We already know what the alternative is, in fact that was what we had for a long time: App Store + freedom to install/execute third party apps. Just like how all three desktop OSes always did, just like how Apple's own MacOS does it, and it's doing just fine.
Nobody cares about what Microsoft Store does or how Steam curates, because there are options. If Apple would unlock these pocket computers that we still call "phones" out of habit, this category of issues would largely go away.
> Lastly, a bunch of different app stores is a terrible user experience. Just look at the friction of finding which streaming service has a particular movie or TV show.
I can't follow this argument. Would you rather have SamsungTV to come pre-installed and be the only option for your TV? or LG to carefully curate what you can and can't watch on your own TV, and take a major cut of sales so your subscription is now %30 more expensive?
As a consumer I'm happy with competition and options.
I think the fact that Microsoft didn't do this with Windows and therefore allowed the entire computer revolution to go forward is lost on many people.
There are so many ideas that are killed in their crib because 30% is too much to give away when you're a startup.
On Android I basically stopped using many official play store apps and instead went open source. Ungoogled chromium for example allows desktop extensions and I'm currently typing this comment with ublock origin on mobile working perfectly just like on desktop.
I don't understand how a self proclaimed techie can cede control to that level and not be able to install programs without big brother Apple's blessing.
You'll need to manually install an extension to allow installing from the official chrome extension website.
Also today on HN: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/apple-brass-discusse...
>XcodeGhost billed itself as faster to download in China, compared with Xcode available from Apple. For developers to have run the counterfeit version, they would have had to click through a warning delivered by Gatekeeper, the macOS security feature that requires apps to be digitally signed by a known developer.
Developers (should be) in the top half of user sophistication and they download a counterfeit version of XCode and ignore warnings about an unsigned app and install it anyway causing a breach affecting 128 million iOS users. Imagine what Aunt Ethel will be able to accomplish with CuteKittyAppStore.kp
Locking people out of choices to protect some supposed interest is paternalistic, especially considering Apple already has a horse in the race (its fat %30 cut) and has almost no incentive to consider what is right for the consumer. If you don't want the government have a say on content you consume (like, Apple and porn/erotica), decisions you make and products you buy, why would you let Apple do those things?
Either way, simple act of allowing users to unlock their devices does not immediately mean Aunt Ethel would care to do that. In another topic here it was recently discussed that a large potion of users likely don't even open Settings app, and even the most enthusiastic aunts will likely be happy with a few trustworthy stores like, say Steam and Kindle, and that'd be all.
btw,
> ignore warnings about an unsigned app and install it anyway
that sounds like a policy/enforcement failure to me.
That neuters almost all App Store related complaints-- about fees, about curation mistakes, about impermissible content types, about the cost of admission for a hobbyist publishing a free app. "Just tell users to side load" is enough to make the affected developers whole.
They must be dead terrified of sideloading that it doesn't even seem to be in the discussion. I'm curious whether it's actually a fear that major revenue streams will bypass the 30% cut (doesn't seem to be too much of a problem for Google Play), or if they're afraid of losing control over their curated ecosystem and it ending up looking more like the MacOS level of flexibility?
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368395/fortnite-epic-ga...
Yes, but those people can still stick with the App Store. That's not a good reason to take that freedom away from others.
Maybe others think differently, but the friction to purchase a new phone and adapt to a new ecosystem is more onerous than downloading yet another app.
IMO one of the biggest stories about tech in 2021 is how easy it was to uncover multimillion dollar scams on the Apple App Store:
https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/21/22385859/apple-app-store-...
https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/8/22272849/apple-app-store-s...
There are reportedly ~4.4 million apps on the Apple App Store[0]; if 0.01% of those are scams, that’s still ~440. How many do you expect to find? And how many false reports do you expect Apple to receive from scammers, trying to take down the legitimate apps they compete with?
Yes, there does seem to be something wrong with the rating system they use, based on what is said in that article. Yes, Apple should take down an entire developer account for scanning not just an app.
The counterpoint is, successfully taking them down requires more than just that, because just that is an arms race between the scanners and those hunting the scammers.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/268251/number-of-apps-in...
Am I the only one that finds this backwards? I've always though it should be a "progressive tax" (for lack of a better term)...
game companies that make under, say, $1mil a year shouldn't pay 30% and watch larger companies making 100m+ a year pay 10% (or whatever sweetheart deal).
My other problem is FORCING the use of payment systems... if Apple provides a system? fine... but not letting companies use alternatives is assinine and my large honest complaint. No reason Netflix, Epic or other companies should be forced to pay Apple when they can host their own infrastructure. (same for google/steam/etc)
I'm picking on Netflix but the point stands - many companies are able to stand up payment processes. It's not a hard problem and it's not uncommon for companies to have them.
"because apple" isn't a reason to tax a company 30% for things like Netflix that are only tangentally iPhone or when a company can provide a standard level of payment processing.
Apples payment processing isnt THAT good. Definitely not 30% good.
It is not ok to block any other option or even mentions of external options when you are also the gatekeeper of the only marketplace.
The monopoly Apple has in this case is on distribution of software to iOS devices. They are leveraging this monopoly power to maintain a monopoly on payments.
Antitrust laws say this leveraging should not be allowed.
This is all the same issue -- whether there should be other stores. If there are other stores then the other stores could filter apps differently and use other payment methods.
> Second 30% May have made sense once when this was a small business. It’s not anymore. Apple is inviting these lawsuits by simply not throwing big publishers a home with reduced rates.
> Third, the whole tax on digital purchases is completely arbitrary. There was a time when Apple was working out what to do with Amazon and that’s when this role came about. Not being able to purchase kindle books just highlights the artificial and arbitrary nature of all this.
Other stores could also charge lower fees and not charge any fee for digital purchases, and provide competitive pressure for Apple to do so. This is probably the largest reason they don't want to.
> Fourth, at the risk of offending HN folks who self-servingly believe everyone wants or needs side-loading apps, most people benefit from the filtering of apps. Side-loading and unrestricted third party payments would simply be another attack vector.
Nothing about third party stores prevents filtering. It only provides a choice of who does the filtering separate from your choice of hardware and operating system.
But naturally if anyone can operate a store then you can operate your own and do your own filtering. Maybe most people don't want to do that; that's fine. They don't have to. Anyone could still choose to leave it to Apple or Debian.
> Lastly, a bunch of different app stores is a terrible user experience. Just look at the friction of finding which streaming service has a particular movie or TV show.
The problem there was never finding which service has it. There are several interfaces that allow you to search through all of them. The problem there is that you have to pay for each subscription and nobody wants to pay a monthly fee to a thousand separate subscription services.
But there is no monthly fee for an app store app. It's not a subscription service.
So I have to download an app to search through store fronts, which I have to download, to download my app?
You can use a web browser to search (for exclusives and lower prices) through groceries web sites, which you have to go to or order from, to buy your desired groceries.
Competition is good.
The obvious answer that satifies everyone would be to a) allow alternate payment processors if the developers choose to forgoe the 30% or b) give the big companies than can roll these processors a lower cut to incenivize them to make one.
But if the answer was that obvious, this case would not have started.
If Apple Store is so fucking good people will use it.
Even large companies abuse this, quit spreading misinformation.
An app that costs 100$ and sells 1,000 copies has much lower transaction fees than an app that costs 1$ and sells 100,000 copies.
First there are a couple of different issues. Deciding what’s on the App Store is one issue but payment processing is a potential separate issue.
Second 30% May have made sense once when this was a small business. It’s not anymore. Apple is inviting these lawsuits by simply not throwing big publishers a home with reduced rates.
Third, the whole tax on digital purchases is completely arbitrary. There was a time when Apple was working out what to do with Amazon and that’s when this role came about. Not being able to purchase kindle books just highlights the artificial and arbitrary nature of all this.
Fourth, at the risk of offending HN folks who self-servingly believe everyone wants or needs side-loading apps, most people benefit from the filtering of apps. Side-loading and unrestricted third party payments would simply be another attack vector.
Lastly, a bunch of different app stores is a terrible user experience. Just look at the friction of finding which streaming service has a particular movie or TV show.
I honestly think Apple could make most of these objections and potential problems go away by simply having a tiered percentage that rewards high volume publishers. It could scale down to 10% at which point the business case for an expensive legal challenge mostly disappears.