6 ms·

There is room for 3rd party app stores. Epic will argue that Apple does an absolutely ghastly terrible job of curating the Apple app store, as Apple really has

There is room for 3rd party app stores. Epic will argue that Apple does an absolutely ghastly terrible job of curating the Apple app store, as Apple really has little incentive not to suck completely. The EU court will agree. Apple will spend a year or two saying “it can’t be done”, then issue a signing certificate to Epic.

gwd 6y ago
> There is room for 3rd party app stores. The "Apple Tax" pays for the maintenance of the Apple ecosystem. Epic wants access to this amazing ecosystem, but resents having to help pay to support it. Either "third party" app stores will also pay to support this ecosystem, in which case Epic will be paying the same amount either way; or they'll fail to support the ecosystem, in which case Apple will be forced to turn to other sources to make revenue (like selling personal information). Right now I, as the consumer, can choose between an ecosystem whose business model is based on selling personal information (Android) or an ecosystem whose business model is based on the end user paying more (Apple). Don't take that choice away from me.
- chii 6y ago
  > Either "third party" app stores will also pay to support this ecosystem, in which case Epic will be paying the same amount either way how did you work out that the amount apple gets paid (30%) is the "correct" amount? The only way to find out is via competition. But due to the monopolistic powers of apple, there cannot be competition on their platform. Thus, we do not know the true cost of maintaining this platform - only that apple is able to maintain it with at least 30%. > Don't take that choice away from me. nobody is forcing you to use the third party app store if it does exist. If you continued to use apple's curated store, you will continue to get the existing benefits. Adding an extra option can't possibly hurt you.
  - darknessmonk 6y ago
    > how did you work out that the amount apple gets paid (30%) is the "correct" amount? The only way to find out is via competition. But due to the monopolistic powers of apple, there cannot be competition on their platform. Thus, we do not know the true cost of maintaining this platform - only that apple is able to maintain it with at least 30%. 30% is industry standard. > nobody is forcing you to use the third party app store if it does exist. If you continued to use apple's curated store, you will continue to get the existing benefits. Adding an extra option can't possibly hurt you. It hurts the ecosystem - and all its users. Splitting the apps in multiple app stores is a nightmare I don't get the point: the whole idea of Apple is to have everything under their control. Nobody is forcing anyone to use Apple devices
    - adamdusty 6y ago
      Nobody is going to not put their app on the apple app store. Look at steam for example. Almost every game on steam can be purchased somewhere else, like icth.io or the game's website. 30% is industry standard among monopolistic players (Google play store, Apple app store, Steam). There are many other storefronts that take less of a cut, and don't require IAP to go through a specific payment system that the platform also owns. FDroid, MS Store, Epic Store, Galaxy Store, GOG, the list goes on.
      - darknessmonk 6y ago
        > Nobody is going to not put their app on the apple app store. Epic will, and this is what they want > Almost every game on steam can be purchased somewhere else, like icth.io or the game's website. 30% is industry standard among monopolistic players (Google play store, Apple app store, Steam). That is a very different use case
      - zepto 6y ago
        > Nobody is going to not put their app on the apple app store. Certainly false - just like with streaming video, platforms will pay for exclusives from popular developers to force users to visit their stores.
      - Terretta 6y ago
        How is Steam a “monopolistic player” when you say “almost every game on steam can be purchased somewhere else” and go on to mention Gog, MS Store, Epic Store, and “the list goes on”? That Steam, and others you mention, charge 30% categorically undermines the whinging about Apple’s 30% being out of line. I’m also curious about people’s thoughts on Sony pulling CDPR’s Cyberpunk 2077 from their Playstation store.
        adamdusty 6y ago
        You're right about steam. Monopoly isn't the right word. Steam is the only one on that list that takes 30% that I know of. MS store went through a period where they would pay you to put your app there.
  - gwd 6y ago
    > how did you work out that the amount apple gets paid (30%) is the "correct" amount? The only way to find out is via competition. The "correct" amount is the amount that everybody is happy to pay. If Epic doesn't want to pay 30%, then 30% is too high for them. That's OK -- nobody is forcing them to pay it. The competition you're describing isn't the cost of running the app store; it's the cost of maintaining the entire Apple ecosystem, including iOS, new iPhone hardware, etc. > Adding an extra option can't possibly hurt you. Yes it can, and I just explained how. But let me try to spell it out. 1. New iOS "app store" starts up, but only charges 0.1%. This is possible because they don't write the OS or any of the infrastructure; they're a simple indexer 2. Everyone moves over to this app store because the fees are cheaper. 3. Apple's revenue drops precipitously 4. In order to maintain the OS, Apple either a) raises the prices of iPhones b) starts selling my information c) invests less in the iPhone and iOS. All three of those possibilities hurt me; so yes, a new app store does hurt me.
    - ginko 6y ago
      > New iOS "app store" starts up, but only charges 0.1%. This is possible because they don't write the OS or any of the infrastructure; they're a simple indexer Apple was already paid handsomely for OS development through the device's purchase price. > Apple's revenue drops precipitously Apple has some of the highest margins in the industry. They'll survive. > In order to maintain the OS, Apple either a) raises the prices of iPhones b) starts selling my information c) invests less in the iPhone and iOS. See my previous point.
      - kempbellt 6y ago
        "Apple has lots of money so they can afford to give some of it away because we want them to" is not an argument that Epic can take to court, and it isn't a great argument to support adding app stores. As an iPhone user I prefer the single app store approach. Multiple app stores fragments the user experience, ultimately harming the experience of owning an iPhone. Especially when apps become exclusives to different stores, because they will. It's one of the main reasons that I moved away from Android. I completely understand the "open system" argument for Android, but a fragmented user experience is a byproduct of that openness. The last android phone I had came with a Samsung store, Google play, and I believe a Verizon app store. As well, going from my Android phone to borrowing a friends meant learning a completely new UX almost every time. "Oh, you don't have a Samsung Android, so you don't have that particular app store, so you can't get the app... Sorry" It's been several years now, so maybe that's changed, but the biggest thing that makes me stick with Apple is the consistency of the user experience, in both its OS and app store ecosystems.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > nobody is forcing you to use the third party app store if it does exist. If you continued to use apple's curated store, you will continue to get the existing benefits. Adding an extra option can't possibly hurt you People need to stop saying this - it’s obvious completely false. As soon as other app stores are involved, there will be paid exclusives. Equivalent to Joe Rogan on Spotify, or any of the streaming video services who commission studios to make content just for their platform. It will definitely be impossible to avoid using multiple stores if you want access to the popular apps.
    - diffeomorphism 6y ago
      Not really. It would be perfectly possible to have just one store offering multiple repos/curations etc. . And in any case "but having like three stores" is an annoyance at worst. Having one grand holy arbiter of truth is a bigger problem.
      - zepto 6y ago
        > It would be perfectly possible to have just one store offering multiple repos/curations etc. That isn’t true. In order for it to be true you would need to explain how this would be possible if stores buy exclusive rights to apps.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  The Apple tax pays for outsized profits for Apple shareholders. The actual cost of supporting the ecosystem is dwarfed by the absolute firehose of money coming out of the app store.
- efraim 6y ago
  Apple is well compensated for their ecosystem with the price of their phones. Epic wants to create their own store or be allowed to use another payment processor than Apple for in app purchases. Apple would still have plenty of revenue from the app store and hardware. If epic and others was allowed to use multiple payment processors in the apps, or to install different app stores such as epic games or steam, you wouldn't have fewer choices you would have more.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  What ecosystem - i.e. what ecosystem is there that isn't already paid for by the billions and billions Apple make every year? Apple have hundreds of billions in cash do you actually believe they're going to put ads in their services?
  - dpkonofa 6y ago
    >Apple have hundreds of billions in cash do you actually believe they're going to put ads in their services? That's irrelevant. The issue in question is one of principle, not whether or not someone is in a certain position at this moment in time and can or can't or will or won't do something. If Apple suddenly lost all of it's money, you'd then be ok with them putting ads into their services?
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      > if Apple suddenly lost all of it's money Well no-one would be using it so I wouldn't care all that much - Apple losing all their money would basically require giving away iPhones for free with 0 revenue given apples financials.
      - dpkonofa 6y ago
        So then your argument is just anti-Apple and not actually based on any principles...
        mhh__ 6y ago
        No I'm pointing out that your hypothetical is so far into the tails that it's pointless to consider specifically.
- marticode 6y ago
  > The "Apple Tax" pays for the maintenance of the Apple ecosystem. No - the ~50% margin Apple makes on the phone pays for the ecosystem. Apple could charge nothing for inclusion in the app store and still be by far the most profitable electronic device maker on the planet.
- fbelzile 6y ago
  What are you talking about? Both Microsoft and Apple have had great success developing macOS and Windows while allowing third party developers to develop and distribute apps without an additional tax. There's clearly room in the market for operating systems that don't sell personal data and aren't artificially restrictive to generate more revenue. The fact that Apple cut the tax in half for small companies just shows how disconnected the revenue from the App Store is from the cost of running it. By all means, keep overpaying for Spotify on the App Store so Apple can collect their 30% each month, but don't force me to. Customers already pay to use a licensed copy of iOS on supported hardware and governments have every right to protect the customer from perpetually getting screwed by Apple. At the very least, we shouldn't allow Apple to limit free speech so that developers can't mention a way for their users to save money.
- kevingadd 6y ago
  Epic has asserted and proven that you don't need to take 30% to run an app store and approval pipeline. The incredible amount of profit generated by the iOS store is further evidence that the cut doesn't need to be 30%, as is Apple's sudden willingness to make exceptions for big companies like Amazon and temporarily offer 15% to small companies. Neither the Epic Store or Steam on PC are built around selling your data. Epic's PC store charges 12% (and if you use Unreal, they waive the licensing fee for that engine too), and Steam has a special tiered tax for massive companies (something like 25% for 50m+ in revenue, 20% at some higher tier)
fartcannon 6y ago
And Sweeney will take it, claiming a victory for the 'little guy'. Shameless.
Spivak 6y ago
I still don't see a way to resolve the problem that software isn't fungible and so multiple app stores are only good for publisher choice but not user choice. Without the requirement that all apps able to be purchased on all stores at similar prices and still under Apple's review process then apps will flock to the store that makes them the most money and fewest rules and users will have no choice but to acquire that app via that store. If I have to go to X store for an app I need I don't really have my choice of store. Do gamers like the current culture of having to have Origin, Steam, UPlay, Epic, GOGs, Blizzard Store, for no other reason than large middlemen playing Civ with marketshare and exclusives? I think if this issue was solved we would see less people desiring Apple to have such tight control over their ecosystem because it would mean that for users that like Apple's store opening up isn't a strict downgrade for them.
- yladiz 6y ago
  Yeah, this isn't really about "choice", it's about control. If there are exclusives on, for example, an iOS Epic store, your choice isn't really a choice, you have to install it from the Epic store. I'm curious how this will play out in general. Android already allows side-loaded applications, and Epic allowed people to install Fortnite outside of the Play Store and it did poorly, so they begrudgingly added Fortnite back into the Play Store, so I imagine it would be the same thing on iOS. Arguably it could be even more challenging for others because Apple would likely not be forced to treat non-App Store stores the same as the App Store in some ways, which would very likely lead to a situation where users would get popups when when install the new app store and when they load an app, similar to how running a nonsigned program works on Mac now.
  - syberspace 6y ago
    Who is forcing you to install apps from any store? Are you being held hostage and compelled to install apps against your will? Blink twice for yes, three times for no.
    - Spivak 6y ago
      Ohmygod I can't deal this reductionist stance on choice. Software isn't fungible. If you, for example, want to play a specific game, need a specific messenger to talk to your friends, or need a specific app for work like the Adobe suite or Procreate then you have no choice but to go to a store where those apps are available. If Photoshop is only in the Adobe store then you're gonna have to download and use that store if you want it. Having the choice to not use Photoshop isn't the same thing as having the choice about where to buy Photoshop.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

gwd 6y ago

> There is room for 3rd party app stores. The "Apple Tax" pays for the maintenance of the Apple ecosystem. Epic wants access to this amazing ecosystem, but resents having to help pay to support it. Either "third party" app stores will also pay to support this ecosystem, in which case Epic will be paying the same amount either way; or they'll fail to support the ecosystem, in which case Apple will be forced to turn to other sources to make revenue (like selling personal information). Right now I, as the consumer, can choose between an ecosystem whose business model is based on selling personal information (Android) or an ecosystem whose business model is based on the end user paying more (Apple). Don't take that choice away from me.

chii 6y ago
> Either "third party" app stores will also pay to support this ecosystem, in which case Epic will be paying the same amount either way how did you work out that the amount apple gets paid (30%) is the "correct" amount? The only way to find out is via competition. But due to the monopolistic powers of apple, there cannot be competition on their platform. Thus, we do not know the true cost of maintaining this platform - only that apple is able to maintain it with at least 30%. > Don't take that choice away from me. nobody is forcing you to use the third party app store if it does exist. If you continued to use apple's curated store, you will continue to get the existing benefits. Adding an extra option can't possibly hurt you.
- darknessmonk 6y ago
  > how did you work out that the amount apple gets paid (30%) is the "correct" amount? The only way to find out is via competition. But due to the monopolistic powers of apple, there cannot be competition on their platform. Thus, we do not know the true cost of maintaining this platform - only that apple is able to maintain it with at least 30%. 30% is industry standard. > nobody is forcing you to use the third party app store if it does exist. If you continued to use apple's curated store, you will continue to get the existing benefits. Adding an extra option can't possibly hurt you. It hurts the ecosystem - and all its users. Splitting the apps in multiple app stores is a nightmare I don't get the point: the whole idea of Apple is to have everything under their control. Nobody is forcing anyone to use Apple devices
  - adamdusty 6y ago
    Nobody is going to not put their app on the apple app store. Look at steam for example. Almost every game on steam can be purchased somewhere else, like icth.io or the game's website. 30% is industry standard among monopolistic players (Google play store, Apple app store, Steam). There are many other storefronts that take less of a cut, and don't require IAP to go through a specific payment system that the platform also owns. FDroid, MS Store, Epic Store, Galaxy Store, GOG, the list goes on.
    - darknessmonk 6y ago
      > Nobody is going to not put their app on the apple app store. Epic will, and this is what they want > Almost every game on steam can be purchased somewhere else, like icth.io or the game's website. 30% is industry standard among monopolistic players (Google play store, Apple app store, Steam). That is a very different use case
    - zepto 6y ago
      > Nobody is going to not put their app on the apple app store. Certainly false - just like with streaming video, platforms will pay for exclusives from popular developers to force users to visit their stores.
    - Terretta 6y ago
      How is Steam a “monopolistic player” when you say “almost every game on steam can be purchased somewhere else” and go on to mention Gog, MS Store, Epic Store, and “the list goes on”? That Steam, and others you mention, charge 30% categorically undermines the whinging about Apple’s 30% being out of line. I’m also curious about people’s thoughts on Sony pulling CDPR’s Cyberpunk 2077 from their Playstation store.
      - adamdusty 6y ago
        You're right about steam. Monopoly isn't the right word. Steam is the only one on that list that takes 30% that I know of. MS store went through a period where they would pay you to put your app there.
- gwd 6y ago
  > how did you work out that the amount apple gets paid (30%) is the "correct" amount? The only way to find out is via competition. The "correct" amount is the amount that everybody is happy to pay. If Epic doesn't want to pay 30%, then 30% is too high for them. That's OK -- nobody is forcing them to pay it. The competition you're describing isn't the cost of running the app store; it's the cost of maintaining the entire Apple ecosystem, including iOS, new iPhone hardware, etc. > Adding an extra option can't possibly hurt you. Yes it can, and I just explained how. But let me try to spell it out. 1. New iOS "app store" starts up, but only charges 0.1%. This is possible because they don't write the OS or any of the infrastructure; they're a simple indexer 2. Everyone moves over to this app store because the fees are cheaper. 3. Apple's revenue drops precipitously 4. In order to maintain the OS, Apple either a) raises the prices of iPhones b) starts selling my information c) invests less in the iPhone and iOS. All three of those possibilities hurt me; so yes, a new app store does hurt me.
  - ginko 6y ago
    > New iOS "app store" starts up, but only charges 0.1%. This is possible because they don't write the OS or any of the infrastructure; they're a simple indexer Apple was already paid handsomely for OS development through the device's purchase price. > Apple's revenue drops precipitously Apple has some of the highest margins in the industry. They'll survive. > In order to maintain the OS, Apple either a) raises the prices of iPhones b) starts selling my information c) invests less in the iPhone and iOS. See my previous point.
    - kempbellt 6y ago
      "Apple has lots of money so they can afford to give some of it away because we want them to" is not an argument that Epic can take to court, and it isn't a great argument to support adding app stores. As an iPhone user I prefer the single app store approach. Multiple app stores fragments the user experience, ultimately harming the experience of owning an iPhone. Especially when apps become exclusives to different stores, because they will. It's one of the main reasons that I moved away from Android. I completely understand the "open system" argument for Android, but a fragmented user experience is a byproduct of that openness. The last android phone I had came with a Samsung store, Google play, and I believe a Verizon app store. As well, going from my Android phone to borrowing a friends meant learning a completely new UX almost every time. "Oh, you don't have a Samsung Android, so you don't have that particular app store, so you can't get the app... Sorry" It's been several years now, so maybe that's changed, but the biggest thing that makes me stick with Apple is the consistency of the user experience, in both its OS and app store ecosystems.
- zepto 6y ago
  > nobody is forcing you to use the third party app store if it does exist. If you continued to use apple's curated store, you will continue to get the existing benefits. Adding an extra option can't possibly hurt you People need to stop saying this - it’s obvious completely false. As soon as other app stores are involved, there will be paid exclusives. Equivalent to Joe Rogan on Spotify, or any of the streaming video services who commission studios to make content just for their platform. It will definitely be impossible to avoid using multiple stores if you want access to the popular apps.
  - diffeomorphism 6y ago
    Not really. It would be perfectly possible to have just one store offering multiple repos/curations etc. . And in any case "but having like three stores" is an annoyance at worst. Having one grand holy arbiter of truth is a bigger problem.
    - zepto 6y ago
      > It would be perfectly possible to have just one store offering multiple repos/curations etc. That isn’t true. In order for it to be true you would need to explain how this would be possible if stores buy exclusive rights to apps.
asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
The Apple tax pays for outsized profits for Apple shareholders. The actual cost of supporting the ecosystem is dwarfed by the absolute firehose of money coming out of the app store.
efraim 6y ago
Apple is well compensated for their ecosystem with the price of their phones. Epic wants to create their own store or be allowed to use another payment processor than Apple for in app purchases. Apple would still have plenty of revenue from the app store and hardware. If epic and others was allowed to use multiple payment processors in the apps, or to install different app stores such as epic games or steam, you wouldn't have fewer choices you would have more.
mhh__ 6y ago
What ecosystem - i.e. what ecosystem is there that isn't already paid for by the billions and billions Apple make every year? Apple have hundreds of billions in cash do you actually believe they're going to put ads in their services?
- dpkonofa 6y ago
  >Apple have hundreds of billions in cash do you actually believe they're going to put ads in their services? That's irrelevant. The issue in question is one of principle, not whether or not someone is in a certain position at this moment in time and can or can't or will or won't do something. If Apple suddenly lost all of it's money, you'd then be ok with them putting ads into their services?
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    > if Apple suddenly lost all of it's money Well no-one would be using it so I wouldn't care all that much - Apple losing all their money would basically require giving away iPhones for free with 0 revenue given apples financials.
    - dpkonofa 6y ago
      So then your argument is just anti-Apple and not actually based on any principles...
      - mhh__ 6y ago
        No I'm pointing out that your hypothetical is so far into the tails that it's pointless to consider specifically.
marticode 6y ago
> The "Apple Tax" pays for the maintenance of the Apple ecosystem. No - the ~50% margin Apple makes on the phone pays for the ecosystem. Apple could charge nothing for inclusion in the app store and still be by far the most profitable electronic device maker on the planet.
fbelzile 6y ago
What are you talking about? Both Microsoft and Apple have had great success developing macOS and Windows while allowing third party developers to develop and distribute apps without an additional tax. There's clearly room in the market for operating systems that don't sell personal data and aren't artificially restrictive to generate more revenue. The fact that Apple cut the tax in half for small companies just shows how disconnected the revenue from the App Store is from the cost of running it. By all means, keep overpaying for Spotify on the App Store so Apple can collect their 30% each month, but don't force me to. Customers already pay to use a licensed copy of iOS on supported hardware and governments have every right to protect the customer from perpetually getting screwed by Apple. At the very least, we shouldn't allow Apple to limit free speech so that developers can't mention a way for their users to save money.
kevingadd 6y ago
Epic has asserted and proven that you don't need to take 30% to run an app store and approval pipeline. The incredible amount of profit generated by the iOS store is further evidence that the cut doesn't need to be 30%, as is Apple's sudden willingness to make exceptions for big companies like Amazon and temporarily offer 15% to small companies. Neither the Epic Store or Steam on PC are built around selling your data. Epic's PC store charges 12% (and if you use Unreal, they waive the licensing fee for that engine too), and Steam has a special tiered tax for massive companies (something like 25% for 50m+ in revenue, 20% at some higher tier)

fartcannon 6y ago

And Sweeney will take it, claiming a victory for the 'little guy'. Shameless.

Spivak 6y ago

I still don't see a way to resolve the problem that software isn't fungible and so multiple app stores are only good for publisher choice but not user choice. Without the requirement that all apps able to be purchased on all stores at similar prices and still under Apple's review process then apps will flock to the store that makes them the most money and fewest rules and users will have no choice but to acquire that app via that store. If I have to go to X store for an app I need I don't really have my choice of store. Do gamers like the current culture of having to have Origin, Steam, UPlay, Epic, GOGs, Blizzard Store, for no other reason than large middlemen playing Civ with marketshare and exclusives? I think if this issue was solved we would see less people desiring Apple to have such tight control over their ecosystem because it would mean that for users that like Apple's store opening up isn't a strict downgrade for them.

yladiz 6y ago
Yeah, this isn't really about "choice", it's about control. If there are exclusives on, for example, an iOS Epic store, your choice isn't really a choice, you have to install it from the Epic store. I'm curious how this will play out in general. Android already allows side-loaded applications, and Epic allowed people to install Fortnite outside of the Play Store and it did poorly, so they begrudgingly added Fortnite back into the Play Store, so I imagine it would be the same thing on iOS. Arguably it could be even more challenging for others because Apple would likely not be forced to treat non-App Store stores the same as the App Store in some ways, which would very likely lead to a situation where users would get popups when when install the new app store and when they load an app, similar to how running a nonsigned program works on Mac now.
- syberspace 6y ago
  Who is forcing you to install apps from any store? Are you being held hostage and compelled to install apps against your will? Blink twice for yes, three times for no.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    Ohmygod I can't deal this reductionist stance on choice. Software isn't fungible. If you, for example, want to play a specific game, need a specific messenger to talk to your friends, or need a specific app for work like the Adobe suite or Procreate then you have no choice but to go to a store where those apps are available. If Photoshop is only in the Adobe store then you're gonna have to download and use that store if you want it. Having the choice to not use Photoshop isn't the same thing as having the choice about where to buy Photoshop.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]