17 ms·

The problem is the choice is taken away from you though. Just like he said with the game market. If you want to play Game A, you go and download/install Game A'

The problem is the choice is taken away from you though. Just like he said with the game market. If you want to play Game A, you go and download/install Game A's publishing app store. If you want to then play Game B, rinse and repeat. You will be forced to use so many different app stores and won't have a choice to NOT use their app store "IF" it progresses like it has on the desktop. No proof it will/won't either.

reader_mode 6y ago
Meh - eventually things work out for the best of the consumers most of the time - for eg. epic game store just gave a bunch of titles free no strings attached a while ago, EA store used to have free stuff as well. End of the day you have to have enough value to get people to inconvenience themselves - I'd rather that this value gets shelled out to users as enticement to install some app store than Apple capturing that money simply because their store is the only one allowed to exist on the platform.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  This is short-sighted. The App Store is good because it is closed and curated. That's a main driver of the product experience. Removing the App Store irrecoverably damages the iPhone - a curated, non-malware infested, high quality phone with a consistent experience. I have yet to see any argument how the App Store harms consumers. It helps developers make more money (Play Store revenue is half that of the App store's apps), it helps consumers stay protected from malware infested applications and is easy to use. Where, exactly, is the harm? Now Epic with their gambling games will be able to rip off kids even more in their own store? Fantastic.
  - AttakBanana 6y ago
    Um, the harm is 30% more expensive apps. If devs can't avoid the cut, its only going to get passed down to the user.
    - katbyte 6y ago
      how is it 30% more expensive apps when the play store, ps4 store, xbox store all take the same amount?
      - AttakBanana 6y ago
        Because all of them take a 30% cut (*some exceptions to certain apps apply) 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... What I mean is, if Apple's cut was lesser / we had different app stores, prices could potentially be up to 30% lesser.
        crysin 6y ago
        They'd be cutting themselves out of other stores if they did that. Stores like Steam require that your game is sold at the same price across all stores otherwise it will be removed from Steam.
        AttakBanana 6y ago
        That is also a bad monopolistic practice we should be against. Apple isn't the only culprit.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      Ahh so harm now is spending any money. I was harmed by my grocery store for charging me 1.50 for milk! 30% is more than fair. People spend more money on the App Store than competitors. Developers want access to that. it shouldn't be free.
      - AttakBanana 6y ago
        This is dumb. I never said "any" money, you're just trying to justify your own opinion. Yes people spend more on the App Store and if the dev wants to use it to market their app they should go ahead and pay that 30%. However if the devs dont want to access that, and/or consumers want to pay lesser, they should have the option to download from elsewhere.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    Even assuming the only reason App Store revenue is that high is because of the store itself, we shouldn't treat the policies as one indivisible work set in stone. You can have a properly curated store with 10% fees, for example. And you can block malware without blocking alternative web browsers or game streaming apps.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      The policies are more than fair. People on HN get mad when others make money, but they never get mad when they want to make money too. > You can have a properly curated store with 10% fees, for example. And you can block malware without blocking alternative web browsers or game streaming apps. It becomes much more difficult and time consuming, and why 10%? The service is unbelievable - it provides great access to a platform and its high spending users. That is worth more than 10%.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        > The policies are more than fair. More than fair? Okay then, tell me what percent is fair. > People on HN get mad when others make money, but they never get mad when they want to make money too. The problem is not that they make money, it's that they are engineering a lack of competition in order to keep their prices arbitrarily high. > It becomes much more difficult and time consuming, and why 10%? The service is unbelievable - it provides great access to a platform and its high spending users. That is worth more than 10%. Charging a significant percentage for "providing access to users" is rent-seeking. That's not a good thing.
  - reader_mode 6y ago
    Lol the framing is ridiculous - Apple had nothing against ripping off gambling kids as long as they were getting their 30% cut so please cut the fanboy crap. Apple is using it's market position and it's leading to inefficient pricing. I guarantee you if Apple was forced to allow other payment methods on their store that their % cut would go down because the convenience they offer is not worth 30%. And App Store can be as curated as they want if they provide the hooks to allow third party stores and app deployments. I generally agree that you have the device choice - but considering the size of this market and Apple market position this is a right place for regulators to step in and fix the market inefficiency - just like the Windows/IE thing. And while they are at it they should probably look at digital store policies in general to prevent this kind of thing, Google isn't much better than Apple and they keep bundling stuff with the phone as well.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      Not an apple fanboy, please argue on merit, else I won't continue. Apple isn't ripping off anyone. They're taking their cut of sales based off the value of providing access to a high paying market that has a non-negligible cost. The point is - Epic is not doing this "for the market." They're doing it because they want more money for themselves - which is fair, but they are using a service which provides them revenue. That should not be free. For that matter, they have a monopoly over their store as well - should they have to allow third party "VBucks" stores? It's absurd. > Apple is using it's market position..... It clearly is worth that, in fact, probably much more - others on this thread that support your POV have said the App Store generates twice the revenue of Android. It's not just the convenience - it simply makes devs more money. Cutting the app store will tank developer value instantly. Developers will lose big time in this event. There will be many on here that will begin to complain as their salary dips. Also apple already cut the fee for smaller apps. So what's the real problem? I have yet to see any tangible evidence of consumer harm. > And App Store can be as curated..... That opens the door for malware and a poor customer experience. I can see my mom now being tricked into downloading a privacy invading app. my dad's android is a nightmare. It destroys the product. > I generally agree that you have the device choice.... There isn't market inefficiency. It's hard to argue monopoly of a company that has 20% of the market. The IE/Windows debate is far different. Both DOMINATED the market. This simply isn't true in this case. The fact is every time this comes up on HN people just hate Apple, but never look at the actual merit of the arguments. It isn't a monopoly (less than 20% global marketshare), its fees aren't exorbitant based on the value it provides developers, and end consumers get a clean, relatively safe experience. No one is losing, except megacorps like Epic who want to make a little more money.
solveit 6y ago
We used to download almost every program on their own website until just a couple of years ago. It'll be fine.
- judge2020 6y ago
  It'll be fine: https://patrickspokemonpalace.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/ie8.png https://patrickspokemonpalace.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/ie... https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/antivirus-software-market-to-witness-extensive-growth-owing-to-rising-cybercrime--technological-advancements-across-the-globe-till-2023--radiant-insights-inc-301062432.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/antivirus-software-...
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    App store monopolies have not meaningfully hindered this. To your first example: Most malware infections on PCs today are distributed by the Chrome Web Store. (Preventing malicious extensions was Google's excuse for blocking third party install... but since they don't even attempt to control malware they distribute first party, it's hilarious.) If they tell you they have a virus, open their Chrome extensions tab, remove everything, and you're good. If anything, centralized app stores magnify the problem: By making every single app submitted look like it's coming from a reputable source. If app stores did any realistic good job at policing malware, instead of focusing on policing their revenue tax, they might be a benefit. But again, malicious apps can have millions of installs and nobody does anything about it. Epic decides to charge 18% less and circumvent Google and Apple's taxation, and they act in less than 12 hours.
    - babypuncher 6y ago
      App stores do hinder this when they are resonably well moderated. Google makes almost no effort to do this. The extension markets for Firefox and Safari are comparatively malware-free next to the Chrome extension store.
      - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
SCHiM 6y ago
I recognize the fact that the argument is exactly the same as for not opening up the appstore in the first place. But the importance and scope of it is less if the store is open. Now you can chose to buy en expensive device (or you did in the past and can't de-apple due to lock-in) or not. In the future you could chose not to buy photoshop because of their insistence on their app store dependency. I think having a more granular choice is good. Like I said, that UX hit, imo, is less important than the monopolistic behavior displayed now: The apple "tax" (including the rules around links to donation pages and similar nonsense). Curation that cannot be overridden by end-users. Unpredictable policy changes for developers. 1st party appropriation of successful independent applications. Unfair competing (think browser javascript engines). I think bad UX is less important than those things listed above, that's the argument.
bluefirebrand 6y ago
You have the choice to not go play a game if it isn't on a platform that you want to install. This is somewhat similar to "I don't want to buy an XBox just to play this one game". Of course the barrier there is often a monetary cost. The software platforms are free to download so there's no real barrier. But for instance, I don't particularly like Epic Games attitude around buying exclusives so I don't use their store. I have missed out on some games I might have enjoyed as a result, but I still have lots to play elsewhere.
- jwagenet 6y ago
  You have the choice to not use iOS and not use the Apple App Store. You might not like Apple’s attitude around their operation of the App Store so you don’t use their devices. You might have missed some great apps, but there are still many great alternatives on Android.
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    So it's either a choice between "not running some specific game/app whose publisher made their own app store" and "not running any iOS app because my only option is to not have an iPhone"? I know which one gives me more choice.
    - llbeansandrice 6y ago
      Why is more choice necessarily good, besides simplified theory about capitalism? Brands have built their entire success off of providing less choice to consumers and they, in general seem to be successful. See Apple and Trader Joe's. Choice is good when there's direct competition. Companies will compete to have better app stores if I can choose which app store I want to use. I as a consumer will get to choose what games I want to play. It's bad for me as a consumer that I also have to choose which app store I'm using to download that game. Also both things can be bad, but I personally feel that the model where people like Apple due to the "ecosystem" seems to have worked pretty well for a lot of consumers. I don't think "more choice" is a good metric here at all because it's false. I don't care about having more choice in app stores(and I'm not getting to chose which app store I use under either model anyway), I care about my choice of apps. Which isn't really changing, companies will get their product to consumers.
simion314 6y ago
I think EA created a game store because it feels parasitic that Valve could take 30% of your sells, why not make your own store and keep the 30% . What I would do is force EA to put their games on all stores, then on their own store they can give you a 25% discount because they don't have to pay the tax. Then people could decide if they want store A, B or C version. If the store tax would be low enough there would not be such a pressure from the giant publishers to avoid the store, as a person that don't like giants I hope that this giants fighting each other will benefit us by breaking the monopolies and ensuring that all stores will play by fair rules and respect all consumer rights.
- dkonofalski 6y ago
  It's not parasitic of Valve, though. Valve created the storefront and platform that has all of those customers baked into it. EA is not just paying 30% for the privilege of selling their game, they're paying for the customer base that they haven't had to work to establish on that platform.
  - zwily 6y ago
    s/Valve/Apple/g
    - dkonofalski 6y ago
      Yes. Exactly.
    - PeterisP 6y ago
      Well, the difference is that with Steam EA gets the choice whether they like the "extra marketing" for that price or not. If a customer wants to buy something from EA outside of Steam, EA is permitted to sell it to them without ripping up their Steam distribution channel - which is not the case for Epic/Apple.
      - dkonofalski 6y ago
        Yes it is. Epic is allowed to sell to every other person that's not an iOS user without ripping up their iOS distribution channel too. They chose not to do that, though, and then shot themselves in the foot on top of it to try and stick it to Apple.
georgeecollins 6y ago
The entity that makes Game A has a choice where the app is sold. So, for Example, EA sells games on Origin but also Steam. There are lots of apps that are in many stores. On an iOS device, the entity that makes the app has no choice of what store to be in, they must be in Apple's. That is a monopoly. As many have pointed out, if you only want to get your apps from one store-- like Apple's-- you could chose that. But currently you can't choose to use another app vendor.
- babypuncher 6y ago
  If that choice of app store actually matters to you, then you have the option to choose an Android phone instead of an iPhone. You're not being relegated to some obscure platform with no app support like people who didn't want to use Wintel in the '00s.
  - joshuaissac 6y ago
    Google Play Store's revenue is half of that of the Apple App Store, so choosing only Android instead of both platforms would cut the expected app revenue by about two-thirds. Google also has similar app tax policies to Apple (and there is an ongoing lawsuit by Epic against them), so they really are relegated to the more obscure app stores.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      That's because Apple's app store has better quality apps due to curation. The minute iPhones are opened up, the value of the App Store will tank considerably, and many devs on here will be up in arms, complaining about all the flood of free apps that have destroyed their market. The fact is the App Store helps everyone. It curates apps for most people, it helps developers make more money (as you said, double the revenue, well worth the 1/3 cut, that no longer applies to small apps), and it helps Apple innovate on their hardware product.
      - joshuaissac 6y ago
simias 6y ago
There are plenty of cross-store games on PC. And even if some games end up being exclusive you might still benefit as a player thanks to the competition. If Epic started offering a very bad user experience game devs would hesitate to publish exclusively through them because they'd fear reduced revenue. It's also a very good thing for game devs who aren't at the mercy of the whims of a single company. Steam no longer wants to work with you? Go to GOG, Epic or even self-publish.
- jaegerpicker 6y ago
  Epic DOES offer a terrible experience, especially on Mac. It crashes ALL the time. It's terribly slow. It regularly consumes over 50% of available Ram and CPU. It still has exclusives and it's the only place I can get Unreal Engine if I want it. The PC game market is a prime example of how this common knowledge not being true at all for consumers. A couple of years ago steam was really the App Store for games and the user experience was far better. Now it's the worst it's been ever. Gog, UPlay Connect, Origin, Steam, Epic Game store etc... All with exclusives, all with massive privacy issues, all worse for consumer's. The only way to truly improve it for consumer is to require that all platform's be open source. That I could get behind but it will never happen.
- Arainach 6y ago
  > Epic started offering a very bad user experience game devs would hesitate to publish exclusively through them because they'd fear reduced revenue. This is demonstrably not true. Epic's launcher has been a laughing stock since it was announced. * It only recently got any form of Achievements (that are completely undiscoverable) * It has no way to join a party with your friends. I think it has Friends support but am not sure because you can't do anything at all with your Friends so I never even look. * It has no way to get support (their "troubleshoot" guide amounts to 'clear your cache, run as Admin, then try reinstalling: https://www.epicgames.com/help/en-US/epic-games-store-c73/launcher-support-c82/troubleshooting-epic-games-launcher-issues-a2676 https://www.epicgames.com/help/en-US/epic-games-store-c73/la...) * Half the time their UI elements don't work (I just went into the "Troubleshoot" section and the back button doesn't work, so I had to close the whole window and start over) * There are no user reviews of games * Their store and library sorting is a mess that makes it difficult to find anything * They launched without even having cloud save support Epic's game store is underpowered, buggy, and miserable to use - and plenty of companies still do exclusive deals with them because Epic holds a bag of gold in front of their face. They even do it when it breaks their own promises, like when IOI decided to launch Hitman 3 after promising they'd import Hitman 2 purchases - and then apparently totally forgot that Hitman 1 and 2 were on Steam and Hitman 3 was on Epic, so while XBox and Playstation users got their levels migrated on day one PC users are still out of luck a month later.
flohofwoe 6y ago
Microsoft, EA and Ubisoft eventually caved in and offer their games also on Steam. EGS "exclusives" are usually timed exclusives. You wait half a year or so, and get a more stable, better optimized and usually also cheaper version on Steam too. If you want to play an EGS exclusive game immediately, installing EGS isn't a big deal either. So far, having multiple competing app stores on PC has been a win both for users and developers. Choice is always a good thing.
mcfedr 6y ago
I guess here is less about your choice as a consumer, but the choice of the publisher
efdee 6y ago
There is no choice being taken away - you don't have a choice at this point - you must use "the" App Store whether you like it or not. Maybe the Apple App Store can get it's shit together and present a less hostile environment so these companies are able/willing to distribute on the Apple App Store again, and then you'll actually have a choice.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  In both cases, I as the user, have no choice: 1. Apple wins = I have no choice but to use the app store. 2. Epic wins = I have no choice but to install multiple different app stores to run many different apps.
  - kingsleyopara 6y ago
    I'd argue you have less choice if Epic wins as you as the user no longer have the choice to choose a walled garden (iOS) vs open platform (Android).
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - efdee 6y ago
      If Epic wins, you can still use the walled garden. I don't see your loss of choice.
      - kingsleyopara 6y ago
        My understanding and usage of a "walled garden" is to mean a closed ecosystem. By definition it no longer exists if Epic wins. Continuing the analogy: Some people want a walled garden to keep their kids safe, but your suggesting to remove the walls and just advice kids to stay on the lawn instead.
  - ThatPlayer 6y ago
    By that logic I have no choice but to buy an iPhone to run many different apps because they're not available on Android.
sigzero 6y ago
You never had a choice with Apple. That is their business model. You choose or don't choose to work in that model. Epic Games is pathetic.
the_af 6y ago
There are alternative stores for the same game on the desktop. A trivial example is that some games can be installed directly by downloading a file from the developer, or via Humble Bundle, GOG or Steam. So this business model is possible. And it's the friendliest to end users, too.
- afterburner 6y ago
  Many games are exclusive to the Epic launcher, or Origins, or Uplay. Many games are multiplayer are require logging into the above launchers even if theoretically you could somehow separate the game itself.
- tomc1985 6y ago
  When things work that way, then great! But a number of high-profile publishers (Rockstar, Ubisoft, EA) force you to use their app platform even if you purchased the game on Steam. I bought Far Cry 5 on Steam, and running it first launches Ubisoft's launcher, which usually needs to update (why????), then I can launch the game. GTA Online freebie in Epic Store, first has to start Rockstar Social Club (which also usually needs to update), then finally runs the game. FIFA on Steam forces Origin, and so on. It's a lot easier to deal with if you use a game launcher like Playnite, or should I say a launcher launcher, but with the rigarmarole you have to go through just to start one game suddenly your launcher launcher is now a launcher launcher launcher.
  - bombela 6y ago
    At this point I barely play anymore. Because with all the intermediate updates and transient failures, it takes longer to start the game than the time you would spend casually playing during a week evening.
    - tomc1985 6y ago
      Agreed. I have definitely been favoring platforms that let me run the binary directly, which is really just GOG, Patreon projects, and open-source.
    - 6y ago
CodeMage 6y ago
> You will be forced to use so many different app stores and won't have a choice to NOT use their app store "IF" it progresses like it has on the desktop. You're only forced to use stuff when you're in the small minority that cares about not using stuff. Moxie Marlinspike explained it perfectly in his DEF CON 18 keynote. Thing is, I don't think there's any conclusive proof that the majority of customer would be okay with what you're describing. Most of us on PC are getting along just fine with one or two game launchers. I'm using GOG and Steam. My kid uses Steam and Epic. When Funcom tried adding their own launcher for Conan Exiles, the vast majority of players berated them so hard on their forums that they removed it.
015a 6y ago
As opposed to Developers not having the choice to distribute their own app stores? There is no solution to this problem that benefits everyone perfectly. There are only solutions which are better than the solution we have today. Actually, there is one near-perfect solution; Apple reduces their cut to ~5% and stops enforcing their insane rules. But that's not happening. You, and many others in this thread, are blaming Epic, Steam, Blizzard, etc. That's fundamentally flawed thinking. All of this is Apple's fault. 100%. If the government forces Apple to destroy the UX of iOS, its because of actions Apple took which forced their hand. There are actions Apple could take which would abate this. They aren't taking them. You should not be mad at developers; you should be mad at Apple.
- parasubvert 6y ago
  All of WHAT is Apple’s fault? Providing a service that consumers want to use and preventing other companies from ruining it? Telling consumers they should be mad at Apple is absurd. I am not mad at Apple, I am mad at Epic for wasting everyone’s time with this case that they know they will lose, purely to shape public opinion. The judge so far seems to be projecting this is what will happen. I also don’t like relying on regulators to force changes in a market they know little about. Interfering with a successful model that consumers LIKE and WANT into something else does not benefit consumers. Benefiting other developers is completely irrelevant to the point of antitrust. That’s just corporate welfare. Apple would be best to lower their rate a bit, clarify certain inconsistent rules, and not abuse the review process, but otherwise I do not want multiple App stores and prefer Apple to regulate their store over the government. I guarantee you there are far more consumers that share this opinion than not. We really could care less what developers are whining about Apple’s policies or retail cut. If you can’t build for iOS at a profit, find something else to do. The government isn’t going to force a change of the iOS UX, that’s a pipe dream localized to Hacker News and Epic’s board room. Apple isn’t a monopoly by any definition of the term. You could declare them a utility, but that won’t have the effect you expect. To believe that iOS, a platform with 15% market share, somehow represents the end of platform history that needs government intervention, is the height of lazy thinking. Build a better ecosystem. Apple did it barely 14 years ago when they were a fraction of Microsoft’s size, and everyone said it was impossible.
- 6y ago
criley2 6y ago
>The problem is the choice is taken away from you though All Apple has to do is compromise on the 30% number. They've taken it to the extreme and demanded 30% of everything, 30% of subscriptions, 30% of every dollar. It's outrageous and developers who are perfectly capable of either self-hosting or finding a solution for cheaper than 30% OF ALL REVENUE deserve to keep the 25% of that revenue that is pure profit to Apple. Apple created this situation for themselves and they will have to give up sooner or later. Steam makes plenty of concessions for the 30% number and now allows basically pass-through games so that a much more wide variety of titles can appear there even if they aren't paying a full tax to the storefront for appearing. I mean, could you imagine a world where Wal-Mart was the only store your Toyota car was allowed to drive to, and Wal-Mart charged their suppliers 30% of all revenue to appear on the shelves? What is happening with the App Store monopoly is truly outrageous, it's an unimaginable amount. 30% is why Apple is going to lose here. If they were willing to be reasonable, it wouldn't get to this point.
- katbyte 6y ago
  how is the app store any different them the play/ps4/xbox store which also take 30% cut?
katbyte 6y ago
You could always just not play Game A?
ethbr0 6y ago
> (from parent) need their App Store running in order to play their games This is the real UX problem. I have no problem buying from a variety of stores. I do that in real life. Most required (pre-Covid) me to walk in each of their doors. What's a problem is requiring the installed & running presence of a particular App Store to run an app. If I legally purchased something, why is a particular App Store even still required? If I want to re-install (new device) then I can download it again? If we're talking updates... I'm happy to forgo update pushing. And renting software with subscriptions just needs to die.
kaba0 6y ago
You have a similar choice like not using apps on App Store 2

reader_mode 6y ago

Meh - eventually things work out for the best of the consumers most of the time - for eg. epic game store just gave a bunch of titles free no strings attached a while ago, EA store used to have free stuff as well. End of the day you have to have enough value to get people to inconvenience themselves - I'd rather that this value gets shelled out to users as enticement to install some app store than Apple capturing that money simply because their store is the only one allowed to exist on the platform.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ntsplnkv2 6y ago
This is short-sighted. The App Store is good because it is closed and curated. That's a main driver of the product experience. Removing the App Store irrecoverably damages the iPhone - a curated, non-malware infested, high quality phone with a consistent experience. I have yet to see any argument how the App Store harms consumers. It helps developers make more money (Play Store revenue is half that of the App store's apps), it helps consumers stay protected from malware infested applications and is easy to use. Where, exactly, is the harm? Now Epic with their gambling games will be able to rip off kids even more in their own store? Fantastic.
- AttakBanana 6y ago
  Um, the harm is 30% more expensive apps. If devs can't avoid the cut, its only going to get passed down to the user.
  - katbyte 6y ago
    how is it 30% more expensive apps when the play store, ps4 store, xbox store all take the same amount?
    - AttakBanana 6y ago
      Because all of them take a 30% cut (*some exceptions to certain apps apply) 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... What I mean is, if Apple's cut was lesser / we had different app stores, prices could potentially be up to 30% lesser.
      - crysin 6y ago
        They'd be cutting themselves out of other stores if they did that. Stores like Steam require that your game is sold at the same price across all stores otherwise it will be removed from Steam.
        AttakBanana 6y ago
        That is also a bad monopolistic practice we should be against. Apple isn't the only culprit.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Ahh so harm now is spending any money. I was harmed by my grocery store for charging me 1.50 for milk! 30% is more than fair. People spend more money on the App Store than competitors. Developers want access to that. it shouldn't be free.
    - AttakBanana 6y ago
      This is dumb. I never said "any" money, you're just trying to justify your own opinion. Yes people spend more on the App Store and if the dev wants to use it to market their app they should go ahead and pay that 30%. However if the devs dont want to access that, and/or consumers want to pay lesser, they should have the option to download from elsewhere.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  Even assuming the only reason App Store revenue is that high is because of the store itself, we shouldn't treat the policies as one indivisible work set in stone. You can have a properly curated store with 10% fees, for example. And you can block malware without blocking alternative web browsers or game streaming apps.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    The policies are more than fair. People on HN get mad when others make money, but they never get mad when they want to make money too. > You can have a properly curated store with 10% fees, for example. And you can block malware without blocking alternative web browsers or game streaming apps. It becomes much more difficult and time consuming, and why 10%? The service is unbelievable - it provides great access to a platform and its high spending users. That is worth more than 10%.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      > The policies are more than fair. More than fair? Okay then, tell me what percent is fair. > People on HN get mad when others make money, but they never get mad when they want to make money too. The problem is not that they make money, it's that they are engineering a lack of competition in order to keep their prices arbitrarily high. > It becomes much more difficult and time consuming, and why 10%? The service is unbelievable - it provides great access to a platform and its high spending users. That is worth more than 10%. Charging a significant percentage for "providing access to users" is rent-seeking. That's not a good thing.
- reader_mode 6y ago
  Lol the framing is ridiculous - Apple had nothing against ripping off gambling kids as long as they were getting their 30% cut so please cut the fanboy crap. Apple is using it's market position and it's leading to inefficient pricing. I guarantee you if Apple was forced to allow other payment methods on their store that their % cut would go down because the convenience they offer is not worth 30%. And App Store can be as curated as they want if they provide the hooks to allow third party stores and app deployments. I generally agree that you have the device choice - but considering the size of this market and Apple market position this is a right place for regulators to step in and fix the market inefficiency - just like the Windows/IE thing. And while they are at it they should probably look at digital store policies in general to prevent this kind of thing, Google isn't much better than Apple and they keep bundling stuff with the phone as well.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Not an apple fanboy, please argue on merit, else I won't continue. Apple isn't ripping off anyone. They're taking their cut of sales based off the value of providing access to a high paying market that has a non-negligible cost. The point is - Epic is not doing this "for the market." They're doing it because they want more money for themselves - which is fair, but they are using a service which provides them revenue. That should not be free. For that matter, they have a monopoly over their store as well - should they have to allow third party "VBucks" stores? It's absurd. > Apple is using it's market position..... It clearly is worth that, in fact, probably much more - others on this thread that support your POV have said the App Store generates twice the revenue of Android. It's not just the convenience - it simply makes devs more money. Cutting the app store will tank developer value instantly. Developers will lose big time in this event. There will be many on here that will begin to complain as their salary dips. Also apple already cut the fee for smaller apps. So what's the real problem? I have yet to see any tangible evidence of consumer harm. > And App Store can be as curated..... That opens the door for malware and a poor customer experience. I can see my mom now being tricked into downloading a privacy invading app. my dad's android is a nightmare. It destroys the product. > I generally agree that you have the device choice.... There isn't market inefficiency. It's hard to argue monopoly of a company that has 20% of the market. The IE/Windows debate is far different. Both DOMINATED the market. This simply isn't true in this case. The fact is every time this comes up on HN people just hate Apple, but never look at the actual merit of the arguments. It isn't a monopoly (less than 20% global marketshare), its fees aren't exorbitant based on the value it provides developers, and end consumers get a clean, relatively safe experience. No one is losing, except megacorps like Epic who want to make a little more money.

solveit 6y ago

We used to download almost every program on their own website until just a couple of years ago. It'll be fine.

judge2020 6y ago
It'll be fine: https://patrickspokemonpalace.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/ie8.png https://patrickspokemonpalace.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/ie... https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/antivirus-software-market-to-witness-extensive-growth-owing-to-rising-cybercrime--technological-advancements-across-the-globe-till-2023--radiant-insights-inc-301062432.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/antivirus-software-...
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  App store monopolies have not meaningfully hindered this. To your first example: Most malware infections on PCs today are distributed by the Chrome Web Store. (Preventing malicious extensions was Google's excuse for blocking third party install... but since they don't even attempt to control malware they distribute first party, it's hilarious.) If they tell you they have a virus, open their Chrome extensions tab, remove everything, and you're good. If anything, centralized app stores magnify the problem: By making every single app submitted look like it's coming from a reputable source. If app stores did any realistic good job at policing malware, instead of focusing on policing their revenue tax, they might be a benefit. But again, malicious apps can have millions of installs and nobody does anything about it. Epic decides to charge 18% less and circumvent Google and Apple's taxation, and they act in less than 12 hours.
  - babypuncher 6y ago
    App stores do hinder this when they are resonably well moderated. Google makes almost no effort to do this. The extension markets for Firefox and Safari are comparatively malware-free next to the Chrome extension store.
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago

SCHiM 6y ago

I recognize the fact that the argument is exactly the same as for not opening up the appstore in the first place. But the importance and scope of it is less if the store is open. Now you can chose to buy en expensive device (or you did in the past and can't de-apple due to lock-in) or not. In the future you could chose not to buy photoshop because of their insistence on their app store dependency. I think having a more granular choice is good. Like I said, that UX hit, imo, is less important than the monopolistic behavior displayed now: The apple "tax" (including the rules around links to donation pages and similar nonsense). Curation that cannot be overridden by end-users. Unpredictable policy changes for developers. 1st party appropriation of successful independent applications. Unfair competing (think browser javascript engines). I think bad UX is less important than those things listed above, that's the argument.

bluefirebrand 6y ago

You have the choice to not go play a game if it isn't on a platform that you want to install. This is somewhat similar to "I don't want to buy an XBox just to play this one game". Of course the barrier there is often a monetary cost. The software platforms are free to download so there's no real barrier. But for instance, I don't particularly like Epic Games attitude around buying exclusives so I don't use their store. I have missed out on some games I might have enjoyed as a result, but I still have lots to play elsewhere.

jwagenet 6y ago
You have the choice to not use iOS and not use the Apple App Store. You might not like Apple’s attitude around their operation of the App Store so you don’t use their devices. You might have missed some great apps, but there are still many great alternatives on Android.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  So it's either a choice between "not running some specific game/app whose publisher made their own app store" and "not running any iOS app because my only option is to not have an iPhone"? I know which one gives me more choice.
  - llbeansandrice 6y ago
    Why is more choice necessarily good, besides simplified theory about capitalism? Brands have built their entire success off of providing less choice to consumers and they, in general seem to be successful. See Apple and Trader Joe's. Choice is good when there's direct competition. Companies will compete to have better app stores if I can choose which app store I want to use. I as a consumer will get to choose what games I want to play. It's bad for me as a consumer that I also have to choose which app store I'm using to download that game. Also both things can be bad, but I personally feel that the model where people like Apple due to the "ecosystem" seems to have worked pretty well for a lot of consumers. I don't think "more choice" is a good metric here at all because it's false. I don't care about having more choice in app stores(and I'm not getting to chose which app store I use under either model anyway), I care about my choice of apps. Which isn't really changing, companies will get their product to consumers.

simion314 6y ago

I think EA created a game store because it feels parasitic that Valve could take 30% of your sells, why not make your own store and keep the 30% . What I would do is force EA to put their games on all stores, then on their own store they can give you a 25% discount because they don't have to pay the tax. Then people could decide if they want store A, B or C version. If the store tax would be low enough there would not be such a pressure from the giant publishers to avoid the store, as a person that don't like giants I hope that this giants fighting each other will benefit us by breaking the monopolies and ensuring that all stores will play by fair rules and respect all consumer rights.

dkonofalski 6y ago
It's not parasitic of Valve, though. Valve created the storefront and platform that has all of those customers baked into it. EA is not just paying 30% for the privilege of selling their game, they're paying for the customer base that they haven't had to work to establish on that platform.
- zwily 6y ago
  s/Valve/Apple/g
  - dkonofalski 6y ago
    Yes. Exactly.
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    Well, the difference is that with Steam EA gets the choice whether they like the "extra marketing" for that price or not. If a customer wants to buy something from EA outside of Steam, EA is permitted to sell it to them without ripping up their Steam distribution channel - which is not the case for Epic/Apple.
    - dkonofalski 6y ago
      Yes it is. Epic is allowed to sell to every other person that's not an iOS user without ripping up their iOS distribution channel too. They chose not to do that, though, and then shot themselves in the foot on top of it to try and stick it to Apple.

georgeecollins 6y ago

The entity that makes Game A has a choice where the app is sold. So, for Example, EA sells games on Origin but also Steam. There are lots of apps that are in many stores. On an iOS device, the entity that makes the app has no choice of what store to be in, they must be in Apple's. That is a monopoly. As many have pointed out, if you only want to get your apps from one store-- like Apple's-- you could chose that. But currently you can't choose to use another app vendor.

babypuncher 6y ago
If that choice of app store actually matters to you, then you have the option to choose an Android phone instead of an iPhone. You're not being relegated to some obscure platform with no app support like people who didn't want to use Wintel in the '00s.
- joshuaissac 6y ago
  Google Play Store's revenue is half of that of the Apple App Store, so choosing only Android instead of both platforms would cut the expected app revenue by about two-thirds. Google also has similar app tax policies to Apple (and there is an ongoing lawsuit by Epic against them), so they really are relegated to the more obscure app stores.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    That's because Apple's app store has better quality apps due to curation. The minute iPhones are opened up, the value of the App Store will tank considerably, and many devs on here will be up in arms, complaining about all the flood of free apps that have destroyed their market. The fact is the App Store helps everyone. It curates apps for most people, it helps developers make more money (as you said, double the revenue, well worth the 1/3 cut, that no longer applies to small apps), and it helps Apple innovate on their hardware product.
    - joshuaissac 6y ago

simias 6y ago

There are plenty of cross-store games on PC. And even if some games end up being exclusive you might still benefit as a player thanks to the competition. If Epic started offering a very bad user experience game devs would hesitate to publish exclusively through them because they'd fear reduced revenue. It's also a very good thing for game devs who aren't at the mercy of the whims of a single company. Steam no longer wants to work with you? Go to GOG, Epic or even self-publish.

jaegerpicker 6y ago
Epic DOES offer a terrible experience, especially on Mac. It crashes ALL the time. It's terribly slow. It regularly consumes over 50% of available Ram and CPU. It still has exclusives and it's the only place I can get Unreal Engine if I want it. The PC game market is a prime example of how this common knowledge not being true at all for consumers. A couple of years ago steam was really the App Store for games and the user experience was far better. Now it's the worst it's been ever. Gog, UPlay Connect, Origin, Steam, Epic Game store etc... All with exclusives, all with massive privacy issues, all worse for consumer's. The only way to truly improve it for consumer is to require that all platform's be open source. That I could get behind but it will never happen.
Arainach 6y ago
> Epic started offering a very bad user experience game devs would hesitate to publish exclusively through them because they'd fear reduced revenue. This is demonstrably not true. Epic's launcher has been a laughing stock since it was announced. * It only recently got any form of Achievements (that are completely undiscoverable) * It has no way to join a party with your friends. I think it has Friends support but am not sure because you can't do anything at all with your Friends so I never even look. * It has no way to get support (their "troubleshoot" guide amounts to 'clear your cache, run as Admin, then try reinstalling: https://www.epicgames.com/help/en-US/epic-games-store-c73/launcher-support-c82/troubleshooting-epic-games-launcher-issues-a2676 https://www.epicgames.com/help/en-US/epic-games-store-c73/la...) * Half the time their UI elements don't work (I just went into the "Troubleshoot" section and the back button doesn't work, so I had to close the whole window and start over) * There are no user reviews of games * Their store and library sorting is a mess that makes it difficult to find anything * They launched without even having cloud save support Epic's game store is underpowered, buggy, and miserable to use - and plenty of companies still do exclusive deals with them because Epic holds a bag of gold in front of their face. They even do it when it breaks their own promises, like when IOI decided to launch Hitman 3 after promising they'd import Hitman 2 purchases - and then apparently totally forgot that Hitman 1 and 2 were on Steam and Hitman 3 was on Epic, so while XBox and Playstation users got their levels migrated on day one PC users are still out of luck a month later.

flohofwoe 6y ago

Microsoft, EA and Ubisoft eventually caved in and offer their games also on Steam. EGS "exclusives" are usually timed exclusives. You wait half a year or so, and get a more stable, better optimized and usually also cheaper version on Steam too. If you want to play an EGS exclusive game immediately, installing EGS isn't a big deal either. So far, having multiple competing app stores on PC has been a win both for users and developers. Choice is always a good thing.

mcfedr 6y ago

I guess here is less about your choice as a consumer, but the choice of the publisher

efdee 6y ago

There is no choice being taken away - you don't have a choice at this point - you must use "the" App Store whether you like it or not. Maybe the Apple App Store can get it's shit together and present a less hostile environment so these companies are able/willing to distribute on the Apple App Store again, and then you'll actually have a choice.

ryandrake 6y ago
In both cases, I as the user, have no choice: 1. Apple wins = I have no choice but to use the app store. 2. Epic wins = I have no choice but to install multiple different app stores to run many different apps.
- kingsleyopara 6y ago
  I'd argue you have less choice if Epic wins as you as the user no longer have the choice to choose a walled garden (iOS) vs open platform (Android).
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - efdee 6y ago
    If Epic wins, you can still use the walled garden. I don't see your loss of choice.
    - kingsleyopara 6y ago
      My understanding and usage of a "walled garden" is to mean a closed ecosystem. By definition it no longer exists if Epic wins. Continuing the analogy: Some people want a walled garden to keep their kids safe, but your suggesting to remove the walls and just advice kids to stay on the lawn instead.
- ThatPlayer 6y ago
  By that logic I have no choice but to buy an iPhone to run many different apps because they're not available on Android.

sigzero 6y ago

You never had a choice with Apple. That is their business model. You choose or don't choose to work in that model. Epic Games is pathetic.

the_af 6y ago

There are alternative stores for the same game on the desktop. A trivial example is that some games can be installed directly by downloading a file from the developer, or via Humble Bundle, GOG or Steam. So this business model is possible. And it's the friendliest to end users, too.

afterburner 6y ago
Many games are exclusive to the Epic launcher, or Origins, or Uplay. Many games are multiplayer are require logging into the above launchers even if theoretically you could somehow separate the game itself.
tomc1985 6y ago
When things work that way, then great! But a number of high-profile publishers (Rockstar, Ubisoft, EA) force you to use their app platform even if you purchased the game on Steam. I bought Far Cry 5 on Steam, and running it first launches Ubisoft's launcher, which usually needs to update (why????), then I can launch the game. GTA Online freebie in Epic Store, first has to start Rockstar Social Club (which also usually needs to update), then finally runs the game. FIFA on Steam forces Origin, and so on. It's a lot easier to deal with if you use a game launcher like Playnite, or should I say a launcher launcher, but with the rigarmarole you have to go through just to start one game suddenly your launcher launcher is now a launcher launcher launcher.
- bombela 6y ago
  At this point I barely play anymore. Because with all the intermediate updates and transient failures, it takes longer to start the game than the time you would spend casually playing during a week evening.
  - tomc1985 6y ago
    Agreed. I have definitely been favoring platforms that let me run the binary directly, which is really just GOG, Patreon projects, and open-source.
  - 6y ago

CodeMage 6y ago

> You will be forced to use so many different app stores and won't have a choice to NOT use their app store "IF" it progresses like it has on the desktop. You're only forced to use stuff when you're in the small minority that cares about not using stuff. Moxie Marlinspike explained it perfectly in his DEF CON 18 keynote. Thing is, I don't think there's any conclusive proof that the majority of customer would be okay with what you're describing. Most of us on PC are getting along just fine with one or two game launchers. I'm using GOG and Steam. My kid uses Steam and Epic. When Funcom tried adding their own launcher for Conan Exiles, the vast majority of players berated them so hard on their forums that they removed it.

015a 6y ago

As opposed to Developers not having the choice to distribute their own app stores? There is no solution to this problem that benefits everyone perfectly. There are only solutions which are better than the solution we have today. Actually, there is one near-perfect solution; Apple reduces their cut to ~5% and stops enforcing their insane rules. But that's not happening. You, and many others in this thread, are blaming Epic, Steam, Blizzard, etc. That's fundamentally flawed thinking. All of this is Apple's fault. 100%. If the government forces Apple to destroy the UX of iOS, its because of actions Apple took which forced their hand. There are actions Apple could take which would abate this. They aren't taking them. You should not be mad at developers; you should be mad at Apple.

parasubvert 6y ago
All of WHAT is Apple’s fault? Providing a service that consumers want to use and preventing other companies from ruining it? Telling consumers they should be mad at Apple is absurd. I am not mad at Apple, I am mad at Epic for wasting everyone’s time with this case that they know they will lose, purely to shape public opinion. The judge so far seems to be projecting this is what will happen. I also don’t like relying on regulators to force changes in a market they know little about. Interfering with a successful model that consumers LIKE and WANT into something else does not benefit consumers. Benefiting other developers is completely irrelevant to the point of antitrust. That’s just corporate welfare. Apple would be best to lower their rate a bit, clarify certain inconsistent rules, and not abuse the review process, but otherwise I do not want multiple App stores and prefer Apple to regulate their store over the government. I guarantee you there are far more consumers that share this opinion than not. We really could care less what developers are whining about Apple’s policies or retail cut. If you can’t build for iOS at a profit, find something else to do. The government isn’t going to force a change of the iOS UX, that’s a pipe dream localized to Hacker News and Epic’s board room. Apple isn’t a monopoly by any definition of the term. You could declare them a utility, but that won’t have the effect you expect. To believe that iOS, a platform with 15% market share, somehow represents the end of platform history that needs government intervention, is the height of lazy thinking. Build a better ecosystem. Apple did it barely 14 years ago when they were a fraction of Microsoft’s size, and everyone said it was impossible.
6y ago

criley2 6y ago

>The problem is the choice is taken away from you though All Apple has to do is compromise on the 30% number. They've taken it to the extreme and demanded 30% of everything, 30% of subscriptions, 30% of every dollar. It's outrageous and developers who are perfectly capable of either self-hosting or finding a solution for cheaper than 30% OF ALL REVENUE deserve to keep the 25% of that revenue that is pure profit to Apple. Apple created this situation for themselves and they will have to give up sooner or later. Steam makes plenty of concessions for the 30% number and now allows basically pass-through games so that a much more wide variety of titles can appear there even if they aren't paying a full tax to the storefront for appearing. I mean, could you imagine a world where Wal-Mart was the only store your Toyota car was allowed to drive to, and Wal-Mart charged their suppliers 30% of all revenue to appear on the shelves? What is happening with the App Store monopoly is truly outrageous, it's an unimaginable amount. 30% is why Apple is going to lose here. If they were willing to be reasonable, it wouldn't get to this point.

katbyte 6y ago
how is the app store any different them the play/ps4/xbox store which also take 30% cut?

katbyte 6y ago

You could always just not play Game A?

ethbr0 6y ago

> (from parent) need their App Store running in order to play their games This is the real UX problem. I have no problem buying from a variety of stores. I do that in real life. Most required (pre-Covid) me to walk in each of their doors. What's a problem is requiring the installed & running presence of a particular App Store to run an app. If I legally purchased something, why is a particular App Store even still required? If I want to re-install (new device) then I can download it again? If we're talking updates... I'm happy to forgo update pushing. And renting software with subscriptions just needs to die.

kaba0 6y ago

You have a similar choice like not using apps on App Store 2