That is all.
Apple has appealed one of its disputes against Epic Games, despite having mostly won the case. The iGiant's legal stoush with Epic concerned the games developer's decision to sell virtual goods directly from within its smash hit game Fortnite, and to do so at a discount compared to prices offered in Apple's App Store. Epic did …
Apple is an a***hole company because
* It abuses the developers.
* It abuses the companies that want to put their programs there.
* It abuses the consumers too.
Apple charges for every developer every year. Over top, it charges a cut per purchase. And, Apple changes the rules on a whim and unilaterally.
That's not really an Apple problem though, that's a rich people happy to have nice shiny things whilst shitting on other people a long way away they never meet problem.
The companies in question make quite a lot of the shiny shiny we all like, not just for Apple, but for many consumer electronics companies. If we really cared about this we'd all have to change our ways; pontificating at hipsters just doesn't cut it.
Tomato, you should be ashamed of yourself. I mean it, ashamed.
The average retail worker in the USA is more likely to be murdered doing their job than a Foxconn employee's chances of dying by suicide. US suicide rates were three times higher than Foxconn, at Foxconn's worst times. And since then they have reduced the rates.
How? They looked at _how_ people commit suicide. Most in the USA take guns. Owning a gun in China is illegal. Lots of things are not possible when you live with lots of other people. So they jump off tall buildings. Americans and Brits don't do that, so this sounds horrible to their ears.
And what do suicide nets do? As Jerry Pournelle explained years ago, they stop people from killing themselves. Making suicide just a little bit harder reduces numbers hugely. Someone climbs on a roof, wants to jump, sees a net, what do they do? Climb down from the roof and continue with their lives.
An unwanted side effect is that this kind of action gives ammunition to sad idiots. That's why such sad idiots, should be kicked as hard as possible. It seems that Foxconn decided "if 1,000 people make fun of us, but it saves one life, then we should do it". I say to Foxconn "if 1,000 people make fun of you, but it saves one life, then you should do it and I'll kick anyone making fun of you".
Apple treats their customers like shit. They treat their developers like shit. They treat the folks forced to use their app store like shit & *charge them* while doing it. They litigate everything they can, arguing every letter & bit of punctuation they can in order to bury their opponents in legal fees & drag the case for as long as possible.
My disgust over their corporate lack of ethics/morals could best be summed up in my original post.
*Hands you a pint* Now be nice or I shall make you drink American "light" beer instead of the good stuff. =-)p
I'm a customer. I'm also a developer.
I'm *very* happy with Apple. I'm not giving up 30% of revenue that I might otherwise have got; I'm paying 30% in return for access to an enormous market that I simply couldn't access otherwise.
There's no monopoly here; my customers are welcome to buy Android phones (although I won't develop for them, because the platform is so fragmented and there's no money in it) and side-load whatever they like. As so many on here are fond of saying, you don't have to buy Apple.
But there are too many on here who completely forget (or are too young to know) how bad it is/was developing and selling in the past.
Just out of interest, was microsoft ever a monopoly? People could have gone to Apple or other alternatives, and could easily have installed Netscape or other browsers too.
Certainly both Apple and MS have/had a large captive audience with significant barriers to moving away. Microsoft forced a free browser on people (but they were always free to install alternatives), Apple controls what you can and cannot install, takes a massive cut of 30% and charges developers (while Microsoft was giving dev tools away for free, and still does - SQL Server, Visual Studio, etc.).
As a developer, I would say that phones have created a platform for developers that is far more restrictive, fragmented and expensive to work on than the PCs and computers of the 80s and 90s. In the past, you could produce software and distribute it yourself cheaply via the web. Now, you effectively have to jump through Apple or Google's requirements, and hand them 30% for the privilege.
You could do those things, but you had no access to the sort of audience that Apple's App Store affords. Such exposure is tremendously valuable. Google Search =/= App Store Search. And if you want visibility on Google you need to pay significant PPC monies to get seen as a minor developer.
In terms of fragmentation, the Apple ecosystem is not at all. That's the point. The percentage running recent iOS is huge. The hardware is standardised: we know what our development targets are.
There is IMHO just no comparison between the "good old days" of writing an app, putting up a page on Google, and hoping for a few lucky hits, and being able to be discovered by so many potential users on the App Store. It is 30% of a *far far* bigger potential pie.
Sure, if you produce a "me too" app which 100s of competitors, you'll get no visibility.
Yes, Microsoft were a monopoly, but were quite good at hiding it.
PC manufacturers who wanted to pre-install Windows on *any* machines they shipped out to customers had to pay to license Windows on *every* machine they shipped out, whether it had Windows on or not.
That meant companies supplying corporate customers, or even just box shifting high street stores, included the cost of a Windows license in every sale.
Someone buying 10,000 machines doesn't want to go to the trouble of installing an OS on all of them, they want it pre-installed and that's easiest using big old disk duplication devices that can do hundreds of installs at once, but the drives go bare into the device - so you either dismantle all of your new machines or install them one at a time.
Now it was possible to get a refund if you didn't want Windows, but you had to buy a machine and then apply for a refund from MS (about £30) after removing the OEM installation.
As a result, pretty well everyone bought a PC and just used Windows; it had something like 93% of the market at one point.
Internet Explorer was so entwined with the OS that you could not cleanly remove it without trashing the system; if you did uninstall the frontend bits you left a good chunk of the security problems that the integration caused *and* Windows would keep suggesting that you should install the latest version at every opportunity.
If anyone looked to have a technology that could seriously rival an MS product they were either bought and absorbed or MS would more or less give away their own product until the competition went bust.
Microsoft was very much a monopoly in some quite abusive ways.
Apple are about a quarter of the market for mobiles and something like 15% max for computers. Are they successful? Yes. Are they important? Yes. Are they influential? Yes. Are they a monopoly? In some areas, maybe, but broadly they are not.
Personally I really don't understand why someone who hates Apple and wouldn't buy one of their devices if it was the last thing on the planet can get so hot under the collar about this stuff.
"Personally I really don't understand why someone who hates Apple and wouldn't buy one of their devices if it was the last thing on the planet can get so hot under the collar about this stuff."
I can explain that, but for the record I have bought Apple products and still use them. But first, the people you describe: you remember the extreme hatred GNU, Linux, BSD people had for Microsoft in the 1990s? You've seen those people who still have that hatred today, even when they don't always seem to know why? It's like that. Someone who sees an abuse of dominance can find that problematic whether they're paying for that themselves.
As for people like me who use Apple products but aren't tied to them, it does somewhat affect me, although Apple doesn't make much from my App Store habits. In fact, my objections are also quite related to the lack of ethics the policy involves and to the rent seeking that the behavior is. I don't like anyone doing that, and when it worsens what I otherwise think is a pretty good platform, it's something I'd quite like to see corrected.
Actually, Epic have argued that they'd be happy to not have to use Apple's services at all.
It's an artificial construct - using Apple's services to get their apps onto iThings is something that Apple forces on devs. I suspect that were it optional then we'd not be having this discussion at all - some devs (like Epic) would do their own thing and not "use a free ride", while other smaller devs would decide that the convenience was worth giving Apple 30% for.
Lets say you have a perfectly functional pair of feet, and are happy walking home from the pub. A taxi company sets and forcibly abducts anyone trying to walk home - and charges them for the ride. Some people complain about the fares, are clear that they didn't want the ride anyway - but are accused of being out for a free ride because they don't want to pay the fare.
So you are for Apple giving Epic a free ride then. I'm sorry but come again? Why should Apple have to bendover and cater to some upstart outfit like Epic, when the practice in question has since been long established some 8 years before Current year +6? I suppose this would be an argument were this as fresh as Apple locking descreet components (Camera, Scrreens Bateries etc...), to the Device. (Something even Google, and Samsung are now doing on their Phones), but it's not. Thats how Apple does their busness, for better or worse, and you can either like that, or lump it.
I think you've missed the point - there is no free ride being asked for.
Apple sold the iThing and made a profit on that sale - if not then that's their own fault. Now they want to make a profit on everything the end user does with that iThing - like buying a game.
Crap car analogy. You buy a car, but then find you can only buy fuel that the manufacturer approves of, and the manufacturer takes a 30% cut of any fuel you put in. Or you can only fit tyres the manufacturer takes a 30% cut of, or ...
Both users and Epic would be perfectly happy to not use Apple's servers at all. The user simply wants to buy and install a game on the hardware they have bought and paid for. Epic simply wants to sell the game to the user, for the user to run on the hardware that the user had bought and paid for.
Apple have artificially rigged the system so that the user hasn't really bought the iThing - they have paid for it as though they have bought it, but Apple have reserved unto Apple the right to determine what the user can do with it, and have reserved unto themselves the right to shakedown anyone wanting to provide users with software to run on their iThing. This is an entirely artificial arrangement, it would only be a free ride IF Epic were wanting to use Apple's services but not pay. But they don't, they'd be perfectly happy to not use Apple's services at all.
Apple treats their customers like shit. They treat their developers like shit. They treat the folks forced to use their app store like shit & *charge them* while doing it.
Surely there is a general principle at play of "if you don't like the rules nobody is forcing you to take part"?
Don't like Apple's shittyness? Go to Android, I hear they sell quite a few of them. Nobody is forcing you to be an Apple user, developer, or customer. You have a choice.
If they are really that shitty then the market will take care of that. That it hasn't thus far tells me that the customers don't care that much and neither do the developers.
In general, companies are as greedy and shitty as they can get away with.
Apple is always going to want its 30%. At some point, Apple will need to get paid for the use of their infrastructure (read : the appstore). So they're going to look at the sales price of an app, and are simply going to charge the maker 30% for the service. For a given app that costs, say, 10 (choose currency of choice) they're not going to charge 30%, but charge 3 (chosen currency) for platform use ( I know it sounds the same, but there may be a difference in the way trade law defines it). Only now the payment provider is going to tack their charge onto that.
So offering 'payment platform' choices sounds great, but how is it going to make the software cheaper for the end user ? I'm pretty sure Apple is not going to take a smaller fee.
No, Epic is not compelled to go through the AppStore. The rules are: If the transaction is made from within the game, then it must go through the AppStore, and you can't send the user elsewhere. But outside the game, you can sell the same things any way you like, and Apple doesn't see a penny of it.
Apple will always want its $
I suspect it will change the T&C somehow so that it is app-usage based
so not 30% of 10
but 10% of 10 every 'period'. Like SAAS but not.
Apple App Store As a New Automated Simple Service Holistically Optimised Legally Enabled
(or "apple as an asshole" if you will.)
"Apple is always going to want its 30%. At some point, Apple will need to get paid for the use of their infrastructure"
Apple still can and will charge the 30% for anything bought on the App store, what it can no longer do is force all 3rd party payments to go through Apple (and charge 30% on that too). Frankly speaking, I don't know how much it costs to run the app store - but no way that simply the running of infrastructure (hosting and upload/ downloads) justifies 30%, and my gut feeling (could of course be wrong) is that adding additional costs of verifying / checking apps still is far from justifying 30% cut. I have no problem with Apple charging for this service, but we have no way of knowing what a fair market price for that service is when there is no market.
On the other hand, when it comes to payment processing, there IS a market (well, an oligopoly), and we know that credit card companies charge 3% to process payments, so for Apple to block 3rd-party payment providers and charge 30% is clear monopolistic scalping.
The visa/mastercard cartel is hardly a market...
Is 30% justified? I don't know, let's look at the competition - Alphabet charges... 30%
For subscription based services an ongoing 30% is patently absurd, for one off purchases it's not so clear.
Not sure what the Apple T&Cs say about sending people off to make an account on a website - not offering any way to pay for an account at all.
Google are not competing with Apple. You can't install Google Play on an IPhone. They're both monopolizing their respective platforms.
I believe 30% is set to be exorbitant but not shameless enough to actually drive users away from the device ecosystem. Regardless, it of course has no relation to any actual metric like cost of operation.
...but not shameless enough to actually drive users away...
It is. I can't remember the last time I bought an app for my phone. For me, the price / benefit trade-off is just not worth it, so I keep my phone for calls, messaging and basic browsing. I instead utilise different platforms for productive or entertainment activity. Namely, PCs and consoles.
I believe the 30% limit is to avoid usary charges (legal issue) in most nations. Many nations, including Canada, have limits on how much you can charge for interest and other things before your fees are considered to be "using" your customers abusively, and charges become a very real threat, depending on which government is in power and which politicians the culprit "contributed" to.
"but no way that simply the running of infrastructure (hosting and upload/ downloads) justifies 30%"
Let's say that the transaction is $1 and the cost to process the transaction (bank fees, etc) is $.25. That leaves $.05. Many upgrades and in-app purchases are small.
I'm pointing out that for some things it's appropriate to look at them as a percentage and others in terms of the money involved. 30% sounds like a lot, but that's gross, not net.
As some have pointed out, it's worth it to them to give Apple their asking price. It's the same thing as a "slotting" charge for a small company to get shelf space in a large supermarket chain's stores. It might be the difference between selling one copy or thousands.
It can also be beneficial to let Apple manage all of the payment options people demand to use. There's no way I could set up to take Apple Pay, Google Pay, Samsung Pay, Zelle, MC/V/D/AmEx, etc and pay the account fees for the number of invoices I generate each year. I used to use PayPal but since they decided to lock and ban accounts if one receives a payment from somebody they don't like or pays a vendor on their bad list even though the transactions are perfectly legal, I now will only use them if I need the money right now and there aren't any other choices (about 2x/year).
"Let's say that the transaction is $1 and the cost to process the transaction (bank fees, etc) is $.25. That leaves $.05. Many upgrades and in-app purchases are small."
You made the number up and it's completely wrong; no payment method alone has a transaction fee of 25%. As such, the rest of your comment is defending a worthless argument. If we assume that all the fee Apple charges goes to someone else, it's very excusable. It doesn't. They don't claim it does. It would help convince people if you stuck to that clear fact and tried to argue about the massive profit actually being made.
Apple never charged for any payments that were not made from within the app. I worked for a subscription based company that sold on the App Store, but also through their own website. With money coming in from both sides. App Store revenue was a bit less work, website produced more cash.
It is to be seen if it is going to matter.
Apple chased away EPIC with a shotgun, while normally most owners of a platform are happy when creators make content for it.
Last week MS opened their appstore for EPIC, allowing in game payments.
On the short term it implies Apple products are not suitable for people who like the products of EPIC.
If they keep doing that, they slowly hollow out the value of their platform which is worth as much as the applications available for it.
Both Apple and Google have different ideologies. Apple with its walled garden versus Google that it is mostly open to everybody.
What we got (10 years later) for gaming.
IOS is flooded with casual games, mostly are pay-to-win.
Android has a lot of games, it has casual games, hardcore games, emulations, etc. There are tons of games for free (not pay-to-win), so it is a win situation for the customer.
Also, practically all joypads are compatible with Android, unlikely IOS where only a few joypads are compatible. It is because Apple also plays some abusive rules with OEM and hardware manufacturers.
For example, I play PSX games using my Razer Kishi and my android phone.
Android is also is flooded with casual supposedly free to play games, I wouldn't describe them as pay-to-win, more like pay-to-play or even pay-to-avoid-constant-bloody-video-ads with most of them. Even games is a stretch - poorly disguised skinner boxes would be more accurate.
Pay-to-avoid-constant-bloody-video-ads skinner boxes! Sounds like lots of fun for all the family.
I didn’t think Epic had a leg to stand on - they can have their store on the Mac (albeit not installed with Apples App Store), but iOS is closed. I’m fine with that - although I understand that a lot of people aren’t.
That said, for this last 10%, I hope Apple loses - even to the extent that I hope that some of the other rulings - even the ones that I agree with - get overturned. I like Apples products (well, some of them, anyway), but I don’t think that any business should have carte blanche to act in a rapacious manner, contrary to the public good. A nice big loss now might remind them of the penalty for hubris.
And, to whom exactly is the "Public good" adressed, or even concerned? not sure what the average price of a Microtransaction is these days, for said Free--ium game. But, if it was a Dollar before, I'd hazard a wadger that it would still be a Dollar, eight-teen months down the line. How that Dollar gets split between Apple, and the eventual Devloper is, as I'm aware the actuall issue here. To that end I for one am of the belief that no one has the right to live off of someone else (Excluding Minors), rent free, just because they can do so somewhere else. It jolly well doe NOT give them the right to do so there in the iPhone/Pad as well. And, I'm sure if Google had the forethought of locking down the Google PlayStore in a simular fashion they would have already done it. alas though that horese has left the stable.
The statement that "US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Apple is not a monopolist and found in favour of the fruity company on nine of ten counts" is not strictly true: my understanding is that she stated that Epic had not provided enough evidence to show that Apple was a monopolist, and that she was disappointed in the quality of evidence that was provided, which is not quite the same thing.
There is no guarantee Apple will get the same decision on monopoly in Europe, which ultimately depended on how the market is defined. The ruling here appears to be that the market is all smartphone users, and not just iPhone users. There is a definite vibe to the ruling that Epic shot themselves in the foot, repeatedly, by focusing on the wrong things. Without getting the market defined as iPhone users, everything else was inevitable.
Contrast with Europe, where the competition authority seems to be laying the groundwork for treating the iPhone and Android app markets as separate, in which case Apple are going to struggle to argue they are not a monopoly.
No, they have two platforms. IOS and Android have no effective competition. Two companies making Linux phones for two years which don't work very well don't a real competitor make. On that basis, Apple controls 20-40% of the market based on the location, which is in economic terms at least an oligopoly position. Laws restrict competitive behavior based on restricted markets, and they often do include that large a chunk with only one competitor who does most of the same things.
So you're defining "phone" as "smartphone" - why? If you want to encompass all battery-powered portable general purpose computing devices then why not include laptops? If you want to encompass only phones, why limit it to Android and iOS?
Even if you accept your own definition, why not include all the non-Google Android phones?
This is the problem IMHO. People try to define the market to suit their own point of view.
My first "smart" phone was an Ericsson R380s - Symbian-based, no 3rd party app support. I've ridden the wave for a long time. Platforms have come and gone, not through market abuse but because of market forces.
Those same market forces have determined that a walled-garden / single app store approach is attractive to consumers. How many Android users side-load apps? Or, to return to the definition, how many people are truly happy to use a non-Google Android phone with a third-party app store?
An abundance of choice of app store is not the sign of a healthy platform IMHO; time and again, in fact, consumers have eschewed fragmented or poor app store experiences in favour of the very things you rail against.
Is it really so hard to believe that informed users might make informed choices to buy into a walled garden because that's what they want?
"The filing also argues that Apple will win on appeal, and that Epic won't be harmed if the injunction is stayed because it has no products in the App Store."
Have I read that right? Apple kicks them out the store and then claims they'll suffer no harm because they don't have products in the store?
Have pity on me, your honour; I may have murdered by parents, but I'm an orphan!
Sure 30% is a lot but when the game cost nothing and all the money comes from in-game purchases and these are not done via Apples store their cut is zero. Apple does nothing for free and why should it?
Sorry EPIC you knew the rules if you do not like them do not stop using the Apple store.
Anyone who quotes that the 30% Apple charge is for the running costs of the App store and the vetting of apps seems to forget that Apple charges developers $99 per year to publish apps on the store, even free apps.
I have no problem with Apple getting 30% cut of all in app payments if the developer chooses to use Apple pay to accept in app payments, but it shouldn't be against the Appstore T&Cs to prevent the app even mentioning you can pay outside of the Apple walled garden if a developer wants to accept payment elsewhere.
It isn't. It pays to develop the platform.
Have you *seen* Android? Disposable phones with no software updates. A terrible developer experience, with no homogeneity and a huge disparity of development targets.
Accepting that Apple takes a share of fees is cheap at twice the price for the market they provide as a result of their unprecedented (in the phone space) platform support.
"Disposable phones with no software updates."
Downvoted, because some manufacturers actually support their products. Maybe they understand that if they flog you a two-years-out-of-date build of Android and never support it, you probably won't be thinking of them when it comes time to get a newer phone...
"and a huge disparity of development targets"
Funny. I had an iPad Mini back in the days of iOS7, and there were a number of apps that appeared to only work in portrait with rather large icons, as if laid out for an iPhone rather than a tablet. And that's a company with basically two form factors (phone and tablet) and a fairly limited number of models.
Some people put in the effort to support different device types and OS versions. Some...don't.
"Funny. I had an iPad Mini back in the days of iOS7, and there were a number of apps that appeared to only work in portrait with rather large icons, as if laid out for an iPhone rather than a tablet."
Those were iPhone apps running on the iPad. Nothing to do with Apple support.
"Apple does nothing for free and why should it?"
Because they didn't write the game. People are paying for the game. Apple shouldn't get money for something they didn't create. Apple did create the hardware and OS, and they got paid for that when the user bought the device. They got a lot of money from that transaction, and they have no obligation to start paying that money to someone else who didn't do the work. The same should apply to software developers.
"Apple shouldn't get money for something they didn't create."
Who created the marketing and distribution infrastructure, including the store itself? Who maintains and curates it? Who pays for and maintains the cloud storage backend?
Exactly. Apple. That's what devs pay the 30% for.
Really? Ask yourself these questions, because they have answers.
"Who created the marketing and distribution infrastructure,"
Epic. They have marketing for their game, which Apple doesn't provide, and they do all the heavy lifting for distributing accounts except for downloading binaries. Their part is significantly bigger, and they would be happy to take over that binary bit as well except Apple won't allow them.
"including the store itself?"
Which doesn't market for developers, so you're mischaracterizing what it's for.
"Who maintains and curates it?"
Apple, but the developers don't particularly care that Apple pays someone to redesign the front page all the time. If Apple didn't do that, the developers could still write their software and the user could still run it.
"Who pays for and maintains the cloud storage backend?."
Apple, although just for the app download. Epic would probably be quite happy to do that and stop paying Apple a price significantly higher than servers and CDNs cost.
""Who created the marketing and distribution infrastructure,""
Apple, not Epic. It's the Apple App Store.
"[The store] doesn't market for developers, so you're mischaracterizing what it's for."
The store does market for developers. Apple promote apps to end users based on their understanding of the customer profile. They do the heavy lifting to get your app in front of buying customers.
""Who maintains and curates it?" Apple, although just for the app download."
Maintenance and curation is far more than managing a download. The physical and virtual infrastructure is massive, and Apple invests tens of millions yearly in (cyber)security.
""Who pays for and maintains the cloud storage backend?
Apple. And it's not cheap. End of.
None of these companies have any interest in fair and open transactions, they are middlemen taking a big cut of the payments based on some quasi leagal arguments that is just rubbish to ordinary folkes. I include Steam, Epic, Google, Apple and any other company that operates closed propriortory environments..
Why can't i buy a copy of a game from any vendor i choose and use whatever launcher/DRM systmthat the developer supports? why am i tied to a specific platform?
I appreciate that Xbox/PS games support the hardware costs but i am not sure that would be any great loss.
These closed environment are monopolies as once you have purchased in to them you can not exit, you are stuck for and DRM purchases and in game ones.
If when you bought your Volvo car from Marshalls, Lookers or some other dealer chain you were only allowed to fill up at garages owned by Volvo and the Dealer chan got 30% of all fuel sales peoples perception of what is actually going on would change drastically.
Then we're back to paying for OS updates, etc.
Why do you think Apple are so great at delivering iOS updates to such old devices? Goodness of their heart? Of course not. They provide a fantastic platform with regular security updates and support handsets years later than others.
If you don't want this current model, Android is available to you. Unfortunately, it is a truly horrible ecosystem with in round terms no platform support for most users.
Yes they have a small pool of hardware to support and they still manage to bugger things up. iOS is irelevant to the arguement as Apple argue the fees support the store not the eco system as without fees the store would not be supportable in its current secure well curated state. Which we all know is a complete fabrication.
Maybe so but just because an ancient version of iOS is updated does not mean that anything will run on it.
Many Apps will only run on newer versions to the argument is specious unless you have never installed any other Apps.
I am not an Apple fan but believed the gumpf about how long they support devices, blah blah until I came to be involved in helping a friend sort out their Mother's iPad. It was old but updated to the latest releases for that version of iOS. Now this is the critical point, it was still an old version of iOS, it may have been patched, but it was old hardware and an earlier version of iOS because the latest and greatest was not supported on the hardware.
The Apps that we needed to install refused to run because the version of iOS was not supported.
That takes us back to square one, it is irrelevant if iOS is updated if the base version is still too old to be useful.
"Why do you think Apple are so great at delivering iOS updates to such old devices?"
Here are some reasons:
1. It's a selling point, and if they stopped doing it they would lose some customers.
2. Compared to some Android manufacturers, they have much larger profit margins, which they use to fund that.
3. They only have a few devices, so it's easier than a company which makes sixty models.
4. They have a lot of services tied to their devices, and they update those services. If they didn't keep old devices working with those changes, they would lose their "It just works" reputation, which is a much larger selling point than point 1.
5. When they patch security holes, they also prevent people jailbreaking. Android does try to prevent rooting, sometimes, but if you find a hole, it's likely to stay open. Apple has an interest in making it hard or impossible to jailbreak.
I agree that IOS has better long-term security than Android does, and I've made purchasing decisions based on that before. Apple was rewarded for that when I paid their high prices for hardware. They don't automatically get to take money from others just because I like their product. That's why they charge me.
Volvo and other Car companies are not trying to sell me apps or charge me for downloading updates, they will rely on Apple and Google to do that for them in the Infotainment system that no knew that wanted untill Facebook told them the needed it.
Car manufacturers also allow me to buy petrol from whomever i like and get my car repaired or serviced by anyone i so chose including myself using parts for thrid party suppliers if i chose to use them, this rite is written in law in the EU and UK.
Most tech companies have tried extermely hard to stop that at ever opportunity and i fail to understand why they have been allowed to get away with it other than our policticians have no guts to stand up to these companies.
Personally i woudl like to see the option of not having any wifi connection or CarPly, Android or Windows anywhere near my car.
Actually, car manufacturers *are* now offering to sell you apps, added functionality, etc. through their systems. A Tesla is a walled garden. So is the new Mercedes tech stack.
Tesla even sell you a car with electric seats that are physically present but disabled in software. You have to pay to enable the content. If you try to mess about with the system, Tesla lock you out of updates, supercharging, etc.
Yes, you can *repair* it with third party parts if you want. But you can't just sideload any old software onto their tech stacks.
Payment for market access is not new. If you want your product featured in a major supermarket chain, you have to pay for shelf space, pay for promotional discounts, pay for supporting marketing, and so on. You don't get prime location (or even any location) in a store for nothing.
Apple is no different. Other phones are available. But if you want your app in the Apple store then (just like pushing a new shampoo brand to a major supermarket chain, say) you have to pay.
The same is now true of other stores. Visit the John Lewis website? You're buying product that manufacturers are paying - you guessed it - 30% to John Lewis for the privilege of showing.
Want to sell on Amazon? Going to cost you something similar.
This is the new normal. Marketplaces are everything. Customers don't discover products on Google any more; they discover them elsewhere. The market doesn't work the way you seem to want it to any more.
Whether apple takes 5% or 50% of in app store purchases doesn't really make much difference to me as a consumer. In the same way I don't care if they pay $1000 a month to rent their office or $50,000 a month.
Pricing does not work that way. Companies will price according to how much customers are willing to pay, in sufficient volume to maximize their long term revenue. There might be some short term price differentials whilst the market adjusts to what ever the true value of payment processing really is for an app store item, but in the long run, this will not move 25% more cash into end users pockets, it will probably move it from apple's shareholders to another set of shareholders.
>> "There might be some short term price differentials whilst the market adjusts to what ever the true value of payment processing really is for an app store item"
And therein lies the problem... there is no market because Apple prevent alternatives. If Epic were allowed their way, yes they *might* decide that whatever the price they were charging through the App Store was what they'd charge outside - and they'd retain the 30% that Apple would have taken. But they'd also be free to charge the amount less the 30%. Competing App Stores might decide to charge less than 30%.
That's what a free-market economy says would happen and that's what we can know for sure because Apple doesn't allow it.
I make no view here as to the rights or wrongs of Apple... just saying that your comment about "Pricing does not work that way" only applies where you have a (relatively) open and free market.
"The dispute went to court and Apple mostly won – US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Apple is not a monopolist and found in favour of the fruity company on nine of ten counts."
It's not quantity that counts, it's quality, and that one point that the Judge gave to Epic was the most important point. Now imagine Epic had won all ten points and in the appeal lost the most important one.
I think Epic is better off defending that one point in the Appeal.
The rule is that you have to use Apple's payments and let them take their charge for anything digital, but you can use yours for physical things. Probably because someone considered doing it for physical things and it was so obviously illegal they slid the digital-only version through instead.