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

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#611

Post by lostgame » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 3:54 AM UTC

cromwellian wrote: post #408

Spivak wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really think it's about the number. I try not to think about these kinds of things in terms of what different companies "deserve." Apple can get away with demanding a 30% cut on their platform and they do so without much arm twisting. Nobody has to support macOS or iOS, and both developers and customers can completely ignore their existence. They'll be missing out on a lucrative customer base but that's true…

Is Nike so far ahead of every other shoe manufacturer? What's the margin on a pair of Nikes? How many young kids waste family money on a brand who makes the shoes for a fraction in Southeast Asia. How about Christian Louboutain? There's also the sunk cost for many people. If you've bought tons of content in the App Store, you'd have to rebuy everything if you switched to another ecosystem. For the same reason, if you…

>> Is Nike so far ahead of every other shoe manufacturer?

From personal experience, yes. Easily. It's like comparing a Wal-Mart 'First Act' electric guitar to a Fender Stratocaster, or one of those awful Crosley turntables to a pair of Technics SL-1200s.

I have particularly sensitive feet, and ride a push scooter everywhere so cheap soles will wear quickly. I'll go through 4 pairs of $30 knockoff shoes a year instead of buying a pair of Nikes for $100 and enjoying them for three or more years. I live in Toronto and make my pilgramage to the actual Nike retail outlet in the Eaton's centre once a year to see what's new, try things on, and buy just one pair of shoes between $100-200. As a result, my closet is full of stylish, comfortable shoes that have lasted years and years. :)

YMMV, but honestly the same goes for Apple for me. I'm still using a G5 tower from 2005 with 16GB RAM and 2x1TB SSD's on the daily. I paid a couple grand for that back in the day (with about 4GB RAM originally and a 120GB HDD, I believe)...I don't have a single PC tower or laptop left except a hackintoshed Lenovo that's only a couple years old, despite buying a bunch.

Nike is not 'so far ahead' of every other shoe manufacturer, but, similar to Apple, they are only comparable in any way to similarly-priced manufacturers of their tier - Adidas, Reebok, or Microsoft Surface, Alienware.

The Surface is probably the only portable I've had the pleasure to use that is comparable to the build quality and feel of Apple's manufacturing.

Gucci, for example; is a company that represents true excess for the sake of excess. (What's that Lil' Pump line? 'Spent 10k on my Gucci bed sheets'?)

As an iOS dev for a living, I think the 30% is bullshit. But from what I've read/heard, it's based off something similar to retail margins.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#612

Post by quotha » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 3:55 AM UTC

lwansbrough wrote: post #554

nodamage wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, let's say hypothetically Epic allowed the sale of third-party skins in Fortnite. Would a skinmaker would be entitled to demand the following concessions? 1. The ability to install skins outside of the V-bucks store. 2. The ability to pay for Fortnite skins using payment methods other than V-bucks. Alternatively, should Epic not be permitted to impose the following restrictions in their Fortnite store? 1. Skins mu…

I think it's a very American perspective to see this as black or white. You should be able to tell something is wrong by looking at what Apple is doing. Looking at how Fortnite operates does not give me the same feeling. Obviously Fortnite as a platform is not the same as iOS as a platform, and holding monopoly positions for each yield completely different outcomes. They are not equivalent.

Maybe you should read more about Epic games the “private” company. It is owned mainly by Tencent which answers to the Chinese government.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#613

Post by quotha » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 3:58 AM UTC

m463 wrote: post #450

misnome wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

wouldn't that be a monopsony (only one buyer of your goods)

Yes you would but I have an iPhone and still many other ways to play Fortnite if I wanted to, so clearly other buyers here.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#614

Post by cromwellian » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 3:58 AM UTC

9nGQluzmnq3M wrote: post #609

gsich wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this argument often, but there are counterexamples like Minecraft, CSGO, World of Warcraft (one of the few MMOs that still have a subscription). So it's entirely possible that Fortnite will stay.

Minecraft has arguably evolved into its own "platform" with people building and sharing their own worlds (some on Minecraft's own managed Realms, many not) and tons of third-party games built on top of Minecraft accessible to the public. Fortnite may evolve in this direction some day, but it hasn't yet.

Roblox similarly.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#615

Post by sudosysgen » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 3:59 AM UTC

ohazi wrote: post #267

darkwizard42 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you are using two points that are similar enough. If Australia bans encryption, you as a consumer who resides in Australia has a high switching cost (moving, new job, residence, etc.) and thus the consumer loses out. If Apple starts to use that power badly... you can switch to a number of competitor feature phones with largely the same feature and app capabilities (Android being the most obvious) In a m…

The points are not supposed to be similar... you're missing the part of the parent's argument where one is used as a tool to enforce the other, when otherwise it would be difficult/impossible to enforce. There is only one real competitor: Android. Google would very much like to have the same degree of control that Apple does over their ecosystem, but they're holding back for now so that they can point to Apple as bei…

I'd argue there is a third competitor in the form of Huawei/Xiaomi. Despite fears of spying by the Chinese, which might be justified, their phones tend to have better prices all the way to the ultra market, and due to the fact that they want to allow you to sideload GsmCore and Play Services, will never be locked down.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#616

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 4:08 AM UTC

modeless wrote: post #553

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we could make similar arguments about something like Chromebooks. You pay for the hardware, but then Google expects you to store personal data in a Google cloud data center. Your data and access to you is the product. They use pre-installed software, e.g., Chrome, as well as numerous other read-only, auto-running programs, and automatic updates, as a way to enforce control, including testing user behaviour thro…

You could but you would be wrong because Chromebooks and Android phones support alternative methods of app distribution including both sideloading and competing app stores. Plus, the operating system itself is open source and the hardware is unlockable to run your own modified OS builds under your own complete control. In particular, Fortnite is still available on Android with its new payment system after being remov…

Yes, but Google does not expect nor intend that users will use those alternative possibilities. The tests here are "Do they make it easy and encourage it?" and "What are the defaults?" The company does not support running an Android phone without using Google Play Store, does it? It is true Apple puts much more effort into locking users out, but to suggest because Google does not make that same effort the company is actually encouraging users (outside of Google) to run "modified OS builds" is not convincing. They neither encourage it nor expect it. Nor do they make it easy. The focus of the company is on encouraging users to accept the defaults. If those defaults were aimed at giving users "complete control" then there would be no need for the term "modified OS builds" because users would not need to make modifications. The defaults are aimed at sending data to the mothership. Google control.

If I want "complete control" I can use *BSD.

There are far more similarities than differences between the big tech companies. None of them offers the user anything approaching "complete control". Their employees must engage in no small amount of self-delusion to argue otherwise.

If Google is so different from Apple, why do they need a "Play Store" pre-installed on every mobile device. Where did they get that idea. Worse is that Google will use it to siphon more user data and feed its core business.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#617

Post by dev_tty01 » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 4:10 AM UTC

cromwellian wrote: post #572

scarface74 wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This obviously comes from a misunderstanding of economics. The price of a good is what people are willing to pay for it. Why are people willing to pay more for Nike’s than Converse? There are literally hundreds of Android phones, yet people are willing to pay more for iPhones. People have been paying a premium for Apple’s goods for forty years. Instead of complaining about the evilness of Apple, maybe the problem is…

"There are literally hundreds of Android phones, yet people are willing to pay more for iPhones." Because there are hundreds of manufacturers of Android ones, and only one for Apple. Microeconomics states that in a competitive market, price will tend to the marginal cost, and this is exactly what happened in Android. It is not "what people are willing to pay", it's that Android phones have competitive pressures that…

Ok, you don't like the single App store model for your phone. That's fine. However, I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that your desire is that of a tiny minority.

Due to Apple's extraordinary success and complete dominance of smartphone profits, I think it is safe to assume the vast majority of users love the App store model. They don't read Hacker News, they don't understand how computers work, and they don't care. What they know is find an app, hit a button, boom. No worries about payment security, malware, etc. (Ok, no malware is a slight overstatement, but not by much.) Software updates are handled automatically.

It is undeniable that people are willing to pay for the current experience. None of this other stuff is really relevant. If you want sideload capability, don't buy an iPhone. There is no deceptive marketing here. Everyone knows the deal with respect to software. The vast majority of users have no thought towards side loading or even what that means. I think any representative survey would find that the single app store model is a feature for the vast majority of their customers, not a detriment.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#618

Post by sunkenvicar » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 4:12 AM UTC

I hope the federal government takes care of these rogue Chinese Companies.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#619

Post by sudosysgen » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 4:13 AM UTC

ghostwriter wrote: post #525

enragedcacti wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By omitting details and framing each transaction as an isolated incident, you can make almost any monopoly or anti-consumer practice sound like just another business. Nobody forces anyone into interaction with Carnegie Steel. People want to use their steel because they know they can benefit from it, financially big. And they purchase it voluntarily by the most fair means of it, by trading their money in exchange for…

so, where's the flaw? The fact that somebody sometime ago named another corporation a monopoly by the same ridiculous criterion as "too big" and discharged it, doesn't make it anyhow right. Was there gatekeeping from the government for new players to enter the same market? Any quotas or tariffs by chance?

In a completely free market, monopolies are natural outcomes of some circumstances.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#620

Post by nmfisher » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 4:17 AM UTC

RyanShook wrote: post #591

nmfisher wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m guessing they are very confident in their legal position. Just think how much it would be worth to Epic to run their own Games store on iOS - literally billions. This is big brain thinking from Tim Sweeney.

They’re definitely taking a gamble, rooting for them but I wouldn’t bet against Apple on this one. Also seems like you would have better odds if you took on only Apple or Google instead of both at the same time.

Oh, I completely agree, and I really can't see a solid foundation for Epic's claims at all.

But, on the other hand, anti-trust was never my area of legal practice, it's a highly specialized area of US law (something I'm not familiar with in the slightest), and thousands of (billable!) man-hours would have already been spent researching, crafting and refining their argument.

In other words, my legal opinion is meaningless here. I'm interested to see how it plays out.