and this is why I’m against an open iOS. When will people learn, some third party apps nowadays have malware/spyware whatever, I don’t want this with iOS, and it will be against all of Apples commitment to privacy
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.
Spotify Sides With Epic Games in Battle Against Apple's App Store Fees
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
and this is why I’m against an open iOS. When will people learn, some third party apps nowadays have malware/spyware whatever, I don’t want this with iOS, and it will be against all of Apples commitment to privacy
Waiting for Epic to pull out from XBox and PS stores over the 30% cut and no alternatives. Otherwise it’s just pointless whining.
People complain about a lot of things. It doesn't matter until the company does something or the government steps in, and Apple isn't yielding. That's the only question, should it be legal? Everything about how the US handles markets says yes. Look at any other platform war.
iOS doesn't dominate any market, but it makes a lot more money than macOS does. macOS also consistently takes cues and features from iOS because they were done better. Walled garden works, and it sets iPhones apart as premium products.
I want Apple involved in vetting any software I purchase for my os devices. Don’t see myself buying direct. Not sure they do this the same for Mac OS but I tend to buy all my Mac software through that App Store.
Love how folks on here love to tow the Apple line without thinking it through.
"Mac isn't as popular that's why it's ok for apple to prevent side loading of apps on iOS."
Again: Apple apparently doesn't dominate in the Mobile market either. Which one is it?
I'm sorry, I don't see what's contradictory about this. Neither platform dominates its respective market, but iOS is more successful than macOS.
Well Fortnite was removed by Googl from the Google Play store for the same reason as Apple did. And, it looks like they just show the lower price on the PS store. It's probably the same on Xbox.
And again, so what. This doesn't justify not allowing side loading of apps. Guess what, it would solve all of these issues.
Right. It's so rampant on the Mac. SOOO RAMPANT!
Please, this is a baloney excuse. Apple was able to manage it for the Mac, absolutely zero reason why they couldn't on iOS.
Same rules apply to everyone. If you're talking about Amazon, anyone else with a "Prime"-like membership that offers physical service benefits as well as digital service benefits AND combines that with a video store/video streaming service can get the same deal. The fact is, no one else in the world has a membership like Prime.
Apple won't say why, but it's likely because the UX isn't good. There's a minimum latency of about hardware 150ms-200ms to play these games + latency of multiplayer connections. It's like making a game that requires an Apple Pencil to play (which would be against the guidelines). Then there's a bunch of other reasons like IAP going through Microsoft. Customers would blame the hardware and handle IAP troubles with Apple when it's not Apple's fault.
This.
If Apple's rationale for limiting iPad & iPhone purchases to the App Store was their driving motivator, then they needed to ensure the same safety/privacy policy to protect portable and desktop users. That they failed to do so (because of the impracticality given the history of non-AppStore installs), shows that their policies are more about monopolizing revenues when given the opportunity vs. safety/privacy. Apple could implement the same warning/settings system on phones/pads as they do with current MacOS releases. These clearly force the user to decide to trade off the value Apple brings via the App Store vs. other considerations such as ensuring more profit vs. an App Store purchase. Example: I bought my first Affinity product via the App Store because it was the only option. Bought two later products directly because I want Affinity to A) Get all the revenue, and B) Have a direct relationship with me (which has proven helpful given their great tech support). Could have continued with the App Store, but there was no reason to do so (fully trust Affinity), and two important reasons to go direct with Affinity. That Apple denies these choices to consumer is very concerning - IF the safety/privacy the App Store offers is so valuable, Apple should confidently allow side-loading apps because consumers will still chose the option of the App Store. Denying consumer choice to optimize revenues is a hallmark of monopolistic behaviors.
If Apple's rationale for limiting iPad & iPhone purchases to the App Store was their driving motivator, then they needed to ensure the same safety/privacy policy to protect portable and desktop users. That they failed to do so (because of the impracticality given the history of non-AppStore installs), shows that their policies are more about monopolizing revenues when given the opportunity vs. safety/privacy. Apple could implement the same warning/settings system on phones/pads as they do with current MacOS releases. These clearly force the user to decide to trade off the value Apple brings via the App Store vs. other considerations such as ensuring more profit vs. an App Store purchase. Example: I bought my first Affinity product via the App Store because it was the only option. Bought two later products directly because I want Affinity to A) Get all the revenue, and B) Have a direct relationship with me (which has proven helpful given their great tech support). Could have continued with the App Store, but there was no reason to do so (fully trust Affinity), and two important reasons to go direct with Affinity. That Apple denies these choices to consumer is very concerning - IF the safety/privacy the App Store offers is so valuable, Apple should confidently allow side-loading apps because consumers will still chose the option of the App Store. Denying consumer choice to optimize revenues is a hallmark of monopolistic behaviors.
It justifies iOS's decisions. You're asking, "look at macOS, why can't iOS be like that?" Why would they make their most successful product take cues from their less successful product? They're for different uses cases too. Most people don't use personal computers, and those people don't care about sideloading apps. They don't want to sideload apps.
That's what you know of. It's absolutely known in the industry that Apple gives certain companies a reduced cut on the App store - aka 15%. Lack of consistency.
That sounds overly specific. Usually overly specific means twisted to what someone wants. Apple wants to exempt Amazon however they can.
Again, silly argument. Do you not own the device that's in your hand? Why are you forced to decide where to buy/get your apps?
They've allowed it on the mac, zero reason to allow this on iOS.
What’s funny is that Epic almost assuredly just broke copyright law by parodying Apple’s 1984 ad for commercial purposes (it’s in Fortnite). Parodies of copyrighted content are fair game, but the second you use it to generate profit, you’ve crossed a legal red line. Countdown to Apple counter suing Epic for this stunt...
No, the Epic position is untenable.
The implications, if they win with their arguments, are that all premium providers will switch to free and Apple will no longer get paid to host or curate the app market that many people rely on.
The other argument is that any judgement for Epic (and Spotify etc...) would further advantage their already dominant freemium business model over premium software that sells through the store.
You're throwing out accusations without any hard facts. Which apps are they giving 15% to?
The closest rumor I can remember was Apple making a deal with Microsoft to bring Office to the App Store, but that was just a rumor.
What "Prime competitor" is looking for the same deal but is unable to get it?
Apple would have put this in the guidelines if there were many similar service, but so far only 1 exists.