If this is true, then you need to ask the question "should big companies be forced to be more competitive, even if doing so means a good amount of customers will lose privacy and security", and your answer will be entirely one of preference, what you say can't be correct or incorrect.
We need to speak up now more than ever. The heat against Apple is turning up, and with all this pressure and focus we can frame our argument with crystal clarity and make it LOUD.
Tim Sweeny, DHH, and plenty of other luminaries are carrying this argument forward. We need to join them in unison.
Why does everything need to become like Android? Why can’t Apple and its users do their own thing? What’s with this Borg mentality HN has when it comes to Apple?
Assimilate or perish. I genuinely think it’s deep seated envy, frankly.
The only person responsible for your success is you. There are plenty of other things successful startups need besides an iOS app but you’re targeting your anger at Apple instead?
> Apple makes this hostile to everyone that isn't them.
Apple isn’t hostile to its users. Sure, Apple is hostile to developers and it’s understandable to be upset about that.
As an Apple user I appreciate and trust their protection over the OS for this very personal device that goes in my pocket.
I appreciate Apple ID gives me a layer of privacy between me and the developer.
> Would you still have this opinion if history had been different and Microsoft's Windows Phone had taken the place of the iPhone
I have no idea. I’ve never used a Windows phone. If my choice was between Google’s Android and a Windows phone with the same consumer protections that Apple gives me now, yes, I would have a Windows phone.
That said, Apple is successful because they did things that Microsoft wasn’t doing and I find this premise silly.
This is false.
It's difficult for the HN userset to understand, but a more private, more secure experience is more of a benefit than the ability to install arbitrary unsigned apps.
Most normal users don't care about installing the handful of apps that can't pass Apple certification, and it is in fact probably better that they not be on the platform because there are reasons they're being excluded.
Epic's fight here is to block that user experience from being allowed in the marketplace. There exist "open platforms", people choose Apple because they want curation.
Moreover, Epic is mad because that user experience is winning, there are a significant number of users who prefer curation over the ability to sideload whatever garbage.
They want Apple to have a strong market position, so Apple can dictate their conditions to everyone else. They like the fact that Apple can bend every developer out there including Facebook and Google, because access to Apple users is a luxury. They like the fact that Apple uses its position to benefit Apple users.
Of course Apple uses its position to benefit Apple itself as well, but users don't care as long as they got their personal benefits like improved privacy or security. If that comes at a price to other developers, price that those developers would not pay with more open approach, users still don't care.
If Apple would allow installing of any applications to their phones, plenty of apps would run from Apple, because developers hate Apple. Installing some kind of OpenStore would be the first thing you're doing with your iPhone. AppStore would be empty just like Mac AppStore is empty. Very few developers would willingly pay 15% of their revenue to Apple just to have non-existent AppStore marketing (unless you're in lucky 0.001% who got top ranks). So those developers would not bend to Apple and Apple users would get reduced experience, less privacy, etc.