This the answer. The app store monopoly doesn't really matter, the real tyranny is needing Apple's cryptographic blessing to run software on our own computers. This should be literally illegal. Restore our computer freedom and their app store rent seeking becomes irrelevant.

If they have to allow other stores, then they are not going to be allowed to punish developers for using them.

(Assuming the lowest bar possible in anti-competitive resolution follow through.)

1) A fdroid equivalent pops up, which them becomes a collection of fantastic open source apps, and soon develops a strong user base.

2) Google launches play store for iPhone, which will on day 1 get millions of users.

3) Meta launches metaStore, which so the only way to get Facebook, threads, Instagram and WhatsApp. This becomes the fastest growing store in a matter of a week.

One may personally not like this world - but imo it's a better world than the one we have - personally for (1) to exist.

Would note the trade off: this store will be a bastion of tracking, possibly with Meta requiring its bugs be installed for inclusion.

This will rightly push Apple in the right direction - to bring the right OS controls at the operating system level / store API level, and not leave things up to apps. This is a better world, despite short term issues with metaStore.

This will almost certainly be litigated. We also haven’t broached national laws mandating a government-controlled App Store. (Would expect this to emerge in right-wing Europe or India first.)

Unless the iOS market is so lucrative it will garner far more interest.

Google Play has fewer restrictions though. Apple doesn't even allow alternative browser engines. Until last year they didn't allow any emulators.

Why? They don't do this on Android.

At then end of the day the number of active users would fall if they do this. That's unavoidable. So what incentives do they have to not distribute on the App Store? It's not like (unlike in Epic's case) Apple is requiring Facebook to hand over 30% of its revenue.

fdroid is of course great. Extremely niche and not that significant, though.

> Google launches play store for iPhone, which will on day 1 get millions of users.

Amazon tried that on Android. Of course I would expect Google to do much better but that doesn't mean a lot.

So they can fuck their users in ways not currently permitted.

Yup, it's then fair and they can keep the banner in their App Store that screams at font size 38 "This Journal App Is Da Best", "No Other Note App Has Been Made Greater Than This One".

The web. Without scare walls or hidden "enable downloads" menu settings.

And apps should no longer have to use first party payment rails, first party authentication/sign in rails, or be forced to jump through review or upgrade hoops.

I'm not too sure about that, for non-technical users the warnings before installing an APK on Android are very likely a good thing. There's a lot of malware out there and, similar to running a downloaded Exe on Windows, you should at least explicitly confirm it's execution.

Happy because you have nobody in your life in a vulnerable position to be taken advantage of the inevitable malware that will be installed on their device as a result of your wish.

Or sad because those people are most likely to be grandparents or elderly aunts and uncles. Perhaps you never even got to know them.

They did, they got an iPhone.

> my mother has been scammed by legitimate App Store apps that have charged extra-fees just because they could.

Did it empty her bank balance by abusing the private NFC payment APIs that Apple are being ordered to open up?

Did it cryptolock all her files?

Did it activate the camera and mic to spy on her for blackmail?

These are things that we need to worry about with random things we download on desktop these days. It's not 2007 any more, I have an entire spare computer for untrusted software.

NFC payment APIs have been open on Android for decades and no such thing of the sort has ever happened. You cannot magically conjure up a payment from Apple Pay to <X> without user involvement and confirmation.

>Did it cryptolock all her files?

Apps do not have write access to all your files.

>Did it activate the camera and mic to spy on her for blackmail?

Every mobile device now has a giant notification saying that the device is using the microphone or recording video.

The disingenuous "having an open app store/not being locked in the walled garden is a security risk" is getting tiring, especially when it's basically all lies now. Unless your argument is that Apple is too incompetent to write APIs properly, in which case I wonder why you think that said APIs being private would prevent anything.

Google is also getting legal action for monopoly abuse of their app store, so what's possible today on Android is not sufficient to say what's safe or not.

Despite this, they're also already facing legal action for sharing too much data from Google Wallet.

Fail on all directions at the same time.

> Apps do not have write access to all your files.

> Every mobile device now has a giant notification saying that the device is using the microphone or recording video.

And this can't be circumvented ever, even when private APIs are no longer vetted? And none of the voices describing downloads warnings as "scare screens" aren't making the same demand on this?

> The disingenuous "having an open app store/not being locked in the walled garden is a security risk" is getting tiring, especially when it's basically all lies now. Unless your argument is that Apple is too incompetent to write APIs properly, in which case I wonder why you think that said APIs being private would prevent anything.

The disingenuous "force platforms to be open, there's no security risk" position was tiring decades ago when the iPhone was brand new, especially when it was obviously lies even then. Apple obviously isn't magically competent enough to write APIs properly, they had "goto fail" and all the jailbreaks we've seen in so many versions of iOS were specifically some random doc that users could install that included a way to escalate privileges, and even without that evidence we've also got access to the black market prices for zero-day exploits that for a long time showed they're cheaper than Android, and the obvious reason why this prevents "anything" is that "anything" is a massive subset of "everything".

It's just corporate propaganda that all hell would break loose, you could just offer installing baby mode at Apple physical store that can only be removed at said places. Yeah some people would still climb the fence and touch the power lines but look, can we save them all? Should we? In this world of merciless exploitation, wouldnt it be just fair we stopped pretending it never was about anything else but money?

I'm British by birth, living in Berlin. We definitely think Americans are a bit "funny", in the not-at-all-funny sense of the word, about guns.

> It's just corporate propaganda that all hell would break loose, you could just offer installing baby mode at Apple physical store that can only be removed at said places.

Thing is, with computers, we've had decades of watching malware infect, destroy, corrupt, ransom, and blackmail. It's still happening, even.

And we even have a way to get past "baby mode" restrictions: be a developer.

But guess what? Developers also face supply chain attacks, because malware is everywhere.

I do miss the olden days when I didn't need to care. A mac online in 2009 was worry-free.

Why would buy a phone that doesn’t work the way you like when alternatives exist?

We're asking to rewire the economics and regulatory framework, not change how you personally use your phone.

I don't care how you use your phone. I care how the world works.

I indeed choose not to download software from Facebook and friends, but it’s quite likely others will need to as it will become the only way to get their software. At that point: tracking out the ass.

The better analogy is a forest fire. We're clearing up the overgrowth (ossification, unfair taxation, and unfair control) and creating room for new life to start and flourish.

> I indeed choose not to download software from Facebook and friends, but it’s quite likely others will need to as it will become the only way to get their software. At that point: tracking out the ass.

Don't like a negative externality? Tax and regulate it. It's what Europe does. And it's what we're good at doing in every industry except for the software industry. We need to stretch those muscles and get back into the habit of doing it.

We should pass regulations on giant social media companies as well.

But in a world where we have no software freedoms and where certain software tracks us, having software freedoms is the more important cause and it's where we must start our battle. You don't need to use Facebook, but you need to use a smartphone. New social media apps are started all the time (TikTok, Tea, etc.) but smartphones are trillion dollar moats.

Our smartphones are our gateway to digital life. They need to be liberated from Apple and Google. Mobile computing belongs to all of us.

It's a perfectly valid way to view it. Forest fire might be another valid way to view it, but is different. Both are equally valid, and represent different views of what ideal is.

> Tax and regulate it. It's what Europe does.

I am European. Nice try though.

> We need to stretch those muscles and get back into the habit of doing it.

I don't disagree. Start there then. Make it so that tracking me incurs such a heavy penalty payable to me personally that it is not worthwhile. Then go after the distribution mechanisms that allow someone to live a relatively tracking-free life without having to be an uber-nerd to make it reality.

> Mobile computing belongs to all of us.

There are plenty of platforms. What you are saying is it belongs to the people who want it to be a certain way with particular negative outcomes for many people. I want it to be a different way with negative outcomes that affect me less.

I think it's been a net positive overall. The percentage of people that want to do and install more with it is small.

But that power is not more dangerous than having guns, right? So.. while I can apply for a gun license, I can't apply for an unrestricted computing license, so something is wrong here, don't you think? Unless you believe guns are less dangerous.

It actually is.

Free computers are intolerably subversive. They can literally wipe out entire sectors of the economy just by copying artificially scarce things. They can defeat police, judges, militaries, governments by democratizing access to strong cryprography.

They want to control our computers at all costs. We must resist. Computers are too important for us to allow them to be controlled and limited.

It’s funny how they are their own counter example. They have no leg to stand on.

But what really happened is that apple kept a stranglehold on what more and more became a general computing device. And they've done enough anti-compettive maneuvers to have the EU make them open up. I wouldn't be surprised if the US eventually comes to a similar decision.

Apple may not be as blatant about it as the other big tech, but I hope it's not contentious to say that all three big companies needs a round of anti-trust overhaul.

I don’t think Apple is arguing that it is impossible to allow more open ways to install apps on iPhones. I think they’re saying that they don’t want to, and that they shouldn’t have to.

> I don’t think Apple is arguing that it is impossible to allow more open ways to install apps on iPhones. I think they’re saying that they don’t want to, and that they shouldn’t have to.

Apple volunteers the position that they couldn't possibly open the iOS ecosystem themselves, not just that they don't want to, making some very amusing claims in the process.[1] They also don't want to, but the more you dig into possible "whys", you get into a lot of troubling realities quickly.

Epic Games, on the other hand, is arguing that they actually should have to, at least to some extent. There are actually a lot of reasons why Apple's App Store practices might violate the law, and to my understanding, Epic Games is alleging that Apple's App Store practices constitute "illegal tying" whereby Apple unlawfully ties its payment processing service with its app distribution. That's far from the only potential legal issue that the App Store could face just based on current, existing law. (Note: I am not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt; but nothing I am saying is too original or groundbreaking.)

And of course, it's always worth remembering that what's legal today can be regulated tomorrow. I don't really believe lawmakers or the general public really have had enough time to take a look at the impact that Apple/Google app stores have had on the software market and decide if these practices should be legal. The EU seems to think they shouldn't, and while I don't agree with the EU on everything, I tend to agree.

[1]: https://observer.com/2021/05/even-craig-federighi-apples-hea...

That said, i was an engineer for several years in Apple and primary internal concerns were battery life and its influence on user experience; the removal of Flash viability, favoring html5, is an example: profiling of Flash apps written in the wild showed code that routinely drained battery with aplomb...inexplicable to end users not also programmers.

I also worked in a valley giant with a multi-billion dollar monopoly position being preserved in a similar way. But I was senior enough to see both sides - the divisional all-hands mtgs and (some of) the exec staff mtgs (my boss was an EVP reporting directly to the CEO). The instructive part was observing what happened in the senior staff mtgs when a serious user, product or technical issue emerged which directly conflicted with sustaining the multi-billion dollar monopoly. Even in small mtgs with just the CEO, a couple EVPs and a handful of their direct reports, I never witnessed any explicit collusion or overt manipulation. The reason is surprisingly simple, they don't need to. They can make "the right thing" happen without being so obvious - just by controlling the agenda, attendees and context and then asking the right questions, prioritizing certain concerns and selecting the right working group leader to "come back with options which balance these concerns". These EVPs didn't get to where they are by plainly speaking their mind, although they are masters of appearing to do so when it serves them. At that level, there are degrees of subtlety and multi-dimensional chess that make Machiavelli look like a toddler.

All those years of being "in the room where it happens" fairly frequently and there wasn't one moment where I thought, "Wow, if I leaked a tape recording of the last 60 seconds, somebody very important is losing their job." These people are far to experienced and skilled at this for it to be that simple. Which isn't to say there may not have been some very private conversations between only the CEO and an EVP or two where things were said explicitly - but I'm not even sure that was necessary. Frankly, the euphemistic language and context control is sufficient that it's probably easier for the them to "stay in character" all the time. In fact, I think some of them sort of believe it themselves - or at least prefer to avoid stewing on the more "unpleasant realities" of the job. Most of these people are, in their own minds, still the 'good guy' in the story they tell themselves.

i think the last two sentences you wrote resonate, for sure, though!

I agree and I'm not at all questioning what you experienced I saw similar things. In the case of Apple, it makes sense the iPhone business would prioritize issues like battery life etc and that the App Store business would prioritize maximizing their multi-billion dollar monopoly revenue stream. Within each business unit they're going to make decisions and allocate resources based on maximizing the metrics their business is judged on.

Where it gets 'interesting' is when two major business units have priorities which directly conflict - like one BU achieving a major objective requires the other BU to not achieve one of their major objectives. When those conflicts are things which directly impact tens of millions or more in revenue and are also high-visibility issues, the conflict gets elevated to the CEO in a small group mtg with both EVPs where they assesses the trade-offs on each side. Ultimately, the CEO is going to pick a 'winner' based on the overall impact to company-wide revenue and the stock price. If the issue is preserving (or losing) the app store monopoly worth billions - we can guess which side is very likely going to win. And maximum motivated reasoning will be deployed to highlight the many reasons that outcome is correct. Many of those reasons will even be legitimate :-).

Given how low morally they are, the room for improvement is massive and easy to move into. As you write, they didn't do it so far because they were not forced, and waiting for some good moral behavior 'just because it would be nice from them' is rather dumb.

I have no right to complain that I can't run Apple programs on a Windows computer, and Microsoft shouldn't be compelled to support MacOS software.

seems like you can get it to run on windows via wsl if you want to run apps built for macs on your windows machine

is there a need to complain? windows might not be putting in support for it, but unlike apple in their store, they arent actively preventing you from doing so

But I also, I guess, kinda just have a dumb thought about this whole ordeal. Broadly speaking, we are in a position where we, the general public with the backing of the government, want to change how a private corporation uses it's products that it sold to us. Not for any other reason that would shield us from harm or prevent risk, but rather because the corporation's products are so successful a lot of people use them too much! But wait! That's not actually true because there's enough products on the market that we don't actually need to use this product...but we like it because its incrementally the best and the chat bubbles are blue and applications run better and seem higher quality (which is a selling point of the product we are now actively dismantling but I digress...)

I know its tiring to use food cliches, but imagine if like, I make a business selling apple pies and my apple pies are incredibly successful and everyone eats them all the time and now all of a sudden I need to also guarantee that my business can make cherry pies because my apple pies sell so damn well. But truth is, its not really about the apple pies at all. It's about my baking trays. We actually just want to make sure that the baking trays of my business are now capable of also cooking for cherry pies even though that's got nothing to do with my fucking business. I sell apple pies. I'm so confused

No monopoly required.

All that is required is that they have large marketshare, an important product, and it is difficult for users to change to alternatives, or avoid its uncompetitive behavior.

Choosing a phone involves balancing numerous features of devices. There is no phone market with the thousands of competing devices it would take to really cover what a customer might ideally want. So choices often balance so many things, involve so much practical investment, that they make switching devices over a few things, or even many things, from awfully unpleasant to very difficult.

And, with great market power, comes great responsibility: to not become a barrier to competitive innovation and hard work.

By definition, Apple's strict gatekeeping App Store, a significant feature on a significant general purpose computing platform, is anti-competitive. There is no technical reason why side loading or side-stores couldn't thrive, on such a general purpose device intertwined in all our lives.

Onerous fees and terms and selective limitation (relative to Apple's own offerings) for developers make it even more anticompetitive.

Of course, anyone who likes having fewer options, or just the options they have now, is free to not explore others. For now and forever. Amen.

Yes, because it's "we the people" not "we the corporations".

Apple is dictating the behavior of every business operating in the digital market (Apple itself brags that this amounts to over $1 trillion, with a T, in economic activity), with the App Store, which has 70-80% profit margins, and numerous dev horror stories. Rejecting your update over something they previously approved, or something they let all your competitors do. Forcing their IAP system on you. Dictating what links you can put in your app, how you present prices (don't call out the Apple tax), what you can tell consumers in emails. Forcing their direct competitors to have an inferior user experiences (can't subscribe in Spotify, can't buy books in Kindle; oh, and bundling Apple Music/Books/TV with the OS, and advertising them throughout the OS). Threatening retaliation if you complain publicly ("If you run to the press, it never helps.") Blocking VPNs or secure messaging in authoritarian countries, and you can't sideload. Sabotaging the web to keep their monopoly (even trying to kill PWAs recently).

Apple feels entitled to a higher profit margin on your business than your business will ever achieve for itself! That's nuts!

They do in EU, because they were forced to.

AltStore PAL https://altstore.io/

Buildstore https://builds.io/

Aptoide https://en.aptoide.com

.. and so on

fact checking

Apple Tier 1 mandatory store services:

  0.5€ Core Technology fee per install
  2%   Initial acquisition fee 
  5%   Store service fee   

Compare that to 20-30% that Apple's own AppStore take and its a bargain.

Even with Tier 2 with marketing tools, automatic updates, app recommendations, analytics dashboards, and promotional features the cost is only 10% for small business program members, 15% for others.

You forgot that just to set up an alternative app store you need this:

--- start quote ---

Provide Apple a stand-by letter of credit in the amount of €1,000,000 from a financial institution that’s at least A-rated or equivalent by S&P, Fitch, or Moody’s, and maintain that standby letter of credit as long as your alternative app marketplace is in operation

--- end quote ---

> 0.5€ Core Technology fee per install

per install

So if your app is suddenly popular, you have to pay through the nose.

> This includes app reviews, manual updates, and fraud protection.

Why is Apple involved in app review on alternative app stores?

Why is Apple doing manual updates?

Considering the amount of scam apps on App Store, Apple isn't doing fraud protection in their own store.

> This tier is mandatory for any app that promotes external payment options.

Why? What does Apple have to do with external payment options?

I was just trying to protect other readers for falling your "prohibitively expensive" argument thrown in to the mix and force your lazy ass to work.

Never new that "having a letter of credit for 1 000 000 dollars" and "having to pay 0.5 cents for every install potentially amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars just because people are installing your app" isn't prohibitively expensive

> Now after you started Googling

That's what you did. I knew about all those charges before you pretended they are nothing to write home about.

Compared to what?

Also, are we certain that a better alternative would really appear? E.g. I’m aware of f-droid and I’d install a similar ios libre software store, but I’m not aware of any, even in the EU where alt stores are possible.

I agree with you. But, as devil's advocate, why not suggest that Apple should be allowed to run as crappy a store as they want, while people should be free not to buy Apple?

This duopoly does not truly offer a lot of choice, so any criticism must happen from within the confines of the current reality.

I’m not going to tell a pedestrian who wants safer roads to stop being a participant in traffic, I accept that they have very little real choice.

Having to uncritically accept anything and everything the manufacturer of your device does is not really viable and is a recipe for a worse future.