[mtgx]

Exactly. Apple takes a lot from you, then gives you some crumbs back, and everyone praises it for how "generous" it is.

Imagine if Microsoft decided to take 30% of all online transactions that happen on Windows PCs...Pretty ridiculous thought, right?

That stuff Apple has gotten away with and continues to get away with is beyond absurd.

[Bud]

If this is absurd, then Google taking 30% and Sony taking 30% for Playstation and Microsoft taking 30% for Xbox is also absurd, right? So why aren't you complaining about that?

[jedberg]

Google provides side loading so I can avoid their fee. Playstation and Xbox are not general computing devices.

[bsql]

So because they aren’t a general computing device it’s okay? Also isn’t it bit disingenuous to suggest that side loading is an option to avoid the fee? I believe that’s why Epic also sued Google. Even when end users are given the option to download from an alternative store, most people won’t because it’s still not as convenient as downloading from the play store. Your app would have to be worthwhile enough to convince users to download from a 3rd party store.

[threeseed]

Playstation/Xbox are general computing devices. So is my Sony TV, Tesla car and Samsung fridge.

All have an App Store and are fully capable of facilitating payments, running Microsoft Office, using SaaS apps, doing "work".

Users are prevented from doing so by artificial restrictions on their App Stores which could be lifted at any time by a simple business decision. Apple allows more freedom to developers than these platforms yet somehow should be treated differently. Seems arbitrary and capricious.

[jedberg]

I assume you're making this argument to be absurd and reductionist, but just in case you aren't, no, those aren't general computing platforms.

Sure, they could be, with a lot of effort. But they are neither marketed nor capable of general compute today. They don't have the toolset or ecosystem to make general purpose apps. Nor do they actively encourage people to make general apps.

[bsql]

The only reason PlayStation and Xbox aren’t general computing platforms is by choice. They are still computers with CPUS, hard drives and RAM. Users can watch Netflix, browse the web and consume content just like you would on an iPhone. I think this idea that because iPhones are “general computing devices” they should be held to a different standard is absurd. You can’t pick and choose how one platform operates while ignoring how other platforms have the same arbitrary restrictions.

[threeseed]

My PS4 and Sony Android TV are general computing platforms in every sense e.g. Salesforce is open right now on my TV.

It's simply that Sony won't approve non-gaming or non-entertainment apps. And if Apple were to follow the same path and block productivity apps then it would somehow stop being a general computing device ?

[design-material]

I use my PS4 a more as a 'general computing device' (YouTube, Netflix, Prime, voice calls, etc) than my phone by far.

Why should someone else get to dictate which of my devices is a 'general computing device' and what that means for me and my use-case?

[yazaddaruvala]

I can't load Intelij, Xcode, Xamarian, JVM, etc on my iPhone or my PlayStation "without a lot of effort".

What is your definition of "general" that makes one of them general, and the other one non-general?

To me the only reason an iPhone seems to be "general purpose" is because the "number of developers has reached some critical mass and wants it to be". Which seems like putting the cart before the horse.

Sanity Test: Should my microwave be a "general purpose" device because it is built with a Raspberry Pi and a touch screen?

[scarface74]

Sure you can avoid their fee. See how many customers you will get if you force them to side load - ask Epic.

[simion314]

Funny, some Apple fanboys claim that if side-loading is allowed the the Apple Store will get empty and you get 10 new App Stores and others like you claim the reverse (I agree with you, allowing side loading and other stores will not empty the main store)

[scarface74]

It’s not like side loading on Android has ever caused a security vulnerability when downloading an app from a reputable company like Epic.

https://www.cnet.com/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-fo...

Or reputable companies have ever been convicted of falsely getting money from minors.

https://www.sportskeeda.com/esports/news-fortnite-sued-trick...

[simion314]

And is not like curated App Stores did not had mallware, tracking stuff inside apps, minors spending all the parents credit card on gems etc. You basically want to force a "kid mode" without an opt-out for everyone.

[Bud]

Who claims this? Nobody with any credibility claims this.

[simion314]

I mean people here in HN, probably most of us here have the same credibility , this person said

"The problem with this logic is that every company is going to set up their own App Store. Microsoft, Epic, etc. Then for every app that I use right now on my iPhone I would have to source from several App Stores. It will make my experience very cumbersome. reply"

And this is proven false since the Google Store is still very popular and I don't see people having to source 5 apps from Google store, 5 from Microsoft, 2 from Apple, 3 from Adobe. With the Epic the situation is clear, this giants are asking too much just for hosting your application and the small guys had no chance to fight this , lucky for the developers Epic started this and as we can see from this article Apple is backing down one step here, other step a month ago ...

[matsemann]

That's whataboutism. In this post it's about Apple. That others do it doesn't excuse it.

And a big difference with Google is that you can sideload or use other stores on Android. And same on Windows, you don't have to use the store.

[Bud]

That's not a big difference, with Android, because nobody is making any money doing that. It doesn't work.

I didn't mention Windows. I was discussing platforms where everyone takes a 30% cut. You may say this is mere whataboutism, but anyone who reads Hacker News knows that 99% of the anger and attacks on this practice are directed at Apple. Nobody bitches at Google and Sony and Microsoft for doing the exact same thing.

[ksk]

Google gets hit on the privacy front pretty regularly. I guess it depends on the issue. But not to worry, I'm sure there will be plenty of time and opportunity to complain against injustices from all corporations in the future. A significant chunk of early adopters for Apple/MS/Google products were nerds who spread the good word. Its no surprise that issues like privacy, developer freedom and hacker-ethics will drive the conversation against these companies.

[matsemann]

Because it's not the exact same thing. Context matters.

[1f60c]

> Pretty ridiculous thought, right?

Yeah, because Apple isn't doing that at all.

What's more, it seems like the fee Microsoft charges for every sale in their Microsoft Store is also either 15% or 30%. (Source: the App Developer Agreement, https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RE...)

[est31]

They allow third party stores though, and even installation without any store at all. Apple devices OTOH are severely limited regarding sideloading. This leads to Apple capturing a much larger percentage of transactions pertaining software for their devices.

[Razengan]

> They allow third party stores though, and even installation without any store at all.

Not on the Xbox, which Epic doesn't seem to mind in regards to Fortnite etc.

[jfk13]

> Apple devices OTOH are severely limited regarding sideloading

Yes, but for many users this is a premium feature, not a flaw.

[cgriswald]

That's an incredibly weak claim. The statement is certainly true for some value of 'many', but then so is its opposite. Unless many means, "the vast majority", which certainly is not clear and definitely would need some support, it is a meaningless claim.

It is also difficult to see how it is a feature. In a world where additional app stores or side-loading was enabled for those that want it, it wouldn't somehow remove the ability to use a single app store for those that don't.

[nodamage]

I mean, presumably the people who really cared about side-loading decided to buy alternative phones instead.

So, of iPhone buyers, you're left with two remaining groups:

1. People who care a little bit about side-loading but not enough to choose a difference device.

2. People who don't care about side-loading at all.

[cgriswald]

The assertion was that there is a group that values the lack of side-loading, which your post doesn't really address, so I'm not sure why you've responded to me.

In any case:

> the people who really cared about side-loading

> 1. People who care a little bit about side-loading but not enough to choose a difference device.

This is not a useful model. If I choose feature X over feature Y, all you can really tell from that is that value(X) > value(Y). It doesn't tell you whether value(Y) <<< value(X). It's also important to note that this is vastly simplified, because there are many features and issues that people must combine and weigh against each other.

To illustrate, if a product offers side-loading but kills your mother on first use, if you choose a different product it doesn't mean you don't "really" care about side-loading. You might genuinely care a tremendous amount, but sacrificing your mother isn't an option for you.

I differentiate between products that I buy because they are a good option for me and products I buy because they are the least bad product for me. Phones are currently in the second group. It's not that I don't care about side-loading. It's that all issues combined, IOS is less bad for my purposes and preferences than Android.

[d0100]

Ok, then put a premium price on that feature and see how many actually pay for it

[damnyou]

I would fully support Apple charging, say, $50 extra to lock down its devices to the current standard. That would be a much better world and the users who desire the "premium experience" still get to have it.

[netsharc]

Hah, are you claiming people are that dumb and think "please protect me from my own stupidity"?

The enabling of sideloading on Android phones already comes with warnings written in plain language, and even if you want to install an app from e.g. the browser it asks you to give the browser permission to install apps, so it's pretty idiot-proof...

[scarface74]

And so is UAC....

[toast0]

Using the Microsoft Store is totally optional. Selling software for Windows has rarely required any coordination with Microsoft other than maybe code signing with a cert from an approved CA. Exceptions include drivers, and Windows Phone/Windows Mobile 10

[syspec]

Using Steam is even MORE optional. They're PC games! Yet people still want to be on Steam even if you have to play by their rules, because being on there creates value.

[johnjj257]

Cool but there's tons of game outlets on pc, not on iphone

[damnyou]

I'm really bothered by the whole notion of games as less important and "[more] optional". Playing games is a fundamental part of being human, and it is certainly more important than capitalism.

[ryanbrunner]

I don't think that's the point that was being made - Steam is optional not because the content on it is games, but because the content is PC games - i.e. content where there's no obstacles to distributing it yourself, or through other stores.

Any game developer could at any point opt out of using Steam and accept payments on their own site, or go through another store. Most developers don't bother because Steam provides enough value to make it worthwhile.

It's impossible to determine if this is the case with the App Store since competitors don't (and can't) exist.