There is absolutely no innovation from Apple’s side. The API’s are horrible and can barely do rudamentary things like server side cancelling of subscriptions. Sometimes they change logic in their webhooks without warning, and there is absolutely no support to speak of. We can’t even trigger refunds on the users behalf! We have to make due with really bad revenue reports, and App Store connect is incredibly slow to work with.
Market forces should push Apple to improve, but thanks to their power over their own market they don’t. In the end it will hurt users too.
There's no other option. It's not possible to sideload apps. Developers are obliged to use appstore.
Regarding payments, the developers are not only obliged to have a way to pay with Apple (would be okay), they are obliged to not have another way.
Your argument is "I like pepsi, therefore I'm fine with the fact that no one can buy coca-cola".
I always find it amusing when the boundaries for monopoly are drawn around the set of the customers of a company. By that logic, every company is a monopoly! United Airlines has a monopoly on every customers that flies in one of their airplanes. How dare they only offer a certain brand of snack! They’re extorting their customers who have no choice!
The iPhone has somewhere between 80-90% market share with them.
Even outside of teens, they're at close to 50% and you don't need a strict majority in order to have control over the market. That's why, legally, you don't need a strict majority to be considered a monopoly.
Next.
You can read about it here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power#Measurement
And as much as you might wish it to be so, anti-trust courts are not going to take seriously an argument that Apple is a monopoly because you find a demographic (teens) that they have a larger market share in. Again, you can easily slice and dice markets by customer demographics to make any company a monopoly.
Next.
They can absolutely be sued for this. Look it up.
Here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/politics/supreme-court...
It has nothing to do with your bizarre argument that because Apple has greater than 50% market share in the demographic of "teens", they're a monopoly and the government must step in. Does that also apply for a company who has a monopoly on "27-year-old web designers in Brooklyn who own a dog"?
I'm done with this conversation. You clearly have an axe to grind against Apple, and it's leading you to avoid arguing in good faith.
Thank you for acknowledging the exact point that I just made?
> It has nothing to do with your bizarre argument ...
I didn't say that it was because of my argument. My demographic argument was simply a point of interest. And actually, you can disregard it and still know that Apple is the largest single manufacturer of smartphones in the US and they’ll soon surpass the 50% mark based on their trajectory and the new $399 iPhone. Samsung is a distant second.
How bizarre is that??
> I'm done with this conversation. You clearly have an axe to grind against Apple...
Pffft. Okay. Why shouldn't I have an axe to grind? And while we're at it - you're clearly apologizing for Apple where they deserve none. Defending a company that is basically the fucking China of tech with their Great Wall of bullshit isn't a real good look. You're going to be on the wrong side of history when this bears out.
But please, do stop arguing because nothing you say will make what Apple is doing right. Even if the law were on their side, which it's not, we'd have reason enough here to make new laws that target these essential devices with new regulations. So, change your attitude, get on the correct side and stop defending your favorite corporation.
OTOH how many viable mobile platforms do you have? Whopping two (on the world scale). And one of them is not playing fairly. (Edit: And the other is not playing fairly either in some other aspects.)
This is a corrected version.
I like pepsi (Visa Credit card), others like other drinks, such as coca-cola (Amex Credit card), or Sprite (Mastercard Debit card), or Fanta (Prepaid card), etc.
I want to walk into a shop which allows me to drink any of the above legitimate drinks, but nothing dodgy, such as that toxic brew which someone has prepared in their dirty garage which makes people throw up (e.g. Bitcoin). So instead of having to verify each drink myself I want to go to a shop where this has been done for me by a gatekeeper. If that gatekeeper forces all payment options through their own gate (Apple Pay) in order to make sure that there is no funny business going on, then I am 100% supportive of it. You can still have you coca cola if you want and I my pepsi. Just don't ask me to drink something which looks like pepsi but could be some other dog shit (allow other payment gateways which are not apple pay and all sorts of dodge shit can happen then).
That's what I do to avoid giving Apple money.
They don't even allow competing browser engines. Chrome, Firefox etc on iOS are just wrappers around Safari.
As a developer of an app that is in IAP hell right now I disagree. I don't care for the app store, nor does it provide me with any benefit. All I want is for my existing customers, for who I spent MY marketing money to acquire, to be able to install my app on a device THEY paid money for.
I'm guessing it does provide you with some benefit or else you wouldn't be in it.
Sideloading is a must. And push notifications must work for sideloaded apps, too. If apple doesn't provide that, devices should have ways to install alternative push providers. All that keeps that from happening is the extreme closeness of iOS
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=apple+monopoly&atb=v194-1&iar=news...
However, car metaphors aside, my work requires apps that maintain persistent connection with server. When I carry a supercomputer in my pocket that can totally outperform my PC from 1993 by a factor of 500x or more, I kinda expect it to be able perform basic computing tasks that it is perfectly capable of, hardware-wise. And the only reason I can't is because Apple forbids me, styling it as 'care' about my battery life.
* Apps have to support Apple IAP, but can also offer other payment methods directly in the app (similar to their policy on Sign In with Apple and other login systems)
* You're allowed to charge different amounts for the different payment systems, and present them directly in the app.
So in your VPN example, if Apples one click payment flow (and their cancellation/return policies) is worth a 25% higher price for you, you're free to pay it.
The fact that there is only one AppStore, controlled by a single party is a feature for me that I am happy to pay for.
If there's is more than one party which can install apps on my device, I have to worry about which party to trust etc. The same applies to payments.
If other people want to use other sources, that shouldn't affect you.
Just by having alternative sources, developers might choose to only be available on those sources, whether it's for a better revenue cut or because of their principles.
See for example what's going on with exclusives for Epic store and Steam. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a different question.
(1) Apple, seeing drastically reduced app revenue, stops investing as much in the app store, dev tools, etc. Or increases their hardware prices;
(2) third party stores pay for exclusive apps;
(3) malware is installed by people with your contact info and communications;
(4) even if no intent to use, the malware risk is there and you're a few drunk clicks from losing your bank account.
#2 Frankly this is much like the situation we're in now. Only that we there are no other options. This eventuality is surely less bad than the current actuality.
#3 Malware is already installed by people you are in contact with. And nothing prevents a 3rd party store from having equally rigorous testing as Apple.
#4 You're a few drunk swipes away from emptying your credit card today.
And yet, they make exceptions for big and powerful companies like Netflix or Google.
Meanwhile Netflix, Gmail, Uber, and a couple of other big apps don't use the Apple IAP system.
Again, Apple is in the wrong here, but this is not a good example of a widespread pattern imo. Not something worth an antitrust case over.
From blocking apps that replicate core functionality to the whole IAP shakedown Apple has used their market power in capricious and self-serving ways that have gotten other companies in anti-trust hot water in the past.
Having a curated market is fine, but when you use that market curation to undercut sellers in that market to your own benefit you start getting into trouble. Then, when that market controls the lion's share of revenue in that type of market, regulators will eventually start firing up lawsuits.
It's a wonder I am still surviving.
If you didn't notice, you switched the conversation from "Apple iPhone" to "smartphone".
In any case, I didn't get an iPhone until 2012 and for the entire 7+ years of ownership, I have never installed a single app on it. I just use the plain vanilla functionality. An Apple product like the iPhone and the Apple curated App Store is not essential to life.
About 90% of my friends & family use Android (the more popular smartphones) because they cost less than Apple.
EDIT to downvoters:
- gp comment (rahkiin) of Walmart-restrictions analogy is about Apple (not "smartphones" in general)
- followup comment (jfk13) is also about Apple iPhone and not smartphones
- pentae's comment that switches the subject from "iPhone" to "smartphones" ... to try an win an argument just confuses the thread
It's not pedantic in this case because the raison d'etre of this thread is Apple's restrictions (including sideloading).
With that specific context, an "Apple iPhone" is not equivalent to "smartphone" and pentae's comment that mixes up the 2 is muddying up the discussion. The ability for 3rd party devs to sideload apps on my Apple iPhone is not essential to life.
If enough people want changes around how smartphones and smartphone platforms operate, we'll get new legislation for it, if it doesn't already exist.
To recap the context ...
- thread article title: "Dear _Apple_: Here’s How to Stop the Antitrust..."
The title is "Dear Apple", not "Dear all _smartphone_ manufacturers". The reason for this thread's existence is making a distinction between Apple vs smartphones. From the very beginning, our comments and replies have to continue that distinction for this particular thread.
- gp comment (rahkiin) continued that distinction of iPhone-vs-smartphones with the Walmart-restrictions analogy. I.e. "Walmart"="Apple" and presumably "Target/Amazon/GooglePixel/etc"="other non-Apple smartphones"
- followup comment (jfk13) continued that distinction of iPhone-vs-smartphones
- your reply (pentae) comment that switches the subject from "iPhone" to "smartphones" ... is a non-sequitur. It looks like you're trying to win an argument instead of replying to their specific point about Apple restrictions and developers having the ability to choose a different marketplace (e.g. the Android marketplace). The thread+rahkiin+jfk13 were talking about Apple iPhone and not all smartphones in general. You don't have to agree with rahkiin+jfk13 but your comment's switch to generalized "smartphone" isn't engaging with what they actually wrote.
This convenience is only available to me because there is a large customer base which companies can't access any other way.
They have varying reasons for wanting an iphone, each of which alone would not (I think) form a big enough pool to persuade companies to listen. Or the privacy conscious are tempted to make an exception when (like OP) they badly need something to work right now... or just don't have time to vet every company... and divided we fall.
And I'm happy to pay for this. I probably spent double what I would have paid for an android phone. I have not spent close to that much again on apps. But the difference between $5 and $10 inside the app store is (for me) much smaller than the hurdle of having to go to some other dodgy payment gateway & give them my card.
There are lots of iphone apps from companies I would never trust to install a real app on my computer. I'm glad they exist, and are so firmly kept under control. (And I'm sure their makers grumble about this.)
I also buy lots of things from companies I would never trust with my credit card details.
And while I understand the temptation to complain about a 30% cut, it's not so obvious to me that sellers would make more money under anything-goes rules, in a lower-trust ecosystem.
It's my device! If i want to run some app in the background, I'm OK if it uses battery faster. If Apple wants to show how they care for the battery life of my device, they should show me the warning and stats, which app costs me what, not cut off my ability to run the app in the background at all.
[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2019/08/06/ios-13-voip-background-...
Phone apps were a new art form, quite unlike 90s programs. Both had serious resource constraints, but trying out a badly written iphone app couldn't result in being unable to make a phone call that afternoon.
Would it be fair if Google would take a cut for any payments you do from Chrome? Also by this logic I assume you think is fair that next OSX version will lockdown and you will have to pay Apple for the privilege of running the applications you want and that Apple also approved that are safe for you and are also contain Apple approved content.
Apple could make you pay to host free applications on their store, so you pay the costs for hosting the content. For paid apps Apple can take a small cut on top of the hosting if they promote the applications. Apple should not get involved if I buy a XBOX game using an XBOX app and get a giant cut from that and they should not block legal content
Alright then allow easy installation of other App-stores and distribution channels
If the Apple Store brings that much value, outside of their mandated use, then the other app stores will fail anyway so...
>my VPN I can either buy a license by going to their website and go through a 5 minute checkout process or I can do a 5 second checkout via the iOS app. The first one goes 100% to the VPN developers, the second also means that a cut goes to Apple. Sounds fair to me,
Alright then allow developers to add a Convenience Fee / Apple Tax line item to the billing, specifically calling out the fee for purchasing in-app. If the value is there you should have no problems paying a 30% higher price for the items to save that 4 min 95 secs correct?
That sounds fair to me
>Without Apple Pay I would have not bought that license and they would have not lost 30% of the sale, but effectively 100%.
No, that is not he proper way to look at it. I dont know about a VPN service but for many business a 30% chop at the revenue likely means they are losing money. So losing the sale completely would be better than selling an item at cost
However what is likely happening is they are increasing the price for all consumers so they can still make a profit on Apple Customers. This likely loses them customers in other market segments.
> If the Apple Store brings that much value, outside of their mandated use, then the other app stores will fail anyway so...
No, this only benefits dodgy bullshit developers doing bullshit things. The fact that there is only one, very well guarded and fenced AppStore IS a great feature for consumers. As a father I'd buy my kids an iPhone and not an Android, because I know that only way they will be able to get an app on their phone is through a store which has consumers, consumer ethics and protection at the forefront of their mind, not the desire to please developers trying to constantly push the border and slowly do more dodgy shit and trick a minor into some bullshit which they can't tell the difference from the good stuff.
EDIT:
There is a huge market of consumers who value their own protection and the protection of their families A LOT more than IAP margins for developers. If you want to sell your stuff to that consumer group then you have to play by their rules, can't demand them to lower their standards so you can get it your way.
it is always amusing when people attempt to paint anti-consumer features as pro consumer...
>>As a father I'd
Really, you are going for "think of the children" defense of anti-consumer policy. Classic
For decades electronics have had all manner of Child protection features, it is trivial to prevent the installation of apps, or even other apps stores from unapproved users, and a child should not have the authority to install any apps, form the Apple store or not
In enterprise system administration we have been doing this on computers for decades preventing unauthorized applications or users from installing things
That is a solved problem and in no way is a locked down controlled by apple ecosystem required to archive parental controls on the device
Edit:
>There is a huge market of consumers who value their own protection and the protection of their families A LOT more than IAP margins for developers
I am sure they do, I am sure they do not care about the devs at all, that is clear from your position.
If the consumer cares about this soo much then it should not be a problem for them to bear the cost of this not the devs, if the value of the Apple store is the Security and Privacy of the store then the consumer not the dev should pay for that. A 30% fee added to the price of the app charged to the CUSTOMER then should be the fair payment method, not extorting 30% of revenue from the dev
I have a feeling that both you and apple know that most consumers would not put the value of that service at 30% though this is why they extort the devs not the customer
Because companies can always be trusted to never monetize data.
If noone would develop great apps for the iPhone, Apple could not sell the iPhone. It's a symbiotic relationship.
Even if you disregard that: It's a duopoly situation, and Apple is exploiting that.
It's entirely reasonable for apple to get some cut for validating and distributing the app. But a flat 30% (eventually dropping to 15% per customer) doesn't seem right for something charging a significant amount of money.
If the 30% fee applied to the first 10-20 dollars, and they only charged for payment processing after that, they'd still make plenty of money both up front and recurring. (I'm imagining something like "5% flat" or "cost they pay plus 1.5%" for the payment processing fee.)
The argument should be why Apple customers should vote with their wallets to tell Apple to move one way or another.
no app development unless you mean the non existent support and the willy-nilly api changes
no customer support unless you mean refunding subscription when the dev is not at fault.
I don't want access to apple's customers! I want my customers to be able to load my app on their devices.
IF Microsoft pulled such a move people would lose their minds
If it was unclear, I didn't mean the first 10-20 dollars per payment, I meant the first 10-20 dollars ever.
I don't agree with this, as a developer and a consumer. As a consumer it is extremely nice that I don't have to deal with all sorts of exotic and different payment gateways. Some accept Amex, some don't. Some try to store my card without my consent, some don't. Some make it really obvious that not being charged during a trial period some don't. Some payment gateways are buggy, slow and frustrating and some are really good. As a consumer I bloody hate that and I love iOS and Apple for the fact that I can securely put payment methods behind Apple Pay and then know that I can do any in-app purchases via an already established and well working gateway. No faffing about with some other shite.
From a developer perspective I don't see why anyone should use the AppStore as a distribution channel to a huge market and completely circumvent Apple's cut when clearly they are offering a lot of value by making this possible in the first place?
For example, my VPN I can either buy a license by going to their website and go through a 5 minute checkout process or I can do a 5 second checkout via the iOS app. The first one goes 100% to the VPN developers, the second also means that a cut goes to Apple. Sounds fair to me, because I literally purchased a VPN in a moment where I didn't have the time of going to a website. I was abroad, I was on a mobile and I had limited time to get quickly a subscription so I could use the VPN and I would have not bought it if it wasn't for the ease and speed which the app allowed me to do. This was only the case because Apple does such a diligent job in keeping it so sleek. Without Apple Pay I would have not bought that license and they would have not lost 30% of the sale, but effectively 100%.