IMO, this is the argument I feel Apple should have doubled down on, which is basically what I have been trying to argue all this while.
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.
Judge in Epic vs. Apple Case Floats Potential Compromise
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Macs and OS X have been able to run any app without the need of an app store for 20 years, and is anything but "flooded with thousands of viruses". iOS is esentially the same operating system. Don't be all dramatic.
Allowing apps to advertise the fact that you can subscribe to their service via their website for a lower price or subscribe on the AppStore at the current price would solve many of these problems.
It's so funny watching these insufferable Apple bootlickers start to whine and snivel as they see every stupid argument they keep repeating to themselves gets obliterated in court. The wall is finally coming down. Deal with it.
Allow the link to the epic store for vbucks but charge a commission for any vbucks spent in the app. The same way they pay Sony a commission?
I'm not who you are asking, but...
If Epic wins, they get to make their own store on iOS. They can lower their cut of whatever they sell while conversely keeping more of the profit (otherwise they wouldn't want to do it), and circumvent Apple's commission system. Epic has the resources to build their own store, which requires more than hiring a CS undergrad and paying them scraps. They can task developers to build it and hire customer service reps to staff it. Smaller developers don't have that luxury and will either have to pay Apple's commission or contract with someone else's store on iOS and pay theirs.
MacOS has never had the user base that iOS has. While the underlying architecture is more secure, the equivalent is Windows not MacOS.
Macs and OS X have been able to run any app without the need of an app store for 20 years, and is anything but "flooded with thousands of viruses". iOS is esentially the same operating system. Don't be all dramatic.
Oh baloney. Imagine if Target could force you to subscribe through a Target payment system for services on a smart TV that you bought at Target. That is a more accurate comparison. Maybe Apple should just not let apps that advertise their own payment systems be downloaded for free, charge a dollar or something. Apple has more to gain by having all these apps available for iPhone than they would lose by allowing developers to at least provide a link to their web site.
Apple’s current rule is to compensate small and medium developers, whose pays very few, with its commissions from the big developers. If Epic wins, the big developers will all switch to the model of “free apps with various in-app purchase via payment method of their own”. As a result, unless Apple is willing to maintain its App Store at a loss of itself, it will introduce a more complicated pricing policy which eventually charge a lot more to the small and medium developers than under is current scheme.
That's not even remotely accurate. Fortnite players connect to Epic servers from which they can purchase virtual goods produced by Epic, which are hosted by Epic and distributed utilizing bandwidth paid for by Epic from said servers. Yet somehow Apple demands to be entitled to 30% of goods that are being created, hosted, maintained, and distributed by other parties from other properties? Um, no. That's ridiculous - it's like buying a cell phone at Target and then Target demanding a 30% cut of your phone bill from the carrier.
If Apple believes they are entitled to payment, then it should be for services that they are actually providing, namely hosting and distributing the App. And before you bemoan about how Apple created a platform and XYZ - Apple is not some benevolent entity sending blessings down to developer and making them millions. A software platform needs apps or it's a non-starter, as Microsoft knows all too well. Apple knows it too, which is why they sold iPhone on the back of "there's an app for that" for years.
I wish I could.
While the case is trillion dollar company vs billion dollar company, the outcome will have ramifications on us users and I wish consumers actually got to have a say in this matter. I am willing to bet that many people are not actually against the idea of a walled garden, that the App Store continues to be an equalising force for millions of developers, and the benefits far outweigh the cons.
In this context, I will continue to root for Apple to win (and for them to continue winning in all such future lawsuits).
Apple has designed iPhones/iPads to only allow apps from their App Store. It is within their rights to make their devices any way they’d like. It even ought to be allowable (although it would be stupid) for them to only allow their own apps on their devices.
They’re not taking away the consumer’s choice in the matter, because so long as Apple doesn’t have a monopoly in the smartphone and tablet industry, the consumer can choose to buy or not to buy Apple’s products.
The argument that Apple’s large market share is virtually a monopoly is flawed. Apple’s large market share is the result of free consumer choice. If people didn’t like how Apple designed their products, they’d buy from competitors.
They’re not taking away the consumer’s choice in the matter, because so long as Apple doesn’t have a monopoly in the smartphone and tablet industry, the consumer can choose to buy or not to buy Apple’s products.
The argument that Apple’s large market share is virtually a monopoly is flawed. Apple’s large market share is the result of free consumer choice. If people didn’t like how Apple designed their products, they’d buy from competitors.
When I buy a magazine, there are insets inside that tell me where to order a subscription cheaper online or by mail.
How about this solution... games like Fortnite eliminate free downloads and begin charging for their games in the app store, allowing Apple to take their cut, just like consoles do. Just like every other retail outlet does, either physical or digital.
And this is exactly where it went wrong:
History shows that companies in the same situation as Apple, did not make their platform better or more attractive. The opposite is true. In most cases, the technology and services of these platform stagnated and the userbase only grew because consumers had no alternative. Only true competition can lead to better platforms. But under the current conditions, there can be no competition because nobody can develop a similar platform on iOS.
Marketshare probably has a play in it. While there are architectural differences coming into play (especially with macOS's signed system volume these days), it's much more "profitable" to try and scam windows users because of its big market share. Bigger market = more gullible people = higher ROI
if iOS goes open, you can bet scammers will target it. You'd be surprised at how gullible the general population is. People on macrumors are fairly computer literate so opening it up can only bring benefits as mentioned by others here.
Yes because I want to make a different account and payment method for every single app and game I download.
But would it be better in a way that genuinely results in a better user experience for users?
Take the ability to be able to view and manage my subscriptions in iTunes, for example. If Apple is the money-grubbing entity everyone makes them out to be, they would have little incentive to implement a feature that made it easier for people to terminate subscriptions they didn’t want, if it meant them losing out on their 30% cut?
What I think will happen is that more competition will simply result in a race to the bottom, which in turn means less money available to maintain the App Store. In addition, Apple loses the leverage to keep developers honest by implementing features at anti-tracking or sign-in-with-Apple because now, any developer unhappy with Apple’s rules could simply pull out in favour of another App Store.
Developers would essentially gain power at the expense of Apple and more crucially, end users.
This to me matters more than simply being able to run a game-streaming app on my phone, or sideload emulators, or torrent movies.
Huh! Many of my family members who don't know ANYTHING about computers use Android devices and never ever had any issues like this.
The solution is very very simple and Android is doing it: prompt the user that the app you're trying to install can be potentially dangerous. You have to actually go in the developer setting to enable sideloading.
Trust me iPhone users (unlike the conventional wisdom) are not that naive.
There is also "Play Protect" which continuously monitors apps outside app store and prompt users of any security issues.
It's all about money and even you know it very well, although you pretend that you don't.
This is not the same. Image Target would let you only pay with a Target Credit Card which has 30% Credit Card Fees or if Target would force its suppliers to use only their bank for payments which has a 30% fee.
Now of course in that case no-one would go shopping at Target, but imagine they would be so huge and dominant they would be able to push that.