They can't Apple uses their monopoly power over iOS to block the installation of other stores.
In this case 'build your own store' means research, design, build, market, support and maintain your own operating system and fleet of devices. Its a massive undertaking that takes a lot of time and costs a huge amount of money to build and then keep running. Why do people imagine a private enterprise would (or should) do this for free?
If you think Epic is targeting Apple because of Chinese investment, then you don't know the history of Tim Sweeney. It's also just good timing considering everything else Apple has done lately.
Given his Chinese backers and Trump's attempts to kick them out of not just the US but all US-owned app stores, I'd say the timing was utterly bizarre.
I think this is one area where the more tech-savvy online community often comes across as being non-emphatic to their less tech-savvy peers. That in their desire to make the iphone more PC-like for them (just so they can torrent or run Stadia or some other benefit specific to themselves), they also risk exposing the rest of the user base to issues that were never issues on iOS, precisely because of the way it was run from the very start, and their response typically boils down to “It’s not a problem for me, live with it”.
Most users (tech savvy or otherwise) do not consider their fellow users when it comes to the items and services they buy and use. Something bugs them, they assume it should bug everyone. Humans are incredibly myopic in a great many circumstances.
A lot of the moaning Android fanboys are motivated by selfishness and jealousy and they don't think things through. I'd love to present the illusion of fairness by assuming the same is true the other way but I'm not sure it is. Apple's gear is beautiful and a pleasure to use more often than not (way more often than Android) but its expensive. Thats what really bugs them. Most of the "but its not open!" crowd have never installed a wallpaper pic from outside the Play store let alone rooted a device. Apple do have plenty of rich, entitled obnoxious idiot users of course but that's not really a relevant equivalent here because they aren't typically complaining about Android.
I don't disagree with your sentiment.
However the problem with what you are saying is Apple are not honest about their reasons.
Apple are allowing or not allowing things due to their ability to make money, just as much as saying they are only doing it to protect the users.
This is Apples problem, they try and make out the reason is one thing, whilst we all know it's financial for them.
Heres the thing: You're assuming that because one is true, the other cannot be. Apple is a privately owned corporation. Those exist to make money. Its not something they need to say, everyone knows and understands this and anyone who doesn't has no business having strong opinions about more complicated technical or economic or legal issues that crop up around it.
Everything they do is to make money. But Steve Jobs always wanted to change the world. Do you imagine he was lying when he said that? He had plenty of money when he died though nothing like most of his contemporary tech leaders. And he definitely has changed the world. Tim Cook I think has only just become a billionaire in the last week or so. Having overseen about a trillion bucks in value added to his company. How much are Gates, Musk, Bezos worth? Buffet has made more from Apple than Tim Cook (and Steve Jobs) ever have. Just in the last few months alone.
Apple takes stands on issues.
So yes, they charge 30% in order to make money from the store they built (and arguably invented the concept of). That runs on the (two) industry defining products they created. That borrow heavily from the tech they spent the previous 30 years researching, testing and refining. And a multimillion dollar international corporation who makes a hefty chunk of their income from targeting children with different guns and silly clown outfits wants to waltz in and rake in even more cash than they already are at zero cost?
Perhaps you imagine that Epic only make games because they love to see the joy on their gamers faces?
Imagine two priests. One who wishes you to pray and that's good for you, and that's their only wish for you.
The other says the same, but wants you to pray at their church, so they can sell you some items when you are there.
Interesting analogy given that prayer in reality does basically nothing for anyone. I guess it makes some people feel better but when they pray instead of rolling up their sleeves or opening their wallets to actually help others (thoughts and prayers), the net result is not a good one.
Plus all clergy are tasked with recruitment. Is it because they want to save your soul? Or do they need your bum on a seat in their church to save their job or as you say, boost their collection plates? (Lets not worry about the ones that want to molest your children or their superiors who want to cover it up for now)
How do you tell the ones motivated by selfless soul-saving from the ones who are just in it for themselves and/or the church/money?
(For the purposes of this discussion that last question is rhetorical but if you're interested, there are some clues to look out for that should help you identify the extreme cases. A private jet paid for by the "church" is a good indicator. Plus the mansion and the megachurch and the TV channel. All big red flags. Same for sports cars or any other flashy purchases. Christian clergy are supposed to eschew personal wealth strictly speaking. On the other end of the spectrum, I'd argue the ones knocking on your door trying to convert you when they know 99% of people resent them for it are the ones really trying to save your soul. Still horribly misguided of course and highly likely to be part of something more like a cult than a church - though who can really tell the difference these days - but theres a chance their hearts are in the right place. Unless they rolled up in a Bentley)
We all know Apple are not wanting to allow game streaming services (like they allow music/movie streaming services) and they want to protect their own gaming product and selling iOS Games.
This is like asking them to destroy their own business in order for another to make profit. One that hasn't done the work. You know when people go to Target wherever to look at something then go home and buy it from Amazon? Why would Apple choose that as their exclusive business model? Do you imagine that any developer is going to give Apple 30% of their iOS app revenue if they don't have to?
They know is their consumers have a better experience as they can play much better games via streaming, then there is a good chance Apple will lose sales of their games service and some app store sales.
In the immortal words of Bill Gates, "It doesn't have to be better, it just has to be good enough [so long as its cheaper]"
It's a shame, and I don't blame them, but when you are basically lying to customers so you can make money it's hard when you can see it happening.
They aren't lying though. Curating the app store makes things easier, safer, more convenient for end users. You can debate the extent to which each of those is true but they are all true.Since many of those end users are businesses, these things are even more important. It saves them time (which is money), for their users not having to source apps from obscure developer websites (or from having to build or buy in house distribution for the apps they use), support costs if they have issues, set up time and many other details that people who don't run a business never even think of (Trust me, there are many of these). Don't forget the instances of malware found in app on the Play Store. The facial recognition that could be fooled by a photo (This is a big ******* deal if you're a defence contractor, government agency or just a company with valuable proprietary data and unscrupulous competitors)
Apple's platform attracts different users to Android. For one they tend to spend more money. Is that because they have more (maybe from the time they save not fannying around with their phones)? Or is it because they feel safer spending it?
Something else most people are probably overlooking - You know those stories where a child gets hold of a phone and racks up a few grand worth of in-app purchases? Who do you imagine the parents call about that? Its not Epic Games. Not first anyway.
When Apple doesn't refund them (Even though most of time the parents gave the kid the unlocked phone and lied about it) they get bad press. That wouldn't change if they weren't making their 30%, they'd still be the infinitely rich cash cow expected to foot the bill. Can you even phone the Google Play store? I'd be surprised. Same for Epic.
Like saying BIG phones are stupid, buy our small phone today. Whilst at the same time, back, behind doors they are working on BIG phone they will be launching next year.
Apple sometimes changes their mind. This can happen over time. People used to ask them to build tablets years before iPad. But they time wasn't right, the tech wasn't ready. Thats why the Windows ones sucked so bad.
Apple is right that big phones are stupid by the way, they are stupid. Get an iPad.
But people really wanted them so Apple caved in. I recall Samsung mocking Apple for removing the headphone jack to make iPhones waterproof when the Samsung's had been for years even with the jack. Except the Samsung's weren't waterproof, they failed to meet the standards they were supposedly certified to quite consistently (sounds like lying to your customers). Hows that headphone jack looking on the Galaxy nowadays?
Right now Apple don't want to allow game streaming as it will lose them some money and they don't have any competing product.
They have Apple Arcade.
Do you think Xbox Live should be allowed on Playstation? Or PSN on Xbox? They have similar x86 SoCs built by AMD, maybe they ought to be able to play each other's games in the interest of openness?
