HN fetishises root access as if it's some kind of magic panacea, but in reality most users don't care about root access at all - they want apps that work, they have zero interest in tinkering with software for its own sake, and root access will not make apps more reliable or more secure.
The main problems with the App Store are the cost (30% is egregious), the distance between Apple's claims about privacy and simple exploits (see also Zoom and TikTok), the fact that search is user hostile, and the fact that Apple forces its payment system on app developers for no good reason.
Fix all of those and cut the tax to 10% and Apple can continue to have its semi-monopoly.
Apps would be consistently installed to a sandbox identified by their bundle identifier (which is typically domain-based).
This is effectively what already happens on iOS.
App certification/verification would be done using exactly the same certs we use for domains (possibly co-signed by the store as part of their curation/verification/drm process) to ensure the store can only install what the developer provides, and what the store curators permit to be distributed through their store.
I don't think changing 30% to some other arbitrary figure solves anything. For me the biggest problem is Apple deciding what/whose apps ios (and macos, given the recent code signing requirements coming with mac silicon...) users are permitted to use.
Thats FUD. The release notes even address it "This new behavior doesn’t change the long-established policy that our users and developers can run arbitrary code on their Macs, and is designed to simplify the execution policies on Apple silicon Mac computers and enable the system to better detect code modifications."
You CANNOT run an unsigned binary on silicon, but I totally understand your confusion given their statement.
Edit: To clarify further, you cant run an ARM binary - x86 apps going through rosetta (currently) work as they used to (right click and you can open).
I am a proponent for code-signing, I just don't see why I cant use my own cert (such as that issued for a domain name) instead of an apple issued one - if it is solely about preventing code tampering, as they state...
The actual reason behind a central issuance of certs is DRM. If apps NEED to run through this gatekeeper, then the gatekeeper can phone home to get a license for you to run the app (or not). This will enable the revocation of a cert for distribution of malware, but will also enable revocation for other reasons - like a dev breaching the terms of their agreement with apple (whatever those may be).
That is what the issue is. There is literally no benefit in this unless apple can revoke certs, because there is nothing to stop a dev signing a malicious app!
I don’t see what this has to do with elf binaries. I mentioned arm binaries because that is what all upcoming apple “computers” will be.
> New in macOS 11 on Apple silicon Mac computers, and starting in the next macOS Big Sur 11 beta, the operating system will enforce that any executable must be signed with a valid signature before it’s allowed to run. There isn’t a specific identity requirement for this signature: a simple ad-hoc signature issued locally is sufficient, which includes signatures which are now generated automatically by the linker.
An "ad-hoc signature" is Apple jargon for a code signature without a certificate (so really just a set of hashes, no actual public-key signature); I called it self-signed since it's a more familiar term. By "there isn't a specific identity requirement" they mean it's not required to be Apple-signed.
Of course, macOS on Apple silicon will still require an Apple signature by default like it does on Intel, but you'll be able to disable that like you can on Intel.
You can’t distribute ad-hoc signed binaries. You can’t disable/bypass the gatekeeper on silicon.
If you have access to a transition kit you can see this for yourself.
`codesign -s - my_binary`, though that would rarely be necessary unless you patched it in a hex editor or something, since otherwise it would have been automatically ad-hoc signed when it was linked.
> You can’t distribute ad-hoc signed binaries.
They have the same distribution restrictions on Apple silicon as on Intel. You can, but it requires the person running the binary to either (a) run it in a terminal, (b) right-click Open, or (c) use spctl --master-disable to disable Gatekeeper entirely.
You CANNOT bypass gatekeeper on silicon - that is the whole point - otherwise there is no difference to the current behaviour.
Yes, you can. The only difference between Intel and Apple silicon in this regard is that binaries that literally have no code signature (as opposed to a self-signed one) will not run. It's a technical cleanup measure that removes a special case (executable with no associated signature blob), not a lockdown measure. It's not intended to make a difference from the user's point of view.
I see why you mentioned ELF, now.
Ill descend from my soapbox on that matter, then. Thank you for correcting me. :D
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
If they're not UGC then they're violating rule 1.1 -
> Apps should not include content that is offensive, insensitive, upsetting, intended to disgust, in exceptionally poor taste, or just plain creepy.
HBO certainly are not UGC, yet the HBO app was allowed nudity as a prelude to people having sex many times in Game of Thrones. Rule 1.1.4 -
> Overtly sexual or pornographic material, defined by Webster’s Dictionary as "explicit descriptions or displays of sexual organs or activities intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings
I suppose the key here lies in the last part (emph.), which is why most reader-apps are allowed, including GoT.
Feels like this is (should be?) as much about USER freedom and choice as it is about DEVELOPERS. While cost precipitated the current set of issues, it's really about the role Apple plays in arbitrarily mediating between customer and service.
So basically, you would strike: log-in, payment, content, etc, but keep the other stuff. Doesn't solve all problems but would be incrementally better.
Each "app store" would have it's own ability to set those policies for apps it carries - but (crucially) users would have the OPTION.
For users that don't care - stick with Apple.
> For users that don't care - stick with Apple.
As an Apple user, to me this is the opposite of having "options".
As an individual, I cannot fight any remotely large company let alone FB or Google. If they hold my messaging or email hostage, I would be forced to use their secondary iOS app stores with their custom rules, etc.
As a group, all Apple users, we have a unified choice. It puts the power dynamic back into users hands. Users that don't like the choices of Apple should buy other phones, and if enough people buy other phones the Apple ecosystem will change with the market.
Users that do want to be part of the collective bargaining power of the Apple ecosystem, like me, should have that choice!
One very important question to ask is, why do users spend more money on iOS apps than on Android apps[1]? For 6 years, while I owned an Android I never made a single purchase. My last 4 years on iOS, I buy apps, I start subscriptions, I use Apple Pay, etc. I can tell you it is entirely because of my trust in Apple as a company. A large part of that trust is earned through the regulations they put on developers and their emphasis on my privacy.
I can guarantee you, as soon as Apple is no longer able to earn that trust, the entire ecosystem will be significantly less lucrative for developers and this whole exercise will have been in vain, hurting everyone (users and developers).
But I dont follow... install only their app from that store. Same sandbox, etc applies. Let them require same security.
As to revenue... that might have to so with customer set? If it were only Apple, a lot less people would own smartphones....
If FB has access to execute code on my phone, without any guardrails, what stops them from requiring location or microphone services be on at all times?
As an informed user I can push back, even boycott, until my friend hosts an event and I need to see the invite.
What I really want is a collective bargaining power agency (i.e. kinda like a customers' union) that imposes rules that are in my best interest onto service providers. Frankly, this need exists because the government isn't doing a good enough job of it. I am happy to pay extra to this agency for this increased bargaining power.
It just so happens that Apple has positioned itself in my life as that collective bargaining power agency. Does it make life harder for service providers? Yes. If I was a service provider would I fight this friction? Yes. However, unlike anti-competitive monopoly behavior that hurts customers, the collective bargaining power is used in the benefit of the customer (i.e. me).
By opening the platform to other app stores, developers will benefit due to choice and competition on fees and descoverability, end users will benefit from encouraged innovation, Apple will be forced to compete on convenience or features instead of letting it stagnate while they collect buckets of cash... it would be good for consumers and the ecosystem.
Microsoft got into trouble for bundling a web browser, where they didn’t directly make money, Apple should get into trouble for the App Store, where they do directly make money due to their artificial lack of competition.
But to clarify, Microsoft ultimately won the case on appeal and had the initial ruling against them overturned.[1]
So in the final verdict, MS did not get into trouble for bundling the browser. In 2001, the DOJ settlement didn't force Microsoft to include Netscape Navigator or any other 3rd-party software on their standard desktop.
The developers in 2020 really don't want to hear this but Apple Inc actually has decades of case precedent to support the idea that Apple controls its own hardware with its own exclusive app store. To force Apple to include Epic's app store would require some new legal arguments that today's judge would be sympathetic to. Not saying it's impossible but it's not a slam dunk antitrust case as many on HN believe.
In other words, the status quo established in previous decided cases (including MS winning its antitrust IE case) actually supports the idea that Tesla is not forced to include Apple's Carplay in its cars' infotainment hardware, and Apple in turn is not forced to include a 3rd-party "Tesla app store" so the Tesla can bypass Apple's App Store review policies.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...
I suppose 20+ years has erased a collective memory of the conflicts with IE.
Here is a relevant 1998 excerpt[1] from DOJ's own official website:
>The Department today filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction that would:
>-- Require that if Microsoft insists on including its browser on Windows 98, it must also include Netscape's browser so that consumers will have a real choice. Computer manufacturers would have the option of deleting either browser. If Microsoft does not want to include Netscape, it must unbundle its own browser and let it compete on the merits.
As we now know from the 2001 final settlement, the above scenario didn't happen and Microsoft won that IE battle.
Can one do a mental search & replace with s/Microsoft/Apple/ and s/Netscape/Epic/ such as:
"Require that if Apple insists on including its App Store on iPhones, it must also include Epic App Store so that consumers will have a real choice."
If Epic's lawyers (not even the intimidating government DOJ lawyers this time but just a private video game company's lawyers) want to argue the same idea as forcing Netscape onto IE, what would be the new legal argument this time? The previous one failed.
EDIT to sbuk's reply about context: your excerpt trying to show context is itself also missing context. That part about PC manufacturers licensing was the past actions that got the DOJ up to that point of hauling them into court. My excerpt was about the DOJ's proposed future remedy (e.g. must unbundle IE) to reduce Microsoft's future monopoly power -- and that didn't happen. See the very next bullet point below your "context":
>• Microsoft now intends to tie unlawfully its IE Internet browser software to its new Windows 98 operating system, the successor to Windows 95.
DOJ wanted to stop the future IE bundling to Windows 98. They failed.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/archive/atr/public/press_releases/19...
Not this again!
MS lost the (one of the many) case with the EU regarding Internet Explorer and that's were most of the confusion comes from: what happens in US is hardly relevant for the rest of the World
> In January 2009, the European Commission announced it would investigate the bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows operating systems from Microsoft, saying "Microsoft's tying of Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice."
> In response, Microsoft announced that it would not bundle Internet Explorer with Windows 7 E, the version of Windows 7 to be sold in Europe.
> On 16 December 2009, the European Union agreed to allow competing browsers, with Microsoft providing a "ballot box" screen letting users choose one of twelve popular products listed in random order. The twelve browsers were Avant, Chrome, Firefox, Flock, GreenBrowser, Internet Explorer, K-Meleon, Maxthon, Opera, Safari, Sleipnir, and Slim which are accessible via BrowserChoice.eu. The automatic nature of the BrowserChoice.eu feature was dropped in Windows 7 Service Pack 1 in February 2011 and remained absent for 14 months despite Microsoft reporting that it was still present, subsequently described by Microsoft as a "technical error". As a result, in March 2013 the European Commission fined Microsoft €561 million to deter companies from reneging on settlement promises."
Microsoft unlawfully required PC manufacturers to agree to license and install its browser, Internet Explorer, as a condition of obtaining licenses for the Windows 95 operating system.
This was true for AT&T at one time as well.
I agree with your point, but things change when you get too big. Apple might be at that point, but I don't really know, and IANAL.
To further clarify, the EU antitrust authorities decided not to let off Microsoft with a slap on the wrist for their bundling practices:
This is an oversimplification of the appeal, as while the penalty against Microsoft was overturned, the appeals court did affirm several of the antitrust violations against Microsoft. In particular:
1. The appeals court affirmed that Microsoft's license restrictions preventing OEMs from pre-installing alternate browsers violated the Sherman Act.
2. The appeals court found that Microsoft's technical integration of IE and Windows was not a violation of the Sherman Act because Microsoft offered legitimate justification for why the integration was necessary. (When a defendant offers a legitimate justification the burden of proof shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the anticompetitive effect outweighs the justification. In this case the appeals court found the DOJ failed to do this.)
3. The appeals court affirmed that Microsoft's deals with ISPs to promote IE at the expense of other browsers violated the Sherman Act.
4. The appeals court affirmed that Microsoft's deal with Apple to bundle IE with Mac OS in exchange for the development of the Mac version of Office violated the Sherman Act. (Bill Gates threatened to pull Office for Mac if Mac OS bundled Netscape instead of IE.)
5. The appeals court did not actually address whether tying IE to Windows was an antitrust violation or not. They concluded that it could not be a per se violation, and the issue was remanded back to the district court for further analysis under the rule of reason which would have required additional proceedings, which never happened as Microsoft and the DOJ eventually settled.
6. The appeals court found that the DOJ failed to prove their claim that Microsoft attempted to monopolize the browser market, largely because they failed to provide sufficient evidence that Microsoft had a "dangerous probability" of success.
Finally, the reason the penalty was overturned by the appeals court largely had to do with the district court judge not following the correct legal procedures and failing to reasonably justify why such a large penalty (breaking up the company) was warranted. Plus they were really unhappy with that judge going and talking to the media about the case.
Yes, ultimately Microsoft was not broken up. After Bush was elected, DOJ policy changed and they decided to no longer pursue the breakup. But it's a bit misleading to say they won the appeal. It's more like: they won a couple claims, they lost a bunch of claims, and the overall penalty was deemed too harsh.
(Note: I skipped some details but the full text of the appeal is an interesting read: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=179876183890909...)
---
That all being said, it's worth noting that most of the violations affirmed were related to Microsoft's attempts to unlawfully maintain their operating system monopoly which at the time had over 95% market share, not due to their attempts to dominate the browser market. And it's possible that if they had merely included IE with Windows and not taken extra actions to force other companies (OEMs, ISPs, Apple) to bundle IE over Netscape, they may not have have been found liable at all.
As applied to the current situation with Apple, it's unlikely that Apple will be exposed to the same liability because they simply don't have the level of monopoly power that Microsoft did at the time.
It's hard for me to reconcile this, and I keep seeing that 3rd party app stores would be better for users, but it all seems very handwavy. You would think this would be an easy point to prove as Android has had alternative app stores for years, but there seem to be no winners there. I'm not sure how having to download app specific app stores (i.e. Epic's app store) is better for anyone except for Epic.
Let's start with one point. Third party stores don't have to be popular in order for them to be beneficial, because their existence causes the dominant store to take competitive steps to avoid their attaining popularity.
For example, you can install actual Firefox on Android, from Google Play, instead of it being nothing but a skin over the system browser like it is on iOS. Because if they didn't allow actual Firefox in Google Play, it would still be in F-Droid or similar, and that would make the competing store more popular. Since they don't want that, they allow it in the default store. Then the default store remains dominant, but only because it does beneficial things like that as a result of the competitive pressure. And third party apps can send and receive SMS on Android and various other things that Apple doesn't allow solely because it pushes people to use Apple's apps instead and there is no competitive pressure from other stores pushing Apple to allow those competing apps in their store.
But more than that, the other Android stores are actually useful, they just tend to have a niche. Because people are still going to use the default store unless there is a reason not to, since it's lower friction. But the other stores still get to address the cases that the default store fails at. So the fact that they exist at all is proof that they're doing something useful, since otherwise who would sustain them?
> I'm not sure how having to download app specific app stores (i.e. Epic's app store) is better for anyone except for Epic.
I mean, the fact that they're not paying Apple 30% and then passing most of that savings on to the customer is obviously going to save the customer money.
I see no evidence of Epic passing savings to the consumer in this scenario. Unless by customer you mean stock holder in which case the fight is about which stock holders get paid.
Edit: unless you are referring to a temporary PR sale where they were still paying the 30% cut in many cases.
F-droid maintains a modest but robust marketplace of open source software, some of which include things that are not allowed in either Apple or Google app stores.
3rd party stores also allow numerous country-focused stores which arguably serve their home markets better than Google or Apple are willing to.
It's not a large store, I expect, and I don't often use it install things, but it seems to be an unambiguous example of something that benefits users. I bought things via Humble, and then am able to install them on any android device I ever have (in theory).
If they were to add the ability to actually buy things in the app, it would effectively turn into something with an interface like the Kindle app (which shows me both my library of books, as well as a shopping interface).
If we could install apps from Github it would be better because predatory pricing and invasive data collection has the upper hand on the iOS store. Many common utilities are charging ridiculous amounts of money that they could never charge on Mac or Windows because of high quality, free and open source software on Github.
1. Users to have the ability to choose, on the expensive devices that they own.
2. Competition, which drives the companies to try to improve their offering (for users and developers) in order to stay ahead. Competition is healthy and prevents stagnation.
The winners are the users that can easily side load apps without goingt through the Goggle store
I think the only group that will benefit from 3rd party app stores on iOS is developers. I don’t see end users benefiting at all. The simplicity and convenience in downloading and discovering apps is gone. You said you have trouble discovering apps now with a unified store, so I’m not sure how discovering apps on multiple different app stores will be any easier. Frankly I’m sure it will become much more difficult and complicated for end users. Also I’m not sure how much more convenient Apple can make the App Store for iOS users. Payment information isn’t being shared between multiple parties. Switching payment info doesn’t involve going through each service. Receipts are automatically sent to emails. Automatic app updates. No confusion when it comes to where to download an app.
The App Store consistently brings in more money than the play store each year, despite Apple and iOS having a much smaller market share than Google and Android. I attribute this to Apples guidelines and developer tools, but also because of user confidence in the App Store. More people are willing to scan their face or use Touch ID because how simple and convenient IAP is. That and users are aware their payment info isn’t being sent around to multiple parties. I believe everyone arguing for 3rd party app stores on iOS aren’t thinking as the end user. at all. You said that allowing 3rd party stores will benefit end users with innovation, but innovate what exactly ? How much more innovation does the process of finding and downloading apps need?
>Microsoft got into trouble for bundling a web browser, where they didn’t directly make money, Apple should get into trouble for the App Store, where they do directly make money due to their artificial lack of competition.
Why should they get in trouble? Let’s not forget that Microsoft only developed one part of the final product(the OS). In Apples case they created every part of the product. The hardware , the software and the market on the software. I think they’re well in their rights to decide what and how 3rd party software gets on their OS..
90% of the reason people are even talking about alternative app stores is because this 30% is extortion made possible by excessive monopolistic power provided by tight vertical integration. If it was 10% no one would blink an eye and it would still be massively profitable for Apple. They're just too fucking greedy, and the amount of their apologists here is insane.
The collective hypocrisy of chanting for things like the right to repair while not even recognizing the right to install arbitrary apps on a computing device you paid for in full is just mind boggling.
Americans trust everyone with a fucking gun but oh no, being able to install a non-Apple-approved app or - gasp - use a non-apple payment method - will collapse the whole ecosystem. Haha.
Because multiple competing stores pushes them to compete on something. Apple is super rich, it would be really hard to compete with price alone, so a competing store has incentive to compete on features or other innovations, including novel ways to make discoverability on their stores easier. Maybe it wouldn't happen, but right now, Apple have zero incentive to do anything to improve their App Store.
It shows that there is some convenience from a "single" app store, such that people won't flood away and lead to a race to the bottom in quality. But it also shows that you can maintain that experience while allowing users to install whatever they want.
So Apple is claiming that allowing people to install whatever they want, or having multiple App Stores will lead to crumbling of the convenient and secure ecosystem that they have created. However Android has shown that this is not the case.
Anyway, the argument was that the Apple app store was stifling app development. In your reply you yourself say the apps on the Google store are “Maybe not quite as high” quality.
Which doesn't matter, because the person who is going to test your patch does, or the person who will write their own and submit it. Which makes the app better, for everybody.
> Anyway, the argument was that the Apple app store was stifling app development. In your reply you yourself say the apps on the Google store are “Maybe not quite as high” quality.
There is a difference between the quality of an app and the quality of a store. If Google Play contains all the same apps as Apple's app store, but they're higher quality because people hack on them more, it could still have a lower average quality if the store itself is less selective and there are also a bunch of lower quality apps. Which doesn't really matter because nobody is making you install those ones. Especially when you're not using the store for discovery to begin with, which they're increasingly useless at.
Also the "maybe not as high" comment was about security because you can make an argument that the human review is better. However there doesn't seem to be overwhelming evidence on either side comparing human review to mostly automated.
There are many things that go wrong with the App Store, but you have to realise this is a ludicrous assertion. Pasting from clipboard is an entirely different class than rootkits, backdoors, trojans, and other malware that have a vanishingly small chance to go through the review process itself.
This is defence in depth. The sandbox helps, but it’s not magic. Without review, publishing an app with a sandbox bypass, or simply abusing entitlements, becomes trivial.
I don't think this would be trivial either. Given that iOS security has historically been rather good, I guess an attacker would need a reasonably new exploit or even zero day. Assuming an attacker has access to something like that, I'm 99.8% certain he'd be able to sneak past the review process as well.
As Fortnite has demonstrated, it is perfectly possible to sneak past the review process with something as obvious as a third party payment checkout. If something like that is possible, it'd be definitely possible for something like an exploit.
The review process isn't magic
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/08/fortnites-android-vu...
And at least Epic wasn’t purposefully installing back doors. Unlike Zoom.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/zoom-defends-use-of-local-web-...
Also, I think you may overestimate most attackers. Most of them are so lazy.
I would _love_ a 3rd-party App Store that hosted jailbreak apps/apps that abuse private APIs/etc, so long as it was clear what I was getting.
It's easy to say "well that's just their own fault if they installed something bad," but I don't think Apple really cares to argue with their customers over whose fault something technically was. Apple just wants their customers to have phones that are working well.
A sandbox that can be trivially bypassed is simply broken.
Granted, it's not easy to define what apps should and shouldn't be able to do within the sandbox. Permissions systems are difficult to get right. But whatever the rules are, they must be enforceable.
That's basically what Epic did.
Currently I have trust to Apple, if I am or my kid charged wrong or tricked into some subscription etc, I have proof with experience that Apple will fix it.
Now let’s say if we have many stores, some stores will try to be smart, will make exclusive deals, force people to install their stores to maybe play a one popular game.
As a user I will end up with 10 stores on my phone, each has my billing information, if I have a problem, not I need to go to that store to handle.
Oh than X app will decide to move from store A to store B, then he needs to move all subscribers there, good luck :)
Having 3rd party stores will not prevent you for using the Apple App Store exclusively.
> As a user I will end up with 10 stores on my phone, each has my billing information,
Imagine if there is only 1 store, e.g. Walmart? Only Walmart has your billing information and it's the only store where you can buy things.
> Now let’s say if we have many stores
That would be great. These stores will be competing for customers that would drive prices down.
One store might decline to sell a specific product for many reasons but another store might carry the product.
Imagine that as a manufacturer, you can only sell thru Walmart. Walmart declines to sell your product and you have nowhere else to sell.
This is an interesting question. Let's say Apple will be forced to allow the Epic Games Store on iOS. Would Epic be forced to offer Fornite on the App Store in addition to the Epic Games Store? If not, bluesign's kid might very well force him to use another store.
It will if enough developers flee to whichever store has the cheapest rate and the fewest restrictions. It’s a race to the bottom and the consumer ultimately loses.
There's also the possibility of mobile equivalents to the Adobe CC installer/manager that act as their own "App Store" and aren't subject to any rules at all, which is even worse. After seeing what the likes of Adobe does on desktop PCs, I do not want to see what they do when granted effectively unfettered access to my phone.
Apple should have the ability to "shut off" unscrupulous third-party App Stores just as they do today with unscrupulous developers.
Adobe would find it tough going if they withdrew from Apple's App Store, and I can't imagine keeping 30% minus whatever it costs to provide an alternative would be worth it to the, given how many people would just stop using Adobe apps.
Like I said, I'm only now coming around on this, but I think a $2T company with total control of both hardware and software can probably work out a way to support additional stores without requiring a full-time battery-draining malware checker. In fact, I suspect most of us could figure out how to avoid that if we tried, rather than trying the opposite.
Sandboxing and limited APIs already exist, Apple doesn't need to review apps that don't appear in their App Store. As I've said, I suspect a very small percentage of people would be willing to install additional stores, and they can hardly complain if it turns out apps purchased there overshare PII.
That may or may not be the case, but I expect it'll be more fruitful to address it.
Cydia has existed for ages, and yet Apple's own App Store is still the undisputed market leader.
I'm having trouble envisioning a scenario in which consumers lose here.
This is not the case of Apple even if the OP made clear that Apple is making some business models impractical.
I am thinking Apple is like a union for their users. And they are regulating developers and they have huge negotiating power because they are gateway to user’s phone. I don’t see them as market participant, I more likely see them as market regulator.
But they are. There are competing apps to Apple's own apps on the App Store. Apple Music is an obvious example, but there's also web browsers, email clients, calendar clients, cloud storage, etc. Through their "market regulation" and using privileged APIs, they can artificially hold competitors back from reaching or surpassing parity of said competing apps.
Their "regulation" has forced all web browsers to use Safari on the backend without the benefits of things like content blockers. Their "regulation" has forced all apps to not be able to cut off a trial if they cancel the subscription renewal while hypocritically doing just that for things like Apple Arcade and Apple TV if you cancel the subscription before the trial is over. Their "regulation" has blocked out any competition to Apple Arcade like xCloud or Stadia. Their "regulation" has, until iOS 14 (still in a limited fashion), kept any other app from being a default and if those stock apps are deleted, annoy users to the point of reinstalling them due to popups when tapping an email address, date/time, or street address.
These are all ways that they secure their spot above the competition on their own devices and hold progression back until they're ready to implement competitive features (read: probably when competition starts poaching users from them despite the disadvantages they impose on said competition).
A participant in the market, which they most certainly are, should not be regulating that market and also profiting off of that regulation. This is how a manufacturer of only 3 types of devices is the most valuable company in the world. I can't think of any other company that has an entire market, or at least the size of App Store market, completely enveloped under their reign.
While I'm decidedly not Epic's side on this I think this is a misleading and dangerous argument. In a union, members get to vote to change the rules to benefit the membership. Apple never asked for my input on App Store rules.
[1] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartphone-share...
Regardless, 14% of 3.5 billion is still so ridiculously large that each phone OS should be considered their own market, not competitors within the same market. You wouldn't consider a microwave and a toaster oven to be in the same market, even if they're both kitchen appliances that heat up food because they're individual markets. Not all people want a microwave and not all people can afford a toaster oven due to space or financial priorities. In the world of tech, where there's no real definitive line between markets and any one company can have an audience of more people than any monopoly in the past, the old ways of drawing a line in the sand based on a percentage no longer works.
The link in my reference showed Apple at 14% of the global smartphone market for many years. Do you have a reference you think is more reliable?
Similarly, they have Apple in the US at between 40-49% the last 6 quarters:
https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...
While that's not 14%, it's certainly not a monopoly. Consumers don't have to worry that if they switch to one of those 51% that they're on a platform that nobody else will use. Epic and Spotify and Kindle could make tons of money selling to the other 51% of phones in the US; and if Apple's terms were actually difficult for them to make money from, they could just not make iOS apps, and be perfectly healthy companies. The fact that they do sell on iOS shows that they are making plenty of money, just not as much as they'd like.
Again, the smartphone manufacturing market isn't in question, it's the software markets that are tied to those smartphones.
But they really did.
They asked "Walled garden, restrictive app publishing, no BS", or "Sideload to your heart's content", you choose!
And Apple customers said "Walled garden, please and thank you!"
This is a completely respectable choice -- but of course it is not everyone's choice!
I was unintentionally (and unexpectedly) a unionized employee once. They didn't ask me to ratify their agenda, but they did require me to pay dues!
No they didn't. Choosing whether there is a walled store and choosing what gets into the store are two different things. And on top of that, you didn't even get the first choice independent of a hundred other variables like hardware, operating system, app availability, the network effect of peers with iMessage etc.
To really drive this home, keep in mind that the same argument could be applied to giving Comcast control over which websites and video streaming services you can use. If you don't like it, just choose to move out of their service area. So if you choose to subscribe to Comcast then you must want that, right?
> They didn't ask me to ratify their agenda, but they did require me to pay dues!
Actually they did. Union members get to elect the union leadership. Apple customers don't get to elect the Apple leadership. And if a union set your union dues at 30% of your salary, how long do you think it would take for them to get voted out?
...
Union members get to elect union leadership. Phone customers get to elect phone manufacturers. Equivalency restored.
That's why the analogy fits -- if you have an iPhone you're in Apple's service area. You can't get your apps from Google Play unless you move to their platform.
But having both a cable provider and a telco in the same area is actually very common. And even if there is a strong competitor (singular), e.g. FiOS, it's still hugely problematic. You choose Comcast and you only get Comcast video service, you choose FiOS and only get FiOS video service, no option for Netflix or YouTube because there are still only two of them and neither of them want you to use that over theirs.
The forces of competition don't actually work if they both know they can get away with it as long as the other one does and the market is concentrated enough with sufficient barriers to entry that they don't have to worry about newcomers. Which is true of both ISPs and phone platforms.
> Moving house is not equivalent to buying a different consumer gadget.
Buying a new phone (~$1000) compared to buying an app (~$1). Then re-buy all your existing apps, because new platform. Learn the other OS, training cost. Any apps that don't exist there, like iMessage? Problematic. Move all your data from iCloud to Google.
It's very much like moving house.
> Union members get to elect union leadership. Phone customers get to elect phone manufacturers. Equivalency restored.
Equivalency would be the customers electing Apple's board, which they don't. Equivalency would be an actual co-op store which you do get to elect the leadership of. The thing you're claiming is that it would be just as good to have an unaccountable union because you could always go work for another company (which had its own unaccountable union).
And we could do even better -- because it's not like unions are a panacea -- and have a co-op store which isn't tied to specific hardware or a platform, which you can choose to opt out of without simultaneously opting out of anything else. Which is what you would be able to have in a competitive market.
I do not agree that Apple has an obligation to develop this functionality for me.
I can think of plenty of reasons they would not want to do so (and almost zero of them have anything to do with protecting their 30% cut of app sales).
I think iOS is a better consumer product because it has never allowed ad hoc app installs.
If I felt differently, I could switch. Mobile platform mobility is very high. People do it all the time! Most people have fewer than a dozen apps on their device, which itself costs a couple dozen dollars per month with a mobile plan. Switching costs, if synced to your contract period, are really very low.
Apps which are platform-exclusive (Apple Messages) are a different kettle of wax, and I don't think germane here. Complicated product/ecosystems inevitably fan out to imperfect sets of compromises. Sure, this contributes to intangible switching costs, but that's hardly Apple's responsibility to mitigate on my behalf.
I have varied opinions and experiences with Comcast, co-ops, and labor unions (negative, positive, disappointing), but I don't think any of the analogies make sense.
The issue isn't they should have to do it for you, it's that they've taken purposeful action to prevent anyone else from doing it.
> I think iOS is a better consumer product because it has never allowed ad hoc app installs.
But this doesn't require the store to be glued to the device. You could get the same experience by using only Apple's store, or some other store you trust, even if others were available.
Linux package managers are a fine example of this. The large majority of Linux software is installed through them, and doing what the packagers require to get included is enough of a benefit that developers do it, but there is nothing at all preventing there from being multiple independent packaging systems or preventing people from installing software from the internet. They just don't, in general, because they prefer to get it from the package manager.
> Mobile platform mobility is very high. People do it all the time!
People move house all the time too, that doesn't mean the cost is low.
You're essentially arguing that it's possible for it to be low. If you're about to buy a new phone anyway and you don't have many apps and none of your apps only run on iOS, then all you have is the retraining cost of learning a different operating system and the differences between the hardware of different platforms and so on.
But this is just arguing that if you're about to move house anyway then the cost of switching away from Comcast isn't as high. For one thing it's still high, because the differences between different houses/platforms is still quite significant and decisions are made based on a multitude of considerations in addition to app stores. But for another, what happens to the people in the opposite circumstances? They're not halfway through their contract and have many expensive iOS-specific apps with a network effect, and then they want to buy your app. No way they can switch just for that.
> Apps which are platform-exclusive (Apple Messages) are a different kettle of wax, and I don't think germane here. Complicated product/ecosystems inevitably fan out to imperfect sets of compromises. Sure, this contributes to intangible switching costs, but that's hardly Apple's responsibility to mitigate on my behalf.
They don't have to mitigate it but then it's a significant component of switching costs. Eat your cake or have it.
The crux of our disagreement may lie here.
Apple did not take active steps to prevent other app stores from running on iOS.
They spent many years of active effort to prevent any app from escaping the runtime sandbox. As a side effect, I cannot load arbitrary phone applications, keyboard handlers, or app stores.
Demanding that Apple undo (or make exceptions in) this design, which provides runtime security across the OS, would be coerced development. It weakens the product, is contrary to corporate goals, and is not valuable to most customers.
It is reasonable to argue that sideloading is less problematic than allowing alternate app stores. The sideloaded app would still run in the sandbox. But it would break an important layer of defense-in-depth, and why would Apple willingly take on that extra risk? I can understand why some customers would consider it convenient if they did, but I cannot support forcing them to do so.
Re: switching costs: In what consumer relationship does the buyer not assume some risk in their decision? If I buy a car, but change my mind in a few months and prefer a different model, who eases that transition for me? Any complex product will come with compromises -- suitability for purpose is not guaranteed. The compromise on iOS is that you do not install arbitrary apps. Maybe this surprises some people, but they can return the device in-window, or they can choose differently next time. I do not see any level of extraordinary consumer harm in this practice.
At this point you're arguing that prohibiting them from doing something is coercing them to do something merely because they've already done it.
Consider the case where they have an absolute monopoly on phones. There are only iPhones, nothing else. Would you still object to a requirement to allow other app stores because it's "coercing development"?
What if they used the app store monopoly to monopolize the market for online payment processing, and from there the entire retail market? Can you imagine how that would harm the customer?
> Re: switching costs: In what consumer relationship does the buyer not assume some risk in their decision?
This is actually true for the large majority of consumer products. If you go to the grocery store and buy a carton of eggs, you don't have to buy the same company's sugar or flour or chocolate chips, and when you've bought those things and have them in your kitchen, you don't have to throw them out if you switch to another brand of eggs.
Moreover, the issue with switching costs isn't that they exist -- for many complex products, they will -- it's that they create a barrier which thwarts the competitive pressure on the company that would otherwise prevent it from abusing its market position, so then you need something else to do that, e.g. antitrust. Having a monopoly isn't, in itself, illegal; abusing it is.
Unions are broadly democratic institutions. Apple isn't.
So the tradeoff is a fairly large number of previously disallowed apps are now available, if you want. And a small number of previously allowed apps are only available outside of Apple's store.
Of course if this is worth it to you depends on how much you value either side of the equation but at least in the Android case it is a clear win to me.
In response to OP's comment, my first question is "fair to whom". Is it fair that suddenly that the ecosystem we consciously paid for should suddenly be forcefully changed, permanently, because vendors see dollar signs?
Very, very, very few developers are going to avoid Apple's App Store deliberately. It just doesn't make economic sense. Game-streaming services don't have a choice, of course.
Imagine if Microsoft had restricted the ability to install and use third party software on Windows, it would of slowed digital transformation dramatically.
OK, but right now as a user I have a choice: I can choose an ecosystem supported in part by a 30% tax on apps, or I can choose an ecosystem supported mainly by advertising. If Apple is forced to allow other stores, I lose that choice.
Furthermore, a lot of the things Apple forces on apps really are for my benefit: Take the way they banned Facebook for working around their prohibition on running in the background. They can say, "If you want to access this market, you will follow these rules." If Apple is forced to allow other app stores, then not only Epic and Spotify can say, "We only install on this other store that allows us to sell subscriptions without the 30% tax", then Facebook and others will also be able to say, "We only install on this other store that lets us spy on you."
One again: At the moment, as a consumer, I can choose to say, "I prefer Apple to negotiate on my behalf" or, "I'll go with Android, where I can install third-party stores". If Apple is forced to open up, I won't have that choice any more.
I'm not sure that follows. Can you elaborate on why you would "lose that choice"?
Previously those apps were forced to make concessions to be on the iOS store, and I could download "Instagram, the version that makes Apple happy" app.
But now, that version of the app is gone! I google "Why is my Instagram gone" and get an article that says I have to sign up to the "EpicTwitBook" store, and download the "Instagram, the version that makes Advertisers happy" app.
I would prefer the first version but I don't get a choice.
My vision of an alternate app store still involves largely adhering to Apples rules for app approval. Except that an alternate store could have a different commission structure and in-store "experience".
For example, an alternate store could differentiate on search features, curation, free trials, ratings systems, bundles, periodic sales, developer interaction, developer support and (optionally of course) social recommendations. Exclusivity could even be forbidden.
In this scenario, Apple could still set the rules for App approval (with some oversight) and earn a fair commission (%5 to %10?) on transactions. It would still be profitable for Apple but encourage innovation and competition in the actual "stores".
You can however not invest very much on the apple ecosystem and subscribe to most services outside the app store mode, which is what I do myself, but I'm a minority.
But I buy Apple. For myself, my parents, and I recommend to relatives etc. The tight leash is a feature not a limitation. I know if I set up an iPhone or iPad for my mum the apps aren't going to try charging her credit card or installing bloatware and so on.
The tight integration between all the services is a plus as well - something I just don't trust on other devices. Using the parent example again, my mum doesn't need to understand iCloud syncing, she just knows that all her photos are safe on the device and will show up on the computer.
We can go two ways with this:
1. We teach users how to use computers so they don't hurt themselves. Some still will, because they don't get it.
2. We clamp down on all uses of computers so that they're safe for uneducated users to use. Only authorised corporate programmers are allowed to create applications. Users are "safe", but treated badly by their corporate overlords.
I want scenario 1 (with no sandbox and the freedom to install whatever I like). Scenario 2 is where Apple is headed.
I do not get the focus on TikTok. Yes, it read your clipboard content… just like Snapchat, Instagram, Reddit, etc. Most security researchers agree that TikTok is among the more restrained social media apps, when it comes to gathering user data.
This is a bad look for the social media landscape in general, not TikTok specifically.
Surveillance capitalism is an American invention, China just copied that.
Considering how many hate him here and still repeat the official US talking points wrt TikTok, I don’t think you can blame him in that case.
The App Store and iOS lockdown are one of the biggest reasons I'm on Apple devices.
On macOS, I think there should be even more sandboxing and process separation.
30% might be a bit too much for certain types of transactions, but that's not the same reasoning as "allow 3rd party app stores"
I'm surprised people aren't talking about other appstores / platforms. It's just good-old-apple-bashing.
If you personally value security and a smooth user experience over being able to install whatever you want go for it, no one would ever force you to use another app store.
Google implemented several hurdles to drive users away from competitive app stores. They're all but forcing people to use the Play Store.
I agree, and that's very different from forbidding unapproved software. If you support the iOS lockdown, how can you say that Apple shouldn't do the same thing on macOS? For that matter, why shouldn't they be aggressively filtering what web sites Safari can view? By failing to do these things they are continuing to leave users vulnerable to malicious content.
It still seems awkward to say that Apple must allow for competitors, but they're a $2 trillion company now, and I think rules are just weird for companies of that size.
Presumably a store openly promoting pirated apps would be a reason, and a store which has significant malware problems, could both be compelling reasons to permit Apple to do this, but I would go so far as to suggest they should be required to involve the legal system somehow in the process, rather than make a unilateral call.
While this might sound good, this would be impossible to enforce in practice, as everything a company does is revenue-related. Any rules the app store or iOS have are directly related to revenue by definition.
For example, if Apple allowed boundless permissions and tons of buggy apps, their revenue would probably decrease. This issue is harder to regulate than it first seems.
My point was that everything a company does is revenue related, and thus we cannot draw some imaginary line between things that are "more" or "less" revenue related. Restating that we can doesn't move us forward. I would be interested to hear how we can separate some revenue related reasons from others.
Apple only controls 14% of the smartphone market. If Apple is a $2T company, doesn't that mean those 14% of people overall approve of what Apple is doing?
I certainly think some of the restrictions are onerous; but if I had to choose between "Some onerous restrictions on some app developers" and "No way to capture value from applications to support the platform", I'd go with the first one.
Right now, if you don't like what Apple's doing, you can choose not to do with Apple; and if I do, I can choose to go with them. If you get your way & Apple is forced to open up, I'll no longer have that choice.
I can see a world, for example, in which Apple approves a very-limited number of alternate app stores, each of which must still give Apple 30% of what they make from every transaction. So a $1 purchase in Apple's App Store gives them 30 cents, while a $1 purchase in Epic's App Store gives Epic 14 cents, and Apple 6 cents (30% of the 20 cents the ultimate developer doesn't get).
Would that mean Apple would go broke? I don't think so. Would Epic find that it's harder to make things work on 14% than they'd estimated? Could be: they gave up going indie over on Android already. Would I be forced to use the alternate App Store? I suspect only for apps excluded from Apple's App Store, because what developer would want to give up on that revenue?
> Right now, if you don't like what Apple's doing, you can choose not to do with Apple; and if I do, I can choose to go with them
I think the reasoning here misses the point. If Apple were doing something truly dastardly, inarguably evil, would this argument still apply? It's not trivial to switch platforms, though it is possible. And "Apple's way or the highway" shouldn't give them a license to do whatever they want to, no matter what.
I hope that whatever is decided in court, I am able to stick with the Apple experience I know and appreciate. But maybe also I want to use one of the several game-streaming services that Apple will not allow. Must I buy an Android tablet to use Stadia? How much other innovation is currently not happening, or are unavailable to iOS users because of Apple's App Store restrictions?
I think this is key; I would argue that Jobs has a point on curation being important; but also, in the modern world, the app store is arguably "public utility".
Apple can keep their store & their rules, but the law should cap the fees so that they only cover costs of running the store - nothing more. Not unlike how EU has e.g. capped mobile data fees for telcos.
Access to private APIs for example is not preventable at runtime due to the way Objective-C works.
And the ability to change payment screens etc at runtime has always been possible. But Apple simply bans the developer and so instances of this happening in the wild have been basically non-existant.
That's on Apple side to fix this, you can compare that to the browser which has a proper sandbox model without private APIs.
They can class-dump the Mach-O binary, disassemble and inspect the performSelector: calls or even just run the apps in an ARM emulator and watch for alarms whenever the reviewer manually goes through the app.
From experience, it is trivial to bypass review. Trivial.
> They can class-dump the Mach-O binary, disassemble and inspect the performSelector: calls or even just run the apps in an ARM emulator and watch for alarms whenever the reviewer manually goes through the app.
The vast majority of apps don't go through anything close to this. At most, Apple runs a class-dump equivalent on every binary, nothing more–and you can even see it catch legitimate selectors every so often! If you think about it, this isn't surprising, because you need to have a (large) team of actual reverse engineers do this kind of thing or set up a good automated malware analysis platform, both of which Apple is fairly behind at.
One option for them would be to shut down general access to the App Store and only enter into bespoke agreements with individual developers. Make it much more like a console system or feature phone with vendor-provided or bespoke licensed add-on features. I think this is a more likely outcome from trying to ram open access down their throats because it's an 'open platform'. Just close it. That's what Steve Jobs wanted to do in the first place. They'd lose some customers but maybe good enough for 90% of current iPhone users is good enough for Apple, rather than losing control of the design and feature set of their own product.
That's not a problem, it's just life. Pretty much every person and organization has obligations they need to comply with that they may disagree with. For instance, COPPA means Apple (and other internet companies) already need to implement features to keep kids under 13 from creating accounts on their site without parental permission.
> Who gets to decide what APIs and features comply with any such imposed obligation? Who reviews it and certifies compliance? Who decides on how many resources get allocated to it?
Easy: either 1) government authorities or 2) an independent private self-regulatory organization like FINRA.
Not going to happen. Apple will simple close up the App Store into a private premium feature delivery system. Meanwhile the entire rest of the industry will be stuck with a new version of WAP. Thanks guys.
This, but unironically.
It's not hard to think of an example where "legislation that specifies APIs and designs user interfaces" is unambiguously good — say, accessibility requirements for commercial software.
I don't think a law forcing all software to be accessible makes any kind of sense.
But when you pull your focus a bit further back to look at society, Infrastructure, systems and practices, it’s easy to see that disabled people are both more vulnerable and also less well supported (and often actively discriminated against).
The laws we have give disabled people some leverage to redress that imbalance. Unfortunately, the perspective that “accessibility is an expensive addition” is so pervasive (or not even considered), that disabled people need those laws.
A problem with laws is they reinforce binary thinking. As written they tend towards flexibility, but at the point of enforcement, there’s usually a hard line between punishment and not, which amplifies that binary impression. A less binary outlook would see people and companies embracing the opportunities for collaboration and creativity. For example, a big games publisher could actively seek out and promote developers who specialise in accessible games, or games that play with creative devices beyond the vision-first norm. A few examples exist but they’re rare, independent and it’s not a category you can search for. The same goes for art, galleries, cinema. London, where I live, had an improving state of live subtitled theatre, but it’s still only one performance in 50 or 100, for the big shows. It’s probably only even this good because of the law.
Easy to say when you don't have disabilities
Now imagine that the only content you can consume are government's websites to pay taxes...
It's like saying that if you work in constructions you shouldn't care about accessibility unless you work on government's buildings
But people with disabilities go to cinemas, pubs, bars, restaurants, museums, stadiums, ballrooms etc. etc.
I honestly don't see your point
They already do. For instance Microsoft was forced to create BrowserChoice.eu because of an antitrust case. GDPR puts requirements on user interfaces for personal data collection. I'm not aware of similar US examples (except maybe the aforementioned COPPA), but I know US law specifies form designs and font types/sizes for certain content (IIRC, to combat hiding disclosures in illegible type, etc).
This kind of thing typically only happens when private self-interest gets in the way of the public good, which is arguably the case with some of Apple's App Store decisions.
> Not going to happen. Apple will simple close up the App Store into a private premium feature delivery system. Meanwhile the entire rest of the industry will be stuck with a new version of WAP.
Are you serious? Apple's going to comply with whatever regulations they need to, because having an app store is too lucrative for them. They're not going to cut their nose to spite their face.
On your last point, not if you take away the two primary pillars of it's profitability - exclusive payments processing and store exclusivity. Revenues would collapse, which after all is the point of doing all of this, and they'd lose control of the platform. Why not simply close open access to the store and explicitly license every app. They could just do a deal with a dozen software vendors to develop the couple of hundred core apps and games they need, and to do bespoke development for other clients. No public signups as iOS developers.
You're moving the goalposts, you originally said:
>>>>> The problem with this is that it would be putting an obligation on Apple to design and implement APIs it doesn't want to create or support, and implement features it disagrees with.
The way this usually works is that the regulators/legislators would come up with relatively high level requirements [1] and Apple would have to figure out the design details to meet them. If their detailed design fails to meet or subverts the high level requirements, then they will be forced to defend their actions in court, where "we don't want to do it" isn't a defense.
[1] Which hypothetically could be as simple as 1) users must have the option to install 3rd party app stores on their devices, 2) 3rd party app stores may not be technically disadvantaged compared to the 1st party store, and 3) maybe some requirements around revenue or cost sharing.
> On your last point, not if you take away the two primary pillars of it's profitability - exclusive payments processing and store exclusivity. Revenues would collapse, which after all is the point of doing all of this, and they'd lose control of the platform.
Explain to me why Apple hasn't abandoned the Mac OS platform for those same reasons, since it doesn't have the "exclusive payments processing and store exclusivity" that you seem to think are so essential.
Steve Jobs no longer works at Apple.
Monopolistic behaviour hurt markets and overall economy more than what a flourishing, unrestricted "business" can capture.
So? Imagine if we handicapped the march of progress so that Blockbuster wouldn't have to go out of business. If Apple can't innovate, then let them die.
(but chances are good that they'll turn out just fine)
Apples curation isn't (as they suggest) preventing malware, theft of information, etc - this if verifiably false given recent history with apps like tiktok stealing clipboard content. The ability to change content of payment screens post-approval (as epic have just done) also means that curation isnt stopping apps from potentially injecting phishing, etc, either. In short, they are just choosing what they like - just as any 3rd party store could do.
The security comes from the sandbox (and surrounding permissions) - not from the curation.
Jobs originally said that the aim of the 30% was to cover costs of running the store. It is evident from the MASSIVE profits that this is no longer the case.
The size of these app marketplaces (I dont just mean apple) make them markets in their own right - its about time they were recognised and treated as such.