>On no other platform would we accept a scenario where the owner of that platform dictated not only the tools developers can use, but restricted the ways they talk about their products and pricing. We would call it unfair, monopolistic, and overbearing. But on our smartphones, it’s just a fact of life.
I am pretty sure game consoles have been doing this basically since their existence. None of them allow you to make 'A' rated games for example. (Considering the topic of the article, it should be obvious I am referring to "restricted the ways they talk about their products and pricing" here)
Retail stores keep some amount of control over signage, I doubt Walmart would be particularly happy if a sign said you could buy X device cheaper directly from the manufacturer.
In reality Apple is continuing a trend that is normal for store fronts, digital or physical.
However, the "walled garden" of Apple is largely why I stick with iOS. I don't want to be forced to trust every company with my credit card information (a developer implementing their own payment system will be an immediate delete for me, with very few exception... like Amazon for obvious reasons).
Also lets not forget that we keep seeing reports that iOS users are more likely to spend money than Android users. I would argue that the increased income from users makes up for the 30% cut.
What? I'm a console developer. I can use any PC I want to deploy software to the console. I can use Intel, AMD, or any other x86 compatible chip (mainly because I don't want to deal with the headache of cross compiling). I can even choose the compiler I use and the IDE. Sure the debuggers they ship run on Windows, but that's just the tools they know how to write, and they are damn good tools.
The people down-voting and arguing with you are missing the point entirely.[0]
Yes, console makers have monopoly stores on their platforms. Even if you include physical copies, because of the licensing platforms, it's still the same basic idea. (They're also criticized by some for these reasons.)
The difference is that those platforms are not using those quasi-monopolies as leverage to force developers to use their tools. Could they? Yes. But you can't use the capability someone has to do something to defend Apple actually doing the thing.
[0] - The down-voters seem only to disagree with you. That's not what a down-vote is for, and voting this way actively harms the discussion.
If you use a cross-platform tool like Xamarin or Unity, the only step of the development process that requires macOS is the publishing-to-app-store - and debugging on actual iOS hardware, if need be.
So it's not that bad, you can do most of your everyday work on whatever OS you prefer.
It is bad. Macs are expensive relative to how much usable silicon you get, and supporting a studio that needs to support iOS is tens of thousands of dollars to Apple's pocket I'd rather not spend. Contrast to Android which lets you cross compile from any OS and platform.
Also, if you think developing in Xamarin or Unity can be done off platform with some last minute debugging and ship... then you're in a reality many of us wish existed.
So develop for a cheaper platform. First it was complaints that Apple takes too much money from the app sales, now it is Apple's hardware requirements are just too expensive.
I get it, Apple takes a 30% hit and it is a lot of money. But managing your own payment platform and sales is going to consume 15% already, so I don't want to hear about how outrageous this is. No one accounts for what they are getting for their 30% when they whine about how Apple is being unfair.
Apple is a boutique brand that has a vast customer base of people who don't mind spending money. Want access to that? Pay! This is not a unique formula, look at an NFL franchise.
Right, you can deploy your game to any console from a variety of IDEs. The end user who purchases your game, if on a console, not PC, has to purchase it through the console maker's store, they have no alternatives (generally). Want that newest Fire Emblem game on the Switch? Head on over to the eshop!
It is an issue on game consoles too, just because it has somehow become accepted it doesn't mean it isn't an issue that you cannot run whatever you want on your own hardware. "Others are doing <bad thing> too" isn't much of an excuse.
Also note that it isn't all game consoles, there are various open game consoles, though since they are not made by huge companies with huge marketing budgets they are not as popular (perhaps Atari's new Linux powered console[1] will change that, but we'll see). However their existence means that games consoles are not synonymous with locked down walled gardens.
It's almost as if there is a very large hacking scene for game consoles because people want to run whatever they can on the hardware they bought. Let's also not forget the whole Other OS fiasco with the PS3.
I'm sure if the next Xbox had the ability to run Windows 10 it would sell like crazy.
I wish game consoles were open, but I don't care as much because they're single purpose. A PS4 is not designed to be your primary computer.
An iPhone, by contrast, will be many people's primary or even they're only computer. What does it mean for our society if a single company has control over what that computer can display?
I see this issue as broader than just competition—I think it's analogous to free speech.
There is a moral/philosophical connection to free speech and the app store pseudo-monopolies (code as speech), but it also happens to be very concrete in Apple's case: you literally cannot tell customers through your app what other alternatives might be used to pay you.
(And before someone comments about how this doesn't conflict with the 1st Amendment, you are obviously correct; but free speech is as much a societal value as a legal construct, and is not limited to the Bill of Rights as its sole champion.)
You view this as a bad thing. As a consumer, I view it as a good thing. I’m not sure if folks remember what “apps on mobile” were like before Apple came along, but it was the goddamn Wild West. The fact that it’s walled in, that I’m not going to get pwned, that my parents won’t (and won’t be tempted to by the promise of an extra $0.99 saving) is to my mind, a good thing.
If all this competition that the article talked about was such a good thing, apps would be cheaper on Android, and I, as a consumer, would switch. Fact is, the fact that Tinder et al are now bypassing Google’s mechanisms isn’t a good thing to me at all. It’s more the reason to stay on iOS.
The article writer is pissed he can’t get access to me without paying Apple’s toll, but what he doesn’t understand is that I am like it like that.
If Apple allowed side-loading tomorrow, their curated App Store wouldn't disappear. You would absolutely have the choice to only download software from the iOS App Store, where Apple is checking everything for you.
I don't oppose the App Store existing. I use it myself, and it's generally a great experience for the reasons you describe.
However, I don't think that a link that says "Click here to start your Netflix subscription" threatens that experience in the slightest; it's only a threat to Apple's revenue model. (While there are legitimate concerns about fraud/phishing/etc, that can be reviewed on a content level by Apple, as they already do in other respects.)
There are perhaps arguments against allowing side-loading; even if the process is cumbersome for non-techies, there remains a "dancing bunnies" [0] problem that might lead to malware on Grandma's phone (or, just a very poor software experience).
But even there, I'm not convinced that there isn't a reasonable tradeoff. While the needs for macOS and iOS are clearly different, the former has a very reasonable default that allows unsigned executables, while discouraging them to non-technical users, and giving a great experience buying and installing software through the App Store. (Strictly speaking, one can pseudo-sideload on iOS via XCode if one has the source, but at the cost of $99!)
I think a more reasonable policy might be requiring all apps to be code-signed (so malware and pirated apps can be shut down), but allow side-loading with a great number of scary warnings. Most people will still prefer the App Store experience, and as with the Mac App Store, the increased audience will usually be worth the 30% cut (which, by the way, if faced with "competition" from side-loading, may be pressured down into a more reasonable 10-20% range.)
Whether it's Apple, Nintendo, or Amazon, any platform that makes itself a mandatory middle-man between third-party buyers and sellers is rent-seeking extraction at best, and a net economic loss at worst (preventing value-creating relationships from existing at all). In my opinion, smart and reasonable regulations of such marketplace platforms would be a win for both economic growth and personal freedom.
> but free speech is as much a societal value as a legal construct, and is not limited to the Bill of Rights as its sole champion.)
Where, in the US, is the requirement that everyone has to let anyone say anything enshrined? AFAIK, it's not, and is (very) often confused with the Bill of Rights version.
It's enshrined in you and me. :) Law is not the only mechanism for upholding cultural values and norms.
One important distinction is that free expression is not limited to the "right to say anything"; it also includes the right to listen to the expression of others. See, for example, the rich history of librarians resisting turning over records of who reads what books, which could result in a chilling effect where people are scared to read controversial material.
> this is literally every major OS right now.... Mac, iOS, Android, Chromium, Windows....
No it's not! I can run whatever software I want on Windows, Mac, Android and Chromium.
> these are proprietary, private sector companies who fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders, not government entities.
I am not accusing Apple of literally breaking the first amendment. I do, however, think their actions have consequences for our society and democracy.
Imagine if side-loading books onto a Kindle was impossible, and Amazon implemented an App Store-style review process for everything sold on the Kindle store. Would you consider that a threat to free speech?
Well, consider what happened when someone made an iOS game about Apple factory workers in Foxconn: Apple killed it [1].
Now, it is absolutely Apple's prerogative to determine what is allowed on their storefront, just as any retailer can decide what to stock on its shelves. However, by completely blocking any form of side-loading, Apple is making decisions about what type of content their users are allowed to see on their devices. That's a problem if the iPhone is someone's primary computer, and perhaps their only computer.
Sure, and it's great that they provide that option, but it also severely limits the capabilities of what an app can do. I also don't think it's a coincidence that Apple has been dragging its feet on support for progressive web apps.
Why do we chain ourselves to such a limiting construct?
Companies; S,C, LLC. They did not exist, and by request they were willed into 'personhood' at the signing of a government pen. They were not required to approve the incorporation request. So, I ask this:
Why do we not enforce incorporated entities to also abide by the Bill of Rights as being extensions of the government?
They certainly weren't born, and there's no corporate death penalty. So it tells me they're an extension of government, as they were willed into being with their explicit consent.
I don't want private companies to be beholden to the same standard of free speech as the government!
Barns & Noble should be able to decide what types of books to put on their selves. Hacker News's moderators should be able to make decisions about what types of content lead to intellectual curiosity. And while I strongly believe all software platforms should allow sideloading, I also think Apple's curated, "safe" App Store is a great (optional) service for consumers who want it.
It makes more sense to think of iPhones/iPads as consoles. They're just as closed down and controlled. Some people are fine with console gaming, many are fine with limited computing on their phones.
If you're not, there's a lot of Android phones, varying from open to extremely open, for general purpose computing.
You typical developer on iOS is targeting a broad spectrum of hardware (even within the iOS line, the software is able to run on various iphone skus dating back possibly 7-9 years).
Console? When I ship a PS4 build, it is THE PS4 BUILD. It has optimizations designed to maximize the memory buses that ship with the PS4 and the PS4 only.
I'm telling you the difference between a console (or embedded platform) versus a general computing device. There is a blurry line to be sure, but the smartphone and a gaming console are clearly on opposite sides of the line. Consoles have dedicated hardware for antialiasing, texture streaming, etc.
Well, if they are using the phone as their primary computer, it must be good enough. How is Apple stopping people from doing what they want to do with their phone?
And before you bring up an esoteric development scenario, I assure you that developers aren’t using their phone as their primary computer.
I would like those examples fixed as well. There needs to be stronger rights to repair, and with that allowing for right to run software on devices. With an increasingly digital world it is becoming more and more equivalent with free speech.
You can write a game and all at once target Xbox, Playstation, Switch, PC, MacOS, and Linux. You can do physical releases. You can upload your game anywhere, even provide it for distribution on your own website. Everyone has choice in the equation.
App stores are vampiric parasites and need to be dismantled. Either that, or these companies need their phone monopolies taken away.
And all those platforms have revenue sharing requirements.
You can’t distribute a Switch, PS4, or Xbox One game without giving the respective companies a cut of your sale.
Windows and Mac are the only exceptions, but you won’t get far without publishing to a digital store unless you can afford to drum up a whole lot
of name recognition all on your own (also costs money unless you hit the lottery like Mojang did).
That is mitigated by the fact that there are so many options. Gaming is an open space with tons of competition. All of the audience isn't glued to a single platform or two controlled by a single entity.
Gaming companies fight to win over gamers and developers. Not so for Apple and Google with their walled fiefdoms.
So instead of two competitors you have four (three consoles and the PC). Three of which have the same “walled garden” that Apple has but with a much larger barrier to entry and much stricter controls?
If you release a game on disc. The retailer + distributer get at least a 50% cut.
But you can only sell your Xbox, PS4 or Switch game through Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo (correspondingly), and you have to agree to their terms and pay whatever cut they want to take of your sales price.
It's not an intentional one though, it's just what the tools happen to run on. Sony aren't going to come after you if you run their SDK in a VM or something.
Apple intentionally restrict developers to only use Apple hardware and software to keep the ecosystem contained.
>Also lets not forget that we keep seeing reports that iOS users are more likely to spend money than Android users. I would argue that the increased income from users makes up for the 30% cut.
And arguably, a big reason for this is trust. Users feel more comfortable spending money in iOS specifically because it’s a walled garden and Apple vouches for the trustworthiness of the developers in it.
It’s telling that stories about devs behaving badly within the App Store (like the weird VPNs and parental controls that are basically enterprise MDM tools) get way more traction than stories about this.
> None of them allow you to make 'A' rated games for example.
The sad difference is that we don't care much about 'A' rated game, but we do care about useless 30% surcharge and more trouble on how to pay.
If you do care about 'A' rated games, I will gladly push your campaign and not argue whether it's a legitimate concern or not.
> I doubt Walmart would be particularly happy if a sign said you could buy X device cheaper directly from the manufacturer.
I agree completely, which is why I wouldn't expect Apple to accept on the app store (the market) to let description or screenshot talk about how it can be cheaper somewhere else.
Outside of the app store though, on the apps themselves, they shouldn't have any control over what the app say over where you can or cannot buy something. They don't own the device, it's mine. they may own their app store, that's fine, they are hosting it, but they don't own the device.
> a developer implementing their own payment system will be an immediate delete for me
Same goes for me and I'm on Android. The difference is the liberty to make that choice.
It's interesting that you cited retail. In retail, there's an actual cost to stocking items, especially in areas visible to the customer. No such cost exists on the app store, in fact Apple makes you pay extra to advertise for what retailers offer for their 30%.
App stores and retailers are different. There's almost no cost to list an app (for Apple, Google) and yet they charge a 30% fee. Apple, especially, is a text book anti competitive, monopoly in their terms and it's enforcement.
Also, the app store would be just as successful if not for their draconian rules, Mac is proof that ecosystems can thrive without Apple's stranglehold. The app store choke hold is all about the money
Around 1.5%. Probably even cheaper for the big fish.
> - Hosting the content (yes minimal but can't be ignored)
S3 charges $0.0007/GB and $0.00000004/request for downloads as their baseline. Assuming a typical app size of ~50MB, each download would cost $0.00003504. Updates would be even cheaper, since they are usually tiny delta packages.
> - Approval process (the people)
A problem that they imposed in the first place.
> - "Editors" that create the curated lists every day
See above.
> - Developer support hours (technically you get with the yearly subscription but I doubt that actually covers the cost of those hours).
Then charge the actual cost for support, or improve the documentation? It doesn't exactly seem fair to make the competent developers subsidize the people who bog down the support department. (Or, if it's actually common to use these, to use their monopoly to force devs to use a platform so awful that they actually need to call the support.)
> - The engineers building the developer tools (Xcode, the developer portal, TestFlight, etc)
Which are self-imposed problems and/or inferior to free third-party tools.
You may not see any of the behind-the-scenes costs that Apple has to pay for in supporting the ecosystem, but it is a well-known fact that Apple intentionally prices their software and services pretty close to cost, because they make their real profit on hardware sold and the software and services are just used to try to help drive hardware sales.
So, that 30% cost is really just the price of doing business in this ecosystem. It is entirely your choice as to whether or not you participate in this ecosystem.
That's wildly inaccurate. It's easily disprovable: Apple's costs aren't proportional to the pricing of software sold through it's stores. Does your refrigerator maker charge you as 30% premium on groceries stored in the fridge, or are there limitations on what groceries you can stock there?
The app store is wildly profitable, and Apple admits as much. While I have no objection to profits, we're all here discussing the issue because it's a tool used to unfairly thwart competition, impose monopolistic & unfair trade practices, which is why the EU and supreme Court, and possibly FTC are all involved in various complaints against Apple. If your fridge maker isn't allowed to regulate your groceries, Apple shouldn't be arbitrarily blocking and price gouging apps on their platform.
I don't know if you're aware of this, but in retail it's not unusual for the producer to pay the retailer for the space. Next time you're at the supermarket take a look at how many units of something are lined up on the shelf and notice the height of them. It's not random or an accident, it's all by contract.
If Apple were like Safeway then you'd have to pay them a few hundred grand to even be in the store, AND you will pay the 30% markup, AND guarantee a certain level of marketing spend out of your pocket (a portion of which will go to vendors/services they specify), AND if you don't make certain sales numbers they simply delete your app.
So there is no cost to maintaining a digital store, payments, employing reviewers (who actually work for Apple and are not outside contractors), developing an SDK, etc.?
The Mac software ecosystem isn’t exactly “thriving”. That’s most of the reason that Apple is trying to bring iOS developers to the Mac.
> Besides video games you could add movie rentals and sales, tv show rental and sales, music sales, PPV events, book sales, Steam...
Can you be more specific? I know plenty of places to rent 'A' movie for example. I also know plenty of alternative to Steam on PC, yet none on iOS device.
If you talked about games on console that can't be 'A' rated. I would agree completely that it's wrong and I'm pretty sure that almost everybody would agree. We just don't care about not being to play 'A' game on console.
If you do care, believe me, I would gladly say that what you are doing is positive. I won't say, well what about X other place that doesn't allow something else.
Consider if you upload a book to Amazon to sell they are taking anywhere from 30% to 65% of the sale. Or if you rent a movie from YouTube i'm sure they are taking some percentage in that ballpark and sending the rest to the movie studio.
My point is that all of these digital platforms are taking a percentage that is in that range. Apple probably gets called out the most because it's open to anyone, popular and it's fees are transparent but it's really the same across most digital platforms. I'm not saying the percentage isn't high but Apple isn't an outlier when it comes to the fees.
> Consider if you upload a book to Amazon to sell they are taking anywhere from 30% to 65% of the sale.
What about Barnes & Nobles? What about your local library? The difference is competition/choice.
I'm not even arguing about the 30% on the shop or even the existence of fees. Fees makes sense if they add something. They are well in their rights and it's fine that they do it in the app store.
What I'm arguing about is forcing them to use that as payment gateway IN the app. That's not value added, VISA does it for 2.5% (and less) already, Paypal too. That means that they directly remove choice to gains from you.
Buy a magazine over Amazon and see if inside there's an offer to subscribe using others means. Go on Uber on Android and check if you are forced to use Google Wallet.
> Apple probably gets called out the most because it's open to anyone, popular and it's fees are transparent but it's really the same across most digital platforms.
You are not calling out others, you didn't even named one in your comment. You are justifying their fees by the competition that does similar fees. You may want to change how you formulate your comment if your goal is really to call them out.
Most console makers make NO money from selling the console itself, zero, nada, because they count on people buying enough games to make up for it, that's almost the opposite of how Apple works, where the extremely high margin they get for each iPhone is their main source of revenue and on top of that they do this thing of charging 30% for each transaction.
That 30% is specifically designed to be a little bit above the cost of running the system as a whole, but not much.
As you point out, they really don't make much in the way of profit on their software or services -- almost all their profit comes from selling the hardware.
So, 30% is just the cost of doing business in the ecosystem. If you don't like that, you don't have to participate in that ecosystem.
...or Amazon. I have problems with PayPal, but I still trust Amazon to transfer money to vendors. In any event, even if you do trust a company, they may not trust you.
Bed Bath and Beyond had done everything right to capture my purchase: They hosted the wedding registry, took care of the couple's address, and by not allowing me to select "I'm buying this somewhere else" kept me from leaving to where I could possibly get the item cheaper.
But BB&B requires Verified By Visa, and I require my credit card provider to not be stupid about security, so my card was declined. I turned right around and bought the item on Amazon.
Why would anyone trust PayPal? They still owe me $900 from 2005 when I was the victim of a reverse scam. (Buyer claimed i scammed and never sent it; they refused to investigate or accept my tracking info as proof)
To me this just verifies that diversity is better than uniformity in these scenarios. That's fine if you don't trust PayPal because of your own experiences, but why should we be forced to use Apple Pay?
I don’t actually care. The cardmembers are never liable for fraud.
I don’t use my debit card for online purchases at all however. If someone steals that and uses it, I’m out of pocket until the bank resolves it, which can take days.
With credit cards, and Amex especially, they’ll simply reverse the fraudulent transactions and overnight you a new card.
Someone skimmed my Amex when I was on a vacation in Japan, charged about ¥700k on it. One call to them, they froze the transactions and in roughly 16 hours I collected a new card in the hotel lobby.
And modern banks that offer their customers "one time use" credit card numbers that you load up with an exact amount, and expire after a few hours if not collected on by a third party.
Any payment system have issues. I've experienced good stories with Paypal, when they refunded me my money without much questions. Much better than my bank.
I am pretty sure game consoles have been doing this basically since their existence. None of them allow you to make 'A' rated games for example. (Considering the topic of the article, it should be obvious I am referring to "restricted the ways they talk about their products and pricing" here)
Retail stores keep some amount of control over signage, I doubt Walmart would be particularly happy if a sign said you could buy X device cheaper directly from the manufacturer.
In reality Apple is continuing a trend that is normal for store fronts, digital or physical.
However, the "walled garden" of Apple is largely why I stick with iOS. I don't want to be forced to trust every company with my credit card information (a developer implementing their own payment system will be an immediate delete for me, with very few exception... like Amazon for obvious reasons).
Also lets not forget that we keep seeing reports that iOS users are more likely to spend money than Android users. I would argue that the increased income from users makes up for the 30% cut.