The current situation sucks, but it's worth mentioning that this alternative sucks equally as well. Specifically, games from these distributors often install dodgy kernel drivers rendering computers useless for purposes other than gaming for anyone who are conscious about security and privacy.
Furthermore, advertising, entertainment, and gaming industries are known to be hostile towards users when they're given control over user devices. They would most certainly force users onto their own app stores when given the chance and proceed to install whatever invasive piece of software they seem fit.
So while I'd love to have an easy way to install community-run app stores for free and open source software, I'd be wary of any attempts by user-hostile industries to create their own app store. I'd really like to be proven wrong, but it seems we currently have a choice between two evils.
> no music besides iTunes store (no spotify)
FYI you can install the Spotify app from the App Store at https://apps.apple.com/us/app/spotify-music-and-podcasts/id3...
I think OP is aware that competing music apps are allowed. They're making an analogy about banning competing app stores, just because itunes is good doesn't mean we don't want competition ... the same concept applies.
Given the past and current track record of the advertising, entertainment, and gaming industries, would you really want to be forced to install an app store run by any of them?
If this was purely about getting something like F-Droid into iDevices or side loading for power users, it would be very beneficial for users. Apple deserves some of the negativity for not letting that happen.
However, known user hostile players trying to have a go at people's personal devices under the guise of competition is something that we as consumers should be equally wary of. Because in the end, we won't be given much choice. Monopolies are not something exclusive to Apple, and big players will use their own monopolistic power to coerce users to install their privacy invading app store.
> However, known user hostile players trying to have a go at people's personal devices under the guise of competition is something that we as consumers should be equally wary of.
Is epic user hostile? Other than offering temporarily exclusive applications their store does not seem hostile ...
> Because in the end, we won't be given much choice. Monopolies are not something exclusive to Apple, and big players will use their own monopolistic power to coerce users to install their privacy invading app store.
Defeating hypothetical monopolistic practices by denying user choice and persisting an existing monopolistic practice sure is a take.
Let's see an example of dodgy kernel drivers. How about Easy Anti-Cheat? Go to their page at https://www.easy.ac/en-us/. Guess who develops it?
> hypothetical monopolistic practices
Hypothetical monopolistic practices really? Because I vividly recall Facebook skirting App Store security policies to make users install a privacy invading VPN app, which they also used to gather data on competitors[1]. But I'm sure that's fine because people have alternatives to Facebook. Or perhaps not[2].
Their store does not install or require this. Specific applications require it for online play (and generally only for online play...)
Microsoft does not ban this behavior on any storefront, AFAIK. Having a single storefront would not change this.
> Hypothetical monopolistic practices really? Because I vividly Facebook skirting App Store security policies to make users install a privacy invading VPN app, which they also used to gather data on competitors[1].
Amusingly this occurred under the current iOS app restrictions, which clearly didn't prevent this.
An argument could be made for certain high-risk extension point access (such as VPN) could be limited independently of general apps, but the fact that there's a bad VPN app is a silly excuse for restricting the install of simple applications.
The app sandbox should provide plenty of protection, and if the user opts to give apps permissions, that's on their choice. I really don't think users are going to install an app store that requires the usage of a sketchy VPN app ...
If this were the case, surely it would exist already on android :-)
> But I'm sure that's fine because people have alternatives to Facebook. Or perhaps not[2].
[2]: is exactly why we don't need to leave Apple's monopoly in place to "defeat other monopolies" ... we have other tools for that. Let users (and their representatives etc.) decide.
How does this matter? You've shown doubts that epic engages in user hostile behavior. I've shown you evidence. It shows that they can't be trusted with the security and privacy of their customer's devices.
> Amusingly this occurred under the current iOS app restrictions, which clearly didn't prevent this.
Amusingly the app wouldn't have been pulled if it was Facebook running the App Store. It likely wouldn't have made the headlines either because it would be common practice. This is the same Facebook, along with Google, that abused enterprise certificates to skirt the app review process itself[1].
> The app sandbox should provide plenty of protection, and if the user opts to give apps permissions, that's on their choice.
You'd be amazed at the lengths some users went through to install Google and Facebook's sketchy "research" app[1].
But to get back to the point, all I'm saying boils down to two things:
- Apple should enable FOSS communities to run an app store and also make it easy for power users to side load apps
- Consumers should be extremely cautious of big players demanding more access to their personal devices
Is this such a silly position to take?
[1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/google-screenwise-unwi...
Some are. [0] And because of the 30% cut many popular services simply aren't available through their iOS apps.
[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-app-makers-break-their-apps...
That means the breakeven for the 30% fee is at 27000 sales for a $3 app _in average_, but many apps make no sales, many others are free, many are cheaper than $3.
So the 30% fee is effectively the bigger apps paying so the smaller apps can exist, and so a market can exist, with low-cost apps, which makes it interesting for customers to come. Therefore I don’t personally think the 30% cut is unfair; just that « the bigger paying for the smaller » is a debatable choice (which is the same idea as the bigger taxpayers paying for the poorest).
But in a typical “customer harm” perspective I think it’s very hard to make a case.
Apps aren’t really that more expensive on iOS nor is the catalog smaller.
However much we want a freer iOS experience, competing App Stores will just make iOS like modern gaming with a crappy custom App Store for each vendor. It would be more reasonable to have easier side loading for enthusiast or stuff Apple doesn’t want in its store.