Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google Reportedly Plans to Update Play Store Guidelines to Emphasize Use of Its Billing System With 30% Fee
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Many users, including me, detest the closed ecosystem. We buy Apple products because they are superior in many ways. I particularly like macOS (at least up to Mojave, and hoping that Big Sur turns out better than the mess of Catalina), but iOS and the walled garden is something I tolerate because the iPhone does the job of being a phone fine even with the walled garden, but I sure wish I had a real file system. Regardless, it's not that big a deal, as I use my MBP and macOS for any real work, and the iPhone is simply a phone w extras for me. I don't use an iPad, because the walled garden of iPadOS is useless for me to do real work. And as for the macOS-iOS "ecosystem", I find it absolutely terrible, and turn most of it off.
Here's the thing, if there are other non-Apple iOS stores, there is nothing stopping anyone who likes the walled garden from sticking with it. All that opening up to other stores does, is give users like me choice. Just as with macOS you can happily stick with the Apple macOS store if that makes you feel safer, but users like me want all the freedom of not having to stick with it.
[automerge]1601091058[/automerge]
[Slaps forehead]
It’s not as though there hasn’t been a precedent for this.
Epic initially tried to circumvent the google play store by not offering Fortnite there and instead getting users to sideload the app on their devices. So you have a huge and influential game developer trying to get users to compromise the security of their devices, just to earn a few bucks for themselves.
Meanwhile, on iOS, Fortnite had been available on the App Store since day 1, because Epic had no other choice. Users didn’t have to jump through hoops to download said app.
So the problem I see with this is that it’s not giving me more of what I want. The App Store (and Apple’s strict guidelines) is what keeps developers honest, and I can guarantee that the moment they find they don’t have to adhere to App Store policies, many won’t.
What happens when Facebook no longer has to go through the App Store, and is instead free to distribute the app through their own App Store, replete with whatever privacy-violating settings and trackers that normally would never have passed app review?
You can say - I have the choice not to download said app. And that’s precisely the point - Apple has made it so I don’t have to choose, by allowing me the best of both worlds. Most developers will jump through whatever hoops Apple places in front of them, because that’s where the best customers are, and I as the end user benefit from the strict policies that Apple has in place.
So for me at least, opening up the store holds virtually no benefits for me, only downsides, so I disagree with the oft-parroted assertion that “I don’t have to use third-party app stores if I don’t want to”, when their mere existence would already have a negative externality on me.
Maybe it sounds selfish of me, but I do believe Epic will lose the lawsuit, Apple will maintain ultimate control over the App Store, and its word shall be the law of the land henceforth.
I wouldn’t have it any other way.
If Apple has a monopoly on the Apple App Store, then one must accept that
Google also has a monopoly on the Google Play Store,
Sony has a monopoly on the Playstation Store,
Epic has a monopoly on the Epic Games store, etc.
If ANY of those are not true, then all of them are not true.
If I don't like how Target handles my product, there is nothing I can do either.
What if I want the hardware and the operating system, but I also want root access to the system? That's consumer freedom.
Hypocrisy and personal bias have been at the root of what you described for years. With Apple being number 1, they get the bullseye.
Linux, OS X and Windows do not charge for using their OSs nor browsers themselves, only stores that live within to their respective owners (like Steam). Windows is the only one not free, but I see no amount of hatred, disdain, and horrific things about it, only “I would never pay for Windows”. Chalk it to preferences.
MS does take their cut on the Microsoft App Store, on their XBox Stores for games, etc... and I see no amount of hatred, disdain, and horrific things about it. Only the “why Apple is getting so badly beaten by the exact same policies”.
What exactly did you mean?
If only there were some way to install a web app on your iOS device. Man, that would be progressive. Oh, wait...
The issue is, though, that a good majority of iOS users just don't care. They can get the most popular apps and games on the App Store (which is the main thing people download) and they know that the apps will be safe to download.
So why do they need an open ecosystem from a user standpoint? They have all they want atm.
With increasing focus on privacy, that they will be forced to follow somehow as well, they have to seek alternative sources of income. Simple. And if Apple do it they can as well. And they will support Apple in keeping doing otherwise they could not do that as well if Apple will be forced to lower commission.
The 30% would likely continue because it is part of the revenue sharing agreement you enter into when building the applications. If you don't want to pay the 30% to Apple, then don't use Apple's IP.
I suspect the irony in this comment will be that Apple has more likelihood of winning whilst Google is the one that has the anticompetitive behaviour against Fortnite.
Apple charge a 30% fee for any revenue gained whilst leveraging Apple's intellectual property on iOS. Apps can decide if they want to pay this and write for iOS or if they want to write for Android devices instead. If a developer doesn't want to pay Apple the 30% for use of it's intellectual property and services, nobody forces them to write for the platform.
The courage angle was a poor choice especially since they've lacked the courage to do the same on their desktop platforms.
If it is money for nothing, then those developers need not leverage any of Apple's intellectual property then, none of their SDK's and none of the development tooling. You know what I feel is money for almost nothing? Epic Store. If you build your game without using any of Epic's intellectual property then Epic take 12% from you just for hosting the game. No development tools, no SDK's, no services, no support systems to help you develop just 12%.
Apple charge 30% as a part of a revenue sharing arrangement for the ability to leverage Apple's intellectual property and a number of services associated with it.
Apple's approach to having a single bottom line I think leads to a much more uniform product development strategy. Juxtapose this to what Microsoft did where they heavily fragment their platforms in alignment with their different business units profit and loss statements.
Apple have a strong tradition of leading the removal of interfaces that everyone thought required. Do you want your 3.5" floppy drive back as well? This isn't a new thing, they've been doing this for decades.
Google followed just about everything about the iPhone. Their first Android device was a Blackberry clone, the operating system had hard coded need to support hardware buttons for it to operate properly. Android took open source platforms like Linux, Apache Harmony and Eclipse then used it to sell their own services. They make their money their from the OEMs who have to pay to use their Google Mobile Services in a model not dissimilar to Microsoft. And not dissimilar to Microsoft, Google has threatened OEMs around the bundling of Fortnite too. Google truly taking inspiration from everywhere.
Buy an Android device then? If that is a feature that is important to you, Android is the platform that provides that feature for you.
Imagine if people believed in the free market.
If Microsoft did that, and people didn’t like it, the market would take care of it. If they had done it from the beginning, Windows may never have caught on. But if they did it, and people didn’t care and kept buying Windows machines, what’s the harm?
Imagine if I could just demand the use of floor or shelf space from any store. No, i'm not going to pay you for it. I just want access to the customers you've worked to bring into your store. Oh, and if I want to sell something in your own part of your own store - Don't be anticompetitive and charge me 30% on the sales I make using your own floor and shelf space.
Apple and Sony store are monopolies.
Google Play and Epic "store" aren't.
I'll leave it up to you to try and work out the diff.
Google’s business model isn’t store revenue. It is and always has been spying on the users - they are the product in Google ecosystem.
The whole isea of Android was lished through because Google heard of the upcing Apple Phone and was worried about their ad revenue.
Maybe the regulatora leaning harder towards privacy are finally forcing their hand into acting more like a real business and less like a police informant in Soviet Russia 😉
The whole isea of Android was lished through because Google heard of the upcing Apple Phone and was worried about their ad revenue.
Maybe the regulatora leaning harder towards privacy are finally forcing their hand into acting more like a real business and less like a police informant in Soviet Russia 😉
Apple controls what gets included in the Apple Store. (NOTHING is in the store without approval and a revenue sharing agreement between parties)
Sony controls what gets included in the Playstation Store. (NOTHING is in the store without approval and a revenue sharing agreement between parties)
Google controls what gets included in the Google Play Store (NOTHING is in the store without approval and a revenue sharing agreement between parties).
Epic controls what gets included in the Epic Games Store (NOTHING is in the store without approval and a revenue sharing agreement between parties)
If this arrangement, that NOTHING is in the store without approval and a revenue sharing agreement between parties, is being defined as a monopoly, there’s no difference.
I see it as infringing on users’ right to not have a choice.
If you're alluding to side-loading then it becomes even more apparent the ios app store isn't a monopoly as an app is obtainable multiple ways.
Apple has defacto apps monopoly due to their 80% revenue share(at last check), which means developers are essentially forced to use Apple's app store to have any chance at making it and paying their bills.
Yes, Apple has a monopoly on some apps, Apple Mail for example. Apple also has a monopoly on iMovie, they have a monopoly on Keynote, Numbers, and Pages as well. Are there specific apps you’re talking about?
And, continuing, if the above is true, then Google has a monopoly on Google Maps, Microsoft has a monopoly on Microsoft Office, Epic Games has a monopoly on Epic Games’ Fortnite.