5 ms·

I wonder if the existing law is capable of dealing with the current situation. It seems crazy to me that anyone considers the mobile market sane or good for us

I wonder if the existing law is capable of dealing with the current situation. It seems crazy to me that anyone considers the mobile market sane or good for users and developers. Think about it. The average person has a smart phone where they only have access to 1 store. The arguments about sideloading on Android are somewhat moot IMO because the severity of warnings and effort to discourage users from sideloading are highly effective and, when combined with no one changing the defaults, the vast majority of people stick to the play store. On the other side there are the developers who MUST deal with both companies. There is no choice. You can't build an app with a mobile component and ignore 1 of the only 2 distribution platforms. Why would I risk major R&D costs to develop anything novel or disruptive when I have no guarantee I can distribute that product and might even be facing a hostile distributor if my product disrupts them? Does anyone think having 2 massive incumbents controlling distribution for a mode of computing that's become essential to western life is healthy? How is the market not going to devolve (even more) into a bunch of low effort skinner box IAP trash? And the game console analogies are dumb. I don't need a game console. I don't have one. However, I NEED a mobile phone to participate in modern society. Try getting and keeping a good paying job if you don't have a mobile phone and are "unresponsive".

ericmay 6y ago
> I wonder if the existing law is capable of dealing with the current situation. It seems crazy to me that anyone considers the mobile market sane or good for users and developers. Think about it. I see this posted sooooo often and every time I just say "nope, it's exactly what I want and I do not want it to change for iOS". Very pleased to see Epic starting off poorly here. Hopefully this all goes up in flames for them.
clay_the_ripper 6y ago
But the key point is, how much consumer harm has resulted? I am an iOS user. I like that iOS takes a heavy handed approach to the App Store and controls it completely. I do not want developers to hav the option to have their own payments. Apple Pay is so easy and convenient. I do not want developers to be able to distribute apps without Apple approval. Apples policies probably result in developer harm, but anti trust law is to protect me as a user not you as a developer. To be frank, I don’t really care that Apple is a pain to deal with. That is why I, the user, pay you, the developer to deal with them.
- metta2uall 6y ago
  I don't think Epic is trying to force their store to be installed by default or to be able to bypass existing iOS sandbox/security mechanisms? So you can continue using the Apple App Store exclusively and reject apps that don't offer Apple Pay?
- hnick 6y ago
  > I like that iOS takes a heavy handed approach to the App Store and controls it completely. This is fine, even good as you say, but the problem is there are no other options. Apple can arbitrarily kill an app you rely on as a user, and you have no recourse. It'll stay on your device but you won't get updates or be able to reinstall later. Any friction and costs applied to devs will flow on to costs for the customer. So that's the harm to users, which is hard to quantify. > anti trust law is to protect me as a user not you as a developer. Are you sure? Standard Oil set good prices for consumers. The issue was they drove other businesses out of business. Restraint of trade was a big part of it.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Yes antitrust has been focused on the user for decades. Many people blame (?) Robert Bork. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox In fact Apple lost the iBooks case between it and Amazon because while it was more fair to publishers, it raised prices for consumers.
    - hnick 6y ago
      Ah interesting. I don't think I'd agree with that because if all competition is nuked and prices are nice today, it's still a lot harder to rebuild a healthy ecosystem if/when it gets abused down the line. Whether intentionally or through stagnation. I'm not saying we should look at just one or the other, but both should be weighed and considered. In Australia we actually have a bit of a problem with a supermarket duopoly, who have apparently coincidentally both decided to sell house brand milk very cheaply (IIRC $1/L). This has upset a lot of farmers and producers as it decides a large amount of their revenue. I'm not sure what our legal landscape dictates, but it certainly seems unfair and anti-competitive even though it is really good for me personally.
ribosometronome 6y ago
>I don't need a game console. I don't have one. However, I NEED a mobile phone to participate in modern society. Try getting and keeping a good paying job if you don't have a mobile phone and are "unresponsive". They are not analogies. This case is centered around video game distribution. The comparisons are, in that respect, spot on. What job do you have that requires you to make in app purchases in a video game?
- Aerroon 6y ago
  The point is that what applies to Epic applies to all the other apps on iOS too. What applies to consoles applies to everything on consoles, but you don't need a console. You do need a phone.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    But you don’t need an iPhone....
- donmcronald 6y ago
  > What job do you have that requires you to make in app purchases in a video game? If it were just games on iOS I wouldn't care at all about it. They could do whatever they want. It's business / productivity apps where I think it's a bad deal for everyone but Apple / Google. About 10-15 years ago I used to get a decent number of referrals for small businesses that wanted to turn part of their business process into an app. At the time mobile wasn't huge, so a single desktop app was the only thing on anyone's mind back then. At that time, I told everyone it wasn't worth spending their money to have a custom app built for some small back office process they wanted to simplify. However, at the time I believed app development was going to evolve to the point where it would be practical to do that type of thing. Boy was I wrong. Mobile happened and the rest is history. Now it's even more expensive to develop an app because you actually might need to develop 2-4; iOS, Android, Windows, Mac. Web apps really took off because of that, but I think it was more of a result of being "un-block-able" than being the best technology. Thinks like Adobe Air and JavaFX come to mind as better technologies. JavaFX especially comes to mind because it was (and still is) possible to set up a pretty nice development process with it. However, it never really went anywhere which is a combination of Oracle sucking and Steve Jobs wanting to "kill" Java. If iOS was an open platform and Oracle could have put JavaFX onto it, we'd have a _significantly_ different app landscape today. IMO we currently have "lesser" app ecosystems as a result of the locked down platform(s) IMO. Getting back to my boutique app fantasy, I don't think it'll ever be possible without changes to platform policies. With the locked down app stores I can't _guarantee_ a customer I can deliver an app for them and I can't risk the cost on my own. There's also a perception that you _need_ an app even though something like a PWA would be fine for most LoB apps. A lot of apps are just web apps wrapped in an app bundle, but being on the app store is what's needed to be successful. Apple's not really doing anything for the developer in those cases except giving them permission to have their wrapped app appear on the app store. Fantrax is a good example of a pretty solid PWA where they had to have "apps" as a result of popular demand even though there's not much difference between their PWA and the "app" AFAIK. Even with PWAs though you need to (in effect) rely on Apple's blessing because they control the engine on their platform.

ericmay 6y ago

> I wonder if the existing law is capable of dealing with the current situation. It seems crazy to me that anyone considers the mobile market sane or good for users and developers. Think about it. I see this posted sooooo often and every time I just say "nope, it's exactly what I want and I do not want it to change for iOS". Very pleased to see Epic starting off poorly here. Hopefully this all goes up in flames for them.

clay_the_ripper 6y ago

But the key point is, how much consumer harm has resulted? I am an iOS user. I like that iOS takes a heavy handed approach to the App Store and controls it completely. I do not want developers to hav the option to have their own payments. Apple Pay is so easy and convenient. I do not want developers to be able to distribute apps without Apple approval. Apples policies probably result in developer harm, but anti trust law is to protect me as a user not you as a developer. To be frank, I don’t really care that Apple is a pain to deal with. That is why I, the user, pay you, the developer to deal with them.

metta2uall 6y ago
I don't think Epic is trying to force their store to be installed by default or to be able to bypass existing iOS sandbox/security mechanisms? So you can continue using the Apple App Store exclusively and reject apps that don't offer Apple Pay?
hnick 6y ago
> I like that iOS takes a heavy handed approach to the App Store and controls it completely. This is fine, even good as you say, but the problem is there are no other options. Apple can arbitrarily kill an app you rely on as a user, and you have no recourse. It'll stay on your device but you won't get updates or be able to reinstall later. Any friction and costs applied to devs will flow on to costs for the customer. So that's the harm to users, which is hard to quantify. > anti trust law is to protect me as a user not you as a developer. Are you sure? Standard Oil set good prices for consumers. The issue was they drove other businesses out of business. Restraint of trade was a big part of it.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Yes antitrust has been focused on the user for decades. Many people blame (?) Robert Bork. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox In fact Apple lost the iBooks case between it and Amazon because while it was more fair to publishers, it raised prices for consumers.
  - hnick 6y ago
    Ah interesting. I don't think I'd agree with that because if all competition is nuked and prices are nice today, it's still a lot harder to rebuild a healthy ecosystem if/when it gets abused down the line. Whether intentionally or through stagnation. I'm not saying we should look at just one or the other, but both should be weighed and considered. In Australia we actually have a bit of a problem with a supermarket duopoly, who have apparently coincidentally both decided to sell house brand milk very cheaply (IIRC $1/L). This has upset a lot of farmers and producers as it decides a large amount of their revenue. I'm not sure what our legal landscape dictates, but it certainly seems unfair and anti-competitive even though it is really good for me personally.

ribosometronome 6y ago

>I don't need a game console. I don't have one. However, I NEED a mobile phone to participate in modern society. Try getting and keeping a good paying job if you don't have a mobile phone and are "unresponsive". They are not analogies. This case is centered around video game distribution. The comparisons are, in that respect, spot on. What job do you have that requires you to make in app purchases in a video game?

Aerroon 6y ago
The point is that what applies to Epic applies to all the other apps on iOS too. What applies to consoles applies to everything on consoles, but you don't need a console. You do need a phone.
- scarface74 6y ago
  But you don’t need an iPhone....
donmcronald 6y ago
> What job do you have that requires you to make in app purchases in a video game? If it were just games on iOS I wouldn't care at all about it. They could do whatever they want. It's business / productivity apps where I think it's a bad deal for everyone but Apple / Google. About 10-15 years ago I used to get a decent number of referrals for small businesses that wanted to turn part of their business process into an app. At the time mobile wasn't huge, so a single desktop app was the only thing on anyone's mind back then. At that time, I told everyone it wasn't worth spending their money to have a custom app built for some small back office process they wanted to simplify. However, at the time I believed app development was going to evolve to the point where it would be practical to do that type of thing. Boy was I wrong. Mobile happened and the rest is history. Now it's even more expensive to develop an app because you actually might need to develop 2-4; iOS, Android, Windows, Mac. Web apps really took off because of that, but I think it was more of a result of being "un-block-able" than being the best technology. Thinks like Adobe Air and JavaFX come to mind as better technologies. JavaFX especially comes to mind because it was (and still is) possible to set up a pretty nice development process with it. However, it never really went anywhere which is a combination of Oracle sucking and Steve Jobs wanting to "kill" Java. If iOS was an open platform and Oracle could have put JavaFX onto it, we'd have a _significantly_ different app landscape today. IMO we currently have "lesser" app ecosystems as a result of the locked down platform(s) IMO. Getting back to my boutique app fantasy, I don't think it'll ever be possible without changes to platform policies. With the locked down app stores I can't _guarantee_ a customer I can deliver an app for them and I can't risk the cost on my own. There's also a perception that you _need_ an app even though something like a PWA would be fine for most LoB apps. A lot of apps are just web apps wrapped in an app bundle, but being on the app store is what's needed to be successful. Apple's not really doing anything for the developer in those cases except giving them permission to have their wrapped app appear on the app store. Fantrax is a good example of a pretty solid PWA where they had to have "apps" as a result of popular demand even though there's not much difference between their PWA and the "app" AFAIK. Even with PWAs though you need to (in effect) rely on Apple's blessing because they control the engine on their platform.