Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire
protocol.com
protocol.com
Then the customers that trust apple to protect them will just stay with the app store.
The customers that try the alternate ways may find problems, but they will also find enormous positive changes in their ability to do new things on their phone.
Personally, I would like the ability to see what apps - including apple apps - are doing, and firewall my phone.
I think that would be killer argument for Epic—Apple already allows you to download apps onto their devices that don’t go through their store and everything is fine.
However, if the subscription is processed through a third party, then you may have more difficulty with canceling it... but it wasn't bought through the app on the phone.
Additionally, by default, renewal receipts are sent for each subscription and are visible under the purchase history.
If Epic wins and you've got subscriptions set up using payment processors other than Apple, this will make it harder to manage these subscriptions.
All that is going to happen if Epic gets their own store is Epic will be collecting the 30% rather than Apple, and the user will get apps that are poorly designed, chew battery, and don’t conform to the UX standards that Apple has set (eg: accessibility) and exploit undocumented APIs which change from iOS version to version.
Epic will blame Apple for all these problems, Apple will blame Epic for not doing sufficient QC, and we’ll be back in court with various store managers demanding that Apple stop changing things.
If you want third party stores, there’s the Android ecosystem. Keep your grubby mitts off the Apple ecosystem.
I don't see how it hurts anyone to allow side-loading of apps on iOS devices. Even if you make it as hard as having a toggle behind a scary warning 2 layers deep in the menu, 95% of users will never use it, and it will open up a world of opportunities for people who actually want to create with their devices.
Hasn’t been the case with Android. And I would say the touch centric form factor is far more an issue.
I would wager that within weeks or months there would be a full windows VM available for the iPad if it was allowed.
Though android is locking down, making this kind of app difficult in future.
Parallels already runs on m1 it wouldn’t be very hard to enable on m1 iPads.
It is honestly a better form factor than the laptop as you can just plug in a thunderbird dock and get expanded ports.
The iPad is already one of the best creation tools out there for artists, musicians, photographers etc.
I’d suggest the iPad is hampered more by the limits of iPadOS’ multitasking UI and it’s roots as a scaled-up phone OS - and the scarcity of truly pro-level software - rather than the App Store and not being able to sideload.
In fact the only real reasons to sideload or jailbreak at the moment are to get around the limitations on running dynamic code - or to use cracked/dodgy versions of paid apps.
Wouldn’t be surprised if we see some big improvements in the dev experience over the next few system releases, but to say this will enable a burst of creativity is ignoring all the highly creative ways it’s already being used.
But these apps are still largely islands. Powerful pro workflows require multiple applications to be used together in interesting ways. With iPad that's impossible. You have an anemic file system, and strict limitations on what an app can do.
What I want is a proper *Nix layer, like I have on macOS. For instance, if I want to synchronize my files across multiple systems, I need my iPad app to have a built-in solution for that. I want to be able to run a daemon in the background to synchronize my creative work with an S3 bucket using a custom protocol of my choosing. That kind of customizability is just not possible on iPad, and it's a huge limitation.
If they ask you, buy the MacBook Air instead of the iPad Pro!
Imagine how you would react with any other product you paid for, and brought into your home, if the company which produced it had the right to dictate how you could and could not use it.
I know it is completely anathema to suggest something like this on HN these days as the socialist wave completely took it over and the mere suggestion that people have the freedom to not buy something if they don't think it fits within their world view instead of trying to force everyone using the state and the courts to cater specifically to them is now considered a sin, but...
You said it yourself, you have a laptop with the exact same chip that lets you do all the things you want, and then you have the iPad that doesn't...why don't you buy the laptop instead? Surely if enough people feel the way you do Apple would get the message.
- look at your data directly and back it up
- backup and restore the entire device including apps
- use ethernet through the lightning port instead of wifi
- use general usb devices through the lightning port
- wifi scanner (apple disallowed it in ios early-on)
- tcpdump network traffic
- change the wifi-off shortcut to actually turn it off (matching settings)
- firewall
I'm sure people can think of other examples...
"All" that is going to happen if Epic gets their own store is there's going to be competition in what is now a monopoly. To say that the only difference will be lower quality is, at best, naive.
Steam isn't even an app store on Android.
Some of us prefer to sit down and use a device without having to worry about installing an app or game store just to use/play one app...
Users have a choice: Don't use iOS.
Their actions have pretty overwhelmingly spoken and they don't care. The only people that care are techies. And most obviously not that much because most meetings I show up to are still full of iPhones.
The judge in question was clearly not at all impressed with this argument when Cook raised it, and neither am I.
This amounts to telling people to throw the baby out with the bathwater every time they have an issue with something.
You say that users don't care, but users _don't know either_.
And whenever people lobby for right to repair laws and for consumers to _own_ hardware, guess who's always standing on the other saying that it ain't so.
And if Apple is so concerned about user security & privacy when it comes to alternative app stores, they should adjust their policies so that the apps most users want will see no reason not to be on the App Store.
Should they then be able to leverage that position to instantly win and extort the marketplace built on the next layer up? It pretty much goes to the heart of antitrust
5-10%... sure maybe, 30% of saas fees... ridiculous
EU is watching the case very carefully. While Americans might think Apple can do whatever they want with their devices. The same could not be said with the EU. And I am willing to bet the court battle wont flavour Apple because it seems the old world has a much different view to Anti Trust and Anti Competition than US.
And Apple will have a choice, comply or paid a heavy price.
It is possible to demand better things from something you use. Not every issue is a hill to die on.
I can't yet convince myself that "don't use iOS" is a valid argument while "don't use a different app store" is not.
Why would you assume this would happen on iOS when it hasn't happened on Android, when the suggestion is to do what Android already allows, and yet we don't see this on Android?
This is a losing argument. We've already seen that the Apple store doesn't/can't prevent clones and fakes with information collecting inserts from overwhelming the originals.
Another store might actually do this better.
Or are users seeing awful prices for the app store?
Where are Customers complaining the most?
The Humble Bundle app allows you to install Android games you bought through humble bundles onto your Android phone. This allows you to buy bundles of games from developers at your own desired purchase price and give an amount of that purchase you choose to some charities of your choice.
It is, quite literally, used as another store and has the ability to install applications.
Many of the games I've gotten through that are also available on iOS, but you're unable to get iOS versions from this because there's no way to install that app nor a way for it to install other applications if you did, currently.
At least some of those developers would be happy to offer iOS versions as a bundle, or even give you access to choose iOS or Android in the same bundle, but there's no way to legitimately deliver these games to those customers.
Recently, cloud gaming apps and paying for subscriptions. Google Stadia and Xbox Streaming are not allowed through the iOS Store. Netflix and Spotify(not sure about this one) do not allow you to pay for the subscription on their app because Apple asks for 30%.
Apple does not allow other browser rendering engines. So now every iOS browser is just a Safari wrapper and you're unable to do any sort of plug-in, like adblockers.
These features being blocked does not help customers. They only help Apple.
This is already true with the App Store today.
I want my parents and non-techie friends and family to have the easy, stress-free, locked-down model that they enjoy and that works for them.
And if Apple is so concerned about user security & privacy when it comes to alternative app stores, they should adjust their policies so that the apps most users want will see no reason not to be on the App Store.
Source?
Epic already has a store of its own, and it charges developers 12%.
Moreover, Apple already has thousands of apps that are poorly designed, chew battery, and don't conform to Apple UX standards. Part of the reason for the pushback against the Apple tax is that Apple is objectively failing to perform many of the tasks it claims as justifications for the tax.
Ok. Like the other 72% of users, I will.
But it is actually you who want to control how other people use their own phone, that they own.
If you don't like Epic's store, just don't use it. Problem solved.
That way, people who want to trust apple get what they want, as well as people who want to trust other app stores.
Everyone wins, right? Why do you care so much about how other people use their own phone?
Part of it is also that iOS used to be quite far ahead of Android when it came to usability and polish. Android has since mostly caught up, but there is an advantage to being a first mover, and the people who didn't like Android back when it was much worse have since gotten locked into Apple's ecosystem, even if they never used Apple products before that.
I don't think most people seriously think about App Store curation as any of top reasons why they have an iPhone.
Once a user has chosen a smartphone ecosystem large switching costs come into play.
If a significant amount of your customers choose your phone because it is stylish that could just as well demonstrate there is no price competition to speak of.
The argument of "don't like it, use android" is bad faith but lets go with it since many people suggest it.
Ok now I'm on android and google/samsung is spying on everything. The android crowd will say "dont like it, leave"
Ok so what do I use?
That only holds up until something you need is exclusive to a store that you don't want to use.
Ah yes, because that's where you'll find customers that use iOS.
News flash, Epic already runs a store, and competes with another store (Steam) which takes a 30% cut. How much of a cut does Epic take there? 12%.
There is a well known example of Epic in a similar situation specifically not doing what you say they will, so why assume they will do that? Or are you arguing without knowing this fairly common knowledge of this case?
> the user will get apps that are poorly designed, chew battery, and don’t conform to the UX standards that Apple has set
These are games. They already don't conform to the UI standards. They already chew battery by the nature of what they do, not because they are inefficient. That said, being the authors of the Unreal Engine, Epic is in a key position to make changes so the engine works better with iPhone norms, performs better, and uses less battery and many games would benefit from that. If only Epic had more financial incentive to focus work on the iOS platform...
> and exploit undocumented APIs which change from iOS version to version.
Doubtful. They need to make sure their product is stable across a wide swatch of iOS devices, as individual game makers that license their product will have different support policies and targets. You don't make a widely portable and stable engine across multiple architectures and operating systems by using hidden and unstable APIs unless you have some assurance they aren't going away.
> Epic will blame Apple for all these problems, Apple will blame Epic for not doing sufficient QC, and we’ll be back in court with various store managers demanding that Apple stop changing things.
The blaming I see going on is people that don't really understand the market, the problems, or the incentives making wild conjectures that not only aren't backed up by anything, whether that be logic or evidence, but seem to run counter to that.
> If you want third party stores, there’s the Android ecosystem.
They're being sued too. They take the same cut. You can put an alternate store on Android, but you can't have it function with the same permissions (you need to manually approve each install, and it can't auto-update). This is what keeps third party stores from actually being a reality there. I don't consider secondary stores that ship with the phone on purchase and are part of the customer OS shipped "third party", and that's what has to be done to really compete on the same level as the Play store, and even then, it's not like they're used much. This is all about control and Apple not wanting to give up that very lucrative 30% cut of in app purchases, and subscriptions.
Also, as a parent, I consider it a useful feature that Apple makes it very hard for kids to buy things on the phone through any method other than the one that I am aware of.
And of course people don’t know of all the good apps that never get to be on the App Store because of unwarranted rejections.
So people generally have no idea about most of the problems with the status quo.
The problem is that if it’s possible to trick grandpa into downloading a malicious app then it will happen. The only defense is to not make it possible.
You can argue if that’s a worthy goal or not but thats what Apple has to do if they want to make it impossible to trick people into downloading malware.
iOS: 1.72% Android: 26.64% Windows: 38.92% IoT: 32.72%
[1] https://www.nokia.com/networks/portfolio/cyber-security/thre...
Same for the companies who lose regularly millions of dollars to ransomware.
I think more technical HN-type users aren't aware or have forgotten how terribad the Windows download scene was in the 2000s. It was almost impossible to install anything without getting some toolbar or adware bundle, if not outright malware.
Wirecard and Theranos called, they want their fraud back.
Develop applications right on device! My dream.
I have never owned an Apple device, but they clearly believe locking them down is part of the appeal of the devices in the first place.
If you want an impartial platform get an android; if you want a curated ecosystem get an apple
Do they believe that? Their behavior and stance could equally be explained by pursuing their economic best-interest
But there are other solutions. The other solution is that people are allowed to do what they want, with phones that they own.
And you don't have to download other app stores, if you don't want to!
Should Apple still be allowed to prevent Chrome from running it's own rendering, javascript, & other web platform engines? How much editorial & technical control are we going to let Apple keep, if we do allow alternate distribution mechanisms?
If Chrome will get full access to iOS, we are back to the year 2000 with 1 company deciding what the standards regarding Web are and a standardization organization having nothing to say. Not saying that I love the walled garden (not saying the opposite too), but if we love the web, we have to keep this walled garden.
All I've ever heard is that it is risky to do so.
I could *maybe* see doing it if the vendor were directly offering me their software - and I had some amount of trust of that vendor - like if Microsoft offered an app to directly install one my phone.
But I've never heard of or encountered that. So I'm guessing it isn't a thing.
Do that and the need for alternate stores, alternate payments etc. goes away.
Google, Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo
The ones that don't just prove that charging a lower rate doesn't actually change the price the consumer pays in any way.
Steam charges 20-30% depending on how big you are, and probably has a sweatheart deal with EA.
Xbox and Playstation offer subsidised hardware and arguably have a 0% rate given that so many titles are published in-house.
Nintendo offers an effective 25% rate as 5% of spend is rebated to customers' wallets.
Microsoft charges 12%
Epic charges 12%
In the other hand, their policy for apps with user-generated content is stupid, and their stance on adult content is pure ideology that belongs in the 19th century.
IMO that is probably the worst policy of the bunch. In particular Apple punishing Facebook for trying to disclose the 30% was really vile and unnecessary. For context: Facebook was being required to pay a 30% cut when allowing in-app RSVPs for paid events, even if the events were charity events. In some of these cases, Facebook was not taking anything - so it was 30% Apple, 70% event operator. Facebook tried to add a disclaimer noting that Apple was taking 30%, and Apple blocked the update.
"The feature lets Facebook users buy tickets for online events directly through the app. Apple’s rules say that purchases of digital content have to use the App Store’s payments system, giving Apple 30 percent of the total. Facebook says it asked Apple to waive this fee so that all of the revenue could go to event organizers, but Apple refused. The feature is now available, but without the message about Apple’s 30-percent cut."
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/28/21405140/apple-rejects-fa...
The entire case is just round 1 of an oracle-google style dispute, which (if I had to guess) will likely have a similar ultimate conclusion -- e.g. preserve the status quo with possibly minor adjustments.
Any change of rules needs to be drafted by the commission or proposed in parliament, and then accepted by the parliament. The EU does not really do common law. Not like in the US anyway.
This is also, AFAIK, the biggest thing that differentiates Apple’s platform from every other mobile and game console app store regarding fees and whatnot.
In general, my biggest problem with Apple is their heavy handed approach to content. Whether it’s policing political content in a one-sided manner, or telling companies like Amazon they aren’t allowed to inform customers of other means of purchasing content, these policies seem more abusive, anti-customer, and anti-choice than anything else.
(That said, as a user, I would also love easier app side loading support, I just don’t think I’d like the consequences of that coming from a court ruling).
That seems like the most fundamental problem to me and a clear case that this is anticompetitive behavior.
It suggests a way anyone can circumvent Apple's restrictions too. Introduce an app whose only job is to act as a content player but has no content of its own, then have customers go to your website to buy the content, and then download it to your app. Epic can sell one game that is empty and make every actual game DLC.
The first clause of their Payments[1] guidelines explicitly states you're to use in-app purchases to unlock features and functionality within your app, while also forbidding you from linking to or directing users to any alternative purchasing mechanisms.
They then make limited exemptions for "reader apps"[2] to allow users to consume content they've previously purchased, and explicitly list which categories of content they consider allowable for this exemption. Games not being one of them. They also make an exemption for multi-platform services which isn't as restrictive as the reader app clause, but only if you also abide by the first clause of making it available as an in-app purchase as well (and not direct people to alternatives for purchase).
So this works for Amazon's Kindle app, but wouldn't for a gaming service. And even the way Amazon handles Kindle listings[3] in their main app is toeing the line of what Apple allows, and smaller companies would have a hard time pulling off.
And just for good measure, they also pretty much spell out exactly what you described in the first bullet under the Unacceptable clause[4]
[1] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#pay...
[2] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#rea...
[3] "This app does not support purchasing. Books purchased from Amazon are available to read in the Kindle app" is what they put on the listing page. It's not a direct call to action so isn't strictly against the guidelines, but such a thinly veiled insinuation is something few other companies would be able to get passed app review.
[4] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#una...
That would make the "empty" app qualify as a general-purpose computer and therefore break Apple's ToS.
Oh, and if the app mentioned the possibility of going to the website, that would also break Apple's ToS.
I believe this accurately describes Epic Games Store, or any other games storefront like Steam, as they work on desktop platforms like Windows. The Store is free, then all the games are paid (or sometimes, free) "DLC". Is there a fundamental difference I'm missing?
Users don't need to install the Amazon iOS app, instead they can use Safari where they can buy books and ebooks directly.
Games like the ones Epic makes, however, cannot run in Safari. They are forced to go through Apple store and play by Apple's rules.
I mention this because it’s both an important distinction and the same subject as Epic’s lawsuit.
Or I can go on the ebay iOS app and buy a PDF ebook from a seller.
The mechanism of "in-app purchases" doesn't scale to ebay or Amazon or any other store where you might have millions of SKUs. Not to mention that you can't even buy Kindle books on the iOS app, even if you already have credit on Amazon (gift card, rewards points, etc.).
In following some court cases in Tech ( mostly Apple ) this is the first time I have seen a US judge actually doing their job properly. May be this is also because it is the first case Apple is a defendant. All the other case Apple brought forward, the judge was unapologetically Pro Apple. It was uncanny.
You want to set up cloud backups? You get a text box to put a domain in. You get to choose whose infrastructure you use. It might be pre-filled with apple.com, but that's as far as it can legally go.
Protocols, not platforms.
Because Apple has a monopoly in that area. That's what antitrust law is all about - using monopoly power to raise prices.
Do you simply not believe in anti-trust law then?
What if microsoft forced you to pay them a 30 percent cut, for installing other web browsers, or apps? You would be ok with that?
Can I for example go to Walmart and setup my own store inside their store without having to ask them?
Can I do the same in your local mom-and-pop store?
Or can Ford forbid Taco Bell from operating drive through stores of their own, and require Ford owners to go through Ford's own all purpose drive through stores?
If you get a job through a phone interview, do you owe Apple 30% of your salary? No.
Using your phone's services doesn't cause Apple to get a cut of anything that happens while you do so. Selling apps THROUGH ITS OWN STORE does.
"No, you can't drive to Walmart; Walmart isn't in the destination store. You may drive to Target."
People who purchased a phone, own that phone. Apple doesn't own it anymore.
Thats the difference. McDonald's own the store. But they don't own your car.
And similarly, Apple does not own your phone, but they go to great efforts to prevent you from using other app stores.
If you think what Apple has created is different, again, define it. Let's see how it's fundamentally different and where the line is.
Here I'm going to do it again. What does it mean "30% store cut is illegally anti-competetive". What does that even mean? Why isn't Apple allowed to charge a fee for maintaining their own store?
It's just entirely unclear what's the objection here. Is the objection Apple's cut is too big? Is 5% legal? Is 10%? Should it be 0%? How big should it be? What is everyone even saying? Or is everyone just whining about "big bad corporate is bad, punish bad corporate" and not thinking any deeper than this?
Believe it or not, Walmart and all other grocery stores charge 50% for the same service. Even when you order online, actually. Should we sue them for this? If no, why. If yes, why?
And the Walmart example came directly from Epic wanting to open a store inside iOS. You don't agree? Again, where's the definition that contradicts this interpretation.
Define what you say, so it means something. Right now I just see bunch of emotion and absolutely nothing of substance being said.
It's also how lawyers argue and judges decide.
Not using them is implausible.
In the 80s and 90s breaking up AT&T local loop unbundling made a huge positive change in telco in the us.
Requiring the power company to rent pole space has a positive benefit.
I think the App Store is more like a utility pole than a Walmart. Forcing Apple to unbundle the infrastructure of delivery, payment and signing would allow for competitive forces and innovation.
The AppStore is all built around PKI. My company already operates an internal enterprise store — the metaphor exists. It would be pretty straightforward to evolve it into something different and arguably better.
You can think of the space within an ecosystem as virtual land. Apple has a monopoly on this virtual space. They can charge whatever they like, there is no competition.
The argument of choose another phone is different, because it requires spending a large amount of money for the right to entry. To many people this is cost prohibitive.
I don't have a personal stance on what the outcome should be either way, need to dig into it more.
Of course, that may be (is for a large part, in my opinion) because of their market power, but that, I think, isn’t much different from Walmart. Market power and sales volume are how Walmart can negotiate lower prices with sellers.
Theme parks such as Disney World may be even better examples. If you want to sell ice creams there, I bet you have to pay a huge sum of money to Disney. It wouldn’t even surprise me if that were a percentage of revenues.
Opening a store in iOS is not "next to" it's "inside of".
> The argument of choose another phone is different, because it requires spending a large amount of money for the right to entry. To many people this is cost prohibitive.
This makes no sense, first because Androids tend to be cheaper than iPhones, and second no one forces you into buying an iPhone.
Also "iPhone is too expensive" is not an argument for "I should be allowed to do X with it". If you don't like what an iPhone does, don't buy one.
You don't get to buy a Tesla and complain how come it's so expensive and doesn't run also on oil, do you?
I don't plan to hash out the legal language of a proposed law in a HN comment, but "platforms" will probably be defined in some way and be required to allow competition. An app store is nothing other than a market that can either be competitive or not, depending on how it's regulated.
It was considered sensible to implement anti-trust laws to protect consumers in the broader markets, I have no doubt that when a privately created market reaches sufficient market share and impact, they will be subject to anti-trust laws as well.
As a thought experiment, imagine 99% of the population uses iOS... now the private market of an app store becomes the de-facto public market by virtue of adoption. The same can be said for social media, where a single app can control 90% of discussion (depending on country and medium of discussion). There is no world in which these things will not be regulated as "public spaces" once they reach sufficient scale.
The question is just when does the scale become sufficiently large, and when do the rules cross the line into anti-competitive behavior. They are close but maybe not quite far enough to get regulated yet.
If you wanna install your own OS, you can set up your own App Store.
Yes, please. Who do I have to call at Apple to get an iPhone's bootloader unlocked?
If you want to advertise the alternative inside your app, well, that's a bit like Target putting a sign inside that mom-and-pop store saying you can get a better deal at Target.
edit: You changed your comment and added your line about mom-and-pop stores. To which I reply that different rules should apply to multi-billion dollar corporations.
Apple put us in the kettle and slowly turned up the heat. They delivered good hardware, good software, but at the same time demanded that nobody else have the ability to run JIT, other runtimes, first-class web, browsers, marketplaces, etc. Over time, Apple rose to 50% of the market, all the while exacting complete control and taxing all market activities.
Unfortunately, iPhone is now responsible for a majority of its users' business activities. It's the single plane of control between a user and their banking, commerce, communication, entertainment, and social lives.
We didn't allow this level of control with Microsoft in the 90's and 00's, and there's no reason we should allow the increased scope of control that Apple has now.
They need to lose the App Store.
They need to have an open platform.
They can't run Apple Pay.
Other browsers and JIT runtimes need to be allowed. Marketplaces, too.
This needs to happen to Google as well.
We don't pay the electric company for every app we install. We don't pay UPS for our Netflix subscriptions. Apple isn't providing any additional economic value. They're a tax, and that's it. They're also an impediment to repairing our own devices. It has to stop, and they have to start playing fair.
How does a company disrupt the Google/Apple phone duopoly? Even Microsoft spending hundreds of millions of dollars couldn't do it.
Itch is very cheap, for example, and developers love it. Apparently Itch is important enough that Apple and Epic kept bringing it up over and over in court.
I don't know their current %s, but Humble's game sales platform (that is, for non-bundle game sales) definitely charged way less than 30% in the past.
What's the difference other than form factor?
General-purpose computing is gradually being replaced by locked-down phones and tablets, and that's much more concerning.
At the end of the day, it's a company telling a consumer what they can or can't do with their own property. Sony saying you can't buy a game from anyone else is just anti-competitive BS. It isn't fair to consumers, and it isn't fair to developers.
Hopefully the court rules in favor of Epic, and this case is used as precedent to go against the game console monopolies next.
Also, for what it's worth, the "real" reason why game consoles aren't allowed to be jailbroken under DMCA rules (whereas phones, computers, and other devices are) is because, currently, most people only want to do it to commit piracy. Of course, that's because there are no other legitimate software vendors for that hardware. It's a chicken and egg problem.
The cost is related to the value it brings, but it's also heavily affected by competition.
If you need a smartphone ( and that is everyone for all practical purposes) your only choice is iPhone or Android. There are no substitutes whatsoever and little evidence of the price competition that would show market forces. In the same vein, software developers have no choice if they want to develop for smartphones and it’s hard to think of a substitute.
The copyright industry allowed themselves this level of control via extensive government lobbying.
I then take my PS5 to the mall, because I carry it with me to do all of my financial transactions. Later, I log onto my PS5 bank account app to check my spending limits.
I check PS5 Yelp for a list of restaurants. I head out, but I'm careful to check my PS5 GPS to know where I'm headed. I fill up my car using PS5 pay, and as I leave get messages from potential romantic matches on PS5 Tinder.
Of course Sony gets a cut of every transaction and there are no other options than taking your PS5 with you everywhere.
Oh wait, there's Switch, Xbox, PC, Steam, Epic, GOG, ...? Lots of options for games. But what about email, finance, dating, and everything else I would do on my PS5? Gaming devices aren't general purpose computers and don't do general purpose business, communication, finance, etc.
Gaming is a toy and comparatively niche industry with lots of consumer choice. The iPhone is 50% of all commerce in all industries for all Americans.
Apple has locked down computing behind an iron curtain, and they're clawing away at more and more as the days go by. If the trend continues, every restaurant will be Apple (instead of Taco Bell), and you'll license your car and pay Apple by the mile. The signs you see out your window will have to pay Apple a licensing fee.
What orders did Microsoft follow in specific, what are you referring about? Let's see how this has actually impacted their business today.
Stop making their high margin hardware that integrates into paid Apple services? The same phone that works with other massively popular Apple hardware, such as Air Pods? Extremely doubtful.
Apple will not cut off their nose to spite their face.
Maybe you have less faith in Apple than I do. I believe they can succeed enormously without their monopoly. They make great products. Microsoft managed just fine (look at their market cap!)
edit: I'm confused. Are the downvotes from Apple fans that think the hardware sucks without the monopoly? And that Apple can't survive without it?
That's crazy talk. It's literally their most successful product line ever.
I would guess their margins on the app store are 90% or higher. If somebody has the number, please provide. But it's clear the fee is significantly above the investment required to keep it running.
Legal precedents regarding private spaces are going to have to change in a lot of ways over the coming decades, as we now live in a world where a single corporation can control major aspects around your entire life. I've been a strong free market proponent myself, but at a certain scale it becomes anti-competitive, which ultimately becomes anti-consumer.
This may not be the case that alters regulations, but I would be very surprised if we don't see big changes to regulate social media/big tech "private spaces".
But is it worth a 30% markup on each transaction? Well, disclose the fee to users, give them an alternative (shittier) option to pay, and find out.
I think an actual free market with forced transparency would settle on transaction fees an order of magnitude less (i.e. closer to 2% or 3%), similar to Visa and MasterCard.
Digital stores have settled on a 30% standard. Different industries have different standards.
It's notable that even on stores that don't charge 30%, like Epic Games Store, the price of the products offered are almost never at a lower price.
But when a business can run an operation in a market with 90% (or whatever) profit margins, it's an indication that the market isn't open to competition. Which is exactly why anti-trust law exists.
Why? Because competitors will see how much money Apple is making and move in to capitalize. I don't think computing devices should become walled gardens where companies are free to gouge their customers.
Fees are most assuredly passed onto consumers. They cut into the providers bottom line. Providers must charge at least 30% markup just to break even when offering through the app store. This is simple math, and self evident.
The app store itself is not a particularly great piece of technology either... it's simply a monopoly on the iPhone user audience. Could the app store improve if it had healthy competition? e.g. better searchability/functionality?
Personally I'm amazed at how bad app discovery still is on both iOS and Android app stores.
So? That's because the price of the products in that industry isn't based on the costs. What does a digital copy of a game cost? Practically nothing!
People seem to be focusing too much on whether or not 30% is too high or unfair. I don't think that's important; Apple should be able to charge whatever the hell they want, but they should not be immune from the competitive forces that would normally keep those types of things in check in a free market.
You might argue that, because the lower fee won't reduce game prices, the players will see the same price and won't buy from another store instead of the app store (since they cost the same). So Apple wouldn't feel "competitive forces" either way.
However, the thing to keep in mind is that those customers aren't buying from Apple, they're buying from the developer. So developers will be incentivized to move customers to a more profitable store, and they have many ways to do that that benefit consumers. A discount is the most obvious, but even without that a developer could offer exclusive content, early access, a better shopping experience, community features, and pretty much anything that will *provide value to consumers* in exchange for switching stores.
Alternate app stores will increase game industry profits, create jobs, provide value to consumers, lead to innovation (the damn app store has been the same boring thing for decades; there's a lot of room to innovate). There are literally no downsides whatsoever, except that Apple shareholders and fanboys will be unhappy.
Unlike the app store space (within a given device)
That is profit margins in a competitive market.
Now we have progressive web apps with full offline functionality, but installing them is a nightmare.
You have to dig through the share menu from Safari (tough luck if you use another browser) to install one, and Apple removes it after some time limit.
Maybe a half measure would be to make that process less restrictive and allow companies to directly distribute software to their users again...
In fact, they have every incentive to make sure they don't work. You can see this in their constant regressions in areas that only actually matter to PWA's.
I will say this: Google has been a lot more fair and open to PWA's and related tech (like WebRTC) than Apple. Apple absolutely hates the idea of any web app that might survive outside of the app store. In fact, for a very, very long time you couldn't even upload a photo on Craigslist with a standard HTML "Browse" button, because "IOS doesn't have a filesystem." It was a conscious decision to not allow the camera to be accessed except from within an IOS app.
If they make it Android-based but Open Source, similar to how the Unreal Engine contains proprietary components while remaining easy to customize, that could be quite the popular move for grabbing market share from Apple and Google.
I, at least, am unhappy with Apple's greedy behavior and also unhappy with Google's Data Kranken tendencies. So there's at least a niche market opening for a 3rd OS. And I'm not holding my breath for Linux. Instead, I think it'll be something like Lineage OS and its privacy protections but more professionally managed.
We don't need more vertical silos, we need a horizontal playing field.
Too bad Sony's executives are spineless and out of touch.
They could even give it a name that symbolizes that, perhaps something like: N-Gage
Maybe think through what you're proposing. Do you believe most of Epic's customers will buy two phones, charge two phones and carry two phones just so they can play their games, while also having access to first-class OS services like Google and Apple offer?
No.
So if the "Epic Phone" had the ability to install and run APKs, that'd be good enough.
Also I like how all of those theories just sit in vacuum, as if we're not going through a major economic contraction due to a two year global pandemic, but sure, everyone has the money to get themselves a second phone, because they decided not to eat anymore.
"The judge also hammered Cook over the App Store commission reduction last year, as part of its new small business program, saying it "seemed to be a result of the pressure that you're feeling from investigations, from lawsuits, not competition"
> If you don't like Apple's walled garden, then don't use an Apple product.
> If you don't like the Epic app store, then don't use the Epic app store.
I don't have a solution here (though i know which side i fall on), but it's worth noting that neither of these seem to useful arguments to base anything on. The judge here seems to be aiming for an argument based on Apple not having any real competition they need to respond to, which is probably more fruitful.
Really? API calls maybe, and a lot of them are barely documented in my experience.
If you buy an app on iOS in a store present in both platform you can just switch OS with all your app.
What's the point in this question?
The answer is clear: that any company wants to limit choice to the extent it helps their business.
Shouldn't the judge be more concerned about the specific nature of the legality of it all?
Precisely. Based on revenue, the iPhone is primarily a handheld gaming device, and Apple strictly controls the platform – much as Nintendo does with the Switch. Arguments for Apple opening up the iOS app store apply equally to the eShop.
Tim should note (and probably has noted) that Apple exerts strict control over its iOS platform so that 1) it can make more money 2) it can provide what it considers a better user experience - including better security, privacy, and battery life, and 3) it can have a lower iPhone support burden at genius bars.
Another thing that Judge Rogers (and indeed Tim Cook) should note is that games are "sold" as "free to play with IAP" to make the game "free" to download and play (at least until you hit the first paywall.) Moreover (to make more money and drive users toward IAP) Apple does not offer timed trials of paid games and therefore free trials must use IAP. Users and developers would probably benefit from timed trials of paid games.
Lastly, Judge Rogers should note (and Apple and Epic should admit) that much of mobile gaming operates on a "whale" model where certain high-spending players (including those who are susceptible to slot-machine like monetization schemes) are exploited in order to subsidize non-paying players. This approach has of course been used by Epic with great success in games like Fortnite and Rocket League.
Is 30% the most lucrative way? Putting ads and tracking would be the most lucrative way!