How do you know? First off, Google allows this on Android, and Meta hasn't made their own store on there. Second off, their revenue from Instagram is largely supplanted by an advertising business that Apple happily supports. They have no reason to remove it from the App Store. Third off, stopping businesses from making anticonsumer decisions isn't an argument against abolishing anticonsumer practices. We wouldn't be in this situation in the first place if Apple didn't unfairly use their position of power to impose a tax on all payment processing that happens on their operating system.
Again, nobody arguing for sideloading is forcing you to install anything. If Meta leaves the App Store and stops updating the version of Instagram everyone has installed, that's their loss. If Apple feels threatened by other services eating their lunch, they can always take a lesson out of Microsoft's playbook and start adding more first-party ads to iOS.
You're right, I don't know for sure. But I have a feeling they'd be eager to escape the 30% cut of transactions. [0] Not to mention bypassing the rules around user tracking.
> Third off, stopping businesses from making anticonsumer decisions isn't an argument against abolishing anticonsumer practices.
I don't fully follow, what do you mean by this?
> We wouldn't be in this situation in the first place if Apple didn't unfairly use their position of power to impose a tax on all payment processing that happens on their operating system.
That I agree with. 30% is steep and feels excessive. But I'm just arguing as an end user I value the peace of mind that I can install any app from their App Store with a reasonable amount of confidence. It's not perfect and things do slip through the cracks, but it's better than nothing.
0: https://businessinsider.mx/meta-accuses-apple-undercutting-b...
Almost everybody pays 15%, not 30%.
If you make less than a million dollars a year through the App Store, you pay 15%. This covers almost everybody.
If you are earning over a million dollars a year, but you are selling subscriptions, then you pay 15% for all the subscriptions that have been in place for longer than a year.
The only people who are paying 30% are the people making a lot of money through the App Store from something other than long-term subscriptions.
> The changes Apple made in iOS 14.5 — asking people if they wanted to opt-out of apps tracking them across the web — is causing tumult for advertisers who rely on Facebook to sustain their businesses. Performance marketers, i.e., those who want you to buy immediately after clicking, are particularly struggling. The masses, they believe, have opted out of letting Facebook track off of Facebook, so they can’t be sure if people are buying their products after seeing their ads. Facebook expects them to spend less money as a result.
How does any of that rely on the App Store, Apple's 30% cut, or even the state of app distribution on iOS?
The only way I would be okay with this is if Apple required any app you provide in an alternative store must be available in the official App Store as well.
The last thing I want is for Meta to come along and mandate you install their 3rd party app store in order to use Instagram. I don't even want this app on my phone but I use it to keep in touch with friends that just won't use anything else. It's not _necessary_ but it's nearly necessary.
I would never install an app from a Meta-controlled app store, and the first thing they would do if Apple was forced to allow it is launch their own and take Instagram etc. off the official Apple App Store.