Hacker News Reader

Comment by mirthflat83 | Hacker News Reader

It's the "best case scenario" for developers and Epic, but not for me as a customer. I vastly prefer the iPhone model where I can go to a single place to download all the apps that I need with a single payment method. I don't have to go to a specific url in the browser, download an executable, install a separate store for each game I want, and then finally install the game from that separate store. I don't know who would call this as a superior user experience.

You guys are acting like the existence of the App Store has jacked up the app prices by 200%, whereas in reality there hasn't remotely been such a thing since the inception of the App Store.

View on HN

> You guys are acting like the existence of the App Store has jacked up the app prices by 200%

No, we got free to play with endless micro transactions instead. I would have preferred the price bump.

Well, that was because developers demanded it. Apple initially didn't allow in-app payments for free apps.

No, developers demanded time-limited trials for paid apps, which we had for many years before the App Store.

But Apple _never_ delivered on that. Instead, Apple pushed "subscriptions", which is just another name for rental.

Apple, Adobe, Microsoft, Google...

Subscription models produce lots of recurring revenue, so companies absolutely adore that model when they can get away with it.

Like Epic’s Fortnite?

I really dont understand this argument. What about allowing alternatives forces the current state to go away? Why would other stores create a scenario where you _cant_ go to the Apple App Store and use your Apple pay and get your Apple approved apps?

I saw the same thing come up when people talked about wanting to maintain status quo for in-app payment options. Because, again, adding additional choices does not just make your current choice go away. You can still choose that apple-blessed option if thats what you want. Unless, of course, it turns out that theres a lot of unnecessary margin being added on and its actually not a profitable business model when faced with competition.

I as a customer like the Epic Games Store. I even more like the GoG store. And I kind of like the Steam store, but least of these.

When I shop for games, I never pay the list price - ever. Well, maybe once every few years when I buy a game in the GoG store made by CD Projekt Red, which run the store but are also a publisher of AAA titles I really, really love. I pay full price for them because they really deserve it, and they get 100% of the well-deserved money if I buy in their store.

All the other games? I'll happily wait for a sale in one of the aforementioned stores, of which there are plenty and with huge rebates, because they must compete for me as a customer. First sales are usually coming just a few months after a games' release, and with lots of games to play still in my pipeline and less time to actually play them due to work, family and all that real-life stuff, I can usually muster the patience to wait for reduced prices.

> all the apps that I need

Correction: all the apps that Apple thinks you need, regardless of whether or not it aligns with what you need or want.

Please give me examples of apps I’m missing out on as an average consumer because I’m all for missing out on malwares

Any example that will be provided the fanboys will explain why they themselves don't need that application. The big example are web browsers (but you all are happy with the new IE) , GPL apps and some very popular game called Fortnite you might have hear of. I am wondering if you can refund your iPhone because a month ago you could play this game and now it will be blocked.

The new IE is Chrome actually.

With 20% global market share, plenty of countries don't care about Safari support.

The new IE from the dragging things down point of view. Microsoft did not dare to not allow other browsers on Windows and because of that we can complain about Chrome.

Internet explorer was actually a decent browser in its peak. The whole "dragging things down" happened later on because people kept on using really old versions of IE (mostly the one bundled with Windows XP).

The main problem with Internet Explorer in its hay day was that they did not play nice with other browser vendors and implemented features outside of the standard. Those features were then relied upon by website developers, causing many websites to only work on Internet Explorer. After all - most people were using internet explorer, why cater to anyone else?

Chrome is not quite in the same position as Internet Explorer was back then, but it's getting frighteningly close. There are several websites that only work on Chrome, and despite me not using Chrome as my primary browser I do have Chrome installed because for some websites I simply need Chrome. This is obviously very dangerous to the freedom of the internet.

Funnily enough Apple forcing iOS users to use Safari actually helps here. Because so many people use iOS and they need to use Safari, website developers need to cater to at least one non-Chrome web browser. That in turn makes it more likely they will also cater to others (e.g. Firefox) rather than relying on Chrome-only features.

I seen recently change logs like "reverting from webp to jpeg to support iOS users", so it seems to me that the lowest common denominator now is Safari.

No doubt it is, I'm just explaining why comparing Chrome to Internet Explorer makes a lot of sense. Having a single browser used by the vast majority of people is a bad situation to be in. Especially when that browser is developed by a company like Google.

You the average consumer would love to play Fortnite. Your kid has been pretty downer lately since Apple banned it. All your child's friends play it but you would prefer not to spend extra money just to buy a console. You the average consumer need Fornite.

You got that inverted: F-droid is where I know I'll be free of malware, the Play Store is the one that is infested with malware and predatory stuff.

Emulators are one large category that’s not allowed by Apple, for example.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/6/21357771/apple-cloud-gamin...

Apps for porn site/porn games aren't allowed on iOS. There's many 4chan apps for Android, but none for iPhone. And apps frequently have to gimp themselves to get around this requirement, like Telegram where on iOS you cannot see 18+ chats you can see everywhere else.

Ah 4chan, the app that every average user would like to install

Personally, I would like to be able to use the new streaming gaming apps, such as Microsoft xcloud, Google stadia, PlayStation now, etc.

Do you use a computer with MacOS, Linux, or Windows? Are you using any application not natively installed on your machine on install or not offered through the officially designating app store on your OS?

There is your list.

Apps that the totalitarian government ruling over you without your consent have decided should be banned.

The problem is that it creates a single point at which a state can impose restrictions on freedom, with no way to get around it for dissidents and other people who don't agree with it.

You can't have real Gecko-based Firefox on iOS because Apple only allows competing browsers as thin wrappers around Safari.

I'm floored that nobody else here on HN has pointed out that Syncthing is missing. Android, Windows, Linux, and MacOS all have native clients, but there's nothing for iPhone.

So much for "There's an app for that".

Ironically, one example is an app that was useful for detecting malware or other security problems: https://www.sektioneins.de/en/blog/16-08-11-sysinfo-what-hap...

Can't speak for today (since I don't have an iOS device at the moment) and I understand that some of these things were eventually added as options, but when I used an iPad 2 back in the day, some of the things I jailbroke it for:

Systemwide adblocking, non-Safari browser that wasn't artificially limited, ability to connect bluetooth mouse (mostly for when I used the iPad to remote into other computers), modified keyboard with a number row, file manager, some minor homescreen/launcher tweaks for usability, and one that allowed non-iPad apps to run at a higher resolution (at the time, non-universal apps would run in the old iPhone res, but scaled up instead of running at the higher, newer phone resolution).

I'm sure there were other little tweaks, but the main thing was that there weren't any decent Android or Windows tablet options at the time and while the iPad did many things quite well, there were all sorts of little quality of life things that I was just used to having. They weren't included in iOS and there was no way to (officially) change the launcher or keyboard or any of those other things.

It would have been quite nice to have other software repos besides just the App Store which didn't require me to exploit security flaws to use. Instead I just stopped buying iOS devices after that iPad.

Well of course you're going to prefer an anti-competitive approach if you view competition as burdensome. This has analogies in many industries.

You should divorce your personal anti-competition desires from the non-personal discussion. Encouraging choice is often a better way to give more people what they want.

The competition is in the marketplace. I'm not sure what value there is in having an Epic store, an Apple store, a Google store, a Netflix store, a Microsoft Store...

Having choice isn't always better. I think the Apple iOS store is a very clear example where choice leads to negative experience for users. As I've mentioned before, Apple collectively bargains on behalf of users against developers. They enforce (albeit imperfectly) certain standards and force nefarious developers to implement things like sign in with Apple.

They only, and I mean only, affect of releasing developers from the App Store is that they'll sign on with some 3rd party store, and if you want to use Spotify, or Netflix, or Facebook you'll get it from a 3rd party store where they charge the exact same prices but then infest the applications with hostile anti-patterns, tracking, etc. That's it. When you advocate for "choice" here, you're simply advocating for the choice for users to pay the same prices they've been paying except also being exposed to anti-patterns that Apple is working to prevent. Choice in this case, is clearly bad.

I'll also add, I have yet to hear a peep from Epic w.r.t having to go through Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo for releasing Fortnite via their locked-in app stores. The iPhone is no more or less a computing device than those are.

This is the same kind of response that used to be used when Google was discussed.

"Google is clearly making the right choice for me. Their motto is literally 'don't be evil'".

And in some respects it's true - A benevolent dictatorship is undeniably a great form of governance.

The problem (and this is a problem) is that benevolent dictatorships never, Never, NEVER stay benevolent.

At some point the guiding principles will change, or you will change, and you'll find yourself outside of the bubble you were so comfortable to live in.

Some of us are already outside of that bubble. I don't like not being able to run software of my choice on a device I (in theory only, in Apple's case) own.

Basically - I find this argument extremely short-sighted. It's trading any sense of long term thinking for the immediate convenience of letting someone else do the work for you in the short term. I have very, very little respect for this argument.

> I don't like not being able to run software of my choice on a device I (in theory only, in Apple's case) own.

I just don't find this compelling and don't really care about it. There are lots of products to choose from, you can build your own stuff, buy a generic phone and load whatever you want on it, etc.

> The problem (and this is a problem) is that benevolent dictatorships never, Never, NEVER stay benevolent.

Then new products will arise when this happens.

> Basically - I find this argument extremely short-sighted. It's trading any sense of long term thinking for the immediate convenience of letting someone else do the work for you in the short term. I have very, very little respect for this argument.

We routinely delegate trust in society to experts and other accountable entities. It's like saying we shouldn't have an FDA and everybody should just make sure they aren't ingesting something that will kill them.

Also, can you clearly articulate what exactly I'm losing here with a single App Store? So far I just see more cons than pros.

> Also, can you clearly articulate what exactly I'm losing here with a single App Store? So far I just see more cons than pros.

No. My whole point is that you're clearly happy in your benevolent dictatorship.

But it really doesn't suite me. I just told you the reason I'm not happy, and you handily dismissed it as "not compelling". Which is fine. For you it probably isn't. For me, not having root on a device I own intended for general purpose computing is literally a no-go on every front. It's not just insulting, it's a literal threat to my source of income. I find it just as crazy as if Volvo told me I could only drive on Volvo certified roads. They may be great roads (the best roads, which will never damage the car, guaranteed!) but I don't give a shit. I bought the car to drive where I want to drive. I buy a computing device to run the software I want to run.

So that said, my real problem here is that both major mobile operating systems currently operate under this model. Google is marginally better (by the barest of margins).

So you claim that a new product will arise when Apple decides that you don't fit in their dictatorship, but watching what's happening with Google and search right now... Well, I'll quote you - "I just don't find this compelling"

Google is still the only player in search. Youtube is still the only player in video. New products are at best fringe products that don't gain traction, because there's a clear monopoly effect in play here.

> No. My whole point is that you're clearly happy in your benevolent dictatorship.

I wouldn't call it that. I'm not really sure it's a dictatorship. But whatever.

> But it really doesn't suite me. I just told you the reason I'm not happy, and you handily dismissed it as "not compelling". Which is fine. For you it probably isn't. For me, not having root on a device I own intended for general purpose computing is literally a no-go on every front. It's not just insulting, it's a literal threat to my source of income. I find it just as crazy as if Volvo told me I could only drive on Volvo certified roads. They may be great roads (the best roads, which will never damage the car, guaranteed!) but I don't give a shit. I bought the car to drive where I want to drive. I buy a computing device to run the software I want to run.

I think the crux of the problem is you're buying something with different expectations than you should have. If Volvo in this case said hey we sell a Volvo car and you can only drive it on Volvo roads, then if you got mad you couldn't drive it on other roads YOU bought the wrong car.

There is nothing stopping you from buying an Android phone and rooting it. As an iPhone user, as you mentioned, I want exactly what Apple is providing, or else I'd buy a different device. So when you want to change the product I like for your own benefit, then we'll certainly be at odds and I'll continue to support and campaign to maintain what I desire in the iPhone directly against you.

> So you claim that a new product will arise when Apple decides that you don't fit in their dictatorship, but watching what's happening with Google and search right now... Well, I'll quote you - "I just don't find this compelling"

> Google is still the only player in search. Youtube is still the only player in video. New products are at best fringe products that don't gain traction, because there's a clear monopoly effect in play here.

Certainly disagree. Google has quite a few competitors, Amazon, Facebook, Apple itself (searching via Siri in iOS versus a web browser) not to mention incumbents like Bing and DDG who have taken a little bit of market share. There are alternatives that work just fine. As for Youtube, Spotify is coming after them and then you always have new products like TikTok, or streaming services like Twitch.

> Certainly disagree. Google has quite a few competitors, Amazon, Facebook, Apple itself (searching via Siri in iOS versus a web browser) not to mention incumbents like Bing and DDG who have taken a little bit of market share. There are alternatives that work just fine. As for Youtube, Spotify is coming after them and then you always have new products like TikTok, or streaming services like Twitch.

Again, we don't share the same perspective here. As a consumer, some of the products you've mentioned are acceptable substitutes. But I'm not just a consumer of digital products. I also produce them.

As a producer, there's really not the same sense of competition you seem to be implying here. Google owns 92.5% percent of the search marketshare (globally). Bing/DDG/Yahoo might as well be rounding errors in comparison. 90% of customers say that they primarily find new video content on Youtube. Vimeo is next. The products you've listed are not really direct competitors (and this is actually pretty normal, entrenched monopolies don't lose to direct competition, they eventually get replaced with paradigm shifts).

So to hammer home my point here - As a producer, I literally have to make results available on Google, and upload videos to Youtube in order to reach most of my audience.

Now - I also use those other services as well - I happily send folks to vimeo links instead of youtube, and DDG links instead of Google search. So at least I have some chance to promote those alternatives.

In Apple's case, I have to release on their app store. Except... wait a minute... I can't even try to promote a possible alternative! If you use an Iphone, you literally cannot choose to get my software through another channel.

They are enforcing their own store monopoly with their software dictatorship. And just like a car, no one is going to go out and buy a completely different phone to use my one app. It's just not practical.

> Again, we don't share the same perspective here. As a consumer, some of the products you've mentioned are acceptable substitutes. But I'm not just a consumer of digital products. I also produce them.

Sure, I'm looking at things from a more broad market perspective so naturally I won't look at the individual case you experience. In the case of search I see Google under tremendous pressure. If you start your search on Facebook or Amazon, that's lost revenue for Google. Those are insanely popular companies. The fact that you are looking strictly at web search and that marketshare I think causes your perspective to be different, and in my view inaccurate when looking at the entire marketplace. Put another way, I don't really care about declining monopolies.

> In Apple's case, I have to release on their app store. Except... wait a minute... I can't even try to promote a possible alternative! If you use an Iphone, you literally cannot choose to get my software through another channel. They are enforcing their own store monopoly with their software dictatorship. And just like a car, no one is going to go out and buy a completely different phone to use my one app. It's just not practical.

It would be nice if you stopped throwing around terms like dictatorship so casually, especially given the connotations around that (murder, genocide, human suffering, etc.). I don't really see how Apple is a dictator any more than any other company is. They create a product, the iPhone. That device has certain features and capabilities. The fact that you don't have an alternative is a feature of the phone, because as I mentioned above it forces a collective bargaining situation for Apple on behalf of users. Why do you need an alternative to Apple's distribution network, and why should you not have to pay Apple for access to a revenue stream that they actually create and maintain? It doesn't make sense to me whatsoever that you would have that perspective. You just want to have your cake and eat it too, and I think that's greedy and unfair.

> And just like a car, no one is going to go out and buy a completely different phone to use my one app. It's just not practical.

Its' very practical. You can do it in an instance. iPhones have very high resale value. But people would rather have the iPhone and its App Store, over access to multiple app stores via Android, hence why they bought an iPhone.

>Also, can you clearly articulate what exactly I'm losing here with a single App Store?

The ability to shop based on price. The 30% fee is non-negotiable which guarantees a certain level of price gouging.

Apple is also known for implementing various anti-patterns and tracking, mostly related to promoting their own apps and cloud services over their competitors, so you lose any leverage you would have in getting them to stop that. You would have a better argument in favor of an app store monopoly if there wasn't a huge conflict of interest with them producing the hardware and selling these other services.

I definitely shop based on price. I look at different products in the App Store and then I see what their prices are.

> The 30% fee is non-negotiable which guarantees a certain level of price gouging.

Well, if you don't want to pay that to get access to the user base that Apple created and maintains then don't pay it and don't have your app on the App Store. This is pretty easy. Heck, companies get around this all the time (Spotify for example).

The 30% fee is factored into all the prices you're looking at.

Your argument that apple created and maintains the user base would be a lot stronger if google and all of the other phone makers were not quietly waiting to snatch up any customers that got sick of apple.

> Also, can you clearly articulate what exactly I'm losing here with a single App Store? So far I just see more cons than pros.

I can think of some things that I haven't seen mentioned yet:

1) Cross platform app stores. I'd like to be able to purchase an app on one store, and automatically have access to it on Mac/Windows/iOS/Android etc.

2) Alternate web browser engines. It's hard to know exactly how much we are missing out on here, since web sites usually won't use features that aren't available on iOS. But web browsers might not exist at all if platform owners had as much control over app distribution in the 90s as Apple does now. There may be web-browser like technologies (apps that can host interactive 3rd party content), or extensions to existing web tech that never get off the ground because there's no way for it to run on iOS.

3) Emulators, game streaming services from Microsoft / Google, full featured steam link, indie games that don't pay $99/yr so aren't available.

4) App store with better discoverability and recommendations

5) "Premium" app store that isn't a race to the bottom with free apps that are designed around continued advertising / in app purchases. Could be related to (4)

6) On iPad, a wide variety of general purpose productivity software. Developer tools, etc.

> Then new products will arise when this happens.

I think the argument is it's already very difficult for new entrants in the platform space (for phones, Microsoft spent billions and failed), but the only reason app stores are not competitive is they are tied together with the platform.

There's certainly also been some benefits of Apple acting as a de facto regulator of application software. I think in a world where alternate app stores are allowed the Apple app store would continue to be a very important storefront that most developers would not want to skip (although Apple might want to make improvements to it in order to compete more effectively). Of course, other app stores would also have their own rules and hopefully Apple would continue to enforce automatic security measures like sandboxing.

1) Already done. You just log in to the software.

2) Hm, I see your point but I'm having a hard time envisioning what I'm missing out on. As I look at the web browser ecosystem on desktop, what features are we missing?

3) Not sure why this isn't possible? I think it's more of a limitation of interface than anything. Also why isn't Microsoft making their Xbox app available on Linux or macOS? Hmmm.

4) Eh, the App Store can be improved but I think you're reaching here.

5) As you said, related to #4. I have yet to see a premium model work. I don't think it does for many applications.

6) Yea that would be nice for developer tools, but the other limitations I don't see. You can install Office, JIRA, etc. on iPad.

> I think the argument is it's already very difficult for new entrants in the platform space (for phones, Microsoft spent billions and failed), but the only reason app stores are not competitive is they are tied together with the platform.

Sure, but the same is true of aircraft engines, investment banking, and any other specialized industry. Huawei and others will be competitive and will emerge as serious contenders. It just takes time. I also disagree with your assertion that app stores are not competitive, I don't think they need to be competitive. They just host the software. It's like downloading Spotify and then being confused that you can't put your own songs on it, or that you have to pay Spotify royalties.

1) I’m talking about the convenience of purchasing (and easily accessing past purchases) of app stores, not logging in to each app individually. Many apps don’t even offer that.

2) The main things that come to mind are the same advantages of native apps vs web apps. Integration/access to native API features, CPU/GPU performance, etc. Web browsers can support these things but don’t always.

3) Those specific categories aren’t possible on iOS because Apple prohibits them! That is exactly why Stadia/xCloud isn’t available.

4) Discoverability is hard with tons of apps but it's probably not impossible to do better. There’s not a huge incentive for Google/Apple to fix this since they charge to advertise in the store, some other stores don’t do this.

5) I was thinking about console games here, Switch games are often pretty different from in app purchase based mobile ones.

I think the difference with engines etc is there are big network effects - people buy phones based on the ecosystem which is determined by existing market share. IMO this is why Windows Phone died and it’s not just a matter of enough money or technology.

> I'll also add, I have yet to hear a peep from Epic w.r.t having to go through Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo for releasing Fortnite

Don't fight five enemies when defeating one will defeat all five.

Which would make a little bit more sense if they weren't also suing Google at the same time, but I guess at least they're going after mobile altogether at the same time.

It'll be interesting to see what happens. If they win this case (unlikely) it will cause a lot of changes. It really is an interesting case though. I see applications across multiple industries and services (Amazon, Best Buy, Wal-Mart, etc.) as well as Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, and others.

If you can bypass the Apple App Store, I'm not finding a compelling reason that you can't bypass ANY App Store or similar product. If Nintendo sells a new console, they'll have to let you install any app store. Hell, why can't I create my own app store and publish it? Why only Epic?

Sacrificing freedom & rights for user experience and comfort, that's how we get dictatorships. Apple takes total control but we shouldn't worry because they are "the good guys" acting "on user behalf" ?

We have to distinguish User Experience (short term comfort) from User Respect/Freedom/Rights. Choice is bad for UX, but it is good for avoiding abuses.

If you download FB, Instagram, TikTok, etc. on the app store those are malwares that collect all your data and Apple is doing absolutely nothing about it. ICloud is not even end-to-end encrypted. Let's stop this myth that Apple provides actual privacy.

Apple doesn't care about you, they care about power.

If they need to put "Privacy" in their ads for you to buy it, they'll do it. If they need to keep malwares on the app store to generate revenues, they'll do it (but they'll make sure you believe you are safe thx to their fake privacy propaganda).

It's true other game platforms are closed but first we have more choice :

Mobile gaming = Google or Apple

Home gaming = Nintendo, Xbox, PlayStation, Linux/Windows/Mac, Steam, Itch.io, GameJolt, Windows store, Epic game store, Origin/Ubisoft/Blizzard, etc.

Second : it's not about gaming only, it's about the right of people to control the device they bought.

Iphone & Google have a far bigger monopoly and control on our life than an Xbox sitting in our living room, so it makes sense to worry about Apple and Google first.

> Second : it's not about gaming only, it's about the right of people to control the device they bought.

I think most people don't really want that right. Myself included. I like the iPhone as it is and don't see any advantages to changing the operating model. Maybe if you're a developer you don't like it, so in that case I just say too bad and just don't develop for the iPhone if it isn't profitable for you.

All this talk about "freedom" and "rights" is quite a bit of misguided grandstanding if you ask me.

"I bought an Xbox, where are my rights as a general computing device!11!" Give me a break.

If you want all this stuff to "change' then go ahead and start with making Blizzard allow me to publish my independent games on their App Store with no review process and no revenue cut. Make Microsoft let me play Nintendo Switch games on my Xbox. Make game developers make all of their games cross-platform, no more Windows-exclusive games.

>The iPhone is no more or less a computing device than those are

The iPad Pro, the iPad and iPhone is are not general computing devices, but more like gaming consoles? Wow.

Apart from that, gaming consoles subsidize or barely eke out a profit for their hardware, whereas Apple charges buyers a huge margin on the phones. I'll agree to the forced 30% cut if Apple cuts their phone prices by 50%.

Just sounds to me like Apple has the better business model.

Apps that would have previously been one time purchases that are now subscriptions because upgrade pricing is not a viable model in the app store are one example of a price increase that the app store has created (after the initial launch pushed many apps to $0.99/$4.99, admittedly).

> You guys are acting like the existence of the App Store has jacked up the app prices by 200%,

Yes, I really enjoy ads every seven and a half seconds for games I am not even allowed to buy to remove ads.

Erm... that's because that's always been baked into the price of software/apps on the app store since inception.

Not sure how higher prices for consumer is great for the consumer. I get the convenience argument, but not every consumer is willing to pay higher prices just for that. There is a huge difference between a 2-5% fee like CC merchants charge and a 30% across the board fee on the app store.

I've never made my users pay the difference.

The App Store is also a service for distribution. If it wasn't there, I would be forced to invest much more in marketing, cloud services and all kinds of "small things" which are not the primary purpose of my apps. If anything, my apps would be more expensive outside the store.

The parent comment stated the best solution was to allow both an app store and consumers the choice on how / where they get their apps.

If the default app stores provides as much value as you claim, developers would continue to distribute there, pay the fees, and consumers would go there for discoverability and convenience. Let consumers decide.

With options, consider maybe someone could provide those services even better / more cheaply and you also benefit as a developer.

You can only use one store, it will have missing stuff but you should be used with that if you only use Apple approved App Stores.

Also if I want to buy a subscription for soemthing like Intellij as a developer I would feel like garbage to use a store and give a 30% cut to Microsoft or Apple for the privilege of allowing me to install something, the developers deserve those money and a big corporation because they host some files.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com