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

361–370 of 781 posts

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#361

Post by kelnos »

rched wrote: post #337
kelnos wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't own an iPhone in large part because I cannot install an alternative app store or install non-Apple approved apps. > Right, and the rest of us don't want that, and I also don't want games or apps that don't adhere to Apple's rules. Why do you care? If you don't want to install a third-party app store, then don't. The games available on Apple's store will continue to adhere to Apple's rules, and if you want tha…

> If you don't want to install a third-party app store, then don't I've been seeing this argument a lot and it makes the assumption that allowing alternative app stores has no impact on people who choose not to use them. I don't think this is true. An app developer may decide to only list their app on an alternative store because they pay lower fees and they can handle payments themselves. As a user you now need to c…

> An app developer may decide to only list their app on an alternative store because they pay lower fees and they can handle payments themselves.

This is literally the point of allowing healthy competition. If Apple wants these games on their app store, they should offer terms that are competitive with the hypothetical third-party app stores.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#362

Post by ascagnel_ »

ahnick wrote: post #255
ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Play is also an anti-competitive monopoly as well. Google was a bit smarter about avoiding potential anti-trust though, because they at least give the illusion of choice with 3rd party app stores. There basically is not a competitive market for either app marketplace right now, so an accurate price can't be determined. Allow 3rd party marketplaces to be installed as easily as any other app and I'm certain prices will…

> Google was a bit smarter about avoiding potential anti-trust though, because they at least give the illusion of choice with 3rd party app stores.

I'd argue the opposite -- one of Epic's allegations is that Google scuttled a deal Epic had reached with OnePlus to ship Epic's own Android app store.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#363

Post by kmeisthax »

sudosysgen wrote: post #254
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should closed hardware (that owns its entire stack) even be legal to sell? No. > You can't argue that Prima Cinema should not be locked down (claiming anti-competitive behavior) because the paranoid film studios wouldn't even license their content if it wasn't. You can actually. They demand this kind of DRM because they know the customer would sooner say yes to it than not get the movie. But that's only because the…

Which makes me think, what prevents me from putting a lens in front to the projector and directly imaging the projection into a camera sensor? Modern cameras can record lossless 48bpp equiv. video in 4K, it would pretty much be a 1:1 copy given sufficiently sophisticated optics. Which leads me to the conclusion that the only reason why no one is ripping movies using Prima Cinema projectors and commodity grade hardwar…

Well, there's some practical considerations - getting the refresh rate sync'd up, avoiding or filtering moire patterns out, getting the colors and such just right, things like that. However, it's possible enough that most theater projectors already have DRM restrictions that shut the system down if you start fiddling with the image path. The password to authorize an image path change is only handed out to supervisors. Evidently, access to such codes were so uncommon that, during the 3D movies era of last decade, most projectionists wouldn't bother swapping out 3D stereographic filters for 2D showings because it would require getting management involved.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#364

Post by earhart »

kartayyar wrote: post #279
enra wrote: post #236

While I don't like Apple's 30% cut on multiplatform/subscription products, I think Epic's real motivation here is to run their own App Store, build a bigger moat and get the profits themselves (they take 12% cut, 5% if you use Unreal Engine, from developers in their store). They also make exclusive deals, bribing developers with funding/marketing support, so that the games can only bought in their store for 6-12mo. C…

I don't get the whole objection to mutiple app stores. Instead of clicking icon A, I click icon B and if I get a cheaper game, all power to Epic. I don't spend time in an app store. I spend time playing the game.

It creates a race-to-the-bottom for app stores.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#365

Post by partiallypro »

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #73
partiallypro wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in terms of their banning xCloud, they recently filed a patent to make their own cloud gaming service. I would definitely say that sounds anti-competitive to ban competitors that are ahead of you from your store, so you have time to make your own.

It depends on the reason for banning xCloud and if their product becomes market dominant. The rules are there. It seems unfair to punish Apple for someone else breaking an agreement.

Ah, so the key to a monopolistic company being a monopoly is that we have to wait for them to become a monopoly elsewhere, after they've banned their own competitors from the space they just entered/want to enter. Makes sense.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#366

Post by stale2002 »

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #241
stale2002 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> . ~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 vio…

> This is a significant risk to the product. Opening it up means that the quality of the product and consumer suffers.

Thats still a monopoly on apps sold on the iPhone.

You are just giving arguments as for why you support Apple's monopoly on the iPhone app store market.

> A monopoly needs to dominate the market.

Also, related, there does not even need to be a monopoly for anti-competitive practices to be illegal. Anti-competitive behavior can still be illegal, even if there is not monopoly.

> the competing app store is the Play Store

No, actually. The play store cannot install apps on the iPhone. That is the market that Apple has a monopoly on.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#367

Post by WWLink »

cromwellian wrote: post #352

"But Apple needs to fund the App Store. XCode, payment processing, reviewers, it all costs money". Yes, very little in comparison. Apple made $50 billion in revenue from the App Store in 2019. $50 BILLION. The data centers costs to serve up this are miniscule in comparison. Apple could build 50 datacenters PER YEAR EVERY YEAR for that revenue. Reviewers? A staff of 10,000 fulltime reviewers paid $200k per year would…

I agree with the sunk cost - besides, who is the customer and who is the product here?

The customer is supposed to be the one who bought the phone and is using the OS in their best interest. Right?

This whole thing feels all wrong. Both Apple for "gatekeeping OUR customers" and Epic for "Apple's stealing OUR money" (or "Apple is making us pay 30% so we're going to charge you 30% more")

Besides, it's not as if the Apple App Store is full of quality apps. It's full of a lot of garbage. It's so full of garbage that I have a hard time finding anything worth buying - because almost all of it is ad-laden junk that tries to nickle and dime you with in-app purchases. lol.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#368

Post by paulcole »

nemothekid wrote: post #47
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 w…

> Not sure this adds up to 30%.

It absolutely shouldn’t add up to 30% unless you believe Apple should be using the App Store as a pseudo-loss-leader for the iPhone.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#369

Post by enragedcacti »

ericmay wrote: post #342
Slartie wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right, and the rest of us don't want that Please stop speaking for others. I would certainly like to have the ability to install other sources for apps. Since I am part of "the rest of us", for any kind of "us" that came to my mind while reading your posting ("iPhone users" or "Apple customers" or "HN readers"), your statement is patently false. > That's not what I want on my iPhone. Then don't install additional s…

> Please stop speaking for others. Same to you and the GP here. And last I checked there aren’t a lot of customers really complaining about the App Store. It’s just big companies who, although they could have done this years ago, are now going against Apple’s customer protection because it degrades their crappy business practices. > Then don’t install additional stores Then buy a different phone? I want any app that…

Are you incapable of self control to the point of not being able to stop yourself from using a different app store? Or is it that you know Apple's cut is onerous enough that given competition, most the apps would leave? It feels like you want other users to suffer on the basis that your values happen to align with Apple's avenue for generating profit. If Apple were in it for your privacy and safety they could drop their cut substantially and kneecap most of the controversy.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#370

Post by LockAndLol »

Honestly, I don't see the big deal. You pay for vendor lock-in, you get vendor lock-in. Apple doesn't have a "monopoly" on smartphones. If anybody wants variety, they can get an android or invest in a PinePhone or Librem5.

Epic complaining about being shut out of the App store is like Dominoes complaining about being shut out of that private university where all the rich kids go. They should just go over to Android where, if they want to, they can make their own app store.

> My preferred outcome would see Apple maintaining its control of app installation. I treasure and depend on the openness of PCs and Macs, but I am also relieved that the iPhone is so dependable for those less technically savvy than me.

This, I certainly don't agree with. Android has more app stores and is still quite easy to use and dependable for the less technically savvy. Apple getting more App stores won't change how "easy" the iPhone is to use.

Post reply on HN