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

381–390 of 781 posts

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#381

Post by jarvar »

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #100
asutekku wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'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, I am not sure whether this is sarcasm or not. Since it seems like it is not, let me say that most closed platforms are absolutely garb…

All you have to do is compare the Apple AppStore with the Android AppStore. How many apps on Android have been found to contain malware? also when it comes to quality and design, Android AppStore is terrible compared to apple.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#382

Post by tomc1985 »

kelnos wrote: post #355
tomc1985 wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You phrase this as an either/or proposition... either 1 app store with its gatekeepers and rules (and frankly, the Steam supremacy was a good king to live under...) The real answer is neither. Fuck all these proprietary launchers and app stores. There are other answers.... personally I feel like these platforms need to be run and controlled by a nonprofit, with a charter that holds customers' and business' needs equa…

With Apple's ecosystem, it is an either/or proposition. Thy don't allow third-party stores, period, so I don't see how my comparison is inadequate.

You're not taking into account the differences in how App Store and Steam behaved

App Store has a natural monopoly on the iDevices. (And I would love to see this broken, a jailbroken iPhone in the old days was a wondrous thing) This is because Apple owns the platform and are heavily incentivized to use that integration to maximize their own profit and growth.

There are no such incentives on an open platform like Windows. Steam had to be better than the status quo and it seems they took that to heart, so much that entire ecosystems have built up around Valve's generosity -- ecosystems that compete with Steam itself -- and that Valve could pull the plug on tomorrow. But I bet they won't, because they seem to be interested in a vibrant and healthy ecosystem, and because their attitude of good stewardship is apparently quite rare these days, giving them a significant competitive advantage with mindshare.

It's a totally different ballgame. Google uses anticompetitive dealmaking and sheer force of will to try and achieve a semblance of what App Store does, and up until recently their success in that area was mixed at best. Google Play is closer to Steam in that regard, but their execution sucks.

But even if Steam was as vertically integrated as Apple something tells me they would be a lot more permissive and generous in how others sell on their platform. Steam offers a ton of value-add and, while I don't hang out in gamedev circles, the only bitching about price and Steam's 30% cut I've seen comes from Tim Sweeney and noone else

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#383

Post by AcerbicZero »

Apple has a monopoly on making apple products to sell in apple stores? Quick call the feds!

Seriously, the game Apple/Google/etc have been playing has been pretty anti-consumer at times, and downright unjust at other times. That said, Epic's (cough cough tencent's) only move here is to turn this dumpster into a dumpster fire and I don't see that as a particularly helpful direction to go in.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#384

Post by misnome »

naikrovek wrote: post #373
bttrfl wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Following your logic, Fortnite's add-ons should clearly be free since the cost to make and sell them is minuscule in comparison to 400M Epic made in April alone [0]. [0] https://venturebeat.com/2020/06/15/epic-games-shareholders-s...

You may not know how to follow logic. No one is saying that Epic are doing bad things in order to maintain their monopoly position. Epic doesn't have a monopoly on any market. People ARE saying that Apple are doing bad things to maintain their monopoly position, and others are justifying that by saying that "running a business is expensive" as if that justifies a monopoly or monopolistic actions.

> Epic doesn't have a monopoly on any market.

Epic has a monopoly on selling items inside Fortnite.

The problem is that as soon as you allow narrowing your definition of words to whatever supports your argument, then they become meaningless.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#385

Post by cromwellian »

bttrfl wrote: post #359
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…

Following your logic, Fortnite's add-ons should clearly be free since the cost to make and sell them is minuscule in comparison to 400M Epic made in April alone [0]. [0] https://venturebeat.com/2020/06/15/epic-games-shareholders-s...

Games have a limited shelf life. I don’t really care about Epic. Fortnite won’t be around much longer when the next big game du jour comes out.

Whether or not Epic charges for their store is immaterial to whether one of the largest and most important general purpose computing platforms in the world is performing highway robbery.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#386

Post by Spivak »

tveita wrote: post #357
y7 wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it leads to fragmentation. If developers have a choice of app stores, then users have to install ALL app stores if they want access to the entire market. This happened with streaming services as well: when Netflix was the only prominent one, only that subscription was enough. Now you also need Amazon, Hulu, etc.

Apple could easily offer good enough terms on their app store that app developers would use them by free choice. Then you could personally keep using a single app store and enjoy the non-monopolistic prices.

That would never happen because there will always be a market for other gatekeepers who want to try and build their own lock-in even if Apple charged nothing.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#387

Post by gsich »

runako wrote: post #205
gsich wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Closed systems implicitly provide some level of assurance here. No they don't as I can't verify any of that. A perfect counterexample is the VW dieselsoftware.

(Edit: I did not downvote, this is a legitimate counterpoint.) > perfect counterexample is the VW dieselsoftware This is a great counterexample that inadvertently proves the point because in that case a) the software in question was exactly as delivered by the manufacturer so that b) consumers were able to receive compensation from rich VW for the faulty software. If the software stack was open, a malfunction could b…

With an open system, that flaw would have been detected way earlier. Now the original post was about closed hardware, so I'm not sure if this was the case here. I have never tried flashing some motor control of a car, but it's possibly not even restricted, so "open system" would more likely refer to "open source".

While there might be an incentive to restrict modifications (at least on a car, which is potentially dangerous), I don't see counterpoints to open-sourceing the software that runs on (the car in this example).

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#388

Post by Spivak »

danShumway wrote: post #303
lowbloodsugar wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you're frightened that another company might get control and... offer better terms than we have right now? While some people here might fall for this simple propaganda, I doubt the courts will. It is totally expected of Epic that they will at the same time make the claim about "freedom" and "choice" while signing exclusive deals so that customers are required to install the Epic store if they wish to play certain ga…

> while signing exclusive deals so that customers are required to install the Epic store if they wish to play certain games. A surprising number of people on Hackernews don't understand how Apple Arcade works. This isn't just specific to the mobile market. As an Open advocate and critic of DRM, it's been frustrating to watch gamers suddenly get very concerned about store choice and exclusives over the past few years,…

> If you're going to try and argue to me that the games PC market would be better if we had fewer stores.

If you hang around gaming forums you'll see this echoed plenty. If I could buy every single game ever through Steam I would without hesitation. I don't want Origin or the Epic store but I don't get the choice.

I mean this isn't a super uncommon sentiment. Everyone has a preference but not everyone agrees. But regardless fragmentation hurts everyone.

I would be totally fine with multiple stores on iOS devices on the condition that every app is available on every store for the same price-ish (like you can't snub a store by making it 1000x because that effectively takes away choice).

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#389

Post by jVinc »

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…

Apple doesn't have a monopoly, people are free to chose other platforms. You can't claim harm on end-users due to higher costs when literally every single costumer of Apple chose their product and ecosystem despite it being more expensive.

> Why not the same feelings for Apple who's made this far more extreme and far more anti-competitive.

Because you can't abuse a monopoly when you don't have a monopoly. Apple isn't being anti-competitive. In fact by the very nature of your argument that they are hurting themselves by having high prices and are welcoming competition as consumers could chose cheaper alternatives, which most actually do as Apple only sits on like 14% of the market. Microsoft on the other hand tried to misuse their near 100% position one market to corner a different one in order to kill of competitors and take it for themselves.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#390

Post by cycloptic »

MR4D wrote: post #341
izacus wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you also living in a crippling fear because you have the ability to buy things in multiple stores in your city? Is that a nightmare as well?

Ha! That was pretty funny. :) But actually, there is a big difference - I can buy jeans anywhere. I can buy Levi jeans anywhere. If I had to go to Macy’s so that I could get a shirt (with no alternative), and then had to go to Nordstrom to get socks (with no alternative), and then..... then yeah, that would be crippling. There is a reason amazon and Walmart are so powerful - you can get anything in one stop. Bundling…

>it’s just a pain in the butt masquerading as “choice”.

It's not when they actually have to compete on price. Then you pick the one which offers you the lowest price for what you're looking for.

Post reply on HN