Even worse. Imagine if the World Wide Web was not open and you had to go through a closed WWW like AOL and websites were "under review" by the providers and would take a 30% cut of your revenues or clicks on your web app or subscription service and websites require going only through that provider.

Thank goodness that wasn't the case.

Microsoft already does exactly this on console. When will we see the Google Stadia game streaming app on the XBOX? Does Microsoft really not take a cut of VBucks bought on the Microsoft store?

This is just three big corporations fighting over their respective slices of the pie, if you think any of this is being said or done for your benefit I’m sure Epic has a plentiful supply of really tasty Koolaid for you. But no pie, sorry.

I mean, couldn't we just replace Microsoft->Sony and PC->Playstation and the argument falls apart a bit?

> Imagine if Sony did this on Playstation. a) prohibiting the installation of non-PlayStation games and b) insisting that all purchases done via their store give them a 30% cut.

Many platforms are like this -- and many also have the majority marketshare. Is this a call to redefine what platforms can and cannot control?

This misrepresents and skips over Apple’s great offence, which is why a bunch of others who don’t know the half of it are piping up with their comparisons to the PlayStation store etc.

The most egregious part of Apple’s rules, and the reason that online service providers have a special loathing, is that apps are disallowed from linking to, advertising, or even mentioning that it is possible to sign up/subscribe/buy/rent outside of the app.

This is why you won’t see MMOs like FFXIV through the App Store, and is why you can’t sign up for Netflix, or even follow a link to their sign-up, from within the app.

I fear that macOS is going this way. The amount of hoops to jump through to run third party apps seems to grow with every release.

Valve is anticipating such move in a near future and investing in gaming on Linux.

This is also a security vulnerability: one decision by Apple, or by a court of law in a far-away country, and an app is gone from your phone. You lose access to the data held by this app.

Easy, reliably DoS -- and the user has no means of fixing this vulnerability, other than rooting the phone and hacking around. Which is made ever less feasible.

The difference is that if you own an Apple device, you knew you were buying into a walled garden ecosystem. Windows was not sold that way, so for them to cut off unapproved apps would be a bait and switch.

Web browsers are apps, e-commerce is in-app purchasing. App stores get 30% of Amazon.

Come to think of it, why are web browsers excluded from the in-app fee?

Tech-savvy and power users would hate it. It would represent both a loss of freedom and a loss of capability.

Non-technical users would love it. It would offer them an environment much more secure and free of malware where they can install applications without fretting about getting the latest CryptoLocker type trojan. Finding Windows software on the open web is kind of like driving around the ghetto and cruising for drugs. Are you installing from firefox.com or fᎥrefοⅹ.com?

Apple tries to walk the line and keep both these user groups happy. It's hard. So far they've handled it by designing MacOS more for the first group (it has an App Store and controls but they're optional) and iOS/iPadOS more for the second group.

Beyond the obvious difference that Microsoft has a monopoly marketshare on PCs, and Apple has a minority marketshare of mobile devices, mobile devices are categorically different because they are always with you. This generates a whole different slew of concerns around privacy and apps being able to access your information with or without your consent.

By maintaining control over which apps can be sold to end users via the App Store, Apple is able to offer a layer of control over how these apps can access (or not) your personal data.

There's nothing ridiculous about wanting to maintain data privacy/security on mobile devices, and that being of a higher priority with mobile than with a PC.

I recently learned Google Chrome does something similar with browser extensions[1]. You cannot[2] install .crx files that have not been published to the Chrome Web Store.

[1] https://blog.chromium.org/2015/05/continuing-to-protect-chro...

[2] Unless you're using Linux or the enterprise version of the browser.

Epic does charge a percentage of sales for use of the unreal engine....

But you don't understand, I want my uSeR eXpErIeNcE at the cost of choice and freedom. And your point is completely true, if Microsoft did this, all hell would break loose.

Doesn’t Windows on ARM only allow apps through the Windows Store?

Except Microsoft did not create and sol you the hardware?

Epic is famous for buying exclusive rights for games to make people play on their store. I hope they like eating their own food now.

This got me wondering... What happens when the price of an in-app purchase is negative? Does Apple pay the developer 30%?

They would if they could get away with it. Look at telemetry and the general disrespect for users’ privacy preferences.

>Imagine if Microsoft did this on PCs.

Just switch to a competitor! Go-to Linux or Mac. All good, no antitrust here. /s

Try playing Minecraft between your non-Windows 10 PC and anything mobile, or between anything and a Mac.

Microsoft Surface RT did exactly that.

The only reason Microsoft and Apple don't do that in their desktop OSs is because they were products of their generation. They will probably will never have to do it anyways, because the marketshare of mobile will continue to grow as desktops slowly die. Eventually all major platforms will take a share.

It's only ridiculous if it's not good for their business. Maybe Microsoft is the one being ridiculous by leaving money on the table and not having a closed ecosystem.

If your complaint is that it's bad for the app developers or users, then that's different, and maybe deserves criticism but not ridicule.

Apple says they do it because of security reasons. Windows' open and liberal way of doing things made it a fertile ground for millions of viruses. But I still think every OS should be open for developing and distribution of software no matter how serious malware threat is.

As much as I know people who use windows would hate it, there’s really nothing preventing them from doing so morally. It’s their software, they steer it as they see fit. It would end up pushing a lot of people into Linux probably, or inspire the rise of something new.

They have been working towards just that, and may manage it eventually.

I love that it needed a gaming company to stir up a discussion about all this and even put your comment on top on HN where it's usually the praise for this closed environment which ends up being upvoted!

2020 is really an interesting year.

This is exactly what Microsoft did with the first surface tablet running arm. The original plan was to go all in, but the backlash and support the. Was so bad they dropped the effort going into Windows 10.

imagine if you favourite drug dealer was part of an organisation, and had to pay his cut... oh wait...

Microsoft does do it on the Xbox.

I'm pretty sure that's the fantasy every UWP and Microsoft Store executive jerks off to.

They have been shifting that direction with Windows 10 home edition, their "app" store, and reduced support of desktop development. It's a matter of time.

Imagine if Microsoft only had 14% global market share.*

[*] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share

Sorry to hijack but an outrageous example from Google: Chrome silently & automatically detects when you login to a google website and uses this to log you into Chrome with that same account. They then hide the option to disable this in advanced settings. They are now trying to create a monopoly in the browser and steal additional data.

Imagine Epic doing the same, with a 20% cut through the Epic Game Store, for PC games. And to ensure they are the Gatekeeper, they pay guarantees to Publishers/Developers to exclude retail and other platforms.

Oopps... They do exactly this.

This is not to defend Apple nor Google. But Epic is by no means better, just not as big as A/G.

Does Apple still sell phones at a loss? If so they are subsidizing eyeballs for app devs and need to somehow get paid back for this.

Poor analogy. iOS does not have the market dominance that Windows/Microsoft has. In this case, iPhones represent about 15% of the global smartphone sales and I think that the OS (in the US) is a 60/40 iOS vs android split. There is a viable market. Developers, unwilling to pay the Apple fee, can switch to Android. If more apps are available on Android, that will shift the users away from iOS to Android.

When I see folks complain about this, I like ask "what do you think is a reasonable fee for Apple to charge?" Zero is not a realistic answer as Apple does incur costs to run the app store. Moreover, they're entitled to make a profit off the marketplace they created and support. So what's a reasonable percentage?