Thank goodness that wasn't the case.
Come to think of it, why are web browsers excluded from the in-app fee?
> Imagine if Sony did this on Playstation. a) prohibiting the installation of non-PlayStation games and b) insisting that all purchases done via their store give them a 30% cut.
Many platforms are like this -- and many also have the majority marketshare. Is this a call to redefine what platforms can and cannot control?
If your complaint is that it's bad for the app developers or users, then that's different, and maybe deserves criticism but not ridicule.
I perceive capricious behaviour like this ad a threat to my liberty and well-being.
Also, the web is not even a great analogy period since it wasn't created by a private company. Apple created their phones, their App Store, they maintain it, and they provide the infrastructure for it. That's nothing like the internet.
Don't get me wrong, I hate the idea of "digital anti-globalism", but if this thing went to court, both sides would have their reasonable arguments. And let's hope that if there's a ruling, it rules in favor of open platforms. At the very least, I think it would be great if the courts rule that a platform that's built open and sold as open cannot be consequently closed. But I doubt that Apple will be forced to open its hardware to non-App Store programs.
For PlayStation you pay the Sony tax for the convenience of integrating with their payment services, not because they'll ban you for using anything else.
It's also a super different situation in general; for example, Sony actually often pays developers to develop for their store (e.g. PubFund [1]), and does free marketing campaigns for them. Console makers live and die by their access to a pipeline of new exclusive games, so they treat game developers well; Apple doesn't, so it squeezes app developers for what it can. Hence why game developers are suing Apple but not Sony.
Historically, other game consoles could be used a "general purpose computing devices," such as the Sega Dreamcast with Windows CE and the Nintendo Famicom (which is short for Family Computer).
An Apple laptop looks like a general purpose computing device. Do we want it not to be one, and become closer to a gaming console?
I think that merely looking at the guts and seeing which processor it has is kind of a red herring.
A separate concern is around anticompetitive behavior. There is no way to sideload an app, or even use a competing app store, and Apple is charging rent. This is pretty clearly anticompetitive behavior that harms consumers.
It can be off by default, and probably should.
But trying to hair split console from computer from cellphone makes less and less sense everyday and we all know it.
I know, I know, people who bought iPhones knew what they were buying into.
Hmmm -- not to stretch the analogy too thin, but is this similar to Apple though, where they allow you to sign in to subscription services (e.g. Netflix) with your existing account to the service, but don't allow sign ups (which would trigger payment processing)? Or is payment processing baked in there as well?
> For PlayStation you pay the Sony tax for the convenience of integrating with their payment services, not because they'll ban you for using anything else.
To clarify, has any developer integrated external payment services within a Playstation game / app / etc? From all the games and apps I've played with, I never remember any other payment system built in other than Sony's.
> It's also a super different situation in general; for example, Sony actually often pays developers to develop for their store ...
Blackberry did the same thing near the end of it's life -- I was at a hackathon where they were giving away Blackberries and cash to anyone who developed a Blackberry app -- but does not giving back really reflect as monopolistic?
When I see folks complain about this, I like ask "what do you think is a reasonable fee for Apple to charge?" Zero is not a realistic answer as Apple does incur costs to run the app store. Moreover, they're entitled to make a profit off the marketplace they created and support. So what's a reasonable percentage?
Similar with Nintendo's Switch - Nintendo even tried to shut down a YouTuber's channel just for mentioning homebrew/jailbreaking for Switch.
It is such a shame and honestly i wish these devices were as open as PCs are. That they aren't is a testament to how much they have brainwashed people to think as normal that they have no control over their own devices and what they can do with them.
EDIT: this comment aged well: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.epicgames....
Of course, in this case piracy would be the primary reason for the restriction, but I think it's valid to look at places where the platform is controlled by a single vendor.
Valve's decision to no longer support Ubuntu as a first-class distribution, a year ago, probably. Though that's just one distribution, not Linux as a whole.
https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/06/steam-announces-that-its...
Actually, looking now, I think you're right. It looks like Spotify disabled setting up subscriptions on PS4. I guess PS4 subscriptions are a small enough chunk of revenue for Spotify it didn't really matter to them.
I guess the real point is that PS4 just isn't a large enough chunk of these kinds of services' market share by revenue to matter; they don't need signups, since not many people primarily use Spotify via PlayStation.
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
> what do you think is a reasonable fee for Apple to charge?
That's an interesting situation, because if the game was free Apple would charge nothing. And the more they bang on the drum about consumer safety, the more I want them to charge a fee appropriate for payment processing.
If I was just arbitrarily setting the fees, I might go with something like 25% of the first 20 dollars per app per user, and then 5% afterwards.
Which is why I found Microsoft's bitching about the app store hilarious. They have been taking giant pieces of the action in Xbox for 20 years and tried to do the same in their sorry excuse for a Windows Store. I'd like to see them allow Stadia on the Xbox.
I actually agree with not allowing external payment processors on these (and mobile) platforms, especially for games where the audience is frequently naive kids.
Don't agree with the platform taking a huge cut of every transaction though. Maybe take a smaller cut and the billionaires can stop squabbling.
But iPads (though iOS was renamed/forked to iPadOS on those devices) are definitely marketed as general purpose computing devices. The headline on https://www.apple.com/ipad/ is "Your next computer is not a computer".
iPad/iPadOS have these same restrictions as iPhone/iOS.
Anyway, I think platforms need to be regulated to be more open. We need a right to modify along with a right to repair. When I pay for a product that happens to support downloadable software, I should be free to put whatever software on it that I want. If apple allowed sideloading on iOS like they do on macOS this would not have blown up to the degree that it did.
Let's put that % difference into perspective. Say you have an annual fee of $10. The first year, your users pay Apple $3 (you make $7), but after that for every user that subscribes you only pay $1.50 (you make $8.50). You're saying that Apples should only charge $1. You're arguing that fifty cents is the difference between life and death of your business? Really?
Just switch to a competitor! Go-to Linux or Mac. All good, no antitrust here. /s
The question isn't whether Apple has a large enough market share in the US for the courts to get involved — it very clearly does — the question is does it exhibit exclusionary behavior to the extent courts should get involved.
(I think it does exhibit exclusionary behavior, but I can see that being much more open to interpretation than the simple fact that it clears the 50% threshold.)
Regardless, my comment was just correcting the statement that Apple doesn't have a majority market share in any market, when in fact it has majority market share in the US market.
That's not how it works.
I doubt Epic would be making much complaint for 15% (since the app has been out more than a year). They suggest 12% after all.
The 15% is for subscriptions and nothing else. And it's on a per-user basis.
Let’s be honest here, the rules of the app store are arbitrary and designed to extract the maximum amount of revenue from the ecosystem, within the limits of what apple thought people would put it with. Turns out they may have miscalculated.
Easy, reliably DoS -- and the user has no means of fixing this vulnerability, other than rooting the phone and hacking around. Which is made ever less feasible.
Apple wields it’s power indirectly, leading to the AppCasino and lousy UX.
Google pulls you in and monetizes you.
All of these companies do similar things in different ways.
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/about-amp
Isn't there a term for using dominance in one market to compel behavior in another?
What I'm trying to show is that once you accept zero is not reasonable (and most rational people accept this) and then explore the actual $$ difference between what Apple charges and what you think is reasonable, the differences are really small. Normally when I ask folks this, the difference comes in between 0.05 and a $2 depending on the purchase price. For a 0.99 app we're talking about $0.05-0.20 difference. Life is too short for folks to get worked up about that small of a price difference.
Don't agree with the platform taking a huge cut of every transaction though
Putting aside the ethics of Apple's content stranglehold for the moment, the economic side of things seems like a very nice deal -- 30% is not bad compared to various distribution deals (for physical and virtual goods) of which I have some slight familiarity.
Are there distribution platforms that allow you to get your app/product/etc to that many people without taking a cut?
I'm kind of fed up with Apple for a variety of reasons, but this doesn't seem like one of the problems to me.
I'm assuming you would also want to prohibit these "naive kids" from ever browsing the Internet too, am I right?
(Since there are plenty of website that accept payments through a variety of payment processors?)
By actual sales of devices, iOS accounts for between 41-46% of the market. That users on iOS tend to use the web more from their devices doesn't somehow make it a monopoly.
And to be clear I don't think whether it's a monopoly or not is particularly relevant -- it's still arguably abusive, anticompetitive behavior -- but that misleading statcounter claim is used for disinformation on here daily.
The difference is small if you're looking at very cheap apps.
The big problem here is for tens of dollars being charged 30%. It makes a very significant difference!
This is not enforcing AMP on publishers in the results, and the argument that it is by using icons falls under the 'it's kind of the same' category.
Apple does not have more than 50% marketshare of smartphones in the US. In most analyses it is between 41-43%, with an absolute high of 46%. Android accounts for the rest. And of course worldwide iOS is dwarfed by Android.
https://www.kantarworldpanel.com/global/smartphone-os-market...
EDIT: Of course this was down-arrowed. The citation of StatCounter is akin to claiming that the rodeo's parking lot has 80% pick-up trucks, therefore pick-up trucks have 80% of the market. It's absolute nonsense but it somehow appears on HN repeatedly. Never change, HN. Never change.
2020 is really an interesting year.
So yes, lots of people buy iPhones exactly because if Apples iron grip.
So distribution deals for physical goods are not analogous, right ? Like Best Buy doesn't get a cut if I pay netflix to watch it on the TV I bought from them.
Whether or not it's native or wine doesn't change the fact that Steam is pushing into Linux. They've shifted the responsibility from pushing linux support on the developer to providing linux support themselves.
would you really be in favor of that and see that as a good thing for the general public ?
And in fact Microsoft tried this (both with Windows RT and Windows 10 S) and in both cases few people bought in (or, in some cases, wound up 'confused' that other software wouldn't run, leading to the eventual sunsetting of Windows 10 S).
I do think both sides have reasonable arguments, but at the same time 'computing' has become ubiquitous, and Smartphones arguably even more so. Personally, I think we are in a weird state when we consider historical context; once upon a time, remember that GM would in fact make moves to ensure they did not get too much market share. I can't remember the number but I think they didn't want to go over 59%.
Of course you COULD have more market share even back then, but it also typically resulted in a lot more government oversight and willingness for the government to intervene in situations like this (thinking about Modems and Ma Bell here...)
IMO Google sidesteps the problem by not having a lot of 'handset' market share. (Also, perhaps more controversial to state, but their compliance with LE/Intelligence agencies probably allows more things to be ignored.)
I just don't know what to say anymore. Apple (and, dare I say, to a greater extent, Google) are doing the sorts of things that absolutely landed Microsoft in court and caused microsoft to make a number of decisions that kneecapped them in the first decade of the 2000s. It's been happening for years, and yet we are only now seeing enough people agreeing that we can talk about it without getting shouted down.
For a $20 app the current model is that you pay Apple $6. If you waved a wand and made it 20% you pay Apple $4. So the difference in this case is only $2 (while you get $16). That's small potatoes.
The only reason Sony is not charging exorbitant amounts (if they really aren't) is because they're in heated competition with Microsoft over being the preferred first release platform of popular games.
It’s funny to me that One of Microsoft's strongest arguments is “well we tried it and consumers don’t want it that way unless forced upon them”.
The appeal of developing in Apple's ecosystem has always been the exposure to large audiences, the (relatively decent) tooling, and the ability to creatively actualize your ideas. That last one goes away when Apple starts looking more like Sony.
I'll leave it up to lawyers to decide if this is illegal, but I know this certainly makes me less excited about developing my next iOS/OSX app
I think if I were to answer this question now it would be based on the expectation of the end consumer to be expected to, or have the ability to program the device for general purpose tasks.
Things like game consoles, phones, smart appliances, etc. all start to blur that line but I think it comes down to the consumer's expectations.
Perhaps the hoops are fine and reasonable. That doesn't change the fact that hoops are being added.
Macs and iOS devices do different things for different use cases; their strengths and weaknesses are as much tied into their hardware design as software. People love Macs because of what they can do; Apple, too.
Apple couldn’t force people to use the Mac App Store even if it wanted, knowing how few of the biggest Mac apps outside of the larger software companies (Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, etc) actually distribute with it.
The only convergence we will see is the ability to run iOS apps on macOS, and even then that is merely a stopgap effort; any iOS apps that want to truly make the transition to the Mac will be updated as Catalyst apps. Catalyst apps are Mac apps through and through, despite their use of iOS’ UIKit.
See also: speculation in The mid-00s that Apple would drop Mac OS X for Windows during the Intel transition. It was just as devoid of factual basis then as fear-mongered “sensible speculation” is today.
This is just three big corporations fighting over their respective slices of the pie, if you think any of this is being said or done for your benefit I’m sure Epic has a plentiful supply of really tasty Koolaid for you. But no pie, sorry.
App Stores suck. App Stores with no side-loading are even worse. Platforms that are locked down so much that you can't even install your own OS are worse.
We used to bitch about Tivoization on HN all the time, it seems post iPhone, everyone seems A-OK.
I believe the defaults now extend to software sourced outside of the app store must still be notarized by Apple. This impacts developers more than consumers I would guess, but certainly requires more effort from developers to create and distribute software.
Mind.blown.
Valve will have a much easier time improving proton than they will forcing devs to make Linux compatible games for little monetary reward.
If you're still using Google and prefer a more technical approach to your inquiries, maybe it's time for to consider a more refined tool?
I know it’s not the same but something feels similar to me.
I never thought about it like this. It could be viewed differently because the Xbox is a game console and the iphone is a general handheld computer, but perhaps it should be illegal to restrict users installing software on your device by any means they choose, though there's no reason for you to support those means.
In every day life, the number of people who think “App Stores suck” is infinitesimal.
Yes, this is how capitalism works. The companies can be started by virtuous, far-sighted dreamers, like Steve Wozniak, Larry Page and John Lennon, but then they get infused by money from venture capitalists and investors who just want ROI.
Once they hire more than 5000 people, the edges of the company are not controlled by dreamers - worker bees are employed to make money by leveraging whatever is there to be leveraged. And so the mission drifts.
Or else, the company fails or disappears, which is what happened to John Lennon's company, Apple Music.
We need to rethink capitalism, so companies can grow to medium size, and stay there, providing good things to their customers in a virtuous, mutually beneficial way.
Did you think your feigned ignorance was insightful? Google has 86% market share.
But in the end I guess what matters more is whether you want a single person to control what you view or not, like when they banned James Joyce because of an illustration of a man skinny dipping.
Well, neither does Apple seeing that neither Netflix (for new customers) or Spotify allow in app purchases.
Sony actually often pays developers to develop for their store (e.g. PubFund [1]),
So does Apple - Apple Arcade.
Could Fortnite have in app purchases for the game consoles and bypass the stores?
Nintendo has had a clear monopoly on handheld consoles for several generations.
Sony had an extremely strong market position in the 5th and 6th generation gaming consoles but I wouldn't really call it a monopoly.
The most egregious part of Apple’s rules, and the reason that online service providers have a special loathing, is that apps are disallowed from linking to, advertising, or even mentioning that it is possible to sign up/subscribe/buy/rent outside of the app.
This is why you won’t see MMOs like FFXIV through the App Store, and is why you can’t sign up for Netflix, or even follow a link to their sign-up, from within the app.
Apple’s rules prevent vendors from linking to external service account setup/management. You cannot even mention the existence thereof, let alone link to it or advertise the options provided therein. Consumers are explicitly kept in the dark about any method other than payment through the App Store.
That’s the stunning uppercut. The size of Apple’s fee is merely a follow-up kick to the nads.
This is why service providers, from Hey.com to Netflix, have a special irritation for the App Store rules, and since this rule directly distorts markets by affecting consumer choice is why so many competition regulators have a file open about it.
It would be like you using AOL and only being able to view the channels that AOL offered (which is exactly what it was). Apple has no authority to tell you what you can do with your device once you've purchased it but you also don't have the authority or the right to demand that Apple service your device if you jailbreak it or mod it.
This is literally the exact same situation as Xbox and PS4. Xbox doesn't allow people to play PS4 games on an Xbox. Is that anti-competitive? Is that anti-consumer? Is that Xbox having absolute authority over what you can do on your Xbox? Get out of here with that nonsense.
Does that mitigate any of the concerns people have about either company?
This community used to have a strong focus on openness, open source, permission less innovation and the avoidance of checkpoints and tolls, but what it's turned into is often a battle of fanboys, who roll out excuses and lowered standards for their favorites.
Yours is an easy position to maintain, until you have invested a lot of money and work in an app which gets booted from the App Store, or because Apple decides to shake you down for even more money.
Apple fans simultaneously say Apple has a small marketshare, but also brag that earn the majority of all smartphone industry profits. If the latter is true, it means that anyone wanting to make money on mobile software has no choice but to publish on the App Store, ergo, effectively a monopoly.
All of this is still unknown outside of Apple. What is known so far seems to me like it's pointing in the direction of a pretty open macOS and a very much locked down iOS, to satisfy different needs. We'll know more by late fall, I guess.
In my opinion iOS was far better when there were fewer different devices released every year, but it's still better today than Android.
Is it? That's 14% extra revenue. And if you were comparing a 30 percent take to a 12 percent take, you'd be going from $14 to $17.60, which is slightly over 25% extra revenue! That could double or triple the profit margin of a healthy business!
> What percentage is reasonable?
I already answered that in a different comment. If I was going to wave a wand right now, with no further time to consider, it would be 25% for the first $20 and 5% after.
So look at something like Hey. Apple right now would charge $30 for a user's first year, then $15 for each year after. My version would be $8.75 for the first year and $5 for each year after. A pretty big difference.
I wouldn't be strongly opposed to a flat 12%, but I'm trying to be generous and give Apple some extra dollars upfront for the service they actually provide. But the service they provide barely increase as the price of an app increases, so they don't deserve 25 or 30 percent of larger amounts.
But what I think you mean to propose is a restriction at the software level, not hardware level. That anyone who sells an operating system must allow any app to be installed within that OS. I think we leave it as an exercise for the reader to define "operating system" when it comes to our increasingly "smart" homes and cars.
I'm not arguing this is necessarily either wise or ethical of them, and there's a real sense in which this is orthogonal to the App Store's fee structure. But it seems to me that while Apple is going to face increasing pressure to change the way they run the App Store, the solution -- at least the solution Apple will offer -- very likely won't involve letting the iPad become a general purpose computer the way the Mac is.
I’ve made the same argument about Google, FaceBook, Apple, and Amazon (even before I started working for AWS).
This community used to have a strong focus on openness, open source, permission less innovation and the avoidance of checkpoints and tolls, but what it's turned into is often a battle of fanboys, who roll out excuses and lowered standards for their favorites.
Did the open source community whine about mean old Microsoft or did they create alternatives to the point where even Azure runs more Linux VMs than Windows VMs? They went out there and built something better. They out competed.
Every single one of the big tech companies got there through better execution.
What is an open platform and how does it get defined? Installing software is a feature implemented by the manufacturer. Should we really be requiring Apple or any manufacturer, by law, to implement specific defined features to support and enable side loading and management of external apps. Who gets to define those features and say which products should or shouldn’t have them? Who gets to certify compliance? Who gets to specify open as a technical standard that can actually be implemented?
If this had been done in the 80s, we’d probably still be stuck with consoles having an 80s style cartridge slot on them, with specs written in legislation and updatable only by government committee.
It's like claiming that nobody can have a monopoly on electric car charging stations because the customer could just buy a gasoline powered car and electric cars don't even have majority market share. It's still a monopoly. It's a monopoly on charging stations, not a monopoly on cars.
Oopps... They do exactly this.
This is not to defend Apple nor Google. But Epic is by no means better, just not as big as A/G.
That's incredibly disingenuous and you're either being dishonest or ignorant. The 30% is for sales made on Apple's platform. Developers can absolutely make sales without giving Apple a cut as long as they don't use Apple's infrastructure or platform. You can have people purchase things for your app as long as you don't attempt to offer in-app purchases that circumvent the App Store.
Personally, I like iPhones precisely because they're not general purpose platforms. I'm also not sure the phrase "general computing platform" can even be well-defined in the era of "smart" everything.
It wasn’t until 2010 that IEs market share started eroding. It didn’t have anything to do with the government.
Almost 20 years later, MS still has the same market share in both operating systems and office productivity and no one cares about browser dominance except for Google.
When MS was under investigation they were the most valuable company in the US. Now they are number 3.
So how effective was the government last time?
Secondly, you can "side load" iOS apps as well. You just have to go through a process of jailbreaking your iPhone which is not illegal but it may void the warranty.
When you buy the iPhone you are also buying into the platform. If having multiple options for app stores is a necessity for you then an iPhone is the wrong device to purchase. Buy something else. There is nothing wrong with voting with your wallet as there are other phones on the market for people to buy.
The article is about Fortnite being excluded from Apple's monopoly distribution platform. That platform enriches Apple at the expense of consumers and software developers.
Are you saying it's a good thing that Apple can exclude Fortnite for trying to get around the Apple tax?
Not that you'd want to, but if you decided to do it, the option would be readily available.
It does seem a bit tautological. A vendor can restrict access then simply argue this is not a general purpose computing device because look, you can't run the things we don't let you run.
What you may be thinking of is that the consoles are not the main source of profit. And that the profits from consoles may take some time to make up for the expenses of developing and manufacturing those consoles.
Any mechanism for side loading apps would also be an Apple product, designed and written by them. They would be responsible for supporting it, and ensuring it was secure. Maybe they don’t want to do that, so who gets to force them to, and who gets to decide if they complied with that directive? Who gets to specify it and take responsibility if it causes problems and incurs costs on Apple or issues for their customers?
You’re not talking about stopping Apple from doing something, you’re taking about coercing them by legal requirement to do new different things, and you’d better be very specific and careful about what you are forcing them to do.
General-purpose is when you can install whatever software will run in that architecture, unimpeded.
[1] https://blog.chromium.org/2015/05/continuing-to-protect-chro...
[2] Unless you're using Linux or the enterprise version of the browser.
Tautological was in reference to the argument about whether or not we should be able to install things if an iPhone is a general purpose device.
If that status relies on what software lets us do, then the answer is always going to be no, because if they don't let us then we aren't allowed to.
Non-technical users would love it. It would offer them an environment much more secure and free of malware where they can install applications without fretting about getting the latest CryptoLocker type trojan. Finding Windows software on the open web is kind of like driving around the ghetto and cruising for drugs. Are you installing from firefox.com or fᎥrefοⅹ.com?
Apple tries to walk the line and keep both these user groups happy. It's hard. So far they've handled it by designing MacOS more for the first group (it has an App Store and controls but they're optional) and iOS/iPadOS more for the second group.
I agree. Apple should not charge 30% for this type of transaction, which is just the resupply of virtual currency.
Apple should have a lower tier fee for this type of ongoing service transaction, which is clearly different to a sale in which a new customer is converted.
If Apple had a service tier with a fee of say 5% for virtual currency they’d still be compensated for providing the platform, but not excessively. Consumers and software vendors would benefit commensurately.
This two tiered model is just what happens in traditional pre-digital capitalism. Furniture stores charge 30-50% markup to cover the overheads of showroom rent and sales staff. Financial services companies like forex and credit cards charge 3-18% because they have different overheads and provide different value-add compared to retail sellers.
Bold of you to assume Google will keep that alive for a particularly long time.
>And that the profits from consoles may take some time to make up for the expenses of developing and manufacturing those consoles.
Yup, and during which time, they sell at a huge loss.[1]
You're right that Nintendo tries to buck this trend, but they also realize it's a delicate balancing act.[2]
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/xbox-one-x-price-explanation... [1] https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/06/18/sony-microsoft-gam... [2] https://venturebeat.com/2016/10/26/nintendo-wont-sell-switch...
Want to run Photoshop, IntelliJ or Outlook, 30% of what you charge is going to Apple.
The argument is that that approach is anti-competitive and unfair, especially since Apple itself gets a large cut of app sales.
I'm not coming down hard on either side, just yet. But I don't like the feel of this sort of lock-in, and almost no one would question the use of a term like "lock-in." Some lock-in is surely legal, even if almost always unpleasant. But it's only a hop, skip and a jump to full-fledged antitrust.
The iPhone boot ROM will only launch operating systems cryptographically signed by Apple:
https://support.apple.com/guide/security/hardware-security-o...
Afaik, there was never a Windows CE general purpose environment for the Dreamcast. Sega supported game developers using Sega's 100% propriatary OS or using Windows CE as embedded OS. Either way, the OS would ship on the disc, and isn't a lot more than a kernel and libraries.
Of course, BSDs and Linux were ported to the Dreamcast at some point, as with anything that can boot user provided code and has enough ram.
The dreamcast did have a web browser, and keyboard and mouse, but without significant local writable storage, would make a lousy general purpose computer.
Citation needed. Many parts of our government do just that (FDA, EPA). We need these because many decisions would otherwise be uninformed. If you don't know what is in your food, how can you make informed decisions? If you don't know what is in your drugs, or what the side effects are, how can you make informed decisions?
Heading out but you pick up a few PC games. By the way, Target was paid to put those up on the shelf.
Grab a Sony Playstation gift card. They get a percentage of that as well.
At checkout, you sign up of the Target bank card save 10%. They get a nice initial chunk from that and the bank running that card pays a monthly percent to Target for sending them over their customer.
(don't look into the publishing companies' tactics cause that will send you over the edge)
Are you really saying that Google doesn’t have the capital or reach to better market the “openness” of Android?
If Microsoft was playing hardball with Rockstar over the next version of GTA, as an example, Sony would be falling over themselves rushing to get it as a PlayStation exclusive. The console market and app market just aren't comparable.
Wanna get a DLC? They all take a percentage. Also regardless of the money you spend on making your game. They all have to review it and only if they approve will it get published. Going to selling some XBox physical disc? You pay your percentage on what you print not what sells. Also you need to use a trusted disc manufacturer, they pay a percentage to XBox also, note this is all the same for Sony and Nintendo.
By maintaining control over which apps can be sold to end users via the App Store, Apple is able to offer a layer of control over how these apps can access (or not) your personal data.
There's nothing ridiculous about wanting to maintain data privacy/security on mobile devices, and that being of a higher priority with mobile than with a PC.
If you sign up for a Target card, they get an initial cut and then monthly percentage based on your usage. A bank is managing that card not Target.
Overall it feels a little bit like self-flagellation which I'm hoping is for the greater good, that DDG's algo will improve with use and eventually I won't need !g anymore.
Maybe DDG needs a browser extension that let's you seamlessly provide feedback with every !g to teach them what you were actually looking for.
Your alternative definition applies to pretty much everything with R&D costs. The first unit sold is pretty much guaranteed to not make up for R&D costs, but for some n the margin made on the nth unit covers it, and the seller finally starts turning a profit.
I think what your citations are actually saying is that even the last unit sold does not cover R&D costs, and it has to be made up in other divisions (such as games) in order for the whole venture to turn a profit. But each individual unit is still marginally profitable - if they could sell enough of them (perhaps far more than the size of their market) they would eventually turn a profit on the console itself.
Wouldn’t MS want to secure its laptops by bundling a browser?
Wouldn’t I have equally private and financial documents on a PC? location/gps can’t be that much of a differentiator.
It is monopoly bullying whoever they can. They just happen to not directly affect us, unless we happen to be a developer making lot of money or compete with apple in any way.
Why do you think Microsoft bothered with WSL? We know that most Windows users won't do it. It was a developer-attracting move, meant to make it easier to build Windows client applications with Linux server components. Apple benefits from the same thing being offered natively. I can't see them abandoning it, even though it does create a tension between the Mac as a consumer product and the Mac as a developer's tool for iOS.
And the government doesn't classify trusts[1] by the dictionary definition of monopoly:
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
I am an app developer for iOS. It does directly affect me.
Jobs was the superior business person. At least, it turned out that way after he returned to Apple, rescued it from Scully, and spent decades turning it into a behemoth that changed the world.
Woz might have given the computers away just for the joy of it, but where would that have left us?
Tens of thousands of developers owe their livelyhood to Jobs' vision. They get to make apps and everything else, all because Steve created platforms and ecosystems that would sustain an entire industry.
Still, that doesn't excuse greed. Jobs is gone now, so he can't evolve the app store into what it should be becoming, which is a more mature version of the quality platform he created.
It wouldn't take much to fix this current hoo ha. Apple could just introduce a lower fee tier for trivial sales such as the re-supply of virtual currency in games. If they took 10% instead of 30%, the problem would be over, the platform would continue, the community would still have opportunity, consumers could play their games and buy their apps, and life would go on. Does that sound virtuous to you, eklanjo?
I have no idea why you'd want to, but you can... UWP apps run just fine on Xbox and can be sold via the store - they just don't get access to the "exclusive" partition of the system (which you need to access certain system resources, such as > 2GB RAM). Sideloading prebuilt UWP apps is also possible. The exclusive partition is a different situation entirely - you need to be an approved developer to even access the SDKs.
I'd say there's a difference between what Xbox (and Playstation, and Nintendo) does compared to Apple by virtue of the consoles not being "open" development platforms (Xbox UWP aside). Anyone can grab the iOS SDK and start making apps, but only registered developers can do so on game consoles. Whether that's justified I don't know, I honestly haven't put enough thought into it. And whether courts would see that as a reason I definitely don't know.
Full disclosure, I work for Microsoft.
Removing an app from the App Store, and removing it from user's devices are two very different things. When any app is removed in this fashion, all users who already have the app still have access to everything they had access to before. The app just isn't listed on the App Store for new downloads.
The recently released new "stable" version of Firefox for Android that supports just 9 specific extensions at the moment might be actually even worse than Chrome.
Currently, there are alternative implementations of Play Services that can be installed to replace Google's. However, if it is not fair use to use even the bare bones of an API definition without permission, then we can't even create a compatible implementation of such an API without the copyright holder's permission. In which case, we cannot replace Google Play services with anything else.
Like Best Buy doesn't get a cut if I pay netflix to
watch it on the TV I bought from them.
Imagine Best Buy's extremely large presence in the world of television-selling. You could get your streaming service into a lot of homes if they promoted the heck out of TVs featuring your service in exchange for a cut, right?
Depending on the % cut they wanted, that could be a great deal for you. Suppose the % cut was 0.0000001%. Certainly you would take that offer. And probably 0.0001%. Maybe even up to 10%. Maybe even 50%, depending on your business model?
Anyway, I have lots of problems with the App Store, but man... that 30% sounds pretty fine. Access to that many users, many of whom have payment information stored a mere tap away?
Although interestingly, the Japanese console makers have continually tried to push the computer/development angle.
When the NES was released in Japan before the US, it was branded the "Family Computer" and you could get a keyboard and a version of BASIC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_BASIC
Sony has had multiple attempts, with a consumer homebrew dev kit for the PS1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Yaroze ), and Linux for the PS2 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_for_PlayStation_2 ) and later PS3.
Even if they don't though, that's a marketing offence not a product one. If there's any government interference needed it's in the form of a mandatory "walled garden" label on the box.
Apple themselves? Part of their marketing is literally that you can do everything on their devices.
> Should we really be requiring Apple or any manufacturer, by law, to implement specific defined features to support and enable side loading and management of external apps.
I can't see why not, the mobile app market has terrible competition, there's a big market issue here.
Personally yes, that's the textbook of unfair competition.
This is what I use on my Jailbroken iPhone.
You are calling it seamlessly providing feedback because it is DDG. If this was about Google or Facebook, it could have sounded closer to 'tracking users'.
Google basically says, "we have a store. Sell through us and we take a cut. Or sell directly, or through some other store, and we'll warn users that we haven't vetted that stuff for security etc."
Steam, for example, does no do that: you can sell your game on Steam and outside of Steam at the same time and Valve will have no problem with it.
That's typically a broken window fallacy. You can't take this a proof of anything because you do not know what the world would have looked like if Apple did not exist - such developers could have gone and made other things on other platforms as well. A great artist will be able to produce great work even if they have to use spaghetti instead of paint. Tools are just tools.
The Reddit apps I've tried stick to the meth-addled idea to use fixed floating header bars, which are useless and really annoy me.
How? Google controls neither the AMP specification nor the third party implementations like Bing's.
Instead, Apple invented a new computing platform and a new model to pay for it, it just worked, people were willing to pay for that, and we liked it.
I see.
Your original comment to me was about Steve Jobs, and what to make of his intentions and his legacy. Would you care to share your thoughts about Steve Jobs?
Yes, of course. The fact that you can't use the other company's chargers means that there are then two markets there, one for Tesla-vehicle charging stations and one for Nissan-vehicle charging stations. You can't substitute one for the other in that case, you need one compatible with your car. It's the same reason that gas pumps aren't the same market as electric car chargers, or that gas pumps aren't the same market as diesel pumps. If there is only one diesel pump in the state then it has a monopoly no matter how many gas pumps there are because you can't use gasoline in a diesel vehicle.
If you could use either type of charger with either type of car then they would be in the same market, because a customer who wants to charge their car could substitute either one for the other, so they would each actually be in competition with the other and neither would have a monopoly.
I think the fact that the "chargers" and the "cars" are hypothesized to be operated by the same company is what's messing people up.
Suppose you have two companies that each operate half the charging stations in the same region. One is Tesla, and you can only use them to charge a Tesla vehicle. The other is Exxon, which has started installing electric car chargers at their gas stations, and where you can charge any car including a Tesla. Well then Tesla hasn't got a monopoly on anything, because any Tesla owner can go charge their car at Exxon, and Exxon doesn't have a monopoly for Tesla vehicles, because they can also go charge their car at Tesla. But Exxon does have a monopoly for charging non-Tesla vehicles, because if you have a Nissan or a Chevy, you can't use the Tesla chargers, leaving Exxon as your only option.
The market solved the problem in ways that the DoJ couldn’t have anticipated. It turned out that licenses fees for closed source web browsers were just not something that businesses and consumers were interested in putting up with.
Few remember how much of an equal offender Netscape was when it came to proprietary extensions to the web.
1) The manufacturer lacks sufficient market power in the "foremarket". (In the case of Apple, this would be the sale of the phone. In your example, it would be the sale of the car.)
2) The consumer was aware of the "aftermarket" restrictions when buying the original product. (In the case of Apple this would be the App Store pricing and rules. In the car example it would be the location and cost of the charging stations.)
3) The consumer does not face substantial costs to switch to an alternative product. (The cost of buying a new car would probably be considered substantial but I'm not sure a new phone would.)
The courts have reasoned that if the consumer had sufficient information when making their initial purchase decision, then they had the opportunity to buy a competing product without those restrictions. If they went ahead and bought anyway, they knew what they were signing up for. It's like buying a razor and then being stuck with expensive replacement razor blades. Or buying a movie ticket and then being stuck buying expensive popcorn from that theater.
Yes, once you buy the movie ticket and enter the theater they have a "monopoly" on your snack purchases. No, you're not likely to win an antitrust claim against the theater.
If you really put the squeeze to them, the "natural" price would probably be a bit below cost for them, because the availability of apps is a selling point for their high-margin phones and tablets. That is why they are willing to host free apps, after all. (Although even then they take the developer fee)
This is how you do agnostic search results, and it is not putting the thumb on the scale as you're implying.
I recognize the fact that he was probably a good leader when it came to driving Apple focus to make quality hardware and solid software integration (the original iPhone was a big step in making portable devices actually usable by everyone).
However, I was reflecting that the word 'virtuous' was a poor fit for a person like Steve Jobs. You can typically think of someone virtuous as having high moral standards and principles.
Jobs was constantly driving his company to make ridiculous false claims (saying that Apple was the first company to invent X or Y) which is deceitful.
Apple's business practices consist in making walled gardens everywhere (which is kind of anti-competitive and entice users to be locked down in the ecosystem) instead of developing standards that can be used and shared by everyone, and this is also something that Jobs spearheaded from the get go (right since the beginning of Apple).
Of course, everyone has different standards, but being a good citizen is about taking and giving back. I can't remember Jobs ever giving anything back to the tech scene.
The cost of switching phone platforms is massive compared to the app market. Phones can cost over $1000, apps are commonly $1, a difference of a thousand fold. And that's only the hardware cost. Then you have issues if there is any other app you need which is only available on one platform, or if you make use of Google or Apple services that are only well supported or supported at all on one platform and would incur substantial switching costs to move to the other.
You also have a different problem here:
> The courts have reasoned that if the consumer had sufficient information when making their initial purchase decision, then they had the opportunity to buy a competing product without those restrictions.
Which would only apply if there was a viable competing product without those restrictions. But there are only two viable phone platforms and Apple's has a strict monopoly while Google's has a de facto one where Google Play has >90% share of the Android market, and they both impose similar restrictions, so a viable option without those restrictions isn't there.
Furthermore, the customer for app distribution is at least as much the developer as the user -- they're the one who pays the app store's fee, right? -- and they don't get to choose which phone their customers have already bought.
Ultimately that is up to the courts to decide. But I will point out that in a previous case involving IBM S/390 computer systems, the court decided this requirement was not met, despite the hardware expense and associated software compatibility limitations.
> Which would only apply if there was a viable competing product without those restrictions. But there are only two viable phone platforms and Apple's has a strict monopoly while Google's has a de facto one where Google Play has >90% share of the Android market, and they both impose similar restrictions, so a viable option without those restrictions isn't there.
I'm not sure which specific restrictions you are referring to here. If the complaint against Apple is that you cannot install apps from 3rd party sources on your iPhone, there is a competing product that allows you to do that on the market.
> Furthermore, the customer for app distribution is at least as much the developer as the user -- they're the one who pays the app store's fee, right? -- and they don't get to choose which phone their customers have already bought.
This is not relevant for antitrust purposes. Developers are not entitled to demand a specific company give them access to that company's users.
This sounds like a claim about cumulative profits, no?
Maybe you're instead suggesting that either prices rise or manufacturing costs fall over the lifetime of a console?
Ultimately, the best Reddit experience is less Reddit.