baddox

> They want to ensure that games are of high quality so as to not hurt the reputation of the platform itself. They want games to help sell consoles. And that's how video game consoles always worked.

And my argument is that an overall better (according to each individual buyer's preference) software experience is a major (perhaps the single largest) differentiator of iPhones over competing smartphones. This has always been a major part of Apple's marketing and indeed is the primary reason I use an iPhone. Yes, on the iPhone it's "games and other apps" instead of just games, but I don't see that being a major difference (particularly since game consoles can serve other purposes too, like media consumption and home automation).

My argument is that iPhones are and have always been essentially "the game console of smartphones" or "the appliance of smartphones." In fact, that type of description is often used both pejoratively by iPhone haters and lovingly by iPhone fans. They're simply not made for or marketed to people who want a general-purpose Unix PC with a cell phone antenna built in, even though technically they are essentially that (note, of course, that iPhones and game consoles are technically general purpose computers, but that's not really relevant).

> They're general-purpose devices at this point — both by design and by how Apple markets them. The problem is, both developers and users see the app store and its policies as a nuisance.

I strongly disagree with your impression here. My impression has been that complaints about App Store rules have overwhelmingly come from a small number of extremely large developers (unsurprisingly, developers that are big enough that they want to make a play to shift some of Apple's market power toward themselves). I don't see iPhone owners complaining about App Store rules, and I suspect one reason is that anyone who values being able to sideload any software on their smartphone has many very nice Android options.

Of course. My point is that this doesn't seem to be related to any anticompetitive behavior on Apple's part. If Apple was using market power to force smartphone competitors out of the market to increase Apple's own market share, that would be one thing. But to accuse Apple of anticompetitive behavior because their small smartphone market share spends more money on apps than other smartphone owners does not seem reasonable.

If you are consistent in your claims and believe that all computing devices, including smartphones, game consoles, e-book readers, GPS watches, car entertainment centers, etc. should be required to provide a way for owners to run unsigned code, then my accusations of inconsistency do not apply to you.

In fact, I see much much less vitriol aimed towards game console store policy than iOS App Store policy. That's why I mention it.

That's a very flimsy definition of the difference. Game consoles are generally much more powerful general-purpose PCs that can do everything an iPhone can do (except connecting to cell networks). They tend to be full multimedia consumption devices and can also manage other electronics in your home (lights, security cameras, etc.). Any supposed benefit iPhone owners would gain from being able to run unsigned code would also apply to console owners.

Most people I've seen commenting on this Epic vs. Apple debate seem to think that it's okay on game consoles but not okay on iPhones, which is just preposterous. At least you're consistent. But what about e-readers, GPS devices, car entertainment systems, etc.? Should all Turing-complete computing devices be forced to provide a way for the owner to run unsigned code?

> That's a misleading question, because on other platforms you can choose to avoid the store.

That's definitely not true. You cannot run unsigned code on most video game consoles.

And for PC game marketplaces, those platforms still have market power. Surely there's a big difference between being banned from Steam and being banned from the Discord Store.

Isn't that just because Apple's customers are more willing to spend money on apps than other customers?

Okay, then since we've failed to argue that Apple is a monopoly, what's the next antitrust argument, and how does it apple to iPhones but not to game consoles (which have the same if not stricter restrictions to third-party software developers)?

Being banned from the iOS App Store also doesn't make your software unusable on Windows, or Mac, or any other non-iOS platform. The App Store's exclusivity is precisely the same as that of nearly every video game console.

Arguments of this form always rely on nebulous definitions of what counts as a "choice." Sure, if you're banned from a specific app store, you cannot use that specific app store, because that's just what is means to be banned. You can, of course, still access any other app store.

Perhaps the footer is a joke, as if the true timestamp failed to load but was interpreted as Unix timestamp zero in a different time zone?

You don’t need taxes to offset subsidies, of course. You just need to end the subsidies. But yeah, there are likely major environmental externalities that could be eliminated by taxation.

I’m sure most of the Sierras don’t require day use reservations, but I’m pretty sure nearly all of it requires permits for car camping or backcountry camping, and those permits are difficult to get (apart from taking the risk of showing up for a walk-in permit).

And I understand the stereotype of the techie who thinks Yosemite Valley reservations is the only way to enjoy nature, but I don’t think that’s me. I’ve been on dozens of trips to the Sierras and I’m fairly experienced with the various permit systems. That said, I’m sure there are still less-travelled gems that I haven’t discovered. :)

I love the Sierras and have spent a lot of nights in the backcountry, but good luck getting any permits now. Pre-pandemic it was already extremely difficult. Now you need to get up at 7am and grab a day use ticket to even enter Yosemite (or even drive through!).

So where are all the automatic bridge-building machines? Isn’t our bridge infrastructure famously poor?

> Google hasn't made much progress getting away from "page rank".

Is that so? I thought conventional wisdom is that they now have much stronger signals about how well results satisfy queries, from Google Analytics and Chrome.

A little more explanation is required, since the boiling pot still needs to pass through room temperature on its way to freezing, and it’s not clear how at that point it has a head start on the other room temperature pot.

The British East India company was a government actor. It’s silly to consider them otherwise simply because it was technically a “joint-stock company.” It was part of the government. Wikipedia even notes:

> Originally chartered as the "Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East-Indies"

There is a long tradition of Mac customers expecting that ability, and Apple has explicitly said they recognize that desire in the market and is not removing the ability. That said, they have added some extra warnings and confirmation steps in order to run unsigned software, and some people have even complained about that.

> Unless Apple really screws up, that malware would have to be downloaded and installed by me. If I "flip a switch" and enable that option, that's on me.

The fact that Apple does not have this attitude is why their products are better for customers than alternatives that do have this attitude. A customer isn't any happier with a malware-ridden device if it got that way because they were tricked into clicking a fake software update button.

> PCs have always been like this and no one bats an eye.

Yes, lots of people bat eyes. As a very on-the-nose examples, lots of people buy Macs, for instance, because of their reputation for having less malware (that might be outdated now, but was certainly true for a large portion of the last 20 years). Malware has been a major problem for customers on PCs and Android phones for a long time. The fact that the problem has existed for a long time doesn't mean it's not a big problem.

> The thing is, if Apple alienates developers enough/makes them go bankrupt, the only applications you will be able to use would be the first party Apple ones. That won't be a very enjoyable thing, would be?

I doubt this is a popular opinion, but I'd rather use an iPhone right now with no third-party apps than an Android phone. I do use a few third-party apps on my iPhone, and I would miss them, but it wouldn't be enough to switch to Android.

> If a shopping mall was charging every store 30% of their revenue (not profit, revenue!), it would be very quickly going broke and empty. Yet Apple (and to a lesser degree Google, Facebook and a few others) is getting away with this - exactly because unlike the shopping mall, the developers don't have a choice. It is either play by Apple rules - or be excluded from a very sizeable part of the mobile market.

Would your opinion change if this shopping mall was one of many shopping areas in a large region, but its customers were vastly more likely to spend money, while the other shopping areas attracted mostly customers who walked around but didn't purchase much? Isn't that the analogy with Android, which is a very obvious alternative for both smartphone customers and developers? The only rebuttal I'm seeing is from developers complaining that Android users don't like to spend money on apps.

I don't get that argument. You're saying developers don't have a choice because smartphone customers do have a choice. If you only care about customers who choose iPhone then shouldn't you respect the clear wishes of those customers and make software that is compatible with the rules of the platform they've chosen?

On the other hand, I like several Apple products and I'm confident their products would get much much worse if the company was effectively split up, and I suspect the vast majority of Apple customers would feel the same way. I'm not sure if people who feel very strongly as you do would consider that possibility, or if there are other principles at play that don't involve customer satisfaction.

Ha, you should see US prices. I had to buy a T-Mobile hotspot for work-from-home continuity when my home Internet suffered a major outage. The prepaid plans for $40 a month for 10 GB, with no rollover. It's impossible to just buy 50 GB and have it work until it runs out, which is obviously what I want for a failover data plan. When you have your monthly plan, you can purchase an "on-demand pass" to add extra data above your monthly allotment. The largest on-demand pass is 7 GB and costs $50. And each on-demand pass only lasts 30 days.

> Fortnite could have chosen a different game engine at the start (this is not about terms changing after all)

Right. Apple's terms were clear from the start, so Fortnite had no reasonable expectation to be allowed to violate them. Just like Fortnite could have chosen to use a different game engine if they didn't like the terms of a particular game engine, they could choose to focus on non-Apple platforms (or choose to abide by Apple's terms on Apple's platform) if they don't like Apple's terms. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

It’s no more realistic to say “if you don’t like the licensing terms of your game engine then just rewrite your game.”

Okay, but imagine that Fortnite used Unreal but wasn’t created by the creators of Unreal. Do you think that Fortnite would be more comfortable playing chicken with the App Store and risking getting banned like this, or playing chicken with the game engine that their entire game is implemented with? In practice I would say a game engine has more leverage over a game developer than a single distribution platform.

Why do you associate those things specifically with urban life? Cinemas, televised sports, and listening to music are pretty broadly-enjoyed things. I don’t think they’re particularly “passive” either, but they’re certainly not uniquely urban.

When I think of unique opportunities in urban environments, I’m thinking more along the lines of nightlife, live sports, music, and theatre, boutique shopping, art galleries, etc. which I don’t consider to be particularly “passive” activities either.

> The number of people who I've talked to who legitimately don't know what to do without work during the pandemic is staggering.

I wouldn't look at that and conclude that these people are just domesticated livestock who have no self-worth beyond their job. A lot of legitimate hobbies and even just normal socializing are completely shut down or heavily restricted in a lot of places.

So they answer to no one?