Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes • Hacker News Board

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#431

Post by zepto » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:39 PM UTC

wvenable wrote: post #402

52-6F-62 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logical conclusion then is that the only device that should be allowed to be manufactured is a personal computer. Companies producing specialized hardware/software couplings does not preclude another company developing open options. I usually choose an open option for most of what I do but when it comes to some mindless gaming or my phone that I use for some sensitive matters I want them limited in their scope in…

> does not preclude another company developing open options. Agreed. But they don't. I think this the point of government intervention to require or provide incentive to do something which benefits society even if it doesn't benefit the company. Automobile safety and emissions limits comes to mind for me.

Perhaps they would if they didn’t think they could prevail through antitrust legislation.

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#432

Post by strictnein » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:39 PM UTC

clansimus wrote: post #329

nicetryguy wrote: post #75

I'm surprised at all of the negativity here. The changes proposed would be great for developers, even if (most) of the companies involved are shady, their reasons are selfish, and the obvious "astroturfiness" of the website is laughably dissonant and reeks like a dirty think tank that hasn't been cleaned in months. Apple has no qualms about absolutely screwing developers historically. I'm happy to see some pushback.

Because "great for developers" just shouldn't matter. It should be about what the consumers want.

The developers are the ones being abused by Apple, so yeah, it should matter.

Companies shouldn't be allowed to abuse their market dominance, regardless of whether the abused are other companies or consumers.

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#433

Post by capableweb » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:39 PM UTC

xlii wrote: post #215

ketzu wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Epic is in my eyes evil company and they done a lot of bad things in area I care about. Can you elaborate on that? It's hard to follow for me. Also: You don't give money to epic, you also think the goal of spotify in that case makes sense. But you are willing to hurt a goal that you think makes sense because someone you don't like also thinks that goal is worth fighting for? This seems unnecessary and a bad strateg…

Epic introduced the concept of exclusivity on the PC gaming scene. Earlier Steam (which arguably is monopoly) provided option to buy games but those games could be distributed from outside - and many games did so. Right now Epic locks some of the games in their EGS store. Few kickstarted games were "bought" by Epic into (and which I personally backed, but I have no access to unless I accept their conditions). There i…

> Epic introduced the concept of exclusivity on the PC gaming scene

Which event are you referring to exactly? I think the first time I encountered something related to exclusivity on PC gaming was the first time I bought CS:Source and had to download and sign up with Steam to be able to run it, even though I got it on a CD/DVD. This must have been around 2005 or so I think.

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#434

Post by sixstringtheory » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:40 PM UTC

teddyh wrote: post #276

Razengan wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

..What? If X isn't a dealbreaker, then obviously customers are fine with X. If they weren't, it would be a dealbreaker.

There is a vast gulf of nuance between “fine” and “dealbreaker”.

And that gulf is different for everyone. You can’t dictate it to others.

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#435

Post by yazaddaruvala » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:40 PM UTC

nicetryguy wrote: post #388

clansimus wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because "great for developers" just shouldn't matter. It should be about what the consumers want.

That's an easy opinion to have when it's not your livelihood. Does consumer centric focus necessitate draconian developer policies?

I appreciate that Apple's high bar makes it harder for all iOS developers to make a living. However, with all respect, there might just be too many iOS developers.

Apple setting an increasingly high quality bar that weeds out the bottom 90% of all iOS developers might seem draconian for anyone weeded out but this is competition at its finest. It is how markets in general ensure the best quality product.

Obviously, there is also the matter of "How much should Apple get paid to enforce these policies? Is 30% too high for in-app-purchases?" those are good numbers to negotiate. But frankly all non-FOSS software products I've encountered before and after iOS continually proved they need developer policies to ensure they are built to be long-term customer centric.

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#436

Post by wvenable » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:40 PM UTC

makerofthings wrote: post #263

As a consumer, I really like how the AppStore works and I buy iPhones for me and for my family specifically because there is only one store and one way of subscribing and one way of using in-app purchases. I really, really hope Apple win this. I just don't want to have to deal with the possibility that every app is going to have its own in-app-purchase dark patterns. If everyone that wants to be able to side-load alt…

It's great but I think being charged 30% on every single app purchase (and yes, you pay that -- not the developers) after paying thousands of dollars for a device is crazy. I know Apple fans aren't particularly price sensitive -- it's a trillion dollar company for a reason.

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#437

Post by cwhiz » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:40 PM UTC

actuator wrote: post #343

cwhiz wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft does not allow anyone else to sell digital Xbox games. This is the crux of all of this. Apple is doing what everyone else is doing. Google charges 30% and kicked Fortnite off the play store. Steam charges 15-30%. Microsoft and Sony have a monopoly on digital distribution of games on their console platforms, and charge some percent that I can't easily find. Hell, if you take this thought to conclusion, Epic…

> Apple is doing what everyone else is doing Microsoft has the Xbox Game Pass app on Android, Apple is doing the opposite. > but if that is illegal then it should also be illegal for Epic to have a monopoly on skins in Rocket League. I think the analogy doesn't fit. Like a laptop/desktop, smartphones are general computing platforms. Specific purpose devices like iPods, Nintendo Switch really don't fit into this categ…

>Microsoft has the Xbox Game Pass app on Android, Apple is doing the opposite.

I don't see the relevance? Microsoft does not allow any other company to distribute digital games for Microsoft consoles. You, nor anyone else, may create an Xbox store and sell digital games that will run on Xbox consoles.

>I think the analogy doesn't fit. Like a laptop/desktop, smartphones are general computing platforms. Specific purpose devices like iPods, Nintendo Switch really doesn't fit into this category much less a game.

If smartphones are computing platforms, then Apple doesn't have a monopoly, because then you can choose another computing platform. Apple products as computing platforms are an extreme minority. In order for Apple to have a monopoly you have to redefine the platform to be the App Store specifically. If you redefine the terms to just be the App Store, then that same definition would, and should, apply to any digital store.

Should Microsoft and Sony be forced to allow the Steam Store within their respective consoles? Maybe? But perhaps that is the fate Microsoft is trying to avoid and why Microsoft aren't going nuclear on Apple.

>The last thing I would want is for few companies to own everything, everyone should get a chance to compete on equal terms.

Is that not what we have? If you don't like Apple then you can go buy an Android phone. If you don't like macOS you can go run Windows or Linux. Who has the monopoly here?

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#438

Post by tshaddox » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:42 PM UTC

tombert wrote: post #378

clansimus wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because "great for developers" just shouldn't matter. It should be about what the consumers want.

A worse time for developers means worse apps, worse apps means less-happy consumers. They aren't mutually exclusive.

That's absolutely not true. Developers can and often do have a hostile relationship with consumers who use their software. The most obvious example of this is malware developers. Operating systems and software distribution platforms often have rules to prevent malware. That's clearly a restriction on developers but (if done well) it means better apps for consumers. I think the same can be said for less obvious cases, like adware, tracking, shady free trial or subscription plans, bait and switch pricing in e-commerce, and many other antipatterns or dark patterns.

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#439

Post by Apocryphon » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:42 PM UTC

M4v3R wrote: post #395

izacus wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To me the iPhone is a console, end of story. This would be true if iPhone would be only a toy. But it's also the only source of person-to-person communication, source of news and primary computing device for large part of USA population. And that makes it very different from a PS5. By market share. By use. By impact. And IMPACT is what we're measuring here.

Where do you draw the line, though? PlayStation / Xbox are basically computers from a technical standpoint. They have hundreds of millions of users. They also store your personal data and credit card information should you provide it.

Apple seems to be portraying them as (potentially) life-saving technologies, for one thing

https://www.macrumors.com/2018/12/06/apple-watch-real-storie...

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#440

Post by ascagnel_ » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:43 PM UTC

danShumway wrote: post #199

dpratt wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a flawed analogy. The correct one would be Cheerios printing "If you buy me at Costco, I cost $1 less" on the outside of the box. No rational retailer that isn't Costco would carry that product.

Eh. A better analogy would be Cheerios sticking an insert inside their box of cereal that said, "save $1 at Costco". That kind of behavior is pretty common with physical retailers; most boxed products I buy will contain inserts that advertise replacement parts and other products from other sources. Apple isn't just banning apps from mentioning competing stores in app descriptions, it's banning them from mentioning co…

Serious question: what counts as "inside" the app, when the app itself is free?

The free-to-play model that Epic is relying on (and, with some variability, the other players are relying on, where the apps themselves are "free" with a paid service) somewhat breaks the conventions we're used to discussing, and there aren't really analogies.

The closest comparison I can make to these services are how PC MMORPGs (think World of Warcraft) used to be sold -- at retail, a user would make a single purchase that included a version of the game's client and a code that granted them some time in the game, so they'd be getting a "complete" product with the purchase. If Fortnite cost $5, but included whatever that'd convert to in VBucks, this discussion would be very, very different; same with if Spotify charged $10 for their app but included the first month free. In this case, Apple & Google, as retailers, would get their percentage (as non-recurring revenue), but Epic and Spotify would be free to continue booking 100% of revenue on an ongoing basis, but would need to invest a lot more in marketing, since free on-boarding is a massive driver for user adoption.