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.