Apple Starts Letting Developers Add Alternative App Marketplaces to App Store Connect

[djphat2000]

…just as you won‘t admit the commission has become an unfair tax on competitors‘ services - that enables Apple to

30% was the max. And it never was increased. So how is it unfair? To boot, the lowered it when there was the hysteria of complaints about it. It would be another thing entirely if Apple had been raising the price over time. But they didn't. So I don't understand how it can be unfair to pay 30% in 2024 when it was 30% in 2008?

It‘s not an equitable fee for all developers to „give back“ to Apple for „use of tech/IP“ and making money off it. As evidence by the many apps that make tons of money and employ more of Apple’s proprietary tech (e.g. Uber) - while not having to pay anything (except the yearly developer fee).

The rule from the start was that if you sell something physical or a tangible service. There would be no cut. Same applies to banking. I make transactions with my bank via the app and my bank doesn't pay anything for that service. When your downloading something to your device that when through the store. You should pay for that.

Apple is free to price their iPhones and make as much of them as they want. Just as consumers are free to only use free apps on them - a case in which Apple makes nothing from it.

I'm sure Apple charges what they feel the market will bear for the devices they make. And based on the prices of phones. They are not charging the most or the least.
The larger companies that do charge for their apps or have IAP's within the apps. Supports those apps that are affectively free or only get Ad revenue from. Apple makes what they make to support the infrastructure that lets it all work.

But I readily admit that I don‘t want Apple to do unfair double-dipping on digital goods/services only - especially when they‘re competing in with their own products in so many of them themselves.

That's fine to feel that way. But, they are allowed to make money however it's legal to do so. If it bothers you or anyone that much. You don't have to purchase their products.

You say it yourself: it is not about the „tech they created“.

Apple created the ecosystem. They built the phone, and everything around it so it works well. They made good money doing that. For the EU, it's about the money.

It‘s only about gatekeeping access to customers - on products where they have absolute leverage to enforce it.
Again, I‘m not saying that companies should provide others/competitors access to their customer base for free.

But that it should have limits. And what I'm saying is that it can't work that way. We can't have a limit on what is successful enough. When you should start to alter the model built because it's too good and locks out other competitors? That's the risk and reward for making the right choices long ago and it paying off. If they failed, they turn into Blackberry. And I don't see anyone trying to help them out.

But governments and regulators should not allow them to
- charge what they want“
- and how they want it
- in monopoly or duopoly markets that serve 70, 80 ore more percent of all consumers in the country
- particularly when the gatekeeper engage in competition against others for unrelated services

👉🏻 I‘m honestly at a loss how anyone can justify let alone endorse that as beneficial for innovation, the overall economy or society.

(Whereas I can, kind of, get the security argument of having a central gatekeeper, irrespective of if Apple is good at that)

I would just reiterate that Apple never charged more than the starting amount of 30% over the entire time.
If any developer wants to make $1 off of a product they made. They sell it for $1.99 to cover Apple's cut and even make a profit. If they sold something in a physical store the price they charge for it being on the shelf is higher than that. So they are already saving by being on the store. Guaranteed to make money off sales. No theft of services or product.

I can understand your point on competing products/services from Apple and others. Such as Spotify. Since they pay the fee when Apple technically doesn't have to for the same type of services (Music). However, the same can be said for any physical store merchandise. Where the store brand is generally cheaper than a name brand version of the same product. Stores compete with vendor products also sold in the same store, and at lower price points. People still buy what they want. Again, this would be a more valid point if Apple appreciably lowered the cost of say Apple Music AND OR increased the fee from 30% to anything higher. But that has not been the case.

What changed in the EPIC trial will allow develops to reach customers directly to let them know there are less expensive alternatives to get what they sell. And buy it directly when possible. But, let's face it. Spotify isn't going to allow iOS customers to purchase a subscription via the AppStore. Even at an increased price if the customer wanted to pay it. It's not an option the other way around. Same for Netflix. And it wasn't like people were not purchasing VBUCKS for Fortnite via the AppStore. They could have charged more and not many would care.
But they all went the "My way or the highway" route.

 

[AppliedMicro]

To boot, the lowered it when there was the hysteria of complaints about it.

Only for small developers. Crucially not for the types of large businesses for digital goods/services that they're competing with (the Spotifys, Netflixes and Epics).

It would be another thing entirely if Apple had been raising the price over time. But they didn't. So I don't understand how it can be unfair to pay 30% in 2024 when it was 30% in 2008?

It's unfair because it discriminates against providers of digital products/services.
And commissions in competitive markets characterised by massive economies of scale and almost zero marginal costs go down over time, as size/volume increases - the fact that Apple's didn't suggests they are not competitively determined. Even the U.S. court in the Epic vs. Apple trial found Apple's pricing supracompetitive.

The rule from the start was that if you sell something physical or a tangible service. There would be no cut. Same applies to banking. I make transactions with my bank via the app and my bank doesn't pay anything for that service. When your downloading something to your device that when through the store. You should pay for that.

...and Apple didn't provide a music streaming, a video streaming, a fitness and a game subscription service. Even without a change of the rule, it has increasingly become unfair and anticompetitive with Apple's own entry into the relevant markets.

Regardless of what the rule used to be from the start: 👉 it should be changed.
It's undesirable and bad for competition and innovation.

The larger companies that do charge for their apps or have IAP's within the apps. Supports those apps that are affectively free or only get Ad revenue from.

That's fine to feel that way. But, they are allowed to make money however it's legal to do so

Absolutely. That's why I fully support making Apple's conduct illegal (by new laws) where it is stifling competition and undesirable for society. And some of it has been made illegal by the EU.

Apple created the ecosystem. They built the phone, and everything around it so it works well. They made good money doing that. For the EU, it's about the money.

It's not. The jury's still out on whether the EU or its companies will be making more money or less due to the new rules. Of course, it also depends on Apple's implementation.

If Apple just allowed sideloading without app notarisation (likely compliant with the law), developers could shift their business to external jurisdictions and possibly avoid paying VAT etc. (or other taxes), Having one centralised gatekeeper makes tax collection and ensuring tax compliance massively easier for governments.

However, the same can be said for any physical store merchandise. Where the store brand is generally cheaper than a name brand version of the same product.

There are crucial differences:
The store chain can't prevent the supplier from selling through other channels.

 

[I7guy]

[…]


It's unfair because it discriminates against providers of digital products/services.
And commissions in competitive markets characterised by massive economies of scale and almost zero marginal costs go down over time, as size/volume increases - the fact that Apple's didn't suggests they are not competitively determined. Even the U.S. court in the Epic vs. Apple trial found Apple's pricing supracompetitive.


[…]

The US court found apples pricing legal. That’s the only metric that counts.

I just snipped that, but I disagree with almost all of your reply; especially the anti-competitive part and stifling completion.

As we go around in the same circles, apple ia not required to innovate its intellectual property. The customers determine if apple products are innovative enough. Not some macro economic analysis whereby the bottom line is to split apple.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Then the EU will have to admit that they are more concerned about the "price" of entry than having entry in the first place.

They aren't. I think I have explained what I think are their concerns.

That assumes Apple was leveraging anything to begin with.

Of course they are. The App Store asset on the iPhone asset. There are other businesses leveraging on that asset such as Apple Music and once the iBooks. The later they were found guilty of failing the competition law once in the US … was all the rage once … hey but ebooks got out of fashion as it seams.

Take for instance the commercials about Apple Vision Pro and how it is sold. The idea that users will buy into it because they have the App Store behind, their favorite digital retailer, is totally absurd.

We have to remember, these rules (30% and 1 store, no side loading) was put in place when there was no way to know if Apple's idea about the iPhone was going to work.

It’s irrelevant. Leverage per si is not so much of a problem for competition. Now leverage when one of the assets has a huge market share can be.

The idea of the App Store as communicated back then was to sell Apps. That was good. It was extended to mean any kind of digital assets or digital services or whatever it is rules to be through the iPhone. That I believe it’s abusive. It’s not bitcoin or potatoes because they deamed not to be. There is no regulation in place.

I already prevented my wife to fall in what I call perfectly disguised rip offs on the App Store, multiple times, unfortunately not before her paying some euros. The later was a Wallpaper app, with subscription service, for 7 euros a week … for stuff that we can find on the Web for free. A practice legitimized by Apple. This kind of things does not happen anywhere else as far as I can see … there are plenty, plenty of those in the Apple App Store … it just legitimize it to the general public under its consumer protection seal. Things that cost more than 50 euros a year hidden behind a subscription, that can be bought for 20 if not free outside of the App Store.

The reason this happens IMHO is because there is no competition when it comes to App distribution in the ecosystem. Because it does not happen for instance on the Mac where completion it more fearce.

I have yet to see a company that became huge for just selling their Apps in the App Store except for gaming. Check the Top Rated apps outside gaming. Either are free, or if you look at the business behind it, the reason is sold has nothing to do with the App Store. Check the top one … it’s crazy.

Anyway, will see.

 

[Samplasion]

The US court found apples pricing legal. That’s the only metric that counts.

I just snipped that, but I disagree with almost all of your reply; especially the anti-competitive part and stifling completion.

As we go around in the same circles, apple ia not required to innovate its intellectual property. The customers determine if apple products are innovative enough. Not some macro economic analysis whereby the bottom line is to split apple. [emphasis mine]

Alright, leaving the obviously conflicting reply with everything else you've said previously, I want to say that the whole intellectual debate is misguided at best (as per Occam's razor) and misleading at worst. Conflating Apple, iOS and the App Store as though they're one thing is just a bad representation of reality. Obviously, Apple has control over both iOS and the App Store, but to act as if opening iOS up to third-party stores is "making a public utility out of the App Store" (whatever that even means) is just arguing in bad faith, especially after being told time and time again by multiple posters that they're two different entities.

Also, can we please stop applying US law to EU policies? (this isn't a critique to you in particular, but at many people in this kind of threads)

 

[I7guy]

Alright, leaving the obviously conflicting reply with everything else you've said previously, I want to say that the whole intellectual debate is misguided at best (as per Occam's razor) and misleading at worst. Conflating Apple, iOS and the App Store as though they're one thing is just a bad representation of reality. Obviously, Apple has control over both iOS and the App Store, but to act as if opening iOS up to third-party stores is "making a public utility out of the App Store" (whatever that even means) is just arguing in bad faith, especially after being told time and time again by multiple posters that they're two different entities.

Also, can we please stop applying US law to EU policies? (this isn't a critique to you in particular, but at many people in this kind of threads)

The Eu don’t even find apple was doing anything illegal. The issue is the defense of laws which I and others don’t like… and the justifications used which seem like conclusions in search of assertions.

 

[breenmask]

To my knowledge it hasn't happened on Android, except for Fortnite which is the outlier

not an outlier. if one big company saw the potential, others will follow, especially when iOS is now a possibility.

 

[breenmask]

Just because one company tried it and thus far failed miserably costing the company billions in lost revenue

says a lot about how desperate a company is when they see how much can be gained by the extra 30%.

once other see the same thing, they'll do it too, now that it's a possibility on iOS.

 

[wanha]

says a lot about how desperate a company is when they see how much can be gained by the extra 30%.

once other see the same thing, they'll do it too, now that it's a possibility on iOS.

Ummm... what exactly has Epic achieved thus far?

They've forfeited billions in lost iOS revenue plus they owe Apple $73 in lawyer fees.

And if you've followed Apple's implementation of the EU DMA, developers are still on the hook to Apple for 27% and have to take care of the credit card processing themselves.

In other words, nobody is getting rid of the 30% as it stands today.

Which part of that do you think others see and say "I want our company to have a piece of that"?

 

[muntundombe]

Commission closes market investigations on Microsoft's and Apple's services under the Digital Markets Act

Yesterday, the Commission has adopted decisions closing four market investigations that were launched on 5 September 2023 under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), finding that Apple and Microsoft should not be designated as gatekeepers for the following core platform services: Apple's messaging service iMessage, Microsoft's online search engine Bing, web browser Edge and online advertising service Microsoft Advertising.

The decisions conclude the Commission's investigations opened following the notification by Apple and Microsoft in July 2023 of the core platform services that met the quantitative thresholds. Among these notified services were also the four services concerned by today's decisions. Together with the notifications, Apple and Microsoft also submitted so-called ‘rebuttal' arguments, explaining why despite meeting the quantitative thresholds, these four core platform services should not, in their view, qualify as gateways.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/mex_24_785#:~:text=Commission%20closes%20market%20investigations%20on%20Microsoft's%20and%20Apple's%20services%20under%20the%20Digital%20Markets%20Act

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Commission closes market investigations on Microsoft's and Apple's services under the Digital Markets Act

Yesterday, the Commission has adopted decisions closing four market investigations that were launched on 5 September 2023 under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), finding that Apple and Microsoft should not be designated as gatekeepers for the following core platform services: Apple's messaging service iMessage, Microsoft's online search engine Bing, web browser Edge and online advertising service Microsoft Advertising.

The decisions conclude the Commission's investigations opened following the notification by Apple and Microsoft in July 2023 of the core platform services that met the quantitative thresholds. Among these notified services were also the four services concerned by today's decisions. Together with the notifications, Apple and Microsoft also submitted so-called ‘rebuttal' arguments, explaining why despite meeting the quantitative thresholds, these four core platform services should not, in their view, qualify as gateways.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/mex_24_785#:~:text=Commission%20closes%20market%20investigations%20on%20Microsoft's%20and%20Apple's%20services%20under%20the%20Digital%20Markets%20Act

I agree. Don’t think iMessage is a Gatekeeper.

 

[breenmask]

They've forfeited billions in lost iOS revenue plus they owe Apple $73 in lawyer fees.

thanks for proving what I just said? they calculated how much they would possibly lose if they lost before attempting the move and they still proceeded because the upside to winning was just so high.

risk vs reward.

 

[djphat2000]

They aren't. I think I have explained what I think are their concerns.

So Apple is abiding by the law. And they will get to collect fee's whether in or out of the Apple Store.

Of they are. The App Store asset on the iPhone asset. There are other businesses leveraging on that asset such as Apple Music.

Not if the rule was in place before any leverage could have been had. You can't plan to leverage in the future when your product is successful without it actually being successful in which to have leverage. And again, the price/fee didn't change. No one paid more than 30%.

Take for instance the commercials about Apple Vision Pro and how it is sold. The idea that users will buy into it because in part of the App Store is totally absurd.

I don't fully understand this point but, the Vision Pro can run many iPad apps. Not just ones designed specifically for it. So it is part of the AppStore ecosystem in that it can run many apps right away.

It’s irrelevant. Leverage per si is not so much of a problem for competition. Now leverage with a huge market share can be.

We can't move the goal posts. We can't go back in time to know what we know of the future and change the rules from the past. Apple's decision to charge 30% was WILDLY accepted by developers. Proof of that is how many apps are in the store. And how much it has grown. The real issue for developers is that they are all looking at ways to make more money. One way is to spend less. They are going after this 30% cut because its it's relatively easy to do. Doesn't cost them anything to complain about it. Only in EPIC's case. They tried really hard, and it did eventually cost them a lot.
You have to have leverage before applying it. There was no leverage when this started to be had by Apple. Do they have it now? Sure. Are they applying it negatively? No. How can I say that, cause the price didn't go up. They didn't use their monopoly powers to force out competition or to kill competition. Spotify is a very successful company and so is Netflix. Apple's entry into music was a while ago. Movies are much more recent. And people still prefer Spotify and Netflix to Apple's offerings. People will pick what they want to pick.

The idea of the App Store has communicated was to sell Apps. It was extended to mean any kind of digital assets or digital services or whatever it is rules to be. That ai believe it’s abusive. It’s not bitcoin or potatoes because they deamed not to be. There is no regulation in place.

Apple made a device originally with no store. The only apps you were going to get from that moment was whatever Apple provided. And anyone that wanted to make a WebAPP. That changed and they created a store for developers to create apps at a 30% cut to Apple. They all agreed and went on to make a successful business.

I already prevented my wife to fall in what I call perfectly disguised scams on the App Store. The later was a Wallpaper app, with subscription service, for 7 euros a week … for stuff that we can find on the Web for free. A practice legitimized by Apple. This kind of does not happen anywhere else as far as I can see … there are plenty of those.

I'm sure there are plenty of useless scammy apps on the Google Play store. If you get a scammy app I'm sure you have recourse with Apple to get it corrected.

The reason this happens IMHO is because there is no competition when it comes to App distribution in the ecosystem

The only reason this is a problem is there are those that want Apps that Apple will not allow on the platform.

I have yet to see a company that became huge for just selling their Apps in the App Store except for gaming. Check the Top Rated apps outside gaming. Either are free, or if you look at the business behind it, the reason is sold has nothing to do with the App Store. Check the top one … it’s crazy.

Anyway, will see.

Selling the App, most likely not. IAP (in app purchase) however.... I know I was throwing money at Candy Crush for a bit just to get past a stupid board. I eventually stopped playing the game altogether after board 3000+ something or other. Yes, you said gaming. And let's face it. If they are not making that much. Then they are not gettin that many downloads. So they could move to a new store in the EU and not worry about paying .50 euros because not enough people will download it past 1 million.

 

[djphat2000]

thanks for proving what I just said? they calculated how much they would possibly lose if they lost before attempting the move and they still proceeded because the upside to winning was just so high.

risk vs reward.

ahhhhhh I would not agree with the risk vs reward. They clearly thought they had Apple dead to rights. They didn't think it was much of a risk. And that any judge would agree with them. They went full bear poke to Apple doing what they did. Got smacked down pretty hard for it too.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

So Apple is abiding by the law. And they will get to collect fee's whether in or out of the Apple Store.

Yes they are abiding to the law. I don’t think that is the issue otherwise probably there would be sentences and fines.

New laws and regulation ... what is new about that? In your senate every year new laws are passed or change, it’s normal. If they don’t abide they will be fined as everyone else in the same situation.

As for the rest, I’m not moving goal posts. But you seam to come up with counter arguments to arguments that I haven't done and proceeded debating them extensively as if that was the case. Not to mention proposing alternative definitions to well known concepts such as Leverage. Leverage: a force needed to lift something else. Case in case the App Store (app retail) business is leveraged on the force of the iPhone business ... policies across both businesses are created to protect that leverage.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Yeah it’s googles anticompetitive business practices and their targeted advertising business model that makes me think the world would be a better place without Google (and facebook, TikTok and the other surveillance capitalist companies).

Apple is very tame in comparison to those monsters. At least Apple and my interests align more than they differ unlike with Google where it feels like open hostility towards us consumers.

I don't quite see the problem with targeted advertising. Please elaborate?

I definitely agree that the world would be a better place without the social media; and dopamine sucking, doom scrolling inducing, apps. However, the only part of that that Google has anything to do with, is YouTube, which is also an incredibly useful tool when you want to know how to do something, anything.

However, to pay for all the"free" services we use, the alternatives to the targeted advertising business model, are:
- non targeted advertising, which results in less advertising revenue, thus lower quality "free" services.
- paid subs.

Personally, I prefer the targeted advertising model by far.

PS - regarding YouTube, I built my son an epic little skate ramp, and found the design plans for it using Google Search Engine, and then learnt how to create the perfect curves for it from Google's YouTube, including how to use a router, which I'd never used before. It turned out brilliantly, thanks in large part to YT. And now I am writing this on Google Chrome. I also regularly use all of Google's Gmail, Docs, Sheets, and Drive. And now I own the brilliant (and IMO, much better than all the iPhones I've owned in the last 10 years) Google Pixel 8. And due to that, I also use all the apps on that, including many phone apps that auto sync with the chrome based web apps on my (brilliant) MacBook Pro: Keep notes, Messages, Photos, and Calendar, along with all the previously mentioned Chrome web apps I use on my Mac.

So yeah, nah, I definitely don't want Google to disappear thank you kindly. And nor do I want to suddenly have to pay subs for all those services because some people have an completely delusional idea about how much privacy they enjoy.

 

[Abazigal]

I don't quite see the problem with targeted advertising. Please elaborate?

In theory, I agree with you that if I am going to see ads, may as well be relevant ads trying to sell me something that I could actually use. However, the issue is that this means I still have to see ads at the end of the day. And this in turn brings me to the main problem - that the internet seems to have been built off advertising, and maybe that's the root cause right there. That everything was built on a giant foundation of rot. Advertising means tracking, cookies and other invasive practices that I don't want to be a part of, but which I can't really avoid unless I have numerous blockers loaded or avoid the internet altogether.

Also, I have never really been served relevant ads, and they are just annoying. For example, I remember once installing ghostery in my browser and trying to load an article on the Economist and it blocked over 30 trackers right off the bat. Ads also spoil the whole reading experience (like one every other paragraph?) and it has also skewed the production values of media companies who rely more on clickbait to farm views rather than actually creating good content (like what is happening with news outlets right now).

I also remember visiting sites like windows central and the number of ads loaded just slowed my iPad down to a crawl and made the site unusable.

I have the lockdown app on my iPhone and it blocks a few thousand trackers a day on average.

I want to load a YouTube video for my students to watch and have to sit through 2 ads first.

And I feel that's ultimately the problem. Nobody likes advertising. It's essentially a means to an end. We tolerate it because it (on paper) continues to fund the creation of content I otherwise wouldn't pay for. But because it usually just ends up degrading the overall user experience to the point where I wonder why I even bother in the first place, and so people try to circumvent it every opportunity they get, and I don't blame them.

There's probably some kind of middle ground where advertising can still serve me relevant information while respecting my privacy and not making them such a giant turnoff, but unless a giant company forces the equivalent of Apple's ATT down the advertisers' throats, I doubt there is any incentive for the advertisers to regulate themselves.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

In theory, I agree with you that if I am going to see ads, may as well be relevant ads trying to sell me something that I could actually use. However, the issue is that this means I still have to see ads at the end of the day. And this in turn brings me to the main problem - that the internet seems to have been built off advertising, and maybe that's the root cause right there. That everything was built on a giant foundation of rot. Advertising means tracking, cookies and other invasive practices that I don't want to be a part of, but which I can't really avoid unless I have numerous blockers loaded or avoid the internet altogether.

Also, I have never really been served relevant ads, and they are just annoying. For example, I remember once installing ghostery in my browser and trying to load an article on the Economist and it blocked over 30 trackers right off the bat. Ads also spoil the whole reading experience (like one every other paragraph?) and it has also skewed the production values of media companies who rely more on clickbait to farm views rather than actually creating good content (like what is happening with news outlets right now).

I also remember visiting sites like windows central and the number of ads loaded just slowed my iPad down to a crawl and made the site unusable.

I have the lockdown app on my iPhone and it blocks a few thousand trackers a day on average.

I want to load a YouTube video for my students to watch and have to sit through 2 ads first.

And I feel that's ultimately the problem. Nobody likes advertising. It's essentially a means to an end. We tolerate it because it (on paper) continues to fund the creation of content I otherwise wouldn't pay for. But because it usually just ends up degrading the overall user experience to the point where I wonder why I even bother in the first place, and so people try to circumvent it every opportunity they get, and I don't blame them.

There's probably some kind of middle ground where advertising can still serve me relevant information while respecting my privacy and not making them such a giant turnoff, but unless a giant company forces the equivalent of Apple's ATT down the advertisers' throats, I doubt there is any incentive for the advertisers to regulate themselves.

What, you've never heard of Ublock Origin???

I don't see ads on anything. The internet, YT, nothing, ever, anywhere.

Note: I am not using my phone much, I live on my Mac. However, when I do use my phone, I'm on an Android (Pixel 8), and the Firefox browser has ad blockers, so I never see any ads on my phone either. If you're still stuck on an iPhone, then yeah, bad luck (lol, enjoy your walled garden, that's on your angelic corporate best friend, Apple, mate, not Google).

PS - I do recommend having a genuine poke around at the iPhone competition these days, the best Androids have caught up. Both the Pixel 8/8Pro, and the best Samsungs now have hardware that is more or less on par with the iphone 15/15Pro. Some features are better, some the same, and some not as good, and often it's a matter of taste. As for the software, iOS is absolute junkware in comparison to Android.

For example, on my iPhone, I used to get spam phone calls multiple times per day. But the Pixel has a feature where when you get a call, there's a "Screen Call" button, and the phone replies for you, and a transcript of what it is saying to the caller prints on your screen, telling the caller that the call is being screened blah blah. If it is a spammer, they hang up within a second or two. Within days I had been removed off all their lists, and no longer get spam calls.

There's many other similar killer features that left me equally as floored when I realised what the Pixel phones have been able to do for years that iPhones still can't do.

 

[Abazigal]

What, you've never heard of Ublock Origin???

I don't see ads on anything. The internet, YT, nothing, ever, anywhere.

Note: I am not using my phone much, I live on my Mac. However, when I do use my phone, I'm on an Android (Pixel 8), and the Firefox browser has ad blockers, so I never see any ads on my phone either. If you're still stuck on an iPhone, then yeah, bad luck (lol, enjoy your walled garden, that's on your angelic corporate best friend, Apple, mate, not Google).

PS - I do recommend having a genuine poke around at the iPhone competition these days, the best Androids have caught up. Both the Pixel 8/8Pro, and the best Samsungs now have hardware that is more or less on par with the iphone 15/15Pro. Some features are better, some the same, and some not as good, and often it's a matter of taste. As for the software, iOS is absolute junkware in comparison to Android.

For example, on my iPhone, I used to get spam phone calls multiple times per day. But the Pixel has a feature where when you get a call, there's a "Screen Call" button, and the phone replies for you, and a transcript of what it is saying to the caller prints on your screen, telling the caller that the call is being screened blah blah. If it is a spammer, they hang up within a second or two. Within days I had been removed off all their lists, and no longer get spam calls.

There's many other similar killer features that left me equally as floored when I realised what the Pixel phones have been able to do for years that iPhones still can't do.

Ad blocking wasn't a thing on iOS until around iOS 9. And my general philosophy is that I try to go all in on Apple's core apps and services first, only seeking alternatives when the former no longer suffices for my needs.

I currently pay for YouTube premium, Ars Pro and Macrumours, which allow me to sidestep ads while still contributing financially to creators. I do have a YouTube ad blocker installed recently on chrome on my work laptop, but only because google refuses to let me share my YouTube premium subscription with my work gmail account.

It's a lot harder to get away from ads in apps. I used to subscribe to Tweetbot (a third party twitter client that blocked ads) and Apollo (a reddit client) until they were blocked by the parent companies. I have since stopped consuming twitter and reddit because for me, the experience were the apps, not so much the platform. I am more a lurker on Mastodon these days, which doesn't have ads, and the tech community I follow is more or less similar to the one I left behind on Twitter. But generally when I can, I do (and am willing to) pay to remove ads from apps when the opportunity presents itself and if the price is reasonable.

For the Internet, I use 1blocker on my Mac and iOS devices, which does a pretty good job of screening ads. Lockdown is there to block trackers in apps. I am not aware of any way of removing ads from the apps themselves, so I work around this by opting for the ad-free version of apps whenever available.

Reading-wise, I am subscribed to Macstories, Stratechery and AboveAvalon. I find they provide me with a fair amount of relevant tech-related news, delivered to my inbox, free of advertising. And because the writers don't have to concern themselves with generating ad revenue, their incentives are more aligned with me, the reader.

For my mom, when I looking for this bubble shooter game for her, I noticed that it was still relatively easy to get ad-free games in the iOS App Store, but not so on the google play store.

This is one of the key reasons I continue to favour iOS - the choice and availability of apps is generally far richer compared to android (overcast, ivory, notability, scanner pro, play, lumihealth). And for a while, Tweetbot, Apollo, Fantastical, lumafusion (when I do use it on my iPad) as well as third party Apple Music apps. Then there were the games like Grimvalor, Battleheart Legacy and Slay the Spire which came to iOS first, then Android way later.

It doesn't make sense to spend so much on a mobile device, only to be treated like a third world citizen in terms of how I want to interact with with the world around me. But I also acknowledge that I may be an outlier here in that I do have sufficient disposable income to spend on all the aforementioned luxuries.

 

[breenmask]

They clearly thought they had Apple dead to rights. They didn't think it was much of a risk.

completely disagreed. if it was this obvious, plenty of other companies would have tried the same.

 

[djphat2000]

completely disagreed. if it was this obvious, plenty of other companies would have tried the same.

Why take the risk first? EPIC was making good money. They had very little reason to do what they did. But, not only did they do it. They fully planned on doing it. They didn't fight Apple while remaining in the store. They did the very thing they knew would pull them from the store. Smear campaign with a lawsuit. Make Apple look like the bad guy.
They thought they would win.

Others, the likes of Spotify or name your company that complained about the 30% fee. Remained on the platform cause they know not to remove customers for no good reason. Fight Apple on the side but follow the rules. No one really cares that you can't sign up for it via the App. Yes, less convenient, but we will get over that. Spotify is the largest there is in the business. This is the smart way to go about a grievance.

 

[treacher]

And being able to use someone else's OS is precisely why the market is so uncompetitive. we should ban that practice.

I agree. Our position has always been this. In the words of the great Steve Jobs: “I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.”

 

[breenmask]

Why take the risk first? EPIC was making good money.

Because they see a bigger upside by setting up Epic Games Store on iOS that can earn way more than Fortnite due to Unreal Engine/EGS royalty incentives which will not only take away Apple's cut, but revenue from their competitor: Unity and indirectly, Steam.

 

[djphat2000]

Because they see a bigger upside by setting up Epic Games Store on iOS that can earn way more than Fortnite due to Unreal Engine/EGS royalty incentives which will not only take away Apple's cut, but revenue from their competitor: Unity and indirectly, Steam.

It's a pipe dream if they believe that.
1) you still have to run a store. Even if Apple let you for free. It has a cost.
2) you still have to be profitable by selling other peoples stuff. 15% will be too high at some point for someone(s).
3) You become Apple, and are seen as not playing fair because you don't have to pay the 15% (or whatever it is).
5) you have to vet the apps/games/programs and become responsible for everything Apple is now. Good or bad.
6) you have already alienated yourself. Not that Unity didn't too!

The money to be made was in IAP. They already give away the game. Partnering with Lego, Marvel (MCU), Disney, TMNT, etc kept the interest going. Cross platform kept people coming in. Making this boneheaded move to try and force Apple to "Change" for their own benefit made no sense. How much did they waste in doing that? Not to mention on going business with Apple iOS/iPad OS users. My son loves Fortnite and it would great if I could give it to him on his iPad. In the mean time he plays on Xbox. But, he can take his iPad with him. This was a DUMB move. They thought wrong, and Tim S should lose his job over it. But, that's for the shareholders to decide. It's just my opinion.

 

[AppliedMicro]

They thought wrong, and Tim S should lose his job over it. But, that's for the shareholders to decide

Yes.

”Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney is the controlling shareholder of Epic and "will continue to maintain control of the board following the close of this transaction", Epic told GamesIndustry.biz”