Then dont install those other app stores and only rely on apples curated list, if other app stores ever become a thing on ios.
Third party developers want to get their apps onto the iPhone, because the platform has a lot of users, and there's a lot of money to be made. However, they will be forced to play by Apple's rules, which (according to the argument) is good for the customer, as the custodian of the platform has a vested interest in keeping them happy.
Now, if 3rd party stores were allowed, Apple's bargaining power which allowed them to force 3rd parties to respect the user's interest would go away, allowing developers to deliver a worse (eg privacy-violating) product.
Users who do not like this deal are free to go with an Android device instead of an iPhone. The popularity of the latter might suggest that quite a few people are reasonably happy with the status quo.
You are literally saying that you agree that Apple has very serious market power, and has the ability to force the rest of the market, to do what it wants, using its illegal, anticompetitive behavior.
Go ahead and say that you want this. But you are just straight up admitting that Apple has anti-trust level market power, and is using illegal anti-competitive behavior.
Therefore, they would lose the lawsuit, under your argument.
People haven't thought it through at all. If they've even considered this aspect of it, I'd be surprised.
iPhone popularity is due to a mix of very good engineering, presentation, marketing and network effects.
Smartphones are also very, very new for people. Give them time and they'll rebel against a single point of control sooner or later.
It's the reason why I don't even really give a toss: there's nothing on iOS that you can't get on Android.
Not in the US market where iPhones have the great majority and where this trial is taking place.
There are also definitely iOS exclusives.
Who knows. Gaming consoles have had a decent run, but of course that may not be that good a precedent as they've not evolved into general-purpose computing devices to the same degree that phones have...
"It'll end up similarly to macOS AppStore. Developers will avoid it, so user will be forced to use other stores to make his phone useful."
So, kinda like on Androi... No, wait. It wont. Other stores will be in the margins likd on Android.
Epic have made instructions on how to do it [0], it's a four step process to be able to install the game that involves changing two system default settings that both warn you not to do what you're about to do.
[0] https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/mobile/android/new-...
Then don't. Nobody is forcing you. That's what this is all about, not forcing people.
With Apple in control, the developer faces the choice to play by Apple's rules, or lose out on the money to be made in their walled garden.
With Apple no longer in control, the user now faces the choice to play by the developer's rules, or lose out on the app.
That said, I'm actually not a fan of the walled garden approach, and won't be buying an iPhone in the forseeable future. It's just that I do understand the appeal.
>With Apple no longer in control, the user now faces the choice to play by the developer's rules, or lose out on the app.
Android has proven this is not true. Google has the same policies as Apple and does allow alternative app stores. Turns out the world works in a common sense way and everything turned out fine.
A really good example right now is riot. They distribute through their own launcher on PC rather than on steam. They have two sizeable games on mobile right now (wild rift and TFT). In a world where these are downloadable from the riot launcher on iOS rather than the app store, it seems likely riot (and other major publishers who do the same on PC) would follow suit? I don't see how having an app store without hearthstone, TFT, fortnite is the same quality as one with.
How do you explain scam apps that deliberately mislead users into signing up to a "free trial" subscription that renews at a ridiculous price 3 days later?
There are so many highly rated iOS apps that look great and where you can't even get past the initial stage without having to sign up to a subscription without even know what it is.
However, the fact that Apple only enforces the rules when it benefits them as opposed to consumers (so they are happy to turn a blind eye to spyware, but will crack down immediately on alternative payment options) means that in practice I don't see it making the situation any worse.
Which is a ridiculous argument as the network effects and default preference status of the App Store mean it'll still be pretty much a requirement to publish there if you want any users.
Apple currently has the market power to keep Facebook and other similar scum at bay if they chose to (unfortunately, they're not doing anywhere near enough on this front).
Opening the floodgates to alternate stores would simply mean every mainstream service out there would require you to use that alternate store (isolated from Apple's enforcement) where all kinds of nastiness is permitted.
This wouldn't be a threat in itself, but having control of heavy hitters like the Facebook app, Instagram, and WhatsApp among others, they could drive traffic levels that no third-party App Store has ever seen overnight. They can also afford to buy other heavy-hitting exclusives, and some data hungry devs would likely come on board with no incentive at all.
This would be a terrible outcome. If iOS is to support third party app stores, I'd rather it be after legislation is passed that effectively enforces Apple's App Store privacy policies at a federal level.
The problem is that security and privacy benefits are somewhat intangible and hidden, so they are not enough to convince people to weight them heavily - this is the same reason why people download random software off the net and why the web is such a mess of trackers.
Apple’s approach tries to remove the need for users to think about the issue at all. Of course, it has downsides as well, but don’t underestimate what the ecosystem would be giving up once the door is opened to multiple stores.
If Apple stops offering good value (fair policies, commissions), then Apple should be "punished" by losing business.
Offering competing stores provides a strong incentive for Apple to make theirs even better. Developers would win and consumers would win. The only "loser" would be Apple (at least as far as short term financials are concerned).
For the record, I think they are offering the best experience at present (by a long shot). That isn't guaranteed going forward though, and I believe competition here would be healthy.
Another maybe-more-realistic version of this would be if some business software used their power over line workers to install things (since end-users are not really the customers in corporate software sales). Microsoft sets up their own store as the only source of Office Redux, and millions of iOS users are forced into this store via their employers. Same process as above: beachhead, gamble, dilution of Apple’s store.
It’s not hard to see how the process could snowball, though it’s certainly not guaranteed as there must be the right combination of events.
But it dosent take away from my point that an alternative store does not affect the quality of apps in the main store.
As for an alt store becoming normalized I feel that users will only install the necessary app from the alt store and not anything else. A lot of alt stores tried to set themselves up in android but didn't succeed. I think it mostly comes down to incentives. Apple can easily change them to make sure no other store gets the upper hand
Have you ever had to wipe a relative's computer to get rid of the malware-infested browser toolbars they installed, not knowing any better? Or worse, pay a ransom in bitcoins to unlock the billing systems that help control a gasoline distribution pipeline? You may be somewhat overestimating the sophistication of users when it comes to technology.
iOS is an OS for people who are non-technical or for applications where people don’t want to worry about that stuff. If you want full control run Linux. MacOS and Windows also offer a balance that is skewed a lot more toward user control because they’re for “pro” use cases.
For the apps I am using now, there will be probably:
Netflix Store, Amazon Store, Google Store, Epic Store, EA Store ... and list goes on
Allowing third-party app stores effectively means providing a vector to bypass the official app-review process, which is the cornerstone on which the permissioning system rests. If you allow third-party app stores, then any sufficiently-popular app can create their own "app store" and demand that you give it full permissions, which they will turn around and use to scrape data. It will become a race to the bottom, permissioning systems cannot stand if the app-review process does not exist, and the app-review cannot exist if third-party stores exist as a mechanism to let anyone publish anything.
Facebook has already gotten their hands slapped for exploiting sideloading to mine user data, and if they could spread it to the general user-base then they will do so immediately.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...
So your question about "how can an alternative app store affect the Apple app store" is a red herring, and not at all what OP said - what OP said was "allowing third-party app stores will degrade the experience of iOS users" and that is absolutely true, Facebook has already tried to do this before and this will allow them to take another turn at the ring.
You've never heard any stories like "I put FireFox/Chrome on my parent's desktop and next time I went back they were using IE and said they didn't notice"? Or same with apps installed from an App store between real and imitation?
> "Apple can even put up loads of warnings and dark UI stuff when installing an alternate app Store to dissuade the "noob" users."
Why would they need to do that if "no one" is gonna mistake them?
The dissuading stuff was not needed. I was just frustrated with the line that some users are not tech savvy so all users must be equally restricted. It just seems unnecessarily black and white
[citation needed]
Cleaning products, anaesthesia, electrical goods, microwaves, internal combustion engines, skyscrapers, hydrogenated vegetable oil and other such ingredients, fire retardant in furniture, blockchains, cryptography, smoke detectors, x-rays, coronary bypass surgery, bridges, hydraulics, reservoirs, water treatment plants, refridgerators. Would you say the people who understand them in some meaningful way is >50% of the people who use/benefit from them them?
If people see others doing something, we assume it must be okay to do. If we see others selling something, we assume it must be okay to buy and use. We default to yes (pretty trusting), unless it's proven otherwise strongly enough to be banned.
Now it is possible that someones has cracked the encrypted messaged payload and figured out how to fool the client authenticity checking part but at that point you are probably dealing with a state actor and even apple with their secure app Store cannot save you.
This is especially weird because your username is 0xEFF which initially made me think Electronic Frontier Foundation but it's definitely not that.
I can see the argument for why this is better for iOS users, but it is also painfully obvious how it benefits Apple's monopoly and works against app developers.
With multiple app stores, developers may not release to the Apple app store any more. Causing users to either use other app stores or miss out on apps that would previously been in the Apple store.
Causing them to be forced to evaluate the trustworthiness of each new app store they have to use.
Which will inevitably lead to some less tech savvy users having their information phished out from their phones.
Personally, it sounds like a hassle to me. I’m a big fan of the walled garden approach because I have zero desire to evaluate app store’s credibility and don’t feel I’m missing out on anything that could be side loaded, but then again, I only use my phone for communication, dating, photos, craigslist, and hackernews lately.
The majority of users just want their phone to work.
I hope Apple will also force only 1 browser, 1 text editor, 1 video player, 1 search engine, 1 bank/payment system. I hate PayPal so everyone should use Apple Pay because I want so, please Apple force them all to use what I like! /sarcasm
Phone is used by too broad of user groups, from very young to very old, for apps to be left unchecked unlike laptops and desktops.