2 ms·

I really despise the analogy with Steam. And this is not the first time I hear it. People somehow fail to understand that the core problem with the App Store is

by Cyph0n 1y ago

I really despise the analogy with Steam. And this is not the first time I hear it. People somehow fail to understand that the core problem with the App Store is that it is operated by the platform owner. To bring the analogy in line with the App Store, imagine if: (1) Steam was operated by Microsoft, (2) Microsoft only allowed installation of games on Windows through Steam, and (3) Microsoft disallowed installation of alternate OSes on Microsoft PCs.

AnthonyMouse 1y ago
> To bring the analogy in line with the App Store, imagine if: (1) Steam was operated by Microsoft, (2) Microsoft only allowed installation of games on Windows through Steam, and (3) Microsoft disallowed installation of alternate OSes on Microsoft PCs. Not only that, because there are other ways to install an app than Steam, the 30% paid to Steam is paying for promotion within their system. Which is valuable because not all apps are available there, so paying for it makes you more likely to be noticed over someone who distributes for the same platform using an external means. If an app store is the only way to install apps on a platform then everybody is paying the fee and therefore nobody is getting promoted over anybody else in exchange for it.
al_borland 1y ago
So the issue has never been about the 30%, it’s about the closed platform? What if the App Store was free, would people still have an issue, because Apple is controlling the platform and software distribution? If so, why keep going after the 30% fee? It just seems like a convenient headline to use for the attacks. Valve also makes the Steam Deck. In that case they do own the platform, but if the user wants they can install whatever OS they want… but as designed, and used by most consumers, it’s Valve hardware, running SteamOS from Valve, where people can run games they buy from Steam, Vavle’s game marketplace… where Valve takes 30% of the sales. The only difference between the Steam Deck and an iPad is that the user can wipe SteamOS off it and use it as a generic system, likely killing most of the reason why they bought the hardware in the first place. So if the issue is how open the platform is, that seems like an issue for the free market. A lot of people buy Apple stuff because it’s a closed platform that spends a lot of time dialing in the user experience, which is something that often seems lacking on more open platforms, because there are an infinite number of edge cases to cover. If customers want the closed platform, forcing it open end up reducing customer choice, as the closed, tightly knit, ecosystem option no longer exists. Apple’s business model has also historically been about selling hardware to run their software. “People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.” Forcing them into a Microsoft-style business model is a fundamental change to their core business. There should be room in the market for different ideas. Microsoft, Apple, and Google all have very different business models which serve different types of customers. This is a good thing. I wish there was room for more business models to let the little guy move up, but forcing Apple to be Microsoft, Google, or whomever else doesn’t seem like a win, and it has little to do with the 30% App Store fee.
- Cyph0n 1y ago
  > So the issue has never been about the 30%, it’s about the closed platform? No, the issue is that they have both a 30% cut of every software sale and a closed platform. Steam has a 30% cut, but not a closed platform, hence the bad analogy. Not sure why you're bringing the Steam Deck into this discussion. Is the only way to play Steam games via Deck? No, so it's completely irrelevant.
  - al_borland 1y ago
    > Is the only way to play Steam games via Deck? No, so it's completely irrelevant. Apple has more open platforms as well, macOS. Paying through Apple is also not the only way to pay for Proton. I'm a Proton subscriber, and have an iPhone. I paid for Proton through their website and Apple didn't see a dime, but I still use Proton Mail on my iPhone.
    - Cyph0n 1y ago
      Let me summarize why Apple’s iOS is not even in the same planet as Valve’s Steam: Apple sells a device (iPhone) whose OS it controls (iOS) that is so ubiquitous to the point where most businesses cannot afford to not have a presence on this OS/platform. But in order to have a presence, businesses must list their app on the App Store. There is no other natively supported mechanism available to allow your users to interact with your business. And absolutely no sideloading is allowed. Apple charges businesses a 30% tax to use the App Store. The cherry on top is that you as a business are also completely disallowed from accepting payment that doesn’t adhere to this tax. Not just that, but even indirectly linking to such payment mechanisms from within your app is disallowed. Not going to engage any further here because I have made my points.

by Cyph0n 1y ago

AnthonyMouse 1y ago

> To bring the analogy in line with the App Store, imagine if: (1) Steam was operated by Microsoft, (2) Microsoft only allowed installation of games on Windows through Steam, and (3) Microsoft disallowed installation of alternate OSes on Microsoft PCs. Not only that, because there are other ways to install an app than Steam, the 30% paid to Steam is paying for promotion within their system. Which is valuable because not all apps are available there, so paying for it makes you more likely to be noticed over someone who distributes for the same platform using an external means. If an app store is the only way to install apps on a platform then everybody is paying the fee and therefore nobody is getting promoted over anybody else in exchange for it.

al_borland 1y ago

So the issue has never been about the 30%, it’s about the closed platform? What if the App Store was free, would people still have an issue, because Apple is controlling the platform and software distribution? If so, why keep going after the 30% fee? It just seems like a convenient headline to use for the attacks. Valve also makes the Steam Deck. In that case they do own the platform, but if the user wants they can install whatever OS they want… but as designed, and used by most consumers, it’s Valve hardware, running SteamOS from Valve, where people can run games they buy from Steam, Vavle’s game marketplace… where Valve takes 30% of the sales. The only difference between the Steam Deck and an iPad is that the user can wipe SteamOS off it and use it as a generic system, likely killing most of the reason why they bought the hardware in the first place. So if the issue is how open the platform is, that seems like an issue for the free market. A lot of people buy Apple stuff because it’s a closed platform that spends a lot of time dialing in the user experience, which is something that often seems lacking on more open platforms, because there are an infinite number of edge cases to cover. If customers want the closed platform, forcing it open end up reducing customer choice, as the closed, tightly knit, ecosystem option no longer exists. Apple’s business model has also historically been about selling hardware to run their software. “People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.” Forcing them into a Microsoft-style business model is a fundamental change to their core business. There should be room in the market for different ideas. Microsoft, Apple, and Google all have very different business models which serve different types of customers. This is a good thing. I wish there was room for more business models to let the little guy move up, but forcing Apple to be Microsoft, Google, or whomever else doesn’t seem like a win, and it has little to do with the 30% App Store fee.

Cyph0n 1y ago
> So the issue has never been about the 30%, it’s about the closed platform? No, the issue is that they have both a 30% cut of every software sale and a closed platform. Steam has a 30% cut, but not a closed platform, hence the bad analogy. Not sure why you're bringing the Steam Deck into this discussion. Is the only way to play Steam games via Deck? No, so it's completely irrelevant.
- al_borland 1y ago
  > Is the only way to play Steam games via Deck? No, so it's completely irrelevant. Apple has more open platforms as well, macOS. Paying through Apple is also not the only way to pay for Proton. I'm a Proton subscriber, and have an iPhone. I paid for Proton through their website and Apple didn't see a dime, but I still use Proton Mail on my iPhone.
  - Cyph0n 1y ago
    Let me summarize why Apple’s iOS is not even in the same planet as Valve’s Steam: Apple sells a device (iPhone) whose OS it controls (iOS) that is so ubiquitous to the point where most businesses cannot afford to not have a presence on this OS/platform. But in order to have a presence, businesses must list their app on the App Store. There is no other natively supported mechanism available to allow your users to interact with your business. And absolutely no sideloading is allowed. Apple charges businesses a 30% tax to use the App Store. The cherry on top is that you as a business are also completely disallowed from accepting payment that doesn’t adhere to this tax. Not just that, but even indirectly linking to such payment mechanisms from within your app is disallowed. Not going to engage any further here because I have made my points.