←back to thread

Apple just kicked Fortnite off the App Store

(www.theverge.com)
1704 points ardit33 | 7 comments | 13 Aug 20 19:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.016s | source | bottom
Show context
mapgrep ◴[13 Aug 20 21:45 UTC] No.24149792[source]▶
You could argue about Apple's rights, or citizens' free speech rights, or consumer rights, under existing law. It would be an interesting discussion because I think it's a lot more complicated an issue that most people appreciate.

But really why not talk about how we think things should work on platforms like iOS? What should the law be? What protects essential human rights, encourages creativity, and allows business to function to some extent?

Personally, I would argue that consumers should have a legal right to install whatever software they wish on a product they have purchased, including onto the bundled operating system. I don't think it should be permissible for a company like Apple (or Microsoft or whoever) to sell me a gadget and then use various sorts of locks to try to keep me from putting whatever apps or app stores or services I like on it.

Does anyone have any argument for why this right would be a bad thing? People would get bad software on their phones, but last I checked, this is happening already, including on iOS. Apple would lose some margin, but last I checked, their investment in creating and maintaining iOS has been handsomely rewarded and would surely continue to be.

replies(20): >>24150118 #>>24150217 #>>24150279 #>>24150291 #>>24150292 #>>24150369 #>>24150460 #>>24150828 #>>24151413 #>>24152705 #>>24152764 #>>24154029 #>>24154441 #>>24154710 #>>24154759 #>>24154888 #>>24155099 #>>24155703 #>>24155755 #>>24166318 #
wheelie_boy ◴[13 Aug 20 22:21 UTC] No.24150291[source]▶
A big part of the value of iPhones and iPads is that you don't have to worry about installing an app that screws up your system and requires a wipe & reinstall. You don't have to worry about viruses. You don't have to worry about spending a lot of time being a system administrator, and just use it. You don't even have to worry about many types of malware, because the system protects you from poorly-behaved applications, through a combination of technical means and human review.

If it was possible to side-load apps, then those advantages go out the window. To see what I'm talking about, look at apps that are skirting the apple app store.

Onavo is a good example. They:

- paid teens

- to install the Facebook Enterprise Certificate

- to side-load the Onavo VPN

- to spy on their internet traffic

- to find out about new apps or websites that might be a threat to facebook (among other things)

replies(9): >>24150876 #>>24152446 #>>24152798 #>>24152999 #>>24153218 #>>24154036 #>>24154593 #>>24154714 #>>24155838 #
danShumway ◴[14 Aug 20 03:05 UTC] No.24152798[source]▶
How would the ability to sideload apps force you to install apps outside of the Apple store?

I'm not forced to use FDroid just because I have an Android phone. People aren't arguing that the app store should go away, just that consumers should have a choice.

As an analogy, if I want OEM care for my car, I can get that. It's more expensive, but it offers me strict guarantees about where parts are coming from, and I don't need to worry so much that I'll get substandard care.

The existence of a third-party marketplace doesn't change anything about that situation other than forcing the OEMs to compete more and push their advantages and commitment to quality.

replies(7): >>24152983 #>>24153123 #>>24153270 #>>24154741 #>>24154872 #>>24154897 #>>24154931 #
pfranz ◴[14 Aug 20 03:31 UTC] No.24152983[source]▶
Just look at the PC platform Epic is coming from. It used to be just buying retail boxes, then Steam came along. Now it's Steam, Epic, Origin, Uplay. Personally, I hate keeping track of the separate apps and which games were purchased with each. So I avoid most of them even for games I want to play. Its one of the things that makes me prefer consoles.

The current situation seems more anti-business than anti-consumer (it is both). Pro-consumer would be requiring any purchase be decoupled from that distribution platform.

replies(7): >>24153897 #>>24153939 #>>24154463 #>>24154713 #>>24155283 #>>24155532 #>>24155977 #
1. molmalo ◴[14 Aug 20 07:04 UTC] No.24154713[source]▶
You seem to prefer giving people less option, because multiple stores are an inconvenience to YOU.

You know what would be a better solution for that? The same one that happens with some applications now on Android: publishing an app in multiple stores. Many apps are simultaneously published in Play Store and other stores.

For example, you could have a game published on the publisher's store. If you buy it there, the price is X. Simultaneously, you could have the same app published on Apple store for $X + 30%.

Then, you let the market decide. Increasing competition is better for consumers.

If you prefer the convenience of buying from just one store, it's OK, you can buy everything from the Apple store, and pay the premium for that. But that would also let the door open for people who want to choose where else to buy their stuff.

replies(1): >>24155421 #
2. randomchars ◴[14 Aug 20 08:40 UTC] No.24155421[source]▶
How is having to navigate N stores, because all companies want to make more money off you, better for the consumer?
replies(1): >>24155545 #
3. molmalo ◴[14 Aug 20 08:59 UTC] No.24155545[source]▶
Because that's how the market works for buying anything.

It's like saying: how is it better to have multiple supermarkets to buy the stuff i want, if they offer the same product at different prices? Well... it's an option, nobody forces you to do it. You can always go to the same place, and know that there's going to be times when you pay more, and times when you pay less.

But you also have the chance to check on other store's offers and buy there if you want.

> How is having to navigate N stores

You don't "have to". In the end, more offer = better for consumers. It's up to each individual person to decide if they want to find better prices or just go to their default place.

replies(1): >>24159275 #
4. randomchars ◴[14 Aug 20 15:36 UTC] No.24159275{3}[source]▶
It sounds lovely, but it doesn't work out this way.

Companies dont't open their own stores, and sell the games there cheaper than at a competitors store. They only sell it there.

replies(2): >>24169304 #>>24173206 #
5. danShumway ◴[15 Aug 20 14:54 UTC] No.24169304{4}[source]▶
> Companies dont't open their own stores, and sell the games there cheaper than at a competitors store.

Yes they do? Steam, GoG, and Itch don't coordinate their sales with each other. They offer different games at different prices at different times. Even Epic's weekly free game is designed to make people check in on the Epic store regularly instead of just buying those same games immediately on Steam.

There are a ton of PC games that are available in multiple stores, and comparison shopping will often give you different prices.

It doesn't just sound lovely, it's the reality of the PC market right now and you can either take advantage of it if you're willing to comparison shop, or ignore it and buy all of your games on Steam if comparison shopping is too much work for you. It's really not theoretical, it's how the PC market works right now.

Yes, there are some exclusives, but even that is fine, because a lot of the games that are exclusive to stores like GoG, Itch, and even Epic, flat out wouldn't have been made in the first place unless storefronts were competing with each other.

This is something that devs try to get across to gamers occasionally with Epic -- having someone step in and fully fund your game with the only restriction being that it's temporarily exclusive to a store is an unbelievably good deal, and it frees devs up to make more creative, interesting, risky games and passion projects that push boundaries and appeal to more niche audiences.

Not only are a huge portion of PC games not exclusive to specific stores, even where exclusives are concerned competition between different storefronts -- each trying to build the more attractive offering of games -- is still better than having one store owned by one company that only funds a small subset of games. PC gaming is better today than it was when only giant companies like Walmart could distribute games.

replies(1): >>24195835 #
6. p1necone ◴[15 Aug 20 23:07 UTC] No.24173206{4}[source]▶
The vast majority of games are not store exclusives. And the alternative is not a single mandatory store that magically has everything. There's a lot of apps that would otherwise launch on iPhone but don't because the developers don't want to or can't deal with Apple's fees and restrictions. (See anything that only works on jailbroken devices, or open source projects that only release on Android.)
7. randomchars ◴[18 Aug 20 06:27 UTC] No.24195835{5}[source]▶
I have to admit, you've convinced me. I'm not a gamer, so I didn't have much experience with this.

My frame of reference was streaming services, where more platforms meant fever content on each, and having to pay more to watch everything you wanted. But if it is indeed this was with games, maybe multiple appstores could be the way to go.