Epic Games CEO Renews Attack on Apple and Calls for Single, Universal App Store

[robbietop]

Epic wants to tackle Apple and Google with Anti-Trust because they have total control over their OS specific App Stores by introducing a singular App Store? A single App Store across multiple different types of hardware?

Like already exists with Google Play Store that works across 100+ device types from 40+ companies.
Like already exists with Apple, that works across 35+ devices.

But somehow a singular App Store for all platforms is not antitrust, but a singular App Store per OS is? Then what about the Microsoft Store?

Or the Epic Games Store…..that charges a commission?

Are these people idiots?

 

[Manzanito]

If we remove Apple's locked-down solution then we reduce consumer choice, we don't increase it, since now people who want that experience can't have it.

Not true. I don’t really care one way or the other, but you’re not forced to install third party app stores even if they’re available. The reducing consumer choice by giving them more choices makes absolutely no sense.

 

[mazz0]

Not true. I don’t really care one way or the other, but you’re not forced to install third party app stores even if they’re available. The reducing consumer choice by giving them more choices makes absolutely no sense.

I addressed that suggestion in this post: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...gle-universal-app-store.2323588/post-30619559

 

[iOS Geek]

This makes no sense. By definition, to OPEN something increases, NOT reduces.

It makes perfect sense. Right now, you have a choice between open ecosystem and a closed one. If you force Apple to open up…you now have an open ecosystem and an…open ecosystem.

Right now, the choice is open or closed. If these people get their way, it will be open or…open. End result? A reduced choice. For people who like the closed ecosystem (I’m one of those people) that leaves us with ZERO choice. How people don’t understand that is beyond me.

 

[iOS Geek]

Does someone want to tell him that one universal store (which has to be run by someone) is a…*gasp*…monopoly?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Completely ignoring the multipurpose device aspect is also an option, right?!

Nope, SPECIFICALLY this. And ONLY this.
So, a hardware platform created to share pictures of cats, and that’s it, NOTHING else, would you say that once they get to X(tbd), they’re no longer able to moderate the hardware and image viewing software they built and they have to allow anyone and everyone to do whatever they want?

Or would this be ok?

 

[Manzanito]

I addressed that suggestion in this post: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...gle-universal-app-store.2323588/post-30619559

I see the security part as a problem, and how people can be tricked into installing malware. Then again, apple’s walled garden is far from perfectly secure, albeit safer than the alternatives.

But after reading your post I still don’t buy the fallacy of “more choice means less choice”, should apple be forced to allow third party stores I won’t install them. I had android phones for some time and didn’t install them, nor apks.

 

[mazz0]

I see the security part as a problem, and how people can be tricked into installing malware. Then again, apple’s walled garden is far from perfectly secure, albeit safer than the alternatives.

But after reading your post I still don’t buy the fallacy of “more choice means less choice”, should apple be forced to allow third party stores I won’t install them. I had android phones for some time and didn’t install them, nor apks.

Fallacy? It’s a fact. If you want the locked down system you’ll be out of luck as it will no longer be an option. That is, objectively, a reduction in choice. It doesn’t matter how valid you think the pros and cons I’ve described are, the fact is the two approaches, closed and open, are different.

There are currently two approaches available, if you take one away there’s one. One is less than two. Ergo, reduction.

 

[Manzanito]

Fallacy? It’s a fact. If you want the locked down system you’ll be out of luck as it will no longer be an option. That is, objectively, a reduction in choice. It doesn’t matter how valid you think the pros and cons I’ve described are, the fact is the two approaches, closed and open, are different.

There are currently two approaches available, if you take one away there’s one. One is less than two. Ergo, reduction.

You can have iOS (and android, for thar matter) as closed as you want, by not installing third party apps. Since you clearly understand that, I’ll leave it here.

 

[Detnator]

You can have iOS (and android, for thar matter) as closed as you want, by not installing third party apps. Since you clearly understand that, I’ll leave it here.

There’s a part you and others with this argument are missing and I can’t tell if it’s being deliberately obtuse or you just don’t understand. The problem is this:

Take Facebook. Zuck is vehemently opposed to some of Apple’s requirements, particularly the new App Tracking Transparency (ATT).

Right now if I want or need Facebook, Apple protects me from some of Zuck’s data sucking and other undesirable “features” by requiring FB be delivered through the Apple App Store with ATT implemented among other requirements that protect consumers (Apple’s customers) at Zuck’s expense.

But then, under your proposed scheme, iOS is opened up, and Apple must allow third party stores. Zuck says “yay!”, takes FB off the Apple App Store, implements his own App Store and delivers FB to iOS users exclusively through there, without any of Apple’s protections. Now, that becomes the only choice I have for getting FB.

Now, maybe I don’t care for FB, but it’s not just FB. As soon as Apple are required to allow third party app stores, Microsoft, Adobe, Epic, Spotify, Tile, and 100 other companies — some of whose apps I need and currently have the option to acquire with Apple’s protections — all bail from the Apple App Store and now I can’t get ANY of those apps without going through those third party stores.

By your logic if I want those apps I now have more options than I had before. But you have taken from me the only good option. Now my options are:
1. Get those apps from those other stores without Apple’s protections or
2. Don’t get those apps at all.

However you have removed my choice to get those apps from one central location, with Apple’s protections and now the only way I can get FB and many other apps is without ATT implemented, and via a separate delivery and update mechanism for each one (so I now have 20 software update services running in the background on my phone instead of one) and you’ve also taken from me the choice to give my credit card details to only one company I trust, instead I have to give my credit card details to many companies some of whom I don’t trust.

Sure, you’ve given me “more” choices, but you have removed one fundamentally desirable choice - one of the primary reasons I choose Apple in the first place - and replaced it with undesirable choices.

Your argument is that I can choose not to install apps from other stores… fine. You can insist that’s the answer if you want. But in doing so if I accept that solution then you’ve removed from me the choice to install those apps at all, that become no longer available on the Apple App Store.

Therefore you have reduced my options.

I’ve raised this argument in multiple forums and the likes of you who push the “you don’t have to install apps from those stores” have yet to reply with any sensible solution to this issue.

Therefore to this moment the case stands that Apple being forced to allow third party stores on iOS will REDUCE our options/choices not add to them.

Or… perhaps you’ll be the first to offer a solution allowing for third party stores that doesn’t reduce my choices…?

 

[Manzanito]

There’s a part you and others with this argument are missing and I can’t tell if it’s being deliberately obtuse or you just don’t understand. The problem is this:

Sorry, once you start name calling I refuse to answer. Pity, you made some valid points.

 

[mazz0]

You can have iOS (and android, for thar matter) as closed as you want, by not installing third party apps. Since you clearly understand that, I’ll leave it here.

All addressed in the post I linked to.

 

[mazz0]

Or… perhaps you’ll be the first to offer a solution allowing for third party stores that doesn’t reduce my choices…?

I actually think there is an option that would more or less maintain the status quo, whilst technically allowing other app stores: Apple insists that all apps that run on an iPhone, regardless of the store, are vetted by Apple, and meet all the same requirements as App Store apps, including making Apple’s payment system an option for all transactions. Of course Apple would have to charge a fee for this, so it’s be no cheaper for developers than simply using the App Store. In other words, it would be pointless. If they’re forced to allow 3rd party stores I expect Apple will try to go this route, and see if the courts allow it.

 

[Detnator]

Sorry, once you start name calling I refuse to answer. Pity, you made some valid points.

Umm… I did not call you any name.

I described a possible behavior (“being deliberately obtuse”) that fits with the scenario. And I started that sentence specifically with “I can’t tell if…” followed by the possible behavior because that’s the reality: I can’t tell. But I want to. It’s brought on by the very fact that NO-ONE has ever provided a response to these points.

They rant on about how sideloading would be great and those of us who want Apple to stay secure and keep protecting us don’t have a case because we can choose not to use the sideloading, insisting, as you have, that we lose nothing. But when faced with these arguments they go silent until there’s another chance for them to pop up somewhere else and regurgitate the same “but it’s more choice” argument. Rinse and repeat.

Does that behavior really not sound to you to be at least a bit deliberately obtuse?

In your case others did explain repeatedly that forcing the open option on Apple removes the “closed” option from those who want closed, and you so far have refused to accept any validity in that position.

Needless to say I didn’t directly point that behavior description at you, and until you either do or don’t respond to the arguments, I can’t even speculate which of those (obtuse or don’t understand) apply to you.

At least you’ve come back with “you made some good points”.

Put yourself in the shoes of myself and those like me who are very concerned that Apple may be forced to open up their platform — to our detriment — because of selfish greedy people like Sweeney (there’s some name calling for you) and ask how you’d feel about that, if you can see that point of view.

I really think describing a behavior, one that is certainly possible, and in some cases likely when looking at the evidence (their refusal to address these points) but still describing it questioningly (“I can’t tell..”) is hardly name calling!

If it is, how is it any different to you dismissively describing @mazz0’s perfectly reasonable argument as “fallacy”?

 

[Detnator]

I actually think there is an option that would more or less maintain the status quo, whilst technically allowing other app stores: Apple insists that all apps that run on an iPhone, regardless of the store, are vetted by Apple, and meet all the same requirements as App Store apps, including making Apple’s payment system an option for all transactions. Of course Apple would have to charge a fee for this, so it’s be no cheaper for developers than simply using the App Store. In other words, it would be pointless. If they’re forced to allow 3rd party stores I expect Apple will try to go this route, and see if the courts allow it.

I strongly believe the court would not allow that if the court were to insist on Apple allowing third party app stores, for the very reason you stated: it’d be pointless.

Plus, a large part of what these devs want is to wrestle control from Apple… so they’d never accept it as a satisfactory solution.

However a variation on what you’ve proposed might work..? …:

Perhaps it could work if developers can have their own stores but they must still offer the same apps at the same prices on Apple’s store. Apple may be technically able to add some code to iOS that can tell if a third party app from a third party store is the same as the same app on the Apple App Store, and not some other hacked version and the OS could refuse to run the app if it’s different.

This idea has issues too, from those developers’ perspectives, in that they still can’t get away with dangerous or scammy apps, but one would hope the courts can see the merit in that.

Aside from that (the ability to sell scam apps etc - which is the agenda of only an evil few anyway) these devs get everything they want…?

If someone discovers their app on the Apple App Store then it’s a customer and sale the dev would not have got otherwise anyway, so it’s reasonable that Apple get a commission for that, and the dev has still gained. If someone learns of an app from some other source (developer’s website or developer’s paid ad somewhere, etc. then that’s a customer they found themselves and Apple’s claim to a commission in that instance is arguably less.

The developer’s ad or site can link to their own store and keep the full payment for themselves (which is the potentially legitimate part of what they want, right?) while still not being able to sell porn to children or scammy apps to non-tech-savvy users, etc.

And those of us who want to keep inside the wall and not use third party stores don’t lose anything this way because we can still get the app from the Appe App Store if we want.

For IAP: if the app came from the Apple App Store then its IAPs have to go through Apple (though maybe only for a limited time like a year or something). If the app was downloaded from the dev’s store, or the limited time is over, then IAP’s can be bought direct from the dev (with zero commission to Apple), but must still include an option for the user to pay through Apple at the same price, and here Apple maybe only takes 5% commission to cover payment processing and a bit of other admin.

Personally I can’t see any reasonable court ever forcing Apple to open up iOS to third party stores, but if it does happen, the above would allow devs to get much more of the pie while still giving users the option to be protected in the walled garden if we want, and legitimately giving Apple a commission for sales the dev would never have got otherwise anyway.

 

[Manzanito]

If it is, how is it any different to you dismissively describing @mazz0’s perfectly reasonable argument as “fallacy”?

One is qualifiying someone, the other an argument.

As I said, so long. Cheers.

 

[Detnator]

One is qualifiying someone, the other an argument.

As I said, so long. Cheers.

Nope.

You qualified an argument — expressed by someone. I qualified a behavior — performed by someone (multiple someones in fact). Neither statement qualified any person.

When my son misbehaves do I tell him he’s a bad boy? No. I tell him he’s awesome but that behavior is unacceptable, inappropriate, dangerous, whatever, and he needs to change it. He’s 10 and even he can see the difference between calling out someone’s (or a lot of someones’) behavior vs name calling the individual(s). How is it you can’t?

But ok, nitpick and make whatever excuse you want not to engage in fruitful debate. That’s your free choice. But surely you realize your response practically invalidates your arguments. (Why did you bother to reply at all?)

The fact remains it’s not just you. To bring this back to the topic: I’ve plenty heard before, this “but more app stores brings more options” line. In your case you nitpicked about terminology, repeatedly insisting that it’s not a decrease in options, but you can only support that with “but you walled garden people don’t have to install those apps.” I’d be fine with it if that were true but it isn’t.

This is a bit of a pattern with the “we want more stores” crowd. It’s right up there with all Sweeney’s cries for “fair” app distribution, when that’s nothing but a BS smokescreen for “Mommy, Apple’s mean, they won’t let me have their IP for free. Make them!”

I’ve brought these and my previous points forward multiple times on multiple forums, and everyone, so far, in the “more stores = more choices” camp refuses to respond with anything meaningful, if at all. You have now joined those ranks, and so perhaps mazz0’s arguments aren’t such “fallacy” after all.

(On a personal level that’s pretty frustrating: sure I’d love to be proven right, but maybe I’m wrong. If so I’d rather “lose” a good solid debate on it’s merits and have my mind changed for the better, than just “win” by forfeit. But back to the topic again… )

The good news is, if no one on any of these forums can counter any of the points I made about how more stores TAKES something very important AWAY and REDUCES valuable options for some of us, then it hopefully increases the chances that no court can do so either, and therefore our closed, walled garden is more likely safe.

So at least there’s that.

 

[shplock]

Let's face it, Apple is using it's monopoly power to force developers to use their app store in order for them to install apps on user's phone(and have to pay a tax to do so). How Apple got away with this for so long is beyond me. Imagine if MS locked down Windows and Apple iTunes had to pay MS 30% for every music and app store transaction that occurred on MS windows. Woulda been unheard of. iPod may never existed and digital music downloads may be $1.50 per song vs. $0.99/each.

Bottom line, Mobile Phone OS is no different that desktop OS and the restriction imposed for owners of iPhones from being able to install apps outside app store is outrageous and can't last forever.

Wrong. This is called capitalism and if you do not like it then you are free to go elsewhere such as Google or Microsoft etc.
There is nothing wrong with what Apple are doing or Google for that matter.
It is no different to an actual market where a stall owner PAYS to sell their products.
It seem to me that Epic just want to be in control of a single store and pay nothing for the privilege whilst getting others to pay for it.

 

[shplock]

are you joking? in what world do you live in that PCs/laptops don't have cameras or other sensitive data than what is on your phone. IN most cases one could easily argue the PC having more sensitive data than your phone.

Bottom line, MacOS and WinOS can install apps from any site and the world hasn't stopped, even Android allows installing from outside the google play store. What makes Apple so special to restrict this besides the obvious gain of 30% transaction tax they can impose on app devs. I know the answer, because when you control 56% US marketshare and have a Duopoly, you can get away with it. Not for long I hope.

Are you bitter ? Phones are more personable than PCs and yes whilst PCs do have cameras etc we do not tend to use them as much or do the same degree as phones.
This argument just highlights why we need stricter control on Macs etc as it is computer that tend to get more hacks and malware.
A few years ago most of the world got crippled with malware that even infected the U.K NHS.
So that for me shows just why side loading is a bad idea and is only for people who wish to circumvent protection so they can get content etc for free.
Kind of like going to a restaurant and demanding you be allowed to bring your own food and cook it for free using the restaurant's kitchen then b**ching when they say no.

 

[shplock]

I think you havne't looked at the data recently, Let's talk US marketshare since that is what matters if you live in the US. Apple marketshare is in mid 50%, google has the remaining. So Apple/Google is a Duoploy, which is no differnt than a Monopoly. Compare that to Verizon/ATT/tmobile. They can't go running around screwing users, they are highly regulated private entities.

With respect you have not looked at the reality at all. Google have a more open system then Apple which gives people plenty of choice!
if they want the walled garden approach then they go for Apple and if they want the open free approach they go for Google.
Choice does not mean having 20 million app store but can mean having different choices which we have.
Sweeny's idea is plain dumb as he is therefore saying there should be no competition other than him.
There should ne only one car maker
only one house builder
only one bank
only on phone maker
only one pizza joint
etc

I think that would be a nightmare world personally.

 

[shplock]

This makes no sense. By definition, to OPEN something increases, NOT reduces.

Not at all. It can lead to more choice but more choice is not always a good thing, different choice is what is needed which we have already.

 

[shplock]

Buggy software, everything turning into an expensive subscription. It's imploding!
Apple has become too GREEDY they deserve what comes to them.

I think the opposite so we will agree to disagree though you are welcome to your opinion which is just that...an opinion and not fact.

 

[shplock]

Are you asking why he doesn’t take down his business first before starting a new one? Because that would make absolutely zero sense. You aren’t forced to use the Epic Games Store on a specific OS. If he had EpicOS and only the Epic Games Store was available to use on it, your snotty comment might’ve made more sense.

In that case I hope Sweeny builds his own app store and entire ecosystem then leaves all others which I doubt he will do personally.

 

[shplock]

No one is forcing Apple to become like Andriod, I think the goal is to prevent Apple from abusing it's monopoly power by taxing 30% to install apps on it's customer owned devices. if apple was 10-15% marketshare and there are a dozen OS Options to choose, It would not be an issue, but facts are Apple designed it's Mobile OS to be restrictive in order to gain only by only allowing apps 1 way in. The design is deliberate, and the their case is to secure the mobile phones. I guess that would be fine but why the need to take 30% then? Why not have the app store, but let companies use their own payment system? Or have fees that are reasonable that doesn't' make them look like crooks. Motives don't match up to what they say.

Yes that is exactly what is happening. Sweeny wants Apple to be open like Google by changing their policies.
He is also contradicting himself as are you.
On the 1 hand he says that Apple has a monopoly and that should end but in the next breath he wants a single universal app store(presumably with him in control) which is exactly a monopoly!

Right now people have a choice between 2 different methods of apps store and that is what is called choice.
Choice is not and repeat not having 20 million to choose from as you seem to want along with Sweeny.
It is about having DIFFERENT choices which you have between Android and IOS and non being part of any app store.

 

[shplock]

I do not think his idea of one store is a bad idea. We have game stores that sells all different game publishers games. We have music stores that sells all different music publishers music so why not have a digital store that sells all different apps from multiple platforms. The principle has been in existance in real world merchant stores for decades so why not have one in the digital world?

Because it fails in the real world.
In the real world we do not have only 1 store selling games or just 1 store selling music etc, we have many different companies selling games, music etc and that gives customers choice.
By having only 1 universal store we take away that choice and presumably with Sweeny as boss of the universal store we end up with him as essentially a dictator demanding what happens which is what a monopoly is, despite his arguments that Apple has one.
This is a glaring contradiction.