Apple's had it with Epic's app store shenanigans, terminates dev account Epic Games has followed the tried and tested approach of sharing executive email exchanges following the termination of its developer account by Apple. The closure of the Epic Games Sweden AB developer account is the latest twist in the saga of the Fortnite game creator and the iPhone seller. After much toing and froing, in …
Apple got away with it last time. Maybe they will as well this time? After all, Epic did break their Ts&Cs - so it helped with the PR but probably not the court case.
I don't know who'd have the name recognition to be a successful app store alternative. But Epic might be one contender I suppose?
What Apple is doing is a farce.
We don't need 'app stores'. What we need is Apple to open up the iDevices for normal software installation.
Just this week my Apple TV stopped being functional for a day. VLC updated, and there was a bug in the update. It couldn't connect to my media server because of it. If I had installed it normally, I'd just have grabbed the previous version and reinstalled that. But instead I had to wait for VLC to be updated and Apple to approve the update, because there's no way to revert. And it's still not working as well as the old version did.
On my Mac, I refuse to use the stupid app store to install anything that's available outside of it. It's unacceptable that I can't do the same on other computing devices.
Apple iOS has shown what corporate IT departments have long known: the only way to make an end-user device secure, is to remove the user's root access and block software installations. Apple iOS has a really good reputation for security. And part of that is because the only way to get software onto it, is via the App Store, which gives Apple the chance to stop malware before it gets onto a phone.
Google Android can be used in the same way. Don't sideload, and your device will be secure. Android has a worse reputation for security - but still far better than consumer Windows PCs. But the attack vector is usually someone being persuaded to install an application from an .APK from a dodgy site. While malware in the Play store does happen, it's not as risky as installing things from outside the store.
It is really sad that the only options are "horribly insecure" or "monopoly control". I really don't like either of those options. I wish we lived in a world where we could have security without monopoly control. But the world we live in isn't perfect. And the people in it aren't perfect either. And it looks like those are the options.
The EU law will change the current balance. It will reduce security, as well as reducing Apple's monopoly control. Anyone who claims otherwise just doesn't understand the Apple security model, or believes users are far less gullible than they have repeatedly been shown to be.
There has, for a long time, been an alternative to Apple that lets you install your own software. That's Android.
My Aunt has an iPhone and (until this law comes into force) I know she can't be tricked into installing malware on it. I have an Android and I could install my own apps on it if I wanted to, but I know enough to make it much less likely I'll fall for the scams. The security decision was made at the point of purchase. I was OK with that.
"I don’t think majority of users will benefit from “normal installation” that would make it easier to install malware."
You forgot to add "Think of the children!" inside your FUD.
For exactly how many DECADES have we installed our own software and managed those installations? Too much for ya?
Sounds like a new mechanism needs to be introduced, so iOS App stores can be officially created without having an Apple Dev account.
aka completely uncouple app stores from Apple's developer control
That way, Apple can't do Stupid Stuff to 3rd party applications when they're unhappy with the developers.
Many developers simply refuse to engage with iOS until the developer DRM is removed. It kills passion and innovation knowing that your program won't work in ~10 years and all that hard effort will be wasted.
So once this backwards crap is resolved and iOS joins the rest of the world in "non-locked down" platforms, it will be better for consumers too.
Interesting thought. Maybe force Apple to spin off control of the app store to an independent subsidiary. Apple can still claim some cut of the profits, and set an overarching direction, but has no direct control over the company's day-to-day actions. If this subsidiary decides they want to allow emulators, for example, Apple corporate can do fuck all about it. Do the same for Google while we're at it. Frankly, Apple and Google both should be forced to divest/spin-off a number of their major products.
It's a similar problem to telcos - a vertically integrated monopoly
There are good reasons why the aviation and automotive industries were forced to divest this model in the 1930s and whilst it's causing Tesla some issues in various US states, it's generally worked fairly well at avoiding monopoly abuse
> Maybe force Apple to spin off control of the app store to an independent subsidiary.
Well, that's one possible direction.
There are many people who do want a curated garden though, even with all of the scam apps presently in the iOS store.
Meanwhile, Apple's not doing a great job looking after its existing walled garden (those scam apps and such). So maybe moving the Apple iOS App Store to some independent entity would allow for something better.
Regardless of that though, Apple shouldn't be able to control who can to set up their own iOS App Store to provide people apps.
Nor should Apple be allowed to demand money or fees from those external App Stores.
That Apple is seriously attempting to do so is completely taking the piss.
Apple mostly spit in the face of the EU's plans to corral them into playing fair, hopefully they respond in kind. If Apple is simply going to play this cat and mouse game, EU should simply ban their sales until they come in good faith and not some passive aggressive at best flaunting of their market power.
Apple terminating Epics dev account, will be seen by EU regulators as an attempt to stifle competing app stores and as non compliance with DMA before it has come into force.
I can't help thinking this was exactly the reaction Epic's App store exchanges with Apple were meant to provoke.
Just have one work on behalf of an mutual benefactor (Epic) and release a third party app(store) under them and funnel the Fortnite downloads that way.
Apple can stop every developer they want, but if that turns into every developer, then they will have to ban all third party development.
Not sure if they are that insane for control but that would be a good test. Turn all apple developers into now rival third party app makers through contracts to make Epics stuff for apple products on their behalf. Sure not as profitable for epic but potentially a scorched earth approach for apple if epic really want to try run them down.
Why go through all this crap to be on Apple? Markets can be manipulated from the ground up as well as top down. If enough developers quit iOS, the users they target on it will switch to distinctive, overpriced models of Android phones so they can use/play with stuff. Platforms fade all the time due to bad decisions. Psion. Blackberry. and even (with W11) Microsoft. If your app is good enough, people will buy a phone to use it.
Android may have 70% global market share, but the Apple app store takes 50% of the global spending on apps. Google Play store takes 27% of the global spending. Effectively, the average Apple user spends more than four times as much on app store purchases than an Android user.
That means a lot of Apple users must spend an awful lot of mulah on apps.
I've had an iPhone since a 4S and have not spent a bent penny since I upgraded to an iPhone 5. The two apps I did pay for ceased development around that time.
As I don't game or use (Anti)Social Media my lack of expenditure is understandable.
I guess that I'm not the average iPhone user because I refuse to use a large screen phone and stick with a used SE model.
That means a lot of Apple users must spend an awful lot of mulah on apps
Almost nobody spends money on apps. They are free with in app purchases. That's the real problem here for both Apple and Google. Companies like Epic feel like they are entitled to collect 100% of the in app money, while Apple sits back and makes nothing on all the work they do to provide a platform for developers.
OK, maybe you think Apple makes enough off iPhone sales and doesn't deserve a cent post sale. What about Android? Google gives it away for free, and if they couldn't make a penny from in app purchases then what's the incentive for them to keep developing Android? Should they charge OEMs to license the OS (and see them say "bye Google we'll do like China and use AOSP to create a free version") or should they embed ads into the OS itself to fund their development efforts?
The app market used to make sense when you paid for apps, and in app purchases were generally a minor component. But there was a race to the bottom and every app is free now, it has been years since I downloaded an app that required up front payment.
Having a good supply of apps available is one of the necessary features for selling a phone. Providing an App Store is just as much part of the phone as providing a backlight for the screen is.
Why on earth should anyone (user or app developer) pay Apple for using their App Store? Do Apple expect developers to pay them when you turn the backlight on?
In fact, Apple need to have the mindset that they need to pay developers to be present in their App Store if they want people to buy their phones. I am guessing this particular spat may be the one which helps Apple learn that.
"What about Android? Google gives it away for free,"
No, they don't.
"and if they couldn't make a penny from in app purchases then what's the incentive for them to keep developing Android?"
All the OEM fees and mostly the massive amount of data they steal, and I want to do something about that as well.
"Should they charge OEMs to license the OS"
Already doing it.
"(and see them say "bye Google we'll do like China and use AOSP to create a free version")"
Their contracts forbid that.
"or should they embed ads into the OS itself to fund their development efforts?"
Already doing that too, or at least data collection and a lot of their apps which are required to be installed by OEMs have places for the resulting ads to appear.
Of all these choices, the one I'm happiest with is OEM fees. I give them money to buy the device, they license the software to run on it, that works for me. Admittedly, it's probably one of the reasons why Google talks about but never actually does much to increase software update timelines, because if my phone stops getting updates, there's a higher chance that I buy a new one, but I don't see their Play Store tax or their data collection causing them to release any security fixes.
Their contracts forbid that.
No they don't. Their contracts with OEMs prevent them from licensing Google's Android and selling that in some phones, while also selling AOSP Google free Android in others. If Samsung decided they weren't going to play ball with Google anymore because Google wanted to charge $50 per phone they could develop an AOSP version of Android like the Chinese OEMs have already done and use that in all their phones.
Would that cost Samsung sales? Sure at first, but whether it cost them in the long run would depend on how accepted Samsung's alternatives were and what other OEMs did. No one in China misses Google, I'm sure it was bumpy at first but the whole ecosystem of their own app stores, Baidu instead of Google Search and so forth is very well developed and what buyers in China want and expect.
True, but what I meant was that they do not have the option to develop that as an alternative if they're planning to keep a Google option at all. It is an all or nothing venture, and that means OEMs are unlikely to try it. Developing a consortium wouldn't work very well unless they all did it in secret and unveiled a mass exodus overnight, since as each manufacturer indicated an interest, Google would call in their contract terms and, since their version wasn't ready for release, their competitors would end up getting business. The chance that a company would take that risk when their competitors have not is very low.
Interestingly, in the early days of the railways in the UK, that's exactly what the rail companies did. "You want to use us to move your goods? Ok, but if you use any other form of transport, we'll cancel your contract". Rail would have killed the canal trade eventually anyway, but that practice took enormous amounts of trade from them almost overnight. That sort of practice is illegal now. I guess Google et al are getting away with it because "on a mobile phone" or something, but I don't see a difference. Using market power to force a certain behaviour is monopoly behaviour.
It is hard to regulate stuff like that because Google in the US and the OEMs are in other countries. Google's behavior isn't hurting US companies so even though it falls under the antitrust purview that's going to be way down the list of stuff they bother with. It isn't like when Microsoft's behavior in the 90s was screwing with other US companies like IBM, HP, Dell, Compaq etc.
It is hard from the other end because even if South Korea decided their companies like Samsung and LG were being hurt by it, they may have not a regulatory framework able to effectively punish a company outside their borders.
The EU has laws that could do it, but neither Google nor the OEMs are within their borders, so like in the US it will be well down the list when there is higher hanging fruit that's a much bigger issue like their search monopoly.
"OK, maybe you think Apple makes enough off iPhone sales and doesn't deserve a cent post sale."
There's still the cost of running the app store, building APIs for iStuff, banking costs to handle loads of small payments, etc. 30% doesn't sound like a big slice of pie, but it can depend an awful lot on the size of the transaction. For a in-app buy of a couple of bucks, the payment processing cost could be as high 25% so Apple demanding 30% doesn't net them all that much. 25% could be on the high side, but it's going to vary from country to country for the banking as well as Apple being required to hold and process taxes of various sorts related to the purchases.
I've felt that Epic was going about this in the wrong way. Instead of breaking terms of the contract with Apple, they should have bargained as the renewal date approached to reduce Apple's take with higher price brackets. While it could be 30% for small in-app purchases, it could be less for totals over ~$15-$20 where the hard costs become a smaller part of the transaction. The out for Epic is to pull their titles from Apple iOS and put more emphasis on Android and desktop. If that becomes common with other publishers, Apple will need to sit down and bargain in good faith so they aren't just left with lots of tiny devs that don't earn them very much.
Being the sort who doesn't develop emotional attachments to inanimate objects or fictional entities, every time I'm set for an upgrade to my device I look at both Android and iOS, and iOS tends to win every time. Longer support, better performance, and better privacy round out three of the top metrics I use when deciding what to go with. Google has slowly been pulling its shit together with Android, but sometimes it feels like one step forward, three steps back. Also, to be fair, the longevity of support tends to be a Qualcomm thing that Google can't directly influence. We'll see what happens with their custom designed SoCs given Google's habit of randomly* dropping products. So far, they are still falling short of Apple's SoC, but they're within spitting distance. So, if Google manages to actually support these SoCs with newer versions of Android for roughly the same length of time Apple does iPhones, that would definitely be a big step forward. Still, we're still a couple years away from seeing how things shake out, and then I'd want to see that they are committed to doing it over the span of multiple SoCs. So, maybe by the early 2030s, if Google hasn't decided designing and maintaining their own SoCs is too expensive, I'll consider an Android device. I know Samsung has made commitments to like 5-years of support, but only on their flagship devices, and there's usually a pretty significant delay between the time Google releases some update and Samsung is able to graft their useless shit on top.
* At least from the perspective of someone on the outside. There's likely some kind of reason, like a key person on the project left or joined a different group, or there was a management shuffle and the new manager didn't see the value in the project.
Global market share's probably the wrong metric to be using. What you'd want to be looking at is global revenue. Phone users who don't buy things (valuable things, ideally) from the app store are not worth chasing if you're a developer. The Apple store revenue is much higher than the Google store revenue so it's worth being in that store.
> If your app is good enough, people will buy a phone to use it.
Err, that might be true if every person only used one app. But they don't. You would have to make a notably special and valuable app to make someone switch platform, to abandon their ways of working, existing apps and peripheral hardware. Where we do see app exclusivity today it tends to be on the iOS side, which has been better supported by developers because:
- iOS users spend more on apps than Android users
- There are fewer iteration of iPhone models to test and support
- The early generations of Android device were not suitable for some tasks (i.e, the latency was too big for music creation apps)
We see this with peripheral hardware as well, where devices for Point of Sale, laser surveying, photography, and music production being released first for iOS/iPadOS and only later, if at all, for Android. And even Google is confused about apps for Android tablets - what is the replacement this month, still ChromeOS or is it Fuschia yet?
( I'm very happy with my Galaxy S10 E, other than it's no longer receiving updates. Grr. I bought it refurbushed a couple of years back, paid £200... My mate has just spent twice that on an iPhone 13, but it'll last a few more years... He got years out of his iPhone SE, but his aging eyesight and a business case for a better camera made him spend the money. Our respective cost of ownership are roughly on a par. )
I like a number of Apple products. My iPhone and iPad are great devices, but I simply cannot stand the way Apple chooses to do business a lot of the time. They act like a petulant toddler who throws a tantrum every time they don't get their way, and then lately the whataboutism has been creeping into their corporate messaging as well. This, their trying to blame Spotify, and their whole PWA tantrum, both from only a few days ago, are prime examples. A company with a trillion dollar market cap, you would think, could be a little bit more mature about things.
And buy what?
Android is hot garbage. I wanted to like it in the early days, I really did. But now it's just a Google-infested data vacuum.
iPhones are much nicer to use, and they're not trying to sell everything I do to advertisers.
For computers, there's an alternative. Linux is pretty nice these days, and I don't care about Adobe or MicroSloth crapware. But for phones there's nothing.
There's KDE Plasma Mobile.. There's Sailfish
Unfortunately the biggest hurdle to both of these is that the hardware vendors have control via secure boot and e-fuses on the CPU itself, which will be blown by the bootloader if incorrect software is loaded, rendering the device hard-bricked. These mechanisms are mandated by Google in order to run Android OS, and also prevent downgrading to an earlier version of Android, so pretty much every device has them. Even Fairphone (the one device you would hope would not be able to deliberately self-brick) has them.
And obviously Crapple is as Crapple does - Tim Cook will be ice-skating in Hell with Steve before they allow third-party OSes onto IPhones.
That more or less sums things up for me. Android is just a privacy nightmare and performance tends to suck at the SoC level. It's been slowly getting better over time, but the amount of lead time involved in chip design means it can be 2-3 phone upgrade cycles before you see a real improvement. The one sort of killer app for me Llama, seems to have been abandoned by its developer a long time ago, and I seem to recall Google making changes to Android that prevented a lot of that app's functionality. Sort of like how once upon a time Android had a different volume setting for the ringer and notifications, but then somewhere around, I think the 4.x series, they merged them. Some custom distributions undid that, but I think they eventually gave up trying to maintain it.
Then there's the fact that Google has basically long since abandoned its open source pledge regarding Android. Sure, the core of the OS is still open source, but all the useful bits like the Play Store and Gmail app, are locked behind restrictive contracts and are binary blobs. The old AOSP apps for things like text messages and email haven't been updated since around the 2.0 days. The Google Play Services binary blob is practically a whole issue unto itself. It's this huge binary blob that has tentacles in almost every aspect of the OS. I get that part of the reason for it is so Google can make security updates even for devices running really old versions of Android, but let's face it, it's gone well past that to the point where removing it basically lobotomizes the entire OS.
It reminds me a lot of Logitech. Their hardware is great, but the software that controls parts of that hardware is always so bad, hot garbage would be an improvement.
Since I'm not someone who gets emotionally attached to a specific device or manufacturer, I'm constantly evaluating alternatives. If and/or when something that can actually rival the iPhone comes out, I'll definitely give it a good hard look. Until then, I'll use what works best for me out of what's available given I don't have the resources nor expertise to develop my own custom phone and/or tablet that works exactly the way I want it to.
"Thou Shalt Bend Over For Thine Lord Apple, Or Be Evicted! Be Warned! Ooooooooooo......"
If you rent a flat with no pets allowed and get a dog, should the courts rule for you that since so many have dogs, you should be allowed as well? You signed a lease that stated that pets were not allowed. You might have talked with the landlord about an allowance for a particular size/breed, paid a deposit and agreed to inspections to make sure the dog wasn't allowed to soil the flat. Most rental agreements also have clauses about creating a nuisance and complying with a set of rules and being found in violation of any of them could result in an eviction. Are those clauses also something to take to a court for dispute if you have blatantly violated them?
If you want to play in Apple's realm, you have to accept their terms. Once you do, you aren't given the option of changing them on your own to suit your own desires.
If there are basically only two sources of flats, and they use that to make conditions that are basically the same, yes that would be a problem. This usually isn't the case because there is more choice in providers of flats, and when there isn't, landlords usually use it to increase the prices rather than add pointless conditions. When that happens, it is something that gets complaints, investigations, and regulations.
Shenanigans? The "shenanigans" come from Apple and their money grabbing ways. They want to bleed to death every company in order to be granted access to their POS platforms. Good thing Europe is not a corporate run state and will not vow to this BS. This will not end well for Apple. On a side note: who wants to game on an Apple device?? They are not good at all for gaming. Oh that's right, they are Genius and Magical.
So Apple's platform is a POS, yes?
In which case why would any company even want to be granted access to said platform? Indeed if it's so bad as you claim, why on earth does anyone purchase an Apple device?
Oh, of course, I get it, everyone who chooses to buy an iPhone is an idiot, they have been, somehow misled, they have fallen for slick advertising, naturally they are all far too stupid to realise the error of their ways. You, on the other hand, are a 'superior' being, who knows what's best for everyone else, how dare they choose for themselves when you know better!
Or you are just an anti-apple twat! It's one of the two!
Oh, and arguably depending on your definition of 'gaming', iOS is the largest gaming platform on the planet! Some presumably some people like it - or perhaps they are all simply 'wrong'?
No one seems to have picked up on the hypocrisy of Apple "punishing" a subsidiary because it suspects it might in the future break Ts&Cs based on another divisions or parents past behaviour. And yet, that is exactly how Apple "protects" itself from local laws, regulations and taxes, ie by claiming that other parts of Apple are not Apple and are separate companies paying royalties to use Apple branding etc. Apple are now claiming those sort of fictional separations are in fact fictional and should be ignored. That should make an interesting precedent when it comes to regulating and/or punishing Apple "as a whole" when Apple (local) breaks the rules.
Remember, when Apply store employees want to unionise, each and every Apple Store claims to be a separate and individual business so any vote at one Apple Store has no effect on any other Apple Store. Clearly Apple don't believe this any more. I wonder how many other impossible things they believe? Before or after breakfast.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
