I like Apple forcing use of in-app-payments, I like Apple giving me subscription control to make canceling easy. I like Apple blocking app tracking and forcing design constraints.
That said, the 30% weakens their entire argument about this and is a racket. If they want to charge a yearly deployment fee or something fine, but 30% of a company's income via IAP? That's obnoxious and anti-competitive, particularly in cases like Spotify where they directly compete and undercut them in the same market.
Apple is skimming a tax off the top and they're forcing everyone to pay the toll. It weakens their entire argument. I wish they would stop, because I think a world with multiple stores and such would be a huge pain and customers would suffer because of it.
If you think it's a pain to have 15 streaming services or 10 different game distributors all with their own shitty incentives - it'd be that on the phone.
You and Apple are conflating "App Store" and "Content Filter".
We can have multiple App Stores and multiple types of content filters. It doesn't need to be like the current situation, with Apple in full control over everything.
It’s not content filtering that I care about, it’s the ability for Apple to enforce standards around usability and features that are better for their users.
Without control of the store they lose that leverage.
App devs will just ship outside of it and include all the tracking they want. It’ll also block Apple from being able to require things like Apple ID or Apple Pay support which provide direct benefits to users, but can run counter to what app devs want.
It wouldn’t be an “alternative choice” app devs with leverage would ship outside of the store to bypass policy and force users to install shitty versions.
You might have to do this because of network effects.
The choice I want won't exist in that world and I don't have the leverage to require it to exist.
Apple does and that's why I choose their products.
[0]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
Others like to go base jumping from some mountain in the Alps.
Shouldn't both be possible? Or do we want a Mickey Mouse in the Alps telling us to go back for our own safety?
And I don't want to punch Mickey Mouse every time I go climbing.
I’m genuinely curious, because to me that’s the equivalent of telling Ford that you want a Ferrari engine in your mustang.
Maybe if someone could help me understand this I would be more open to those kinds of ideas.
Yes it does. Because otherwise you will need to install tons of app stores to install all the apps you currently use.
For instance, I would have to install the Epic store to install Fortnite. Now that’s two apps (the store app plus Fortnite app) and then I’d be less confident about the level of quality and security that the added store provides.
It is this particular situation that seems very hard to overcome from a regulatory perspective. So one you allow multiple app stores, the specialness that people like me have for our trusted devices disappears.
How many Spotify users paid through their App though? I'd imagine it would only be a tiny fraction.
They also started to prevent apps that don't have IAP for subscriptions.
> ...that app developers be allowed to provide consumers with information about alternative payment options...
The only thing I really like about Spotify is spotify connect. I don't understand why none of the competitors have anything competing. It's the key selling point for Sonos
That’s when they’re actually in violation of monopoly and consumer protection laws. Consumer harm is part of it.
Like for example, consider their restrictions on third-party browser engines, JITs, etc. Are you happy about all those choices too?
I would have to think about it honestly, I don't know what I think.
It's a little funny because I think someone reading my comments absent context would think I don't care about general purpose computing. I do care about it though, a lot. I think the centralization of communication services behind a few megacorporations is a sad outcome and a lost promise of decentralized communication between users on the net.
The issue I have is the inbetween - in 'the world as it is' at least apple has leverage to stop the shittiest data mining, tracking, email harvesting, call-to-cancel retentions, just general user hostile 'features' on our behalf. If they don't have that leverage, we don't suddenly gain a better environment - we're in the same shitty centralized thin client world, but now it's worse. In the idealized world of decentralized applications or strong data protection legislation I'd be in favor of it, but in our world I think the tradeoffs are serious and its one of the main reasons I buy Apple hardware.
Forcing the ecosystem to use shared libs for common, expensive taks like browser engines, JITs, etc, has clear benefits in terms of storage and battery life.
This is most stark with their recent announcement of supporting paid podcasts. Particularly because of the anonymization around sign-in with Apple, the podcaster doesn’t actually get to know who their subscribers are. Want to have special rewards or a subscriber only discord channel or forum? Too bad! If any of your biggest fans first started donating through Apple Podcasts you’ve got a big hassle in the way of verifying who they are. Got a weird customer service problem that you’d like to address with a personal touch or maybe offer some store credit or a special reward to make up for it? Once again, too bad. There is no capability to do that.
Most likely it is in the interest of majority of consumers conditioned to this type of control. I realize that it is a benefit for older computer illiterate people. It completely sucks for people like myself.
>"10 different game distributors all with their own shitty incentives"
That's one classy way of describing business approach. Yes they're shitty in a way that they're there to help you part with your money and everything else is but a fluff around it. You just forgot to add Apple itself to that group.
It's a benefit for computer literate people too.
- IAP allows easy tracking of subscriptions and cancellation. You don't have to call and argue with a retentions rep for an hour to cancel a service.
- Apple restrictions on tracking limit abuse from ad driven business models.
- Apple can require features like Apple ID to be implemented alongside FB connect or whatever. Apple ID has privacy friendly features for users like obscuring your email via a relay. This would never be implemented by app devs because hiding your email is counter to their incentives. If they could deploy outside of the store to avoid these constraints they would.
Apple's interests are aligned with their users. The reason they can get away with charging 30% is because Apple's users don't care about all the shitty anti-user things Apple blocks app devs from doing.
The reason I care about the 30% is because it worries me that they will be forced to allow side-loading or multiple stores and lose their leverage over app devs. If they lose that leverage we as Apple users will lose these benefits, and for what?
Because you literally don't get people in autocratic regimes killed because the single choke point of software that might enable them to escape detection is removed. Because you remove Apple's rampant discrimination against some kinds of speech and the people that effects. Because Apple attacks businesses with any involvement in sex whatsoever.
[1] I'm assuming that "autocratic" here refers to China - though despite the lack of political freedom and the awful situation with regard to ethnic minorities, I don't think that's a very helpful or expressive label.
If anything, Apple’s control here enables better protection for users. You think authoritarian regimes don’t own phones? You think Android is safer in China?
Sure, maybe. I do not care as I personally do not feel any benefit. I am most likely in minority but that does not mean I have to tailor my opinions.
Not even really criticizing Apple / Google. I want my phone to be able to function as normal Windows / Linux PC except that its phone capability would be able to function even if the rest of the OS is crashed. Such product simply does not exist outside of half baked attempts and I am not willing to waste my time/money on those.
The end result is that my current smartphone is mostly just a phone with couple of off-line apps like GPS and apps to install firmware to various gizmos like a drone. I do not even have data plan.
That's probably technically 'most', but it's not the large sector that matters.
Also 15% is still quite high.
That 15% includes the 1-3% creditcard processing fee. They also take care of VAT and multi currency for your customers.
I don't understand this argument at all.
You're almost certainly taking more risk driving in a car than downloading an app, yet you're probably willing to embrace the full degrees of freedom of the roadway.
We shouldn't be afraid to use computers. Security is possible without an app store.
Apologizing for Apple's exploitive system is doing us all a disservice. It's making it harder to do business, launch a startup, use your own device, refurbish your device, and compute freely.
Technology wasn't always a locked-in time share. We're witnessing a hostile takeover. An invented scam, sold to us by the Jobs and Ballmers of the world.
The Apple and Google stores make us serfs in their kingdoms. We're renting, not owning.
Your choices are impinging upon my freedoms. The more people that accept this, the more companies are willing to take.
A Department of Justice breakup is looking like the only solution at this point.
Your liberty is not at stake here, nor any real detriment to your quality of life really. The more companies take, the more opportunity for disruption there will be.
A Department of Justice breakup is certainly the easiest and most immediately gratifying solution. It is hardly the only solution, and in my mind I am certain it is the wrong solution.
Would you say the same if the car market suddenly coalesced into a duopoly and the car companies become very restrictive? Would you defend only them being allowed to do basic repairs in the interest of safety? One going as far as saying you need to buy their tires or tires from companies that pay them tribute or the car won't start, their seat covers unless you manage disable some weird detection, etc The other allowing such stuff just making it a pain. Would you then say a company just needs to pop up and meet this demand? Despite all the stuff involved and the size of cars would be a lot lot easier. Because at least cars don't necessarily need an ecosystem, userbase and developer community outside of the company to get of the ground and get sales.
As soon as you apply these things the other industries they start sounding ridiculous and hilariously anticompetitive but with phones people for some reason have come to accept it.
My take:
Car company requires third party manufacturers to adhere to its quality standards and pass review before being installed. The car company installs all of the third party parts for you and distributes them globally, handling payment, they charge 30% (or 15%) to the third party for this.
If you refuse to adhere to their quality standards they refuse to install your third party accessory.
Drivers can only get approved service from the car company.
Seems fine? Probably an exclusive benefit for owners of that car. I could see people choosing that car because of this.
So no, there is no part of that thats fine.
When laws around cars were put together people actually cared about their liberty, and I have the right to open car repair tomorrow and BMW and Toyotas of the world wont interfere. And unlike iPhones,cars actually are dangerous.
Your car, your choice.
You want to install an aftermarket supercharger and fish fins? Your prerogative. Toyota and Apple have no right to tell you what to do.
You can even still hack the fins on your car despite the policy, but it might be difficult to do yourself and it'll void your warranty.
Secondly I vote to get laws passed that they make sure they can shove this policy. I've had enough of this corporate lawmaking and stockholm syndrome victims covering for them
Which now also charges more fucking over consumers because they can and limits more in their favour because ...hey it's a duopoly. There's no pressure to make it a monopoly.
Also as someone else noted apples own actions show that this isn't how they do business given the opportunity.
Yes it is.
iOS controls a sufficient part of US revenue that wider ecosystem effects on what is permitted speech come directly from the app store terms, or at least in some cases about trying to second guess the inconsistently applied, arbitrary and vague as hell App Store rules.
We've got direct testimony from all sorts of app makers that what speech they do and do not censor on the platform (especially around sex, impacting the fundamental liberties and safety of sex workers, queer communities, artists and educators) is directly because their business is such that they need to watch the terms of the app store.
We've seen examples in China of Apple blocking apps that literally lead to people failing to escape authoritarian governments and them disappearing, quite possibly to their death.
Liberty is the fundamental reason that a singular control of what software can be run on mobile device is a thing too dangerous to be allowed to exist. Competition law is probably the most expedient route to fix it, but a centralised app store should be a criminal act on it's own merits.
> We've seen examples in China of Apple blocking apps that literally lead to people failing to escape authoritarian governments and them disappearing, quite possibly to their death.
This seems very flimsy but I would be genuinely interested in reading up on this, if you could provide a source/reference. Either way, this is a great reason not to use and publish on the iOS platform. But the irony of suggesting government overreach as a cure for the ails of extreme government overreach in another country is not lost on me.
And an iPhone being your property does not change the properties of the iPhone you bought. You can tinker with it as much as your ability allows you to, but if you are not happy with the limitations of the device than you should not have bought that device.
Actually that's literally exactly what it means.
It's gone beyond your choice or my choice - Apple is gravitationally distorting the entire industry and bending it to its will.
You don't have to drive on the highway either, so I assume you're fine with having that freedom removed too.
Yes, you do. If you want to reach 50% of Americans, you're forced to build and distribute an app on the App Store.
Try building Netflix without an iOS app.
Try writing a new social media app and not building for iPhone.
Pick any modern vertical without an iPhone app. You just can't do it. Apple is the new AOL for a lot of folks.
You immediately surrender 30% to reach 50% of your customer base, and on top of that, you have to dance to Apple's arbitrary rules and app approval release trains.
1. This is not how technology should work.
2. Apple's fees are extortion.
3. This is using monopolistic advantage to strong arm an entire industry.
Several people (including me) access social media sites through the browser rather than having a native app, in part because of the abuses done by social networks in device profiling in the past.
> Apple is the new AOL for a lot of folks.
So the same sort of companies who made a marketing decision to invest in AOL keywords are now willing to write an app and give money to apple so that users can find their service through a search in the app store?
> You immediately surrender 30% to reach 50% of your customer base
I assume you do not realize that it is well documented all of the ways you can pay less (e.g. subscriptions, small business program) or nothing (external payments and subscriptions - you are only limited by your ability to advertise those as alternatives to offering in-app purchases, and can raise your in-app price if you prefer to cover the difference).
There really aren't, because the HTML5 DRM implementation isn't reliable enough.
I like local control, I think urbit is cool and hope they succeed. I'm a little disturbed by the need for mighty and how we've ended up in a such a messy state of things with modern computing.
It's not about reducing risk or scam apps really - it's about Apple being able to incentivize user-benefiting behavior that ad-driven business models corrupt. Maybe we wouldn't need this in a world that had more CCPA laws with teeth, I'd be happy to live in that world, but we don't.
At least with Apple I have the option to buy hardware from a company with aligned incentives that gives a shit.
Apple isn't doing this out of their own good heart! They've built one of the largest monopolies in the world.
Is it okay for one megamonopoly to tax everyone else simply because they reached market penetration first?
Let's fix our laws. This is utterly unfair.
But the control and leverage is good.
The control and leverage are fundamentally evil, and they get people discriminated against and killed.
It has been this way since November, and it seems like either nobody noticed, or they seem to still enjoy quoting the 30% number. If you make more than $1mil a year you probably can afford to deal with that. You're also probably putting significantly more bandwidth off Apple's servers than an app that's had 100 downloads.
Unity does a similar thing, but it's free for up to a certain income, pay after that.
I personally would like to see that reduced to 10%, but at least Apple responded to the constant criticism that 30% was ludicrous.
From Apple:
• Existing developers who made up to $1 million in 2020 for all of their apps, as well as developers new to the App Store, can qualify for the program and the reduced (15%) commission.
• If a participating developer surpasses the $1 million threshold, the standard commission rate will apply for the remainder of the year.
• If a developer’s business falls below the $1 million threshold in a future calendar year, they can requalify for the 15 percent commission the year after.
Source: https://www.apple.com/ca/newsroom/2020/11/apple-announces-ap...
And for the entirety of the following year.
Apple has done a lot to revise the App Store charging policy over the last few years, and I think they deserve credit for that. Also their hosting of free apps for only a nominal developer registration fee is a huge boon to users and a lot of iOS developers.
So I don’t think those criticisms are entirely accurate or fair. I am ok with regulators looking into this though. Apples revisions to their charging structure probably wouldn’t have happened without the threat of regulatory review. It’s important they be held accountable. However Apple invested many, many billions of dollars to develop the technologies in iOS over many decades and took huge commercial risks. iOS and these devices are their product and they have the right to decide how they work and what features they have. Those who don’t like that do have alternatives. The fact is an awful lot of people do like the way Apple does things.
That's still pretty extreme imo when you control the only store and you directly compete with them/undercut them.
> "Also their hosting of free apps for only a nominal developer registration fee is a huge boon to users and a lot of iOS developers."
They charge a fee for it, I wouldn't consider it nominal - the ecosystem of apps also obviously benefits apple.
---
I'm a huge Apple fan which is why I find this racket irritating, it worries me that it'll blow up in their face and we'll end up worse off.
I'd probably charge a (low) flat annual fee for app store distribution and that's it. Apple should be focused on making money with great products, not taxing devs they force through their channel.
Keep the rules, lose the tax.
Regulators don’t (yet I suppose) care about this because of opportunity cost. If I’m making $3/user/mo off your $10 subscription and I decide to enter the market and compete with you at then every user I steal and every user if not for me would have gone with you costs me $3/mo plus cost of providing them service. So if I’m able to still undercut you then either I’m ridiculously more efficient than you or you have fat margins.
Neither of these are true so something else is going on here. Either I’m bleeding money and this is some strategic play in which case it might be unfair for different reasons, or the market is segmented and we actually have two different customer bases with insignificant cross pollination.
If Apple enters with Apple Music and charges $10/month - they're undercutting Spotify while charging the same.
If Spotify charges $10 and pays Apple $3 then Spotify makes $7 and Apple makes $3.
If Apple enters the market and charges $10 then consider a user that would have otherwise went to Spotify. Spotify makes $0 and Apple makes $10 from the subscription but loses $3 from what they would have been paid from Spotify so Apple makes $7.
Apple has lots of advantages stemming from their control of the platform but "not having to pay the 30% fee" isn't one of them.
Spotify gets $7 or $0 from a user
How is this not an advantage?
Anyway as I already pointed out it’s effectively 15%, not 30%. Also the vast majority, over 99% (literally, I looked it up) of Spotify app users earn Apple nothing because they use it add supported and all the add revenue goes to Spotify.
They bought the phone from Apple, so Apple made their money.
Apple 'made their money' on the hardware, therefore Spotify is entitled to a larger ratio on the software? Is that the correct interpretation?
Edit: I'll take your downvote as being it was the correct interpretation. It's okay, I didn't expect a reply.
They force companies to ship through their store, I think that is okay because it enables them to enforce quality standards for users.
I think it’s wrong for them to force this distribution model and then take a cut from every software company.
In the Spotify case Apple forces them to pay a tax and then Apple shows up in their own store priced the same where they obviously don’t have to pay a tax to themselves.
Spotify is entitled to an even playing field.
Apple makes money off the sale of their iPhone from the user, with Spotify's existence here being completely irrelevant. Should Spotify be granted increased monetary entitlement to their app creation because of this physical material sale between Apple and the user?
iPhone sale to user is irrelevant.
Apple forces distribution via their store and they force companies to pay a cut.
I think this is bad, but at least it's across all people that participate in the store.
Then Apple itself enters the market via the store selling the same product at the same price, but without the tax.
That's cheating. It has nothing to do with the 'physical material sale' - it has to do with requiring store distribution and taking a cut of competitors margins, but then entering yourself. It's not Spotify 'getting more of the pie' it's Spotify not having to pay an anti-competitive tax to the platform controller.
They can either allow distribution outside of the store (which I would not want) or they can remove the tax on apps that they directly compete with.
I'd prefer they remove the cut entirely and replace it with some low yearly fee for distribution.
Thank you. I agree. The iPhone sale to the user is irrelevant to Spotify's return.
The rest of the post is yelling at a cloud. I have not given my position on any of that so I have no clue to whom you are arguing with.
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/08/07/apple-a...
I assume you think that would change, else why have other app stores. That's what I don't want. I want as close to 100% of the software for iOS as possible to have to follow the rules. That's part of why I chose iOS.
The same would still be true of all the apps in the App Store. There would just be other stores. You wouldn't have to use them. Other people could.
The issue here is that many people want the hardware or the OS without the App Store. If you give it to them, "people who only use the Apple App Store" will be a smaller number of people and Apple will have less leverage.
That's the point of prohibiting anti-competitive practices. Apple does a lot of things with that leverage that are bad. Like prohibiting apps that compete with theirs (e.g. browser engines), and imposing political censorship in authoritarian countries, and extracting 30% from captive developers.
You presumably want Apple to have the leverage because then they can use it against e.g. Facebook. If everybody on iOS thinks like you then you win -- everybody only uses the App Store even though other stores are available and Apple still has all the same leverage.
But if most of the people disagree with you, right now you're holding them hostage. Forcing them to use only the App Store even though they don't want to, so that the world's largest corporation can have more leverage.
It might even be a good test. If Facebook decides they can't be in Apple's store even though the app is free and there is no government pressure for Apple to block it, you might take pause to ask why and decide that you don't want that app.
Let's say I did like Facebook, or at least tolerated it because all my family was on it, and chose to use it only on iOS specifically because it was relatively secure and limited their snooping somewhat. Your scenario is a strictly worse situation for me. I was using it and was OK with the situation, now I have to either risk more snooping or drop it. That's not better.
What you mean is that you do want app developers to feel network-effect pressure from the huge Apple platform which has those privacy and security requirements. Which you still have as long as a large number of people feel the same and refuse to install apps outside of Apple's store.
It may even benefit you for Apple to have less, but still some, leverage. For example, a third party store might start offering a BitTorrent client for iOS, which Apple only prohibits for bad reasons that don't help you. Then the availability of the apps in another store might convince Apple to allow well-behaved BitTorrent clients in their store to prevent you from switching (since their reasons for prohibiting it are bad). Then you get a selection of vetted clients when you currently have none.
Likewise, if there were other stores then there would be no reason for them to continue their otherwise-useless prohibition on emulators or virtualization.
Meanwhile you could still install all of your apps from their store and they would plausibly still have enough leverage to keep them well-behaved, just not enough to prohibit well-behaved things that you actually want if it's easier to get them some other way.
> Let's say I did like Facebook, or at least tolerated it because all my family was on it, and chose to use it only on iOS specifically because it was relatively secure and limited their snooping somewhat. Your scenario is a strictly worse situation for me. I was using it and was OK with the situation, now I have to either risk more snooping or drop it. That's not better.
What we're after here is a situation where the combination (you, Apple) has enough leverage to cause Facebook to provide an app that isn't ruinously bad on privacy. It's not clear that we're there even now -- Facebook has a huge network effect and basically the only reason Facebook is an app and not a web page is so it can suck up more of your personal information -- but suppose we were. Apple's leverage relative to Facebook is doing you some good.
The answer is then to make sure your leverage against Facebook is sufficient to keep them honest. This could imply some antitrust action against Facebook, e.g. so that you can use an app not written by Facebook to contact your family who uses Facebook, and then choose one willing to meet Apple's standards even if Facebook itself won't. So it's still possible to solve problems like this, to the extent that they exist, through other means.
1) Job interview? The big corporate sales prospect I'm courting? "Company policy is that we do all our calls through [some corporate communication tool]. It's on [store that popped up to cater to enterprises, so they could ship more spyware to their employees]" So I cancel the calls, or install that store and their probably-spying app.
2) That chat app or social network your entire family & friend group is on? Crippled or absent on the App Store, full version only on an alternative store.
For #1: "So use a different phone for all business interactions" OK, but right now I don't need to. That is a solution, but right now it's not one I need, and I don't want to need it.
Maybe those wouldn't happen. Right now, they can't. I chose my mobile devices in part for that feature.
Scams are rampant in the App Store. Give an unlocked iPhone to a 5 year old and they'll spend $1000 before you know it. This is not something worth defending.
https://9to5mac.com/2021/02/12/developer-reveals-fake-app-st...
Even with things going through apple, you don't have a safe and consistent payments scheme.
With more app stores, you can still get every app that's available on the Apple app store, just as you can now. You may not have access to every app, but you don't today either
I get that people want to use Apple only software, in which case I'd understand why they don't want other software on the Apple Store, but how the hell is your experience worse if there is another store available on the phone? Just never use it?
It's like as if Microsoft locked down Windows and the only option you have available is to install things through the Windows Store and someone goes "yeah that's why I use windows man, I don't want anyone to be able to install Steam". Has anyone ever argued this? how did it become a thing
"I personally love it how Apple is taking my freedom, I love it so much that I want to force Apple rules on everyone else."
The fact you like current Apple rules and you got scared by some FUD should not make you entitled to ask other to stop fighting for more freedom(my family have Android phones and they did not installed any other store, side loaded apps or got hacked). Apple could give the iPhone locked and give you a code on a paper you can use to unlock, you can FUD your parents to never use the code, you can burn the code, you can also not side load applications. You could also demand dear Apple to implement some safe sandboxing/jail where you can be safe to run anything, I heard they have enough money so maybe they could pay better those security engineers that keep finding bugs in their shit.
Apple leverages their power against app devs and for their customers.
- IAP, Apple ID, No Tracking, Notification Control, etc.
In a world where Apple doesn't have leverage via the store they can't enforce these things. App devs would ship outside of the store and include whatever crap they wanted. This is a worse experience and there is no 'choice' available for the users to pick a better one.
Apple is effectively acting as a legislator here, improving the quality of apps via their leverage in the interest of their users. It's a standard I'm willing to pay extra for and enforces good standards around privacy. The government law makers are largely owned by regulatory capture and lack of technical ability - why would we destroy the ability for one company that actually has incentives aligned with their users to enforce standards?
If Apple loses that leverage we lose that high quality option - you can't have it both ways because the leverage is what allows the incentive control.
People that don't care about it should use Android.
If this is not FUD do you have a source that shows that thousands of poor grandmas that have Android were forced to side load Farmville and if this happened what was the damage (except that some bilionaires made a few less millions)
If Google tried to enforce more policy app devs would use other stores/side load.
In hostile countries the google play store is usually not present at all.
Isn't this a good thing? In countries like China you could force Apple to spy and censor users where Android users can side load applications from trusted sources.
>If Google tried to enforce more policy app devs would use other stores/side load.
What kind of policies ? Any example of such policies? GUI/UX stuff or you mean policies where you can't link to a donate page because Apple wants that sweet tax, I think you are not ready to admit that you are spreading FUD, reality does not match and you are still building a fantasy.
For the policies - things like requiring better ID auth or blocking tracking or requiring IAP. I agree that the tax is bad and stated so elsewhere.
> “ I think you are not ready to admit that you are spreading FUD, reality does not match and you are still building a fantasy.”
This kind of rhetoric when you disagree with someone isn’t helpful and doesn’t change minds.
Then you invented other hypothetical, something about developers will lower the bar of quality because the only reason all those popular apps in the store are of quality is because Apples high standards. This is also something that you imagine, most rejections I read about were about Apples greed and other such stupidity.
Maybe you are not spreading FUD because you are really scared, then it means the FUD worked on you, I am sorry , hopefully the reality I shown will calm you down a bit, my family are running Android phones and they did no sideload any application, there is an exception of a Huawei phone I got where they were forced not to put Google Play on it, I had some issues getting Youtube to work but except that app it works OK for my son.
The net result: Apple losing their monopoly means a huge influx of user-hostile behavior in apps.
Now, you're not wrong either—Apple does, in some cases, abuse their monopoly, and probably takes more of a cut than is fair from IAPs. (Although, quite frankly, I'd be shocked if the money from cheaper IAPs went to reducing prices and not increasing profits.) So yes, Apple's behavior here is harmful in some ways, but it does good in others. Like pretty much everything in this world, it ain't black and white.
Plus the entire den of pests that is adtech and its various tracking companies, most of whom are far from monopolies.
Yes, thank you for spelling it out thst you want apple to continie violating other people's freedom and perpetuating anticonpetitive practicea
Or, IOW: You can't do that after Apple bans them from their store either. Apps getting banned from there so you can't download them is a thing that actually exists in the here and now.
Essentially as long as nothing threatens Apple's ability to tell other companies, including other tech giants, to play ball or pound sand, I'm fine with it.
Is your premise is that the vast majority of iOS users want the Apple control of apps exactly as it is today?
If that premise is true, then having additional app stores available will not change your experience at all. The vast majority, as you assert, of iOS users will want no part in the alternative app stores, thus the Apple app store retains dominance and Apple doesn't need to change their behavior at all. So nothing changes for you. And the few oddballs who want to run non-Apple-approved software, still can, but they'll be a fringe.
But if you're worried that there will be a mass exodus to the non-Apple app store, (if that was allowed) then I'm hearing that there is in fact large percentages of unhappy users, which is itself proof that removing control from Apple is required.
What doesn't make sense it simultaneously assert that nearly all iOS users are happy with the Apple iron fist but large percentage of them are itching to break away from it the second they could. One or the other can be true, not both.
Authoritarian governments would probably require side loaded apps.
And people will go willingly into that dark night.
It’s the experience.
- Apple has built a world wide empire selling these products in this way people seem to like
- As a result Apple has funneled that money and made world class hardware that's better than everyone else and leads in security/privacy
- Therefore we should force them to break their model because the others that didn't follow suit have hardware that sucks
That's not the most charitable interpretation, but there's some truth to it.
There’s some extra irony that the others in this case fuck over their users by leveraging their data to target ads.
But in practice, there are apps we need to use—people who we mostly communicate with over Facebook, movies we want to want that are only on Netflix, etc. In the status quo, we can use those apps, and they're beholden to Apple's guidelines, hopefully reducing the privacy, etc abuses. I can use Facebook and still have some amount of privacy.
In the world where alternate stores exist, I have to choose between using Facebook or having some amount of privacy. Sure, I could not use Facebook, but I'm a real human living in the real world, and that means I miss out on social opportunities that I would rather not miss out on. I—and the vast majority of iOS users, who aren't particularly interested in 3rd party stores—lose a less-terrible Facebook app.
(Not that I'm too happy with Apple here either. Some of Apple's policies are bizarre and abusive, and there are apps I'd like to run that aren't allowed. But I'm not entirely sure it's worth the tradeoff.)
What you don't get regardless is an apple that "throws its weight around" to force competitors and the like to do what apple wants. That's abuse and bad for everyone. That you happen to like it doesn't make it legal
One day an app you like, or your life may even depend on, suddenly disappears because of some arbitrary, pointless rule is brought by that company, whose decisions are, I repeat, outside of democratic control.
That's literally what millions of customers do, whether they do so explicitly or not.
Last time I made that mistake the site's subscription management interface was rather... uh, minimum viable product. Switching to paying the Apple premium was well worth it.
It really isn’t that hard to understand: many Apple users value a certain set of design and simplicity criteria over other factors.
This alone makes me never touch Apple - and I have considered it (because I still use my 6yr old Windows Phone). My only phone consideration is a Pixel with GrapheneOS
It’s that we don’t want iOS to be like any other computer system - the simplicity and lack of choice is a feature, not a bug.
Apple could provide the option of unlocking the bootloader and providing some driver code for their peripherals so we could make our own system, but they don't and that fact suggests there's a more sinister objective to this game. They exist to make as much money through their app store as possible and will not give up any control.
The open PC market is doing really well these days. Like, there’s a huge silicon shortage.
“Apple has a monopoly on not shitty hardware”
I have to chuckle. It’s almost like we want Apple to become a utility that must by government fiat build this great hardware but we now are going to force their software to operate the way a committee wants.
I am for regulation when it benefits consumers broadly (though unintended consequences abound). But this feels like pandering to a niche: potential dealers and tech tinkerers that never wanted the PC to become a consumer product.
There is nothing sinister of about running a business with focus and vertical integration. Apple tried an OEM model once, it didn’t work well for them (in part because Microsoft and Intel had that model locked up).
I had a chuckle at that too, I've seen a lot of monopoly arguments devolve into, [x] is too good, [y] can not compete with a similar but lower quality offering, this is anti competitive.
By "quickly gaining a monopoly", do you mean they've somehow made it impossible for another multi-billion dollar company to do a decent job on designing and building a phone?
Microsoft really cracks me up, they went as far as opening up retail locations all over the country, they just needed to invest for another 10 years and come up with something that can compete with iOS, and they decided to call it quits after a few years. Presumably because the expenses during the decade that is required to build trust with the public would cause an unacceptable hit to their financials and hence the bosses’ pockets, even though it would have benefited Microsoft after 10 to 15 years.
And now they get to compete with Apple’s own processors for laptops and desktops, for which they are behind another 10 years. Because they choose not to invest in their own employees and R&D, because they already have that sweet Office licensing revenue so why bother.
Why is it that people argue for changing Apple instead of just using other competing devices?
In moments of fear, hardship and crisis a decent percentage of people everywhere (30? maybe more) ask for the reassuring hand of a dictator.
Now, implementing this technically could be somewhat challenging and there is no obvious line to me where the boundary for customisation/freedom should be. But I think a first step is recognising the false choice that you present so that we can move the discussion to the details of where that technical/societal line should be rather than talk in freedom/non-freedom absolutes.
Take the alternative app store. If they are allowed you will have some with exclusive apps. Those apps are then outside the apple rules and you have to have to hit the switch if you want them. So you loose out on the app or on all your apps being apple rule / account / payment compatible.
If there is no alternative store you will get all apps the apple way.
Apple is providing a real benefit here. Of course they are also leveraging their semi-monoplostic position to "extort" money and to distort competition.
But how is this different than Android? There could be apps exclusive to Android, presumably there are. If you want them you have to choose Android. All the people who only trust Apple can't have them, the same as all the people who would refuse to turn the switch.
And even if some of the people who currently have iOS devices would turn the switch, the people who wouldn't are still a huge market. Unless they're not. But in that case what you're really saying is that people don't actually want the Apple-controlled market and most people are only buying iOS devices in spite of rather than because of it.
Frankly, citation needed. If phone manufacturers can find ways to unlock bootloaders, I refuse to believe that there is no way to allow for sideloading of some form on iOS. It particularly disturbs me how this comes from the “Think different” camp which praises the quality of its software to high heaven. Nowhere have I argued that the line should be drawn at “free mixing of application stores”, yet I continue to get the same boilerplate arguments that any move from the current status quo will lead to a complete collapse of the allegedly all so superior iOS ecosystem. I do not buy it.
I don't think GP meant that it wasn't technically possible, they were saying it isn't possible for this switch to exist without some popular apps eventually getting almost everyone to flip the switch and negate the whole point of having a switch.
I don't think I agree with them because Android already has this switch and I can't think of many apps that lots of users would want to sideload, except for Fortnite.
Rather, I think that the argument is sloppy, lazy, and frankly relies on a severe lack of imagination and rigidity of mind from those that present or accept it. Thus we should stop parroting it as it makes for a very boring discussion.
Instead, maybe there is an interesting discussion to be had as to whether Google maintains control using Google Play Services? Technical aspects of how a consent mechanisms could work relative to bootloader unlocking? The viability of Apple’s offerings in terms of better privacy and payment UI if something like Fortnite “broke free” and started a competing store? All this sounds endlessly more fun to read and contribute to compared to: “I am content with the status quo, it serves me well, and I see no reason to discuss this further with you freedom zealots!”.
It's not like the App Store even prevents malware anyway. All Apple does during review is run the app and watch network traffic via a proxy and ask "does this look like it's violating our rules?" There's no instrumentation and there's nothing to prevent apps from changing behavior after the review. These aren't loopholes abused just by flashlight apps but even large companies like Facebook routinely abuse them. Don't forget that you can also get code onto people's phones by providing a completely closed and never reviewed dylib to devs and they'll just include it in their apps if it solves a problem for them. This is another extremely common tactic to distribute iOS malware (and another one Facebook likes.) Also lets not forget all of the outright scams on the AppStore and the fact that it more or less prevents the sharing of community maintained software (chat apps in particular) which tend to align more closely with users interests.
There is absolutely no reason not to allow users to be able to enter an alternate App repository and push service in the settings App other than that it protects Apple's monopoly.
1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/30/trezor-...
Even Amazon (who pushed heavily on their alternative Appstore a few years back) never removed their own apps from Play.
The idea of loving apples walled garden comes from a position of extreme privledge. You have to have lots of money to afford apples ecosystem. The hard reality is just like automobiles an iphone has become a societal requirement to participate in the common market.
You can't install 3rd party apps by default in android, you have to turn it on.
It sounds like the parent poster's relations have freely chosen to delegate their technology management to him or her, and in turn the poster is comfortable delegating that to Apple and their walled garden. If Apple is selling safety, security, and control, and people are buying it, what's the issue?
Potentially the issue is a lack of competition in the market when there are too few options; but it sounds like you're saying that no one should prefer a walled garden option at all.
We have plenty of precedent from microsoft being forced to allow software before. Apple and friends have lobbied (bribed) heavily for antitrust and antimonopoly to no longer have teeth. If it were 30 years ago apple would have been put through the meat grinder.
If we need the legal right then we'll legislate it.
Mobile phones are personal computers, actually of the most successful type. We should have learned some lessons, but no, people come with the same arguments as in the past decades (it's easier, it makes me look cool, I'm lazy). Then, one day, you find that your favourite app has been removed because of God knows what other arbitrary rule has been introduced in the name of the greater good, as undemocratically decided by a private company.
And, please, don't come with the "if you don't like it, choose Android": at 50% market share that's not an argument any longer.
She wouldn't know how to do those things, so this point seems kinda moot.
I'm simply noting that those "dangerous features" are, practically, only accessible to the people that are tech saavy enough to understand the risks.
So the "it's to protect the innocent" argument doesn't seem to hold well.
My sentence thinks over the top comment and the one you are replying to, both highlight irrelevant factual positions.
Both are interesting details for techies, but in the real world they have no practical value.
You liking Apple's ecosystem doesn't mean they aren't anticompetitive.
And really your point is kind of... weird. It's not like you don't have to go out of your way to get third-party apps on your Android phone. And you would lose nothing, if Apple did the same, maybe even more buried in hidden settings and behind disclaimers and warnings. Reads like the typical retrospective justification of any limitation Apple features.
"A single USB-C port? Yeah, I love it! Keeps you focused and mindful about peripheral devices!"
Every god damn time. Beyond bizarre.
It just provides a way to run applications of my choice on my hardware to people who want that.
That was the case when App Store was born, it really did provide the security and curation of Apps. But now that is no longer the case, scam Apps and low quality apps / games are everywhere. They are not as bad as Android but still bad. Not to mention Apple doesn't care about your IP, if someone make an app that is 99% the same with look and graphics. There is no way to challenge that because Apple said they dont take side ( What ? ).
Especially when they hold the majority of market shares. Today, the iPhone has 66% market share in the United States, 75% of U.S. App Store revenues, and over 80% of time spent on the mobile internet. And these numbers are pre iPhone 12, judging from the trend it looks like the current number will only be higher. They cant hide behind privacy and curation forever.
The first option looks far easier.
Feel free to continue using the Apple app store. You can do that, and after these lawsuits other people will have the voluntary choice to choose a different app store as well.