This is getting a bit convoluted but I assume car=iOS deviced, Shell=Apple app store, lets call apps an additive in the gas.
Yup, Epic decided to rage at Apple and willingly broke their end of the agreement. Why do you blame Apple
I don't blame Apple for that. I blame Epic. That was stupid and they've been punished by a tremendous loss of revenue since getting evicted from the store. However, that is a matter between 2 huge businesses.
If I wanted Epic games on the iDevice I already owned at the time and/or updates to Epic stuff I already had installed on iDevices owned at the time, is it reasonable that I- the consumer- is impacted. That's basically Daddy decided to punish all the children for a matter between Daddy and Daddy's friend/enemy. What exactly did we "children" do wrong?
for this and why would you want to do business with a company like that?
It's Apple's business as owner of THEIR store to do business with anyone they like.
However, as a customer who owns an iDevice, if I want to install Epic stuff on it anyway (Fortnite was quite the popular game at that time), why am I punished for an Apple vs. Epic squabble?
Wait, on Mac, if something is not in the Apple Mac App Store, I'll just go get it somewhere else... such as direct from the developer. But nope: I can't do that with this other computer because that exact same kind of consumer freedom is not available to me.
Apple vs. Epic is
THEIR squabble, not ours. It can become ours if we want to take a side ourselves, and that's our own business too. But just because we are pro one or the other ourselves doesn't mean our billion fellow consumers must be subjected to the same stance/position... except they are all on one side of that automatically because Apple has a company store model lock on any apps on iDevices.
I think of the kid who saved up 6 months or a year to finally get an iPhone. He wants to play Fortnite with his friends when that was so popular. Sorry kid. Epic picked a fight over relative peanuts and Apple has kicked them out the App Store. If you don't already have Fortnite on your new iPhone, tough luck. What Apple decides is all that can be decided for you.
No need complaining about that. Even Apple consumers will just tell you to go buy an Android phone if you want to play a popular game with your friends.
If Epic wanted to stand up and make a point they could have willingly pulled out of the iOS market in protest. Instead they willingly broke their agreement and blamed Apple.
If Apple wanted to stand up and make a point about security disasters in the EU, they could have pulled out of the EU to prevent all that terrible disaster from happening. Instead, they reluctantly but willingly complied. Why? Because it was more profitable to stay and comply than exit and lose all of that much greater revenue.
I agree Epic handled this wrong. But I also offer that that is a matter between 2 corporations. Consumers should not be involved... or affected. Again, if up to all app developers went with Epic on this and all got evicted, would that be some win for consumers? No.
Again with this?
I own no Apple stock outside of funds my 401k might be in and am not in this debate on behalf of Apple.
I didn't say you did. That was me guessing why "some" people do and their shareholder view overrides their view as consumers. Else, I can't quite grasp how they would work so hard for free to deny themselves basic customer freedoms of choice- even if they don't want to use them themselves. Having consumer options is always better than having only 1 option.
I am in this debate only because I bought into and value the way Apple's ecosystem functions. I view it as a unique alternative to the Android ecosystem and I feel it should be left to the market to decide. If Apple is too restrictive then consumers will abandon them, if users do not abandon Apple then that is an indication that consumers value what Apple is doing.
I like Apple probably just as much as you do. Almost all tech in my household is Apple and has been since I purchased my first piece of Apple anything some 20 years ago.
I don't see this matter as towards some sole reason someone would choose iDevice over aDevice. It's just one of many things that differentiates I vs. A.
I don't see it as some betrayal of Apple by taking some side against Apple... because I don't work there and I don't prioritize shareholder benefits over consumer benefits. In other threads, I am sometimes one of the few taking Apple's side against the broader crowd... most notably: I think Vpro is a great, innovative crack at delivering an any-size screen in a flat weight & size MOBILE package. In those Vpro threads, I'm usually among the very few who will argue FOR (even defend) Vpro. Who's with me in those threads? Often the same characters against this take in
these threads.
I- personally (that's ME and just ME)- see
this particular part of things as
bad business... not measured in dollars (it's
VERY lucrative to get an exclusive market lock on anything) but just in customer-centered business/perception. Apple has long since positioned itself as anti-establishment, most notably starting with the 1984 commercial, through the "think different" era, "just works" era, etc. Part of what makes some kind of halo shine is that they (at least appear to) prioritize customers over everything, including shareholders.
Anyone who can
objectively look at this sees "Company Store" model, which is the opposite of prioritizing customers. Company store models are about maximizing profits through a LOCK on a market. If such a store can keep competitors away, they can make vast fortunes. Part of how they do that is customers having no competitive choices.
"But android, but android!" Customers want iPhone
AND more customer benefits... not throwing all out to buy an inferior phone & platform to gain a bit more of this
one thing.
If we can both have what we want I will bow out of this debate, I have said this many times! If as part of the developers agreement they must maintain a presence in the Apple App store I could care less if they also offer their apps in 3rd party stores or via their own.
Me too. And I don't even consider this a win or lose conversation, so nobody needs to bow out. IMO: a victory here is for anyone who wants to own iDevices to gain a Mac-like app landscape so that competition can deliver any benefits that competition can deliver. Those who don't want to source apps from anywhere other than the App Store can keep right on sourcing apps from the App Store... exactly as it can work in the Mac App Store.
As I understand it from EU Apple people, while the law has been in place for nearly a year, most seem to perceive that everyone just keeps right on shopping the Apple App Store. Why? It is well established as the goto store for iDevice apps. Competition stores- including developers themselves- apparently need to try harder to lure some share away from the one store that does still rule them all in the EU. How can they do that? How do any new competitors who come into a town with a long-established dominant retailer take some share?
In general, when there is new competition, new competition competes and at least some consumers benefit by being able to buy the same stuff for lower prices or getting added value thrown in for the same prices. Others happy with the same old, same old, can just stick with it. I expect no difference here... even if EU-type stuff went global.
That is the market at work, if all or a significant number of devs abandon a platform in protest of certain policies then it is incumbent upon the platform to adjust. However, if devs value the almighty dollar more than their values then...
Yes, the difference here is that average developer might need every possible nickel of sales from anywhere to pay their basic bills. Behemoths like Epic and the "King" of the capitalism hill can both do very drastic things and not starve as a result of it. Epic survived their complete ejection from Apple retail. Joe Blow developer might be dead in a month if he got evicted or proactively exited.
One thing to note here: this is NOT an either-or situation for the vast majority of developers. If I'm one in the EU, I'd want to maintain my presence in the long established store AND at least sell my app through my own website too. If other stores can offer me exposure, I want to be there too.
A very old, very smart basic concept of business is to try to be WHEREVER buyers happen to be... not just in one store or one channel. Epic got evicted. Other behemoths can afford to CHOOSE to exit and sell their stuff on their own stores. However, as soon as they exit, they'll see the great plunge in revenue that they could still make by having a presence in the Apple Store too. Any who dare to do that will likely soon be back... even though they can make more money on each unit sale from their own store/website, the total amount of profit will likely be greater by also being where MOST people shop for their apps too.
Apple does this
themselves. Where can you buy Apple products outside of Apple retail? About
everywhere! Best Buy, Walmart, Target, B&H, Airport tech vending machines, etc. My local grocer stocks a few Apple Products. Why are they in all those places if ONE store or ONE buying experience is better & "more secure" in
EVERY way? Because it’s more profitable for Apple to be wherever those interested in buying what Apple sells can be found. But noooooooo, that very same broad distribution is not suitable for iDevice app makers and app shoppers. Why? Think about it. “Think different” about it.
What example does Apple set with their own creations?
This is not either-or. It's an
AND option(s)... able to optionally benefit app creators and app consumers. Conceptually, Apple loses some commission revenue to consumers buying from other stores... but those consumers are still running the software they buy from anywhere on
Apple hardware which will need to be replaced in no more than a few years. "Just buy android" if taken as actual advice costs Apple recurring hardware purchases too if customers actually acted on it.
If Apple were to change their cut or pricing in a way that obscenely changed the marketplace then Apple will suffer.
Define "obscenely." I agree that my prior examples would be cast as obscene changes. But the catch is this: if they went obscene and we wanted apps, IAPs, etc for our iDevices, we'd have to pay obscene... because they are the
only seller available to most of us.
Many argue that 15% and 30% are "obscene." There's a whole world of businesses that are thrilled to retain a 10% cut of revenue from whatever they sell. Apple takes first bite- before the creators of the apps themselves- of at least 15% right off the top line (not bottom line).
15% and 30% are long established so we can see them as baseline. But "obscene" is in the eye of the beholder. And part of all of this is because the creators of apps are unhappy that Apple takes so much, takes so much of app-related revenue AFTER the sale and restricts them in many other ways... ways that are commonly applied and enjoyed by them on the Mac side of things... and enjoyed by Mac customers too.
This is no different than any other marketplace where prices change. Sometimes a retailer will raise prices because they can or as a last ditch effort to become solvent or sustainable.
It's completely different when there is only ONE retailer of something. Competition polices price hikes. Every week there are
"deals" on Apple stuff. Best Buy or Amazon or Walmart, etc offer Apple's own creations at sale prices lower than what the very same thing is sold for at Apple. Suppose next week, instead of offering a better price, Best Buy decides to offer MBair up to
double Apple's price. If Best Buy was the only retailer for MBair, they could do that. And if they held it at that price and you wanted a MBair, you'd have to just pay double.
However, if they do that next week, what will happen? Customers- knowing they can get the very same product from Apple and all retailers for HALF Best Buy's price or better- will almost certainly not pay double to Best Buy. That's competition
policing such action. Where there is no competition for anything, there is no such policing. Charge 3X to 5X for RAM & SSD available only from one source and if you want the product that RAM & SSD goes into you pay 3X to 5X market. You can't shop around for better prices on that RAM & SSD. Pay up. There's only 1 seller. Else, go buy a PC and set aside all of the other reasons you want THAT kind of computer as if only RAM & SSD matters.
Lower prices don't always work, look at the airlines. Because of the race to the bottom in pricing we are packed like sardines in ever shrinking spaces.
Why are they packed liked sardines? Because people want competitive pricing for flights and generally choose to book with the low-to-lowest price.
The same people could pay up for first class- and some do- or pay up for a private flight on their own plane. I can fly to Kansas City for about $250 or I can book a private flight for about $8K. Both get me to Kansas City. In one, I'll have to endure a little inconvenience for the 3 hours. Do I value the $7750 to not be a sardine for 3 hours or do I want to pay way more to avoid that feeling?
What do most people choose? Why? Part of the answer is because they can "shop around" and competition makes it possible to fly to Kansas City for only $250 instead of only $8K. Any of those people happy to pay $8K can still pay it and still get that "not sardine experience." But other people willing to forgo whatever is premium about the $8K flight can still get to Kansas City for as little as only $250. The ability to choose either lets both kinds of people have much of what they want. No choice lets the airline decide the pricing and all people wanting to fly there needs to pay whatever the one airline in charge of all such possibilities chooses to charge.
And here's one last observation: to some people, bragging about paying towards the least possible for something
IS the most important thing. Lots of people love to volunteer how little they paid implying how proud of themselves they are for shopping around and find the same thing available at other places for more… at a low/lowest price. To them, a big prize in consumerism is in NOT spending more but ending up with the same general "prize” for less/least.
