If being more open magically offered the same quality all kind of third party open platforms would have flourished.
But even in the semi-closed Android you have 95% of mobile malware according to surveys, devices abandoned without updates after 1-2 releases, tons of crap trojan apps, widespread spyware, and so on...
A third party app store can be fine at first. "You can chose whether to use it or not" after all.
Then some major software only comes for that store, and now you don't have either a unified store, or a way not to use 2 stores (since you need the software).
Then each major vendor (Google, Adobe, Amazon, etc) make their own app stores on the platform. Because, why not?
Oh, and Facebook can demand you get their app from their store, where it comes with all kinds of private API abuse and surveillance (some of this might be solvable with stronger sandboxing, if it's not deemed "anti-competitive" itself).
Then there are all kinds of minor stores, luring your less tech savvy parents, siblings, etc, with BS offers, more malware, pirated versions of software, etc.
Oh, and there are "free" stores, you can just install, all kinds of shady stuff that ocassionally roots your iPhone with 0-days and is not revocable.
Suddenly app developers don't feel so good about this ability to have multiple stores. They mainly wanted lower Apple rates, but now they have to ship to different stores, track different vendor rules, and so on. And if they stick to a store or two, they're less discoverable. Now you have meta-services that ship your app to many stores and handle the hassle. But they can not do much for the free stores that give pirated copies of your app, or full title+branding+UI rip-offs of your app by small e.g. Chinese devs.
And if one of the big app stores gets popular, they now have control over the platform too. Apple wants to move forward with an API change? Not so fast, the big app store doesn't agree (similar to how Apple was beholden to the goodwill of Microsoft and Adobe back in the day).
This is only an issue when they use their monopoly power to undermine consumer interests.
Maybe I should complain that Sony abuses the PS4 market so I can't run Switch titles on the PS4.
But can you write me a logical phrase about what should happen if a judge declares that Apple can continue locking the phones because there is a duopoly and the next day Google does the exact same thing since now is 100% legal.
It has been legal since ever, game consoles have 40 years of history by now.
And back in the 16 bit days, one would need to pay for SDKs.
PCs only became open due to IBM's failure to keep ownership of their creation, and Compaq's cleverness in clean room reverse engineering.
Since Windows 8 I am a big fan of Windows store app.
Other giant difference between smartphones and consoles is that smartphones and internet are required for a majority of people (banking, messaging/email, COVID apps, 2FA apps ) I can't tell my bank please make an app for this free OS, or my company please make a 2FA app for this free OS and the reverse the company/bank can tell us "use Android because Apple banned our app because the small bug fix update triggered someone"
A few years ago some money exchanges were abusing the users by having large commissions rates, then a law was passed so this commissions will be printed in large fonts outside the exchange, this worked so maybe we can force Apple to print with large fonts on the box "30% of all future transactions go to Apple" (Apple can add with smaller fonts that they have some special exceptions) or "Apple decides what can you install and can change it's mind at any moment".
Banking, one can walk to the bank office, use any phone model to call them, use the mobile Web site no need for an iPhone specifically.
Alone the fact that iPhone only matters to 22% of the world population pretty much validates the fact that is isn't water.
> Since Windows 8 I am a big fan of Windows store app
Do you think it would have been better if PCs were not open (so going through IBM or Microsoft was the only effective way to distribute software)?
In certain ways the freedom that PCs allow is less convenient than having everything go through a central authority, but as one example I don't think web browsers would have been allowed to develop as they did under this model (since forcing more areas of software development to use platform-specific native apps would be more advantageous for the platform owners with market share).
If anything the iPhone was responsible for driving everyone down, as developers abandoned J2ME, Brew, Symbian, Blackberry into iOS.
If iOS doesn't offer what they want, don't buy Apple, plain and simple, there is nothing more to discuss and the judge will set this straight.
I am curious if TikTok gets banned and then will Apple remove the app from existing phones or somehow block it and will they do it for non US citizens (inside and outside US).
I also don't get to choose what goes into my cable tv box software although it runs some strange Linux distribution, and I really don't care.
Consider that there will be a judge and a trial and you can't claim that someone else started it , you need to show the judge that the users are not hurt by Apple businesses and IMO if we are lucky a law will be passed that will also fix console issues too.
People in Bielorussia are being hurt.
Apple is not hurting anyone, beside a couple of people that has been giving money to Apple because they do UNIX, instead of supporting Linux OEMs, and now complain that Apple isn't the hippie they came to expect.
I will be OK if it is cleared what rights you have on your device, can Apple update the TOS whenever they want? are those pages of TOS you agree when you buy a device enforceable? What is the limit Apple can censor information that user receive from third parties.
If you or any consumer feels lied to, misled or falsely advertised to, they should return their device to Apple.
If enough people choose non-Apple products then Apple might change its position. Until then, buy a different brand.
I specifically bought Apple vs Android for these reasons. I run my life and business form my phone, I trust Apple to provide me with a working experience and support when needed.
Imagine having to use another App Store outside Apples control, and an app causes my phone to crash. Who will support me? I have to go digging to the app developer, or the App Store developer, or Apple?
Apple went this route to specifically remove the fragmentation of the PC market, and what you see similar in the Android market. The closed system provides better quality. That is why Apple is where it is today.
Don't use one, install only Apple approved content from Apple approved stores but don't force everyone to do so. If you want to pay 15-30% more for stuff from the Apple Store then you are free to do so. On PC you can use only Steam, if say you want to buy Fallout 3 today and is 75% of on GOG you are not forced to buy it from GOG, you can buy it from Steam and give Valve their cut.
But you should have bought Android if you want freedom ... I think it does not make sense that a judge should decide if somebody is abusing their power should depend on the market share of Andoid and would include a condition like "When Android market share gets under X or when Google locks down Android then the current Apple good abuses become over night bad).
No, all the websites I seen that offer mobile apps have 2 links, one for Apple and one for Google store . I never seen an app forcing a different store but I know Epic is trying to do that and offer some needed competition.
As far as the MacBook goes, it's a different target market. MacBooks are targeted for professionals that do all sorts of things with them.
Instead they are beefing up the iPad, which has the same target market as the iPhone. That target market doesn't care about all this crap and just wants their tech to work.
However, I would not purchase such a MacBook Pro. I would purchase such a MacBook or iPhone though.