this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
63 points (97.0% liked)

Apple

17143 readers
1 users here now

Welcome

to the largest Apple community on Lemmy. This is the place where we talk about everything Apple, from iOS to the exciting upcoming Apple Vision Pro. Feel free to join the discussion!

Rules:
  1. No NSFW Content
  2. No Hate Speech or Personal Attacks
  3. No Ads / Spamming
    Self promotion is only allowed in the pinned monthly thread

Lemmy Code of Conduct

Communities of Interest:

Apple Hardware
Apple TV
Apple Watch
iPad
iPhone
Mac
Vintage Apple

Apple Software
iOS
iPadOS
macOS
tvOS
watchOS
Shortcuts
Xcode

Community banner courtesy of u/Antsomnia.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Nothing about allowing third party app stores would require you to change your usage patterns. Apple could keep all their current rules for the App Store exactly the same, and then also allow sideloading. If you want the pure apple experience as you described, all you have to do is only use their App Store. Then those who want to sideload (and companies looking to avoid paying apple fees) can do so through their own channels. Opt-in makes it a win-win for everyone, well except Apple who is currently enjoying a monopoly and charging the fees to match.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I wish I could believe that. But the second other app stores are allowed, apps you use today are going to migrate off of AppStore completely to protect their margins.

There’s no consumer benefit from that. More money goes to developers instead of Apple. Big benefit! At least a single, high quality app store has some consumer benefit.

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don’t think this will be the case. Android has always allowed sideloading, but how many apps are sideload only? It’s basically just Fortnite and a bunch of open source apps. No major apps require sideloading because google play is still where people will look for apps and trust apps. Some commercial apps allow you to sideload from their website, but it’s pretty uncommon still.

And for consumer benefit, if you believe in free markets, developers not having a 30% overhead might end up forwarding those savings on to the users. It’s pretty common for subscription services to charge more on the App Store than they do on their own websites. And for indie developers, I’d rather they get a bigger chunk of the pie than give the world’s highest valued company ever more money.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

developers not having a 30% overhead might end up forwarding those savings on to the users

Thanks for my LOL of the day!

[–] dpkonofa@lemmy.world -4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They already allow side-loading (albeit, admittedly, via a cumbersome mechanism). That is not what Epic is asking for. You’re either ignorant of what changes Epic is demanding here or you’re being disingenuous in your argument.

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Apple allows sideloading with a 7 day, 3 app limit via a cumbersome process. It’s intentionally limited to make it non-viable for most people. Epic wants to be able to publish their games without using Apple’s infrastructure or paying them huge fees. I have no love for Epic but what they want is entirely reasonable.

[–] dpkonofa@lemmy.world -3 points 11 months ago

Got it. So you don’t actually understand what Epic is asking for and you ignored that I admitted Apple’s current sideloading is cumbersome. 99% of users do not need to sideloading apps, much less more than 1.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

without using Apple’s infrastructure

This is disingenuous. You can’t deliver an iOS app without Apple infrastructure. You don’t count XCode and iOS itself? You don’t think Apple will need to offer iOS settings and support for 3rd party stores? They absolutely will.

What Epic really want is to profit from Apple’s platform and marketplace without paying anything in return.

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

No other general-purpose platform demands payment just to have basic access like iOS does. macOS doesn’t, windows doesn’t, android doesn’t, ChromeOS doesn’t, linux doesn’t. And yet, the companies making these systems are all quite profitable. What makes iOS so different that it can’t follow the basic rules established by its competitors? I personally don’t care that Epic themselves happen to be slimy, they just happen to be in the right this once.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

demands payment just to have basic access

This isn’t remotely what they do, and I think you know it.

They take a percentage of payment transactions only. You can have “basic access” without paying them a dime. I manage an app with 30 million monthly users and we pay Apple zero. Because we don’t transact inside our app.

So you want to show me a payments platform that doesn’t take a percentage of the business? I’ll wait.

What you’re doing here is shouting down eBay because they won’t let you sell products on their platform without taking a percentage. They’ve assembled a massive buyer market for you to tap into. They’ve given you tools to use. And WHAT??? They want a piece of the profits??? OUTRAGE!

And to answer your question, what makes iOS so special is how much money developers make there. It dwarfs everything else you mentioned combined. You’re cheering on developer greed. They’ve absolutely flocked to this platform with its supposedly prohibitive fees. It’s hard to take your argument seriously.