I think a more apt comparison would be... If a developer doesn't like Xbox's terms, there are other gaming platforms...

Game console to General computing device isn't exactly apples to apples. But yes, It'd be great if users could install unsigned apps on all the devices they own.

If by great you mean "great for malware makers" I guess so. HN has a big problem of pushing for changes hat benefit highly tech-literate people but in reality the majority of the market needs signed apps so they don't download harmful programs.

I think people need to stop looking at their own immediate interests and start considering long term aspects of things. You can't just throw out technology now without understanding how it empowers bad actors, because it amplifies them too.

Perhaps if running unsigned apps became more widespread, businesses will spring up in the space to offer secure, curated apps as third-party app stores.

Desktop software, for a long time, did not have the notion of specialized app stores or enforcing signed programs. Yes, Windows has loads of security issues. But surely this can be a problem that can be solved over time?

> Perhaps if running unsigned apps became more widespread, businesses will spring up in the space to offer secure, curated apps as third-party app stores.

They should go ahead and do that, then make an OS and mobile devices built around their store, so I have an option other than iOS devices when I want someone in my life who's not a tech nerd to have a reasonably safe and usable computing experience that's still very robust and doesn't require any work on my part. That would be competition and improved consumer choice.

I want more options that deliver the experience Apple does (or better! Please!) rather than fewer. That's the choice I want. I've got tons of only-nerds-can-use-them-safely computing options. I don't need more of those.

Why would John Q. Public trust a third party over the manufacturer of their device?

Why would anyone want to download Firefox or Chrome when you can just surf with IE?

Microsoft didn't make the computer, and has no incentive to ensure a high quality UX.

Apple cares about their hardware customers and fosters a well-earned trust. The AppStore rules are a huge part of the foundation of that trust.

But Microsoft made the OS, hence why shouldn’t the user trust their neatly-integrated browser? The analogy still holds.

Apple is a hardware company that wants to ensure the best possible UX for their customers, and does so by vetting the software that gets installed on their hardware products.

What's Microsoft's parallel motivation in your analogy?

So you're saying that a software company that makes operating systems, and has the incentive to want programs that run well on the said OS, has no interest in wanting its users to be locked into the browser they also make?

A game console is not general purpose computing device?

I will disagree with dathinab and say of course gaming consoles are general purpose computing devices.

But they are general purpose computing devices with built-in malware that makes the device only useful for the types of computing the seller wants you to do with the device. And that's gaming, of course

Yes it only runs games (and maybe multimedia).

Phone run everything from games over office apps to unlocking you apartment doors or handling the check-in at a hotel (yes some hotels have app based check-in).

(And in the end Apps is just a handy short form of Application, so you could say even the name kinda implicates this ;=) )

That's a software limitation, not a hardware limitation. An iPhone is also a general purpose computer that is limited (to a lesser extent ) by the software.

Sure what they have in common is:

- A general purpose hardware with specific less general purpose hardware extensions.

Where they differ:

- By default allowing "mostly" any legal kind of software, but then putting absurd constraints on it.

- By default only allowing games and some multimedia and maybe then putting absurd constraints on it (maybe because idk tbh).

I.e. even with apples constraints iOs operates as a general purpose platform while XBox/PS5/Switch do not.

The Xbox allows side loading. Not sure about PS.

But there are other Smartphone platforms with their own store, correct?

I don’t know why people feel it’s their undeniable right to be able to provide an app to iOS users.

It's not an "undeniable right" but it's also not like there are a lot of other options. You can say "just move to another platform" or "then make your own platform" but you also have to be a realist.

This is why antitrust laws exist - sometimes the market realities make this nearly impossible.

But where is the line of lots of options vs not a lot of options? iOS isn't even the most popular mobile operating system.

For some market it is. Our users were 80%+ on ios

Seems to me the biggest hurdle to moving/finding customers via the Google/Android platform is that they won't spend money over there.

The feature/capability parity between the platforms means they are, in fact, both capable of serving these markets. But people want to vote with their dollars in the iOS ecosystem, and now the players want to change that ecosystem.

I'm not entirely convinced that this is Apple's problem, in as much as it is Google's fault for not fostering a properly competitive revenue delivery platform, even though it has the maturity and standing to do so.

But does that matter when they have milions of people in that marked. Isn't that a size where it really shouldn't matter anymore if there is another similar bigger marked?

Also for some serivces iOs users are the large majority, like more or less any "real premium" service (Like apps you have to pay 10 or so+$ a month or 100+$ when buying them).

It's handled case-by-case, that's the point of the legislative oversight system.

It’s no more realistic to say “if you don’t like the licensing terms of your game engine then just rewrite your game.”

End-customers are not locked into a specific game engine in any way, whereas mobile ecosystems have lock-in through devices and already-bought apps. That's a major difference for a software maker.

It's a LOT more realistic to rewrite your game than it is to tell all of your iOS customers that they have to jailbreak or switch platforms.

> This is why antitrust laws exist

Anti trust laws (or competition laws) tend to apply to players with an clear control over the market, monopolies that stifle competition. Apple has ~14% of the mobile market, compared to Android's ~86%. I'm curious about how this will play out as it might have an impact in other sectors where smaller players by market share exercise a bit too tight control.

Is that the global figure? It's much more than that for US, almost 60% actually: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta... , for example.

Don't know about tablets, but I feel it's not different.

Google Search should be free to only show location results from Google Maps, and ban Yelp, etc.. entirely from Google Search. After all, there's other search engines, right?

There is a history here where using your market position in one area to force your product in another as being illegal (see the recent EU fine against Google for "abusing their Android monopoly" for example: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_... ). Apple seems to be crossing that line rather brazenly.

Isn’t it the other way around that iOS users should be able to shop in competing stores for their apps?

It’s just very few users have any real ability to affect that sort of change.

I wouldn’t be opposed to this but Apple could make a case that using a competing app store voids warranty or care because they can no longer guarantee the software is ‘safe’ for iOS.

General computing platforms, in which you can run arbitrary unsigned code without violating the warranty, exist. In fact, Apple has a major business in manufacturing them (MacBook, etc.)

This could fly for iPad, the iPhone they can make a case it jeopardizes the reliability in contacting emergency services.

Overall this will go over most law makers heads because they are technically incompetent.

To a degree they could (although it'd be quite embarrassing for Apple to claim that their OS can't prevent apps from damaging phones), it could be somewhat similar to how Android manufacturers sometimes handle custom ROMs by having the unlock set a permanent flag somewhere. Doesn't necessarily give them an out of legally required warranties.

Yes, which is why they should be mandated by law to include them anyway. Maybe that will force them to figure out a better security strategy.

I don’t think our current law makers are technically competent enough to understand this.

In a theoretical anti-trust investigation wouldn’t that been seen as extremely anti-competitive?

It's about monopolization. Should a company be able to vertically integrate and install a toll booth to profit off of all developers on their platform? Or does that hurt consumers more than it would hurt businesses to separate that power?

It's not perfect but what else can we do?

- Yes, every shmuck who buys only iOS cause Apple is the status symbol undermines everyone's ability to choose. But we'd need a consumer union to go after these monopoly-aiders as scabs. Ha ha ha not going to happen.

- All the other hardware manufactures are so shitty and quality control and integration that they are also responsible. Do we wait for Moon's party to break up Samsung so Apple gets more competition? Tell Taiwan to break up TMSC or do more direct-to-consumer?

Fundamentally we have the perfect storm of outsourcing and low quality, precarious Americans looking for status, and nationally-tinged monpolies. The idea solutions are just out of reach in the short term, so I support putting iOS on a stupid pedestal to break up Apple's exclusionary vertical integration.

Because for many applications it's not viable to not provide service for iOs users, which is sad but true.

Consider you not being able to:

- buy train tickets under iOs

- check-in into a hotel under iOs

- do video conferences

- chat with your friend

- cross play with your friends

- open your apartment doors

- check your health data

- do online banking

- securely check your email

- do Ueber, Rbnb, etc.

- buy at Amazone

- etc.

Sure many (but not all) things might be doable over web interface but this crates often much more frictions and due to constraints put onto web interfaces and PWS also has often much worse UX, not providing service for millions of iOs users is often deadly and providing competitively shitty service isn't anygood either, even worse if you have to compete with Apple itself which gives there apps unfair advantages beyond not needing to pay the 30% cut.

Let's be honest any marked which covers millions of people should be handled as a standalone marked even if you could argue it's just part of a bigger marked by any government or you fail your people (and the free marked idea IMHO, but reasoning about this is tricky as it involves considering how the marked dynamics have fundamentally changed and how thinks which would have worked in benefit for the population don't work anymore in the current times and therefore how the marked (laws) has to adapt to it).

It should be an undeniable right that I can use other app stores with my iOS device.

> I don’t know why people feel it’s their undeniable right to be able to provide an app to iOS users.

If Apple is using its market power to increase profit at the expense of reducing selection and/or increasing prices for consumers, then that's a very serious problem. It's exactly the reason antitrust laws exist.

> But there are other Smartphone platforms with their own store, correct?

But are they competing or parallel markets? Does Apple changing pricing or terms on the App Store drive business to other app stores, as replacements, or do software vendors choose which app stores to distribute with based on whether each provides a benefit worth the price, but not whether it is a better deal than some other store?

I think that under market/pricing power tests, Apple’s software distribution business in the App Store is not that unlikely to be a monopoly.

Now, establishing consumer harms from the way the leverage that monopoly to extract rents and dictate terms to software vendors might be less straightforward than it would be for a B2C monopoly, and in the US, at least, consumer harm is the key adverse impact from monopoly abuse that justifies legal consequences.

> I don’t know why people feel it’s their undeniable right to be able to provide an app to iOS users.

Rephrased:

> I don't know why people feel it's their undeniable right to install the apps they want on iOS.

iOS is the market leader by profit share and by amount of money spent on app stores, as Apple fans like to talk about all the time. In a sane world, being a market leader would mean that shareholder and corporate interests are kept in check by society.

Most people don't have more than one phone. Phones are used for more than gaming. If a developer doesn't like Apple's terms, they can't distribute on iOS, except through a web app.

Perhaps PWA+WebGPU will solve this.

Except you're still locked into Apple's webview, thanks to their policy of disallowing other rendering engines. PWAs on iOS will only ever work as well as Apple allows them to.

> If a developer doesn't like Apple's terms, there are no viable alternatives for iOS distribution.

Lots of opportunities for mobile distribution though. Apple is what, < 20% of the mobile market? (I know where you're coming from, but this is what Apple's legal team will say).

Apple is also very proud of being a a lot larger share of the mobile apps/content market, which is what everyone elses legal team will say. (And which is why this is actually such a big thing: if loosing iOS customers meant loosing <20% of revenue, app makers would be a lot less fussed about this)

You are missing:

.. not covering the iOS marked is for some products not viable and might literally lead to insolvency in the long run.

Today you can tell people that you don't provide a game on e.g. X Box and they might not like but accept it. But you can not tell people that their premium mail service has no iOs app or that they team meating software has no iOs app or that their <insert any software covering a group of people> app doesn't work on iOs.

Tbh. it's probably somewhat true for tipple A massive multiplayer games and games consoles, too.

In this case alternate platform is android, PC, consoles

It's a false dichotomy; the correct comparison is:

If a developer doesn't like Apple's terms, there are other phone platforms.

No, that’s not a correct comparison. Consumers don’t buy a device from Epic in order to run Unreal engine games. Consumers don’t care at all what engine a game runs on, they only care about the game itself (and what platform it’s available on).

If you forgo the iOS platform, you lose out on the vast majority of mobile app revenue. Android may have greater market share than Apple but iOS dominates the market among people who actually buy apps (mostly affluent people in western countries).

If you’re not published on Apple’s App Store then you can’t reach a huge segment of the market that would like to use your product. I don’t think Apple, Google, etc. , should be the gatekeepers between a developer and their customers.

They're not. That's the whole point. These are Apple's customers since they're finding the app in the App Store. Epic has other customers that play Fortnite that are not Apple customers.

No, there is one other phone platform.

Okay, but imagine that Fortnite used Unreal but wasn’t created by the creators of Unreal. Do you think that Fortnite would be more comfortable playing chicken with the App Store and risking getting banned like this, or playing chicken with the game engine that their entire game is implemented with? In practice I would say a game engine has more leverage over a game developer than a single distribution platform.

If Unreal were the problem, Fortnite could have chosen a different game engine at the start (this is not about terms changing after all) and it would not affect their options to sell to customers. And while porting would be expensive, it would be possible without loosing access to customers. Nobody doesn't buy a game because they bought an unreal-only PC somewhere.

> Fortnite could have chosen a different game engine at the start (this is not about terms changing after all)

Right. Apple's terms were clear from the start, so Fortnite had no reasonable expectation to be allowed to violate them. Just like Fortnite could have chosen to use a different game engine if they didn't like the terms of a particular game engine, they could choose to focus on non-Apple platforms (or choose to abide by Apple's terms on Apple's platform) if they don't like Apple's terms. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

> and it would not affect their options to sell to customers [...] it would be possible without loosing access to customers. Nobody doesn't buy a game because they bought an unreal-only PC somewhere.

Which is why the game engine comparison is a bad one.