9 ms·

I hope Epic succeeds. Apple has managed to create a virtual ecosystem and they have absolute control over it. Yes, they did it by creating a great product at th

I hope Epic succeeds. Apple has managed to create a virtual ecosystem and they have absolute control over it. Yes, they did it by creating a great product at the right time (at the rise of much improved telecommunications technology). With a combination of HW, OS and digital store they created more than just a product, they have created a platform. Based on that platform, with a big contribution from third party developers, a virtual ecosystem has grown. Today, true value is in this whole ecosystem. And that is the point. Third party developers combined have probably contributed more man-hours/resources than Apple alone to increase the value of this ecosystem. Why should Apple have a total control of this ecosystem when they created only a part of it? Take away the apps/services not created by Apple and the value of the platform drops considerably. Whole market is in a big catch 22 position. It is nearly impossible to compete and create a new smartphone platform, because even if a new player creates superior products compared to Apple, they don't have all the apps. They can't create the whole ecosystem by themselves, as the costs would be insane. Software developers also don't have much choice. There are two platforms that control all the market share. They have to accept the rules given to them or leave the industry (one they helped create). Saying things like that every developer agrees to the App Store rules before releasing their applications is a major oversimplification of a complex situation. Apple can change the rules and they might not be the same at the time when developer makes an major investment to develop an app and when they release it. And rules might change again after they release it. Apple did not create this whole virtual ecosystem, just the platform on which it is build upon. And this ecosystem has outgrown Apple. It's got so big, that Apple's contribution is only a part of it. Apple has been generously repaid for their efforts, and will continue to be so in the future. But maybe they shouldn't have a complete control over a virtual ecosystem this big, where their investments no longer represent the majority of it's value.

m00x 6y ago
I think people don't understand the perspective here because it's being normalized by all the big players. To make it simpler to understand, apply this system to your computer. What if you couldn't install what you wanted and everything would have to go through a protected store? If the platform dislikes your app, they could just remove it from the store and no one could get it. It adds a huge gate in front of the hardware that YOU paid for. You're essentially getting milked from both sides which is terrific for Apple, awful for the consumer.
- nickff 6y ago
  The problem is not that your premise is too complicated for others to understand, it's that the 'walled garden' is a trade-off which people disagree about. Walled gardens are safer, and usually have some implicit or explicit quality guarantee (like the Nintendo seal of quality). Open platforms allow for more flexibility and innovation by new entrants. On top of this disagreement, we have the meta-issue of whether business model innovation should be allowed; the USA generally permits new business models, whereas European governments are more restrictive.
  - rbecker 6y ago
    > Walled gardens are safer, and usually have some implicit or explicit quality guarantee (like the Nintendo seal of quality). And consumers who want to limit themselves to the safety of Apple's app store are free to do so. But Apple goes a step beyond this, and prevents consumers who don't want to be locked-in this way, from using "unauthorized" stores or apps. It's false to claim that the only way to offer safety is to take away user freedom.
    - nickff 6y ago
      >"It's false to claim that the only way to offer safety is to take away user freedom." Well, I didn't claim it was the only way, but it does seem like the simplest and possibly the safest way.
      - chii 6y ago
        and also conveniently benefits apple financially and monopolistically.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - Retric 6y ago
      Freedom and computer security are in fundamental opposition. It’s the same basic question as GC vs manual memory management. The only way to offer safety on a platform is to secure that platform. If Apple disables the API’s which lets apps access users contacts then they can be sure 3rd party iOS stores don’t compromise user’s privacy. If they allow API access and don’t vet stores then guess what that directly means breaches will occur. PS: If you disagree try and come up with some supporting argument.
heavyset_go 6y ago
> Software developers also don't have much choice. There are two platforms that control all the market share. They have to accept the rules given to them or leave the industry (one they helped create). To put this in perspective consider these stats. In the US, iOS has 52.4% of the mobile OS market[1], and Android has 47%. In the US, Apple's App Store is responsible for the majority of mobile app sales[2], and has 3 times the revenue of Google's Play Store. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held-by-smartphone-platforms-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held... [2] https://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2020/01/in-2019-apples-app-store-was-1-in-the-us-with-more-3x-google-play-sales.html https://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2020/01/in-2019...
- FDSGSG 6y ago
  Given how much higher the iOS app sales are, it seems like Apple is providing very significant value for that 30% cut of theirs
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    It would be great for developers and users if there were real competition in app distribution. That way people can decide if the 30% fee is truly worth it compared to the competition that might be more efficient or offer more value, or that might charge less.
  - 8note 6y ago
    Yo ucant say whether it's apple giving that value, or other developers
    - FDSGSG 6y ago
      Of course it's Apple. The same app will sell much better on iOS than on Android.
  - Fnoord 6y ago
    Correlation does not imply causation. If you consider Epic, they take only what was it, 18% of the sale. But they're not allowed to compete on Apple's platform...
some_furry 6y ago
> Based on that platform, with a big contribution from third party developers, a virtual ecosystem has grown. Today, true value is in this whole ecosystem. And that is the point. Third party developers combined have probably contributed more man-hours/resources than Apple alone to increase the value of this ecosystem. Why should Apple have a total control of this ecosystem when they created only a part of it? This sounds like a point that would come up often in critiques of capitalism. > Software developers also don't have much choice. There are two platforms that control all the market share. They have to accept the rules given to them or leave the industry (one they helped create). This is very true. Microsoft tried to turn the Apple/Google smartphone duopoly into a... triopoly? (Is that even a word?)
FriendlyNormie 6y ago
Shut up, dumbfuck. Apple should raise their cut to 50% just to rub salt in the wound of whiny faggots like you. Disclosure: I’m the most successful independent app developer on HN.
danbolt 6y ago
> this ecosystem has outgrown Apple. It's got so big, that Apple's contribution is only a part of it. I feel like apart from 2-3 clients for other web services (eg: Twitter, Slack, etc.) I rarely purchase or download any apps. The last time I can remember installing one was the contact tracing app for where I live. I think I use the iPhone more as an appliance than a general-purpose computer. If I wanted the latter, I’d buy something else.
- bosswipe 6y ago
  If you wanted the latter you will find more and more that it doesn't exist as the duopoly tightens their grip on the market.
  - danbolt 6y ago
    Couldn't I buy a PinePhone or Android and sideload apps if I did?
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    You'd buy an android phone. Android phones remain general purpose computers - you can write software that runs on the device, using nothing but the device (and a tool like AIDE, which is on the Play store, and a website you can install it from).
    - bosswipe 6y ago
      Android has been slowly locking things up. As just one example, checkout the top comment on this thread about an Android terminal app. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24979258 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24979258

m00x 6y ago

I think people don't understand the perspective here because it's being normalized by all the big players. To make it simpler to understand, apply this system to your computer. What if you couldn't install what you wanted and everything would have to go through a protected store? If the platform dislikes your app, they could just remove it from the store and no one could get it. It adds a huge gate in front of the hardware that YOU paid for. You're essentially getting milked from both sides which is terrific for Apple, awful for the consumer.

nickff 6y ago
The problem is not that your premise is too complicated for others to understand, it's that the 'walled garden' is a trade-off which people disagree about. Walled gardens are safer, and usually have some implicit or explicit quality guarantee (like the Nintendo seal of quality). Open platforms allow for more flexibility and innovation by new entrants. On top of this disagreement, we have the meta-issue of whether business model innovation should be allowed; the USA generally permits new business models, whereas European governments are more restrictive.
- rbecker 6y ago
  > Walled gardens are safer, and usually have some implicit or explicit quality guarantee (like the Nintendo seal of quality). And consumers who want to limit themselves to the safety of Apple's app store are free to do so. But Apple goes a step beyond this, and prevents consumers who don't want to be locked-in this way, from using "unauthorized" stores or apps. It's false to claim that the only way to offer safety is to take away user freedom.
  - nickff 6y ago
    >"It's false to claim that the only way to offer safety is to take away user freedom." Well, I didn't claim it was the only way, but it does seem like the simplest and possibly the safest way.
    - chii 6y ago
      and also conveniently benefits apple financially and monopolistically.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 6y ago
    Freedom and computer security are in fundamental opposition. It’s the same basic question as GC vs manual memory management. The only way to offer safety on a platform is to secure that platform. If Apple disables the API’s which lets apps access users contacts then they can be sure 3rd party iOS stores don’t compromise user’s privacy. If they allow API access and don’t vet stores then guess what that directly means breaches will occur. PS: If you disagree try and come up with some supporting argument.

heavyset_go 6y ago

> Software developers also don't have much choice. There are two platforms that control all the market share. They have to accept the rules given to them or leave the industry (one they helped create). To put this in perspective consider these stats. In the US, iOS has 52.4% of the mobile OS market[1], and Android has 47%. In the US, Apple's App Store is responsible for the majority of mobile app sales[2], and has 3 times the revenue of Google's Play Store. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held-by-smartphone-platforms-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held... [2] https://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2020/01/in-2019-apples-app-store-was-1-in-the-us-with-more-3x-google-play-sales.html https://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2020/01/in-2019...

FDSGSG 6y ago
Given how much higher the iOS app sales are, it seems like Apple is providing very significant value for that 30% cut of theirs
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  It would be great for developers and users if there were real competition in app distribution. That way people can decide if the 30% fee is truly worth it compared to the competition that might be more efficient or offer more value, or that might charge less.
- 8note 6y ago
  Yo ucant say whether it's apple giving that value, or other developers
  - FDSGSG 6y ago
    Of course it's Apple. The same app will sell much better on iOS than on Android.
- Fnoord 6y ago
  Correlation does not imply causation. If you consider Epic, they take only what was it, 18% of the sale. But they're not allowed to compete on Apple's platform...

some_furry 6y ago

> Based on that platform, with a big contribution from third party developers, a virtual ecosystem has grown. Today, true value is in this whole ecosystem. And that is the point. Third party developers combined have probably contributed more man-hours/resources than Apple alone to increase the value of this ecosystem. Why should Apple have a total control of this ecosystem when they created only a part of it? This sounds like a point that would come up often in critiques of capitalism. > Software developers also don't have much choice. There are two platforms that control all the market share. They have to accept the rules given to them or leave the industry (one they helped create). This is very true. Microsoft tried to turn the Apple/Google smartphone duopoly into a... triopoly? (Is that even a word?)

FriendlyNormie 6y ago

Shut up, dumbfuck. Apple should raise their cut to 50% just to rub salt in the wound of whiny faggots like you. Disclosure: I’m the most successful independent app developer on HN.

danbolt 6y ago

> this ecosystem has outgrown Apple. It's got so big, that Apple's contribution is only a part of it. I feel like apart from 2-3 clients for other web services (eg: Twitter, Slack, etc.) I rarely purchase or download any apps. The last time I can remember installing one was the contact tracing app for where I live. I think I use the iPhone more as an appliance than a general-purpose computer. If I wanted the latter, I’d buy something else.

bosswipe 6y ago
If you wanted the latter you will find more and more that it doesn't exist as the duopoly tightens their grip on the market.
- danbolt 6y ago
  Couldn't I buy a PinePhone or Android and sideload apps if I did?
- freeone3000 6y ago
  You'd buy an android phone. Android phones remain general purpose computers - you can write software that runs on the device, using nothing but the device (and a tool like AIDE, which is on the Play store, and a website you can install it from).
  - bosswipe 6y ago
    Android has been slowly locking things up. As just one example, checkout the top comment on this thread about an Android terminal app. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24979258 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24979258