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

181–190 of 781 posts

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#181

Post by pb7 »

liability wrote: post #148
FactolSarin wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I'm sympathetic to this idea, one thing that I get hung up on is game consoles. I enjoy multiplayer shooters, and I like knowing that none of my opponents are using bots. So the fact that the console is locked down is part of the value proposition for me. It's a pro, rather than a con.

Or you can just play with friends who don't cheat. Cheaters are only a problem if your friends are jackasses or you play with strangers.

Do you have 150 friends to play battle royale?

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#182

Post by txr »

I find the comparison that many people make to game consoles very short minded.

It should be clear to everyone that the smartphone will become more and more integrated into our lives to a point where at some point you cannot participate in society without a phone. Sure, many things have alternative options or are limited to tech enthusiasts but other options become less favorable more and more.

The alarm clock in the morning, communicating with friends and family, paying for things, doing your taxes, unlocking your door. Also unlocking your car is coming and there is even early talk of putting your driver’s license in your phone. Getting driving directions, some people use their phone as an artificial pancreas system. (https://androidaps.readthedocs.io/en/latest/)

The smartphone has become the personal computing device.

A gaming console is something completely different, there I'm perfectly fine if a company wants to control the environment. I would prefer an open system but Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft controlling the games I can play is not even close to the limitations apple creates with their ecosystems on society. Google allows for third-party stores on their Android system, I would be doable for Apple to allow the same.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#184

Post by gsich »

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…

>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?

You can have both ways. You can sell, but after 1 year (or 2) it becomes open.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#185

Post by johncolanduoni »

diffeomorphism wrote: post #170
ericmay wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should closed hardware even be legal to sell? I don't see why not. If it's a problem, then either a competitor will emerge, or people won't purchase the product. If it's truly a bad business practice, it'll lose out in the end. Besides that I actually love the closed system of the iPhone + App Store, we can't just go around banning things anytime we think we might not like them. Every time I see this story it just…

> I don't see why not. If it's a problem, then either a competitor will emerge, or people won't purchase the product. Aka "the invisible hand will fix it". We have been waiting quite a few years for this and it did not happen. Instead we got the complete opposite: a duopoly of android and iOS which nobody, not even Microsoft, can compete against. At this point, we have to acknowledge that simply waiting is not going…

But Android in general doesn’t have these restrictions. Plenty of phones (including Google’s flagships!) support rooting, and you can install a third-party App Store like F-droid even when they only support sideloading. So that’s not really a good example of market forces failing to solve the unlocked hardware availability problem.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#186

Post by giantrobot »

bluedevil2k wrote: post #35
ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #11

A pretty well-thought out article, given the inflammatory nature of the subject matter. I think Apple is right on the line. But I don't see a good argument as to what their doing is being anti-competitive. ~2 million apps are on the app store. Charging a fee for giving developers a huge market that spends money is not exactly unfair. And the rules of engagement are generally applied equally to everyone - the exceptio…

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…

I'm super amused by people bemoaning Apple's cut of sales on the App Store. I remember mobile software before the App Store. Buying software for a Palm or PocketPC device was a fucking shit show.

There were multiple competing stores and sometimes even the developer's own site. The prices were ridiculous, partly because everyone had to implement their own payment and distribution systems. If the software didn't work or there was a problem it was rare to get a refund. Most of the time your contact info was readily sold to "partners".

Apple's cut of sales for the service they provide is pretty small compared to the costs of doing it yourself. There's many of thousands of developers that are enabled by the fact they don't need to host their apps, handle billing, or handle user accounts and PII.

If you seriously think prices to end users would decrease if Apple took a smaller cut you're deluding yourself. If developers are making sales at current prices there's zero reason for them to drop prices even if their overhead drops. Prices are set by what the market will bear and only have their lower bound set by the developer's overhead.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#187

Post by bcrosby95 »

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…

What does the "entire stack" mean? Does it apply to e.g. cars?

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#188

Post by ericmay »

rowanG077 wrote: post #97
ericmay wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should closed hardware even be legal to sell? I don't see why not. If it's a problem, then either a competitor will emerge, or people won't purchase the product. If it's truly a bad business practice, it'll lose out in the end. Besides that I actually love the closed system of the iPhone + App Store, we can't just go around banning things anytime we think we might not like them. Every time I see this story it just…

Hardware is a physical product you buy. You don't buy Amazon or Facebook. They are a service not a product. The meaningful distinction is that you should OWN the hardware you buy and thus it shouldn't be limited by the manufacturer except for things that are vital for product function.

We're mostly talking about the App Store, but even so I don't think there's much of a meaningful distinction. I can't choose to get a 12 pack of cola that's half Pepsi, 1/4th Mountain Dew, and 1/4 Cherry Coke either.

I can't choose to use iMessage with my non-existent Facebook account either. Why? Why are they allowed to lock in their software?

Same argument.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#189

Post by gsich »

liability wrote: post #148
FactolSarin wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I'm sympathetic to this idea, one thing that I get hung up on is game consoles. I enjoy multiplayer shooters, and I like knowing that none of my opponents are using bots. So the fact that the console is locked down is part of the value proposition for me. It's a pro, rather than a con.

Or you can just play with friends who don't cheat. Cheaters are only a problem if your friends are jackasses or you play with strangers.

Have you played games before? Even in a 5vs5 game, it's hard to gather 9 friends at the same time, with a similar skill.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#190

Post by rhinoceraptor »

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"?

Apple's share of the hardware market is practically fully saturated. They're not going to sell 30% more phones or computers. They need some place to expand and grow, and services/payment processing is where they're doing it.
Post reply on HN