cm0002Epic's Tim Sweeney declares "the long national nightmare of the Apple tax is ended" as appeals court officially denies Apple's emergency motion
aceslipStill fees in the Epic Games Store, Tim?
Epic Games store isn’t the only way you can download software on Windows, so it’s not really a fair comparisons.
A healthy iOS app economy relies on competing app stores.
I’m not really sure how that would work. iOS has always been a closed system with apps needed to go through the store. The one store. And it’s thrived.
Yes you can make the argument about jailbreaking to sideload etc. but realistically it was an os designed to have a single point of entry. I’m all for abandoning fees and more source options but this is not the way to that. Nor does this help completion or open up other avenues for a competing App Store. And let’s be honest, getting into the Apple ecosystem, you should already be aware of its limitations.
It’s does give Tim Sweeney a hardon thinking he’s a winner.
Just because iOS has always been exclusive doesn’t mean that’s a good thing. If you don’t want to use other stores, that should be your choice as a user or an IT dept, not the manufacturer’s.
And yeah, the article is about payment systems, and the same applies. If I don’t want to use Apple’s payment system as a dev, I should be free to choose a competitor. If I want to provide the choice of multiple payment options to the user, again, I should have that option.
I dislike Epic Games as well because of their exclusivity deals. If I want to buy a game on another store, I should be able to make that choice, and game devs should be able to sell it on multiple platforms.
Okay. One question.
Why would company A need to accomodate any other “app store” in their product, especially if one of their product’s selling point is how streamlined it is? I am not even talking about apple but in general, alas even in their case - they made it clear how it works. People accepted it and bought their product. It doesn’t hurt anyone, and they are not the only player either. So why attack them now? On what basis?
Why would company A need to accomodate any other “app store” in their product, especially if one of their product’s selling point is how streamlined it is?
Why should Microsoft allow for other browsers to be installed on Windows? Why should Google allow for other search engines being selectable on Android and in Chrome? The reason in all these cases is the same: it is anti-competitive, and creates a monopoly. This results in unfairly high costs to users, where these users are 3rd party software developers or end users. Due to this countries have laws against this.
Companies obviously wouldn’t want to accommodate others in ways that cost them money, but that does not make it morally acceptable from a societal point of view.
But you are not enforced to use Windows or Android. Closed ecosystem is part of the product in this case. Nobody stops anyone else from creating, for example, Linux. So how is it anti-competetive?
It comes down to market share. For smart phones, you basically have two options for OS, and Apple is dominant in many markets. For desktops, Microsoft’s position is even more dominant. When you have such a dominant position, there’s a lot of room to abuse that position, so the more restrictions you should have on being able to abuse that position.
Linux has a vanishingly small market position vs Windows and Android/iOS, so it’s not really a competitor when it comes to anti-trust.
But part of the reason Apple is dominant is their closed garden approach - that is literally part of their product. I cannot understand how that’s a bad thing. For me it’s akin to a flute manufacturer producing flutes and everything is okay until they get popular. Suddenly they are hated because they don’t produce flutes incorporating parts from different manufacturers? Even if they produce them to allow exchanging the parts?
Same for Microsoft and their Internet Explorer case. I didn’t understand back then I don’t understand now why they lost lawsuit if they didn’t, IIRC, block you from installing anything else.
It would be different matter for me if it was for example Windows explictly blocking you from downloading another browser than Internet Explorer. That’s abuse. But just having a default made by the same company being bad?
Apple is dominant is their closed garden approach
I really don’t think that’s true, I think Apple became dominant through being first to market, having attractive design (was largely sold as a fashion/luxury item), and attracting devs early on (mostly through being first to market). Most of the value of the App Store was the quality of app reviews, which was due to developer fees (raise barrier to releasing trash) and actual app reviews, and that’s how Apple earned their 30% cut. Since iPhones were a luxury item, they attracted people willing to actually spend money on apps, which attracted more developers.
I really can’t see how not having other options somehow improves the attractiveness of iOS. Having high quality apps on the App Store made it more attractive, sure, but it didn’t make other app stores unwanted, in fact not being able to side load apps/stores has been a complaint since pretty much the beginning.
Nobody is saying Apple is bad because they’re popular, they’re saying Apple is bad because they’re anti-competitive.
I didn’t understand back then I don’t understand now why they lost lawsuit if they didn’t, IIRC, block you from installing anything else.
Microsoft restricted access to internal APIs that made the browser work a lot faster, so other browsers would always be slower and a worse experience vs Internet Explorer because Microsoft prevented them from getting the most out of the hardware.
You could install an alternative, sure, but it would be hamstrung and most would blame the browser, not MS.
Having a default wasn’t the problem, Microsoft still has a default browser to this day and it’s totally fine. Being anticompetitive, however, isn’t fine.
Did not know about the API. This clears a lot, thanks.
And about closed garden being wanted - if evrything goes through the people who made the thing, then these things are guaranteed to work on the thing. No wondering, no thinking, it just works. And such closed and tight thing was something I heard from people boasting iphones as best thing.
That’s mostly copium.
There are some benefits to Apple’s ecosystem, such as iMessage and iCloud working across devices, but that has nothing to so with the App Store, but Apple’s first party apps. The App Store certainly has value through its audits, but that could still be a thing with rival stores existing on the platform.
What harm does having more options for installing apps have for iPhone users? If they don’t want to use them, they don’t have to. Do it like Android and tell users that those apps aren’t reviewed by Apple and could cause problems, but only the first time (or perhaps the first time per source).
I actually have seen the closed garden nature of Apple be listed amongst its attractive features between laypeople. There’s no fiddly bits, everything is simplified, almost no configuration required, and the closed garden means there’s some implied quality control going on. For people for whom computers and technology is scary, the closed garden is a feature, not a bug.
Sure, and you can have that by not installing stuff outside the App Store. I don’t see how having the option is a bad thing…
I absolutely and completely agree with you. I’m just saying, my aging mother does not. Having the option, to her, would make the iPhone a far inferior product. She is not alone in her opinion.
I just don’t understand that. It doesn’t add any complexity, you can literally ignore it. In fact, I’m guessing most Android users don’t know you can install apps outside the Play Store, so that’s an example of it literally not mattering if you don’t want to use that feature.
The panic at the existence of additional options you don’t use and will never use is, unfortunately, strong in some people. It is what it is.
I also have an iPhone and absolutely would love a 2nd store. I’m trying to figure out how to side load as it is, so I can get a version of YouTube that can keep playing audio while the screen isn’t on. I’d love that. My mother would be in fits of panic at the thought.
I dont think most android users know you can install alternstive app stores and otherwise sideload apps