I think 30% is absurd, but that would definitely change things for every user. I don't want to install Adobe's store because I need to use their PDF reader. I don't want to install Microsoft's store because I need to use Teams or Outlook for work.

Other App Stores mean that companies get to make that decision--not end users. How could it be otherwise?

So don’t install it then. You can use other software.

Why would you limit everyone else rather than make a choice for yourself?

You said, "This changes nothing for people like you while giving more opportunities for others." I'm just pointing out that's completely untrue.

This seems like the same question anyone who's happy with the way Apple runs things could ask those that want the government to step in and change it? Why not just go use Android, where things are exactly how you want them to be? Why limit everyone else rather than make a choice for yourself?

Because nobody is limited by having more choice. It's quite literally the opposite situation.

So how does Apple limit anyone by offering their choice? Anyone who wants a phone environment where you can install any app and app store you want merely needs to buy and Android phone instead of an iPhone. And anyone who wants a phone environment where developers are far more restricted and are required to behave in certain ways can buy an iPhone instead of an Android. Seems to me everyone wins.

Apple limits everyone by not offering the choice in how their purchased hardware installs and runs their chosen software.

We really must steer away from this dystopian view of "choice" amongst trillion-dollar megacorps that control half of the ecosystem. Yes, there should be different rules when they get that big, like serving the user first.

Everyone who served customers first (whoever they are), ended up in the dustbin of history. Apple became so big exactly because they made a right choice between serving customers and serving their self-interest, speaks profit and growth. The purchase and continue support of billions Apple’s customers underline the correctness of Apple’s choice and strategy. It’s also remarkable that not the Apple’s customers who have sued the company but the third players who want to use the Apple’s ecosystem to make their own profit (and probably serving their customers). Unfortunately, when they signed their developers contracts, they have already agreed to the T&C of the App Store and now they pretend they don’t know it, didn’t agree with it.

That's a meaningless statement. Putting the customer first is how companies provide value and grow. Obviously the need to capture that value and create profit but every trillion-dollar company today is only that successful by giving the people what they wanted.

What you're missing in this discussion is that these companies are so large and powerful, and their services so critical to 100s of millions of people, that the situation has changed.

Really? You want the best products for free and the companies should give you that?!

You literally have that choice right now. Today. You can buy ANY smart phone that isn't an Apple phone and you can choose how it installs and runs your chosen software. And for people who don't want the necessary tradeoffs that come with that freedom, they can choose to buy an Apple phone where such a thing isn't possible. Everyone gets what they want.

Everyone gets what they want if you completely ignore the issue of compatibility between different phones and stores.

Then don’t buy an iPhone.

Same question to you.

Do you block ads on the web? If you do, then why don't you just choose a different site instead? Aren't the publishers and advertisers entitled to their cut for producing and delivering your content?

Mobile phones are critical computing devices, even taking over as wallets and keys for many people. There should be some standard of freedom enforced when half of the market is effectively controlled by a single massive company. Why is the profit motive of this particular corporation so much more important than serving users (and developers) better?

Because I think they service me better this way. I don’t want to have an ecosystem that allows malware to be an option.

I explicitly bought my iOS device so that all software that is possible to be installed will always be vetted. I don’t have to worry about my parents being tricked by either maliciously crafted websites or false promises like cheaper price but they get all your data. Companies are not going to be upfront about their store’s policies.

So my argument is not the profit motive. Sure apple should probably charge 10%. 30% might be greedy BUT my issue with that is that any number is arbitrary.

Apple created the platform, the device. Fine the developers played a huge part in making iOS a success BUT nobody forced them to build for the platform. If Apple increased the % then yeah - sure I’d be behind lowering them and be angry with Apple but as of now: users want an apple device and developers have a choice to Cather to them or not. There are a lot of Android only apps that work fine so I think it’s fine if you don’t support ios

> "will always be vetted"

It isn't. Malware is already an option. And websites are available on the phone, along with text and calls and many other channels that are constantly being used for scams and attacks. iOS isn't magically invulnerable and security would be handled the same way as MacOS (which also has an app store). This really isn't that big of a deal as you make it seem.

As for the rest, the other comments already describe the issues with the size of the company and importance of mobile devices leading to the current challenges. Reality, and how people and companies operate, just isn't that black and white.

> Because I think they service me better this way. I don’t want to have an ecosystem that allows malware to be an option.

You already have one. iOS exploits and vulnerabilities are cheaper than Android exploits because they're so plentiful. The App Store was responsible for shipping hundreds of millions of copies of Xcodeghost, as well.

Why do you feel justified forcing Adobe to make a deal with Apple? You could decline to install Acrobat until it's in a store you like.

Ah yes heard that one when ea came with their marketplace. It started fragmenting from there and got so bad today people with not stellar computer wait minutes for their computer to start and have to play whack a mole with half dozen storefront polluting their startup

But a company is making the decisions - Apple.

> The choice that people want is the ability to have other App Stores, or direct installation.

I am "people" and I absolutely do not want app developers creating their own silo'd app stores.

The last thing I want to do is download separate app stores for every major app vendor on my phone, to give them all my credit card info, to have per-store standards for warning me about privacy issues, to have different policies and UIs for managing subscriptions, etc. This is a technology nightmare.

Android allows sideloading apps and this hasn't happened there - everyone still publishes on the main Android app store too. (except for Fortnite obviously, but that's been removed from the iOS store too so it's not exactly a counter example)

Why do you think it wouldn't work out the same way on Apple devices?

Also if you're concerned about hypothetical "missing out" on certain apps, consider all the developers that already don't release on iOS because of their restrictive practices.

I for one like the single store because it creates consistency. For developers, for privacy info, for subscriptions.

If sideloading is allowed when then malware is also close to get on the phone. Not my phone probably but the average joe, my family members, students, etc.

> I for one like the single store because it creates consistency. For developers, for privacy info, for subscriptions.

So... don't use other app stores? Nobody is forcing you to.

> If sideloading is allowed when then malware is also close to get on the phone. Not my phone probably but the average joe, my family members, students, etc.

Average Joe's aren't even going to know that sideloading apps is an option, let alone know how to do it. And if you're worried about grandma/kids doing something silly there's parental controls for this sort of thing. There just needs to be a way for power users to use other apps.

Well that’s not true. Let’s just look at game stores. It’s super fragmented because companies want to control everything.

They optimise for profit not end-user experience. On the other hand within the iOS ecosystem the store optimises for the end-user (more or less).

So enabling different stores will create a more fractured ecosystem. Something that hinders my experience. Why would I support this?

I’d only support it if: * All apps from other stores are always in the App Store * All apps still use the in-app payment functionality and not some 3rd party system that I’m not sure steals my data. I’m also okay if the apps are forced to use Apple Pay if they don’t want to use in-app purchase functionality.

With that said I don’t see how any of those can be enforced.

What is essentially going to happen is to lower the overall security of apps on the iOS platform.

> "It’s super fragmented"

So what? There's multiple options. That's called choice and competition, which is helping drive new features and better pricing.

> "With that said I don’t see how any of those can be enforced."

Draconic measures like that are being enforced, which why other app stores are wanted in the first place.

Your entire argument seems to be that other stores are bad because of "fracturing" the market, yet desktop/macos users manage just fine, even with an app store on that platform. You're imagining a challenge that doesn't exist.

Having the ability to install non-Apple-approved applications doesn't remove your ability to install Apple-approved applications.

I wonder though if non-Apple stores will lead to fragmentation. Apps on the App Store will flee and there will be a whole host of app stores. Sort of like Hulu/Netflix/Disney/HBO/etc. with television.

Suddenly the apps you had come to expect on the App Store are not there now.

That hasn't happened on Android. Using a third party store (a la F-Droid) or side loading in Android is very much a niche feature used only by the relatively tech savvy. Why would iOS be different?

because the arguments from people like the parent comment don't hold

So… don’t do it.

Should you be able to directly install games to the PS5? Or have the ability to use a game store besides the PlayStation store? Honest question

Yes, and you can still buy physical disks.

I'd just like to check that you understand that when you buy a physical disk of a game sony/microsoft (for playstation/xbox respectively) still take a cut of the purchase.

Yes, game publishing is slightly different but it's still an alternative. For example, you can easily resell and transport physical disks. There is real ownership tied to the disk itself. It's still not as good as a desktop operating system in choice but as it's not a general purpose computer, that's far more understandable than iOS.

I think you should, yes.

> The choice that people want is the ability to have other App Stores, or direct installation.

Who do you want to pay for building and supporting this functionality? Apple presumably?

Hmm, well Apple already has seemingly got their profit from the device when it was...purchased the first time?

Or should phones just become a subscription service overall so that you can never actually own your own hardware?

The answer to both questions is... it's up to Apple. When you design and build a product it'd be up to you how you design for your revenue.

If Apple allowed side-loading apps or custom app stores that'd cost them more to build and support that functionality, and it would damage their existing functionality through extra complexity and security surface, harming their existing happy customers. They don't want to do it. Why should they? Use Android if you have a problem with it.

Epic sues Apple though

> Who do you want to pay for building and supporting this functionality?

No, I can assure you that other companies are perfectly willing to build and support other app stores.

Instead, Apple is the one spending extra money and extra effort in order to prevent this stuff.

Other companies would be more than happy to build these other app stores, if Apple would just get out of the way.

Apple would have to develop new APIs and poke new holes in their security to enable this. Then they’d have to test and maintain these APIs. That’s work they don’t want to do and a cost they don’t want to pay for.

> That’s work they don’t want to do

Well when you are engaging in illegally anti-competitive behavior, you have to take some actions to correct that.

But also, I am sure that other companies would even be willing to put in the effort to jailbreak the phone, in some combined effort, if they knew that Apple wouldn't try to engage in illegal anti-competitive practices to stop it.

Apple can't just break the law like this. I am not sure why anything you are bringing up counters the fact that they are breaking the law, with seriously illegal and anti-competitive practices.

But the jailbreaking solution, where major companies work together, to provide an easy to install solution, that enables other app stores, without help from Apple, would work pretty well, if Apple was not allowed to stop this effort.

If a company like facebook got on board, I am sure that they might be able to convince at least half of all users, to install their solution.

Have they been found to be breaking the law?

Also if they are, are these good laws anyway?

Congratulations on having now made a falsifiable prediction!

I will absolutely make sure to save this comment, and come back to you in a couple months.

I think that at least some, of Apple's decisions are illegally anti-competitive, and that the judge in the epic vs apple case, will at least partially rule against Apple, on some fronts.

And your position, is that you think that nothing at all that Apple is doing is illegal, and that no judge will rule against them, on anything at all.

We'll see who was right, in a couple months, and I can show you this comment then!

But in my opinion, that is a very strong statement that you seem to be making, where you think that absolutely nothing about Apple's practices are illegally anti-competitive.

We'll see if you are right! I think that the judge will rule, at least partially against Apple, on at least some counts, (although probably not on every single count).

> if they are, are these good laws anyway?

Anti-trust law? Yes, it has been around for decades, and is pretty uncontroversial. I don't think that most people support the Standard Oil railroad monopoly, for example.

I think you've misread my comments.

I didn't predict anything. I asked if it had been found to be illegal. It hasn't. So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'. Apple clearly believe it's legal, and no authority has given an opinion otherwise yet.

> And your position, is that you think ... that no judge will rule against them

Sorry I'm afraid you've misread again - I didn't say this anywhere. Where do you think I said what I think the outcome of any trial would be?

I'm giving my opinion (after being invited to) on the morality of Apple's actions. I'm not giving a legal opinion on the outcome of any trial. I even said 'if they are, are these good laws anyway?' which should have made that clear.

> I think you've misread my comments.

No, I really didn't.

If you agreed with me that Apple's actions are illegally anti-competitive, then you wouldn't ask why/how/when their actions are illegal.

So yes, by asking me why/how/when their actions are illegal, you are disagreeing with me. Thats what it means to ask that. We'll see if you were right or not, to question why/how/when their actions are illegal.

> So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'.

When you say "I don't know how", that is a disagreement with me. You are saying that you do not see how their actions are illegal.

And my response, to you casting doubt on their actions being illegal (By saying that you "do not see how" they are illegal), is that I will show you why the actions are illegal, in a couple months.

And then you can re-evaluate your previous confusion as to "not seeing how" their actions are illegal, when that court decision is made.

I am pretty sure that I am right on this. And I'll be able to show this to you, when the court decision happens, and you can understand why you were incorrect to doubt that their actions are illegal.

> Where do you think I said what I think the outcome of any trial would be?

By the fact that you are saying things like "So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'."

You are saying that you do not know how Apple's actions could be described as illegal, and I am saying that the court case will show you how.

Thats what it means to say stuff like "So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'" It means that you don't think that their actions are illegal.

I also see that you are saying things like "Apple has less than a 50% market share on smart phones.", which is implying that you don't think that they are engaging in illegal/anti-trust behavior.

But like I said, this will all be settled in a couple months, and you will be able to see why it was incorrect to not be sure of how their actions are illegal.

You will be able to look back, and understand why it is incorrect to not be sure of how their actions are illegal.

Sorry I still think you're operating under a misunderstanding of the thread.

> We'll see if you were right or not, to question why/how/when their actions are illegal.

Why would the court's opinion change my moral opinion on whether something is or should be illegal or not? Unless there's new info.

The Salem Witches were found guilty in a court, for example. Maybe there's a parallel there? A bit of an hysterical and morally unjust witch hunt.

> Why would the court's opinion change my

What it would change is how you "don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'. "

Once the court trial is over, you will know "how" it should be described as illegal, as before, you were incorrect on not being able to say why it was illegal.

And what it will do is help you understand why comments that you make such as "Apple has less than a 50% market share on smart phones.", that incorrectly attempt to imply that Apple is not engaging in anti-competitive practices, is an incorrect thing to imply.

> A bit of an hysterical and morally unjust witch hunt.

Ah, so instead of saying that you may not really understand how anti-trust law works, you are going to say that the whole court system was rigged, if the court rules against Apple in any way?

Anti-trust law is not particularly controversial, also.

> you are going to say that the whole court system was rigged

You're just inventing random things that I don't think and haven't said. I don't know know where you got 'rigged' from for example. That's not a quote from me or an intelligent interpretation of what I've said.

If you find yourself constantly replying 'so you're saying' or 'so you'll say' stop and think why you think you need to rephrase everything and speculate on what the other person may say rather than going off directly what was actually said in order to make a point.

I don't think you're arguing in good faith here or actually want to understand other opinions - you seem pretty intent on deliberately misinterpreting as strongly as possible - so I'll leave you to it.

> You're just inventing random things

You compared the apple court cases to the salem witch trials, and compared it to a "morally unjust witch hunt".

Oh sorry, you said "Maybe there's a parallel there?". Not like that matters though. It is obvious what you are attempting to say here.

Like, C'mon. By comparing a current anti-trust court case, to the salem witch trials, you are attempting to delegitimize the process.

When you say stuff like "Maybe there's a parallel there?", you are attempting to imply that the current trials are similar to the salem witch trials. Thats what you are saying when you asking if there is a parallel there.

You even said "Why would the court's opinion change my moral opinion on whether something is (illegal)"

You straight up asked why the courts opinion on something, would change your opinion on whether it "IS" illegal. (Yes, you also included the word "should", but you also said "is" as well)

If a court says that Apple's actions are illegal, then that is a pretty good reason for you to change your mind on whether those actions are illegal, and it is silly for you to then compare well respected judges, and uncontroversial laws, to the freaking salem witch trials!

You can't just back off from your comparison to the salem witch trials now. It is clear that you are attempting to delegitimize the trial.

That is an extreme comparison. You can't just make that comparison, and then get surprised when I point out how extreme that comparison is.

Yes. And? Microsoft does that for Windows, and you know Apple already does it for MacOS right?

Anyone who wants to list on the App Store can could still continue doing so and pay directly. The fees right now don't make sense anyway as many apps are free while others have to pay a cut for services that Apple has nothing to do with.

> and you know Apple already does it for MacOS right?

Possibly that experience led them to not do it when they had the clean slate of iOS.

Yet MacOS is doing fine, even after introducing its own App Store. And the iPhone originally started with no apps and added them as user interest grew. Apple knows people would like this, and they have the resources to easily make it happen.

The primary reason, as clearly shown by the way fees are currently levied, is purely for profit.

at least tell us how much it cost to build and support this functionality before asking that question