171–180 of 1001 posts
It’s a clear violation of the TOS and Epic clearly knows that. They likely also knew well before making the update and perhaps thought Apple would bluff and only threaten a take down. Platforms aren’t free.
If Apple allowed other payment methods, that would incentivize developers not to go through Apple at all. Even paid apps would switch over to an unlock model in order to avoid the 30% cut. So I think it's very unlikely that Apple will allow other payment options. It's more likely for their 30% to go down, but even that's questionable.
Yet, many apps choose have direct Play Store purchases, since that convenience might translate to a higher conversion rate.
Android also allows third party apps to be installed.
Your argument doesn't hold up in light of all of this.
Why should Epic get a “special arrangement” from all other developers?
If you don't like the terms, then don't be on the Apple App store, but of course your missing a huge swath of the population thus the 30% fee. Being on the App store is essentially unlimited marketing and exposure for your app. Cost of doing business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wonder if that false message could get them in trouble with consumer rights laws?
I hope it does. Monopolies lead to stagnation, rising prices, and inferior product quality. Even though Apple is not a monopoly in the strict sense, I think we consumers will benefit from alternative app store - or Apple opening up the platform. I believe one can still have (moderately) secure ecosystem without it being a walled garden.
How much of a security risk is side loading apps? It seems pretty large to me, even on a fortified system like iOS.
Imagine if Microsoft did this on PCs. a) prohibiting the installation of non-windows store software (sideloading) and b) insisting that all purchases done via apps give them a 30% cut. I think this is a ridiculous practice on the behalf of Apple.
Try playing Minecraft between your non-Windows 10 PC and anything mobile, or between anything and a Mac.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, couldn't we just replace Microsoft->Sony and PC->Playstation and the argument falls apart a bit? > Imagine if Sony did this on Playstation. a) prohibiting the installation of non-PlayStation games and b) insisting that all purchases done via their store give them a 30% cut. Many platforms are like this -- and many also have the majority marketshare. Is this a call to redefine what platforms can and cannot con…
FWIW, actually Sony doesn't demand a 30% cut of all revenue from any company that makes an app for their store. You can have subscriptions to non-Sony services, and Sony doesn't see a dime. Sony doesn't demand a cut of Netflix subscriptions, for example, despite having a Netflix app available for download. Similarly, it doesn't get a cut of Spotify revenue either. For PlayStation you pay the Sony tax for the convenie…
I don't think this should be regulated at all. Apple should be able to impose their rules in their systems. Let's be clear about this, if people are choosing to buy these black-box closed handheld computing devices, there are consequences that come with that choice.
If Apple want to impose rules without any government oversight, they are free to start their own country with their own government and impose their own rules.
I think that Apple will prevail in this legal fight . Apple is in good terms with this administration. Even when the social media has taken the blame by Congress, it has been google, Facebook and Twitter that have come under fire - but Apple not so much. And currently the US is in a position where how heavy handed the treatment is dependent on your relationship with the administration.
How many companies will look at situations like this and decide not to bother with developing for Apple platforms? I've already stepped back my efforts to support MacOS (I don't target iOS at present). Too many hoops, too much control freakery, and no real comeback if they ever decide that they don't want me to publish on their platform. The balance of power in the relationship is simply skewed too far in favour of them, and a tiny misunderstanding could end my business. These companies have far too much unchecked and unregulated power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even worse. Imagine if the World Wide Web was not open and you had to go through a closed WWW like AOL and websites were "under review" by the providers and would take a 30% cut of your revenues or clicks on your web app or subscription service and websites require going only through that provider. Thank goodness that wasn't the case.
It could be the case if AMP grows dominant; given the market share of Google Search, it could be enough to create a controlled (er, "curated") web in a similar spirit.