Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
then why doesn't Apple do the exact same thing on macOS? Why isn't this model copied for any other platform? What makes iOS so special that it, and it alone, benefits from having just a single way of installing apps?

It would be beneficial to many macOS customers also if Apple had the power to force all developers to be on the Mac App Store, esp. Microsoft and Adobe.

What makes iOS so special is that the platform is so important to most developers that they feel they must be on it, irregardless of the rules Apple imposes on them.

Unfortunately, macOS isn't in such a position.
 
That's a myth, look at the sales of Windows Games without DRM, Games like The Witcher 3 or Cyberpunk.
Again, people who pirate would not buy it anyway, they would simply skip the games.



All of them?
 
Apple has made the totally arbitrary decision that iOS cannot have multiple stores, or have apps that are downloaded from the internet or via physical media.

Well, except it's not arbitrary. It's a carefully made decision to maximize Apple's profits and minimize what developers and consumers receive.

The other has also made arbitrary decision that their OS can have multiple stores.

There isn't anything wrong in making wilful decisions which hurts and minimises the income of developers and make their professional lives a living hell.

Developers are horrendous actors in this market until proven otherwise. Anyone who limits their power and their income is a "good guy" in my opinion.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: ArtOfWarfare
I think people confuse the merits of Apple, Google , iOS, iDevices, Android and Android devices with their market practices and policies, both to consumers and consumers suppliers. These are two distinct issues, albeit related in a market.

As far as treating consumers as well as consumer assets as their own products to transact and sell access to, Apple is on par with either Facebook or Google if not worst as its an entirely closed ecosystem. Of course, in my opinion as always.

Apple is effectively monetising devices as well as data (assets), devices that they have sold but indeed do not own, wrapped up in EULAS that consumers agree with in mostly good faith. Same as Facebook, but this one only concerns data.

I believe that these practices, case in case, companies monetizing assets that companies do not own (either sold by them or others), should be regulated in order to protect the the actual owners against abuses.

The argument that Apple and co are simply monetizing their part of the bargain, say their OS license and services, falls apart when the use of such license is preconditioned by the availability of a device, a separate contract, that was not offered within the context of the license and vice versa, a device that was bought by the user so its theirs, that itself already constituted a substantial business transaction.

Ownership of a ”thing” is not just defined by the freely sell the thing, but also by the ability to freely use it for its purpose while respecting both the intelectual and material properties of the suppliers and buyers.

In my opinion, some of these companies practices do not respect that. The discussion has been systematically about customers respecting the supplier ownership, both intelectual and material. It is argued that the device ownership is fully sustained by owners ability to sell and choose something else. A very distorted reasoning over property ownership. Considering that the same entities, not even that offer as a garantee … in certain cases, the owner is even denied the technical means necessary to sell his properties… the case of its licenses over digital assets … music, movies, apps (yes apps)… so on and so forth. They are all at it, yes, Epic too.

The regulators seam not to have the political power to stop this tech corporate attack to citizens property ownership by taking advantage of the elasticity of the digital material. The concept of private property is a fundamental constitutional base of a democracy and it should be balanced between corporations and citizens/consumers/users. Who establish that balance should not be left to the faith of EULAs developed by corporactions with the power to hire an “army” of lawyers acting only in favor of interests of its contractor.

Excellent points.

As an app developer who's sold iOS apps in the store since 2008, I would be excited if my customers were able to sell an app I developed if they no longer need or want it (as long as they cannot also still use it). This would essentially create a "used app" market. But such a used market would still be useless because the App Store NEVER implemented a method to sell paid app version upgrades. The software industry has been destroyed because the platform dictators have colluded to prevent competition by limiting purchase options for an app. If a 3rd party store could implement a "used app" market place and paid version upgrades it would be up to the market to decide if those features are successful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nuno Lopes
That's a myth, look at the sales of Windows Games without DRM, Games like The Witcher 3 or Cyberpunk.
Again, people who pirate would not buy it anyway, they would simply skip the games.


So, what does that have to do with ANDROID games? Do either of those games come loaded with ads?
 
You mean, like Nintendo?
Software for the Nintendo Switch is available via Nintendo's store, Walmart, Best Buy, Amazon, Target, Game Stop, etc...

There's a lot of options for which store one buys software for their Nintendo Switch from. Those stores each offer their own perks to compete for customers. It's a very functional marketplace.

I believe the same goes for the Xbox and Playstation... I don't think either of them have totally ditched physical media, have they?

Unlike the iOS app marketplace, where there's no stores competing with one another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
What makes iOS so special is that the platform is so important to most developers that they feel they must be on it, irregardless of the rules Apple imposes on them.
That's not a good thing. That means that iOS/Apple is a monopoly/monopsony. Apple shouldn't be able to make rules without consequences.

You just argued against Apple here - feel free to read up on what a monopoly and monopsony is - it's not legal to have either of them in the US (or in the EU or any other democracy.)

 
Software for the Nintendo Switch is available via Nintendo's store, Walmart, Best Buy, Amazon, Target, Game Stop, etc...
NICE! :) This is actually GREAT news because I’ve been wanting to go buy GrindStone for the Switch for awhile. Can you send me the link to where I can get a physical copy? SO glad this works entirely unlike Apple’s App Store!
 
That's not a good thing. That means that iOS/Apple is a monopoly/monopsony. Apple shouldn't be able to make rules without consequences.
They… can’t. In what universe can Apple, say, raise prices on all apps that start with the letter “J” by 200% and NOT face consequences? And, it’s the right kind of consequences, too. The consequences that say if you run your business in a way the masses like or have few issues with, you’ll succeed. Run your business in a way that the masses don’t like or have a LOT of issues with, and you’ll fail.
 
As an app developer who's sold iOS apps in the store since 2008, I would be excited if my customers were able to sell an app I developed if they no longer need or want it (as long as they cannot also still use it). This would essentially create a "used app" market. But such a used market would still be useless because the App Store NEVER implemented a method to sell paid app version upgrades.
I'm not sure I'm following your argument here.

How would such an arrangement (i.e. providing a used software market) benefit you as a software developer? Transactions of used software does not benefit you I would think, only benefits the consumer.

As a software developer, wouldn't you prefer to always have consumer buy from you first hand, instead of from the 'used' software market.

Besides, when software are distributed in electronic forms, 'used' software becomes less meaningful, compared to when software are distributed with physical mediums. With the old ways, at least the buyers still gets something in addition to the rights of using your software.

Also, verifying who has rights of support then becomes a nightmare in itself wouldn't it, if software gets traded in a used market?

Technically, I think Apple already have the design in place to support this so called 'used software' platform, but the risks/cost probably outweigh the benefits, with the need to keep accounting of non-developer sellers across the various regions, etc.
 
I'm not sure I'm following your argument here.

How would such an arrangement (i.e. providing a used software market) benefit you as a software developer? Transactions of used software does not benefit you I would think, only benefits the consumer.

As a software developer, wouldn't you prefer to always have consumer buy from you first hand, instead of from the 'used' software market.

Besides, when software are distributed in electronic forms, 'used' software becomes less meaningful, compared to when software are distributed with physical mediums. With the old ways, at least the buyers still gets something in addition to the rights of using your software.

Also, verifying who has rights of support then becomes a nightmare in itself wouldn't it, if software gets traded in a used market?

Technically, I think Apple already have the design in place to support this so called 'used software' platform, but the risks/cost probably outweigh the benefits, with the need to keep accounting of non-developer sellers across the various regions, etc.
Like I said, a used market only really works for the developer if the current owner buys an upgrade the original owner would not have after they stopped using the app. Purchase receipt validation is possible, but the ownership would need to be transferred via the original store. Of course all this would be possible areas of innovation if the Apple/Google cartel did not dictate the entire commerce of the app industry.
 
So, what does that have to do with ANDROID games? Do either of those games come loaded with ads?

„I would imagine, though, they would MUCH prefer a version WITHOUT ads that they can just download from the web somewhere, which is probably what most do. Apple users would likely do the same if it was trivially easy to do so.“

Well, in a backhanded way you were saying that the iOS/Android sideloading user demand is purely because of piracy download reasons, which is simply not true. Comparing iOS/Android to different platform(specially Windows) won’t change the weight of it. On Windows it is even easier to pirate Apps and Games, CD Project Red proves that DRM free Games and Apps does not lead to business fatality. Again, the ones who wants to pirate, will pirate, iOS piracy already exists. Google for Monument Valley ipa download, and you find it multiple times under the Top10 search results even with a howto install on non-jailbroken devices, incl. hints and links.
 
Last edited:
Software for the Nintendo Switch is available via Nintendo's store, Walmart, Best Buy, Amazon, Target, Game Stop, etc...
The developers have to pay Nintendo the same minimum 30% for the right to distribute on the platform, just like iOS, which is the complaint of the the Coalition for App Fairness. Producing physical media costs them even more, cutting their margin further. In addition, Best Buy, Amazon, Walmart, Best Buy and Game Stop all have clauses in their contracts that if the developer offers the game for a lower price on the digital platform, they are required to cut their price (retroactively) for the physical media.
I believe the same goes for the Xbox and Playstation... I don't think either of them have totally ditched physical media, have they?
The same provisions apply to both Xbox and PlayStation stores.
 
Would we be having these conversations if Apple wasn't asking for 30% of every purchase? Isn't that the biggest problem with all of this?

Imagine if Apple's cut was 10% or 15% instead of 15% or 30%... would that help?

Seems like that would go a long way to prevent yet another lawsuit(s)
 
Maybe they chose it, despite the Apple app store monopoly. Maybe they like the Apple hardware best and are willing to live with the restriction of a single store, without liking it. Lots of reasons to take into account when making a decision. Buying an Apple product doesn't equal approving of everything they do.

My company has about a dozen apps in the Apple and Google Play stores and as the guy who has to submit the apps, working with Apple is a freaking PITA. I'd love an alternative.
Technically, by your description you are speaking as an Apple supplier, not an Apple customer. Can you see how, as an Apple customer, I’d rather not have Apple suppliers steering the ship?
 
Technically, by your description you are speaking as an Apple supplier, not an Apple customer. Can you see how, as an Apple customer, I’d rather not have Apple suppliers steering the ship?
While I understand your point, my company's business apps have nothing to do with my personal opinions.
 
Well, in a backhanded way you were saying that the iOS/Android sideloading user demand is purely because of piracy download reasons, which is simply not true. Comparing iOS/Android to different platform(specially Windows) won’t change the weight of it. On Windows it is even easier to pirate Apps and Games, CD Project Red proves that DRM free Games and Apps does not lead to business fatality.
You were saying that, in some way, Android users are WIDELY different from gamers on ANY other platform in that they actually DESIRE ads in their gaming content. So, you can’t say, “They are SO unlike all other gamers” in one context, then say “They are JUST like Windows gamers in another”. Either they want the lowest price for the best content, regardless of source, or they don’t.

So does iOS piracy exists
On Windows, piracy exists and developers can still reap millions of dollars. On iOS, piracy exists, and developers can still reap millions of dollars. On Android, piracy exists and the only way for developers to make money is via ads or in app purchases?
 
Would we be having these conversations if Apple wasn't asking for 30% of every purchase? Isn't that the biggest problem with all of this?

Imagine if Apple's cut was 10% or 15% instead of 15% or 30%... would that help?
Yes, the power of complaining is STRONG. :) If Apple charged nothing, the same types of people would be complaining that Apple should be PAYING them to develop for their platform. There’s always going to be someone that wants more than the contract they signed or the agreement they agreed to AFTER the fact, whether it’s buying a home, leasing a car, or paying for a concert ticket. And, with the power of the internet, even patently nonsensical ideas get a hearing.

“It cost $150 for this ticket, but this guy next to me got his seat for $24. I NOW WANT THAT PRICE!”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Scrip
Yeah, but that’s the future and, even still, doesn’t have anything to do with Android games on Android phones, though.
Never say never, we didn't think it possible to bring ads directly into a game unless the game designer created the image. I could see ad space being bought in VR/AR glasses as you're walking down the street.
 
Never say never, we didn't think it possible to bring ads directly into a game unless the game designer created the image. I could see ad space being bought in VR/AR glasses as you're walking down the street.
I didn’t say never, I said it’s the future. And, while it may have a bearing of future Android games in Android driven VR/AR glasses, it still doesn’t relate to Android games on today’s Android phones.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.