Epic, Spotify, Tile, Protonmail, and Basecamp form coalition against apple

[Ashleyyyy]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

allowing people to run apps from other sources is the norm not the exception like you seem to think on windows mac etc etc so would you advocate for them to get locked down and only allow you to install stuff from the manufacturer's app store? probably not so what makes this different?

macOS requires the dev to be verified and it will yell at you if you install something that macOS doesn't know is safe. if iw ant to isntall some random thing from github somewhere it yells at me, i have to go to system preferences, security and then click run anyway, and then it'll run it. 

 

that's a lot safer than what Windows does. 

[spartaman64]

1 minute ago, Ashley said:

macOS requires the dev to be verified and it will yell at you if you install something that macOS doesn't know is safe. if iw ant to isntall some random thing from github somewhere it yells at me, i have to go to system preferences, security and then click run anyway, and then it'll run it. 

 

that's a lot safer than what Windows does. 

idk when i had an imac i ran a few dmg files without it yelling at me and once again as long as you install from the right website theres basically no danger. you are acting like it can cause your computer to explode at any second if you dont get everything directly from apple. 

and then theres always stuff like this https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/apple-notarized-malware-app/

[Ashleyyyy]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

idk when i had an imac i ran a few dmg files without it yelling at me

again if the devs are verified it won't yell at you

 

1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

you are acting like it can cause your computer to explode at any second if you dont get everything directly from apple. 

no, i'm saying a measure needs to be put in place that prevents people from accidentally installing malware. 

 

2 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

and then theres always stuff like this https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/apple-notarized-malware-app/

that's 1 error, you have things like this on android: https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2020/02/06/android-pulls-24-dangerous-malware-filled-apps-from-play-store/

 

24 apps, which in total have been downloaded over 300 million times, filled with malware. 

[Murasaki]

what do they have against a single apple? OH Apple? I see.

[Drama Lama]

Didn't Epic Games ban Protnon Mail?

 

[spartaman64]

2 minutes ago, Ashley said:

again if the devs are verified it won't yell at you

 

no, i'm saying a measure needs to be put in place that prevents people from accidentally installing malware. 

 

that's 1 error, you have things like this on android: https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2020/02/06/android-pulls-24-dangerous-malware-filled-apps-from-play-store/

 

24 apps, which in total have been downloaded over 300 million times, filled with malware. 

so same with windows?

in fact windows yells at you even if they are verified 

[Ashleyyyy]

1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

so same with windows?

that doesn't pop up nearly often enough. 

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

in fact windows yells at you even if they are verified 

that's for admin access, and you can disable that. you cannot disable the warnings on Mac. 

[Fasterthannothing]

Good people need to say screw you Apple! I'm tired of Apple's monopolistic walled off garden approach to software. 2020 will go down as the year that software installations became more open. Companies are finally standing up to Apple and Microsoft is making sure that Sony doesn't keep grabbing exclusives.

[wanderingfool2]

2 hours ago, Ashley xD said:

i've seen ads for app stores on android in web browsers that looked very sketchy. a normal person, so not a huge tech nerd like we all are, will easily be fooled by that. that's a problem.

 

a major reason why iOS is so secure is because even if you wanted to break it with malware you can't, since you can only install from the App Store. if through all this legal stuff Apple is forced to allow alternate stores we're gonna see a massive spike in iOS malware and security breaches, and then all the Apple haters here will blame Apple for it, when it was in fact their doing which made the experience for end users worse in the end. 

I will agree that Apple shouldn't be forced to offer an alternative App Store.  With that said though, the lack of flexibility and more on top of that they have restricted things more in terms of payment from the beginning is what needs to change.  If they want the App store to be the only one in existence, I don't think they should be able to dictate exclusive payment methods.  I wouldn't really have as much of a problem if they required Apple Pay as the default but still allowed alternatives (i.e. If they had allowed that, I wouldn't be against that).

 

With that said, Apple clearly is using this as an abuse of power for profits.  Remember, when this requirement was first being put in place they tried to also slip into the terms that you weren't allowed to offer it for cheaper outside of the App Store...that was before they backed off of this (I think they probably realized if they did that the lawsuits would have been flying left right and center).  This speaks to what the intent really is of Apple...It's not about "security" it's about them trying to capture the most amount of money at developers expense.

 

With that said, I do understand that having a closed system such as Apple is inherently easier to secure which is why I don't think it should be forced having a separate App Store.

 

This is also to say that Google should have to follow similar principles (I've mentioned in other threads that I think Google oversteps their bounds as well).  What saves them is they aren't nearly as restrictive and you can have a third party App Store...with that said if it's true that Google has blocked Epic from paying to have their App Store loaded onto releases I can see that being a problem (and Google shouldn't be allowed doing that).

 

Apple overall though is a lot more restrictive, and the fact that Apple isn't treating thing neutrally (in that they blocked updates that would inform user's of the cut that Apple is taking etc as being irrelevant).

[pas008]

2 hours ago, Ashley said:

it's off by default on android, and it is a real issue. if it's enabled you are at much greater risk especially if you install stuff from sketchy app stores or websites. 

 

but that should be up to the user/owner of device if they want to risk security over their liberty or viceversa

or have other optional stores

 

fyi sideloading isnt on by default (well for the androids i have used)

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

what are they even gonna do, storm apple hq and clean up!?

Spoiler

such a weird "coalition"...

 

[wanderingfool2]

8 minutes ago, pas008 said:

but that should be up to the user/owner of device if they want to risk security over their liberty or viceversa

or have other optional stores

 

fyi sideloading isnt on by default (well for the androids i have used)

Yea, by default Android doesn't allow it.

 

In terms of Apple, it really shouldn't be forced to.  It doesn't matter what the consumer wants, in this case they do have an alternative (Android).  With that said, the developers don't really have a choice (as the consumer base is so large).  It's a tricky situation, but forcing side-loading on Apple would be a bad idea (it does introduce quite a bit of security issues as well, in that you now have to code the rest of the operating system to allow it...which does allow for more chances a check will be forgotten and now you have a new exploit).

[Kisai]

11 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

source: https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/24/21453745/spotify-epic-tile-match-coalition-for-app-fairness-apple-app-store-policies-protest

 

Well people can't dismiss this as just greedy epic games anymore or at least protonmail strikes me as a dev thats not about greed and actually want fairness. If everyone from Luke with floatplane to protonmail to spotify is having problems with how apple is running their app store then maybe just maybe there might be a problem there that needs to be solved. It's still going to be a tough battle but as apple piss off more and more devs the size of the coalition is only going to grow.

That's not the interpretation I'd have gone with.

 

All of these companies make lots of money, and pay their content creators practically nothing. If anything it shows complaints come from two sources:

a) Those with bad business models, where playing by the rules puts them out of business

b) Those that full of it, paying their CEO's 1000x their content creators.

 

Seriously, this rings the hollowest from companies that operate like Spotify and have billionaire CEO's. Ask anyone who has their content on spotify how much they make. You can have a song listened to 1 million times and make less than $9000. $9000 that has to be split a dozen different ways with everyone involved in producing that song. 

 

If anything artists on spotify and apple music should be cutting their production companies out before complaining about not making enough on spotify, and spotify trying to squeeze more from Apple is just business being business and seeing a way to make more money but pass none of that to the content creators.

 

If these companies want to show they aren't greedy clowns to begin with, they would stop paying their CEO's more than they pay their content creators.

[Teddy07]

Yes Apples cut is absurd but nobody is forcing these companies to use apples store.

[spartaman64]

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

That's not the interpretation I'd have gone with.

 

All of these companies make lots of money, and pay their content creators practically nothing. If anything it shows complaints come from two sources:

a) Those with bad business models, where playing by the rules puts them out of business

b) Those that full of it, paying their CEO's 1000x their content creators.

 

Seriously, this rings the hollowest from companies that operate like Spotify and have billionaire CEO's. Ask anyone who has their content on spotify how much they make. You can have a song listened to 1 million times and make less than $9000. $9000 that has to be split a dozen different ways with everyone involved in producing that song. 

 

If anything artists on spotify and apple music should be cutting their production companies out before complaining about not making enough on spotify, and spotify trying to squeeze more from Apple is just business being business and seeing a way to make more money but pass none of that to the content creators.

 

If these companies want to show they aren't greedy clowns to begin with, they would stop paying their CEO's more than they pay their content creators.

protonmail and tile just offers a service. and i think Beyoncé gets paid enough and dont need you to help her negotiate better terms with spotify and theres lots of other competitors to spotify if they dont like how much they get paid not so much with the app store. 

[Kisai]

1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

protonmail and tile just offers a service. and i think Beyoncé gets paid enough and dont need you to help her negotiate better terms with spotify and theres lots of other competitors to spotify if they dont like how much they get paid not so much with the app store. 

All those "competitors" to spotify pay the same amount to the creators, so that's not really the problem. The problem is that the these companies make stupid amounts of money while the creators make jack.

[spartaman64]

Just now, Kisai said:

All those "competitors" to spotify pay the same amount to the creators, so that's not really the problem. The problem is that the these companies make stupid amounts of money while the creators make jack.

well they can always just distribute the music themselves also which again isnt possible with apple. and this just seems to be directed at Spotify and like i said are some of these companies hypocritical sure but two wrongs don't make a right and there are companies here that genuinely want fairness

[wanderingfool2]

4 minutes ago, Teddy07 said:

Yes Apples cut is absurd but nobody is forcing these companies to use apples store.

That's not really a good argument when Apple holds over 50% of the total sales.  There needs to be a clear distinction of consumer choice vs developer choice.  Consumers can decide on the Apple vs Android ecosystem and what they like best.  Developers require the compatibility, imagine if banking Apps etc didn't support Apple (they would not only likely receive complaints but also lose customers).

[Kisai]

9 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

well they can always just distribute the music themselves also which again isnt possible with apple. and this just seems to be directed at Spotify and like i said are some of these companies hypocritical sure but two wrongs don't make a right and there are companies here that genuinely want fairness

Epic and Spotify (and any other music app) are not the victims here. They're businesses being businesses and seeing a way to make more money, not a way to directly pass that to their customers. 

 

Companies that "can't be profitable" by giving 30% to apple, have rubbish business plans to begin with, so their complaints ring hallow because what they're admitting to is that they don't know what they are doing.

 

Perhaps the App stores should stop taking 30%, but only if they ALL do, and that applies to not just smartphones, but game consoles, the app stores that are part of the operating system. And yes, it's just business being business by all somehow aligning with that 30% number, yet the share itself was established from a time when software and media still came on physical discs, you never got a discount for buying the same thing digitally.

 

People who come out of the woodwork to complain about a business being a business, need to focus on that aspect, and not attach emotional attachment to it. Apple isn't greedy, It's being business. Epic and Spotify isn't being greedy, they're being business, of which Spotify and Apple are publicly traded and Epic is not. Epic and Spotify's goal isn't to get a discount from Apple, it's to cut Apple entirely out of the distribution and payment process, because they then get 100% of the subscriber/advertisement revenue, and can undermine the platform.

[pas008]

15 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Yea, by default Android doesn't allow it.

 

In terms of Apple, it really shouldn't be forced to.  It doesn't matter what the consumer wants, in this case they do have an alternative (Android).  With that said, the developers don't really have a choice (as the consumer base is so large).  It's a tricky situation, but forcing side-loading on Apple would be a bad idea (it does introduce quite a bit of security issues as well, in that you now have to code the rest of the operating system to allow it...which does allow for more chances a check will be forgotten and now you have a new exploit).

does matter because it becomes anticonsumer

I should have the choice to do what i want with my device

 

[spartaman64]

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

Epic and Spotify (and any other music app) are not the victims here. They're businesses being businesses and seeing a way to make more money, not a way to directly pass that to their customers. 

 

Companies that "can't be profitable" by giving 30% to apple, have rubbish business plans to begin with, so their complaints ring hallow because what they're admitting to is that they don't know what they are doing.

 

Perhaps the App stores should stop taking 30%, but only if they ALL do, and that applies to not just smartphones, but game consoles, the app stores that are part of the operating system. And yes, it's just business being business by all somehow aligning with that 30% number, yet the share itself was established from a time when software and media still came on physical discs, you never got a discount for buying the same thing digitally.

 

People who come out of the woodwork to complain about a business being a business, need to focus on that aspect, and attach emotional attachment to it. Apple isn't greedy, It's being business. Epic and Spotify isn't being greedy, they're being business, of which Spotify and Apple are publicly traded and Epic is not. Epic and Spotify's goal isn't to get a discount from Apple, it's to cut Apple entirely out of the distribution and payment process, because they then get 100% of the subscriber/advertisement revenue, and can undermine the platform.

oof i hope luke doesnt see this. and its not about the 30% its about having alternatives. and companies abusing their position to coerce other companies and in return consumers isnt companies just being companies

[Kisai]

6 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

oof i hope luke doesnt see this. and its not about the 30% its about having alternatives. and companies abusing their position to coerce other companies and in return consumers isnt companies just being companies

 

My position here is that, if you could not figure out how to not lose money by having Apple take 30%, you didn't set your subscription price at a point that would have covered that, and that's on you. It's the same with grocery stores and credit/debit card fees. They have to pay that fee, and would rather not by having you pay cash or digital forms of "check". Have you noticed how there are no alternatives to Visa/Mastercard/Amex in the the US? Americans don't like change. Canada, has an alternative for debit cards called "Interac", which's cost both the merchant AND the user of the debit card to use, so there's a disincentive to use it to begin with. It's basically useless and doesn't offer the protection of using the credit card. 

 

You as a merchant, are just being a business if you want to minimize your fees, and these companies long figured out that you just charge the amount that includes the most expensive card processing fee into all the prices you charge to everyone, and if someone wants to haggle over a price, you make sure any discount you give them, is in cash, and non-refundable.

[wanderingfool2]

6 minutes ago, pas008 said:

does matter because it becomes anticonsumer

I should have the choice to do what i want with my device

If Apple was the only choice for the consumer then I might agree that there should be an option...but Android is a full fledged platform that people could go to (people, not devs. for those trying to use my words to say devs have a choice).

 

Under your logic, I could argue that all software should be open source (since it's anticonsumer locking the user to the programs functionality).  An example would be games, while there are quite a bit that support mods, it's not up to the developer to be forced to support mods.  People are free to make their mods by hacking the game, but it shouldn't be the developers responsibility to do so.

[spartaman64]

6 minutes ago, Kisai said:

 

My position here is that, if you could not figure out how to not lose money by having Apple take 30%, you didn't set your subscription price at a point that would have covered that, and that's on you. It's the same with grocery stores and credit/debit card fees. They have to pay that fee, and would rather not by having you pay cash or digital forms of "check". Have you noticed how there are no alternatives to Visa/Mastercard/Amex in the the US? Americans don't like change. Canada, has an alternative for debit cards called "Interac", which's cost both the merchant AND the user of the debit card to use, so there's a disincentive to use it to begin with. It's basically useless and doesn't offer the protection of using the credit card. 

 

You as a merchant, are just being a business if you want to minimize your fees, and these companies long figured out that you just charge the amount that includes the most expensive card processing fee into all the prices you charge to everyone, and if someone wants to haggle over a price, you make sure any discount you give them, is in cash, and non-refundable.

well not everyone can inflate their profit margin to afford losing 30% of their revenue. ironically you complain about spotify having high profit margin and stealing from creators but thats what they need to do to afford this. i think its crazy to expect 30+% profit margin as a norm for businesses and if they cant achieve that then they deserve to be bankrupt

the company im at certainly doesnt have a 30% profit margin we have around a 10-15% and 30% is just the amount to break even in this case

[Kisai]

10 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

well not everyone can inflate their profit margin to afford losing 30% of their revenue. ironically you complain about spotify having high profit margin and stealing from creators but thats what they need to do to afford this. i think its crazy to expect 30+% profit margin as a norm for businesses and if they cant achieve that then they deserve to be bankrupt

the company im at certainly doesnt have a 30% profit margin we have around a 10-15% and 30% is just the amount to break even in this case

There was nothing stopping you from increasing the price. If you can't increase the price, then your business model is bad.

 

Grocery stores and the like, compete on price, but just how often do you make decisions to shop at two competing stores because one offered something at a lower price? Back in the 80's people used to clip coupons (which were discounts offered by the product manufacturer) to get discounts on things at point of sale, and then the store got credit for the coupons redeemed. There is nothing stopping someone from emailing their subscribers who didn't pay with Apple Pay a digital coupon for 22% off if they subscribe for a year. That's what the "opt in to marketing" tick box is for after all, and you get the benefit of mailing them other directly related stuff.