I'm going to heavy push back against both-sides-isms here.
> I think Epic's real motivation here is to run their own App Store
Yeah, you're right. That is the outcome that we want. We want multiple stores on iOS. I thought advocates for this position had been really clear, but maybe we haven't been clear enough.
For the record, we want there to be multiple app stores on iOS.
> build a bigger moat and get the profits themselves
You're worried that Epic's store is going to eventually overrun Apple's and then Epic will somehow prevent other stores from being installed on iOS devices? You're worried that we'll get a bigger moat than literally not being able to run any code on the device that doesn't pass through Apple's review process?
What on earth would that theoretical bigger moat even look like?
> and get the profits themselves (12% cut, 5% if you use Unreal Engine)
I want to follow up on this in the context of your worry about moats. We live in a world where Apple has complete control over the app ecosystem, and you're frightened that another company might get control and... offer better terms than we have right now?
What specifically is the horror scenario that you're frightened of?
> They also make exclusive deals, where the games can only bought in their store for 6-12mo.
I can only imagine how upset you're going to be when you learn about how Apple Arcade works.
> Tencent is also 40% shareholder in Epic
Apple actively censors thousands of apps in China from the app store right now. You are worried about accidentally funding censorship through indirect means, and your response to that is to directly take the side of one of the censors.
I think Apple clearly has their moat, but it's not the App Store. The whole stack, from hardware and OS, is their moat and one that makes them unique. Maybe I'm a fan, but the moat actually makes the user experience better. Epic's Store moat likely won't make anything better for anyone, expect for Epic.
I personally don't enjoy the experience of managing my PC games in 5 different libraries which all log out almost every day, need to be updated every week, push ads, newsletters, free stuff, crashes etc. So I'm not worried how Epic store would somehow overrun App Store, I'm worried how it would degrade the user experience. If people want to side load apps, they can use Android. But even on Android, most people are happy using the Google Play. As a consumer there isn't much benefit for multiple app stores, since every app store will be essentially exclusive to another, so don't really have more choice, just more app stores to manage and get the apps from.
My point was that Epic tries to make this some kind of crusade of freedom and developer rights, while their clear intention is actually get in to kingmaker position themselves that they can strong arm developers and competition to play by their rules (which they're already trying to do on the PC market). This fight is different from Hey's fight, who just wanted to have their app in the store and criticized the rules and way Apple manages the store. So I have very little sympathy for Epic in this and I hope the fail.
> I personally don't enjoy the experience of managing my PC games in 5 different libraries which all log out almost every day, need to be updated every week, push ads, newsletters, free stuff, crashes etc.
But, do you enjoy having 5 times as many games? Do you enjoy having a ton of games from GoG updated and running on modern Windows? Do you enjoy having DRM-free options for many indie titles? Do you enjoy that it's at least possible now to buy some console-exclusive games like Journey for the PC?
People get really bent out of shape about the idea that sticking to one storefront means they might need to skip games. But getting rid of the storefronts doesn't mean you'll get all of the games. It means those games that were made possible because of the other storefronts won't exist.
You are already skipping games on iOS, because those games aren't being made.
> Epic tries to make this some kind of crusade of freedom and developer rights, while their clear intention is actually get in to kingmaker position
Correct, and my point was that these are not exclusive goals. Allowing multiple stores to fight over users is explicitly the outcome that we want.
It's not a surprise to anyone advocating for developer rights that Epic wants to make a store and compete with Apple, because that is what we want them to do. None of us care about whether or not Epic is going to make any money in the process.
> which they're already trying to do on the PC market
I know that gamers hate Epic right now, but understand that when you look at the overall market and you talk to the developers themselves, Epic has been unambiguously good for the PC games market.
You want to talk about kingmakers -- it is good that the entire success or failure of a PC game doesn't need to rely on Steam's decisions. It is good that Steam is being forced to negotiate better terms for developers right now. It is good that Epic is funding indie games that otherwise would not have been made.
I don't like the exclusives either, neither as a developer nor as a gamer. But the exclusives are nothing compared to the amount of good Epic is doing right now for the PC game's market. If you're an indie developer and suddenly you can halve the cut that storefronts are taking from you? That's huge.
But, to circle back around to my main point:
> So I have very little sympathy for Epic
You don't need to have sympathy, you need to have self-preservation instincts. You don't get the luxury of choosing who the champion is to take on Apple, nobody who fits your moral criteria is powerful enough to do the work.
> Maybe I'm a fan, but the moat actually makes the user experience better.
But it doesn't. It makes it worse. I can't use cloud gaming services. I can't buy an ebook on Amazon or a comic on Comixology, without having to guess that I need to go to a website and buy it.
These are all bits of user experience that that are flat out better on Android, and the bad UI is directly caused by Apple's sole control of the app store.
But that pales in comparison to the rampant content censorship Apple causes (see Instagram admitting the clumsy, terrible policies that it implements are directly due to the Apple), or the geopolitical blocks that it causes on apps to help the populace of Hong Kong, or the apps that it permits (and blocks counter-software) to enable the misogynistic control of women's free movement in Saudi Arabia.
> As a consumer there isn't much benefit for multiple app stores, since every app store will be essentially exclusive to another, so don't really have more choice, just more app stores to manage and get the apps from.
There is a huge benefit to customers for multiple app stores - cheaper pricing, more competition on features and navigation, and most importantly editorial differences about what content will be allowed in the store. Don't agree with Apple's editorial censorship of code in the app store? Go and use someone else.
Apple will even be better off - without the coddling of the App Store being used to prop up it's poorer products it will actually have to make them good or have them die, much to it's long term benefit than turfing out poor quality software and the reputational damage that causes which has happened far too often recently.
>you're frightened that another company might get control and... offer better terms than we have right now?
While some people here might fall for this simple propaganda, I doubt the courts will.
It is totally expected of Epic that they will at the same time make the claim about "freedom" and "choice" while signing exclusive deals so that customers are required to install the Epic store if they wish to play certain games.
If the real issue is my freedom, then let me play Fortnite on the App store thanks. But it's not about my freedom. It's about your $$$.
You're certainly free to do so, and free to say whatever bullshit you think will help you, but you're not going to get a free pass from everybody here.
>What specifically is the horror scenario that you're frightened of?
Really? What sort of horror scenarios have happened with game installers on PCs and Android? Root kits. Spyware. Password capture. Camera activation.
And you know this, so all you are doing is letting us know that you think we are stupid.
> while signing exclusive deals so that customers are required to install the Epic store if they wish to play certain games.
A surprising number of people on Hackernews don't understand how Apple Arcade works.
This isn't just specific to the mobile market. As an Open advocate and critic of DRM, it's been frustrating to watch gamers suddenly get very concerned about store choice and exclusives over the past few years, after over a decade of watching them dismiss the same arguments against Steam.
I'm not going to read too far into that inconsistency, because I feel like doing so would skirt HN policies. But I will say that if you're worried about exclusives, giving more platform control to users and developers weakens exclusives, it doesn't strengthen them.
> then let me play Fortnite on the App store thanks
Epic didn't take Fortnite off of the App store. If it's about your freedom, then talk to the people who did take it off.
> What sort of horror scenarios have happened with game installers on PCs and Android? Root kits. Spyware. Password capture. Camera activation.
If you're going to try and argue to me that the games PC market would be better if we had fewer stores, then I need to see some seriously better arguments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24153897
I do not believe reality in any way backs up the argument that giving users control over what code runs on their devices has hurt the games market or made it worse for consumers -- even with the increased risk of bad actors.
> Epic didn't take Fortnite off of the App store. If it's about your freedom, then talk to the people who did take it off.
This isn’t a good argument. Epic did something with the intention of getting removed from the store. Sure, Apple was the one who removed them, but Epic violates Apple’s TOS.
> If you're going to try and argue to me that the games PC market would be better if we had fewer stores.
If you hang around gaming forums you'll see this echoed plenty. If I could buy every single game ever through Steam I would without hesitation. I don't want Origin or the Epic store but I don't get the choice.
I mean this isn't a super uncommon sentiment. Everyone has a preference but not everyone agrees. But regardless fragmentation hurts everyone.
I would be totally fine with multiple stores on iOS devices on the condition that every app is available on every store for the same price-ish (like you can't snub a store by making it 1000x because that effectively takes away choice).
> If I could buy every single game ever through Steam I would without hesitation. I don't want Origin or the Epic store but I don't get the choice.
I know that some gamers feel this way, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Epic's entry into the market has been good for the PC games industry[0]. We have more games now from more developers covering more diverse genres. We've even managed to pull a few exclusives off of consoles and back onto PC.
As to your choice, I bring this up in another comment[1], but people should focus less on the percentage of the market they have access to, and more on the overall size of the market itself.
You do have a choice, you could buy all of your games through Steam and ignore the games on every other store. The only difference is that now you know what you're missing. Before, you couldn't see the games that weren't being made or ported.
Yes, it stinks to have some games exclusive to one storefront. I understand that, as someone who refuses to install DRM on my computers, I have been struggling to deal with Steam-exclusive games for a long time. I know the pain.
But having a diverse market of storefronts means that there are a ton of new games that exist that wouldn't otherwise exist. And even if you only get access to some of those games, that's still better than having none of them.
Now, if you want to talk about ending exclusives entirely, I'm not opposed to that goal. But a diverse market is a prerequisite for a federated market. How do you feel today about the Android games that don't come to iOS specifically because of Apple's terms? How do you feel about the exclusives Apple is signing for the Apple Arcade right now? Having one storefront doesn't get rid of exclusives; it just means you've traded an exclusive storefront problem for an exclusive market problem.
What about people who want to play games on Linux? Since 2018 Steam has made playing Windows games on Linux absolutely painless. How is Epic Games going to afford doing projects like proton with their cutthroat revenue cut? They can't. They charge extra depending on the payment method and from what I have heard they don't even have regional pricing so the vast majority of people can't even afford games on that store anyway.
Having some games not work on Linux is preferable to having fewer games exist.
Again, I understand the pain. I am currently only running Linux. If a game doesn't run in Linux without DRM, I can't play it. I know as well as anyone how bad it feels to see a game that I want to play, and can't, because the developer thought that Linux wasn't a big enough market to support.
Even so, it is better that there be a broad market where I can't access all of it, then there be a narrow market that only fits my criteria and can't grow. Some of the games that don't work on Linux will get ported later, or people will figure out how to get them working in Wine. I want those games to exist because eventually I'll get access to them.
> How is Epic Games going to afford doing projects like proton
They won't. Other platforms like Steam will do that. How is Steam going to afford to get old DOS games working on modern computers without DRM? They won't, GoG does that.
The market is better served when there are lots of people doing lots of different things. It's those conditions that force companies to innovate and find new market niches that were previously underserved.
We want a few more families to move into your house. We don't like the fact that you have a complete control over your home, and I think you're just frightened that other families could run your house better than you. And by the way, you've never invited us for a party, so it is extremely rude and unfair, and just shows your monopolistic stance, so we expect that other families will open the doors for anyone who needs a full access to your fridge and amenities. But don't be afraid, it's for the benefit of your neighbours that we all care about, and eventually you will get used to it too.
And if there were only two livable houses in the entire world, then that would be a completely reasonable position for someone to take.
Apple is one half of a duopoly. People keep on bringing up these 'gotcha' arguments about, "how would you feel if Walmart was forced to stock everybody's stuff?" And that ignores the fact that it would be a serious problem if there were only two supermarkets that I could buy from. I would feel exactly the same way if one to two companies had the kind of stranglehold over physical supermarket goods as Apple has over the mobile app ecosystem.
A physical duopoly of that scale would very clearly call for either breaking up the owners or regulating them to ensure that everyone had equal access to the market. Scenarios like that are why we have antitrust in the first place, particularly around the kind of vertical integration that Apple advocates hold in such high regard.
I don't think the people who put forward these arguments have really thought them through. A duopoly is different from a house.
If we could travel back 35-40 years through history, I have no doubt there'd be no shortage of people arguing that Bell's vertical integration of the Internet was the very reason why their service was so good, and that allowing people to hook their own 'unapproved' answering machines to their phone lines would just ruin the entire network, and that allowing one company to own all of the railroads would just mean that shipping became that much simpler and reliable for consumers.
So be careful about making analogies to the physical world when you're supporting Apple, because people might just take them at face value.
> And if there were only two livable houses in the entire world, then that would be a completely reasonable position for someone to take.
There are more than two platforms out there. But even if there weren't, the fact that there's only N things in the world doesn't make your random claim on someone else's property any more valid. App Store is Apple's property. Build your own and host whoever you want there, but firstly you have to convince others that it is more valuable than the popular alternative. And if you fail to do that, it's not necessarily because the alternative is a monopoly, it may be and more likely is because your product is inferior.
> And that ignores the fact that it would be a serious problem if there were only two supermarkets that I could buy from.
Do you know the reason why it never happens though?
Your examples from the past just demonstrate that no monopoly exists without a government acting as a gatekeeper, like it was in the case of Bell and Union Pacific, and even then there was a place for successful competitors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Railway_(U.S.)
> So be careful about making analogies to the physical world when you're supporting Apple, because people might just take them at face value.
likewise, learn what you are advocating for, because mere quantity of stuff out there is never a justification for taking it over (and neither is your convenience), which my analogy was all about.
Such as? If I'm making a mobile game, what other phones can I realistically target other than Android and iPhone? You don't really think that the Librem 5 is a real competitor right now in this space, do you?
> because mere quantity of stuff out there is never a justification for taking it over
All of US antitrust law is based on the idea that the quantity of providers in a market matters. If you're arguing that we should get rid of antitrust entirely, fine. But be upfront about that, that's not a mainstream position to take.
> no monopoly exists without a government acting as a gatekeeper
I'm not going to derail things too much here, but I do have at least a few Libertarian bones inside of me. To the extent that I am sympathetic to your argument here, I would question why you think that Apple is different.
Apple's dominant market position exists in no small part based on its exploitation of copyright, the DMCA, import laws, and heavy lawsuits over trademark and cross-compatible app runtimes, all of which only work because of artificial government intervention into the market.
If you want to go full Libertarian, I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea, but then I'm also going to go full Libertarian and ask what your views are on abolishing copyright. Apple might not have such a stranglehold over the market if it was legal for other US companies to build iPhone emulators, hackintoshes, to distribute jailbreaks, and to build their own compatible phones that could run both iOS apps and apps from other markets.
If we're all OK with making that stuff legal, then I'm OK with dropping antitrust. If we're not OK with making that stuff legal, then I'm keeping antitrust. I'm OK with either having government regulation or not having it, but no halvsies.
> Such as? If I'm making a mobile game, what other phones can I realistically target other than Android and iPhone? You don't really think that the Librem 5 is a real competitor right now in this space, do you?
Any phone that runs WebGL. Inconvenient? Tough life, why does Apple have to do anything about it for you?
> All of US antitrust law is based on the idea that the quantity of providers in a market matters.
US antitrust laws are deeply flawed and in no way serve the purpose they were enacted for. If your product (subjectively) costs too high you are a monopolist; if your product costs too low (hello IE) you are dumping the market; and if your product costs approximately the same as of your competitors then there's a "market collusion". You cannot win in this system if you are a successful economic player. The bottom line is this though - there was no time in history where monopoly existed without government's sanction and gate-keeping, and Union Pacific was a prime example of it.
> If you want to go full Libertarian
I don't as I'm not one of them, which doesn't negate the points that I've made before.
> Apple's dominant market position exists in no small part based on its exploitation of copyright, the DMCA, import laws, and heavy lawsuits over trademark and cross-compatible app runtimes, all of which only work because of artificial government intervention into the market.
Wasn't it the government that enacted them? Why asking for it from Apple?
> I'm also going to go full Libertarian and ask what your views are on abolishing copyright.
I'm not libertarian; if you are just asking, I'm for IP in principle, whether it's modern copyright laws or something else is another story.
> If we're all OK with making that stuff legal, then I'm OK with dropping antitrust. If we're not OK with making that stuff legal, then I'm keeping antitrust. I'm OK with either having government regulation or not having it, but no halvsies
with all respect, it really is a funny position. Everything you mentioned here is a product of federal legislature, yet you want to blame an economic player that acts according to the law, in a system that is designed to eventually punish successful.
There are no phones on the market where the web is a comparable platform to native mobile apps. There could be in a better world, but there aren't in this world. Talk to me in a couple of years when we have native storage ironed out and maybe that'll be different. Or talk to me in 5-10 years when Librem 5 has its issues worked out, and maybe things will be different then.
> why does Apple have to do anything about it for you?
It doesn't, not unless Apple enjoys the benefit of extensive government regulations that allow it to block and sue the competitors that do want to do something about it for me. Regulations like, for example, the DMCA.
Live by the government, die by the government. Companies don't get to pretend to be free-market Capitalists only when it's convenient for them.
> Everything you mentioned here is a product of federal legislature, yet you want to blame an economic player
No, I just want consistency. I want the government to get in the way or to get out of the way.
It is infeasible to get rid of antitrust unless we're also going to also get rid of the regulation and interference that keeps the market from working the way it was intended.
Getting rid of the regulations that protect us from the current smartphone duopoly while keeping the regulations that caused the smartphone duopoly isn't free market Capitalism, it's Feudalism. I don't have patience for an argument that it's a bridge too far for the government to stop Apple from exploiting developers/consumers, but perfectly fine for Apple to use the government to reinforce their market position.
I'm sympathetic to anti-regulation arguments and the people who make them, but I am not sympathetic to pro-monopoly arguments.
If I name you the companies that release WebGL games I would state impossible? Let's not get that low in this discussion.
> There are no phones on the market where the web is a comparable platform to native mobile apps.
Comparable based on what criteria? Oftentimes I wish companies stop bother me with their "bug fixes and performance improvements" every other day and provide a sleek Web experience instead. So far I just hear how you are saying that alternatives do exist, but they suck, hence Apple's ability to charge 30% on top of everything is a viable business model, because their platform doesn't suck that much. No issue here.
> Getting rid of the regulations that protect us from the current smartphone duopoly while keeping the regulations that caused the smartphone duopoly isn't free market Capitalism, it's Feudalism.
If you make this claim, then it's on you to prove that in the absence of regulations you won't be able to enter the market with your new competing platform. Apple with all its money is in no position to dictate the way you or anyone else establish a new ecosystem based on open standards and free licenses.
Apple is the reason why web experiences on iOS suck. They deliberately lag on web standards so that their browser experience is inferior to native apps. None of this accidental.
And no, it's not just inconvenience. There are things on iOS that are literally impossible to do in WebGL. Reliable, persistent offline storage on iOS is impossible to do from a web app. Reliable persistent login on iOS is impossible to do from a web app. Notifications are impossible to do on iOS from a web app. The APIs have not been added to the platform.
It's not inconvenient -- you literally can't do them. It is not a comparable platform, because Apple makes sure that it will never be a comparable platform. It's not that Apple made an amazing native experience and the web couldn't keep up. The reason the web can't keep up on iOS is because Apple deliberately hobbles its mobile browser.
> Apple with all its money is in no position to dictate the way you or anyone else establish a new ecosystem based on open standards and free licenses.
Imagine a world where I could build a phone that was compatible with every iOS app and Android app, where users didn't have to choose in advance which ecosystem they wanted to be a part of.
Imagine a world where I could build a competitor to iOS that allowed users to port the apps that they had already bought to their new phones outside of Apple's ecosystem, rather than spending hundreds of dollars buying all of them a second time.
Imagine a world where I could build and sell my own hardware that dual-booted iOS and Android.
Imagine a world where I could sell a TV/Phone that would play DRM-encumbered content from Apple devices and iTunes.
That would be a real free market. In the current market, any of those competitors would be sued into oblivion.
> If you make this claim, then it's on you to prove that in the absence of regulations you won't be able to enter the market with your new competing platform.
Give people a real free market, and then we'll find out whether or not in the absence of regulations they can compete.
You keep on repeating the exact same argument, that regulation is the problem. I'm not sure that you're following what I'm saying. All I'm advocating for is that we get rid of all of the regulation. If you have a problem with regulation, then fine, let's get rid of it, including the DMCA.
It doesn't sound like you have a problem with market regulation and interference though. It sounds like you have a problem with a very small subset of regulations.
> Apple is the reason why web experiences on iOS suck. They deliberately lag on web standards so that their browser experience is inferior to native apps. None of this accidental.
I've never mentioned web experience on iOS, let's not add words into my replies for the convenience of your argument. Everyone is free to choose any other platform with a better web experience and to build on top of it, with all open standards and free licenses in mind. Apple won't be able to interfere.
> Imagine a world where I could build a phone that was compatible with every iOS app and Android app, where users didn't have to choose in advance which ecosystem they wanted to be a part of.
Build Linux phone instead and make it compatible with Android. Or a Windows-compatible phone on ReactOS. Why are you so fixated on Apple and iOS? At this point it just looks as a random wish that Apple implements your ideas. Sorry, no one is obliged to implement your wishes as you see them fit.
> Give people a real free market, and then we'll find out whether or not in the absence of regulations they can compete.
> At this point it just looks as a random wish that Apple implements your ideas. Sorry, no one is obliged to implement your wishes as you see them fit.
You don't understand what I'm saying, and I don't know how to say it any more clearly.
I'm not asking Apple to do anything. I want to be able to do things myself without Apple using the government to attack my business.
This is worse than the Right to Repair debates -- people accuse us of trying to force Apple to fix our phones for free when in reality we just want to stop Apple from suing everyone who imports a 3rd-party battery.
Just let people compete, that's all I'm asking. Apple doesn't need to lift a finger. Let other people build emulators, port apps, display content, and make compatible phones. Apple doesn't need to fix my problems, but they shouldn't be able to use the government to stop other people from fixing my problems.
> Apple won't be able to interfere.
Again, I don't know if this is on purpose or not, but I just listed a few of the ways that Apple can interfere with Open standards, including suing competitors that use adversarial operability to get around network effects in an entrenched market.
> I've never mentioned web experience on iOS [...] Everyone is free to choose any other platform
We're talking in circles, but just to repeat -- when you say "any other platforms", that means Android or iOS. Those are the only two viable mobile platforms that exist right now. And good luck building a third when users have invested hundreds of dollars into closed app ecosystems that it will be illegal for you to interoperate with.
If you know a way to get around the problems listed at https://whatwebcando.today/, by all means let me know, I'd love to build some offline webapps for my phone. If you know a way to get reliable disk storage from a website on any mobile platform, please let me know, it would open up a world of possibilities for me as a developer.
But don't pretend the web is an escape hatch when its mobile support depends entirely on the two companies who have the most to gain from keeping its capabilities behind those of native apps.
> Just read how commerce existed prior 1913.
You keep trying to phrase this like I'm secretly being pro-regulation in this conversation. I'm willing to concede literally every single antitrust point I've raised in the comments above, and my only condition is that we get rid of all of the regulations including copyright.
At this point, you're arguing that market regulation is bad to someone who's proposing that an alternative to antitrust might be... to get rid of all market regulation.
What is your position? Do you think market regulation is bad or good? If you don't like regulation, then what do you disagree with me on? What do you oppose about the idea of stopping the government from using copyright to interfere with the free market?
> I want to be able to do things myself without Apple using the government to attack my business.
Here, how exactly does it attack your business? Is your business built around Apple ecosystem? Have you accepted their terms and conditions? there's no way to enter into any relations with Apple without accepting their terms of the services. Have you got warrants coming from Apple lawyers?
> Just let people compete, that's all I'm asking
You are free to compete, not on their platform at their cost though. For the same reason why you would refuse to give me access to your business (whatever it does) to compete with you. You cannot just freely re-interpret the definition of the market so that it fits your narrative. Market is never a private entity's platform.
> I don't know if this is on purpose or not, but I just listed a few of the ways that Apple can interfere with Open standards, including suing competitors that use adversarial operability to get around network effects in an entrenched market.
It's either open standards or inter-operability with a proprietory standard. If you don't want to get sued, either buy the license or build your own solution that doesn't require interop. There's hundreds of companies who do that regularly, they pay their fees and make money along the way. There are also businesses who do not interact with Apple in any shape or form yet are able to build their mobile solutions. Because Mobile is not "Applications for either Android or iOS", you can believe this but that doesn't make it anyhow true.
> Those are the only two viable mobile platforms that exist right now.
There was a time when they didn't exist at all, the fact that there are two now doesn't change anything. Again, all your points are about convenience to you, not about inability to create a new platform. And by the way, define "viable".
> people accuse us of trying to force Apple to fix our phones for free when in reality we just want to stop Apple from suing everyone who imports a 3rd-party battery.
are you elected to represent all of those who comment positively on that topic? I can play this game too, and "we" who oppose it neither do want any third-party battery to be presented as a genuine replacement for the original ones nor desire to have a device that is easily disassembled by third-parties. Had we wanted these features, we'd go and buy any noname Android phone.
> But don't pretend the web is an escape hatch when its mobile support depends entirely on the two companies
You have to prove that, so far it's an unsubstantiated claim. Another one, because you feel like it. The majority of people use these two platofrms not because there are no alternatives, but because it doesn't worth the effort to switch to anything else. The existing solutions already are convenient enough. Notice the difference. You may disagree with this, but again, it's just your wishes.
> you would refuse to give me access to your business
You will always be free to build 3rd-party products that work with and wrap around my products. I will never use the law as a cudgel to stop you from fairly competing with me. Users have an inherent right to control the devices that they own.
> You are free to compete, not on their platform at their cost though
Not asking to compete on their platform. I want to be able to compete on my platform, and I don't want Apple to tell me whether or not I'm allowed to build a platform that's compatible with iOS apps.
> If you don't want to get sued, either buy the license or build your own solution that doesn't require interop.
Why? Why can the government decide what I'm allowed to build? If I can build a solution by myself without a contract that interops with Apple's platforms, why should the government tell me I'm not allowed to do that? If I can build a device that runs iOS, why should the government say that I'm not allowed to do that?
What right does the government have to stop me from building and distributing products that solve my problems?
> [...]
This is ridiculous.
If you support regulation, then fine. Go argue about what the regulations are.
If you don't support regulation, then fine. Let's get rid of artificial government monopolies that allow companies to decide what is and isn't legal. Copyright is not a natural right.
You're taking a great many words to say that you selectively oppose regulation only when it's directed towards the protection of the consumer. If that's your position, then fine, but I'm not going to debate it, I don't think that position is logically coherent enough to debate.
> But even if there weren't, the fact that there's only N things in the world doesn't make your random claim on someone else's property any more valid.
It is notable that basically every functional democracy in the world disagrees with this statement.
I'm not at all enthused about Epic being one of those stores, but being able to download from Steam sure would be nice.
If you were trying to remove the monopoly, I'd think you should start there, and then expand to other people who can prove they have their shit together. Epic let someone else use my email address to sign up for an account (and they only allow one account per email). That is serious amateur-hour territory. When they have figured out how to tie their own shoes we can talk about whether they should be in the running.
Pretty sure you can buy from Steam on the iOS app - Steam just has a revenue-sharing agreement with Apple.
which is specifically the part that got Epic in trouble, they don't want to share revenue with Apple, and what's more they want to charge other developers a fee for the use of Epic's app store.
the thought that Apple was just going to let this hilarious ToS breach lay was all wrong, absolutely not
The Store application lets you buy games because you cannot consume them on the device, like how Amazon allows you to buy physical items but not Kindle books.
It's this type of thinking that has caused me to have more freaking messaging and video apps on my phone so I can talk to everyone: Zoom, Skype, Meet, Meetings, Facetime, Messenger, Chime,...etc, etc. etc.
NO. I ABSOLUTELY do not want that. Freaking nightmare.
When that happens I ditch my iPhone and buy a flip phone.
Seriously - stop the insanity. There is no "choice" when we need to have every alternative installed in order to do the things we need to do. That's not choice - it's insanity.
But actually, there is a big difference - I can buy jeans anywhere. I can buy Levi jeans anywhere.
If I had to go to Macy’s so that I could get a shirt (with no alternative), and then had to go to Nordstrom to get socks (with no alternative), and then..... then yeah, that would be crippling.
There is a reason amazon and Walmart are so powerful - you can get anything in one stop.
Bundling is important. It’s why people buy Comcast xfinity cable + internet or have all their family on one cell phone plan - it’s reduces effort, stress, and cognitive load.
Apple vs Android is good choice. Having to go to ten app stores to get my apps is not - it’s just a pain in the butt masquerading as “choice”.
>So when a friend of yours wants to message you and you don’t have the same app, what happens?
I tell the friend to call, text or email me. Price doesn't have any bearing because the market on messaging apps has bottomed out, in part due to Apple's app store policies.
Wait, do we think the situation with Visa/MasterCard is good?
I'm discovering a number of people here who see the world very differently than me. I would have taken it as a given that most people would agree that it would be healthy for the US market overall if we shook up the payment industry and got some new options.
A lot of Visa/Mastercard's terms for businesses are really bad. There are entire industries that are being pushed out of the market right now. Not to mention that these cards come with a tremendous amount of user tracking that's basically impossible to opt out of if you want to buy anything online.
That's why people are throwing everything at the wall from Bitcoin to GNU Taler trying desperately to find any kind of Open alternative that might work for online micropayments.
The problem is not that Epic would be able to prevent other stores from being installed.
The problem is that if there are multiple app stores, it encourages a race-to-the-bottom for the app stores -- why go through Apple's store with all its vetting if you can release to the Epic store instead?
So, yes, the worry is exactly that another company might offer better terms to developers -- because sometimes, those terms don't matter to users (e.g. the cut between the app store and the developer), but other times, those terms are absolutely at a cost to the users.
If Epic has a way of offering multiple stores, while preventing that race-to-the-bottom from impacting the user experience, it'd be wonderful. But that doesn't seem to be what Epic is pushing for; Epic seems to be pushing for their own profit at a cost to Apple (which is fine, IMHO -- it's just business) and to the iOS ecosystem (which is much less fine, IMHO).
If alternative app stores are consistently lower quality than Apple's app store, why do you think consumers wouldn't notice them and avoid those stores?
I suppose one way to counteract this is for apple to license app stores and they have to have the same standards as apples store. I have no desire to have low quality stores on my phone, thats why I like the iPhone - I don't have to worry about all the nonsense android phone owners do.
> I suppose one way to counteract this is for apple to license app stores and they have to have the same standards as apples store.
Absolutely not - that's the entire point of this action. Apple's "standards" are to block upgrade pricing and force developers down a path of microtransactions. Do we really want that to be carried over to other stores? Do we want other stores to have to live with Apple's decision to block apps to help dissidents in Hong Kong or the Middle East communicate?
A single point of decision-making on code always leads to terrible geopolitical outcomes. Always. That is the important part of what is happening here.
So many comments here to this effect and they're all so puzzling. I'd love to hear exactly what "nonsense" I'm supposedly worried about all the time. Relying solely on Google's store is perfectly usable. I wish I could find data on this but I'd confidently assert the vast vast majority of (non-Chinese) Android owners never use alternative stores.
The first one that comes to mind is how many android phones are out of date - upgrading to the latest version of android isn't a priority for mobile distributors and is a lot of work on some phones. So this causes a larger attack surface, Apple is very careful to make their phones all have the latest iOS - also makes it easier to develop to.
Another issue is trust - who knows what google does with your data, their business model includes exploiting your personal data, Apple has a vested interest in keeping your personal data secure and doesn't keep the keys to it - its their business model.
These two are enough for me, theres also a lot more reports of android apps with exploits - a google turns up a lot of them, less so with iPhone, and apple reacts if there is. Maybe these issues have been addressed in android, if so it's not something Google appears serious about, if they were then they'd be advertising how secure their phones are and how they don't touch your data - apple is very serious about keeping my data personal and has invested a lot of their business integrity in that.
Edit: tl;dr - googles business model is built around exploiting your personal data, apples is built around keeping your personal data secure
Apple's business model is also built around exploiting your personal data, not at the same scale sure but still. Just look at the Siri recordings scandal
I if was Chinese then I probably couldn't say anything about it, but not sure how this is related to the current discussion - not much any of us can do about china - including apple
> For the record, we want there to be multiple app stores on iOS.
Who is „we“? I know a lot of users that don‘t want or don‘t feel a need for other app stores. Of course, most developers would be glad to get alternatives or make more money.
> You're worried that Epic's store is going to eventually overrun Apple's and then Epic will somehow prevent other stores from being installed on iOS devices?
Not the original poster, but I would be worried that alternate app stores would as well lead to even more apps not honoring the user rights, spying on Location all the time, selling and monetizing user data and pushing even more IAP crap. Epic isn‘t really known as the Robin Hood of user rights and promptly, Spotify and Facebook, two other big players with black spots on their vests, called for the same. I have a hard time believing that everything Epic wants is just beneficial for the users.
> Yeah, you're right. That is the outcome that we want. We want multiple stores on iOS. I thought advocates for this position had been really clear, maybe we haven't been clear enough though.
Right, and the rest of us don't want that, and I also don't want games or apps that don't adhere to Apple's rules. You want another option of App Stores because you want don't want to pay for the user base that Apple created and maintains. You want to embed permanent location tracking in your apps, abuse user data, and not have to have your crappy practices out in the open when Apple shows the "nutrition scorecard" for your app.
That's not what I want on my iPhone. If your app doesn't conform to the App Store, then that's your problem, not mine. I'll vote with my dollars here. I want the iPhone just the way it is, even if that means fewer apps from bad actors.
> We live in a world where Apple has complete control over the app ecosystem, and you're frightened that another company might get control and... offer better terms than we have right now?
Yes that's exactly what I want. I want Apple to have complete control over the ecosystem. They've earned my complete trust.
Please stop speaking for others. I would certainly like to have the ability to install other sources for apps. Since I am part of "the rest of us", for any kind of "us" that came to my mind while reading your posting ("iPhone users" or "Apple customers" or "HN readers"), your statement is patently false.
> That's not what I want on my iPhone.
Then don't install additional stores. I also don't want most of the apps currently available in Apple's app store on my iPhone, but I'm far from demanding that they are to be banned and other people who want to use them should be prevented from doing so.
Also it's too sad you conspicuously skipped over danShumways question regarding the "bigger moat" - because I indeed would be interested in what moat you are imagining there, too.
Same to you and the GP here. And last I checked there aren’t a lot of customers really complaining about the App Store. It’s just big companies who, although they could have done this years ago, are now going against Apple’s customer protection because it degrades their crappy business practices.
> Then don’t install additional stores
Then buy a different phone?
I want any app that doesn’t follow Apple’s guidelines to be completely banned. Goodbye Epic. Nice knowing you. Don’t care. I don’t want apps spying on me, engaging in shitty business practices, scamming customers, and doing bad things. Apple is working to protect my privacy and safety. They’re not perfect, but that’s why I buy an iPhone and I want it to stay that way. If I wanted another App Store I’d buy a different phone, like you should.
Are you incapable of self control to the point of not being able to stop yourself from using a different app store? Or is it that you know Apple's cut is onerous enough that given competition, most the apps would leave? It feels like you want other users to suffer on the basis that your values happen to align with Apple's avenue for generating profit. If Apple were in it for your privacy and safety they could drop their cut substantially and kneecap most of the controversy.
I don't own an iPhone in large part because I cannot install an alternative app store or install non-Apple approved apps.
> Right, and the rest of us don't want that, and I also don't want games or apps that don't adhere to Apple's rules.
Why do you care? If you don't want to install a third-party app store, then don't. The games available on Apple's store will continue to adhere to Apple's rules, and if you want that curation, you still get it.
> They've earned my complete trust.
This blind devotion to the Apple Way is baffling, especially considering how Apple-approved apps are not free of the tracking and user-data abuse you (correctly!) rail against.
> Why do you care? If you don't want to install a third-party app store, then don't. The games available on Apple's store will continue to adhere to Apple's rules, and if you want that curation, you still get it.
Apple users care because if non-App Store distribution methods are banned, then developers are forced to go through Apple's process to get access to them. You can see complaints around this thread about how bad Epic's store on PC is. On iOS, they're forced to use Apple's purchase UI, subscription rules, privacy rules, etc.
If it provides that much consumer value then people shouldn't be worried about a little bit of competition. This feels more to me like a certain subset of users siding with Apple because their values happen to align with Apple's avenue for generating profit from the App Store.
If Apple's goal was protecting their consumers, they could easily roll back the contested parts of their policy while protecting consumers AND still make a profit.
If Apple doesn't want competition, maybe they should address the reasons why people want that competition. If the App Store's terms and review policies were attractive to these kinds of developers, they wouldn't push so hard to have their own store.
And if the only policies that these developers had to legitimately complain about were the ones that protect users, they'd be laughed out of town. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
Epic's store has been incredible for PC gaming. Amazing for developers and quite good for consumers too. Taking down steam is the best thing to happen this decade.
> If you don't want to install a third-party app store, then don't
I've been seeing this argument a lot and it makes the assumption that allowing alternative app stores has no impact on people who choose not to use them. I don't think this is true.
An app developer may decide to only list their app on an alternative store because they pay lower fees and they can handle payments themselves. As a user you now need to choose between not using the app or giving your credit card information to the app developer you may not trust.
If you get value out of the current App Store rules, like the person you replied to, then there is absolutely a cost to allowing alternative stores.
> An app developer may decide to only list their app on an alternative store because they pay lower fees and they can handle payments themselves. As a user you now need to choose between not using the app or giving your credit card information to the app developer you may not trust.
But then this is competitive pressure for Apple to charge lower fees and allow apps to handle payments themselves, at which point the app would be back in Apple's store because the customer prefers to buy it from there. Everyone benefits (except Apple).
Meanwhile if you don't want to give the app your credit card number, you still don't have to. Refuse until they use Apple's payment method. If most users share your unwillingness then developers will still have to use a payment method you do trust. If they don't, what right do you have to constrain the choices of the other users?
> But then this is competitive pressure for Apple to charge lower fees and allow apps to handle payments themselves, at which point the app would be back in Apple's store because the customer prefers to buy it from there. Everyone benefits (except Apple).
No it isn't. The next moment Apple significantly lowers its comission, the same people will start whining about Apple "dumping the market" "to sink its competitors", and that it should be prosecuted under the same flawed anti-trust legislation. Been there, seen that: if your rates are too high you are a monopolist; if your rates are low you are dumping; and if your rates are the same as of your competitors then there's a "collusion".
If you’re a seemingly unstoppable corporate juggernaut, you’ll make enemies who think (rightly or wrongly) that your business practices are unfair, and they may successfully sue you using the laws intended to stop huge companies from engaging in unfair business practices.
I’m not sure what your point is here. That antitrust litigation is futile or counterproductive? The threat of it seems to be having positive effects already, looking at the front page of HN: https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/17/apple-expands-its-independ...
It's counter-productive, it aims at punishing successful where mere "bigness" is used as the proof of "unfair". We don't know how much cheaper Apple products could be if it hadn't have to spread costs of lobbying its interests in Washington DC across their device prices.
> The threat of it seems to be having positive effects already, looking at the front page of HN
it depends on your reliance on that kind of services and varies greatly among the userbase. I'm using Apple since 2014, I've never needed to use any of these services, and I would prefer to have a device that is hard to disassemble and is cheaper to produce without a loss in quality.
It’s true that we can’t know how much cheaper Apple products would be if the antitrust laws didn’t exist, and that some people (and not only shareholders) benefit from or prefer a less competitive market. But conversely, we don’t know how much worse things might be if there were no laws to keep “bigness” in check. I am convinced by the history of antitrust that competition regulators do more good than harm.
> But conversely, we don’t know how much worse things might be if there were no laws to keep “bigness” in check.
We know it from history for sure, that "bigness" of an economic player is not a problem. There was no anti-trust legislation prior 1913, and Standard Oil was lowering prices for their oil and kerosine every year in order to compete with emerging oil wells developers, which kept popping up dispite Standard's dominance. [1] Customers, large and small, were benefiting along the way. But notice how governments-coordinated OPEC influences the prices and ability to enter the market:
All very interesting questions, which Apple can raise in its defence to the lawsuit contending that the answer is “because of Apple’s unfair trade practices.”
I have no desire to constrain user choice. I do think there is value to users in putting some constraints on app developers. If you can accomplish that without also constraining user choice then that is the ideal outcome in my mind.
What people seem to be looking for here is some kind of purchasing co-op which can then have greater negotiating leverage with developers than an individual customer.
The problem is, Apple isn't that -- it doesn't have a duty to the user, it has a duty to Apple shareholders, so what it does will be for their benefit and not yours unless they happen to coincide. Which they won't in enough cases that you don't actually benefit on net. It's not in your interest to have developers paying 30% and destroying the marginal developer and providing other developers with fewer resources to make better apps, or to have apps rejected just because they compete with Apple's, or deterred from being developed because developers become unwilling to risk their investment being wiped out by the opaque rejection process.
Meanwhile if you want the purchasing co-op, go set it up. So that it's using the market power of all the store's customers to get concessions from developers (and Apple), but is a co-op owned by and acting in the interests of the users instead of a for-profit monopoly acting in the interests of itself. Unless Apple is preventing anyone from creating that, right?
> An app developer may decide to only list their app on an alternative store because they pay lower fees and they can handle payments themselves.
This is literally the point of allowing healthy competition. If Apple wants these games on their app store, they should offer terms that are competitive with the hypothetical third-party app stores.
I’m 100% for Apple being pressured to have lower fees but less stoked about Apple being pressured to allow any payment processor. The root of my concern, I think, is that what is good for developers is not always what is good for users and alternative app stores will compete by doing what is good for developers at the expense of users.
> I’m 100% for Apple being pressured to have lower fees but less stoked about Apple being pressured to allow any payment processor.
You talk about developers if this is the only concern, but Apple is ultimately deciding it wants to not give money to certain social concerns or movements it doesn't like based on it's whim, and no corporation should have the power to do that for something as important as half of mobile telecoms.
Along those lines, you are no longer allowed to browse or post anywhere outside of HN, since your keyboard is only authorized for HN browsing and posting. Those other web-sites are insecure and HN has decided that you can no longer visit other websites.
Furthermore, Walmart has placed restrictions on all keyboards purchased from their stores. All online purchases made using their keyboards will now funnel 30% of the payment to Walmart.
Thank you for your business and absolute trust in our secure business model that we operate for your benefit.
This view is equally flawed in my opinion. How many apps do you not have access to because their business model doesn't align with giving 30% of the revenue away, or is entirely banned a la XCloud?
Honestly not that many that I can think of. XCloud is a notable exception and I hope Apple changes their rules on game streaming services. I think many of the App Store rules have a benefit to end users but the “no game streaming services” rule seems like a loss for everyone involved.
>Right, and the rest of us don't want that, and I also don't want games or apps that don't adhere to Apple's rules.
Then don't install them? But I fail to see why you (or Apple) should be in a position to tell other users what they can install or not.
>You want another option of App Stores because you want don't want to pay for the user base that Apple created and maintains.
lolwat
Honestly, I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.
>You want to embed permanent location tracking in your apps, abuse user data, and not have to have your crappy practices out in the open when Apple shows the "nutrition scorecard" for your app.
This is a typical "think of the children" argument once more. Nobody forces you to install that tracking shit. You're free to not use apps that do that - e.g. get your apps from the Apple App Store, or make your own app if there is no such tracking free alternative. But those Apple App Store approved apps you seem to be so fond of... they do track you already ;)
>That's not what I want on my iPhone.
Then don't put use it on your iPhone.
>Yes that's exactly what I want. I want Apple to have complete control over the ecosystem. They've earned my complete trust.
Good for you. Nobody is stopping you from exercising your trust and only use Apple and/or Apple-approved software in the future.
I think a good option here would be for Apple to sell jailbroken developer phones for say an additional 30% cut up front and a nice DEV brand on the back for bragging rights. The additional fee hurdle would discourage those who just want a cheap way to get paid software and whatever additional expenses from helping with malware.
> But I fail to see why you (or Apple) should be in a position to tell other users what they can install or not.
Because it's their platform, they created it, they grew it, they paid for its development out of their pocket, and they offered it as a unique market proposition that satisfies millions of users around the world. Apple doesn't force anyone into their platform, everyone involved are there voluntarily and solely because they know that it's beneficial for them to be on the platform.
Instagram and TikTok have been found guilty on collecting an absurd amount of data against user's wishes. How did Apple's policy prevent that? Also I don't see Apple banning TikTok or Instagram.
Also, notice that FB has done everything possible to gather information. Frankly, the NSA should just hire FB to do their work - it'b be faster and cheaper.
Locking stuff down is hard. Doing it with multiple app stores will be impossible.
And how does having multiple app store would stop anything that you want? It wouldn't stop the Apple app store from existing with theses restrictions, they would still be there. You would still have access to the apps that Apple consider fine for their stores, without installing another app store. Win-win for everyone.
> You want to embed permanent location tracking in your apps, abuse user data, and not have to have your crappy practices out in the open when Apple shows the "nutrition scorecard" for your app.
How about stopping theses practice on the OS side of the device? Apple already do that there... I agree completely that it's crazy when an OS allow stuff that we don't want to allow, it's not curation that solve this, it's actually a secure system that does.
You’re certainly not speaking for me and the many many devs that were harmed by Apple’s arbitrary application of rules. I also want so see people get wild and creative with apps. This doesn’t happen if you’re pre-censoring because you’re unsure if Apple would allow the app.
If developers have a choice of app stores, then users have to install ALL app stores if they want access to the entire market. This happened with streaming services as well: when Netflix was the only prominent one, only that subscription was enough. Now you also need Amazon, Hulu, etc.
> then users have to install ALL app stores if they want access to the entire market
You didn't have access to the entire market when Netflix was the only store. You had access to Netflix's market, and all of the other shows that are currently being funded by competitors didn't exist.
You could still use only Netflix today if you wanted to. The only difference is that now you are aware of what you are missing.
How many developers have consciously chosen to abandon the entire mobile market because of how toxic it is, because of how tailored the market is to a very specific sub-genre of mass-market apps and games? How many developers have abandoned iOS because their games touched on political or serious topics that Apple decided weren't suitable for their store? Many of us are not interested in creating the types of apps that thrive on the current mobile app stores, so we've abandoned the mobile market entirely.
When you can only see a tiny part of the world, you think that you have access to all of it. Once the walls get taken down and you realize how big the world is, then you realize how much of it you didn't have.
I completely sympathize with the frustration of not being able to get access to some of this stuff. I won't sign up for Netflix because of their DRM and anti-consumer practices. There are some shows I can't watch because of that. Trust me, I get the pain.
But having only one streaming platform forever would have been worse. So much of the original content that's coming out on Netflix only exists because Netflix had to compete. There are really good shows that are HBO/Hulu/Disney+ originals. I want that media to exist, even if I can't personally get at it right now.
It also leads to competition. Without alternative streaming services, we'd have a Netflix monopoly, and there's nothing stopping them from increasing prices like what happened with cable monopolies.
Look at how Netflix is still raising prices even with less content.
If enough users agree with the parent comment that the app store is the best way get software then companies can weigh that user base against the 30% cut. Why should we force the users who don't like the App Store (or want apps that are incompatible with Apple's business model) to suffer on behalf of the users who don't?
Nobody forces anyone into interaction with Apple ecosystem. People want to get onto App Store because they know they can benefit from it, financially big. And they subscribe voluntarily by the most fair means of it, by trading their money in exchange for the service under the rules that are mentioned prior the transaction takes place.
By omitting details and framing each transaction as an isolated incident, you can make almost any monopoly or anti-consumer practice sound like just another business.
Nobody forces anyone into interaction with Carnegie Steel. People want to use their steel because they know they can benefit from it, financially big. And they purchase it voluntarily by the most fair means of it, by trading their money in exchange for the steel under the rules that are mentioned prior the transaction takes place.
so, where's the flaw? The fact that somebody sometime ago named another corporation a monopoly by the same ridiculous criterion as "too big" and discharged it, doesn't make it anyhow right. Was there gatekeeping from the government for new players to enter the same market? Any quotas or tariffs by chance?
That would never happen because there will always be a market for other gatekeepers who want to try and build their own lock-in even if Apple charged nothing.
If the only people arguing about this lawsuit fell into either my camp or yours (ericmay's), I'd be a lot less irritated about this whole debate.
I fundamentally disagree with you, but at least your arguments are relatively internally consistent. At least I understand where you're coming from.
Give me a hundred people saying, "I like Apple being a dictator", just get rid of all the awful arguments about how, "there is no right side, and both of them are in the wrong."
I couldn't care less whether or not people like Epic in particular. If you spend all of your time getting picky about who can and can't advocate for you, then eventually people will stop advocating for you altogether.
For someone who has a massive Steam library, why wouldn't they want their Steam games to be available on iOS as well? (For those games that have ports.) I think there's a huge number of people in this boat.
> I think Epic's real motivation here is to run their own App Store
Yeah, you're right. That is the outcome that we want. We want multiple stores on iOS. I thought advocates for this position had been really clear, but maybe we haven't been clear enough.
For the record, we want there to be multiple app stores on iOS.
> build a bigger moat and get the profits themselves
You're worried that Epic's store is going to eventually overrun Apple's and then Epic will somehow prevent other stores from being installed on iOS devices? You're worried that we'll get a bigger moat than literally not being able to run any code on the device that doesn't pass through Apple's review process?
What on earth would that theoretical bigger moat even look like?
> and get the profits themselves (12% cut, 5% if you use Unreal Engine)
I want to follow up on this in the context of your worry about moats. We live in a world where Apple has complete control over the app ecosystem, and you're frightened that another company might get control and... offer better terms than we have right now?
What specifically is the horror scenario that you're frightened of?
> They also make exclusive deals, where the games can only bought in their store for 6-12mo.
I can only imagine how upset you're going to be when you learn about how Apple Arcade works.
> Tencent is also 40% shareholder in Epic
Apple actively censors thousands of apps in China from the app store right now. You are worried about accidentally funding censorship through indirect means, and your response to that is to directly take the side of one of the censors.