Not sure I agree this is Apple getting others to 'cave'

After all, when game streaming runs in-browser, Apple forego their censorship/app review powers and their 30% cut of sales.

Microsoft almost certainly would have preferred if no one had done game streaming through Safari on iOS, because they're a complainant about Apple's App Store policies [1]. That became untenable after Amazon went first.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-18/microsoft...

I think that 30% is much less important to them when compared to epic/tencent attempt to get their own stores.

Epic already has their own store on androids, yet they still publish on the play store.

Apple could allow 3rd party app stores knowing very well that they’ll be barely used

> very well that they’ll be barely used

They'll be widely used if even one big app (like gmail, facebook, or whatsapp) require use of a third party store.

A service could do a gradual shift to a third party store by saying "you must use a third party store for new installations only", and your users will migrate slowly as they get new devices.

Well, Tencent is the company to whom Apple granted an exemption. So far, only one on record.

They really don’t care if people make money through web apps. They aren’t interested in capturing a percentage of that.

What they do care about is that they maintain control of their store.

How do you explain this theory that they care about the store and don't care about web apps, if web apps allow both developers and users to skip the store?

They care about the store primarily for some other other reason, and the fee is just incidental they don't care about? I say, "Unlikely".

If that was the case, then why did they ever create the store in the first place? They started out with no public store and all installed apps were fully internally owned and controlled. If they only cared about that, they already had that before creating the store. If they only created the public store to allow a wider range of other apps to exist for the users, many years of prior examples of external apps that a device/os vendor could support without caring about controlling or extracting a fee from existed already from PalmOS and WinCE etc. They didn't need any store, or they could have allowed a 3rd party to operate a curated convenient store, or they could have just maintained a directory that had listings that pointed to all the random apps on their own websites etc and the end user experience could be exactly as smooth as today. The os and the app package format could provide all the same user protections and procedural consistency.

No, they only care about the app store for 2 main reasons: 1 - Because other platforms were already more useful to users like Palm which already had thousands of unpredicable random special purpose apps for many years, and so they were simply required to provide some sort of equivalent facility whether they wanted to or not. 2 - To extract a fee from all of that activity.

Once web apps allow both developers and users to skip the store... then what? Apple still doesn't care? No way. Come on.

Apple created the store because it sells iOS devices.

It sells iOS devices because it’s a curated and environment where people feel safe to buy software, and because Apple can deliver apis for new hardware as they release it rather than moving at the speed of web standards.

Apps also can be engineered for privacy and security in ways that web apps cannot.

The store will always be a differentiator from the open web in this way.

It is in Apple’s interest to have both the best browser and the best native platform and store.

Apple makes more money on store sales than device sales... I'm certain that investors and the board would not appreciate losing that.

“Apple makes more money on store sales than device sales“

This statement is complete bullshit.

But in any case, that’s exactly why they want the browser to be successful too.

Otherwise there might be an antitrust case which would cause them to lose the store.

Looks like you're right... $61b in store sales vs $413b in device sales, but not sure where the raw profits stack up... that said, I still think investors would be upset to drop $61b in what is likely high margins.

What has ‘dropping’ the store revenue got to do with any of this?

Everything. That's all this thread is about is exactly that.

My comment reacts to a comment claiming Apple doesn't care about collecting a fee from web apps.

Web apps theoretically allow both developers and users to skip the app store, and thus it's fees.

Sure, but it’s a completely unsubstantiated leap to suggest that this means the store revenue will be ‘dropped’.

Both users and many developers benefit from the store for reasons already outlined in ways that the web can’t replicate.

It’s not going to be ‘dropped’ just because streaming games don’t fit the model.

Projections or thought experiments are not "leaps".

Perhaps you missed the top of this thread and lost track of what this conversation is even about?

If web apps can take the place of apps (and in broad strokes, yes they can) then the thought experiment is to ask "What if all apps became web apps?"

And that was just part of evaluating the plausibility of the position that Apple doesn't care about collecting fees from web apps.

Activities occurring after a regulatory lawsuit has been initiated rarely affect the outcome of the case, the logic being that such activities were taken solely to avoid litigation and may be dropped as soon as the threat of litigation disappears.

If anything, this undercuts Apple's position that the restrictions were necessary in the first place.