> Apple has an advantage that they can come pre-installed.

Not only that, apparently updates automatically push their apps on you as well, without even asking. Suddenly I had a "Journal" app added to my homescreen from nowhere, and I thought my device had been hacked before I realized what was going on.

Apple also have the advantage of not having to follow their own rules. Their apps can send notifications without asking for permission about it. "Journal" again is an example here where the app sent me a notification and after going to the app, then they asked me for permission to send notifications.

Since iOS 12 apps can send “provisional” notifications, meaning permission isn’t required right away. Other apps can use this, but few do.

Having an app that competes with an existing Apple app is considered a duplicate app and you can be rejected because of it.

This was more of an issue early in the App Store’s history than later on. Apple’s relaxed on that a lot a long time ago and you can use any number of contacts, calendars, email clients, browsers, camera apps, messengers, maps apps and so on.

But it still exists in their rules. That they don’t enforce it as often as they used to is cold comfort: they still can whenever they feel the need to do so. So if you get too successful they can still very easily chop you down.

not really for browsers, they allow them but they all have to use Safari's engine

Yeah but browser ≠ rendering engine. I know they get conflated a lot in tech, but when I’m using e.g. Arc on my Macintosh, I’m not using Chrome despite using the same rendering engine.

ehhhh kind of, what's a browser without a rendering engine? just a fancy bookmark manager?

Most browsers don’t have a rendering engine unique to them. Apple made that a policy for iPhones and its derivatives, but a browser is more than its rendering engine.

My point still stands though, I want to use an alternative browser engine like I do on every other computer... but Apple doesn't allow it

So do I, but that doesn’t negate my original point: for almost every category of App that comes on a stock iPhone, you can replace it with a 3rd party alternative.

The exceptions are: SMS, Settings, and the Phone app for the numbers tied to your SIMs (there’s still a billion VoIP options including extra lines from carriers like T-Mobile’s Digits) and probably a couple others I’m forgetting. I think the Clock app has a couple of privileges not available to 3rd parties actually.

You can use a 3rd party browser, but that browser will use the version of WebKit that comes with the operating system (except soon, in the EU, whenever 3rd party browsers with their own rendering engines ship there).

"almost every" is the problem:

* no alternative browser engines

* no alternative wallet apps

* no alternative app stores (specifically so Apple can capture a % of sales)

* no software streaming

* no super apps

* Apple-only special SMS features

* Apple hardware (watches) get special access to iPhone hardware

that stuff adds up

Note that the "rendering engine" on iOS also takes care of JS, implementing web standard APIs, etc. And it is tied to the OS version.

So, something like WebUSB comes out? Gotta wait for Apple to implement it, and also for your customers to upgrade their devices.

Correct. Except the part about waiting for Apple to implement WebUSB because they’re not going to.

The extension ecosystem of browsers is pretty important though, and that is tied to the rendering engine.

On Android, I can install firefox-for-android and run ublock origin to no longer see ads on websites.

On iOS, that's not possible. Apple prevents mozilla from shipping a browser capable of running firefox addons.

This is a case where Apple's policies are hampering security since, well, blocking ads on the web is the thing has had the single largest positive impact on security for my elderly relatives. Giving them ublock origin stopped them from clicking on a ridiculous number of scammy ads and popups.

Not sure why you are getting downvoted.

I also want alternate web tech, WebAssembly, Javascript implementations.

And as a developer, to be able to create tools that use the memory allocation/permissions API for JIT compilation.

Wouldn't that rule out so many apps? E.g. Netflix competing with Apple TV, Goggle Photos vs Apple Photos, Google maps vs Apple maps, any note-taking app, camera, email client, browser, or weather app... What actually gets you rejected?

Does Apple ever have to give you a reason why you're rejected, or tell the truth even if they give you a reason?

That's probably the biggest reason I think that Society (with a capital S) should rein in Apple a bit. They have a lot of power and money over the consumer, but on top of that they have no obligation to provide transparency and truthfulness. Given how dependent people are on their phones, I think it's perfectly fair for the state to step in and say that the power imbalance between consumers and Apple should be equalized a bit.

EDIT: My comment was wrong, please see helpful corrections below!

I think there are technical limitations when you have different apps vs. one app. Simples being you need to log in to multiple different apps, but things like data moving between them etc are also complications.

> Simples being you need to log in to multiple different apps, but things like data moving between them etc are also complications.

I don't think this is actually true. Specifically, once I've logged into one Google app (like Gmail), others automatically pick up the user (like Calendar), so it seems to at least be technically possible.

Apps on iOS are allowed to communicate and share data so long as they are published by the same developer.

On top of this keychain stores logins by domain. Even if an app is in a different developer’s container you can retrieve the credentials with just a couple taps.

I didn't know that, can they share logins across apps?

E.g. if I'm logged into Google Spreadsheets, am I also logged into Google Docs automatically?

See here for details: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/keychain_...

Yes all apps by the same developer have a shared container.

Yes, exactly.

I think it refers more to a hypothetical app that, when you're using it, would allow you to completely ignore the entire Apple software ecosystem. It would have its own home screen with launchers to things like a web browser, office tools, media, etc. I think this sort of thing never came to fruition because (aside from it being very hard to make) it would be way too bulky what with having to come in the form of a single app package. The ban on third party stores means it wouldn't be able to offer its own app store or come in segments so you can pick only the apps you want.

Is that not like the Bing app and the Google app which have mini apps inside

I think part of the lawsuit is that there are glaring exceptions to some companies that Apple gives preferential treatment to. WeChat was mentioned elsewhere in the thread, apparently it does something like this and is given a pass arbitrarily whereas Apple disallows other companies from competing with them.

> I think this sort of thing never came to fruition because (aside from it being very hard to make) it would be way too bulky what with having to come in the form of a single app package.

Note that the Android equivalent (custom launchers) doesn't need to, and iOS's implementation (Springboard.app), while more integrated than that, is still more modular than you describe. It's only App Store restrictions that prevent you from having an app that opens other apps. (If all apps cooperate, you can use the custom URL handler mechanism to work around the App Store restrictions.)

Either provide a platform or compete in one. Don't do both.

The problem here is that platform is not precise. You could say this means that Apple should just make the iPhone hardware, and software vendors should compete to create operating systems for it. There's no hard line.

It's not really a hard problem.

Even if you argue that for example a phone and messaging app should/must be preinstalled on a phone, Apple could allow competing apps for that, and uninstalling or disabling the preinstalled one. Then it would be much harder to argue for that they are unfairly competing in the platform they provide.

Courts are used to arguing over problems where there are no hard lines, I don't think they take "there's no hard line" as an excuse to do nothing to enable competition.

> Then it would be much harder to argue for that they are unfairly competing in the platform they provide.

No it wouldn't, because you could argue that they should allow competing OSes on their hardware platform.

> I don't think they take "there's no hard line" as an excuse to do nothing to enable competition.

I'm not saying they should. You're not responding to what I said. They didn't need to enable apps at all. They did, and allow things like Whatsapp to compete with their phone and messaging apps. They've enabled competition. Courts don't do anything like that.

It is a hard problem because the line between an OS function and an application function is very blury. Take for example the FindMy functionality. It's open to third party devices and manufacturers like Tile, but to get all the functionality the OS has, you need to use FindMy, not your own app (like Tile used to/still does). But is FindMy an OS functionality as a built in, privacy preserving, low powered tracker service) or is it an application? Or WebKit. Webkit is the only web rendering engine in iOS. Every app has equal access to WebKit, but is it part of the platform or competing in the platform? Sure, on general purpose computers, browsers are applications, but is there any reason they can't / shouldn't be an OS service? The lower level networking stacks are OS services. The higher level screen drawing stacks are OS services. Why would gluing those two things together not be an OS service?

Indeed, WebView is an attempt to deploy a browser runtime separately to the browser application.

I also agree with this. Not permitting the owner of a device to use a different operating system on it should be illegal, by a similar principle

Doing both is fine so long as you as a platform provider don't give any preferential treatment to you as a user of the platform.

Why? Won't this result in vastly inferior products?

Stifling competition though anti-competitive-means results in vastly inferior products.

You also have to buy all apps through Apple's app store to natively download to a device. The Digital Markets Act addressed something similar, requesting that developers can sell through alternate marketplaces. Apple came back with a proposal to (1) stick with the status quo with 30 percent commission on sales, (2) reduce commission to 17 percent with a 50 cent charge on downloads over a million, (3) sell through a competing app store and pay the download fee every time. (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/04/technology/app-store-euro....)

I've designed several apps (Fitstar, Fitbit, theSkimm) that were dependent on the Apple ecosystem. While it's a huge tax to comply with their rules, they also do a TON to help developers succeed, especially early on. They maintain components, provide developer tools, build entire languages, design new paradigms, and ensure quality. I've had a respect for the tax on a service they provide to both developers and end users. At this point though - they're acting as a monopoly, and it feels anti-competitive.

It's not just the developer tax that's a problem. Hiding behind a veil of privacy also doesn't forgive the introduction of "dark pattern" end user experiences - such as the inability to have a group chat with non Apple users. And no non-Apple share links on Apple Photo albums. These create digital "haves" vs "have-nots" - and not everyone in the world can afford to buy physical Apple devices. There must be protocols that allow information to be more interoperable so people have optionality and control over their digital identities.

I bet the Apple apps have much, much, better background activity/services support. Doing "background" uploads is nothing short of painful compared to Android.

While we never want to compete with core Apple apps, we're constantly having to say 'sorry that's the restrictions running on Apple' with background support.

(our usecase is we have a B2B app that has visual progress reports - so we'll have the same people on a team - the Android ones get their progress reports uploaded instantly, the iOS ones 'sorry keep your phone open'.)