It's also a no-brainer from the business and marketing side. Unless Apple somehow forces certain rules on third-party app stores to require their apps to comply with advertising, tracking, and security measures, there's no reason for these third party app stores to care if the apps they have on their store track the user for advertising via something other than the tracking identifier - they'd all bypass the tracking consent popup via fingerprinting and other techniques.

None of this would be great for developers.

Having to deal with a multitude of stores run by companies that are even shadier than Apple is not good.

Are you kidding? Being able to sell on more than one store is a massive advantage. Besides the obvious lower risks and lower fees, you can also benefit from better exposure and discovery (two things that are terrible on the app store and google play) especially in niche stores.

Being forced to sell on multiple stores and comply with multiple sets of store rules just to access the same set of consumers is a massive disadvantage.

There will be greater risks. It’s conceivable that fees will be a little lower, but this will only benefit larger developers who can absorb the increased costs of dealing with all the stores.

It will be nothing but destructive for smaller developers.

This is scaremongering. Android has alternative app stores and most apps don't bother releasing to them. iOS would not fragment overnight into dozens of app stores if it was to become open. Likely the majority of apps would still target the App Store, with a handful of major competing stores. These competitors would be incentivized to attract developers, otherwise they would end up with the same lack of apps that killed alternative smartphone operating systems. Not to mention, there would be some degree of standardization of store rules across these platforms, because that's how industries with multiple players tend to function.

You're describing an entirely extreme position without any basis.

The basis for this belief is that Epic also sued Google Play for creating the existing conditions that you describe. Epic doesn't want to turn iOS into Android (which is bad enough on its own), they want to open the floodgates on Android, too.

But I don't care about Epic, nor am I talking about them. I'm talking about the hypothetical scenario where Apple allows alternative app stores to exist. I'm not framing this under Epic's terms.

The handful of competitors would be multi-billion dollar corporations, e.g. Epic, Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft.

The incentive for developers is as always, customers. The stores would be incentivized to acquire customers. Developers would be forced to support any store that had more than a few percent of customers.

Acquiring customers can be done without giving good terms to most developers. All you need is a small number of exclusives. Epic has their own content, and the others would be able for trivially bid foe the top apps. Facebook and Amazon would simply extend their existing iOS apps into becoming stores, and presumably Google could do this with Chrome for iOS, which they’d trivially market via search results.

There is no reason these stores would need the long tail of apps as long as they had a few very popular ones, and that would reduce exposure for the long tail that did remain in the Apple store.

Your point about standardization of store rules isn’t obvious - what industry do you think this compares with?

There is no reason to think that this would do anything to democratize the industry, indeed it would be likely to have the opposite effect, of increasing barriers to entry for smaller developers.

My position isn’t extreme in the least. It is the obvious extrapolation of the behaviors of current players.

An extreme position would be the emergency of a utopia of developer centric stores all bending over themselves to make things better for the little guy.

> Developers would be forced to support any store that had more than a few percent of customers.

Look at the Amazon Appstore for Android and you'll see an anemic limited app marketplace that while subpar, doesn't seem to be doing anything particularly nefarious to consumers nor developers alike. And it's precisely anemic and limited because it contains far fewer apps than the Play Store. We have the entire Android ecosystem to use as a case study to see why competing iOS app stores wouldn't be a threat to either to the App Store's prominence nor to the livelihoods of developers.

> Acquiring customers can be done without giving good terms to most developers. All you need is a small number of exclusives.

Which does not obviate the ability of the vast majority of non-FANMG affiliated developers to stay on the App Store as they please, or only join the specific app stores that they wish to live on out of desire and not necessity.

> There is no reason these stores would need the long tail of apps as long as they had a few very popular ones, and that would reduce exposure for the long tail that did remain in the Apple store.

You seem to be operating under the misunderstanding that the existence of alternative app stores creates lock-in.

> Your point about standardization of store rules isn’t obvious - what industry do you think this compares with?

I'm saying any industry that involves multiple players will see the standardization of norms and operating conventions, much like how UX patterns across different apps standardizes over time. (Take the adoption of the "hamburger button" to mean menu back in the '10s). If there are multiple entrants into the app store space, standard business practices will arise as a new and exciting place for entrepreneurs is created.

> There is no reason to think that this would do anything to democratize the industry, indeed it would be likely to have the opposite effect, of increasing barriers to entry for smaller developers.

And there's no reason to think that the existing situation is any more democratic than the hypothetical you're spinning.

> It is the obvious extrapolation of the behaviors of current players.

And is it being borne out on Android? There's no Facebook nor Microsoft Play store there. There doesn't even seem to be interest in that direction. Yes, comparing the iOS and Android ecosystems (especially in the service of delineating a hypothetical open iOS ecosystem) is imprecise, but it's useful for the sake of this discussion.

> An extreme position would be the emergency of a utopia of developer centric stores all bending over themselves to make things better for the little guy.

Which isn't what I'm arguing for, either. I think there's the potential for that. Certainly more than in the status quo.

Your premise seems to be that the current situation on Android is a good model for what would happen on iOS.

Epic themselves are suing Google because android doesn’t actually allow competing stores to operate in an equal footing.

That’s really all that is needed to dismiss this like of argument.

My extrapolation is not being borne out on Android because Android also doesn’t allow stores to compete on an equal footing, which is why Epic is also suing them.

I’m assuming you just didn’t know about this.

There will be no new and exciting place for developers. There will be exactly the same platform, but a whole load of additional predatory business to deal with.

If you truly think I’m wrong (and honestly, I’d like to be), perhaps you can flesh out a realistic hypothetical about what developers can expect rather than waving away the idea that say, Facebook and Amazon would get involved.

If you're going to dismiss the majority of my arguments and points, as well as reality in favor of your own framing, then you're refusing to debate in good faith.

Epic's lawsuit is immaterial, imo. We don't know how the courts will decide. Rather, what's being debated is what a hypothetical open iOS will look like. Even if they lose the lawsuit, Pandora's box has been opened. Years of developer dissatisfaction and corporate strategizing has called Apple's dominance into question, and we are now examining potential futures if Apple opens up. I don't believe a forced opening on Epic's terms is inevitable, nor is it the only model for opening up.

One can even imagine a scenario where Apple opens up on its own terms. Perhaps they provide SDKs that allow the creation of third party app stores with stringent security mechanisms built in, and license that out to partners. They certainly have the resources to undertake such a process, and forcing such stores to pay a license fee would both allow them to recoup on lost revenue and allow them to maintain a level of control over their platform. Epic would scream but again they're neither the first to cry foul over the App Store monopoly, nor the last. If the bulk of the developer grievances can be sidestepped by Apple themselves, Epic would then truly just look like a litigious rent-seeker, rather than a company that's accidentally doing something that's helping the little guy.

> perhaps you can flesh out a realistic hypothetical about what developers can expect

How about the gaming market, especially over the past decade. The rise of Steam, the presence of somewhat niche alternatives like GOG.com, GamersGate, Humble Bundle, (I believe Blizzard was the major publisher with their own digital distribution store early on), then the sudden proliferation of other publishers from EA to UbiSoft and now Epic.

Does it require significant overhead for developers to support multiple stores? I'm sure it isn't free. But is it significantly detrimental to them? I'm not sure. Valve has been criticized over Steam's former near-monopoly of the gaming digital distribution market[0]. At least the present situation gives them alternatives to work with. The AAA publisher stores are often derided, but more from a consumer standpoint than a developer perspective. Having a ton of game installers and store accounts to manage is a pain. It's definitely not frictionless. But again, you're arguing on behalf of developers, and I'm not sure if they're unhappy with having more choices than just Steam.

> There will be exactly the same platform, but a whole load of additional predatory business to deal with.

Again, you have to provide examples in other segments where Facebook, Microsoft, et al have successfully created trouble for developers by offering them (and developers) more choices.

[0] https://www.polygon.com/2017/5/16/15622366/valve-gabe-newell...

I assume your argument invoking Android as a model wasn’t in bad faith, and I can certainly dismiss the conclusions of it in good faith too, because it is inapplicable as a model.

And no - I don’t have to provide examples of where Facebook, Microsoft etc, have already “caused trouble”. It just has to be reasonable to expect them to want to compete, and to employ commonly used tactics that are not necessarily good for developers or consumers. That is all I am suggesting. Facebook and Microsoft have been hyper competitive companies who generally do whatever they can get away with. Neither are known as friends of either developers or consumers, although I accept that Microsoft has been doing better since they have been an underdog. This is common knowledge.

As for opening up the Apple opening the App Store on their own terms, or indeed a bootcamp solution enabling people to do whatever they want with the hardware: I’m actually in favor of these, and I think talking about them is constructive.

What I am not in favor of is Epic winning a court supervised solution, and I separately think that simply assuming that more choices are better is a dangerous dogma that could easily make things a lot worse.

I actually strongly believe we need the smartphone software environment to be opened, but the path by which that occurs and the nature of the openness obtained is very important to whether there is a net gain for anyone other than the already rich and powerful.

> I assume your argument invoking Android as a model wasn’t in bad faith, and I can certainly dismiss the conclusions of it in good faith too, because it is inapplicable as a model.

Why is it inapplicable? Because Google is behind it instead of Apple?

> And no - I don’t have to provide examples of where Facebook, Microsoft etc, have already “caused trouble”.

Then you have no evidence substantiating your claims.

> Neither are known as friends of either developers or consumers, although I accept that Microsoft has been doing better since they have been an underdog.

You are bringing moral weight into this discussion, which is fine. However, I would not be willing to assign any additional moral weight to Apple either. It does not do to assume any company- especially one in the same realm of financial success- is particularly more virtuous or honest than others, nor incapable of predatory business tactics of its own.

> What I am not in favor of is Epic winning a court supervised solution

And that is the crux. I do not favor Epic, but I recognize that they are the first to put skin in the game as far as grousing over App Store policies go. They are a necessary evil in terms of forcing Apple's leadership to recognize that App Store policy is worth a reexamination. Without a challenge, Apple management is content to pursue its present course without recognition that there is indeed a world outside of Cupertino. They have perhaps the highest market cap of any corporation in history- they're no underdog in this tale. But I also don't care about Epic in the context of this discussion. We can map out ways in which Apple could open up iOS without dragging in Epic's legal demands into this.

> I actually strongly believe we need the smartphone software environment to be opened, but the path by which that occurs and the nature of the openness obtained is very important to whether there is a net gain for anyone other than the already rich and powerful.

I agree with that.

This whole “you have no evidence to substantiate your claim thing” is empty. The evidence is plainly there in present normal competitive behavior. That’s all that is needed.

Google is not a model for what would happen if Apple was forced to open the App Store.

There are two reasons for this. One is that Google isn’t the app market leader and so the pressures aren’t there.

The other is that secondary app stores are basically crippled on Android by comparison to the play store, which is why Epic is also suing google.

It just isn’t comparable, so you can’t use it as an example of what would happen.

I’m not bringing moral weight really. I think Apple provides a lot of benefits to users and developers.

I think we ultimately need a more open environment where what people can install is not controlled by Apple.

However I just don’t believe that the competitors who want access to Apple’s customers have any incentive to maintain an open marketplace or to serve developers.

They have every incentive to fight bitterly and use their own assets of one kind or another to lock-up parts of that market and to try to monopolize it just as Apple has.

That just isn’t going to be good for developers.

If Epic’s grousing leads to better terms from Apple, with Apple still in control, then I’d agree that it was ultimately a win for everyone (even including Apple).

If on the other hand we get a court mandated soliton, or anti-trust action, I think we’ll end up further away from a truly open, competitive environment than ever.

All the air will be sucked out of that possibility into what will effectively be a government authorized cartel.

> There are two reasons for this. One is that Google isn’t the app market leader and so the pressures aren’t there.

And yet, the Play Store is still the dominant app market within the Android ecosystem despite Google's lackadaisical caretaking of it (leading to security and quality issues). This situation would only be heightened in an opened iOS situation, because Apple would still maintain control as is its wont, and because most consumers would be fine staying with the App Store.

> The other is that secondary app stores are basically crippled on Android by comparison to the play store, which is why Epic is also suing google.

Which is a situation that could likely repeat in a (semi-)open iOS for any number of reasons, Epic's legal adventures notwithstanding.

> It just isn’t comparable, so you can’t use it as an example of what would happen.

I disagree. Even if it doesn't exactly repeat, it's likely very similar to it. Ultimately, iOS and Android are more similar than different in that they were both created and promoted by a single business entity. We're not talking about an ecosystem launched by a secondary less powerful company (webOS) or an open source project (Firefox OS, Ubuntu Mobile).

> I think we ultimately need a more open environment where what people can install is not controlled by Apple.

We agree on that.

> If on the other hand we get a court mandated soliton, or anti-trust action, I think we’ll end up further away from a truly open, competitive environment than ever. All the air will be sucked out of that possibility into what will effectively be a government authorized cartel.

I think given the anemic nature of antitrust action in this country over the past few decades, this is likely politically infeasible, a doomsday scenario bordering on hysteria. Hence, we arrive full-circle: scaremongering.

There is so much wrong with everything you're saying, but I am not going to spend the time to point it all out, especially since you seem to have thoroughly convinced yourself that these assumptions are true.

But I'll just point this out:

> sell on multiple stores and comply with multiple sets of store rules just to access the same set of consumers is a massive disadvantage.

The only way this might be a problem is if all of the 1 billion+ iOS users were your customers, because then maybe some of them might decide to stop using the appstore completely, and maybe that'd happen instantly over night. Then maybe you'd have to publish your app on a second store (which would mean selling your app for a second time to those users who decided to leave the app store and never look back).

But regardless, if you have 1 billion customers, supporting a second or third for 40th store is not going to incur any significant costs. In fact, it might even lower them as most competing stores would likely distribute to both Android and iOS at the same time (Google Play would undoubtedly start selling iOS apps). Plus there will 100% be third party services for managing store pages across all the stores out there for a nominal fee (or even for free).

This makes no sense.

If you are a new app developer and there was just one additional store, which had just 15% of user attention, you’d have to support it or lose 15% of potential revenue.

This is more than likely as Facebook would almost certainly start selling apps directly through the feed.

Then don't install the other stores.

(That's how people who say "then don't use Apple devices" sounds like).

That sounds like you conceding that it would be a bad situation.

One can think that the current situation has problems and also see that the remedy will make things much worse. These are not in contradiction.

Not having choices is a bad situation. I would be surprised if you thought otherwise.

Imagine not being able to ditch the App Store the way publishers have done so in the Mac App Store:

https://bohemiancoding.tumblr.com/post/134322691555/leaving-...

https://panic.com/blog/coda-2-5-and-the-mac-app-store/

https://sixcolors.com/post/2014/10/bbedit-at-max-q/

Imagine an App Store update breaking all of your apps:

https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/18/apple-acknowledges-mac-app...

The App Store approach basically gives you 1 choice if you're uneasy with the status quo: To get out.

Developers won’t have more choices. They’ll be forced to support all the stores that have a significant set of customers.

>Not having choices is a bad situation. I would be surprised if you thought otherwise.

really? I completely disagree, let me illustrate. I don't have much choice of toilet paper when I go to the bathroom, especially in a public restroom. Theres usually only one dispenser, but somehow nobody cares, no one is asking the government to regulate for every Walmart in the country to offer dispensers for every manufacturer, or to regulate residential construction so that every bathroom has one of those industrial size dispensers (or space to install one!) so homeowners can use the jumbo rolls seen in public restrooms. But let's play pretend and imagine if every time you went to use a public restroom there were 8 different toilet papers in the stall. What benefit would that serve, and how would it be a better situation vs the "bad situation" of no choice in toilet paper? Sure, its a bad situation for Charmin as the only toilet paper offered at thousands of Walmarts in the US is probably some cheap Marathon or Georgia-Pacific product, but is it really a social responsibility to make sure that every public restroom has a selection of toilet papers? I would be surprised if you thought that choice would be good here. Given my assumption, why is it not a social responsibility to demand toilet paper choice, and how is toilet paper choice different than app store choice? Serious question, because they seem about equivalent to me.

Moreover, I detest this type of pointless choice in most areas of my life because it is an absolute waste of my time and mental resources. Choice is good for macro economic reasons, not social reasons, and sometimes its not even good for micro economic reasons[1]. It allows for competition in a marketplace, driving down prices as a typical consequence. However competition is also typically a waste of resources, whether it's the consumer's time or engineering costs for duplicate/redundant products/factories/supply chains, and it can certainly lead to lower consumer satisfaction.

Your links are from a developer's point of view, but like it or not developers are businesses, and Apple and the government don't exist to serve them, they exist to serve everyone(or in Apple's case their shareholders and by extension everyone who can afford an iPhone), developers are a small minority of that everyone. It sucks for those developers, sure, but business is rough as a rule, and I find this whole "but the app developers" like a bad joke. I'd be interested in an example of another cottage industry like app development that got some sort of regulation on stores similar to this. Honestly it seems if we look at precedent in the economy, usually this sort of intervention is anti-consumer; the dealership model for car sales drives car prices up 10% [2], for example.

I think small developers should be fearful of this lobby. App development could be a lot more regulated, considering the amount of personal information on a phone and the importance of them in modern life, it seems crazy that the production of eggs is so much more tightly regulated than the production of phone applications. I could probably bounce back from getting salmonella in a month or less, but if all the information on my iphone got stolen and used maliciously it would take me years to recover my identity, if I ever did. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the next type of thing that this lobby went after. Let's create a government body to do randomized security audits on smart phone applications, with arcane and pointless rules. Seriously, check out the laws in the US on the sale and farming of eggs and then tell me you want to let big business get the government involved in regulating apps.

[1]https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.... [2]https://www.mercatus.org/publications/regulation/auto-franch...

Can you bring your own toilet paper to a public restroom?

An Apple restroom would prohibit you from bringing your own toiler paper, plus, it would force you to use the new iPaper worth 6 times more than any other toilet paper.

So you've turned the situation into an anti-consumer one.

As a consumer I would then lose access to a significant proportion of apps.

Why? If an app is not present in the App Store then it's Apple's fault for not being an attractive option. That's how competition works.