Fortnite is officially returning to iOS, but not for everyone. New Epic Games Store for iOS as well

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

tbh maybe im not understanding the term notarize, but why would have apple a say in this?

Because Apple? Is there usually any other reason?

 

That is the requirements they have set in place and they can block any App regardless of how it is acquired, distributed and installed from running (or even installing) on iOS.

[hishnash]

50 minutes ago, leadeater said:

That is the requirements they have set in place and they can block any App regardless of how it is acquired, distributed and installed from running (or even installing) on iOS.

The DMA is very clear that the only reason a gatekeeper can use this power (yes the DMA permits it) is to block known malicious applications.  

Be that when apple scan the app and sign it before you distribute or later if an app that has a novel malicious signature that is not detected on first scan but then I later detected apple can go and remotely revoke the certificate making it impossible to install (or even run) the app.   

[leadeater]

19 minutes ago, hishnash said:

The DMA is very clear that the only reason a gatekeeper can use this power (yes the DMA permits it) is to block known malicious applications.  

Be that when apple scan the app and sign it before you distribute or later if an app that has a novel malicious signature that is not detected on first scan but then I later detected apple can go and remotely revoke the certificate making it impossible to install (or even run) the app.   

I don't actually object to Apple doing this, having one entity do it ensures consistency. The only issue would be around any fees Apple charges for this and the fee structure, which a number of businesses have already expressed issue with.

 

Fees and fee structures can be changed though, there is also no immediate need for rapid change either. If your App is on the App Store right now and the new fee structure for a different distribution platform doesn't look attractive or fair then lobby for change, might not get it though. Until then status quo.

[Mark Kaine]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

I don't actually object to Apple doing this, having one entity do it ensures consistency. The only issue would be around any fees Apple charges for this and the fee structure, which a number of businesses have already expressed issue with.

 

Fees and fee structures can be changed though, there is also no immediate need for rapid change either. If your App is on the App Store right now and the new fee structure for a different distribution platform doesn't look attractive or fair then lobby for change, might not get it though. Until then status quo.

but aside from fees, they could just block any "unknown" apps saying they scanned it and its a security risk... i don't think that's in the spirit of these laws ... I'd have to check but i think its probably outright not allowed because that wouldn't really change much,  plus it still sounds like apple wants its cut, even though that certainly is against this dma/law... 

 

again, google doesn't stop me from installing potentially malicious apps (and neither does Microsoft) ... i think the only thing they would probably block on android is stuff that enables root access,  but idk that as I've never tried something like that.

[Brooksie359]

17 hours ago, Lunar River said:

How does more app stores add complexity? I dont see Android users holding their heads in frustration everything they need to download an app saying "it's too complicated....too many options!"

 

Contrary to, I guess, popular belief, Apple users arent utter morons who need to be told what to do and what to believe by a multi trillion dollar company.

 

You completely missed the point. The people I am talking about don't need to be told but want to be told which is sorta the point. They prefer the streamline experience that Apple products have and the extra app store adds complexity for obvious reasons. You might think it wouldn't be confusing but to some it would. 

[Lunar River]

5 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

You completely missed the point. The people I am talking about don't need to be told but want to be told which is sorta the point. They prefer the streamline experience that Apple products have and the extra app store adds complexity for obvious reasons. You might think it wouldn't be confusing but to some it would. 

So everyone should suffer because of the extreme lowest common denominator?

 

Those people will still have the same experience, the people you're talking about probably don't even know this whole law is happening, and they won't know when they can download additional app stores.

[leadeater]

10 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

You completely missed the point. The people I am talking about don't need to be told but want to be told which is sorta the point. They prefer the streamline experience that Apple products have and the extra app store adds complexity for obvious reasons. You might think it wouldn't be confusing but to some it would. 

A second App store wouldn't exist on their phone...

 

Still would really only be a problem if hugely popular widely used Apps were remove from Apple App Store and I actually don't see that happening. Companies like Meta I could see trying to move people over but I don't see them withdrawing from Apple App Store.

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

A second App store wouldn't exist on their phone...

 

Still would really only be a problem if hugely popular widely used Apps were remove from Apple App Store and I actually don't see that happening. Companies like Meta I could see trying to move people over but I don't see them withdrawing from Apple App Store.

im kinda expecting epic to sue apple to get their store app pre-installed on every iPhone sold in europe,  but we will see i guess.  

 

and then others might follow suit. 

i mean if im epic, that's exactly what i would do. 

 

 

[Brooksie359]

6 hours ago, Lunar River said:

So everyone should suffer because of the extreme lowest common denominator?

 

Those people will still have the same experience, the people you're talking about probably don't even know this whole law is happening, and they won't know when they can download additional app stores.

I would argue the opposite. Your average apple user likely doesn't care or would prefer to not have 3rd party app stores on their phone and it is only a small minority that wants this so you are basically forcing a change in the intended apple experience for the satisfaction of the few who care. 

[Lunar River]

53 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Your average apple user likely doesn't care or would prefer to not have 3rd party app stores on their phone

...and those people will still only have the app store.. nothing changes for those who don't care, or want to keep the "intended apple experience". i dont see how this is such a contentious topic, more choice = good. if you dont want to utilise the additional choice being given to you, you dont have to.

[Brooksie359]

10 hours ago, Lunar River said:

...and those people will still only have the app store.. nothing changes for those who don't care, or want to keep the "intended apple experience". i dont see how this is such a contentious topic, more choice = good. if you dont want to utilise the additional choice being given to you, you dont have to.

Forcing apple to change the way they design their os isn't more choices it is just using the EU to make IOS more similar to Android. Even if I grant you that it is more choices that doesn't mean it is good. Choices means you have to make decisions and sometimes not having to make decisions is nice for alot of people and there are even studies that say if you do have to make decisions that too many choices makes people less confident and/or happy about their decisions. So more choices doesn't even mean it is better. 

[TetraSky]

Isn't Apple going to be taking a bunch of fees for alternative app stores and apps from outside their appstore?

Meaning this barely change anything in the end for developers. Only that they "can" have third party stores now.

[Lunar River]

5 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Choices means you have to make decisions and sometimes not having to make decisions is nice for alot of people

Wow, I though the "Apple sheeple" thing was just a meme.

 

You're not even conceding the fact that this is more choice for consumers, which is an indisputable fact.

6 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

if you do have to make decisions that too many choices makes people less confident and/or happy about their decisions.

So tell me: auntie Ethel has an iPad, she downloads all things from the app store. This law comes into effect and ios can now have multiple app stores.

The app stores don't automatically get loaded onto her tablet. I highly highly doubt there's going to be popups saying "Hey you can download different stores now"

So what changes for her?

The people that apparently can't think for themselves and need the world's most valuable company to tell them how to think, what chances for them? They will use their phone and tablet the exact same way they always have, this law will have no impact on those that don't want to use it.

 

I find it fascinating that Apple is the only company that seemingly regularly is freely defended for having an iron grip over their products.

 

Microsoft isn't even allowed to run automatic updates on Windows without people losing their minds. But hey, I guess the "intended Microsoft experience" just isn't as big of a deal as the "intended Aplle experience"

[Mark Kaine]

7 hours ago, TetraSky said:

Isn't Apple going to be taking a bunch of fees for alternative app stores and apps from outside their appstore?

they aren't allowed to do that (and yes of course that's exactly what they're trying to do right now anyways)

 

 

Does Microsoft get a "cut" from Steam?  From Epic games? From EA? Tell me? 

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, Lunar River said:

Wow, I though the "Apple sheeple" thing was just a meme.

 

You're not even conceding the fact that this is more choice for consumers, which is an indisputable fact.

So tell me: auntie Ethel has an iPad, she downloads all things from the app store. This law comes into effect and ios can now have multiple app stores.

The app stores don't automatically get loaded onto her tablet. I highly highly doubt there's going to be popups saying "Hey you can download different stores now"

So what changes for her?

The people that apparently can't think for themselves and need the world's most valuable company to tell them how to think, what chances for them? They will use their phone and tablet the exact same way they always have, this law will have no impact on those that don't want to use it.

 

I find it fascinating that Apple is the only company that seemingly regularly is freely defended for having an iron grip over their products.

 

Microsoft isn't even allowed to run automatic updates on Windows without people losing their minds. But hey, I guess the "intended Microsoft experience" just isn't as big of a deal as the "intended Aplle experience"

You clearly missed the point. If you make it illegal for a school to have uniforms you also limit choice in one sense to allow more choice in another. It is the same concept here. 

[Lunar River]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

You clearly missed the point. If you make it illegal for a school to have uniforms you also limit choice in one sense to allow more choice in another. It is the same concept here. 

literally not even CLOSE to the same thing. that is an extremely disingenuous take.

 

they are not making it illegal to have a uniform, they are saying "hey, we have a school uniform, but you can also wear what ever you want if you prefer, but we're not stopping you from wearing the uniform if you prefer".

 

they are not banning the app store from existing...talk about missing the point.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, Lunar River said:

literally not even CLOSE to the same thing. that is an extremely disingenuous take.

 

they are not making it illegal to have a uniform, they are saying "hey, we have a school uniform, but you can also wear what ever you want if you prefer, but we're not stopping you from wearing the uniform if you prefer".

 

they are not banning the app store from existing...talk about missing the point.

Talk about missing the point? Do you know anything about school uniforms and why schools typically choose to use them? Because if you did then you would know that if you allowed people to not wear them if they wanted then it would defeat the main purpose of school uniforms which is precisely my point. Allowing people to wear other stuff than the uniform is essentially the same as not allowing uniforms. This is the same concept that I was trying to get across. Once you allow third party apps you have added unneeded complexity and reduced uniformity of the apple experience which some people value. So basically the same situation as the uniforms. 

[Lunar River]

11 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

which is precisely my point

then your point is flat out wrong wrong

 

12 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Allowing people to wear other stuff than the uniform is essentially the same as not allowing uniforms.

just...completely incorrect.

 

Quote

Once you allow third party apps you have added unneeded complexity and reduced uniformity of the apple experience which some people value.

For fuck sake Brooksie. i'll say it again for, maybe the 4th time now.

This law changes nothing for those that dont want the choice, the app store is going nowhere, they can still use the app store and only the app store if they value reduced complexity. no one is being forced into other app stores if they don't want them. the people that want the Apple experience can still have it.

 

I'm struggling to comprehend how you are so stubbornly refusing to acknowledge this. Unless you think that Apple's engineers are so massively incompetent that the fact that they have to allow other other stores to simply be allowed to exist will somehow make the entirety of iOS crumble

[HenrySalayne]

On 1/30/2024 at 11:57 AM, leadeater said:

I don't actually object to Apple doing this, having one entity do it ensures consistency. The only issue would be around any fees Apple charges for this and the fee structure, which a number of businesses have already expressed issue with.

I don't object to Apple doing it, but to Apple also setting the rules. Checks and balances.

[HenrySalayne]

15 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Forcing apple to change the way they design their os isn't more choices it is just using the EU to make IOS more similar to Android. Even if I grant you that it is more choices that doesn't mean it is good. Choices means you have to make decisions and sometimes not having to make decisions is nice for alot of people and there are even studies that say if you do have to make decisions that too many choices makes people less confident and/or happy about their decisions. So more choices doesn't even mean it is better. 

Your opinion couldn't be further from reality if you tried.

The EU has put something in motion to limit anti-consumer and anti-competitive practices being done by super-corporations. You would need to maliciously disregard most of the DMA to come to the conclusion that the EU tries to turn iOS into Android.

Your narrative is factually preposterous:

 

I haven't seen any outcries about Windows or Android being unfairly targeted.

[Brooksie359]

7 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Your opinion couldn't be further from reality if you tried.

The EU has put something in motion to limit anti-consumer and anti-competitive practices being done by super-corporations. You would need to maliciously disregard most of the DMA to come to the conclusion that the EU tries to turn iOS into Android.

Your narrative is factually preposterous:

 

I haven't seen any outcries about Windows or Android being unfairly targeted.

Apple has always designed and targeted a uniform wall garden experience and has actually used that as part of their selling point. Android and Windows never put value on such things or designed their operating systems with that in mind. Them limiting stuff wouldn't serve the same purpose as apple because of how the rest of the operating system works. 

[HRD]

On 1/31/2024 at 7:12 AM, Lunar River said:

...and those people will still only have the app store.. nothing changes for those who don't care, or want to keep the "intended apple experience". i dont see how this is such a contentious topic, more choice = good. if you dont want to utilise the additional choice being given to you, you dont have to.

What you are not getting is that end users bought apple devices because of its business model. If you want sideloading and more customization buy an android phone. We are voting with our money. If most iOS users care about sideloading, they would start to switch to android. Apple would have to respond and change the business model to appeal to the consumers. 
The fact is that iPhones Have the highest loyalty among all phones which shows that users are happy about apple’s model.

Don’t get me wrong there might be some advantages to the android model. Every model has its advantages and we as consumers choose what we want.

 

You cannot offer sideloading without compromises. Let me give you an example, epic games launched Fortnite on the AppStore because it was the only way on iOS. So every kid/player just opens the store and downloads it however on android because the option exists, they launched it as apk from their website. Epic games admitted later that millions were affected by malware and decided to put the game on the play store. None of that happened to iOS users.

 

Another example would be apple’s App Tracking Transparency (ATT) which meta is not happy about.  if not for apple enforcement, they would not comply.

 

This is one example where having more choices in the submarket(iOS) means fewer choices in the overall market(smartphones)

[thevictor390]

38 minutes ago, HRD said:

What you are not getting is that end users bought apple devices because of its business model. If you want sideloading and more customization buy an android phone. We are voting with our money. If most iOS users care about sideloading, they would start to switch to android. Apple would have to respond and change the business model to appeal to the consumers. 
The fact is that iPhones Have the highest loyalty among all phones which shows that users are happy about apple’s model.

Don’t get me wrong there might be some advantages to the android model. Every model has its advantages and we as consumers choose what we want.

 

You cannot offer sideloading without compromises. Let me give you an example, epic games launched Fortnite on the AppStore because it was the only way on iOS. So every kid/player just opens the store and downloads it however on android because the option exists, they launched it as apk from their website. Epic games admitted later that millions were affected by malware and decided to put the game on the play store. None of that happened to iOS users.

 

Another example would be apple’s App Tracking Transparency (ATT) which meta is not happy about.  if not for apple enforcement, they would not comply.

 

This is one example where having more choices in the submarket(iOS) means fewer choices in the overall market(smartphones)

I think the sticking point is that the "submarket" is not "sub" enough. It's too big. So we have a situation where one private entity has too much control over the entire global landscape of smartphone apps. They get to unilaterally decide what apps are and are not available to, in some countries, more than 50% of the population.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, thevictor390 said:

I think the sticking point is that the "submarket" is not "sub" enough. It's too big. So we have a situation where one private entity has too much control over the entire global landscape of smartphone apps. They get to unilaterally decide what apps are and are not available to, in some countries, more than 50% of the population.

I disagree. People are entitled to choose Android if they want those apps that aren't on IOS. If Apple doesn't allow apps on IOS that consumers care about then they can switch to Android and effectively incentivize Apple to allow that app or lose market share. 

[thevictor390]

4 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I disagree. People are entitled to choose Android if they want those apps that aren't on IOS. If Apple doesn't allow apps on IOS that consumers care about then they can switch to Android and effectively incentivize Apple to allow that app or lose market share. 

It's not really about individual people. Yes absolutely people can choose.

But as an entity, the EU believes Apple has too much power. They have the power to ban apps and services, or otherwise exert large influence over them, at a level that rivals the government itself. I'm sure some people are fine with that, but that is the issue at hand.