[hizanberg]

If I had a Customer that spent years relentlessly complaining about my Company, I know I wouldn't want to have them as a Customer.

It does present an interesting question on whether a Company can be forced to have a bad actor as a Customer, I guess this will be decided in the lawsuits to come.

[layer8]

The issue is that Epic doesn’t want to be Apple’s customer in the first place. They want to publish iOS apps. The fact that this requires them to be an Apple customer is the core problem.

Imagine if everyone wanting to publish a web app would have to be a customer of the respective browser vendors.

Everyone complains about Google and Mozilla and Safari and Edge. Luckily, that doesn’t prevent us from having our web apps running on those browsers.

[amelius]

> The issue is that Epic doesn’t want to be Apple’s customer in the first place. They want to publish iOS apps. The fact that this requires them to be an Apple customer is the core problem.

Indeed. It all boils down to: if I buy a product from company A, then want to use that product to do business with company B, why does company A have anything to say about it? Am I not the owner of my device?

[daemin]

Increasingly in this modern world, no, you are not the owner of the device. You're more like purchasing the right to use it for a time, in the way that the makers want you to use it. This applies across PCs, Macs, and Phones where Microsoft, Apple, and Google all try to up-sell you on their online services and now their "AI tools".

[the8472]

You're conflating the operating system with the hardware there. My PCs are not beholden to any of those companies

[Zuiii]

Hopefully changing laws will cure companies from this delusional take. Most reasonable people don't think this way.

[chii]

> Hopefully changing law

the problem with having consumers take action is that they are completely shortsighted and will take the path of least resistence - a path that the companies will have charted out to make this transition as smooth and painless _for the consumer_ as possible while retaining as much monopolistic power as possible.

There needs to be public institutions with the backing of the state to enforce property rights, including purchased devices.

[jamwil]

To offer a modest counterweight here, every iPhone owner bought the product knowing damn well that Apple keeps the OS locked down. If you don’t want that, don’t buy an iPhone. There’s no confusion about what the product is and what you can do with it.

[TheLoafOfBread]

> every iPhone owner bought the product knowing damn well that Apple keeps the OS locked down

No, average owner has no idea. But they will be relentlessly asking why your application is not supporting iOS

[_chu1]

If you buy technology that treats you like a product and has a rape mentality because it's popular and easy, you don't deserve technology.

[thewileyone]

You buy a car but now you move your TV in it. The car manufacturer prohibits you because you didn't buy their truck and sues you for it. This cannot be allowed to become the norm.

[refulgentis]

Had me until 'AI tools'

[lelandfe]

Publishing a Chrome browser extension more-or-less requires being a customer of the Chrome Web Store. There are plenty of other examples, folks tend to give Playstation/Xbox/Switch stores in these conversations as well.

[Phrodo_00]

> Publishing a Chrome browser extension more-or-less requires being a customer of the Chrome Web Store

Emphasis on more-or-less, though. You can use Chrome developer mode (which is NOT a paid option and doesn't require an account) to import extensions from files. You can't do that in iOS. That's Epic's point.

[dwaite]

Do you think this is a viable distribution model for web extensions, e.g. an alternative to the Chrome Web Store?

[fennecbutt]

Of course it could be better, so why doesn't Apple show us all what really streamlined and well implemented third party app store support looks like?

[kohbo]

I think the point is that an alternative installation method is already provided in the browser

[cute_boi]

Yes, for user like me. I checked most of the extension I use. They directly come from github, and I generally don't update extension, so there is no fear of some sketchy website buying the extension company.

[paulmd]

you don't need a developer account to sideload an app on ios, and it wouldn't change anything legally if you did (feature tiering is legal)

another classic example of android users who don't understand the things they're talking about. go on, tell me more about how "you can't copy and paste between applications in ios" or "there's not even a file browser" please.

(now, still not being able to figure out a calculator app on ipad? that's a fair one lol)

[Zambyte]

I didn't believe you so I looked it up, and this[0] is what I found

> AltStore then signs the application with your Apple ID so the app can run. You'll need to trust the developer certificate in your device settings, but when you do, any apps that you install through AltStore will work... for seven days. Apple has put several restrictions in place to make the process as difficult as possible, but the developer managed to work around those restrictions. As the clock nears closer to the end of the seven-day period, AltStore will refresh the signing key on the app so that you can get an extra seven days of usage. This can also run in the background.

> AltStore makes use of a feature Apple introduced that lets you install *up to three apps* for free using your Apple ID.

> However, AltStore relies on a computer on the same network running AltServer, so you'll need both iTunes and iCloud installed on that device. [...]

Is this seriously what you're talking about? Because after reading that I still don't believe you can install apps on iOS without Apples splash of iHoly Water TM.

[0] https://www.xda-developers.com/how-to-sideload-apps-iphone-a...

[int_19h]

Yes, this is indeed increasingly common.

All the more reason to legislatively nuke it all as fast and as forcefully as possible before it entrenches.

[vlod]

I use userscripts/violent-monkey for my stuff and I don't have to deal with any of them. I grant you, it's harder for people to use my stuff.

[yakkityyak]

I don’t quite understand why they happily subscribe to this model with Xbox PlayStation and Nintendo, but are adamant about getting their way with Google and Apple.

[Zambyte]

The arbitrary limitations on computers that are obviously general purpose is more clear than the arbitrary limitations on general purpose computers that are marketed as special purpose computers (gaming machines). In reality they're all equally bad.

[tracerbulletx]

Gaming consoles are not really special purpose anymore.

[Zambyte]

That's why I called them "general purpose computers that are marketed as special purpose computers".

[simondotau]

Are you saying that the laws governing digital markets should vary based on a manufacturer's current marketing strategy?

What if they market it one way this month and a different way next month?

I wonder, would a Chromebook be considered a general purpose computer for the purposes of this argument? Should the rules change for the Xbox if Microsoft ever mentions that the Xbox is a great platform for browsing the web on a TV? You can plug a keyboard and mouse into it and Google Docs (among others) works perfectly.

[tracerbulletx]

Oh, my bad.

[johnnyanmac]

They pretty much are. They don't even had facilities that older consoles had like an accessible web browser or custom theming.

Just because they have general computing hardware doesn't mean they are general purpose computers.

[haswell]

iOS/iPadOS devices have never been marketed as general purpose computers though.

They have increasingly become that, and I’m not arguing that the limitations are good, but the limitations of the app store have always been core to the marketing of these devices.

The Mac product lines are the only “general purpose” devices.

[quelltext]

You don't remember the "What's a computer?" ad?

iPads are most definitely marketed as devices suitable to take the place of conventional computers.

[haswell]

To me, that ad underscores the point somewhat. Apple is marketing these devices as something other than a computer. Something that makes a computer unnecessary.

The underlying implication being: “You don’t need a computer”, and “our ecosystem is so good that the new generation won’t even know what a computer is”.

As a tech and Linux nerd since the early 2000s, I can understand why other tech savvy people could interpret this as “this is no different than a computer”, but I don’t think this is the right framing, and I don’t think we’re the intended audience.

Their claim has always been that this ecosystem makes general purpose computers unnecessary for a wide array of use cases, because “there’s an app for that”.

From the perspective of a layperson, I think the message is: “Computers are for tech people (and/or outdated). This is for the rest of us”.

The term “general purpose” means something very different to the HN crowd than it does for the majority of Apple customers.

I want to reiterate that I’m not endorsing their position, just trying to point out that their marketing has been consistent in trying to differentiate the i*OS products. The difference between “you don’t need a computer” and “this is a general purpose computer” is subtle but important I think.

I also don’t think it’s a good direction for tech in general, even though I value some of the benefits of the locked down ecosystem. I do most of my productive work on a Linux system and think it’s critically important to continue having this option.

I’m just not trying to use an iPad for this purpose.

[zmmmmm]

It's a good question.

From the EU point of view it may be simply one of scale. If any of those held the amount of market power Apple does, I suspect the EU would designate them Gatekeepers and we would be off to the races.

From the games publisher point of view, the console manufacturer is actually adding significant value and taking a fair (or not so fair) margin in exchage. Apple detracts value, contributes nothing and then charges a huge margin for it. I can see why Epic views it differently.

[morcheeba]

>the console manufacturer is actually adding significant value and taking a fair (or not so fair) margin in exchage.

I don't get this. What does a game console manufacturer do that Apple does not? Both provide hardware, system-level APIs, dev systems, developer support, customers. In the old days, game manufacturers didn't even provide a sales channel.

And when you say Apple provides nothing, my above list is pretty solid. In the old days, developer margins were way slimmer, with physical stores taking a 50% cut on top of the console licensing fees and physical manufacturing.

[johnnyanmac]

> What does a game console manufacturer do that Apple does not?

Take it to the other extreme: what does a PC manufacturer do that Apple does not? Why not let Windows close down and take 30% on any program installed on Windows? Or go along with its old plans to enforce only signed Windows Store apps to be installed on Windows 12?

It's ultimately just history and culture. We consider general purpose computing to be open and specialized computing to be closed. Apple wants to keep claiming it's just a phone when in reality it's basically a PC. They even unified their hardware so that Mac and IOS run on the same architecture; hardware and software wise there isn't much a mac can do that an iPhone can't do.

[dwaite]

> Take it to the other extreme: what does a PC manufacturer do that Apple does not? Why not let Windows close down and take 30% on any program installed on Windows?

I mean, why not? They did so in the past (Windows 10 S).

I think it turned out to be a terrible business move on Microsoft's part that didn't pan out, but why would it be regulated against now?

[zmmmmm]

They create dedicated hardware designed to excel at gaming and then sell it at or near cost. In a very real sense they create the market that games producers sell into, and the business model is explicitly centered around those software sales. They participate in marketing, branding, etc. There's a genuine holistic value exchange that happens. Apple's value exchange is almost negative. They invest nothing in gaming as an industry, charge a premium for the hardware and then add burdensome restrictions on how the software is delivered. And then they try to take the same cut that authentic gaming ecosystem players have as their whole revenue source.

[dwaite]

> They create dedicated hardware designed to excel at gaming and then sell it at or near cost. In a very real sense they create the market that games producers sell into, and the business model is explicitly centered around those software sales.

So like Apple releasing the iPhone, increasing graphics performance by double-digit percentages consistently year after year?

> They participate in marketing, branding, etc. There's a genuine holistic value exchange that happens.

You would need to give me examples for non-AAA games of console makers providing exceptional value here. My understanding is that this is primarily the role of the publisher, not the console maker.

Apple does showcase _certain_ apps on stage at keynotes, during commercials, with prime placement on the App Store, promoting special events, and so on. This is the level of promotion that I'm used to with game consoles as well.

> Apple's value exchange is almost negative. They invest nothing in gaming as an industry, charge a premium for the hardware and then add burdensome restrictions on how the software is delivered.

What is Playstation's big investment into gaming as an industry, if not for the hardware and the platform creating an ecosystem for games the same way iPhone/iOS have?

Microsoft created DirectX the same way Apple created and promoted Metal. Could you elaborate on the differences?

> And then they try to take the same cut that authentic gaming ecosystem players have as their whole revenue source.

Yes, could you elaborate on what additional work console makers have done here to justify their cut that Apple hasn't?

[matwood]

> contributes nothing

Other than cultivating a base of iOS users spending 7x more than Android users on apps[1]. That sounds like significant value to me and not dissimilar to what the console manufacturers pitch to developers.

[1] https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/06/iphone-users-spend-apps/

[zmmmmm]

Epic doesn't want those users. It is not asking for any placement in the app store. It just wants it's own users who have iPhones to be able to access its software which it will funnel to them through their own channel. Apple contributes nothing to cultivate the gaming market overall. No marketing, no investment, no PR, no subsidation of the hardware etc. Apple simply gets in the way, making it harder, adding restrictions, invading Epic's customers privacy and then to add insult to injury takes a huge slice of the profits.

[password4321]

> Apple contributes nothing to cultivate the gaming market overall.

https://www.apple.com/apple-arcade/

[dwaite]

and all Epic has to do is commit to honoring a contract (this time) to do that.

[smoldesu]

> Other than cultivating a base of iOS users spending 7x more than Android users on apps[1].

Those iOS users certainly aren't spending 7x more on AppleTV and iTunes albums. It's because of third-parties that Apple can convince users to spend money in the first place.

> That sounds like significant value to me and not dissimilar to what the console manufacturers pitch to developers.

If console manufacturers had the hardware margins Apple did, they wouldn't be console manufacturers anymore.

[matwood]

Cool, so all the 3rd parties can move to Android and the affluent users will follow. Oh wait.

The problem is assuming that either party is the one providing all the value. Of course the app developers are providing value, but so is Apple.

> If console manufacturers had the hardware margins Apple did, they wouldn't be console manufacturers anymore.

Margins are irrelevant in this discussion.

[madeofpalk]

Game developers and console makers tend to have a much cosier relationship because they actually care about each other. Console makers will engage in co-marketing deals or other things to entice and make good on their relationship.

[0x457]

> Game developers and console makers tend to have a much cosier relationship because they actually care about each other.

lmao, in what world? Apple used to bring Epic games on stage during it presentations.

The difference between a gaming console and a phone is that your phone is in your pocket and the console isn't. Both provide libraries and tools for development, both provide support, both provide distribution channel, both provide free marketing, both provide and cultivate user base.

The main difference is: console makers have publishing divisions (that btw put even worse restrictions sometimes) and as of very recently started buying every developer they can afford.

[im3w1l]

The difference is that people buy a phone because you need a phone to function in the modern world and then play games on it because might as well. Whereas people buy a console specifically to play games. That means the gamedevs have more leverage in the latter scenario.

[jayd16]

Have you actually published a console game? The process is night and day.

[0x457]

Well, duh. How different it is between publishing on PC? IMO, more useful synergy comes from developers have a good relationship with Nvidia/AMD than with publishers.

I'm not arguing about that. I'm saying that "carrying about each other" is a stretch.

[makeitdouble]

Apple used to bring Epic games on stage during it presentations.

That seems to be the full extent of their collaboration. No specific deals, no specific adjustments, just having them at PR events and nothing more.

The weirdest thing to me is they couldn't even come up with a deal with Microsoft and the Xbox streaming app when historically MS saved Apple's bacon at the most crucial time.

[johnnyanmac]

Logistically speaking: By the time the dust settles on such lawsuits, the next generation is here while the companies can use whatever loopholes to stall out for another generation. Consoles are so ephemeral in the grand scheme of things, and lawsuits take so long, that it's not worth it.

Meanwhile, mobile OS's have been around for 15+ years and seem to be there for the long run. Playing the long game makes sense.

----

Emotionally speaking: Tim Sweeny is a game dev at heart and probably respects dedicated console gaming (despite coming to notoriety via PC gaming). They sell consoles at a loss to make gaming more accessible which is many devs' goals at the end of the day. IOS and Android are closer to a PC than a dedicated console, so closing down those environments make no sense. Android inherently isn't closed but Google was strong arming 3rd parties behind the scnes (which Epic won in court over). Apple... well, many people reading this probably know that history.

[dwaite]

> Consoles are so ephemeral in the grand scheme of things, and lawsuits take so long, that it's not worth it.

SOME consoles are sold at close to margins or even a loss at launch, making up for it later.

Other companies like Nintendo have gone many generations selling at a profit at launch.

So should Nintendo not be allowed to make the same revenue cut that other console makers get?

[johnnyanmac]

That's not really what I'm talking about. Nintendo doesn't have a "Nintendo OS" it updates for 40 years. It effectively makes a new OS each time. Any restrictions added to the Switch OS can be worked around with the Switch 2 OS.

The longest lasting console would in fact be the switch with 8 years behind it. And given how Sony is already making plans for the PS6, I don't think that will change soon. the epic/apple lawsuits took over 4 years, so any resolution would come mid-way into the lifetime of a console. Is 4 years of burning a bridge worth potentially 4 relevant years of having an epic store on the Switch? Probably not.

[raydev]

Apple provides a general purpose computing device. Their big mistake was offering an App Store that allows developers nearly every type of app for nearly every use case (except for the ones Apple doesn't like, but Apple can ignore them and not lose money).

If Apple had run it more like MS or Sony, the only way to get on the platform would be for developers to spend millions of dollars making their case that they deserve to be on the platform. This is obviously very limiting.

[Dah00n]

One difference is that most (all?) consoles are sold at a loss and they survive on profits from games. Apple would do perfectly fine with no income from games while Xbox and PlayStation would be DOA.

Strictly my opinion, but I also believe that where Sony sends engineers to help developers that struggle (case in point, Helldivers 2 mass influx of gamers after it became a social media darling causing the servers to bog down), Apple would be more likely to use their massive data from iPhones to launch a direct competitor to any app that became a big hit rather than help them out (case in point, Spotify Vs. Apple Music and the other apps Apple tried to buy, and when denied, cloned).

[jayd16]

Getting a console game published is just not the same as a mobile app. Say what you will about the specific value but the process is much more involved and exclusive for consoles. Everything published to a console is of much higher quality than the app stores despite the mobile approval process. In this way its much easier for the console platform owners to argue that they are providing clear value.

Mobile app store approval is really a joke by comparison. Its easier to argue that mobile app approval's main purpose is to provide market control.

That said, its just about what is easier to argue in court and where to start. Epic would probably ask opt to put the store on consoles if they were given the chance.

[m4rtink]

I don't think they happily subscribe to the console bullshit either - rather, the console vendors are next once Epic is done with Apple.

[KerrAvon]

Consoles have managed to get special pleading in every law of this sort so far. It’s a Trumpian level of avoiding consequences.

[desiarnezjr]

This.

[fennecbutt]

Apple sells iPhones for a profit even before the app store is involved. Consoles rely on game sales.

[simondotau]

I'm wondering how you're thinking this distinction should apply in the real world. Would you say that if a game console is ever sold at a profit, the rules should change for that console platform?

[fennecbutt]

I think these rules should apply to consoles too.

I never said how I felt about how the rules should be applied, I was just making a distinction between the two industries.

Stop em all from charging a percentage. All of em. Every industry.

[beezle]

A better analogy might be if a tire company could only sell its tires through the Ford/GM "store"/dealership. Nobody would put up with that.

[m4rtink]

Yet people put up with hardware lock-in on printer toner and cartridges (which is also very wrong).

[alt227]

Not willingly.

Theres plenty of uproar and lawsuits around that one too.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/01/hp-sued-again-for-bl...

[johnnyanmac]

I don't. I barely have a need to print to begin with but just enough that I have a printer. Printers aren't continually iterating in what and how they can print so I can survive on 10+ year old printers.

[jimscard]

Everyone who publishes software that runs on iOS devices is an Apple customer, though. This isn’t the same thing as a browser — apps running on iOS devices consume APIs on the device, utilize Apple services, etc. Also, when it comes to web apps, in most cases, the developers are also customers of the browser vendors -- from using browser developer tools and SDKs, for example, https://www.google.com/chrome/dev/ , https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/developer/ , and https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/?form=M... to name three. Safari’s dev tools etc. you get with your Apple Dev subscription.

And those browser vendors, like Apple, also provide developer training, developer support services, early access to upcoming product versions, opportunities to provide input into future product designs and features, etc.

In other words, this is not a problem, much less the “core problem”. This is normal industry practice. In fact, on some platforms, there are royalty fees due for the SDK runtime components that are required to run the software a third party developer provides. Just look at mainframes — you might buy XYZ Accounting system from them, and have to pay an additional annual license payment for the cobol runtime it requires.

That fact, by the way, is what the half a Euro per ‘download’ technology fee is about. Part of the DMA requires separation of the “app store fee” from the fee for using iOS services.

It’s also important to note, when people talk about the 30% app store fee as being high — the app store is essentially the same thing as a retail store. Back in the days when you bought software in a physical store, rather than downloading it, the margin at the retail level ranged between 30% and 50%. E.g., we would pay the distributor $25 and sell it for $49.99. The distributor in turn would buy the software in bulk from the manufacturer, for somewhere around $20-$22.

Software developers get a lot bigger share of what the consumer pays in the current model. Some, however, are greedier than others, and leverage governments to their advantage. Epic Games doesn’t want any competition - they want to be the sole retailer of Fortnite on all platforms so that they can raise the price to whatever they want.

[int_19h]

What you are saying is that software industry is a mess, and Apple just happens to be the poster child of many things that are wrong with it.

I agree. Let's deal with all the other extortion schemes while we're at it and make the free market actually free.

[Copernicron]

>The issue is that Epic doesn’t want to be Apple’s customer in the first place. They want to publish iOS apps. The fact that this requires them to be an Apple customer is the core problem.

The issue is that General Mills doesn't want to be Costco's customer in the first place. They want to sell to Costco shoppers. The fact that this requires them to be a Costco customer is the core problem.

[threeseed]

You are in many respects a customer of the browser vendors.

They can choose at any point to harm your business e.g. Apple restricting first party cookies.

[layer8]

That’s a lot closer to a desktop OS update possibly breaking your software. This doesn’t make you a customer of Windows/macOS/Linux.

If an OS vendor would target a specific software that way, however, that also would likely have legal consequences.

[Invictus0]

They're not a monopoly though. Apple can disable safari's video playback capabilities, but somehow I doubt that would kill YouTube's business.

[joemi]

To be fair, Apple isn't killing Epic's business by denying them to bypass the app store, or even by kicking them off the app store. Epic's doing just fine without apple.

[samatman]

We don't have to imagine, we have 40 years of game consoles existing.

[m4rtink]

Which is also wrong, especially given how most modern consoles are basically PCs. Just see what all you can do with Steam Deck in comparison to the locked down consoles.

[johnnyanmac]

>especially given how most modern consoles are basically PCs.

people always obsess over the hardware in these arguments when the value is in the software. You probably can eventually run windows on a PS5, but that's not what people buy a PS5 for. They don't advertise it as being able to install whatever OS you want (they made that mistake on PS3, took it back, and then got fined for taking it back), and the value for most customers is playing PS5 games. The onyl non-gaming thing you can do these days on a PS5 is watch streaming services. So at best it's a media center

Just because you can install doom on a pregnancy test doesn't mean a pregnancy test is a general purpose computer.

[m4rtink]

Still as long as you buy the hardware, you should not be prevented from running whatever you like on it.

A case of this is the Nintendo Switch, which does not even have a Web Browser (possibly due to Nintendo being scared to death of JIT exploits breaking their walled garden). Want to look up a game guide from the Internet, on a device perfectly able of doing so ? Fat chance, need another device for that!

You mentioned consoles supporting some streaming services - why should the manufacturer of the hardware be in business of deciding what streaming services you can use ?

[johnnyanmac]

>as long as you buy the hardware, you should not be prevented from running whatever you like on it.

Nothing is stopping you from gutting a switch and putting steam deck components in it to run Windows. You can do all that without bypassing Nintendo OS encryption.

>Want to look up a game guide from the Internet, on a device perfectly able of doing so ? Fat chance, need another device for that!

But that's a software problem, not a hardware one. If you want a browser on the Nintendo OS you either need some exploit on how it renders web pages (legal) or a way to install an app that goes around the Nintendo store (dubious, depending on how you approach it).

>why should the manufacturer of the hardware be in business of deciding what streaming services you can use ?

To be fair, Nintendo does allow streaming services. If your favorite one isn't on Switch, it's a business issue, not a store regulation issue. No different from a game you want not having a switch port.

Netflix wants market capture so it's everywhere. Hulu, not so much. Disney probably would have gotten on it if it didn't launch a few years after the Switch.

[ben_w]

I was wondering around a local store, MediaMarkt I think, and I saw a random handheld games console — two sticks, a D-pad, XYAB buttons — with the well-known video game Microsoft Excel pre-installed and visible on (I think, I'm not a Windows person) the start menu.

[swman]

Then they should just not publish for iOS lol.

Don’t like it? Don’t publish to it.

As a consumer I want and like the tight restrictions apple puts on the App Store.

It’s not like users can’t purchase stuff without paying the 30% premium added by developers to offset the apple tax. Just go to the website and buy there. And save the 30%.

My parents who are older use iPhone. They don’t have to wade through trash like android play store. Most apps are good in the iOS store.

If epic wants kids to buy more stuff have their parents pay the 30% premium. If your kid is glued to the phone I’m sure you enabled that and can continue enabling it. Sorry not sorry.

[dns_snek]

The number of bad faith arguments here is impressive.

> Don’t like it? Don’t publish to it.

That's not how laws work, Epic have a perfectly valid complaint against Apple because Apple isn't complying with EU law. As far as valid outcomes go, Apple can either comply, face fines, or leave the EU market.

> As a consumer I want and like the tight restrictions apple puts on the App Store.

That's great, but it causes demonstrable harm to the proper functioning of our supposed "free market", so we've outlawed them.

> It’s not like users can’t purchase stuff without paying the 30% premium added by developers to offset the apple tax. Just go to the website and buy there. And save the 30%.

Except they ban you from even mentioning that this alternative exist. More harm to the free market.

> My parents who are older use iPhone. They don’t have to wade through trash like android play store. Most apps are good in the iOS store.

Nobody is forcing them to wade through alternative app stores. If most good apps are indeed on iOS, and Apple's fees are indeed reasonable, then those apps will stay in the iOS App Store. Nothing to worry about!

> If epic wants kids to buy more stuff have their parents pay the 30% premium. If your kid is glued to the phone I’m sure you enabled that and can continue enabling it. Sorry not sorry.

This legislation benefits everyone, not just Epic.

[siegecraft]

The Supreme Court ruled that apple must allow users to purchase from vendor websites. Apple takes a 27% cut instead of 30%

[pompino]

Ah yes, the classic "Think of the innocent children and grandmas" . Sorry, that isn't an argument anymore. It never was convincing before and isn't now either.

>Don’t like it? Don’t publish to it.

Yeah, why protest at all? Just leave the country. Why fight corruption? Just go somewhere else where there is less of it. Really, why complain at all?

[iraqmtpizza]

They never said they didn't like iOS. You're hallucinating.

[creaturemachine]

Apple should just not sell in the EU lol.

[lxgr]

Companies in quite a few industries have a duty to do business with you, with very few limitations. For example, in some countries/cities, taxis generally can't refuse transportation to you, assuming you're able to pay and not endangering the driver. Having publicly and repeatedly expressed a dislike for taxis, or even wearing a t-shirt saying "taxis in $city are an overpriced monopoly" would not be a valid reason to be refused transportation.

In the EU/under the DMA, Apple now very likely has a duty to transact even with app developers saying mean things about them. That's certainly a very new situation for Apple, but not an unprecedented one.

I'm not sure if throwing more hissy fits and breaking more of their playmates' toys is a good idea now that adults are in the room.

[mckn1ght]

Taxis in many cities operate under the authority of a government institution [0], so it makes more sense that they have a duty to do business with the public.

Whereas one can often experience waiting for a Lyft/Uber where drivers repeatedly decline service after initially accepting.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi_medallion

[AnthonyMouse]

This doesn't really have anything to do with licensing. There are laws that prohibit businesses from e.g. refusing customers on the basis of race or sex and it doesn't matter if you're a restaurant or a hardware store or a flower shop.

[mckn1ght]

That's true, but is there any reason to believe Apple is acting in such a discriminatory fashion against a protected class of citizen?

[Jensson]

This is a different set of laws, different set of protected things that you aren't allowed to discriminate or retaliate against.

[Findeton]

"taxis generally can't refuse transportation to you"

The fact that it happens says nothing about whether it's right or not. In my opinion it's wrong and immoral that taxis can't refuse to service you. But taxis are very regulated in many places. In fact, for example, Uber is illegal in Colombia. And still, despite their legal status, Uber is not only very used in Colombia, but it's also safer than getting a normal taxi.

[jjmarr]

When there's a big power imbalance, putting the onus on the service provider to give a valid reason for denying customers can be more impactful than laying the burden on a user to prove there was discrimination.

Depending on your race/ethnicity/disability/socioeconomic status, taxi drivers might refuse service even though it is against the law. It is easier to win against a taxi driver if they're obligated to explain why they didn't help someone in a wheelchair.

[Findeton]

I respectfully disagree because that goes against individual freedom. I understand that historically in the US there's been racism but that's no reason to erode individual freedom.

[int_19h]

A corporation is not a person, though. It is a "legal person", which is a really unfortunate term precisely because it confuses the matter of natural rights and freedoms.

Now, I would agree with you if we were talking about individuals. In that case, yeah, I think you should be able to refuse service for any reason or no reason at all to whoever you want. But if you go and get a corporate charter from the government that, for legal and fiscal purposes, creates an entity that is distinct from you-the-actual-person, then I don't see any problem with the same government telling that distinct entity what it can and cannot do. That entity has no natural rights.

[Findeton]

A corporation is just an abstraction over a bunch of people. So yes, it does restrict individual freedoms.

[idle_zealot]

A taxi company is not an individual.

[_fat_santa]

The key difference I see in Apple's app store business is that it's a monopolistic marketplace model. If Apple allowed an alternative to the app store then this wouldn't be an issue. Take Microsoft and Windows as an example, they have the Microsoft store which operates as a marketplace with rules but they don't get the same scrutiny because there are alternatives. Don't like what MS is doing with their app store? Fine just release the binary yourself.

With Apple though, the bring it on themselves by having a monopolistic marketplace. Since they are the sole gatekeeper to getting apps on the iDevices, there is no alternative like there is in the MS ecosystem. Apple could end all scrutiny tomorrow if they allowed a way to install apps on iDevices that bypassed the app store and Epic would have no case.

[gopher_space]

> Don't like what MS is doing with their app store? Fine just release the binary yourself.

Whip up a small windows binary and send it to your mom. See if she can run it without any help from you. MS is doing the same thing from a different angle.

[abhinavk]

* Signed .exe works but has a cost.

* Unsigned .exe gets a security prompt to Run/Don't Run for the first time.

* MSI has an installation wizard.

* MSIX has a simple Install prompt like PWAs.

[donmcronald]

Are you saying I can distribute an unsigned MSI or MSIX without a SmartScreen warning? Are you sure about that? Others are saying the same thing, but I didn't think that was possible.

Can someone explain it you happen to know?

[pompino]

Not even close. MS is allowing the end user alternate means of installing software. Apple is trying to rob each iOS developer of 30% of their sales.

[nottorp]

Eh, you create a msi including all dependencies with tools provided to you by Microsoft free of charge and without restrictions. And mom gets a start menu icon.

Can you do the same on iOS?

[gopher_space]

If I don't think of cost as a fundamental issue, what differences would I see between either approach? They're both barriers to my intent and I'm not on board with the reasoning behind erecting those barriers.

[nottorp]

You missed the "without restrictions" part. You do not need to get the msi approved by Microsoft to distribute it.

[gopher_space]

It's an extra step in the process I only need to do on Windows, and the rationale behind it solely benefits Microsoft.

I'm not comparing Microsoft to Apple, I'm judging both of them against my intentions. Both companies throw up barriers to interfacing with their systems.

[askonomm]

But as of iOS 17.4 they do allow alternative app stores in EU.

[screamingninja]

Here are some articles that specifically discuss what is wrong with Apple's approach in allowing alternative app stores.

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/06/spoil-the-bunch/

https://proton.me/blog/apple-dma-compliance-plan-trap

> Introducing the Core Technology Fee (CTF), a junk fee that serves no purpose other than trapping popular apps in Apple’s current shakedown scheme. By charging a €.50 fee for each install after the first 1 million, Apple effectively uses a popular app’s scale against it to prevent it from using an alternative payment system or app store.

> If you decide to use anything other than Apple’s in-app purchase system, you’re forced to display a “scare screen” designed by Apple, which you cannot modify.

> Once you choose which policy you want to implement — the current App Store policy or Apple’s proposed new policy — your decision is permanent. So if you decide to take the risk of trying out alternative payments and it ends up working worse for your business, Apple doesn’t allow you to go back and instead traps you permanently.

[OCASMv2]

The CTF is the exact same thing as the Runtime Fee that Unity tried to force on devs last year. Caused a massive outroar that got Unity to reverse course and sack the CEO.

[lozenge]

You still need a developer account to notarise apps that are published on alternative app stores. Plus you need to agree to pay Apple the Core Technology Fee.

[codingcodingboy]

Why didn't the EU force the removal of those requirements? Apple will keep playing games to make alternative stores uncompetitive and keep away unwanted developers.

[Jensson]

I think 8 was intended to stop that sort of thing, but maybe Apple thinks it doesn't apply?

8. The gatekeeper shall not require business users or end users to subscribe to, or register with, any further core platform services, as a condition for being able to use, access, sign up for or registering with any of that gatekeeper’s core platform services listed pursuant to that Article.

[codingcodingboy]

You are probably right, and now I wonder if this doesn't also apply to the standard Apple developer program.

I have not read the DMA but in the gatekeeper section of the official website the Core platform services listed are AppStore, iOS and Safari. Let's suppose that you single out iOs, why should I sign up something about AppStore to develop apps?

[jsnell]

DMA enforcement only started today. Until today, all these plans were just words on a paper. The EC will only look at the real state of the world now that enforcement has started, and make their enforcement decisions based on that and the public feedback. They aren't giving any kind of pre-approvals or pre-denials to the plans.

(If they were pre-evaluating plans, the optimal play for the gatekeepers would be to propose something totally unreasonable, and then negotiate it to something that's mostly unreasonable but just barely acceptable to the EC. That would be a bad outcome for the EC. So from a game theory perspective, they're better of making the companies guess at what will be acceptable rather than negotiating, since the companies will want to be conservative.)

[threeseed]

Because it's still Apple's platform.

And they have a right to prevent apps that harm the integrity of the overall platform which is what notarisation is designed to prevent.

Also companies have always charged a fee for using their SDKs. Even today Epic does this i.e. 12%.

[Phrodo_00]

> Because it's still Apple's platform.

It's not Apple's devices, though.

[whazor]

No, you need an Apple developer account to set up an alternative marketplace.

[layer8]

Which they are preventing Epic from creating because it requires an Apple developer account.

[borland]

In iOS 17.4 Apple allows you to apply to create an alternative store. Apple can still deny your request and kill your alternative store, and this is exactly what happened.

Epic opened a developer account under their european subsidiary company, which applied for this, and Apple just banned that account, so Epic can't create a store. Perhaps if someone else (Google, Microsoft, Meta) made a store, Epic might be able to upload apps to that store, but because in the Apple world everything traces back to the developer accounts, I'm pretty sure that would be blocked by Apple as well.

As much as it might seem like Tim Sweeney was exaggerating about Apple's DMA "compliance" changes being hot garbage, a horror show, and malicious compliance -- he really wasn't. Apple are in full on villain mode here.

The part that doesn't make sense, is why Apple are choosing to be such dicks about everything, when the EU is already breathing down their necks. They're inviting more and harsher regulation upon themselves and making the rest of the world hate them in the process.

[threeseed]

Epic has a long history of breaking the terms of contracts they are sign.

Most companies won't deal with actors who continually do this.

[int_19h]

Most companies don't own market-dominant platforms so locked down that large economic blocks pass special legislation to address the matter.

[nottorp]

They don't really. Money matters aside, the apps still need to be approved by Apple. They could drop all fees and it would still mean they don't allow alternatives.

[1over137]

Do you still need an AppleID to use these alternative stores?

[onion2k]

If I had a Customer that spent years relentlessly complaining about my Company, I know I wouldn't want to have them as a Customer.

Epic aren't a customer. They're a supplier. They provide Apple with software that Apple's customers buy.

Apple are denying their customers, iPhone users, the option to buy Epic apps through Apple's app store. You should never lose sight of who actually loses here. It's not really Apple or Epic. They're massive corporations that will continue to make billions regardless. The loser is iPhone users who want to use their devices to play a game they enjoy.

[kevingadd]

Criticizing defects in a product or criticizing a vendor's misbehavior doesn't make you automatically a "bad actor". A healthy vendor/customer relationship involves having channels where this criticism can be exchanged without putting the vendor or the customer in a bad position, and the criticism results in a better product.

Instead, bug reports go into a black hole because Apple doesn't care, and they especially don't care about game developers, unless those game developers are running casino games or gacha games that bring in a billion dollars a year. Then Apple cares a lot - about 30%.

If a billion-dollar company is so thin-skinned that they can't handle having their policies criticized they're run by children.

Epic has historically brought in a lot of money for Apple, both directly - via titles like Infinity Blade and Fortnite - and indirectly - by enabling the developer ecosystem so more people can release titles on Apple platforms. In the past Epic helped promote new Apple product launches. Calling them a bad actor is ridiculous.

[wtallis]

Epic is trying not to call attention to it, but in the emails they published from Apple, Epic's history of violating an agreement with Apple was cited as why Apple has reason to not trust Epic. That may not be sufficient justification under EU law, but it's unquestionable that Apple has more underlying their concerns than just Epic's recent public complaining.

[misnome]

> Calling them a bad actor is ridiculous.

This is an absurd take. They very deliberately and publicly breached their agreement with apple, sued them when they got kicked out for it, and lost.

If that isn’t a textbook description of a bad actor then what the hell _would_ count for you?

[kevingadd]

By what metric is Epic Games having an account a "threat" to iOS? Are they going to hack end-users' devices? Collect their private information without permission and sell it to third parties? All just by having a developer account?

Isn't the app review system combined with iOS's robust security infrastructure supposed to prevent such an outcome? If a company as big and legally accountable as Epic, with a long track record, is so dangerous - by that standard lots of other developer accounts should be closed down too, just to be safe.

It's perfectly reasonable to go "I don't want to do business with Epic due to how they've treated me" but being your opponent is different from being a bad actor. Using language like this pointlessly inflates the magnitude of what Epic actually did and misrepresents the nature of their conflict with Apple.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Criticizing defects in a product or criticizing a vendor's misbehavior doesn't make you automatically a "bad actor"

Doing so publicly certainly does. I would terminate business with a client if they started airing out their issues about me on Twitter.

That said, I’m not Apple. At a certain size, you lose the right to reject bad actors.

[kevingadd]

Like I said, Apple gives you no other choice. They don't have proper channels for communication on things like software defects or policy. You have to kick up a public outcry to get any help.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Apple gives you no other choice

Sweeney and Schiller were emailing. Apple will read a letter you send addressed to their legal team.

[nottorp]

You don't control access to half of the world's mobile devices do you? :)

[the_mitsuhiko]

In Europe there is the concept of “Forced to contract”. You can be forced to accept a customer. Applies to many monopolies.

[nottorp]

Single payer health insurance, for example :)

[andersa]

Your company is likely not considered a core platform service, so your analogy is not relevant.

[beeboobaa]

Then you shouldn't position yourself as a gatekeeper. I also don't want to pay taxes, but have to comply with the law anyway.

[archagon]

If your company has a market segment captured, you should not have any right to do that, irrespective of your feelings.

[yokoprime]

If someone spends years badmouthing Microsoft, would you say its ok for Microsoft to block their apps from Windows?

[heisenbit]

If one stretches ones leverage to the point where it is considered by authorities as excessive and is forced to make concessions one is not in the position to attack those who attacked ones monopolistic behavior. The technical term is is "sitting in a glass house" and while one figures out the layout of the panels one is advised to refrain from throwing rocks.

The way I see it Apple is lumping past behavior and current behavior of Epic together to make an exclusion decision. But there was a big change between the past and now so the market situation has changed and access to this changed market should not overly depend on information from a very different world otherwise it can be considered at best arbitrary or an attempt to exclude competitors with irrelevant facts. The latter could get expensive.

[johnnyanmac]

Depends on the ruling and laws. I'm sure someone who didn't allow homosexual couples would not want to welcome them even after it was ruled as unconstitutional to discriminate to them in the US (even if they are middle eastern and laws in their homeland do allow for that). They were technically rowdy customers but the law allows them to be in as long as their rowdiness was due to their identity and not other neutral actions (although we know they will be judged much more harshly on those actions as an attempt to disciminate).

A bit of a crude comparison, but I hope it gets the point across that the behavior depends. retaliating against rules that the EU later determines to be bad rules may open a case to allow them, as long as they don't break other rules.

[Spivak]

It's not even that, if I was Apple I wouldn't want to have them as a customer simply to deny them standing for their constant lawsuits. If the two companies have absolutely no business relationship at all, ties completely severed then it's a lot harder to demonstrate harm. All you could really sue about is that they won't do business with you.

I'm actually surprised it's not SOP to stop doing business with people who sue you after the lawsuit ends. I mean you took the nuclear option.

[gigel82]

Epic isn't Apple's customer. Apple is just the local (techno)feudal lord / rentier wanting to tax all merchants trying to sell goods to Apple's serfs.

[scotty79]

Things look a bit different if you are one of two for example electric utility companies in the country.

You can't deny someone service just because they said mean thing about you.

Companies should be forced to service law abiding customers.

[overgard]

Epic is only a customer because Apple's policies forces them to be.

[015a]

Epic also doesn't want to be Apple's customer. No one would describe the relationship between Microsoft and Epic as "Epic being Microsoft's customer" because they distribute the Epic Games Store and Fortnite on Windows (Xbox console distribution notwithstanding; there it is more of a customer relationship).

Apple forces everyone who wants access to 50% of the mobile computing market into a customer-oriented relationship, and then complains when not everyone Thinks The Same as they do. Its disgusting behavior.

[ginko]

Epic isn't apple's customer. They just use their tools.

[eviks]

Why not? There will be more complaints because of your action

[raincole]

Are you serious? So you think it's okay for Unity to terminate my dev account because I complain about Unity on hacker news?

(Replace Unity with Windows, Photoshop or whatever software people constantly complain about.)

[ajross]

App vendors aren't customers. They don't pay Apple anything more than the license fees for Xcode. The app's users are the customers, and if you start throwing out the partners you lose customers. Now, sure, the calculus might change depending on your relationship with each partner, but you absolutely cant say that Epic doesn't bring revenue to Apple. They do.