I haven't seen any evidence that Epic wasn't profitable on iOS. I see no reason why Apple shouldn't be entitled to compensation for the value they provide Epic.
But they’re limited by Apple in what types of user data they can collect, and Apple’s restrictions are enforced by the App Store rules and Apple’s verification process. That’s the point.
Epic needs payment processing and licensing.
That's a mere presumption. Well-known and popular as they are, it's not as if Epic's games aren't competing with other developers' offerings on the App Store. Once you remove the glass floor of Apple's commissions, prices can still decrease.
They could technically - though obviously not overnight, without considerable damage to the ecosystem and users. But the disruption isn't any higher than a change of operating system (OS9 > OS X) or processor architecture (32bit > 64bit, or x64 > ARM), if access is phased out over a certain transitional period of time. And users are still free to use legacy system to run their apps.
One indication is the fact that they don't provide the same security on other platforms (macOS) - even though people store sensitive data or make financial transactions that are just as high-value or more on Macs as they do on iPhones.
Let's not pretend you and @BaldiMac aren't full of your own (shared) assumptions, shall we?
👉 I posit that Epic would take a few percentage points for itself - and pass on the rest (let's say 50%) of the savings in commissions to consumers.
Again, sure, technically, they could lock down sideloading on macOS. But practically they can’t without breaking at least 50% of the functionality of the Mac, since, like I said before, many very important Mac apps aren’t available yet in the Mac App Store. Besides, they have tried to make it somewhat more secure with systems that can scan for malicious code in sideloaded apps, restricting system access that sideloaded apps are provided (which btw, is controversial among many Mac users because some software needs more system access and so they have to try to go into the system and grant access and whatnot), and several other things.
If you have to frame your argument deceptively, then it's probably not a good argument. Epic also needs the platform that Apple provides including its ongoing development.
Hence, the word "presumably". Great call there!
Except pricing on the App Store is already extremely low, so I don't know what you are getting at here. Why are you presuming that Epic would pass up extra revenue out of the goodness of their heart?
arstechnica.com
As to your point about them not restricting sideloading on macOS as “proof” that Apple’s just doing it for money, we’ve already covered that ground. macOS already supported sideloading, and removing it now would negatively impact the functionality of the OS, so in that situation, rather than remove it, Apple’s been trying to make it more secure via changes they’ve made to it. They’ve acknowledged it’s a less secure system, but in the case of macOS, it’s kind of a necessary evil for macOS to be very useful. However, iOS, is useful without sideloading, because it’s App Store is filled to the brim with useful apps.
That's nothing but deflection and whataboutism. Questioning assumptions is one of the primary tools of debate.
And that’s a cute game of deflection there. I point out merely assuming Apple’s motives doesn’t make it true as you keep stating like it’s universally acknowledged fact, so you’re comeback is “but you make assumptions, and then point to something I said about Epic games framed AS OPINION and NOT FACT. 😂
Exactly, the difference here is that he’s trying to sell his assumptions as facts.
Oh, and he also has still yet to give me a single good reason why I should believe his assumptions about Apple’s motives, when Apple has provided plenty of legit reasons for their decisions regarding sideloading.
Oh, and arguing that it would be about the same as an OS version change is just ridiculous. Why would someone buy a Mac if they had to use a legacy OS version to do 3D design work, etc.? You’re really oversimplifying the problem.
if they want app store only adobe will exit as not only will they not give apple 30% of adobe CC fees they will also not want people buying one sub and being able to run it on like 5 systems at the same time under apples shearing rules.
And? My opinion that Apple doesn’t engage in “anticompetitive conduct” is shared by American lawmakers, and that’s why Epic lost their suit against Apple, and why several other accusations of such have failed in court. 🤷🏼♂️
When you’re one of only two options in town, do you really care as long as you do better than the other one? Plenty of decisions Apple made struck me as a “counting every penny” decision. Mechanical hard drives in Macs, starting RAM and storage amounts, etc. For a while some baseline Macs were borderline unusable, yet the company is still around with reputation intact. At the end of the day people don’t do their research and/or just don’t care.
…and Apple needs it (as well as third-party apps) to sell high-priced iPhone devices.
I wouldn’t say it’s extremely low. Especially with app subscriptions for smaller, relatively narrowly focused apps that charge 36, 48 dollars or more each year. Neither would Spotify or Netflix that have ceased offering In-App purchases on iOS, because they’re too expensive.
By the same argument, allowing sideloading would improve functionality on iOS.
Wrong. Adding sideloading abilities on iOS wouldn’t make Adobe creative apps magically available on the iPhone all of a sudden, or add Blender, or many, many other sideloaded MAC apps. It would just allow we’retotallylegitandnotscammy.com to fool people into loading a “Mario Cart” game riddled with malware, or allow multibillion dollar corporations to skirt around Apple’s user privacy rules. MacOS existed before the App Store system existed, and so there are many software’s that are critical to the Mac’s utility that haven’t moved to the Mac App Store yet. The same is not true for iOS, so trying to compare them in that way is absurd. Every app critical to iOS’s functionality and utility for it’s users is available in the App Store. Sideloading on iOS would be needless, because all reputable iOS software is already in the App Store. This silly comparison of the two also ignores critical differences in use-case. The only reason that the removal of sideloading would negatively impact the functionality of macOS would be because it already relies on sideloading to load at least 50% of professional software on that platform. The only way they could actually remove sideloading without negatively impacting macOS’s functionality would be by convincing every app that’s currently not in the App Store to move to the App Store, which would be pretty much nigh to impossible. But all reputable iOS software is already in the App Store, so no convincing is required. Hence, your comparison here is complete rubbish.
I won‘t dispute the whataboutism.
Framed as opinion rather than fact? 🤣🤣🤣 Le’s revisit the, shall we?
These are factual statements.
No, it’s a reality. OS updates do break applications. Many people do use legacy systems because they don’t want to (possibly for pricing) - or can’t for some reason (maybe their software of choice gets discontinued) - update their systems to the newest version.
For the time being. Meanwhile, the EU have enacted theirs and the U.K. is moving forward with theirs. Other developed countries are likely to follow. The U.S. is just a bit behind the curve - but will eventually get their own Open App Markets Bill passed.
And, I’ve already addressed Epic’s percentages, so I will not waste my time on that rabbit trail you’re so obsessed with going down.
It’s really just not. People don’t routinely have at least half of all professional apps on the platform just cease to exist when they update, that’s just not a realistic or even remotely honest idea of what a regular OS update does. Nobody is going to want their OS of choice to drop at least half of all professional software overnight, that would spark outrage, and rightfully so.
Regardless of whether you call that an opinion, an assessment or claim of a fact:
Not routinely. You give them - and developers - a heads-up a couple of years in advance:
