Most active commenters
  • scarface74(5)
  • dpkonofa(4)
  • chc(3)

←back to thread

Apple just kicked Fortnite off the App Store

(www.theverge.com)
1704 points ardit33 | 18 comments | 13 Aug 20 19:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.649s | source | bottom
Show context
lordleft ◴[13 Aug 20 20:04 UTC] No.24147974[source]▶
Imagine if Microsoft did this on PCs. a) prohibiting the installation of non-windows store software (sideloading) and b) insisting that all purchases done via apps give them a 30% cut. I think this is a ridiculous practice on the behalf of Apple.
replies(41): >>24148076 #>>24148127 #>>24148143 #>>24148262 #>>24148286 #>>24148287 #>>24148292 #>>24148330 #>>24148859 #>>24149045 #>>24149092 #>>24149163 #>>24149446 #>>24149497 #>>24149512 #>>24149528 #>>24149542 #>>24149625 #>>24149734 #>>24149806 #>>24149912 #>>24149964 #>>24150003 #>>24150060 #>>24150061 #>>24150176 #>>24150200 #>>24150336 #>>24150413 #>>24150430 #>>24150437 #>>24150439 #>>24150539 #>>24150604 #>>24150740 #>>24150801 #>>24151054 #>>24151476 #>>24151607 #>>24151940 #>>24152104 #
rvz ◴[13 Aug 20 20:13 UTC] No.24148127[source]▶
Even worse. Imagine if the World Wide Web was not open and you had to go through a closed WWW like AOL and websites were "under review" by the providers and would take a 30% cut of your revenues or clicks on your web app or subscription service and websites require going only through that provider.

Thank goodness that wasn't the case.

replies(5): >>24148178 #>>24148415 #>>24150108 #>>24150629 #>>24152209 #
dpkonofa ◴[13 Aug 20 20:26 UTC] No.24148415[source]▶
That's a little silly as an example because AOL was exactly like this back in the day and had curated channels. You could still access external sites if AOL was your ISP as well but anything inside of the AOL application was reviewed by AOL.

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.

replies(3): >>24148681 #>>24148964 #>>24152385 #
1. WWLink ◴[13 Aug 20 20:55 UTC] No.24148964[source]▶
Yeah but this is as if you bought an AOL computer that did nothing but AOL. And AOL had absolute authority on what you could do on your computer.

I know, I know, people who bought iPhones knew what they were buying into.

replies(3): >>24149285 #>>24150541 #>>24150774 #
2. dwheeler ◴[13 Aug 20 21:12 UTC] No.24149285[source]▶
Actually, I don't think most people who buy iPhones have any idea what they're buying into. They're buying a phone. In some cases, they're buying an iPhone to access things like FaceTime. if they want to communicate with their friends then they must buy an iPhone.
replies(2): >>24149648 #>>24149859 #
3. kqvamxurcagg ◴[13 Aug 20 21:35 UTC] No.24149648[source]▶
Apple leverages user ignorance to create their demand-side app store monopoly. That's the entire point.
replies(1): >>24150551 #
4. kortilla ◴[13 Aug 20 21:50 UTC] No.24149859[source]▶
Actually, I bought iPhones for my parents precisely because of the walled garden and consistent experience. Back when I made this change (3 years ago), the Android App Store was just a cess pool of privacy violating trash apps. Between that and the inconsistent ways to do everything across manufacturers, I just determined android flexibility is not worth hours of support for non-techies.

So yes, lots of people buy iPhones exactly because if Apples iron grip.

replies(1): >>24150143 #
5. chc ◴[13 Aug 20 22:10 UTC] No.24150143{3}[source]▶
You're conflating different things under the header of "Apple's iron grip" here. It is beneficial to your parents that Apple prevents spyware better than Google does. It is not beneficial to your parents that they obsessively seek and destroy any way developers might get a single dollar from an iPhone user without giving Apple 30¢.
replies(2): >>24150564 #>>24151111 #
6. scarface74 ◴[13 Aug 20 22:44 UTC] No.24150541[source]▶
You mean like people buy game consoles instead of gaming PCs?
7. scarface74 ◴[13 Aug 20 22:45 UTC] No.24150551{3}[source]▶
Right, because it couldn’t possibly be that most people don’t care about side loading apps?
replies(1): >>24150720 #
8. scarface74 ◴[13 Aug 20 22:45 UTC] No.24150564{4}[source]▶
I’m sure my 75 year old parents don’t really care about in app purchases in Fortnite....
replies(1): >>24151017 #
9. kqvamxurcagg ◴[13 Aug 20 23:00 UTC] No.24150720{4}[source]▶
My dude, my entire point is that most consumers don't care so it reinforces the monopoly.
replies(1): >>24150958 #
10. dpkonofa ◴[13 Aug 20 23:05 UTC] No.24150774[source]▶
No... that's not the same thing at all..?

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.

11. scarface74 ◴[13 Aug 20 23:19 UTC] No.24150958{5}[source]▶
So that kind of kills that whole “consumer harm” argument doesn’t it?
replies(1): >>24151264 #
12. chc ◴[13 Aug 20 23:24 UTC] No.24151017{5}[source]▶
It doesn't matter whether your parents care. My point is that they are separate practices with different pros and cons, so using the benefits of one to justify the other doesn't make sense.
13. dpkonofa ◴[13 Aug 20 23:31 UTC] No.24151111{4}[source]▶
>they obsessively seek and destroy any way developers might get a single dollar from an iPhone user without giving Apple 30¢.

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.

replies(2): >>24151394 #>>24152188 #
14. tomxor ◴[13 Aug 20 23:41 UTC] No.24151264{6}[source]▶
Sure... ignorance never harmed anyone... right?
replies(1): >>24151515 #
15. chc ◴[13 Aug 20 23:51 UTC] No.24151394{5}[source]▶
Isn't Apple's objection to what Epic did here the fact that these purchases didn't use Apple's infrastructure and platform? Unless by "using Apple's platform," you mean "done by an iPhone user," in which case that's what I said in the first place.
16. scarface74 ◴[14 Aug 20 00:04 UTC] No.24151515{7}[source]▶
If only the alternative operating system to the iPhone was owned by a company that had a popular website where they could educate consumers.....
17. ac29 ◴[14 Aug 20 01:36 UTC] No.24152188{5}[source]▶
How are developers supposed to not use apple's payment platform when they are explicitly prevented from circumventing it? Your last two sentences dont make sense when put together.
replies(1): >>24154089 #
18. dpkonofa ◴[14 Aug 20 05:39 UTC] No.24154089{6}[source]▶
They're not. In-app purchases have to go through Apple. You're allowed to sell things outside of the App Store so long as you don't try to use that to circumvent purchases available within it. For example, you can watch videos in several streaming services that you purchased or entered digital codes for. You can't however make a new purchase within the app without hitting an Apple server. Apple logs those purchases and backs them up to your account and hosts the servers that the actual app sits on along with the content for those in-app purchases. That infrastructure allows customers to use one account to download it and nearly guarantee no malware while also giving a platform for people to give feedback on that app.