This is going to create some security hiccups for those who aren't aware of the security implications by allowing external APKs being installed (e.g. children that forget to uncheck that security...
This is going to create some security hiccups for those who aren't aware of the security implications by allowing external APKs being installed (e.g. children that forget to uncheck that security option after installing Fortnite). I guess if iOS wasn't as locked down from external applications being installed without jailbreak, they would have done the same for that market?
I am really curious how Google will respond to this. It is more than just a shot across their bow regarding profits and security. I wonder if they will discontinue side loading in future updates...
I am really curious how Google will respond to this. It is more than just a shot across their bow regarding profits and security. I wonder if they will discontinue side loading in future updates and versions.
If so, thanks for ruining the responsible use of that for the rest of us Epic!
It's definitely about the profits that's for sure. Apple and Google both take 30% cuts from in-app store purchases, and with how popular Fortnite is making upwards of $300 million just in one...
It's definitely about the profits that's for sure. Apple and Google both take 30% cuts from in-app store purchases, and with how popular Fortnite is making upwards of $300 million just in one month with these cosmetic purchases, it adds up.
Also curious on how Google will react internally about this precedent it will set.
I saw this a couple of weeks ago estimating that they were making $2 million per day on iOS alone: https://sensortower.com/blog/fortnite-daily-revenue-season-five
AOSP may be open-source but any final commits that makes it in is ultimately decided by the Android team. There's been cases where OEMs like Sony has wanted to push features into stock Android as...
AOSP may be open-source but any final commits that makes it in is ultimately decided by the Android team. There's been cases where OEMs like Sony has wanted to push features into stock Android as is, and it was ultimately denied. You can obviously always get a custom Android ROM that would support this sideloading feature, if not restricted to root in the future, which you would then use something like Magisk.
I don't really think any PR nightmare would come of a result of this as it can be argued that it increases security for the Android market share. Enthusiasts would still know how to go about around the restriction as well like always.
If they prevented side loading, there would almost certainly be an anti-trust case for them to deal with in the EU. The downside of having trounced Apple for market share (looks to be about 3:1).
If they prevented side loading, there would almost certainly be an anti-trust case for them to deal with in the EU. The downside of having trounced Apple for market share (looks to be about 3:1).
On iOS you can install a profile to get an app that isn’t from the App Store. It’s meant for internal apps companies want employees to have but not on the App Store, but it is also used for app...
On iOS you can install a profile to get an app that isn’t from the App Store. It’s meant for internal apps companies want employees to have but not on the App Store, but it is also used for app betas and other things
Not testflight, companies can have profiles that you install and they install an app. For example, hockeyapp is not apple and yet you can install betas of apps through them
Not testflight, companies can have profiles that you install and they install an app. For example, hockeyapp is not apple and yet you can install betas of apps through them
I may be in the minority here but in terms of Economics this is good for the consumer, it helps break down the monopoly Google has on AOSP which just recently they received a huge fine from the EU...
I may be in the minority here but in terms of Economics this is good for the consumer, it helps break down the monopoly Google has on AOSP which just recently they received a huge fine from the EU for exactly this sort of behaviour where they pushed their services on Android.
Bare in mind this is just thinking economically for the consumer, In reality it makes it harder to download and opens the consumer up to potential security issues, it will likely result in a enormous loss of downloads from consumers so less money for both Google and Epic.
I can guarantee though that Epic have run the numbers and decided they were better off otherwise they wouldn't do it. Studies have shown that a very small number of the user base makes up the majority of purchases in freemium games, these people I bet are willing to jump through a few hoops to get the game. In this situation not losing out of the 30% cut google takes will be very beneficial. The only issue comes from users who are potentially the high spending users but don't have the game yet, which on a platform like android I'm sure is a huge quantity of potential spenders. It all depends on how much of the potential market they think they have reached, if they reckon they can get millions of new spending customers on Android it will be a poor decision, but if they can get reach to loyal existing customers who will go out of their way to actively pursue downloading it than it will allow another easier platform for customers to spend money.
This is going to create some security hiccups for those who aren't aware of the security implications by allowing external APKs being installed (e.g. children that forget to uncheck that security option after installing Fortnite). I guess if iOS wasn't as locked down from external applications being installed without jailbreak, they would have done the same for that market?
I am really curious how Google will respond to this. It is more than just a shot across their bow regarding profits and security. I wonder if they will discontinue side loading in future updates and versions.
If so, thanks for ruining the responsible use of that for the rest of us Epic!
It's definitely about the profits that's for sure. Apple and Google both take 30% cuts from in-app store purchases, and with how popular Fortnite is making upwards of $300 million just in one month with these cosmetic purchases, it adds up.
Also curious on how Google will react internally about this precedent it will set.
Wait - what the fuck. I had no idea it was so much money.
I saw this a couple of weeks ago estimating that they were making $2 million per day on iOS alone: https://sensortower.com/blog/fortnite-daily-revenue-season-five
AOSP may be open-source but any final commits that makes it in is ultimately decided by the Android team. There's been cases where OEMs like Sony has wanted to push features into stock Android as is, and it was ultimately denied. You can obviously always get a custom Android ROM that would support this sideloading feature, if not restricted to root in the future, which you would then use something like Magisk.
I don't really think any PR nightmare would come of a result of this as it can be argued that it increases security for the Android market share. Enthusiasts would still know how to go about around the restriction as well like always.
If they prevented side loading, there would almost certainly be an anti-trust case for them to deal with in the EU. The downside of having trounced Apple for market share (looks to be about 3:1).
On iOS you can install a profile to get an app that isn’t from the App Store. It’s meant for internal apps companies want employees to have but not on the App Store, but it is also used for app betas and other things
Do you mean Test Flight, or is there some other method that I’m not aware of?
Not testflight, companies can have profiles that you install and they install an app. For example, hockeyapp is not apple and yet you can install betas of apps through them
I may be in the minority here but in terms of Economics this is good for the consumer, it helps break down the monopoly Google has on AOSP which just recently they received a huge fine from the EU for exactly this sort of behaviour where they pushed their services on Android.
Bare in mind this is just thinking economically for the consumer, In reality it makes it harder to download and opens the consumer up to potential security issues, it will likely result in a enormous loss of downloads from consumers so less money for both Google and Epic.
I can guarantee though that Epic have run the numbers and decided they were better off otherwise they wouldn't do it. Studies have shown that a very small number of the user base makes up the majority of purchases in freemium games, these people I bet are willing to jump through a few hoops to get the game. In this situation not losing out of the 30% cut google takes will be very beneficial. The only issue comes from users who are potentially the high spending users but don't have the game yet, which on a platform like android I'm sure is a huge quantity of potential spenders. It all depends on how much of the potential market they think they have reached, if they reckon they can get millions of new spending customers on Android it will be a poor decision, but if they can get reach to loyal existing customers who will go out of their way to actively pursue downloading it than it will allow another easier platform for customers to spend money.