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

151–160 of 781 posts

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#151

Post by badsectoracula »

braythwayt wrote: post #132
badsectoracula wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is common FUD for Android, but i have non-technical family members and all of them use Android devices (because they were cheaper). I never had any of them complain about issues with their phones and Android doesn't exactly let you download stuff out of the box, you have to explicitly enable it and it pops up a scary warning whenever you do so. Yes, people can ignore that warning, but considering it is there and…

Speaking of FUD, come now. Me choosing to buy an Apple or recommend Apple to my family doesn't "make the entire society worse."

No, buying an Apple device doesn't make the entire society worse, however supporting devices that take away control from their users does make the entire society worse.

After all that control doesn't disappear, it just moves to someone else's hands - and guess who has no say whose hands those will be.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#152

Post by johnnyfaehell »

ngngngng wrote: post #9

> but the benefit [the App Store arrangement gave] to developers was much less clear cut. I disagree, I think the fact that so many developers built apps for iPhone supports my point. Apple gave developers everything they needed, users with dollars to spend.

Those users would always be there. If there was another App Store instead they would be there. If there were app stores competing there would be users with dollars to spend on both. The App Store doesn't provide users because it does something special, it provides them because there is no other option to install apps on your expensive smart phone/tablet without using it.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#153

Post by jcelerier »

jm4 wrote: post #145
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…

How about don't buy it? Here's another question. Is it reasonable to buy a product, knowing that it works a particular way, and then expect the law to change in order to change the way that product works?

> Is it reasonable to buy a product, knowing that it works a particular way, and then expect the law to change in order to change the way that product works?

if we agree as a society that the way the product work does not fit with our society ideals, then yes, definitely ? Especially when the person buying it will likely not have a lot of information / put a lot of thought in the issue. Laws are meant to protect people from that.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#154

Post by mthoms »

turtlesdown11 wrote: post #13

It's weird how Epic has no problem with closed hardware consoles...

The counter argument (from the article). Emphasis mine.

>[smartphones are] not a console you play to entertain yourself, or even a PC for work: it is the foundation of modern life

IMHO, this is a perfectly valid argument.

To be clear, I have no idea how that could be legislated, nor do I necessarily think it should be. I'm only saying that it's easy to see why they aren't the same thing.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#155

Post by bluedevil2k »

zepto wrote: post #118
bluedevil2k wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

actual harm => consumers end up paying more for the apps because the app developers have to increase their price to cover Apple's cut (which is more like a shakedown). I don't see any reason why a company needs to pay any percent of their revenue instead of a flat fee. You pay a % of revenue when someone is your partner or an investor in your company. Apple is neither. In fact, they've shown to be the opposite of a t…

This isn’t a clear argument. Many customers and developers want the service the App Store provides and are willing to pay for it. I.e. it’s not a shakedown, it’s a service just like any other. But even if you argue that people should be allowed to have someone else provide a different service (which is technically problematic since they will still need to use Apple’s API’s), there is no reason to presume that more st…

They might want the App Store, we don't if they're willing to pay for it because they have no choice.

And it's absolutely a shakedown. It's not a service, it's a requirement. A service implies app developers have options. They do not. Apple could raise the price to 70% of the revenue and app developers would have no choice but to pay. It's not much different than the mob saying "it'd be a shame if this business went away for a while, wouldn't it" and demanded protection money.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#156

Post by damnyou »

darkwizard42 wrote: post #50
baby wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 protect…

Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom, as Kierkegaard said. But freedom is an incredibly worthwhile thing, so much so that anxiety is the cost society should for it.

The costs of Apple's walled garden have become so obscene at this point that I consider the pro-Apple position to be immoral.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#157

Post by philwelch »

badsectoracula wrote: post #82
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…

> Yes, it's legal today but should we make it illegal? IMO, yes. We make it illegal for someone to come into your home and take your stuff, which ends up with you losing control over it (you have no more access to your stuff), so it also makes sense to make it illegal for someone to decide to not allow you install or modify the stuff you have (again taking control away from you). The way most of these platforms run i…

From a legal perspective, you have complete control over what you do with it. You just don’t control what “it” is in the first place.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#158

Post by stale2002 »

noncoml wrote: post #86
bluedevil2k wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not addressing the real issue here though - should Apple get a cut of the revenue from in game purchases? Once you download the game and are looking to purchase more of the game you've already let the app pass your "shady wild west" internal warning system.

Yes, for the simple reason that if they don’t, it opens a loophole for everyone to avoid the 30% cut altogether. Also from customer prospective, I feel more comfortable knowing the payment will go through Apple.

> , it opens a loophole for everyone to avoid the 30% cut altogether.

But this is a good thing, not a bad thing. Literally the purpose of all this, is to get around this cut. It is better for developers and consumers, to take whatever actions possible, to support loopholes, that get around this 30% cut.

This is the explicit goal here, and the reasons why it is good. The loophole would be a good thing.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#159

Post by lilyball »

wmf wrote: post #52
lilyball wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. If IAP was a different cut, all apps would go "free" overnight and require an IAP purchase to unlock most of the app. Apple could try something like giving "consumable" IAP a different cut, but I'm sure devs would still try to game that too (e.g. having a consumable that unlocks the app for a set amount of time, rather than a permanent unlock).

BTW if Apple is protecting customers so much they should ban consumable IAPs because they're being used to drain money from people via addiction.

Consumables are used for more than just freemium games.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#160

Post by harha »

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 not sure if all cases need to be handled this way, with the Prima Server the main transaction seems to be the right to access the movies.

With a device that needs to be used in every day life (proof: smart phone penetration in many countries, more recently, access to certain locations only with a Covid app) it makes sense to have stronger protections for consumers and other businesses.

Post reply on HN