Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple, Epic, and the App Store

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 781 posts

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#41

Post by tc »

Here's the thing. Even if you're OK with Apple (or whoever) controlling what you can run on your computers, this is a centralization of power that will be co-opted.

Let's say that Australia wants to ban consumer encryption. This would currently be difficult to enforce for PC software. But on mobile, this is easy. Just make Apple and Google enforce it! Make them ban such apps from their stores. Now you've achieved perfect enforcement on Apple hardware. Even on Android, where people could in theory side-load the banned apps, this would prevent those apps from achieving any scale or network effect.

That's what I think people are missing here. No matter how much you trust Apple, once the mechanisms for this kind of power are in place, you won't be able to control what happens next.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#42

Post by reaperducer »

wmf wrote: post #17
jasode wrote: post #6

In the spirit of this particular story, I'd like to ask HN the following question: Should closed hardware (that owns its entire stack) even be legal to sell? Yes, it's legal today but should we make it illegal? To try another example besides Apple iPhone, consider the $35000 Prima Cinema movie server to play 1st run movies at home on day of release: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22prima+cinema%22&source=ln... In m…

There's nothing stopping you from putting a Blu-ray player in your rack next to the Prima box and the cost is trivial. There's a common-sense argument that a person is only going to have one phone, one phone carrier, one ISP, etc. and thus those companies shouldn't hold their customers hostage. Turning that into a legal principle is left as an exercise for the reader.

There's nothing stopping you from putting a Blu-ray player in your rack next to the Prima box and the cost is trivial.

There's nothing stopping an iPhone owner from also buying an Android phone, and the cost is trivial.

There's a common-sense argument that a person is only going to have one phone, one phone carrier

There are hundreds of thousands of people in the United States, maybe even millions, who have more than one phone.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#43

Post by gameswithgo »

asutekku wrote: post #37
jasode wrote: post #6

In the spirit of this particular story, I'd like to ask HN the following question: Should closed hardware (that owns its entire stack) even be legal to sell? Yes, it's legal today but should we make it illegal? To try another example besides Apple iPhone, consider the $35000 Prima Cinema movie server to play 1st run movies at home on day of release: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22prima+cinema%22&source=ln... In m…

I'm really happy with my closed hardware as the tightly controlled environment promises the customer that the software run in it will be high quality and on some level will be vetted before allowed to the platform. This also attracts other developers to create high-quality software, as those good enough will be highlighted by the platform owner, which in turn means increased sales. And I really can't say the same abo…

i haven’t found that utopia you describe on either the apple of google play store.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#44

Post by spanhandler »

baby wrote: post #26
noncoml wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some customers buy into the Apple ecosystem because of its walled garden. Not despite of it.

Really? Who?

Raises hand.

I don't wanna have to worry about stupid computer shit when I'm just trying to use my iPad or iPhone as a tool to accomplish something else. Drawing, playing music, reading, writing, edutainment for the kids, very occasionally a game. Maybe the odd SSH session. If I decide I want some software to help me with any of those things I just want it to be in the App Store, and I just want it to use the App Store payment system. I don't want competing app stores because that might mean that sometimes what I want isn't on the Apple one, following Apple's rules about spying on my and otherwise behaving as badly as desktop software and webapps do these days. It means I have to search more than one store. Now we're veering into the stupid computer shit I don't want to have to worry about, again.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#45

Post by smnrchrds »

baby wrote: post #26
noncoml wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some customers buy into the Apple ecosystem because of its walled garden. Not despite of it.

Really? Who?

On every discussion about this topic on HN, there has been at least one but typically many more commenters saying they love the walled garden and they would pay a premium for it. They trust Apple so they are OK with paying them 30% more instead of paying the app developers directly. They would never dare recommend Windows or Linux or Android to their parents but they would happily recommend them to get iPhones and iPads because they would not end up with a virus-ridden device.

Personally, this is so different from the way I think that I find it utterly surprising, much more so from the tech savvy audience of HN. But apparently preferring walled gardens and being willing to pay extra to obtain one and even more every time you buy something on it is not an uncommon opinion to have.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#46

Post by noncoml »

Not versed enough in law to argue about this, but from a customer point of view, I hope that Apple wins as I would hate the iOS ecosystem to end up being a Wild West like the Android.

I am happy to pay for a premium to have peace of mind. To give an analogy it’s kind of like gaming console vs PC gaming where I am happy to sacrifice a bit of performance in exchange of getting rid of all shady game-specific launchers

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#47

Post by nemothekid »

orliesaurus wrote: post #14

Okay this is going to sound stupid but maybe someone else feels like me about it: I don't understand why Apple has to take such a big chunk from transactions of in-app purchases? Similarly Google. Why 30%? Why not 5%? That feels like it would be more honest. Is it just because "they can"?

I assume their costs are just, Credit Card Fees, Infrastructure Fees (Bandwidth, Storage), Reviewers Salary. Not sure this adds up to 30%.

I think the real reason is that when the Apple store was started, they looked around at the current prices for "software distribution". Retail was like 70%, and other app stores; for example the Danger Hiptop / T-mobile Sidekick charged 60% for their apps store, and the carriers were worse. At the time, 30% was actually a lot cheaper than everyone else. Then I assume Google just copied Apple.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#48

Post by quijoteuniv »

Closed hardware should be opened when unsupported... meaning if apple cannot support old hardware anymore they should open it by law. There are so many ipads and phones that could still be in use but arent because you need to run their software. We need to stop the planet to be an electronics garbage bin. Same when they start with the new chip on apple computers.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#50

Post by darkwizard42 »

baby wrote: post #26
noncoml wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some customers buy into the Apple ecosystem because of its walled garden. Not despite of it.

Really? Who?

Me for one. I don't want to deal with several different terms of service, different ways of payment, lack of clarity on if an app is trustworthy or not.

Apple is simple. I trust Apple to protect me and honestly based on the stories I read about Google's Play Store I feel more confident in Apple to do the right thing for consumers in the long run. Their incentive is aligned to my needs (good safe hardware that protects me from making potentially poor choices -- even as someone who is in the "tech" world)

Post reply on HN