> Is Apple really going to keep playing this game of gatekeeping until legislation forces them not to?

By this point it seems pretty clear that they will, at least while Tim Cook is in charge. Other higher ups, specifically Phil Schiller, knew this was a bad idea but were overruled.

https://www.macrumors.com/2025/02/25/apples-phil-schiller-co...

Yeah, the fragmentation that is caused by Apple's behaviour is insane.

You can set a different email client globally, but a different default Messages or Maps app? That only works in some regions. In-App payments? You can now basically do whatever you want in the US, in the EU you can opt-in into a different regime, in other regions it's staying the same but who knows for how long.

By fighting this everywhere they're basically losing control over the outcomes and will end up with lot's of different regulations everywhere. Instead of doing the sensible thing and opening up their platform before they're being forced to do so.

Four points:

1. Apple potentially loses giving ground to regulators before the regulators ask for something. They don't want to allow alternative app stores and then have a regulator say they are also not allowed to mandate royalties for digital good/service sales in their own store. Apple is likely nudging regulators to go a particular way, but is effectively trying to barter.

2. Likewise, individual regulatory bodies solving the issues they see in different ways has and will continue to create complexity in app developers, in some cases meaning their app needs different business models in different countries to take advantage of the individual regulated changes. That is a consequence of regulators pushing Apple to themselves have different business models to fund the App Store in different countries.

3. If Apple doesn't want a feature to be used or thinks the feature is actively harmful, they aren't going to encourage its use by making it available in jurisdictions where it isn't required.

4. Some of these features (such as default maps app) are semi-baked and without industry consensus, but rolled out because they were required for regulatory timelines. I can emphasize with not wanting to roll out broken features where you aren't being required to.

The ground is already lost. Apple can't prove that their monopoly is worthwhile, and none of their detractors are willing to renege. The "issues they see in different ways" ultimately boils down to one objectionable product (the App Store) that Apple is unwilling to part with.

Apple can fix this issue without excess complexity. They are the ones demanding fragmentation and disparity as a result, allowing alternative app storefronts has always been a one-size-fits-all solution.

Apple preferences users over developers all the time. And users are represented by their local governments.

What incentive does Apple have to comply in advance? Every government wants to have their stamp on it, trying to build ahead of the specifications risks building something that is not compliant.

> Is Apple really going to keep playing this game of gatekeeping until legislation forces them not to?

Is Apple going to kill the golden goose unless it is literally forced to? Of course not.

Apple, together with Google, get a cut of 15% to 30% of all mobile app revenue. They have the entire market captured. They will only give that up when they're forced to.

Google has allowed alternate app stores for a long time though. Just being the default is good enough to capture a lot of revenue.

It's more than just defaults, Google puts up several road blocks for app stores and its most recent developer doxxing policy breaks F-Droid.

Alternate app stores are 2nd class citizens on Android, and gated behind several scary warnings and layers of settings pages.

Then there's the fact that the biggest alternative app store on Android is about to be made defunct by Google's new policy.

They all will try to gatekeep as much as they can. Google's move made this pretty obvious. They don't need free market and open platform. This is something for some nerdy enthusiasts. Funny that all the new device that are being released lately, like Sidephone or Light Phone; they all do the same thing. And not only they lock you into their OSes, but they even restrict the software that you are allowed to use.

Tim Cook must go: he failed at preserving their gatekeeping, and failed at opening it in an honorable manner.

Presumably they did a cost/benefit analysis and think it is more profitable this way?

I mean, sure, but it's most likely a myopic analysis trying to keep earnings looking good for next quarter. My personal feeling is that, after seeing the winds shifting, you would figure out how to operate in an open garden and start pivoting now rather than resisting it at every corner.

Only in a quarter to quarter sense. I’ll never give them another cent. I’ve watched large numbers of people go from fans to haters in the last five years especially. I also think at just a fundamental technical level their moat is quickly disappearing.

Apple makes over $10B from App Store commissions in the US alone, why would they reduce their profits unless forced to do so?

For app stores specifically, I don't think people would get apps from other App Stores. Alternative App Stores have been possible on Android, some manufacturers even include their own store (Samsung), but only a tiny subset of users installs apps from another app store or from outside the app store.

For me personally, it is mostly an escape hatch for developers and users. It will keep Apple honest, because if they really mess up the platform, people have the possibility to go elsewhere.

I think the bigger risk for Apple is allowing other payment options within apps that are distributed through the App Store (which I believe is now allowed in the EU among other places)? I think the app store is very sticky, but a lot of people would pick another payment option if is ~30% cheaper.

Apple is also forced to allow alternate payment options in the USA as a result of the Epic lawsuit. The original ruling was fairly permissive about letting Apple set terms and collect fees, but the terms Apple set were so onerous and the fees so high that the judge determined them to be noncompliant and took away Apple's ability to do that.

Because doing so would have generated goodwill, which would have lead to a stronger brand and more money in the long term. Instead, they shot themselves in the foot and put themselves in a situation where the launch of a new product (Vision Pro) was an embarrassing and utter failure with lacklustre support from third-parties.

It is a shame that people want to believe that companies are or will be good. Or that they should even be given "human" expectations. Companies are not people and should not be afforded being treated as such. A companies function, especially if it is a publically-traded company is to continuously provide greater return for investors, so say the majority of prospectus. What we the people, regardless of country, need to start doing is holding the company heads to account, perhaps if the threat of execution (is China right here?) could "make" the company/people good? Something needs to be done before everything we have and "are" as a human will be, is a subscription to life.

> It is a shame that people want to believe that companies are or will be good. Or that they should even be given "human" expectations.

That’s not the argument at all. I don’t understand the point of your response, it has nothing to do with the points made in my comment. I’m not defending Apple, I’m doing the opposite.

Doubt they would have been considered “goodwill”. Investors would complain they are doing their fiscal responsibilities. Customers and companies would complain they didn’t do it soon enough and still didn’t do enough. And if people started having issues with their phones because of side loading they would not blame themselves they would blame Apple for allowing them to do so and potentially hurting the brand. Vision Pro as a test of hardware capabilities seems to be going as one would expect at the current price points. Once they release their first consumer focused glasses as an accessible price point, that will be the real test of the product category.

> Doubt they would have been considered “goodwill”.

Perhaps you haven’t been following Apple for long? There was definitely a period, not that long ago, where they had a lot of goodwill from third-party developers, especially indies, and that has steadily been eroded under Tim Cook.

They also took stances that were (or appeared to be) principled, which again placed them at a high degree of trust and goodwill (deserved or not isn’t the point, they had it) when compared to competitors.

> And if people started having issues with their phones because of side loading

I’m not talking about or suggesting side loading at all. That’s an entirely orthogonal matter.

> Vision Pro as a test of hardware capabilities seems to be going as one would expect at the current price points.

Vision Pro is not a “a test of hardware capabilities”. It’s not an SDK, it’s a product marketed and sold at regular people, it’s described by Apple as a product you can use for enterntainment and work, not an experiment. And it had essentially no adherence from companies and developers, there’s not even an official YouTube app, for a device where one of the major use cases is watching video.

Tim Cook's most important customer is Wall St, granted that is every CEO these days.

The enshittification ceiling is pretty damn high but I get the intuitive sense the profit at all cost model's long term downsides are going to start showing up for dinner soon.

Goodwill and for-profit companies are inherently incompatible things.

Generating goodwill doesn’t mean that you’re a paragon of virtue, you don’t even have to be good, it just means people perceive you positively. It’s fine to think people shouldn’t view for-profit companies positively, but arguing that doesn’t happen or that the two are incompatible is detached from reality.

You don't need goodwill when you have captured the market.

They haven’t captured every market (again, Vision Pro), and the ones they have they are losing power in.

Why would they want goodwill when they can run propaganda campaigns against this instead?

> I've considered an iPhone due to the recent Google announcement w.r.t. code signing

You might want to get informed about the hurdles Apple puts in your way first.

Android will still be able to install apps via ADB, even if the worst rumors are true about the restriction that will be enforced. If Apple allowed installation via some command line utility, that would be a radical opening of the platform.

Even if alternative app stores are opened up, there are enough limitations that severely impede the device for me as is. You can't use a VPN and at the same time do service discovery on your local network, for instance. For some services, anyway.

Is Apple really going to leave all that money on the table until obligated? No.

On the other hand if long ago they backed down and lowered fees and allowed more control, aside from the potential security and privacy concerns that could negatively affect the brand, companies would have just then wanted more. As Epic has said they think they should have to pay nothing for all that Apple provides. So not saying all Apple’s choices and timing were right or best, but giving up previously wouldn’t have prevented all of this but rather just lowered the bar and making it easier for companies and countries to make it easier to lower it even further.

> aside from the potential security and privacy concerns

I make apps both as an indie and during my day job. The App Store review doesn’t do anything to protect the privacy or security of iPhone users. Most of the review is focused on ensuring Apple doesn’t get sued and that you as a developer don’t try to advertise something Apple doesn’t like. The whole idea that the App Store is safer is a marketing thing.

Ok, what do you make of this then? https://support.apple.com/en-us/122712

While not perfect, they claim to do security checks and verify some privacy choices. So they do something at least.

As a consumer I can see value in Apple forcing itself in an arbiter role for app payments so they can step in when I have a conflict with an app developer.

All this is rehashed common sense - what you as a seller of software probably will do anyway to appear legitimate. No part of the review process stops someone from circumventing any of those rules - all you need is for the app to behave during review.

Every technical safeguard is part of the operating system anyway, so that’s what’s really protecting you and it will still protect you when you install an app from another source. Just like computers have worked since forever.

The safeguard of being able to get a refund for a non-working app is not part of the operating system, but belongs to the app store.

> As Epic has said they think they should have to pay nothing for all that Apple provides.

As they should be. iOS was already paid for when the user bought their device. Mandating a 30% cut on all in-app purchases is double-billing.

Tim Kulak[0] calls this "forcing Apple to give away its technology for free", which is asshole logic. In no sane world would a court consider application developers to be making a derivative work of the OS they port to, so the OS vendor has no legal entitlement to application developers' revenue. The only world in which this stupid 30% cut was even tolerated was, ironically for Epic, games development.

As for privacy and security concerns, I would like to note that Apple has very specific definitions of those words that only marginally interact with your own understanding. To be clear, if you were to modify an iOS app to, say, remove tracking code from it, Apple would consider that a security breach. Even though this is a common thing that we do in web browsers all the time. Because users have their hands tied on iOS in ways that they don't on macOS, they can't fight back against tracking on their phones like they can on their computers.

[0] Term used by the Soviet government to refer to "any rural landowner that didn't cooperate with their disastrous attempts at land collectivization". I'm using it here mainly because it almost-rhymes.

> As Epic has said they think they should have to pay nothing for all that Apple provides.

I agree with this assuming what Epic Games wants is to be able to distribute their software themselves without Apple being in the loop

Do you 'really not understand' that they only want to maximize profit?

Not only want, but this is what they must do in interest of shareholders.

Cigarette companies do this everywhere

And they’re just the most visible

Everything banned in the US is still offered as soon as you step across a border, every gross visual warning mandated in those countries is not implemented in the US

> They need to open up access to third party stores and third party browser engines.

Here in EU they did allow third party stores and all we got were shovelware sites with subscriptions. It added even more friction an shadiness to acquiring apps.

We need to sop pretending iOS third party stores are anything like what we envisioned them to be. They are not f-droid or anything even half as good. Apple complies with this impotent law because the law changes absolutely nothing for end user.

> Here in EU they did allow third party stores

Hardly. They did everything they could to make it completely pointless. Your apps still need to be blessed by apple and you still need to pay them. It's embarrassing the EU is allowing this sham.

Exactly. The law achieved nothing yet its being championed overseas as 'move to the right direction' and 'progress'.

All it did was embolden Google to start locking down as well.

The current system gives Apple a 30% cut of every transaction that happens on iOS. Did you really think they'd voluntarily give that up just to be nice?

There are end user benefits to apples approach too, due to better governance and control over what apps are available. Governments also have incentive to maximize their power and are not benevolent actors in this scheme.