Apple, Epic, and the App Store • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#241

Post by ntsplnkv2 » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 7:17 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #117

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…

> . ~2 million apps are on the app store. Having a large customer base is not an argument against them being a monopoly. Quite the opposite, it is evidence of it being a monopoly. > Charging a fee for giving developers a huge market that spends money is not exactly unfair. It is unfair if they are engaging in anti-competitive practices to prevent competitions from competing. > What would make it fair? Lowering the fe…

A monopoly needs to dominate the market. Apple is not, it does not dominate the smartphone or mobile OS market. People on here can't get past this basic fact.

> It is unfair if they are engaging in anti-competitive practices to prevent competitions from competing.

Which has been proven untrue - because there are 2 million apps on the marketplace. The rules are out there. I haven't seen a case where the rules were violated and nothing was done.

> Allowing alternative apps stores to compete against apple's would make it fair, and giving users the option and ability to do this, easily. So, specifically I should be able to install a Steam, or epic app store, on the iphone, without apple having any ability at all to stop me, or take a cut.

This is a significant risk to the product. Opening it up means that the quality of the product and consumer suffers. The competing app store is the Play Store. Feel free to switch to that OS.

> Of course it is. If you have a monopoly, then the harm is on the customers of the market. That includes both buyers and sellers. That is how monopolies work.

Sigh. It isn't a monopoly, but I'll humor you. Go ask any iPhone user what they think about the app store. I highly doubt you'll find any significant figure upset.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#242

Post by pwinnski » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 7:18 PM UTC

wpurvis wrote: post #128

turtlesdown11 wrote: post #13

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

If I wanted a PS4 game I could go to gamestop or walmart and buy it. I can buy games used. As closed as consoles are there's much more choice in where you get your software than iOS devices.

Regardless of where you buy it, Sony takes a cut--unless you buy used.

And IAP, which is the subject under discussion, is 100% through Sony, and Sony still gets 30%.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#243

Post by kitsunesoba » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 7:18 PM UTC

braythwayt wrote: post #32

baby wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Who?

Not my sole reason, but since you asked, here I am. I give my children iPhones. I like having certain family controls over what they use, and further controls over what appears in the app store to begin with. I like having a single vendor for all my software purchases, that I can trust to issue refunds and discontinue subscriptions promptly. I spend all day thinking about computers, I don't want to also be my own IT…

> …that I can trust to issue refunds and discontinue subscriptions promptly.

This is a big one. I'm significantly more likely to subscribe to a service/app if I'm able to do so through iTunes, because it means the app developer can't directly reach into my wallet. If I hit "Cancel Subscription" in the iTunes subscription panel, it's canceled, no ifs, ands, or buts, and no hidden unsubscribe links or intentionally obtuse unsubscription processes to have to contend with.

This is a huge thing for consumers to give up for the sake of developer freedom. If Apple begins to allow third party payment systems, developers should be required to connect said payment systems to Apple-provided standardized subscription control APIs so strong user control is maintained.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#244

Post by ntsplnkv2 » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 7:19 PM UTC

ahnick wrote: post #232

giantrobot wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Prices are set by what the market will bear That's the entire issue right there. When Apple is the market, then they can make it whatever they want. If Apple has to legitimately compete with other "App Stores", then the market will find a lower price than 30%.

Play charges 30% as well, it seems to be the market price.

If that is exorbitant, what SHOULD the price be?

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#245

Post by loxs » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 7:19 PM UTC

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…

> Should closed hardware (that owns its entire stack) even be legal to sell?

I think the problem here arises not from the DRM (which I tend to believe is OK for clear cut cases like the above movie player), but from the universality of the smartphone device. Because of this universality, the phone is in a way "essential", so the "contract" you (as an end user) have with Apple is not able to encompass every use case of the device.

In this particular case, you might have bought the phone/tablet with the sole (or main - I know kids) purpose to play Fortnite on it. Now, because of politics, you can no longer use the phone for your initial intended purpose. Not because something you did, but because of something Apple and Epic did.

So it should be either forbidden for Apple, or they should be obliged to fully refund you, because the device is no longer usable for the original purpose you used it.

In an "ideal" world (with much less regulation), Apple would not be protected from such litigation (and now they are, because of the fine print) where users demand refund because of such things, but the world is not ideal. The regulation is there, so we should extend it onto Apple, who need to be "reduced" to something more like a utility company.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#246

Post by bluedevil2k » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 7:20 PM UTC

giantrobot wrote: post #186

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…

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 o…

> Apple's cut of sales for the service they provide is pretty small compared to the costs of doing it yourself

Pretty small? I think Epic, who makes billions and billions of dollars in overall sales (though revenue is unknown specific to Apple devices, but fair to say at least $100M), would strongly disagree with this point.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#247

Post by bluedevil2k » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 7:22 PM UTC

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #231

bluedevil2k wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The App Store is as much the product as the iPhone. Without the app store the iPhone is literally just a piece of hardware. The idea that the App Store isn't a product in and of itself is a falsehood. > A service implies app developers have options. They do not. They do - it's called Android.

I've heard this argument before...

Internet Explorer is as much the product as Windows.

Without Internet Explorer Windows is literally just a piece of software.

They have options - it's called a Mac

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#248

Post by bluedevil2k » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 7:22 PM UTC

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #244

ahnick wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prices are set by what the market will bear That's the entire issue right there. When Apple is the market, then they can make it whatever they want. If Apple has to legitimately compete with other "App Stores", then the market will find a lower price than 30%.

Play charges 30% as well, it seems to be the market price. If that is exorbitant, what SHOULD the price be?

A flat monthly fee

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#249

Post by ntsplnkv2 » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 7:24 PM UTC

bluedevil2k wrote: post #140

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #94

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). So what? All markets work like this. Food prices go up whenever there fuel prices increase, so the grocery store increases the cost to cover the higher cut taken by the supply chain. Apple created this entire market - they could've been far more anti…

> Apple created this entire market Which market? 3rd party software on a computing device? Sorry, that was dozens of years prior. Packaged apps on a mobile device? Sorry, I had those on my Treo in 2001. They haven’t really created any market, they just created a software monopoly on their hardware using existing ideas.

Aside from trying to be smug, I'm not sure the point of this comment.

No one cares that a small handful of people owned a Treo in 2001. It wasn't relevant then and it isn't now. In any case, if it isn't a market, then there is no case here, so not sure what your comment means for you.

> They haven’t really created any market, they just created a software monopoly on their hardware using existing ideas.

The monopoly where the competitor has far, far higher marketshare. I'm sorry, I've never read about that in the history books.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#250

Post by ntsplnkv2 » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 7:27 PM UTC

bluedevil2k wrote: post #247

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The App Store is as much the product as the iPhone. Without the app store the iPhone is literally just a piece of hardware. The idea that the App Store isn't a product in and of itself is a falsehood. > A service implies app developers have options. They do not. They do - it's called Android.

I've heard this argument before... Internet Explorer is as much the product as Windows. Without Internet Explorer Windows is literally just a piece of software. They have options - it's called a Mac

Ah hah! I'm glad you brought this up.

What did Internet Explorer have? DOMINANT MARKETSHARE. That was the problem - not that a program came bundled with software. Such a basic fact conveniently ignored because Apple Bad.

> Without Internet Explorer Windows is literally just a piece of software.

A piece of software that can do many things - an iPhone without apps just doesn't work. Apps run everything - from making phone calls to keeping notes. Windows without internet can still be used. Bad analogy.