have to provide the means for anyone, including direct competitors, a means to sell software through their device. So do we also force any app store owner to also provide access to their payment services as well? If Apple is forced to open the iPhone do they also have to grant access to the phones secure means of payments? This sounds like a paradise for world intelligence agencies. So what prevents Apple from permitting third party stores but still restricting that only signed and reviewed applications can run?
- ViViDboarder 6y ago
  Why would they have to open up secure payments? Is that an API that first party apps on the App Store access? Or are the apps that access it part of the operating system? This is mostly targeted at apps like Apple Music where Apple allows deep Siri integration without allowing the same to competing apps.
  - eigen 6y ago
    > This is mostly targeted at apps like Apple Music where Apple allows deep Siri integration without allowing the same to competing apps. it seems that, according to Spotify, Siri works with Spotify. https://support.spotify.com/us/article/siri/ https://support.spotify.com/us/article/siri/
    - ViViDboarder 6y ago
      They added support in the last year or so on iOS an CarPlay if you say “Play something on Spotify”, but it will not be default. They gave themselves an advantage there for years. Here’s a timeline on Spotify and Apple https://www.timetoplayfair.com/timeline/ https://www.timetoplayfair.com/timeline/
- stale2002 6y ago
  > which is every manufacturer would have to provide the means for anyone, including direct competitors, a means to sell software through their device. Nope! This is not true. The court case is only regarding companies that have significant market power. So, if a device manufacturer does not have significant market power, then the court case, which is regarding section 2 if the Sherman anti trust act, would not apply and they would not be forced to do anything. > So what prevents Apple from permitting third party stores but still restricting that only signed and reviewed applications can run? What prevents them is that they have significant and durable market power, and that their behavior is anti competitive.
dividuum 6y ago
Also why limit to app stores. I want to sell my own cosmetics on their fortnite item store (jk, I don’t). Valve allows that for games like CSGO, if I understand that correctly. The whole „they build a platform, I want a part“ is weird.
- ViViDboarder 6y ago
  Because app stores are acting as platforms as well as used to restrict third parties and improve first party products. Does Fortnite even have a platform for developing cosmetics and selling them? If not, then this argument misses the mark. Consoles do provide salient examples though.
  - pb7 6y ago
    Why isn't Epic forced to make it a platform? They have a large captive audience with money and I want a cut of it. Opening it up to everyone will drive competition to the digital skin market, and as we all know from this thread, that's a good thing. Why does Epic get to monopolize their game's monetization?
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > Why does Epic get to monopolize their game's monetization? The answer to this question is quite obviously that the smart phone market is much much larger, and has a much higher impact on society, than an in game cosmetics market. This is what courts care about. They care about real life consumer impact. And anyone who is not stupid, or intentionally trying to mislead people, can understand than the smart phone market matters a whole lot more, than an singular in game cosmetics market, which means that preventing monopolization in the phone market is way more important.
      - pb7 6y ago
        How exactly are consumers impacted by Apple's App Store? Other than having a consistently good experience where they are safe from malicious actors, privacy violations, manipulative subscriptions, malware, etc.
onewhonknocks 6y ago
I think that if you own a store, you should be able to make the decision regarding which products you want to stock on your shelves.
- gowld 6y ago
  If that store isn't a monopoly and the decisions aren't for purposes of restraining trade.
  - sixstringtheory 6y ago
    We aren’t dealing with a monopoly, so that’s out.
    - ThatPlayer 6y ago
      What other app store is there on iOS?
      - sixstringtheory 6y ago
        iOS is a product in a larger market. It is not the market itself. There are other products in the market in which iOS is a product, and there's nothing stopping more entrants (besides the enormous engineering/business effort, the likes of which have already been undertaken by current players like Apple/Google). Your argument would be equally invalid if you were to say Uber is a monopoly because Lyft can't get a slice of the profits from Uber drivers, or that Pepsi is a monopoly because Coca-Cola receives no royalties from sales of Pepsi products. Dominoes is not a monopoly. They make pizzas in a market that is larger than just Dominoes' pizzas. Nobody could reasonably argue that Dominoes is a monopoly just because you can't purchase Pizza Hut pizza at a Dominoes location.
        ThatPlayer 6y ago
        Yes, iOS is a product in a larger market, but I'm talking about the Apple App Store itself, not iOS. The EU has already ruled "Android App Stores" is a market which Google is dominate in for example: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_4581 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_... >The Commission decision concludes that Google is dominant in the markets for [...] app stores for the Android mobile operating system. It's not a stretch to say iOS apps are another market
zhobbs 6y ago
Maybe it should be something like, "if your platform doesn't allow side loading of other apps, or other app stores, then the store on that platform can take no more than X% commission on sales"
- gowld 6y ago
  Does Steam allow side loading into it's launcher/library?
  - zhobbs 6y ago
    Windows, Linux, and Mac do. I'm proposing this scoped just to device+OS combo that you purchased.
  - likeclockwork 6y ago
    Yes, yes it does. There is a menu item labeled 'Add A Non-Steam Game To My Library', after adding you can also use steam's compatibility tools (Proton, or DOSBox or whatever custom compatibility tools) with the games as well.
  - ajford 6y ago
    Steam isn't a platform, it's an alternate app store. The Platform is PC/Mac/Linux. And they each have their own native app store. PC has the Microsoft Store, Mac has the App Store, and Linux has it's own distro repositories depending on flavor. SteamOS is just a tweaked Debian distribution, and you have full control of the os, so you can install any competing software you want.
ksk 6y ago
Its a vision document that outlines their vision. Nobody gets 100% of what they want anyway.
bogwog 6y ago
> I don't disagree but does this mean Sony should allow, for example, Steam to be installed on the PS5? That would be great for the hundreds of millions (billions?) of consumers and thousands of developers in the global game industry, but bad for exactly 3 companies: Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft.
- burlesona 6y ago
  It would also largely undo the business model of having consoles in the first place, and likely result in there never being another gaming console. Which would be bad for a whole lot of businesses besides Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft, and for a whole bunch of consumers who really like the console gaming experience as distinct from PC.
  - lewdev 6y ago
    Yup, it's why the NES beat out Atari. They had strict control over the quality of games published for their console and so everyone bought NESs over Ataris.
ryandrake 6y ago
As a user, I don't want more app stores all over my phone. I don't want more app stores all over my game console or PC either. Compare it to the Windows gaming world, where if you want game 1, you need to go to store A, if you want game 2, you need to install store B, if you want game 3, you need to install store C. Yuck! What end user wants that hassle?
- Spooks 6y ago
  I would definitely want more app stores on my game console. Sometimes the deals are just not there, for PC it has a lot of options, and it has been good for consumers, Epic store has been giving away free games like it was going out of business
- ThatPlayer 6y ago
  But it's better overall for a user because it allows competition for the marketplace. Do you only shop at Walmart because it's convenient?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - eqtn 6y ago
    Like exclusives on Epicgames store? Like that competition?
rodgerd 6y ago
> Or is the definition of "App Store" used here narrow and arbitrary? The whole thing is narrow and arbitary in service of the dishonesty of the companies involved. If they care about choice, why is Epic forcing me to install their store to access games on a PC or phone? If they care about consumer choice, why can fans of Joe Rogan no longer access his material without becoming Spotify customers? Why do Epic and Spotify not have the courage to compete on a level playing field? None of this is aimed at consumer choice. None of the companies have a commitment to that, or I could have downloaded Borderlands 3 for the PC on the same day via Steam, the Epic Game store, or the Windows store. Instead, Epic chose to make it an exclusive to prevent consumer choice.
eqtn 6y ago
And if consoles are forced to allow alternative stores, we won't be able to buy these consoles at the current prices as they won't be subsidised anymore. Loss for consumers

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.
Dahoon 6y ago
No it does not. Sony isn't like Apple. I can freely buy things in / for PlayStation games with my credit card. Not so in iOS apps. There all payment goes through Apple, taking an additional 30% cut above the 30% cut of the app price. Neither Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo does this.
- joshstrange 6y ago
  This is not true, they all take a cut, please provide proof of an app/game on one of these platforms not taking a cut if you are going to make a claim like that. It's ~30% but it can vary.
- sithlord 6y ago
  pretty sure if you buy an item (game, controller, etc) FOR a playstation, they are paying sony a royalty to produce that item.
izacus 6y ago
> To me the iPhone is a console, end of story. This would be true if iPhone would be only a toy. But it's also the only source of person-to-person communication, source of news and primary computing device for large part of USA population. And that makes it very different from a PS5. By market share. By use. By impact. And IMPACT is what we're measuring here.
- M4v3R 6y ago
  Where do you draw the line, though? PlayStation / Xbox are basically computers from a technical standpoint. They have hundreds of millions of users. They also store your personal data and credit card information should you provide it.
  - mantap 6y ago
    The only people who have only a PlayStation or Xbox as their single computer - no phone, no laptop, just a games console - are kids.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    Apple seems to be portraying them as (potentially) life-saving technologies, for one thing https://www.macrumors.com/2018/12/06/apple-watch-real-stories-videos/ https://www.macrumors.com/2018/12/06/apple-watch-real-storie...
    - threeseed 6y ago
      That article is referring to the Apple Watch.
      - Apocryphon 6y ago
        Sure- a device that relies on iOS and iPhones (for now) to operate.
- burlesona 6y ago
  The fact that is is my primary communication device is the REASON I want my iPhone to be a console. I'm paying extra for it. But this is very important: Nobody has to buy an iPhone. The majority of people around the world buy Android, which does allow side-loading. If you need side-loading as a feature, you have many, many options available. There's no coercion of consumers going on. There's no mandate to buy an iPhone or to use any part of the Apple ecosystem, and there are abundant alternatives. Ultimately these arguments against the Apple model are very judgmental and paternalistic. "I think that Experience X is the only morally right thing, thus society must prohibit people who bought and like Experience Y from enjoying it, because I think it's morally wrong." To me that's a really dangerous line of thinking, and I hope it fails in court.
realusername 6y ago
> To me the iPhone is a console, end of story. Not to consumers, it's replacing the computer market (especially in the developed world) and even Apple themselves market their products as computer replacements.
- vlozko 6y ago
  But that shouldn’t be an imposition on Apple to make an identical experience to what it’s replacing. It can be both a console and a replacement to a computer. The intended purpose of the two can be the same but have a different way of going about it.
gowld 6y ago
"console" doesn't mean much. Phone is special because for how humans actually live, having one phone is strong preferred over 5. But habit consoles isn't as much of a big deal. And despite what the binary thinkers claim, how humans actually live matters in law, at least as long as companies insist upon the peculiar formation of intellectual property rights.
mthoms 6y ago
>To me the iPhone is a console, end of story. I'm so tired of hearing this ridiculous analogy. From a purely technical stand point it may be true, but for a large chunk of the population, the smartphone is their one and only connection to the digital world. It controls their connection to their bank accounts, governments, news/discourse, family, friends, dating life, education (formal and informal), medical information, insurance policies, wayfinding, weather forecasts and emergency services. For those with disabilities, it affords them a quality of life they might not otherwise have. For others still, it contains their most personal thoughts, ideas, dreams and memories. One can certainly argue that because of all that, the app ecosystem should be tightly controlled. That's fair. But the smartphone has grown beyond a simple "nice-to-have" utility. It's a base-level necessity for modern life. Since this trend is only accelerating, we need to recognize that and frame our discussions accordingly.
- DivisionSol 6y ago
  Making laws based on ephemeral societal standards lays groundwork for abuse. I would rather a law on the technicality of things, than opinions and feelings.
- bhupy 6y ago
  Only 10 years ago, none of what you said was true. Who knows what the world will look like 10 years from now. Basing policy on the current ephemeral norms rather than consistently applied principles seems ill-advised. Also, even in a world where the mobile phone is that ubiquitous and important, there's no inherent societal obligation that one absolutely NEEDS to use a particular company's phone, especially in a market that has plenty of alternatives.
  - mthoms 6y ago
    My comment was not about a particular company, nor was it advocating for any specific policy. It was merely illustrating why equating smartphones with consoles is foolish and lazy. >Basing policy on the current ephemeral norms rather than consistently applied principles seems ill-advised. I agree. What "consistently applied principle" did you interpret my comment to be against?
gowld 6y ago
How does letting me have a PC experience hurt your console experience? What gives you the right to force Epic into a console experience for everyone?
- vlozko 6y ago
  Because it can’t be both ways. If tomorrow Facebook decides to only offer its app only through Epic App Store, consumers now have reckon with a privacy compromised app. And Apple now has to spend tons more resources playing a failing game of whack a mole closing all sorts of security and privacy holes that could have been avoided if the misbehaving apps weren’t allowed in the first place. Lots of people buy an iPhone for the walled garden, peace of mind experience.
  - Aldo_MX 6y ago
    Most of the recent jailbreaks involve Safari vulnerabilities, so you don't even need to install an app to compromise your iPhone, the walled garden is just security through obscurity.
    - abc-xyz 6y ago
      Let’s compare malware on Windows, OSX, Android vs iOS, shall we?
      - Aldo_MX 6y ago
        That's like saying "let's compare species of ants on Africa, Asia, America vs Antarctica", you would need to melt the ice first; iOS is uncharted territory.
        abc-xyz 6y ago
        No it isn’t. iOS have had malware problems as well as a result of people jailbreaking their device to install software from third-parties. Apple fortunately makes it increasingly difficult to jailbreak it. We can also see that Apple were unable to protect their OSX devices as a result of allowing third-party app installations.
sushid 6y ago
This is so ridiculous. Do you sign into your bank or trade stocks on your XBox? Where would you access important documents outside of your desktop/laptop?
- M4v3R 6y ago
  Playstation Network does store my credit card details on file for future purchases. It stores my personal data. It also has a web browser that could be used for pretty much anything.
ksk 6y ago
Well, then the good thing for you is that you have to simply not install those other stores, and keep buying from Apple's official app store. Why prevent other users/devs from using them?

AlexandrB 6y ago

From https://appfairness.org/issues/30-app-tax/ https://appfairness.org/issues/30-app-tax/ > For most purchases made within its App Store, Apple takes 30% of the purchase price. No other transaction fee — in any industry — comes close. This is a straight-up lie and Epic, being in the gaming industry, knows it. Steam takes the same 30% (unless you're huge) and is Epic's direct competitor on PC. Not to mention every other gaming platform[1]. [1] https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...

Dahoon 6y ago
It isn't a lie. Steam takes a cut too yes, but Apple takes a cut after that 30% you mention. You don't pay 30% to Steam from in-app purchases. No one except Apple force you to use its payment system and take an additional 30% cut after the first 30% cut of the app price. Unless you are a small indie developer you end up paying way more to Apple than any other platform.
- fhood 6y ago
  I don't think this is true. I don't own that many games on steam that offer in-app purchases, but monster hunter's redirect you to the steam storefront, and steam definitely takes their cut of those.
- tannedNerd 6y ago
  What? They still force you to list DLC in steam store listings and to use the steam system (aka 30%) unless you have a special contract with them like apple does with Amazon.
foota 6y ago
It might be that steam doesn't consider it a transaction fee? (Which is weasley wording imo)
- mthoms 6y ago
  I generally support the "fight" against the Apple tax but I'd have to agree that this is grossly misleading. Apple is doing much more than providing transaction services in exchange for their cut. Whether or not what they do is actually worth 30% is up for debate (IMHO), but it's dishonest to say that that their cut is merely a "transaction fee".

Shivetya 6y ago

Well they never want to take this to its logical conclusion which is every manufacturer would have to provide the means for anyone, including direct competitors, a means to sell software through their device. So do we also force any app store owner to also provide access to their payment services as well? If Apple is forced to open the iPhone do they also have to grant access to the phones secure means of payments? This sounds like a paradise for world intelligence agencies. So what prevents Apple from permitting third party stores but still restricting that only signed and reviewed applications can run?

ViViDboarder 6y ago
Why would they have to open up secure payments? Is that an API that first party apps on the App Store access? Or are the apps that access it part of the operating system? This is mostly targeted at apps like Apple Music where Apple allows deep Siri integration without allowing the same to competing apps.
- eigen 6y ago
  > This is mostly targeted at apps like Apple Music where Apple allows deep Siri integration without allowing the same to competing apps. it seems that, according to Spotify, Siri works with Spotify. https://support.spotify.com/us/article/siri/ https://support.spotify.com/us/article/siri/
  - ViViDboarder 6y ago
    They added support in the last year or so on iOS an CarPlay if you say “Play something on Spotify”, but it will not be default. They gave themselves an advantage there for years. Here’s a timeline on Spotify and Apple https://www.timetoplayfair.com/timeline/ https://www.timetoplayfair.com/timeline/
stale2002 6y ago
> which is every manufacturer would have to provide the means for anyone, including direct competitors, a means to sell software through their device. Nope! This is not true. The court case is only regarding companies that have significant market power. So, if a device manufacturer does not have significant market power, then the court case, which is regarding section 2 if the Sherman anti trust act, would not apply and they would not be forced to do anything. > So what prevents Apple from permitting third party stores but still restricting that only signed and reviewed applications can run? What prevents them is that they have significant and durable market power, and that their behavior is anti competitive.

dividuum 6y ago

Also why limit to app stores. I want to sell my own cosmetics on their fortnite item store (jk, I don’t). Valve allows that for games like CSGO, if I understand that correctly. The whole „they build a platform, I want a part“ is weird.

ViViDboarder 6y ago
Because app stores are acting as platforms as well as used to restrict third parties and improve first party products. Does Fortnite even have a platform for developing cosmetics and selling them? If not, then this argument misses the mark. Consoles do provide salient examples though.
- pb7 6y ago
  Why isn't Epic forced to make it a platform? They have a large captive audience with money and I want a cut of it. Opening it up to everyone will drive competition to the digital skin market, and as we all know from this thread, that's a good thing. Why does Epic get to monopolize their game's monetization?
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > Why does Epic get to monopolize their game's monetization? The answer to this question is quite obviously that the smart phone market is much much larger, and has a much higher impact on society, than an in game cosmetics market. This is what courts care about. They care about real life consumer impact. And anyone who is not stupid, or intentionally trying to mislead people, can understand than the smart phone market matters a whole lot more, than an singular in game cosmetics market, which means that preventing monopolization in the phone market is way more important.
    - pb7 6y ago
      How exactly are consumers impacted by Apple's App Store? Other than having a consistently good experience where they are safe from malicious actors, privacy violations, manipulative subscriptions, malware, etc.

onewhonknocks 6y ago

I think that if you own a store, you should be able to make the decision regarding which products you want to stock on your shelves.

gowld 6y ago
If that store isn't a monopoly and the decisions aren't for purposes of restraining trade.
- sixstringtheory 6y ago
  We aren’t dealing with a monopoly, so that’s out.
  - ThatPlayer 6y ago
    What other app store is there on iOS?
    - sixstringtheory 6y ago
      iOS is a product in a larger market. It is not the market itself. There are other products in the market in which iOS is a product, and there's nothing stopping more entrants (besides the enormous engineering/business effort, the likes of which have already been undertaken by current players like Apple/Google). Your argument would be equally invalid if you were to say Uber is a monopoly because Lyft can't get a slice of the profits from Uber drivers, or that Pepsi is a monopoly because Coca-Cola receives no royalties from sales of Pepsi products. Dominoes is not a monopoly. They make pizzas in a market that is larger than just Dominoes' pizzas. Nobody could reasonably argue that Dominoes is a monopoly just because you can't purchase Pizza Hut pizza at a Dominoes location.
      - ThatPlayer 6y ago
        Yes, iOS is a product in a larger market, but I'm talking about the Apple App Store itself, not iOS. The EU has already ruled "Android App Stores" is a market which Google is dominate in for example: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_4581 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_... >The Commission decision concludes that Google is dominant in the markets for [...] app stores for the Android mobile operating system. It's not a stretch to say iOS apps are another market

zhobbs 6y ago

Maybe it should be something like, "if your platform doesn't allow side loading of other apps, or other app stores, then the store on that platform can take no more than X% commission on sales"

gowld 6y ago
Does Steam allow side loading into it's launcher/library?
- zhobbs 6y ago
  Windows, Linux, and Mac do. I'm proposing this scoped just to device+OS combo that you purchased.
- likeclockwork 6y ago
  Yes, yes it does. There is a menu item labeled 'Add A Non-Steam Game To My Library', after adding you can also use steam's compatibility tools (Proton, or DOSBox or whatever custom compatibility tools) with the games as well.
- ajford 6y ago
  Steam isn't a platform, it's an alternate app store. The Platform is PC/Mac/Linux. And they each have their own native app store. PC has the Microsoft Store, Mac has the App Store, and Linux has it's own distro repositories depending on flavor. SteamOS is just a tweaked Debian distribution, and you have full control of the os, so you can install any competing software you want.

ksk 6y ago

Its a vision document that outlines their vision. Nobody gets 100% of what they want anyway.

bogwog 6y ago

> I don't disagree but does this mean Sony should allow, for example, Steam to be installed on the PS5? That would be great for the hundreds of millions (billions?) of consumers and thousands of developers in the global game industry, but bad for exactly 3 companies: Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft.

burlesona 6y ago
It would also largely undo the business model of having consoles in the first place, and likely result in there never being another gaming console. Which would be bad for a whole lot of businesses besides Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft, and for a whole bunch of consumers who really like the console gaming experience as distinct from PC.
- lewdev 6y ago
  Yup, it's why the NES beat out Atari. They had strict control over the quality of games published for their console and so everyone bought NESs over Ataris.

ryandrake 6y ago

As a user, I don't want more app stores all over my phone. I don't want more app stores all over my game console or PC either. Compare it to the Windows gaming world, where if you want game 1, you need to go to store A, if you want game 2, you need to install store B, if you want game 3, you need to install store C. Yuck! What end user wants that hassle?

Spooks 6y ago
I would definitely want more app stores on my game console. Sometimes the deals are just not there, for PC it has a lot of options, and it has been good for consumers, Epic store has been giving away free games like it was going out of business
ThatPlayer 6y ago
But it's better overall for a user because it allows competition for the marketplace. Do you only shop at Walmart because it's convenient?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- eqtn 6y ago
  Like exclusives on Epicgames store? Like that competition?

rodgerd 6y ago

> Or is the definition of "App Store" used here narrow and arbitrary? The whole thing is narrow and arbitary in service of the dishonesty of the companies involved. If they care about choice, why is Epic forcing me to install their store to access games on a PC or phone? If they care about consumer choice, why can fans of Joe Rogan no longer access his material without becoming Spotify customers? Why do Epic and Spotify not have the courage to compete on a level playing field? None of this is aimed at consumer choice. None of the companies have a commitment to that, or I could have downloaded Borderlands 3 for the PC on the same day via Steam, the Epic Game store, or the Windows store. Instead, Epic chose to make it an exclusive to prevent consumer choice.

eqtn 6y ago

And if consoles are forced to allow alternative stores, we won't be able to buy these consoles at the current prices as they won't be subsidised anymore. Loss for consumers