How many users actually understand the issues at stake, though? I don't say that to be patronizing but it's a nuanced, thorny problem. I bet if you simply asked "do you think it should be allowed to download porn apps?" a good number of users (if asked anonymously!) would say yes. How many users understand why they can't subscribe to Netflix through the iOS app? How many know what Apple's cut even is? The government has all kinds of regulation in what my utility providers can and can't do, in ways I'm not fully clued into. I see this as similar.

> I have less control over my phone, not more.

> Developers I also hope quickly realize that if they try to push me to subscribe outside of the App Store they will get $0 from me instead of 70%.

To my mind all of this comes back to the free market: you're free to ignore all this stuff and keep getting everything through the App Store. If you and many others do the same thing then the market will prove the idea to be a dud.

The iPhone isn't a new platform though. I feel like people well understand what they can and cannot download through the App Store by this point.

While I do completely agree that Apple needs to loosen the control on things like porn apps, that is a different issue.

As far as Netflix, that is ultimately Netflix choice. They could allow you to subscribe through the App Store if they really wanted.

As far as Apple's cut. I mean I don't ask my grocery store what their cut is, or target, or any other store. I don't ask what Steam's cut is, or Xbox, or Playstation, even though all 3 of those are similar cuts. As a user, that number really doesn't mean anything to me.

> To my mind all of this comes back to the free market: you're free to ignore all this stuff and keep getting everything through the App Store. If you and many others do the same thing then the market will prove the idea to be a dud.

That is the problem, how free am I really to ignore it if the only way to get by budget app or whatever other app that I have come to rely on is suddenly a different store or they just don't want me to subscribe through the App Store anymore.

This isn't hypothetical, if I want to play Fortnite I will have to get the epic game store when that comes out. Is that really a choice for me? Instead of being able to choose if I want to play Fortnite or not, I instead am choosing if I care enough to download an alliterative store. Why is that ok? Instead Epic is making the choice for me, and it is up to me to decide if I care enough.

And then it becomes normalized and just accepted because most users who don't understand the risks of alternative stores, just go with it.

Yes? So far Apple hasn't had any trouble making that choice for you, letting Epic offer another option is not equivalent to taking away choices. You might as well be complaining that Epic/Apple's EULA is limiting your choices.

Let's not twist history and say that Apple just suddenly chose to remove Fortnite. Epic made certain choices likely knowing what the outcome would be.

Epic is the one that is removing my choice to play Fortnite through the App Store if I choose. If I want to play Fortnite on my iPhone I will have no choice but to use the store.

So I have the choice I want to make "Do I want to play Fortnite" and then the choice I am forced to make by the developers "Do I want to download the Epic store".

That is removing choice from me.

Yes and no. I get what you’re saying. But Apple demanding a 30% cut is just as much of a reason for your choice being removed. If they didn’t demand that then Epic wouldn’t have done anything.

Neither party is innocent here, they’re both multinational tech giants fighting over our money.

That is true, people seem to think that just because in this particular case I prefer the way that Apple is doing this as a user it means that I necessarily agree with everything that Apple is doing or that they are saints or whatever.

My problem here is that so much of this is focused on Developer choice, but no one is talking about user choice. Or developer somehow twist this into a thing that users care at all about. When most really don't.

Is Apple's cut high? Sure. But it is lines up with the rest of the game industry with Steam, Consoles, etc.

There is an important part of this that I feel like developers are missing, I feel like they think that every user will just go over and give them the same amount of money where for me I will just not give them my money.

Which I fully realize I have the choice to do that and not give them money. And that is great. But That still means I cannot make the choice to use something I want without also being forced to make a decision that I don't want to make (use an alternative store).

I fully realize that I am not being forced to download Fortnite. But my concern is that as this becomes more and more normalized that the idea that I could only get my budgeting app, instagram, banking apps, or whatever other thing that I am used to using now only outside of the App Store becomes a reality. And again this isn hypothetical, look at Epic with Fortnite. Apps like Fortnite, Facebook, and others will be the gateway app that normalizes other apps not shipping through the App Store. Since they will already be on your phone.

On the PC gaming side, Valve regularly gets developers to abandon their own storefronts and pay their fee instead. Valve has huge market penetration, offers App Store-like services and has invested in a truly feature-complete platform. Because they have all this, publishers like EA and Ubisoft almost have no choice if they want to compete. Their own storefronts completely failed, despite continued investment and even the occasional attractive deal/title.

I really do hope Apple is afraid of these consequences. They will be forced to differentiate themselves in more meaningful ways, and move past their obsession with service revenue and distribution control. If users are able to get a better experience by avoiding the App Store, I'd say that's Mission Success for the DMA.

Can you not see how you're being unfair here? You're saying you would not buy something not distributed through the App Store which is fine and a valid choice but on top of that you want others who've made a different choice to be forced to distribute their work through the App Store and give up 15-30% of every transaction to Apple. Would you agree to pay that markup for having that choice?

I am advocating for the choice of the User. My first sentence in my original post. To me that is all that matters, I frankly don't care what the developer may or may not be forced to do if it comes at potential harm to the User.

A developer choosing to only put their app on another store, regardless of the reason, is removing a choice from the User.

Is 30% high, sure. But I also don't fully buy it being the end of the world considering it is the same cut that Steam, Xbox, and Playstation take.

But you aren’t, though. You’re advocating for a user to be able to download their app of choice through the App Store. But in advocating for that you’re advocating against the user having choice of which App Store they use.

But people, like myself, bought an iPhone knowing about the App Store and the restrictions it has. If I wanted a more open platform I could have gotten an Android phone.

Those restrictions do not harm me.

What would harm me is apps suddenly not being available through the App Store because developers are the one that choose to distribute on another store.

Which again is not a hypothetical concern when you look at Fortnite.

That isn't giving me more choice, that is giving the developer a choice and I just have to choose if I want to follow along or not if I want to use a specific app.

Would it be great if I really did have that choice and every app was still available on the App Store and I could use Apple's billing if I want. Yes! And if that was the case I would not care at all. But it's clearly not going to be that case for at least one app and possibly others if it becomes normalized.

The most likely reality is that it will be a developers choice not the users, if an App Store from Facebook or Epic become big enough why would they force themselves to play by Apple's rules?

The status-quo is not perfect either though, and some might say it's imperfections are expressly anticompetitive. The existence of nice features like free long-distance calls on Bell telephones is not an argument against fundamental infrastructure problems. You're making a rallying-cry that avoids even accepting the EU's criticism on it's merits.

> But it's clearly not going to be that case for at least one app and possibly others if it becomes normalized.

I don't know which planet you live on, but that has never been a thing. Your payments aren't all routed through Apple unless you sustain yourself off Genshin Impact draws somehow. You buy food, you pay rent, you pay taxes and exist in a non-Apple world and non-Apple context. Not exclusively relying on Apple to aggregate your payments is the norm, you're steelmanning a nonexistent lifestyle.

You can keep repeating the "I could have gotten an Android" line until your face turns blue, but the DMA is not about enabling Android phones to run iOS apps. It's about directly addressing Apple's internal market neglect, and their refusal to compromise on a clearly-anticompetitive distribution scheme. Every single defense that does not mention how it directly relates to distributing iOS apps is a strawman that is unrelated to the text and intent of Europe's DMA.

I... never claimed it was? I am talking about my iPhone. That's all... I never even claimed that all software I bought were through iOS.

I buy games through Steam, Xbox and Playstation fairly regularly.

I feel like you are trying to somehow catch me in not understanding what I am saying or something, but bringing up food makes zero sense.

To be clear, I accept what the EU is criticizing. However I will once again ask why the focus is on the developers so much, and not the users. That is my problem here, developers cried and now we got something that users were not asking for.

> Every single defense that does not mention how it directly relates to distributing iOS apps is a strawman that is unrelated to the text and intent of Europe's DMA.

That is not true, because the how something is distributed also includes the rules and restrictions put in place by the place that is doing the distribution.

We have to be able to analyze the repercussions of other stores and not just diminish them to "well it's a different server" as you seem to want to do. When in is far more than that.

The fact remains, you could have gotten an Android phone. If as a user I wanted a more open platform, I could have gone that route. But I didn't. I chose to get an iPhone due to the restrictions put on developers by the App Store.

The vast majority of the complaints are from developers, and I frankly don't see why they are the ones that somehow get to determine that a reason I bought my device is no longer valid. Apple has that privilege because again, I bought my device for that reason.

So yeah, is the status-quo perfect right now? No, never claimed it was. Is it better than developers having all of the power and choice and I have to just follow along with their decisions with the illusion of choice of downloading other stores. 100%

Because users don't create an anticompetitive system. Users buy things, they are ostensibly the customers that the market protects. It's akin to asking why Boeing is being lowlighted by the government while passengers are still buying 737 tickets. There is no correlation between the righteousness of a business and the desire for customers to patronize them.

> I... never claimed it was? I am talking about my iPhone.

Even on iPhone, nobody I know is refusing to buy Amazon Prime or Netflix because it goes through the browser. It might be a legitimate complaint, but it feels entirely tangential to how Apple chooses to implement their payment API.

> The fact remains, you could have gotten an Android phone.

Sure could - and the fact remains, it would have nothing to do with the regulation of the digital markets therein.

> Is it better than developers having all of the power and choice

There is literally not a single platform, even Linux, that exists with such a security model. Your hyperbolic misrepresentation of the situation is why I can so confidently and repeatedly say that you're wrong.

Obviously, iOS does not give developers "all of the power and choice" by forcing Apple to comply with the DMA. Apple still gets to choose whether they participate in the market, as well as how they implement compliant features. They can ship iPhones that default without sideloading features, and craft their user-experience however they see fit. The only caveat is that there has to be room for fair competition at the software level, or they can't operate in Europe. If that's equivalent to surrendering to developers, then it's proof that Apple was never competitive in the first place.

> That is removing choice from me.

Would you mind elaborating on this? Which choice do you have today regarding Fortnite on iOS that would be removed if Epic had its own iOS store?

Look on Mac - you don't have a choice if you want to play Java Minecraft through the App Store. If you don't sideload, that "choice" has already been made for you. And it's certainly not because Mojang is going out of their way to spite Apple fans. Specifically, professionals avoid the App Store because it has been a bad deal on every platform it's appeared.

You want your choice? Your choice is to not use that software at all, and find an alternative. That's what you decide when you die by the sword of a third-party's whims.

There was no law that forced Apple to remove fortnight.

They could have just left it on the store.

It's 1-3% for your grocery store. Compare that to Apple's 30% and maybe you'll wonder why you didn't ask your grocery store sooner, especially if it's a local grocer with an owner and workers you might even personally interact with because they're all scraping by splitting that 1-3% while listening to you defending Apple's 30% cut.

If Apple is so reasonable here, why not offer to pay 27% more to your grocer and their workers so they can get in on some of this reasonable 30% cut you so adamantly support. Nah, eff them, right? The real human beings bringing you literal sustenance for life for a 2% markup. They'll be totally fine, right? But multi-trillion dollar mega-corporations facing some downward pressure on their 30% cut, the big man's gotta draw the line at that. At least people know where your head's at.

Just like if I go and buy frozen fries at the grocery store I don't care how much they spent buying the potatoes. That is all the business deals that largely as a consumer is irrelevant to me.

However since you missed the entire line, it is worth mentioning that Steam also takes 30% cut from developers and I believe Microsoft and PlayStation are the same (likely Nintendo but I don't know).

NO. Apple made the choice to push Epic out of the App Store by force or by cost of rent. Apple makes all the choices here and you're trying to shift blame. Had Apple a 3% fee, Fortnite would be in Apple's App Store but Apple made the choice to charge 30% and refuse sideloading. That's on Apple not Epic but you can't see past your Apple blinders to get the fundamental issue here that Apple controlled everything and the EU is trying to fix some of that. Apple is both the original sin and the ongoing sin here and everyone else is literally the victim, in higher prices and fewer choices-- BECAUSE OF APPLE, not Epic and not the EU.

Epic is not without blame for not being on the App Store. They could have played by the rules and not try to get around this rules.

By that definition there are no free markets nearly anywhere (save for illegal markets). At least not in modern, well-functioning economies.

(Attention pedants: I said nearly)

This only really creates no impact to users if Apple were to force all apps to also be listed in their App Store.

If, e.g., Facebook were to decide they don’t like existing App Store policies and start their own store and only list their apps there, for a large portion of people using Facebook’s store would effectively be a requirement (in many places WhatsApp is a requirement).

What happens when the app for some piece of hardware you bought is on a 3rd party store? You don’t have a choice there either. (Besides returning the hardware if you have the option.)

I’m with the GP here. I don’t own any other Apple hardware, but bought my phone (after a long line of Android hardware starting from the original ADP1) specifically to not have to deal with any of this. I don’t have the time and energy to deal with any of this anymore. I have paid a premium to have these choices taken away from me and the decisions made for me.

Sorry I’m ruining the world, but if people want a phone they can install arbitrary binaries on I really don’t understand why they can’t just go buy an Android. As you say, free markets… if this _actually_ mattered to people then Apple should take a hit in the market and either change their behavior or disappear entirely. Yet here we are.

Surely that's more choice than if the app for some piece of hardware you bought is not on iOS at all because Apple refuses to approve it?

What happens if the app is only available for iOS? What happens when all your friends use iMessage and Facetime? Apple isn't saving us from platform lock-in; they're benefiting hugely from it.

I don’t own any other Apple hardware, but bought my phone (after a long line of Android hardware starting from the original ADP1) specifically to not have to deal with any of this. I don’t have the time and energy to deal with any of this anymore.

What is "this"? My Android phone works fine with zero maintenance, but when I occasionally want to do hacky things with it I can.

That's assuming they're buying iPhones because of the walled garden and not because of other reasons.

The ability to install 3rd party apps has effectively zero effect on how well Apple curates their official app store.

> The ability to install 3rd party apps has effectively zero effect on how well Apple curates their official app store.

You're missing the forest for the trees. Apple offers a curated environment largely through the curation of the app store. That curated environment is massively valuable to the average user. That's the asset Apple is trying to protect.

I am a big proponent of curation and one of the reason I'm an apple user is the high number of quality apps on the platform. But after encountering the apple publication process, it definitely feels like censorship and the lack of other options, even for applications I wrote, is stifling. I think it's better to encourage computer literacy than pretend that the outside world just does not exist (especially when there are so many scamming schemes on the app store).

Well, sometimes: https://www.pcmag.com/news/beware-theres-a-fake-lastpass-app...

Just make sure that Grandma knows any of her security apps could be a Trojan, and she should be safe.

My claim chowder: I have never once in my life heard an iPhone user say to me "I'm sure glad I can't turn on a buried setting and install apps from the web like Android users" or anything remotely like that, young or old.

I have heard a bunch of kids on this forum with trumped up claims about poor senior citizens uncle or granny who can't be trusted with this because they'll be socially engineered into digging into their iOS settings, flipping switches with scary warnings, then visiting a random scary website and downloading a package, and then agreeing through install dialogs all to get an app on their phone so the crook can steal their bank info.

The truth is, to anyone whose thought about it for more than a minute, that same scammer will literally just call up such an exceedingly naive person on the phone part of that smartphone and ask tech illiterate grandpa directly for his bank credentials and a claim that the crook's from the bank will work far more often than getting the old man to operate his smartphone in such a sophisticated and confusing way to get that malware installed. And he's not gonna find that setting and accidentally stumble through all the warnings unless he's being socially engineered so the whole idea is a silly edge case.

More anecdata: I've played with my parents' Android phones every couple years when visiting them over the last 12 or 13 years, they were born in 1945, and their phones are always in better shape than mine, with fewer apps installed, and a more organized set of app launchers than I have. And neither has enable a third party app store despite my making them fully aware of the possibility on several occasions. This infantalizing of old people is a tired trope that gets dragged out far too often on HN. The people born before every office worker in the country had a computer, they're all dead. The Boomers hitting 80 years old today, they were working on Windows 7 before retiring. Blaming them for your resistance to change is silly and sad. That Boomer's parents, if they're still alive at about 100 (my grandma made it that long) those people had Windows too, it was Windows 3.1 but they know what "installing" something means because guess what, you could install programs on Windows 3.1 and you had to do it without the safety of an app store or even basic sandboxing. Enough with the "think of the seniors" trope, it's far worse than "think of the children" who haven't lived through computers for many many decades yet.

> My claim chowder: I have never once in my life heard an iPhone user say to me "I'm sure glad I can't turn on a buried setting and install apps from the web like Android users" or anything remotely like that, young or old.

Of course they wouldn't say that - most people don't care enough.

"Don't like Apple? Don't buy it then."

Well I can use the same argument for apps.

"Don't like this third party app store or their dark patterns? Don't buy it then."

Vote with your wallet, goes both ways.

Or, hear me out, let's regulate so neither Apple nor other vendors can abuse their customers.

And it's not like Apple's protection is effective. AppStore is full of subscription scams.

Breaking down the walled garden of the App Store would be moving in the direction of a world where the prompts/ requests for access that prevent (or reduce the odds of) data being taken/stolen is higher. If you can download a non-compliant app from any random website you might visit, you can bet your ass the 65+ population is going to end up downloading a bunch of malicious apps.

> The DMA is not requiring this to be changed.

Not according to the DMA maximalists on this thread, who believe that you should be able to install any software that does anything it wants.

Well, no, they can’t. That’s the whole point of the DMA.

> and patch whatever vulnerability allowed a developer to bypass that restriction.

Sure, close the door after the cow has left barn.

In the rest of the civilized world, developers will not do something so blatant in the first place because they know it will result in an account ban.

Yes, they can. And no that’s not the whole point of the DMA. You still need to have a valid Apple developer account and certificates managed through Apple.

Apple rejects apps that ask for permission they don't need and apps that pretend to be what they aren't from the App Store.

There's a reason why malware is far more prevalent on Android than iPhone.

That said, malware is far more common on macs than it is iPhones, despite having a fraction of the users - and nearly all of it comes from people downloading apps from websites.

So just buy an android. Vote with your wallet! Show Apple their walled garden isn't what people want.

Apple is not currently a choice given that requirement but having more choices is a win on my book so you go EU!

I can have the coice of alternative apps stores AND still enjoy a curated wallet garden.

How do I know it works? Android is precisely like that.

You see Android users also like the choice of a curated system. Choice being the important word here.

https://it-training.apple.com/tutorials/deployment/dm005

Regardless, my point is that opinionatedness is a feature that some people buy, even if many people on this forum don't.

e.g. people might prefer to eat at a nice prix fixe restaurant instead of the Cheesecake Factory.

Just don't install those other apps then.

It's the same exact argument that you made! The same one!

So no, your choice is not being removed, because in your own words, using your own argument, you can just not install those other apps.

You are the one who made the "just don't use it" argument, as applied to the iPhone.

If you can use that argument, then so can everyone else. We can equally say "Ok, just continue to only use the iPhone app store".

Its your argument. Either it applies or it doesn't.

If you want to say that your argument is bad, thats fine. But if you don't then the argument can be equally used against you.

I expect that you'll ignore this clear contradiction though and not address it like you just did in your comment, and if you do that I will take that as an agreement that your argument was bad and you just don't want to admit it, thus you avoid addressing the contradiction.

Uh, read a little farther up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39680209

> Ok, just continue to only use the iPhone app store

So, I imagine that if I restate my point here, you'll just ignore it. So how about I point you to elsewhere in this thread that I've made the point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39680211 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39681056 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39680739

In case you missed it, the key takeaway:

> You're missing the forest for the trees. Apple offers a curated environment largely through the curation of the app store. That curated environment is massively valuable to the average user. That's the asset Apple is trying to protect.

I've noticed this trend with a lot of my engineering / tech friends: really good at tech, but completely clueless in understanding the actual value to users that a tech thing provides. That's the distinction which makes this not-a-contradiction; but since you're probably mistaking the technology itself for the value it provides, that won't make sense.

If you disagree with that argument, fine. But you can't use it in support of anything.

So then no, people cannot "just go use an android" as their choice is equally taken away from them by Apple's market power and decisions.

It's totally fine for you to admit that your original argument of "just don't use X" is stupid.

Which is why we now have regulation. Which isn't going to go away.

Goodbye 30% fee!

Uh, no it's not? I'm sorry but you're not making sense. If users want more freedom, they can just use Android. Some users like the walled garden; they can choose Apple. If they want something else, Android is right there.

> Apple's market power and decisions

Is exactly how and why they managed to have a curated environment.

It seems like you have this idea in your head about what I mean, and I don't think it's accurate, and I don't think it's being updated. I'm not going to engage anymore; all you've done is attempt cheap shots, and miss.

do you see the equivalence here? what am i missing?

> Apple offers a curated environment largely through the curation of the app store. That curated environment is massively valuable to the average user. That's the asset Apple is trying to protect.

The user chooses to have an opinionated environment that protects them. If they don't want an opinionated environment, they can choose Android. The fact the environment is opinionated is what's valuable to the user, and what Apple is trying to protect.

Why? Giving the user the ability to install random apps from 3rd party stores opens up the protected ecosystem such that big players like facebook will absolutely take the opportunity to use 3rd party stores, and users will de facto have to use the 3rd party stores. Now the walls of the garden are torn down, and one of the huge values of the iPhone ecosystem has been destroyed.

Big win! Apple's been pulled down to the level of everyone else.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2022/04/23/appl...

I, as a user, think that's great.

The Google play store has no similar anti-tracking rules. Why? Well, partly because those rules would negatively impact Google, but also because Meta could credibly decide to move their apps off the play store and onto their own "Meta Store: The only place to get Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp".

If it was easy for Meta to set up their own store for iOS, they absolutely would because currently Apple kneecaps their ability to track and sell user data in ways that costs Meta REAL money.

Google does not exert the same kind of control over the play store, so Meta is quite happy to keep Facebook there.

So, as things stand (with a closed iOS ecosystem) I can use an Instagram app on my phone that's subject to a bunch of pro-consumer rules about tracking and data protection. If iOS allowed third party stores then I would almost certainly not be able to do that any more.

So why don't apps just work around it? Because they have to agree to terms with Apple and SAY that they won't. And then Apple has the power to kick them off the store if they do it anyway.

In addition to that, they have to list what data they collect and what they do with it when they get it. Basically they have to make a bunch of pinky-promises. Some of those pinky-promises Apple just shows to the user as a list of "here's how this company is going to use your data". Other things are just forbidden outright.

Whether a company can collect and sell certain kinds of my data to a third party is not something that can ever be controlled through an OS level feature.

So in other words they have taken the users choice away using their market power! Glad you agree!

Either a user's choice is taken away in both situations, or it is neither situations.

> If users want more freedom, they can just use Android.

Actually they are unable to get the 30% discount from apps that only work on iPhone.

And now they will be! Now the user will be allowed to choose to get that 30% discount and Apple will not be able to take away a user's choice to buy the app on an alternative app store.

Any studies confirming this, or is it just your opinion? In my experience, nobody who owns an iPhone knows about the walled garden (among non-tech people at least).

Market share is pretty easy to look up? iPhones are massively popular, and have the majority market share in the US.

> nobody who owns an iPhone knows about the walled garden

That's-a bingo! Exactly. Because it just works, because Apple has tight control over the pipeline. They don't need to know and it seems like tech people don't appreciate the degree to which a trustworthy, mostly-idiot-proof appliance is incredibly valuable to the average user. Choosing between stores and warnings about trojans in security apps are not things that most users care about or want to think about. iPhones are great because the user can have little idea what they're doing, and still be pretty sure they won't screw it up.

As I've said elsewhere, I run void linux on my personal thinkpads because I customize everything. But that's not for everyone.

Another reason is that everything just works, which can be achieved on GNU/Linux, too: see laptops with preinstalled systems.

The dark patterns such as making it extremely hard to cancel subscriptions or not reminding users that they're about to charge should be made illegal as deceptive billing practices.

[0]: https://techcrunch.com/2015/06/25/apple-bans-games-and-apps-...

The Confederate flag, then.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_State...

Now the people outside the walled garden want in, and they're tearing down the walls to do it, and they seem to be completely clueless that by doing so they'll destroy the very thing that makes it so desirable.

I only chose an iPhone because I don't really like Android and there is nothing else. Only two different platforms is simply not enough choice, so you have to create choice within those platforms. While you like the walled garden I would like a native Firefox with the Firefox engine and uBlock Origin.

In the end, despite all the marketing, neither issue is about user or worker freedom. It's about which entity has more power.

They would say why can't I just download it on the app store.

You forget that is why a app store was introduced in the first place on the smartphone. To enable an easy centralised place for all apps and games.

The average/majority of the population were not going to navigate to shitty mobile websites or desktop websites on their mobile browser to download apps in 2008.

See above I bolded for you that Apple is removing choices from the user.

There is at least one company that is very much pushing for this exact scenario, and has announced plans for releasing a store on iOS.

Fortnite also is not on the most popular store on PC so it is not just about their lawsuit. They want to run a store on all platforms and have said they will be launching an Epic game store on iOS. So I don't understand why they are invalid.

But that is a clear example, they are not on the official store for iOS or Android (which also is not part of Epic's lawsuit).

As far as Facebook goes, I don't think anyone is claiming that Facebook will in fact do it so maybe tone it down a bit. But Facebook is an example of a company that has enough of a user base that they could try to convince users to download a store and likely many would since they are addicted to social media and they own Instagram.

TikTok likely could. Microsoft would be stupid to not be looking into it. Steam could be looking into it.

None of those are concrete and to my knowledge none of them have signaled that they would. But those are companies that have enough of a name and a product that they could likely very easily get users to download the App Store which turns into a gateway for others to use their store instead of the Apple App Store since it is is now on their phone.

Regardless of all of those companies, there is zero reason to discount the fact that Epic is doing this on iOS. They skip the Android Play Store and they are doing it on PC. Fortnite has a ton of market power.

Edit: Also Facebook very much has an incentive to explore this option. Not only would it be another revenue source (and maybe they could somehow tie it into their VR/AR stuff) but they have been vocal about their issues with Apple in the past.

There is Minecraft as an example, they are not on Steam, Gog or Epic store but they are for sure on Android store.

So find an example of a real application that is not made by a company that is in lawsuit or has or wants a Store.

That has absolutely nothing to do with their Lawsuit with Apple. They are also not on Steam. That has absolutely nothing to do with their lawsuit with Apple.

So no, them being on iOS is not only because of the lawsuit with Apple.

What does Minecraft have to do with anything? Yes I know they are owned by Microsoft but that is a weird example. While the OG is not on Steam, Legends is.

So... Fortnite is a real example that is happening on Android, right now!

They have already said they are going to do exactly this with iOS.

> or has or wants a Store.

That... doesn't disqualify anyone since that's the entire point. If they don't want a store, then obviously concern about them making a store and not being on the Apple App Store is a non issue.

That makes no sense.

That is why I brought it up as an example, it is a major app that is ditching the play store on Android just like they have announced they will be doing for iOS.

It's obviously not the case. Not you, not anyone else.

You obviously aren't mad about how unsafe MacOs is because Apple doesn't restrict installation on it. And you shouldn't be mad that the iPhone walled garden is no more, you did not buy it for that reason.

It's somehow concerning that the company has so much grasp on your perception of reality that you are spitting out their propaganda like this.

I use my iPhone and Mac very differently. All of the apps on my Mac were a single purchase, I don't need to worry about dark patterns there because I just own what I have.

The mobile market is inherently different, largely thanks to developers pushing alternative forms of ownership. Instead of being able to just buy it, most of the apps on my iPhone are subscription based. Meaning I am more at the mercy of dark patterns by the developers.

You said it, yes. That means that's what you now believe. Not that it's necessarily true.

> All of the apps on my Mac were a single purchase, I don't need to worry about dark patterns there because I just own what I have.

Are you using a firewall to block software updates? If not, you're still within reach of the developer and they can pull the rug under your feet.

> Meaning I am more at the mercy of dark patterns by the developers.

The developer cannot force you to move out if the apple app store in the first place! (Which is far from bulletproof when it comes to dark patterns anyway).

If you want to stay in the safe corner of the web, just keep buying through the Apple App store! Like almost everyone does with the Android playstore.

It is also incredibly hypocritical that here we are complaining about being at the mercy of the choices that Apple makes and you are trying to tell me how I actually feel.

This boils down to the platforms being different. The way that many apps are monetized on Mac (and Windows) is different to how things are monetized on mobile devices.

So please stop telling me how I feel and why I made certain decisions. I think I know why I chose something and not you.

Now fast forward a few years and Apple spinning tons of FUD about user security related to the app store monopoly and now a significant part of you guys are reusing the talking point. Definitely not what to expect from psyop, right?

I really whished people were talked in school how propaganda and psychological operations work, how to recognize them and how to defend themselves, like with practical exercise and all, it's becoming a critical survival skill in modern societies…

I'm not blaming you to succumb to this kind of things, smarter people did before and it's efficient enough to make people kill themselves “for the cause/the motherland”, but that's terrifying to see it in action coming from corporations.

Here is the thing, I don't feel like I am being restricted. I never said the words I like being restricted. Want to know who is? The developers... the people pushing for this.

THAT is what I am talking about, please go re-read what I have written.

Which for the record I think is a good thing, we know many companies will take advantage of their users if given the option. And before you jump in "well apple is taking advantage of you", I bought their device knowing full well what our relationship was.

I even mentioned that I think Apple should open up the store on their restrictions on porn apps and things like that. But that is also a separate discussion.

The condescending attitude is making you read the wrong thing and it's frankly kinda tiring.

Edit: And yes, people have talked about the restrictions put on developers on the App Store being a positive for Users... A lot over the years. Especially when it comes to billing.

You can spin it again and again, it won't change the facts: it's the user that are being restricted.

Sure it has the side effect of restricting the developers, because they can't reach the restricted user without Apple giving them access. But it's only a pretty recent side effect, when Apple decided to pivot their branding on “privacy”: before that Facebook and al. spent almost a decade harvesting user data for free on iPhone without any complaints from Apple.

Oh, and this is not just me making the argument: that's actually European Commission's argument too. And the fact is, EC won the case and Apple is caving.

And if you need some help grasping this fact, you can think about how the European regulation is not about freedom for European developers (targeting every user in the world) but about freedom for European users no matter where the developer comes from.

That is not a bad example. Should they have restricted it sooner? Yes. But that is an example of the restrictions being a positive for users.

> European regulation is not about freedom for European developers (targeting every user in the world) but about freedom for European users no matter where the developer comes from.

Honestly debatable, considering the biggest names in this are Spotify and Epic. Last I checked Spotify isn't a User. Most of the push for this seems to be pushed by developers who tried to spin this as "user choice" when its really "Developer choice".

Epic is an American company, which reinforce my point.

> Most of the push for this seems to be pushed by developers who tried to spin this as "user choice" when its really "Developer choice".

And no, it's not the medium-size business that are spinning things around, they have far less lobbying power than Apple and very very little leverage on the European Commission (compared to Apple that got away with a lightning cable exception on the Micro-USB mandate from the European commission a decade ago). Only this time Apple's lobbying wasn't enough, and European people will have access to pieces of software that Apple was forbidding for no good reason (web browsers for starter).

Back in 2014 or so when I was still a web developer, I can tell you that Safari stood literally zero chance against the competition, and that the very poor state of the iPhone's monopoly browser was actually harming customers.

At the end of the day, the developer will still have very little leverage on the user (they cannot realistically force the user to use a non-app store version of their app), and the user will be the only one making their choice to use apps that come from outside the Apple app store. It's only about user choice.

Repeating corporate lies many time doesn't make them true.

It's not a separate discussion. If Apple has total control over how you use your computing devices, things like that are the inevitable result.

And it's not just porn apps. Look at the web itself; it became popular because there were no restrictions on distributing browsers for Windows. If Microsoft had the power back then that you want Apple to have today, they would have blocked it and we'd likely be stuck in a Windows/MSN monopoly.

And that's fine

The feature is not for you

You can keep using your iPhone as you always did, through the Apple app store

But, there's a but: how many users would answer "no" to "would you like to download our app and get a 30% discount for the same exact features"?

Meaning, no I actually won't be able to use my iPhone as I always did once this becomes normalized and accepted.

Please correct me if I am wrong about what the rule for this actually is.

If a developer chooses to use an alternative store, even if I want to use that app, the choice is made for me to not use it.

How exactly is this benefiting users?

Apple could fix this overnight and choose not to. Therefore they clearly don't care about their users, by your definitions.

Also: who do you think you are to tell developers how much money they're allowed to make? It's their right to decide whether they want to pay these platform fees or not.

I am the user that doesn't want to be taken advantage of by developers who choose to engage in dark patterns.

I frankly don't care how much of a cut Apple takes from payments. Just like I don't care about how much my grocery store uncharges, I don't care what Steam, Xbox, Playstation, or any other marketplace charges.

That isn't on me as the User. I want an experience that I am not at the mercy of developers who have been known to employ dark patterns. This isn't a theoretical thing, it is very much a thing.

That is my problem here. This is NOT about choice for users, this about choice for developers. Meaning my options are being removed from me...

Then you're being disingenuous. The root cause of the problem is Apple, not the developers. You can't just ignore it. The developers are behaving rationally within the rules controlled by Apple. I don't understand how you don't see this.

You keep repeating my problem with this and proving my point.

My problem is that all of the focus on this is on developers and not the users.

The key reason I bought my iPhone as a USER is because of the restrictions put in place on the App Store by Apple.

Do you see the difference?

I fully understand why Developers don't like these restrictions. I am saying I don't care because again, as the user those restrictions are a positive for me.

Apple could make all of its users happy, and it decides not to.

That isn't the counter you think it is.

users (should) have options, not choices.

as a user you can choose among the options provided to you.

the more the options, the better in general, sometimes it could be a little bit worse for a single user, but that's alright and honestly very rare to be charitable.

giving users the power to choose in every detail how the product should be developed and distributed will inevitably end up like this

https://media.wired.com/photos/593252a1edfced5820d0fa07/mast...

the counter argument is that giving Apple all the power is not beneficial for users (userS, plural)

Imagine if Apple decided what music you can listen to or which website you can visit or what movies you can watch with their devices. Their mobile platform has two main actors: Apple, the owner of the distribution platform, and the developers, who create the products being distributed on such platform. Users are, as the name implies, users.

Your options will be: select the apps only from the App Store, select them from the App Store and the developer website and finally don't use an Apple device. Which is one option more than it was until now.

So if the developer is misbehaving, don't buy it.

All you want is Apple to continue fucking over the people who build the software just so you aren't slightly inconvenienced. Bravo.

I agree with some of the restrictions on what is allowed on the App Store, like porn and browsers. But that is a different topic than having other app stores.

My concern here is billing, we know that developers will abuse this. They have done it and I have personally been in many meetings about user retention when they try to cancel.

It's not killing user experience at all, if the user want, they can use the App store, because few if any app will ever make a complete move away from the App store, it would cost them way too much. The only ones that could pull such a trick are DMA's “gatekeeper” apps and they are under scrutiny from the EC, so you're safe here.

(Well, Fortnite doesn't fall under DMA's 10 “gateway services” that deserve scrutiny from the DMA, but their alternative store will!)

Now a decade has passed and we're asking for change. That's fine, but we can't forget that when the app store first came out there wasn't this hysteria around the need to sideload. The app store as a place for developers to publish their apps was huge, Apple did the publishing for you. How that we all have more choice, we're expecting Apple to change to provide more choice.

But we can't forget how beneficial the app store and the "walled" approach was.

I do agree with a lot of your points. Now there could be an aspect of predatory behavior by Apple in the way they charge developers etc, but that's where I feel the problem should be tackled.

If the iPhone walled garden app store approach is so bad, then why is it so successful?

Right! Just because I agree with the core part of the App Store doesn't mean that it isn't without faults. But let's not rip up what is there completely to fix other issues, and just make things worse in the process.

We saw a similar conversation when Steam came out about Piracy of games.

There’s a correlated relationship between open platforms and security but people in this thread seem to imply this has zero security implications.