451–460 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look into who owns Epic .
Tim Sweeney is the controlling shareholder of Epic. If Tim Sweeney decides to do something there is literally nothing TenCent could do to stop him outside of a lawsuit.
Obviously false. TenCent controls Epic’s access to the Chinese market, which is much larger than the iOS market has ever been for Epic.
Epic know they can't win this using the Law. Apple will argue they built a market of nBillion customers, which anyone can access for a fee. What Epic hope to do, is win commercial support and build pressure on apple to lower their fees. Might work too.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-app-store/apple-low...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about don't tell me what device I can or can't use? I want to sideload on my iPhone.
Nobody is telling you what device you can use. Why would you buy a device that doesn’t do what you want?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is the choice is taken away from you though. Just like he said with the game market. If you want to play Game A, you go and download/install Game A's publishing app store. If you want to then play Game B, rinse and repeat. You will be forced to use so many different app stores and won't have a choice to NOT use their app store "IF" it progresses like it has on the desktop. No proof it will/won't either.
There are alternative stores for the same game on the desktop. A trivial example is that some games can be installed directly by downloading a file from the developer, or via Humble Bundle, GOG or Steam. So this business model is possible. And it's the friendliest to end users, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that there's no hypocrisy, but I think Apple is acting consistently as a platform owner in both cases. Yes, iOS users should being made aware of tracking software but it doesn't mean that they should continue being the sole store curator for their platform. We know from past experience that it's commercially viable for platform owners to successfully develop secure operating systems that allow third party dev…
But users already can by an Android or Linux phone instead. It's not like Apple has the monopoly on smartphones.
The problem is that Apple built an artificial monopoly in the distribution of apps by making the App Store the only curator of the platform. People who decided to purchase an iPhone with an iOS license should have the right to use the device to it's full extent (along with being able to fix it themselves if something breaks). If you don't feel safe running apps outside of the App Store, you don't need to!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have the choice to not use iOS and not use the Apple App Store. You might not like Apple’s attitude around their operation of the App Store so you don’t use their devices. You might have missed some great apps, but there are still many great alternatives on Android.
Imagine the same choice on a PC. Microsoft doesn't allow a ceeatin software just switch to MacOS or Linux. All the software you previously bought is useless and you have to buy it again. So because multiple AppStores is too much of hassle you need to keep multiple smartphones or buy the same software twice.
Sure, you could go with AMD but does having other choices excuse a company? It certainly violates the spirit of anti-trust laws. Apple makes and controls 46% of all the mobile devices in the US. The nearest competitor is Samsung, who makes 25%.
If Apple allowed other OS's to operate on their phone, then they could say "If you don't like our integrated app store policies and policy of not allowing other app stores, use a different OS". But until they do that, the OS and the hardware have to be seen as one thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of cross-store games on PC. And even if some games end up being exclusive you might still benefit as a player thanks to the competition. If Epic started offering a very bad user experience game devs would hesitate to publish exclusively through them because they'd fear reduced revenue. It's also a very good thing for game devs who aren't at the mercy of the whims of a single company. Steam no longer…
> Epic started offering a very bad user experience game devs would hesitate to publish exclusively through them because they'd fear reduced revenue. This is demonstrably not true. Epic's launcher has been a laughing stock since it was announced. * It only recently got any form of Achievements (that are completely undiscoverable) * It has no way to join a party with your friends. I think it has Friends support but am…
And I also should note, half of those items don't need to implemented in a store. People ask for them because they are implemented as extras in other stores, but strictly speaking the distribution and support are the only things the store needs to have to be called a store. Achievements, friend lists, user reviews, and cloud saves can be provided by separate services and work just as well, and could result in a higher cut for the vendors if the store doesn't have to shelter the cost for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No - it’s not going to add anything at all for users except being forced to deal with a bunch of shady app stores, some of which will be deeply hostile to privacy. It means lower prices for those who are smart enough to use the cheaper store and those who cannot will stay on the official store that takes its 30% cut. In fact even the bare existence of other stores would mean that the cut probably goes down, since A…
> It means lower prices for those who are smart enough to use the cheaper store This is guaranteed false. Unless the ‘cheaper store’ has almost all of the customers, you will need to support most of the stores, otherwise you’ll simply lose access to customers. Just to break even, developers will be forced to support multiple stores. If consumers want a cheaper option, there is nothing stopping them from buying a chea…
That is one extra option for the consumer to choose, if they want it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody is telling you what device you can use. Why would you buy a device that doesn’t do what you want?
Why do people move to America when there is crime happening there? Maybe there are good things in America as well. You appreciate the good things and then try to fix the bad things.
All countries have crime, and the switching cost is immense. However some countries are much worse than others which makes it worth it.
Phones are at parity in terms of features, and the switching cost is trivial.