Cydia, the original app store, sues Apple on antitrust grounds(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Cydia, the original app store, sues Apple on antitrust grounds
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/10/cydia-apple-lawsuit/
432 comments
> I think Apple should either charge considerably less than they do for distribution via their App Stores (that is, even less than 15%) or allow competition.
There's no "or" there. They need competition. The fact they were able to quickly halve their fee due to public sentiment and some lawmakers sniffing around means that competition was not working to even that out to costs plus some profit already. I would posit the reason is because there is no real competition because Apple's behavior and control of their platform (from hardware to customer transactions) is extremely anti-competitive. Monopoly or not, anti-competitive behavior that harms consumers is the problem, and the fact they could drop fees so easily and quickly and by an arbitrary amount (half) points towards harm to developers and by extension consumers due to inflated fees because of lack of competition.
There's no "or" there. They need competition. The fact they were able to quickly halve their fee due to public sentiment and some lawmakers sniffing around means that competition was not working to even that out to costs plus some profit already. I would posit the reason is because there is no real competition because Apple's behavior and control of their platform (from hardware to customer transactions) is extremely anti-competitive. Monopoly or not, anti-competitive behavior that harms consumers is the problem, and the fact they could drop fees so easily and quickly and by an arbitrary amount (half) points towards harm to developers and by extension consumers due to inflated fees because of lack of competition.
I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite.
I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away. I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her.
I like that developers aren’t allowed to use their own payment processors. I don’t want to input my credit card into your black box payment system that might or might not charge me correctly.
I see that it does harm developers, but that’s a different conversation entirely.
If you want to install whatever apps you want, buy an android phone! And have fun while their bloat ware and preinstalled crap spams you with notifications and scams you.
I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away. I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her.
I like that developers aren’t allowed to use their own payment processors. I don’t want to input my credit card into your black box payment system that might or might not charge me correctly.
I see that it does harm developers, but that’s a different conversation entirely.
If you want to install whatever apps you want, buy an android phone! And have fun while their bloat ware and preinstalled crap spams you with notifications and scams you.
You state those preferences as if there's no possible way they could be provided while allowing competition.
You have been presented a single option, and find that you like some aspects of the outcome. What's being hidden from you are other options where the same or similar outcomes can happen which might have even more benefits you would like.
Right now you seem to have what you consider a benevolent dictator. What happens when the dictates are not as benevolent?
You desires matter less to Apple than they do to organizations that actually have to worry about users users leaving more. That's because there's so much you give up if you leave. How long until this is abused? Also, what of those that are already abused because of Apple's power? Where Apple makes arbitrary decisions dictated not by the rules they've put forth but by internal business decisions and the desire to prop up their own offerings?
What about a world where Apple was a clearinghouse for what was allowed on the phone, but followed a very clear set of rules that dictated what was allowed and not, and took a well defined fee to review apps, and allowed App stored to be registered and submit apps for review and apply their own additional rules on top? Wouldn't you get most the benefits you like out of that? Wouldn't that provide both competition and provide a similar level of security?
You have been presented a single option, and find that you like some aspects of the outcome. What's being hidden from you are other options where the same or similar outcomes can happen which might have even more benefits you would like.
Right now you seem to have what you consider a benevolent dictator. What happens when the dictates are not as benevolent?
You desires matter less to Apple than they do to organizations that actually have to worry about users users leaving more. That's because there's so much you give up if you leave. How long until this is abused? Also, what of those that are already abused because of Apple's power? Where Apple makes arbitrary decisions dictated not by the rules they've put forth but by internal business decisions and the desire to prop up their own offerings?
What about a world where Apple was a clearinghouse for what was allowed on the phone, but followed a very clear set of rules that dictated what was allowed and not, and took a well defined fee to review apps, and allowed App stored to be registered and submit apps for review and apply their own additional rules on top? Wouldn't you get most the benefits you like out of that? Wouldn't that provide both competition and provide a similar level of security?
What I like to compare it to, is cars. If you want to only ever take your Volkswagen to a Volkswagen dealer, buy Volkswagen parts and only carry out service done by Volkswagen engineers - you can absolutely do that and no one will or should ever stop you. But the second Volkswagen says you can't use a 3rd party part in your car that you bought - everyone should be up in their arms about it. There's a line here - and it should end at customers choice, always.
The simplest way to do this would be like on android devices when you want to unlock a bootloader - a one way, single step process, where the phone wipes itself and reboots and is then "unlocked". If you did that on iPhones it would be enough of discouragement to stop all the mums and grandmas from accidentally installing dodgy software off the internet, but it still leaves the final choice to you, the user. You want a bodyguard, not a nanny - there's a difference.
The simplest way to do this would be like on android devices when you want to unlock a bootloader - a one way, single step process, where the phone wipes itself and reboots and is then "unlocked". If you did that on iPhones it would be enough of discouragement to stop all the mums and grandmas from accidentally installing dodgy software off the internet, but it still leaves the final choice to you, the user. You want a bodyguard, not a nanny - there's a difference.
> the second Volkswagen says you can't use a 3rd party part in your car that you bought - everyone should be up in their arms about it.
There's a risk-benefit question to be weighed even with cars; Lots of parts in a Volkswagen are sealed for safety reasons, and (in many countries) your car will get inspected regularly (here in Portugal it's an annual occurrence) to make sure your modifications don't impact the safety of your car and to others you meet on the road.
Having to re-tether your phone periodically to a diagnostic device to rekey and verify the trusted base seems like a reasonable analogue to me and that's largely where unlocking on iPhone is at the moment.
> like on android devices when you want to unlock a bootloader - a one way, single step process
I think "single step" is a bit disingenuous here: It's many little steps that all have to be performed correctly, and that then need to be sealed by relocking the bootloader (wiping the phone again) or you'll end up with a phone that cannot any longer protect your data from physical access, and may have a diminished capability to protect you from remote access.
There's a case to do this in the lab, but I think nobody in their right mind should put their banking details in an unlocked phone -- and yet that's exactly where most guidance about unlocking various Android devices leaves its users...
> There's a line here - and it should end at customers choice, always.
> it still leaves the final choice to you, the user
If I woke up to find my bank account suddenly $100k lighter, I'd want my money back, and giving the bank any opportunity to say well Geo, you made a choice to rip out the trusted base we were relying on would fill me deeply with regret for letting the Internet convince me this was something as simple as choice.
Right now, there are relatively few people in the world who would be confronted with that dilemma -- precisely because iPhones don't make this easy. Do you agree? Or can you explain why you think it would make our society better to have more people face that?
There's a risk-benefit question to be weighed even with cars; Lots of parts in a Volkswagen are sealed for safety reasons, and (in many countries) your car will get inspected regularly (here in Portugal it's an annual occurrence) to make sure your modifications don't impact the safety of your car and to others you meet on the road.
Having to re-tether your phone periodically to a diagnostic device to rekey and verify the trusted base seems like a reasonable analogue to me and that's largely where unlocking on iPhone is at the moment.
> like on android devices when you want to unlock a bootloader - a one way, single step process
I think "single step" is a bit disingenuous here: It's many little steps that all have to be performed correctly, and that then need to be sealed by relocking the bootloader (wiping the phone again) or you'll end up with a phone that cannot any longer protect your data from physical access, and may have a diminished capability to protect you from remote access.
There's a case to do this in the lab, but I think nobody in their right mind should put their banking details in an unlocked phone -- and yet that's exactly where most guidance about unlocking various Android devices leaves its users...
> There's a line here - and it should end at customers choice, always.
> it still leaves the final choice to you, the user
If I woke up to find my bank account suddenly $100k lighter, I'd want my money back, and giving the bank any opportunity to say well Geo, you made a choice to rip out the trusted base we were relying on would fill me deeply with regret for letting the Internet convince me this was something as simple as choice.
Right now, there are relatively few people in the world who would be confronted with that dilemma -- precisely because iPhones don't make this easy. Do you agree? Or can you explain why you think it would make our society better to have more people face that?
>>Right now, there are relatively few people in the world who would be confronted with that dilemma -- precisely because iPhones don't make this easy. Do you agree? Or can you explain why you think it would make our society better to have more people face that?
Well, I think you grossly overestimate the impact iphones have on financial security of people world wide. iPhones are a minority of all phones, in some countries less than 1% of all, and yet people aren't losing their life savings left and right. Yes it happens, but it also happens to iphone users - they are just targetted in different ways. And I think you are, like many others in this thread, assuming that it's all or nothing - android has a reputation for dodgy security, but I really don't think it's deserved. No bank app will allow installation on android if you have root enabled. None of them allow screen capture or 3rd party text input while the app is running. And yet, you have the freedom - you can choose(important word here) what you want to do with the product that you own.
I just don't think this would be anywhere near as large problem as people think, and I would prefer the personal freedom gained by it. Again, on Android, you can flash custom firmware to your phone, yet how many people(outside of HN) ever do it? In cars, you can absolutely reflash the ECU and break every regulation under the sun, and yet how many people(outside of enthusiast/modding circles) do you know who do so? There is no regulation there, no big brother stopping you from doing that - and yet 99.9999% of people never do it. And yes, I come from a country that has annual inspections too - that has absolutely nothing to do with fitting your own parts to a car. Even if I don't buy the OEM brake pads for my mercedes, it will still pass the annual inspection with flying colours. The whole argument that car manufacturers make of "we seal our parts so we know they are good" has been an utter nonsense repeated for at least 70 years now - most parts are not manufactured by them and can be bought directly(like OEM brake pads for mine are actually made by Brembo, so I can either pay £150 to mercedes for a set, or buy them directly from brembo for £90....exact same product).
Well, I think you grossly overestimate the impact iphones have on financial security of people world wide. iPhones are a minority of all phones, in some countries less than 1% of all, and yet people aren't losing their life savings left and right. Yes it happens, but it also happens to iphone users - they are just targetted in different ways. And I think you are, like many others in this thread, assuming that it's all or nothing - android has a reputation for dodgy security, but I really don't think it's deserved. No bank app will allow installation on android if you have root enabled. None of them allow screen capture or 3rd party text input while the app is running. And yet, you have the freedom - you can choose(important word here) what you want to do with the product that you own.
I just don't think this would be anywhere near as large problem as people think, and I would prefer the personal freedom gained by it. Again, on Android, you can flash custom firmware to your phone, yet how many people(outside of HN) ever do it? In cars, you can absolutely reflash the ECU and break every regulation under the sun, and yet how many people(outside of enthusiast/modding circles) do you know who do so? There is no regulation there, no big brother stopping you from doing that - and yet 99.9999% of people never do it. And yes, I come from a country that has annual inspections too - that has absolutely nothing to do with fitting your own parts to a car. Even if I don't buy the OEM brake pads for my mercedes, it will still pass the annual inspection with flying colours. The whole argument that car manufacturers make of "we seal our parts so we know they are good" has been an utter nonsense repeated for at least 70 years now - most parts are not manufactured by them and can be bought directly(like OEM brake pads for mine are actually made by Brembo, so I can either pay £150 to mercedes for a set, or buy them directly from brembo for £90....exact same product).
> No bank app will allow installation on android if you have root enabled
https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/uk-banking-apps-for-roote...
> I just don't think this would be anywhere near as large problem as people think,
That's clear, but:
> you have the freedom - you can choose(important word here) what you want to do with the product that you own.
isn't using the definition of "choose" that I'm using, and I'm trying to make a point to you on this that I'm not entirely sure came across, so I'll try another way: Yes, you can choose to run someone over with your car, and it can happen by accident because of drink, but if you choose to install HideRoot, are you really aware of what you're choosing, or is the potential loss merely the same kind of accident?
I think speaking of the population who roots, probably not, and although most of the rooters I've met aren't on HN, I can imagine if you think most of them are, you might have a different perspective on that.
You can similarly think banks are wrong to try and override your "choice" to root things that you own, but they're also making an effort to try and keep their customers safe, and I think this is an important motivation to consider when asking why Apple makes it difficult to replace parts of the trusted base as well.
That being said, I'm not even remotely naive about the fact that the App Store revenue is probably an important factor as well for Apple, I just think that the solution has to be better/more-thought-out than you initially suggested -- for Android as well.
https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/uk-banking-apps-for-roote...
> I just don't think this would be anywhere near as large problem as people think,
That's clear, but:
> you have the freedom - you can choose(important word here) what you want to do with the product that you own.
isn't using the definition of "choose" that I'm using, and I'm trying to make a point to you on this that I'm not entirely sure came across, so I'll try another way: Yes, you can choose to run someone over with your car, and it can happen by accident because of drink, but if you choose to install HideRoot, are you really aware of what you're choosing, or is the potential loss merely the same kind of accident?
I think speaking of the population who roots, probably not, and although most of the rooters I've met aren't on HN, I can imagine if you think most of them are, you might have a different perspective on that.
You can similarly think banks are wrong to try and override your "choice" to root things that you own, but they're also making an effort to try and keep their customers safe, and I think this is an important motivation to consider when asking why Apple makes it difficult to replace parts of the trusted base as well.
That being said, I'm not even remotely naive about the fact that the App Store revenue is probably an important factor as well for Apple, I just think that the solution has to be better/more-thought-out than you initially suggested -- for Android as well.
Except the apps are the 3rd-party parts.
In your example: Volkswagen imposes quality controls on those parts, making sure they're not going to blow up or subvert the car.
As soon as other shops can install 3rd-party parts, you have a race to the bottom for shops, no one's enforcing quality controls, and you wind up with cars that, for example, get better performance by violating emissions standards except when they're actively being tested.
(So, maybe we should be using some manufacturer other than Volkswagen. :-)
In your example: Volkswagen imposes quality controls on those parts, making sure they're not going to blow up or subvert the car.
As soon as other shops can install 3rd-party parts, you have a race to the bottom for shops, no one's enforcing quality controls, and you wind up with cars that, for example, get better performance by violating emissions standards except when they're actively being tested.
(So, maybe we should be using some manufacturer other than Volkswagen. :-)
I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say.
>>As soon as other shops can install 3rd-party parts
But....they can. Of course they can. What's more, both EU and US law protects the ability of 3rd parties to make replacement parts, and your ability as the consumer to fit those parts. The law goes so far as forbidding manufactuers from voiding your warranty due to fitting of non-OEM parts unless they can specifically prove that the part that you fitted caused problems.
>>you wind up with cars that, for example, get better performance by violating emissions standards except when they're actively being tested.
Again, that's already a thing and has been a thing since forever. Modding is extremely popular in some circles. Just like flashing your phone with custom FW is popular in certain circles too, but that doesn't mean that once it's allowed everyone and their grandma will suddenly run some HAXXOR build of iOS.
>>As soon as other shops can install 3rd-party parts
But....they can. Of course they can. What's more, both EU and US law protects the ability of 3rd parties to make replacement parts, and your ability as the consumer to fit those parts. The law goes so far as forbidding manufactuers from voiding your warranty due to fitting of non-OEM parts unless they can specifically prove that the part that you fitted caused problems.
>>you wind up with cars that, for example, get better performance by violating emissions standards except when they're actively being tested.
Again, that's already a thing and has been a thing since forever. Modding is extremely popular in some circles. Just like flashing your phone with custom FW is popular in certain circles too, but that doesn't mean that once it's allowed everyone and their grandma will suddenly run some HAXXOR build of iOS.
It was, in hindsight, a lame attempt at a joke, based on Volkswagen's history with skirting emissions controls.
More seriously, it's hard to know what all's installed on your phone, and what all it's doing; car parts are intrinsically sandboxed.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when always-connected self-driving cars have enough compute power to run self-driving systems and people are free to install random apps without great security (because car manufacturers seem to be awful at that). I'm predicting cutesy weather apps that quietly mine crypto all night long...
More seriously, it's hard to know what all's installed on your phone, and what all it's doing; car parts are intrinsically sandboxed.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when always-connected self-driving cars have enough compute power to run self-driving systems and people are free to install random apps without great security (because car manufacturers seem to be awful at that). I'm predicting cutesy weather apps that quietly mine crypto all night long...
A bad car part can absolutely cause your car to crash, much more than a malicious app on iOS, which may not even be able to access your photos or messages.
A malicious app on iOS can pose as something it’s not, and ask for your mom’s credit card number.
So can a website, these sort of hypotheticals just seem like pure scaremongering.
Yes, definitely so can a website.
The whole point of Apps is that they are reviewed and therefore are safer than random stuff on the web.
It’s would be scaremongering if these kinds of threat were hypothetical, but of they are pretty widely known.
The whole point of Apps is that they are reviewed and therefore are safer than random stuff on the web.
It’s would be scaremongering if these kinds of threat were hypothetical, but of they are pretty widely known.
It’s true that EU and US law protect the ability of 3rd parties to make replacement car parts.
But.. the law also holds those 3rd parties responsible for damage caused by failures of their parts.
No such protection exists for software.
Let’s start with some working legal privacy and fraud protections for software.
Then we can compare software to cars.
Until then, let people buy into a walled garden if they want to.
But.. the law also holds those 3rd parties responsible for damage caused by failures of their parts.
No such protection exists for software.
Let’s start with some working legal privacy and fraud protections for software.
Then we can compare software to cars.
Until then, let people buy into a walled garden if they want to.
> In your example: Volkswagen imposes quality controls on those parts, making sure they're not going to blow up or subvert the car.
And they are free to do it. Have your own set of trusted dealers and vendors. Void warranty for off-branded parts. However, once I buy the car I am also free to go to any shitty unsafe vendor I want. VW can't tell me not to do that, because it's my car not theirs.
Do you think it would be okay if Volkswagen remotely shut down your car because they didn't like the brand of gas you put in it (for your own safety of course)?
And they are free to do it. Have your own set of trusted dealers and vendors. Void warranty for off-branded parts. However, once I buy the car I am also free to go to any shitty unsafe vendor I want. VW can't tell me not to do that, because it's my car not theirs.
Do you think it would be okay if Volkswagen remotely shut down your car because they didn't like the brand of gas you put in it (for your own safety of course)?
> In your example: Volkswagen imposes quality controls on those parts, making sure they're not going to blow up or subvert the car.
So, like almost everything you buy? This is why branding and reputation are important. You can be cheap, but you get what you pay for.
So, like almost everything you buy? This is why branding and reputation are important. You can be cheap, but you get what you pay for.
But we don't want to have to check brands and research - we want a trusted party ensuring quality because their reputation is on the line.
That does not go away, there's nothing stopping you from buying genuine parts from the manufacturer if you trust them more than the competition.
But having a system that accepts non-genuine parts leads to a more complicated system. Apple's system is simple. Android's system is more complicated because it has multiple app stores. I don't want that complexity.
That's an interesting way of thinking which I've not really encountered outside of Soviet-style centrally controlled economy advocates and the like.
Do you feel the same way about all other things in life where you are presented with a choice? Would you prefer there to only be a single grocery store you get your groceries from, for example?
Do you feel the same way about all other things in life where you are presented with a choice? Would you prefer there to only be a single grocery store you get your groceries from, for example?
No I’m in favour of competition, but competition between simple clean focused products, not the Homer cars other people seem to want.
If you want a different App Store then market a different phone don’t drag down the iPhone.
If you want a different App Store then market a different phone don’t drag down the iPhone.
> get better performance by violating emissions standards
Good. 95% of emissions standards are bullshit.
In any case, the ability to theoretically violate regulations isn't a reason to preclude people from DIY or third party repairs.
Good. 95% of emissions standards are bullshit.
In any case, the ability to theoretically violate regulations isn't a reason to preclude people from DIY or third party repairs.
Volkswagen should be able to make their cars as difficult to repair or modify as they want. There are so many other options for cars out there, if I care about modifying my car why would I buy a Volkswagen in the first place? I'll just go buy a different car that is more friendly for what I want to do.
Except you'll have the Volkswagon silo, the Ford silo, the GM silo, etc. and they'll all start engaging in monopolistic behavior for servicing because they have a monopoly over repairing your specific brand of car. Call it a tacit collusion monopoly and throw in the sunk cost of a car to make it even worse. If everyone in the market behaves the same, there's no benefit to selling your car and getting another because the service costs won't change.
The best example of this that demonstrates what you'd end up with is the cost of key fob programming. The actual cost of the hardware is trivial but a dealership will charge you $250-500 to program a new one because they have a monopoly on programming the fobs for their brand. Those things should cost $50 max IMO.
The scary thing is the vehicle industry is moving this way for everything and if nothing changes it's eventually going to become extremely difficult / expensive to own a vehicle that's not under warranty. I wouldn't be surprised if they start serializing parts and then sell service plans that increase in price as your car ages. You'll pay forever.
The best example of this that demonstrates what you'd end up with is the cost of key fob programming. The actual cost of the hardware is trivial but a dealership will charge you $250-500 to program a new one because they have a monopoly on programming the fobs for their brand. Those things should cost $50 max IMO.
The scary thing is the vehicle industry is moving this way for everything and if nothing changes it's eventually going to become extremely difficult / expensive to own a vehicle that's not under warranty. I wouldn't be surprised if they start serializing parts and then sell service plans that increase in price as your car ages. You'll pay forever.
Several modern cars are actually moving in the direction of gaining more and more central control competitively.
Last year we had to remove the fuse in the car battery for maintenance, and also because the battery needed a little cleaning - while we were in a remote village with no access to proper internet connection.
Little did we know that after re-inserting the same fuse back to the battery, the media system would stop working.
The media LCD screen started showing a "Enter the pin to unlock the media system" screen! And we do not have the pin, we were never given a pin.
Hence we lost access to the car GPS and media system altogether in an unknown territory.
We somehow got back to home and had to book an appointment with the car dealership for the technician to unlock our car media system!
He plugged his device and generated the pin that's signed/paired with our specific car and then used it to unlock the media system.
It is indeed scary that even car manufacturers are moving towards central control of every little thing in your car.
The last thing I want to see with all these tech companies following Apple's footsteps in a lot of things, is to see the auto industry becoming like Apple.
It is indeed scary that even car manufacturers are moving towards central control of every little thing in your car.
The last thing I want to see with all these tech companies following Apple's footsteps in a lot of things, is to see the auto industry becoming like Apple.
I'm sorry, but that's really funny to me - not because I'm laughing at your misfortunes of course, but because of how easily people forget history or are simply unaware of it.
Media systems locking due to the lack of power is not a new problem. I do remember having the exact same problem on my 1994 Passat, where the radio would lock itself and you had to go to the dealer to have it unlocked.
>>And we do not have the pin, we were never given a pin
Literally the same problem, except 25 years later :P Manufacturers almost never issued these special pins to unlock radios.
And like, disconnecting the battery has always been a problem in cars, BMWs, Mercs, Opels, Peugeots, Fiats - I've had them all and they all did something weird if you disconnected the battery - more often than not, a check engine light would pop up and you had to bring it to the dealer to clear it. This is not new.
Media systems locking due to the lack of power is not a new problem. I do remember having the exact same problem on my 1994 Passat, where the radio would lock itself and you had to go to the dealer to have it unlocked.
>>And we do not have the pin, we were never given a pin
Literally the same problem, except 25 years later :P Manufacturers almost never issued these special pins to unlock radios.
And like, disconnecting the battery has always been a problem in cars, BMWs, Mercs, Opels, Peugeots, Fiats - I've had them all and they all did something weird if you disconnected the battery - more often than not, a check engine light would pop up and you had to bring it to the dealer to clear it. This is not new.
We were not aware of that and that was definitely a new experience for us.
My father owns a car bought a decade ago and we can easily fix and swap any parts we wish without having to worry about getting sign-off from the car "owners" :D
I don't see why that would happen, and seeing that as a common practice among other car manufacturers does not make it any less annoying.
Yes, they should be able to, of course. But it's enshrined in law, both EU and US, that other manufactuers can make compatible replacement parts for cars. A manufactuer doesn't get to say what parts you can put in your car after you bought it. You don't have to buy genuiene OEM volkswagen brake pads or clutches - you can buy and install 3rd party ones, and legally Volkswagen cannot forbid you from doing so, and neither can they forbid anyone from manufacturing those replacement parts.
Well it sounds like this law is outdated and needs to align with the times. It should be the same as current smartphone laws.
Uh, no thanks man. The fact things have gotten worse in some aspects of our lives doesn't mean we need to regress the things that are actually working so well you didn't even know it was an issue. If anything this is an argument for the opposite of what you're suggesting.
What I don't get is why you're advocating for your own freedoms to be taken away. Don't carry water for the car companies, if they want more freedoms they can use their money and lobby for it. You don't need to do their job pro bono, leave that up to Citizens United.
What I don't get is why you're advocating for your own freedoms to be taken away. Don't carry water for the car companies, if they want more freedoms they can use their money and lobby for it. You don't need to do their job pro bono, leave that up to Citizens United.
Freedom will come from market choice. I fight for the freedom of car companies to make their own choices on how their products can be used. Let them apply their own restrictions. Thats freedom
Like.....that's an incredibly twisted logic. How is it freedom, when a corporation gets to dictate how you use their product after its bought and paid for?? That's not freedom, not in any sense of the word. Corporations should be free to manufacture any car in any way they like. But they shouldn't be able to tell us what to do with our property, don't you see or appreciate having a freedom to do whatever and however you please with items that you have bought?
It's like arguing that you should be able to enter an employment contract that stipulates physical punishment for making mistakes at work - surely, being able to enter such contract is freedom! If you don't like it, go somewhere else, market forces will sort it out! And yet, we as society have decided that no, physical punishment is not acceptable and you cannot waive your right to be free of it. That's freedom. Not what you are saying.
It's like arguing that you should be able to enter an employment contract that stipulates physical punishment for making mistakes at work - surely, being able to enter such contract is freedom! If you don't like it, go somewhere else, market forces will sort it out! And yet, we as society have decided that no, physical punishment is not acceptable and you cannot waive your right to be free of it. That's freedom. Not what you are saying.
I feel like I _can_ do whatever I please with items I bought. I see the iPhone as an integrated product. There is no boundary between semiconductor, system board, operating system, application runtime, and the 3rd party app ecosystem. It is all one product. Being able to split this apart so I can tinker at the interfaces is not something I demand from something I pay for. Whatever I try to do outside of their expected use of the product is sort of a crapshoot. It says nothing about freedom.
Physical punishment is just a terrible comparison.
Physical punishment is just a terrible comparison.
Again you didn't answer my question. Why are you advocating to have your own rights/freedoms removed for the benefit of the company? Not even the company is asking for that. Why don't you leave advocating for the company to paid advocates of the company?
Let's be super clear, once you purchase the car, it's not their product, it's your car. That's how ownership works. Once it is in your physical lawful possession, it is your to do with as you please. The entire legal system is built around this idea.
For instance, if someone steals my car and wrecks it, does Volkswagen sue the car thief for damages, or do I? If you answered anything other than Volkswagen, it's not "their product" anymore.
Let's be super clear, once you purchase the car, it's not their product, it's your car. That's how ownership works. Once it is in your physical lawful possession, it is your to do with as you please. The entire legal system is built around this idea.
For instance, if someone steals my car and wrecks it, does Volkswagen sue the car thief for damages, or do I? If you answered anything other than Volkswagen, it's not "their product" anymore.
I'm not sure they should. One thing is the environmental aspect, we want to avoid unnecessary waste and resource usage since that is one of the things destroying our planet. But another thing is, what happens when the market shifts heavily in a direction that is bad for the consumer?
Sure, you have a lot of good car choices today, but at some point it might be hard to find a car that has your other desirable specs in addition to being repair and modification friendly.
If everyone who bought a car was a well informed with at least a minimum of knowledge of cars, in addition to being able to calculate how repair costs will affect them over the time they own it, then sure. Let the market sort itself out. Since many aren't, let's keep regulations in place to ensure desirable properties.
Heck, imagine what safety features cars would lack if they weren't government mandated requirements...
Sure, you have a lot of good car choices today, but at some point it might be hard to find a car that has your other desirable specs in addition to being repair and modification friendly.
If everyone who bought a car was a well informed with at least a minimum of knowledge of cars, in addition to being able to calculate how repair costs will affect them over the time they own it, then sure. Let the market sort itself out. Since many aren't, let's keep regulations in place to ensure desirable properties.
Heck, imagine what safety features cars would lack if they weren't government mandated requirements...
> What happens when the dictates are not as benevolent?
I buy another phone.
Because there is plenty of competition in the smartphone market and companies willing to take my money.
But I stay with Apple because right now their walled garden is exactly what I am looking for.
I buy another phone.
Because there is plenty of competition in the smartphone market and companies willing to take my money.
But I stay with Apple because right now their walled garden is exactly what I am looking for.
The current state of having alternative options in a market could not be counted on.
Think back about a decade ago when there were a number Smartphone platforms. They were backed by (back then) industry heavy weights such as Palm, RIM, and Microsoft. If one didn't like Apple or Google Android, there were plenty of options out there. As the market matures through, consolidation happens, and now we are left with two platforms.
What happens if, tomorrow, both those platforms decided to not play nice? Are the Chinese Android phones with no Google Play Service or the Pinephone really viable and reasonable alternatives?
Think back about a decade ago when there were a number Smartphone platforms. They were backed by (back then) industry heavy weights such as Palm, RIM, and Microsoft. If one didn't like Apple or Google Android, there were plenty of options out there. As the market matures through, consolidation happens, and now we are left with two platforms.
What happens if, tomorrow, both those platforms decided to not play nice? Are the Chinese Android phones with no Google Play Service or the Pinephone really viable and reasonable alternatives?
I'm not sure if you are implying this, but surely we don't want the government to start acting upon imagined, hypothetical future harms that do not currently exist?
If the market becomes less competitive, can't we deal with that issue then?
If the market becomes less competitive, can't we deal with that issue then?
It wasn't my intention to imply that we need preemptive government intervention.
Rather, I just want point out that, for smartphones, we are well into maturity stage of the industry life cycle, which means it is hard for new companies to enter the market, and where existing companies are focused on generating profit (meaning companies will no longer be playing nice).
It would naive to believe that companies would continue to play nice after they are done building their marketshare.
Rather, I just want point out that, for smartphones, we are well into maturity stage of the industry life cycle, which means it is hard for new companies to enter the market, and where existing companies are focused on generating profit (meaning companies will no longer be playing nice).
It would naive to believe that companies would continue to play nice after they are done building their marketshare.
I think Linux phones like the Phinephone are the way forward. They probably won't gain huge marketshare, but everyone that uses Linux on the desktop (probably half of HN) would enjoy them. The only complaint I have with my Pinephone is that its slow. Maybe the Librem 5's beefy processor would be better.
With respect to point (1) you're neglecting that you actually have to make an investment into the ecosystem. You can't really go somewhere else that easily because you've paid for all the apps you use -- and all the data contained therein. This isn't possible or easy to port, and is therefore forfeit. This could be a few extra hundred or thousands of dollars.
With respect to point (2) nobody's saying you can't continue to shop exclusively in the walled garden. On macOS you can opt for the walled garden via App Store, or download from anywhere else. Being able to download from anywhere else doesn't devalue or detract from thew walled garden. If you like your little nook you can keep it.
With respect to point (2) nobody's saying you can't continue to shop exclusively in the walled garden. On macOS you can opt for the walled garden via App Store, or download from anywhere else. Being able to download from anywhere else doesn't devalue or detract from thew walled garden. If you like your little nook you can keep it.
the ecosystem investment is decreasing, as most apps are changing to subscription model, at least if the app is available on both platforms.
In this discussion it's important to not reason from a personal preference. If everyone would do that I think you would agree that the world doesn't end well.
We need to look at it from a society perspective. And then you will find out that competition in a equal environment with fair rules is much better for a healthy market. Please reconsider your opinion.
I think this is a fair environment though, Apple wants to vertically integrated technology with limited 3rd party API access, devs might hate it, but I think from a business perspective its a total reasonable strategy and from a consumer perspective I like the tight integration they provide. I think you are wrong about installer on their platform being up for grabs being "much better for society" because I don't think you are considering all of the second and third order consequences.
Consider this passes and then the Facebook app (or, probably even worse, Amazon) immediately becomes an app store. At that point what's to stop them from loading and running literally any arbitrary code on the phone's of everyone who updates the facebook app? Same goes for an "utility class" app where consumers have limited choice of competitors. Sure, technically inclined people might figure it out and try to raise a stink, but I guess I don't feel like the public understanding of this is good enough for this not to end badly? Remember the "Facebook Research" VPN[1]? And as a society we would be trading this massive surveillance liability for... the opportunity for a handful of developers to make a killing creating a competing store? an upper middle class group to make more money? Apple to make less money?
Sorry, but we live in a world of Titans, and me, the little guy, can't really stand up to them. At least for the moment I can stand behind Apple.
[1]https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/?gu...
Consider this passes and then the Facebook app (or, probably even worse, Amazon) immediately becomes an app store. At that point what's to stop them from loading and running literally any arbitrary code on the phone's of everyone who updates the facebook app? Same goes for an "utility class" app where consumers have limited choice of competitors. Sure, technically inclined people might figure it out and try to raise a stink, but I guess I don't feel like the public understanding of this is good enough for this not to end badly? Remember the "Facebook Research" VPN[1]? And as a society we would be trading this massive surveillance liability for... the opportunity for a handful of developers to make a killing creating a competing store? an upper middle class group to make more money? Apple to make less money?
Sorry, but we live in a world of Titans, and me, the little guy, can't really stand up to them. At least for the moment I can stand behind Apple.
[1]https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/?gu...
You're arguing about standing up to titans…by living in the shadow of one?
No? I’m arguing that I can’t stand up to Facebook or Google at all, but Apple can.
Plenty of competition? Not on OS. There is iOS and Android. Both in the hands of tech giants.
Yes I know there are other hobbyist ones, but I don't see them at Carphone Warehouse.
Yes I know there are other hobbyist ones, but I don't see them at Carphone Warehouse.
I'm not the parent, but...
> You state those preferences as if there's no possible way they could be provided while allowing competition.
In theory, sure. In practice, Apple's closed, walled-garden business model has produced outcomes that I really like. All manner of more open and competition-friendly business models have produced outcomes I find extremely unappealing.
My intuition is that many of the things I like about Apple products come from their unique, closed business model. Is something better theoretically possible? Of course. Do I want to risk screwing up one of the few tech giants whose products I can actually stomach by having the government strong-arm them into using a new business model? Not a chance.
> You have been presented a single option, and find that you like some aspects of the outcome.
No, I have been presented with several options: iOS on an iPhone, Android on phones of all shapes and sizes, and (over the years) various other configurations like webOS, windows phone, and so on.
> Right now you seem to have what you consider a benevolent dictator. What happens when the dictates are not as benevolent?
Then I'll have to switch to a different phone maker.
> You desires matter less to Apple than they do to organizations that actually have to worry about users users leaving more. That's because there's so much you give up if you leave. How long until this is abused? Also, what of those that are already abused because of Apple's power? Where Apple makes arbitrary decisions dictated not by the rules they've put forth but by internal business decisions and the desire to prop up their own offerings?
These are all trade-offs caused by Apple having total control over the system, and I'm ok with it.
> What about a world where Apple was a clearinghouse for what was allowed on the phone, but followed a very clear set of rules that dictated what was allowed and not, and took a well defined fee to review apps, and allowed App stored to be registered and submit apps for review and apply their own additional rules on top? Wouldn't you get most the benefits you like out of that? Wouldn't that provide both competition and provide a similar level of security?
As above, all of this sounds nice in theory. Maybe it would be great. But I am not interested in forcing Apple to make a change, because I like what I have now and the law of unintended consequences will certainly apply.
> You state those preferences as if there's no possible way they could be provided while allowing competition.
In theory, sure. In practice, Apple's closed, walled-garden business model has produced outcomes that I really like. All manner of more open and competition-friendly business models have produced outcomes I find extremely unappealing.
My intuition is that many of the things I like about Apple products come from their unique, closed business model. Is something better theoretically possible? Of course. Do I want to risk screwing up one of the few tech giants whose products I can actually stomach by having the government strong-arm them into using a new business model? Not a chance.
> You have been presented a single option, and find that you like some aspects of the outcome.
No, I have been presented with several options: iOS on an iPhone, Android on phones of all shapes and sizes, and (over the years) various other configurations like webOS, windows phone, and so on.
> Right now you seem to have what you consider a benevolent dictator. What happens when the dictates are not as benevolent?
Then I'll have to switch to a different phone maker.
> You desires matter less to Apple than they do to organizations that actually have to worry about users users leaving more. That's because there's so much you give up if you leave. How long until this is abused? Also, what of those that are already abused because of Apple's power? Where Apple makes arbitrary decisions dictated not by the rules they've put forth but by internal business decisions and the desire to prop up their own offerings?
These are all trade-offs caused by Apple having total control over the system, and I'm ok with it.
> What about a world where Apple was a clearinghouse for what was allowed on the phone, but followed a very clear set of rules that dictated what was allowed and not, and took a well defined fee to review apps, and allowed App stored to be registered and submit apps for review and apply their own additional rules on top? Wouldn't you get most the benefits you like out of that? Wouldn't that provide both competition and provide a similar level of security?
As above, all of this sounds nice in theory. Maybe it would be great. But I am not interested in forcing Apple to make a change, because I like what I have now and the law of unintended consequences will certainly apply.
> > Right now you seem to have what you consider a benevolent dictator. What happens when the dictates are not as benevolent?
> Then I'll have to switch to a different phone maker.
That's great for you, and that you can afford that, but what of the person that's already invested a few thousand dollars into apps and accessories for the iPhone and iOS? Many, possibly every single one of those things won't work anywhere else. And that's not a coincidence, or people making informed choices, Apple in many of those cases has enforced their will on those components or how they are allowed to interact.
If I want something other than iOS can I put it on my iPhone? No. Not because nobody values that, but because Apple has arbitrarily restricted what you can do with the hardware you purchased.
If I want to run iOS on non-Apple hardware. Also a nope.
What if I want to move to Android and use my chargers or peripherals that connect to my iPhone? Not if they use Apple's proprietary lightning connector.
What about any apps you purchased through the App store? Sorry, even if they wanted to many couldn't offer you a tree version even if they wanted to, Apple has started completely anonymizing users and emails and ids for people using their apps. They say it protects users, and it does in some respects, but it also means that Apple is right there between all interactions, enforcing whatever rules they deem prudent.
It's obviously not as simple as just deciding that the next time you buy a new phone, you'll opt for the other one and spend roughly the same amount of money. You are literally at the same time likely obsoleting hundreds or thousands of dollars of investment in a platform. These are forces that work to stifle and manipulate a free market, where people choose the best choice given the attributes of what they are buying. Our current economic system is predicated on the idea that the free market works and should be unfettered unless it's to protect the system or consumers from abuse. Placing barriers to people making informed choices or acting on the choices they would like to make because or arbitrary limitations is hurting us all by extension.
> because I like what I have now
This is ultimately what it comes down to in all these comments. "You want change, but I'm happy and comfortable, so I don't care if this is problematic for others or causes harm or is setting up a problem for down the road, I'll fight you all the way". How is this different than climate change, or civil rights? The scope on those may seem larger, but what we're ultimately discussing is consumer rights, and while not as important, it's still important, and why are the incentives and behaviors any different?
That's not do equate you to specific bad historical behavior, but that mindset is specifically responsible for horrific things in the past. The "I like what I have, so leave me alone" position should always be dissected for what it might unintentionally be allowing. In this case, maybe it's not that bad. But maybe it is pretty bad. That's what we're discussing. I surely won't take that position alone as reasoning for why to relent on my side of an argument though.
> Then I'll have to switch to a different phone maker.
That's great for you, and that you can afford that, but what of the person that's already invested a few thousand dollars into apps and accessories for the iPhone and iOS? Many, possibly every single one of those things won't work anywhere else. And that's not a coincidence, or people making informed choices, Apple in many of those cases has enforced their will on those components or how they are allowed to interact.
If I want something other than iOS can I put it on my iPhone? No. Not because nobody values that, but because Apple has arbitrarily restricted what you can do with the hardware you purchased.
If I want to run iOS on non-Apple hardware. Also a nope.
What if I want to move to Android and use my chargers or peripherals that connect to my iPhone? Not if they use Apple's proprietary lightning connector.
What about any apps you purchased through the App store? Sorry, even if they wanted to many couldn't offer you a tree version even if they wanted to, Apple has started completely anonymizing users and emails and ids for people using their apps. They say it protects users, and it does in some respects, but it also means that Apple is right there between all interactions, enforcing whatever rules they deem prudent.
It's obviously not as simple as just deciding that the next time you buy a new phone, you'll opt for the other one and spend roughly the same amount of money. You are literally at the same time likely obsoleting hundreds or thousands of dollars of investment in a platform. These are forces that work to stifle and manipulate a free market, where people choose the best choice given the attributes of what they are buying. Our current economic system is predicated on the idea that the free market works and should be unfettered unless it's to protect the system or consumers from abuse. Placing barriers to people making informed choices or acting on the choices they would like to make because or arbitrary limitations is hurting us all by extension.
> because I like what I have now
This is ultimately what it comes down to in all these comments. "You want change, but I'm happy and comfortable, so I don't care if this is problematic for others or causes harm or is setting up a problem for down the road, I'll fight you all the way". How is this different than climate change, or civil rights? The scope on those may seem larger, but what we're ultimately discussing is consumer rights, and while not as important, it's still important, and why are the incentives and behaviors any different?
That's not do equate you to specific bad historical behavior, but that mindset is specifically responsible for horrific things in the past. The "I like what I have, so leave me alone" position should always be dissected for what it might unintentionally be allowing. In this case, maybe it's not that bad. But maybe it is pretty bad. That's what we're discussing. I surely won't take that position alone as reasoning for why to relent on my side of an argument though.
Sure, all actions have externalities.
My taking an airplane trip adds carbon that effects everyone's atmosphere. My supporting a company I like (Apple) makes it more difficult for competitors (including more open ones) to succeed.
But unless you are arguing for a totally planned economy where the default is that the government makes all market decisions, our mindsets are the same. i.e. That we should weigh the costs and benefits of government intervention vs leaving the market alone.
If externalities or market failures are very bad (the climate, human rights, etc...), of course I support government intervention. However, government intervention has many costs and far from a perfect track record, so it's not a solution I want to throw at every problem.
I don't think we have a difference in mindset, we just weigh things differently. I don't think the things you've mentioned (app-locking, hardware incompatibility, etc...) are anywhere near bad enough to justify anti-trust action.
My taking an airplane trip adds carbon that effects everyone's atmosphere. My supporting a company I like (Apple) makes it more difficult for competitors (including more open ones) to succeed.
But unless you are arguing for a totally planned economy where the default is that the government makes all market decisions, our mindsets are the same. i.e. That we should weigh the costs and benefits of government intervention vs leaving the market alone.
If externalities or market failures are very bad (the climate, human rights, etc...), of course I support government intervention. However, government intervention has many costs and far from a perfect track record, so it's not a solution I want to throw at every problem.
I don't think we have a difference in mindset, we just weigh things differently. I don't think the things you've mentioned (app-locking, hardware incompatibility, etc...) are anywhere near bad enough to justify anti-trust action.
[deleted]
The competition is Android.
>What happens when the dictates are not as benevolent?
OP literally answered this question. Buy a different phone.
OP literally answered this question. Buy a different phone.
Except that all your photos are in iCloud, all your messages in iMessage, all your music in iTunes... and all those apps you've bought. "Just buy another phone" is fine if you have no problem throwing away all your data and purchases and start over.
It's not just a phone, it's a whole ecosystem.
It's not just a phone, it's a whole ecosystem.
> You state those preferences as if there's no possible way they could be provided while allowing competition.
Modifying the software so that it permits third party apps makes the software worse - more complicated, less simple and clear.
So I don't want that.
> but followed a very clear set of rules that dictated what was allowed and not, and took a well defined fee to review apps
What makes you think whoever does this will be more benevolent than Apple, though?
Modifying the software so that it permits third party apps makes the software worse - more complicated, less simple and clear.
So I don't want that.
> but followed a very clear set of rules that dictated what was allowed and not, and took a well defined fee to review apps
What makes you think whoever does this will be more benevolent than Apple, though?
>I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite.
Your entire argument is refuted if Apple isn't allowed to abuse it's market position and you're allowed to have "Apple Pay +30% price" "Stripe Payment" "Payment X" - you would quickly see the real value of App Store and Apple Payment processing convenience - that 30% would probably come down to 10% where it provides the convenience value.
If consumers weren't harmed consumer choice would have no effect.
This "users are idiots and they need Apple to tell them what's best for them" is like Stockholm syndrome with Apple fans, it's especially entertaining to hear it so often on a "hacker" newsgroup. Good thing papa Apple decided you can't have that dangerous Fortnite scam tricking you in to using a different payment system, you're better off not wasting time on games anyway - really if you look at it that way they are saving you from bad choices two times - win/win for Apple users I'd say.
Your entire argument is refuted if Apple isn't allowed to abuse it's market position and you're allowed to have "Apple Pay +30% price" "Stripe Payment" "Payment X" - you would quickly see the real value of App Store and Apple Payment processing convenience - that 30% would probably come down to 10% where it provides the convenience value.
If consumers weren't harmed consumer choice would have no effect.
This "users are idiots and they need Apple to tell them what's best for them" is like Stockholm syndrome with Apple fans, it's especially entertaining to hear it so often on a "hacker" newsgroup. Good thing papa Apple decided you can't have that dangerous Fortnite scam tricking you in to using a different payment system, you're better off not wasting time on games anyway - really if you look at it that way they are saving you from bad choices two times - win/win for Apple users I'd say.
It's not Stockholm syndrome, it's familiarity with how things worked on other platform.
Windows/IE literally wasted hundreds of millions of person hours by being leaky, insecure, virus-prone crap. You could - if you chose to - make quite a nice income out of sending out phishing emails on our open email system. Likewise for randomsware, only more so. And so on.
iOS may have other flaws, but worrying that your iPhone is going to be locked by a Bitcoin hacker isn't one of them.
And realistically, users are idiots - at least technically. We've all heard of PC users who click on every random thing and end up with twenty-odd toolbars and almost every possible virus. The only reason phones aren't the same is because security is locked down.
These are consumer devices. They are not hacker devices. If you want an open hacker device, go build one and see if you can persuade people to buy it.
You won't - of course - because in userland locked down security is a feature, not a bug. And users care more about not having to pay a ransom to unlock their own phones than they do about running with root privileges. Not having to think about this is valuable.
Having said all that, there's definitely room to negotiate the costs of all of this, and also to open up selected services that can be proven to be secure. But those costs, the access to useful non-risky APIs for devs, and access for third party service providers, are all different issues to the core validity of the model itself.
Windows/IE literally wasted hundreds of millions of person hours by being leaky, insecure, virus-prone crap. You could - if you chose to - make quite a nice income out of sending out phishing emails on our open email system. Likewise for randomsware, only more so. And so on.
iOS may have other flaws, but worrying that your iPhone is going to be locked by a Bitcoin hacker isn't one of them.
And realistically, users are idiots - at least technically. We've all heard of PC users who click on every random thing and end up with twenty-odd toolbars and almost every possible virus. The only reason phones aren't the same is because security is locked down.
These are consumer devices. They are not hacker devices. If you want an open hacker device, go build one and see if you can persuade people to buy it.
You won't - of course - because in userland locked down security is a feature, not a bug. And users care more about not having to pay a ransom to unlock their own phones than they do about running with root privileges. Not having to think about this is valuable.
Having said all that, there's definitely room to negotiate the costs of all of this, and also to open up selected services that can be proven to be secure. But those costs, the access to useful non-risky APIs for devs, and access for third party service providers, are all different issues to the core validity of the model itself.
>Windows/IE literally wasted hundreds of millions of person hours by being leaky, insecure, virus-prone crap. You could - if you chose to - make quite a nice income out of sending out phishing emails on our open email system. Likewise for randomsware, only more so. And so on.
And so your argument is that Microsoft should have forbidden anyone from using a different browser engine (like Apple does) to make things safer ? What if someone installed Chrome or Firefox - that could have leaks and then you would think less of the platform - right ?
And so your argument is that Microsoft should have forbidden anyone from using a different browser engine (like Apple does) to make things safer ? What if someone installed Chrome or Firefox - that could have leaks and then you would think less of the platform - right ?
No. That wasn't the argument at all.
It's that people aren't exactly stretching their imaginations to picture their phone ecosystem going to hell. They've all been there before, and have vivid memories of what they don't want.
They are also not crazy to have different preferences for a phone and for a desktop. Just like you have different preferences when selecting a hotel room vs a house.
It's that people aren't exactly stretching their imaginations to picture their phone ecosystem going to hell. They've all been there before, and have vivid memories of what they don't want.
They are also not crazy to have different preferences for a phone and for a desktop. Just like you have different preferences when selecting a hotel room vs a house.
The argument is nonsense because Apple decisions are not driven by security but are there to ensure they get a cut of every revenue stream on their platform. If this was just about security there would be a way to verify secure 3rd party payment processing methods - I trust Stripe as much as I trust Apple for example. And you wouldn't be forced to offer the same price on other platforms either.
I don't mind personally I see the value they offer - they make products that are better overall for a large majority of consumers and their ecosystem just works for many use cases - it doesn't fit me particularly well but I see the value proposition.
Pretending that these store policies are driven by security is nonsense, those kinds of arguments tick me off.
I don't mind personally I see the value they offer - they make products that are better overall for a large majority of consumers and their ecosystem just works for many use cases - it doesn't fit me particularly well but I see the value proposition.
Pretending that these store policies are driven by security is nonsense, those kinds of arguments tick me off.
Who's pretending they are "driven by security"?
Clearly Apple wants to make money. The only argument being made is that some customers choose the walled garden because they want a telephone, not a part-time job keeping the weeds at bay. As you say, that's (a component of) what they are selling, and they do it because it sells (long-term, in their estimation).
Clearly Apple wants to make money. The only argument being made is that some customers choose the walled garden because they want a telephone, not a part-time job keeping the weeds at bay. As you say, that's (a component of) what they are selling, and they do it because it sells (long-term, in their estimation).
The number of customers who chose an iPhone because it only lets them buy apps from Apple is a tiny fraction of the number of people who bought the device as a fashion accessory. What a strange thing to want. It makes little sense to think that Apple is catering to the tiny former group instead of simply extracting as much money as it can out of the latter group.
I don't think it's accurate or fair to ascribe motivations to Apple based on a relevant, yet arbitrary, line in the sand that you chose to draw.
About a decade ago, I got an iPod Touch, on the basis that it would be a portable computer that I could hack around with. Instead I find that it was entirely locked down, and required permission to install any software. Heck, even the developers kit required a $100 license fee, which was outside of my hobbyist budget at the time. For my own device.
The phone ecosystem has already gone to hell, and Apple paved the way there.
The phone ecosystem has already gone to hell, and Apple paved the way there.
You absolutely don't need to pay the $100 license fee to develop for iOS. That fee is just required for distribution
If Microsoft made the same decisions as Apple did with the XP release (including always running apps in a sandbox), then yes, you wouldn't have to worry about malware at all on Windows. Instead, we have a billion dollar antivirus industry.
Apple is hardly free of malware.
I haven't heard of any iOS worms.
Got any sources on iOS-specific, in-the-wild malware?
Got any sources on iOS-specific, in-the-wild malware?
https://blog.malwarebytes.com/mac/2019/08/unprecedented-new-....
https://www.cnet.com/news/google-researcher-demonstrates-iph...
https://www.cnet.com/news/google-researcher-demonstrates-iph...
> Because of this, any device running iOS 12.1.4 is not only immune to these particular attacks, but it can’t be infected anymore either, due to the reboot when installing 12.1.4 (or later).
iOS certainly has malware and vulnerabilities, like any software, but they end up patched pretty quickly. It's definitely not the malware landscape we had on Windows 2000-2015 (arguably when Windows Defender got good).
iOS certainly has malware and vulnerabilities, like any software, but they end up patched pretty quickly. It's definitely not the malware landscape we had on Windows 2000-2015 (arguably when Windows Defender got good).
> iOS may have other flaws, but worrying that your iPhone is going to be locked by a Bitcoin hacker isn't one of them.
iOS exploits are cheaper than Android exploits because iOS exploits are so plentiful[1][2].
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/05/14/zerodium_ios_flaws/
[2] http://zerodium.com/program.html
iOS exploits are cheaper than Android exploits because iOS exploits are so plentiful[1][2].
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/05/14/zerodium_ios_flaws/
[2] http://zerodium.com/program.html
>Windows/IE
I keep having Apple users explain that Catalina is better than Windows 95. This seems in a similar vein.
I keep having Apple users explain that Catalina is better than Windows 95. This seems in a similar vein.
> Windows/IE literally wasted hundreds of millions of person hours by being leaky, insecure, virus-prone crap
How do you explain that I've been using mac os for decades, I am able to install third party software, and I have not run into any of the issues you are describing?
How do you explain that I've been using mac os for decades, I am able to install third party software, and I have not run into any of the issues you are describing?
> iOS may have other flaws, but worrying that your iPhone is going to be locked by a Bitcoin hacker isn't one of them.
This is enforced by the platform sandbox, not the App Store. They are entirely separate things.
This is enforced by the platform sandbox, not the App Store. They are entirely separate things.
An alternate App Store would operate outside the sandbox though, right?
Otherwise, the alternate App Store would be relegated to installing apps within its own sandbox. And people would continue to howl about it.
Otherwise, the alternate App Store would be relegated to installing apps within its own sandbox. And people would continue to howl about it.
The app could just hand off installation to the privileged system daemon that can do that part for it.
See Android, seriously.
> you would quickly see the real value of App Store and Apple Payment processing convenience - that 30% would probably come down to 10% where it provides the convenience value.
That might be good for developers but it does not necessarily also imply that consumers are harmed. You assume that if a store charged a lower rate that the savings would be passed onto the consumer, but this does not reflect the real world where developers might simply choose to pocket the difference instead.
As an example, the Epic Games Store is charging $59.99 for the new release of Cyberpunk 2077. What's the cost on Steam? Also $59.99.
That might be good for developers but it does not necessarily also imply that consumers are harmed. You assume that if a store charged a lower rate that the savings would be passed onto the consumer, but this does not reflect the real world where developers might simply choose to pocket the difference instead.
As an example, the Epic Games Store is charging $59.99 for the new release of Cyberpunk 2077. What's the cost on Steam? Also $59.99.
In that case everyone would keep using Apple to pay if it actually provided convince/value.
"I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her."
Until very recently (ios 13/14) apps did exactly this. There are arguments for the walled garden in terms of ensuring applications are built, signed, and distributed safely but developers (e.g. Facebook, etc) absolutely abused the system APIs to spy on users and collect data they had no right to.
Even with the newer protections, apps randomly want to access my contacts or local network or location. The average user (like my mom and dad) are most likely just gonna click through those.
I'm not arguing for ios/android here but we should be factual. I will say I like the walled garden for other reasons, such as a consistent payment gateway, etc.
Until very recently (ios 13/14) apps did exactly this. There are arguments for the walled garden in terms of ensuring applications are built, signed, and distributed safely but developers (e.g. Facebook, etc) absolutely abused the system APIs to spy on users and collect data they had no right to.
Even with the newer protections, apps randomly want to access my contacts or local network or location. The average user (like my mom and dad) are most likely just gonna click through those.
I'm not arguing for ios/android here but we should be factual. I will say I like the walled garden for other reasons, such as a consistent payment gateway, etc.
This is true, but it’s worth nothing that the protections are improving, and without the walled garden that wouldn’t be possible.
> without the walled garden that wouldn’t be possible
Aren't many of these protections at the OS level? Certainly apps installed from 3rd party App stores on Android still have to use the same permissions system/etc as those coming from the Google Store.
Aren't many of these protections at the OS level? Certainly apps installed from 3rd party App stores on Android still have to use the same permissions system/etc as those coming from the Google Store.
Some are at the OS level, but many are not.
For example straight up fraud and phishing, or botnets, or Apps that abuse permissions.
Many of these have no technical countermeasures and have to either be rejected at review time, or removed when discovered.
For example straight up fraud and phishing, or botnets, or Apps that abuse permissions.
Many of these have no technical countermeasures and have to either be rejected at review time, or removed when discovered.
User facing monitoring is a huge help here. I removed an application that hijacked the lock screen of a phone with Android 4 on it (Android only had the requirement that applications don't hijack the lock screen from the App Store for Android 5 and up IIRC). This was because of the simple monitoring that was built into Android through developer options which was simple to activate.
Far more could be done with more sophisticated user controlled monitoring tools, which could say monitor the network traffic, application accesses to any information on the device etc. No reason it cannot be done, and they may be there already.
Also device does not need to have their applications mandatorily locked to an App Store to get the benefits. Optional use of the 'official' app store is fine too, which is what isn't there on iOS. You can choose to just get your applications through the 'official' app store. Someone else not getting their applications through the 'official' app store does not magically put those applications on your device, and thus does not decrease the security you may get from the app store for you.
Far more could be done with more sophisticated user controlled monitoring tools, which could say monitor the network traffic, application accesses to any information on the device etc. No reason it cannot be done, and they may be there already.
Also device does not need to have their applications mandatorily locked to an App Store to get the benefits. Optional use of the 'official' app store is fine too, which is what isn't there on iOS. You can choose to just get your applications through the 'official' app store. Someone else not getting their applications through the 'official' app store does not magically put those applications on your device, and thus does not decrease the security you may get from the app store for you.
How can ‘user facing monitoring’ help a non tech savvy person tell the difference between a fraudulent app that and a real one that otherwise looks the same?
As as for ‘you can just choose the official store’ - it’s not as simple as that. There will be a giant campaign to get people to install alternative stores because the official one is evil and locked down.
People will do so without having the ability to tell which alternative stores are legitimate and which are not.
As as for ‘you can just choose the official store’ - it’s not as simple as that. There will be a giant campaign to get people to install alternative stores because the official one is evil and locked down.
People will do so without having the ability to tell which alternative stores are legitimate and which are not.
That can't be true, privacy protection is only possible in a walled garden? So I can't get privacy on Linux? Even on Tails?
Can my non English fluent non computer literate parents get privacy on Linux, with an insatiable need to click on every link they see in WhatsApp?
Yes, and out of the box, too.
[deleted]
I totally agree. We as techies /developers see problems from our perspective (too high of a cut, arbitrarily limiting what apps can be distributed, no third-party payment processing etc). And those are legit concerns.
But in a typical “customer harm” perspective I think it’s very hard to make a case.
Apps aren’t really that more expensive on iOS nor is the catalog smaller.
However much we want a freer iOS experience, competing App Stores will just make iOS like modern gaming with a crappy custom App Store for each vendor. It would be more reasonable to have easier side loading for enthusiast or stuff Apple doesn’t want in its store.
But in a typical “customer harm” perspective I think it’s very hard to make a case.
Apps aren’t really that more expensive on iOS nor is the catalog smaller.
However much we want a freer iOS experience, competing App Stores will just make iOS like modern gaming with a crappy custom App Store for each vendor. It would be more reasonable to have easier side loading for enthusiast or stuff Apple doesn’t want in its store.
It is very easy to make a case actually, the equivalent would be no music besides iTunes store (no spotify). Same thing for games (no epic store, no steam, no GOG etc). Just because Apple provides a good experience doesn't give them the right to disallow competition. Don't fall into Stockholm syndrome.
> no epic store, no steam, no GOG etc
The current situation sucks, but it's worth mentioning that this alternative sucks equally as well. Specifically, games from these distributors often install dodgy kernel drivers rendering computers useless for purposes other than gaming for anyone who are conscious about security and privacy.
Furthermore, advertising, entertainment, and gaming industries are known to be hostile towards users when they're given control over user devices. They would most certainly force users onto their own app stores when given the chance and proceed to install whatever invasive piece of software they seem fit.
So while I'd love to have an easy way to install community-run app stores for free and open source software, I'd be wary of any attempts by user-hostile industries to create their own app store. I'd really like to be proven wrong, but it seems we currently have a choice between two evils.
> no music besides iTunes store (no spotify)
FYI you can install the Spotify app from the App Store at https://apps.apple.com/us/app/spotify-music-and-podcasts/id3...
The current situation sucks, but it's worth mentioning that this alternative sucks equally as well. Specifically, games from these distributors often install dodgy kernel drivers rendering computers useless for purposes other than gaming for anyone who are conscious about security and privacy.
Furthermore, advertising, entertainment, and gaming industries are known to be hostile towards users when they're given control over user devices. They would most certainly force users onto their own app stores when given the chance and proceed to install whatever invasive piece of software they seem fit.
So while I'd love to have an easy way to install community-run app stores for free and open source software, I'd be wary of any attempts by user-hostile industries to create their own app store. I'd really like to be proven wrong, but it seems we currently have a choice between two evils.
> no music besides iTunes store (no spotify)
FYI you can install the Spotify app from the App Store at https://apps.apple.com/us/app/spotify-music-and-podcasts/id3...
Microsoft could block dodgy kernel drivers while still allowing game stores ... These are not inherently related.
I think OP is aware that competing music apps are allowed. They're making an analogy about banning competing app stores, just because itunes is good doesn't mean we don't want competition ... the same concept applies.
I think OP is aware that competing music apps are allowed. They're making an analogy about banning competing app stores, just because itunes is good doesn't mean we don't want competition ... the same concept applies.
Dodgy kernel drivers are just one example of user hostile software.
Given the past and current track record of the advertising, entertainment, and gaming industries, would you really want to be forced to install an app store run by any of them?
If this was purely about getting something like F-Droid into iDevices or side loading for power users, it would be very beneficial for users. Apple deserves some of the negativity for not letting that happen.
However, known user hostile players trying to have a go at people's personal devices under the guise of competition is something that we as consumers should be equally wary of. Because in the end, we won't be given much choice. Monopolies are not something exclusive to Apple, and big players will use their own monopolistic power to coerce users to install their privacy invading app store.
Given the past and current track record of the advertising, entertainment, and gaming industries, would you really want to be forced to install an app store run by any of them?
If this was purely about getting something like F-Droid into iDevices or side loading for power users, it would be very beneficial for users. Apple deserves some of the negativity for not letting that happen.
However, known user hostile players trying to have a go at people's personal devices under the guise of competition is something that we as consumers should be equally wary of. Because in the end, we won't be given much choice. Monopolies are not something exclusive to Apple, and big players will use their own monopolistic power to coerce users to install their privacy invading app store.
It's a pretty excellent example precisely because the operating system typically already has controls over this behavior (installing kernel drivers..)
> However, known user hostile players trying to have a go at people's personal devices under the guise of competition is something that we as consumers should be equally wary of.
Is epic user hostile? Other than offering temporarily exclusive applications their store does not seem hostile ...
> Because in the end, we won't be given much choice. Monopolies are not something exclusive to Apple, and big players will use their own monopolistic power to coerce users to install their privacy invading app store.
Defeating hypothetical monopolistic practices by denying user choice and persisting an existing monopolistic practice sure is a take.
> However, known user hostile players trying to have a go at people's personal devices under the guise of competition is something that we as consumers should be equally wary of.
Is epic user hostile? Other than offering temporarily exclusive applications their store does not seem hostile ...
> Because in the end, we won't be given much choice. Monopolies are not something exclusive to Apple, and big players will use their own monopolistic power to coerce users to install their privacy invading app store.
Defeating hypothetical monopolistic practices by denying user choice and persisting an existing monopolistic practice sure is a take.
> Is epic user hostile?
Let's see an example of dodgy kernel drivers. How about Easy Anti-Cheat? Go to their page at https://www.easy.ac/en-us/. Guess who develops it?
> hypothetical monopolistic practices
Hypothetical monopolistic practices really? Because I vividly recall Facebook skirting App Store security policies to make users install a privacy invading VPN app, which they also used to gather data on competitors[1]. But I'm sure that's fine because people have alternatives to Facebook. Or perhaps not[2].
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15007454
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25363366
Let's see an example of dodgy kernel drivers. How about Easy Anti-Cheat? Go to their page at https://www.easy.ac/en-us/. Guess who develops it?
> hypothetical monopolistic practices
Hypothetical monopolistic practices really? Because I vividly recall Facebook skirting App Store security policies to make users install a privacy invading VPN app, which they also used to gather data on competitors[1]. But I'm sure that's fine because people have alternatives to Facebook. Or perhaps not[2].
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15007454
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25363366
> Let's see an example of dodgy kernel drivers. How about Easy Anti-Cheat? Go to their page at https://www.easy.ac/en-us/. Guess who develops it?
Their store does not install or require this. Specific applications require it for online play (and generally only for online play...)
Microsoft does not ban this behavior on any storefront, AFAIK. Having a single storefront would not change this.
> Hypothetical monopolistic practices really? Because I vividly Facebook skirting App Store security policies to make users install a privacy invading VPN app, which they also used to gather data on competitors[1].
Amusingly this occurred under the current iOS app restrictions, which clearly didn't prevent this.
An argument could be made for certain high-risk extension point access (such as VPN) could be limited independently of general apps, but the fact that there's a bad VPN app is a silly excuse for restricting the install of simple applications.
The app sandbox should provide plenty of protection, and if the user opts to give apps permissions, that's on their choice. I really don't think users are going to install an app store that requires the usage of a sketchy VPN app ...
If this were the case, surely it would exist already on android :-)
> But I'm sure that's fine because people have alternatives to Facebook. Or perhaps not[2].
[2]: is exactly why we don't need to leave Apple's monopoly in place to "defeat other monopolies" ... we have other tools for that. Let users (and their representatives etc.) decide.
Their store does not install or require this. Specific applications require it for online play (and generally only for online play...)
Microsoft does not ban this behavior on any storefront, AFAIK. Having a single storefront would not change this.
> Hypothetical monopolistic practices really? Because I vividly Facebook skirting App Store security policies to make users install a privacy invading VPN app, which they also used to gather data on competitors[1].
Amusingly this occurred under the current iOS app restrictions, which clearly didn't prevent this.
An argument could be made for certain high-risk extension point access (such as VPN) could be limited independently of general apps, but the fact that there's a bad VPN app is a silly excuse for restricting the install of simple applications.
The app sandbox should provide plenty of protection, and if the user opts to give apps permissions, that's on their choice. I really don't think users are going to install an app store that requires the usage of a sketchy VPN app ...
If this were the case, surely it would exist already on android :-)
> But I'm sure that's fine because people have alternatives to Facebook. Or perhaps not[2].
[2]: is exactly why we don't need to leave Apple's monopoly in place to "defeat other monopolies" ... we have other tools for that. Let users (and their representatives etc.) decide.
> Their store does not install or require this.
How does this matter? You've shown doubts that epic engages in user hostile behavior. I've shown you evidence. It shows that they can't be trusted with the security and privacy of their customer's devices.
> Amusingly this occurred under the current iOS app restrictions, which clearly didn't prevent this.
Amusingly the app wouldn't have been pulled if it was Facebook running the App Store. It likely wouldn't have made the headlines either because it would be common practice. This is the same Facebook, along with Google, that abused enterprise certificates to skirt the app review process itself[1].
> The app sandbox should provide plenty of protection, and if the user opts to give apps permissions, that's on their choice.
You'd be amazed at the lengths some users went through to install Google and Facebook's sketchy "research" app[1].
But to get back to the point, all I'm saying boils down to two things:
- Apple should enable FOSS communities to run an app store and also make it easy for power users to side load apps
- Consumers should be extremely cautious of big players demanding more access to their personal devices
Is this such a silly position to take?
[1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/google-screenwise-unwi...
How does this matter? You've shown doubts that epic engages in user hostile behavior. I've shown you evidence. It shows that they can't be trusted with the security and privacy of their customer's devices.
> Amusingly this occurred under the current iOS app restrictions, which clearly didn't prevent this.
Amusingly the app wouldn't have been pulled if it was Facebook running the App Store. It likely wouldn't have made the headlines either because it would be common practice. This is the same Facebook, along with Google, that abused enterprise certificates to skirt the app review process itself[1].
> The app sandbox should provide plenty of protection, and if the user opts to give apps permissions, that's on their choice.
You'd be amazed at the lengths some users went through to install Google and Facebook's sketchy "research" app[1].
But to get back to the point, all I'm saying boils down to two things:
- Apple should enable FOSS communities to run an app store and also make it easy for power users to side load apps
- Consumers should be extremely cautious of big players demanding more access to their personal devices
Is this such a silly position to take?
[1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/google-screenwise-unwi...
> Apps aren’t really that more expensive on iOS
Some are. [0] And because of the 30% cut many popular services simply aren't available through their iOS apps.
[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-app-makers-break-their-apps...
Some are. [0] And because of the 30% cut many popular services simply aren't available through their iOS apps.
[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-app-makers-break-their-apps...
So if you really want that level of centralization then at the very least can't we agree that Apple should reduce it's fee (30% of ALL revenue for some basic binary hosting and payment processing?) and be far less restrictive in it's decisions of what is allowed and what isn't (god forbid we have xcloud on iOS! the horror!)?
Let’s assume the validation process takes $300 for each pass (each version, and initial release, has a consultant for 1/2 day, assuming the consultant takes that time to analyse code and has tools ready, and that 1/2 includes the occasional PR problem and the occasional escalation process). Given an app has an average of 30 versions, it costs Apple 9000$ per app, excluding the Marketplace hosting which must be minor compared to this.
That means the breakeven for the 30% fee is at 27000 sales for a $3 app _in average_, but many apps make no sales, many others are free, many are cheaper than $3.
So the 30% fee is effectively the bigger apps paying so the smaller apps can exist, and so a market can exist, with low-cost apps, which makes it interesting for customers to come. Therefore I don’t personally think the 30% cut is unfair; just that « the bigger paying for the smaller » is a debatable choice (which is the same idea as the bigger taxpayers paying for the poorest).
That means the breakeven for the 30% fee is at 27000 sales for a $3 app _in average_, but many apps make no sales, many others are free, many are cheaper than $3.
So the 30% fee is effectively the bigger apps paying so the smaller apps can exist, and so a market can exist, with low-cost apps, which makes it interesting for customers to come. Therefore I don’t personally think the 30% cut is unfair; just that « the bigger paying for the smaller » is a debatable choice (which is the same idea as the bigger taxpayers paying for the poorest).
Half a day? You're being exceedingly generous. App reviewers usually spend something like 5-10 minutes on any given app, at that.
Why would letting another app store be installable on an iphone make your mom not able to just use App Store the same way she does it now? It’s simply not an either or question. It could be hidden the same way as developer options are in Android so your mon - with all due respect - will never accidentally enable side-loading, while I can actually use my phone for whatever I want.
> It could be hidden the same way as developer options
If checking a box buried three screens deep in Settings is all it takes to play Fortnite with your friends again, that box is going to get checked. And once it does, all the privacy and security of iOS devices goes out the window.
If checking a box buried three screens deep in Settings is all it takes to play Fortnite with your friends again, that box is going to get checked. And once it does, all the privacy and security of iOS devices goes out the window.
The same could be said about 3rd party car mechanics that have MUCH HIGHER stakes (your life behind the wheel), yet it is illegal for car manufacturers to ban someone else from fixing your car. But Apple zealots act like a ending a monopoly on app installation will ruin everything.
If the warning box says THIS IS A BIG SECURITY RISK and you click anyway it's your own choice, but a choice given in every single product and market created by man. A stupid phone is not where you draw the line and give it up.
If the warning box says THIS IS A BIG SECURITY RISK and you click anyway it's your own choice, but a choice given in every single product and market created by man. A stupid phone is not where you draw the line and give it up.
Your analogy would apply if 3rd party car mechanics had a history of installing GPS trackers and hidden microphones.
We decided to punish people criminally who betray our trust in that way in physical space, and that usually works well enough that we can have enough of a trust-based society that we can let someone else have unsupervised access to our car for short periods of time.
For a variety of reasons, that trust has completely broken down with cell carriers and app developers. So we have to resort to a feudal system in which we rely on the local Lord to protect our interests.
I hate it too, but I need someone looking out for my privacy and the security of my mobile device. Apple is the best I can find.
We decided to punish people criminally who betray our trust in that way in physical space, and that usually works well enough that we can have enough of a trust-based society that we can let someone else have unsupervised access to our car for short periods of time.
For a variety of reasons, that trust has completely broken down with cell carriers and app developers. So we have to resort to a feudal system in which we rely on the local Lord to protect our interests.
I hate it too, but I need someone looking out for my privacy and the security of my mobile device. Apple is the best I can find.
The most serious breaches of privacy have been made by governments with backdoors and not some script kiddies... Either way, nothing will be taken away from you if another app store is available. Just continue using the Apple app store as you did before. You're taking away the choice of others just because you feel yours is best.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly.
You're free not to buy an iPhone. Most people don't.
You're free not to buy an iPhone. Most people don't.
Apple has the majority of the mobile OS market in the US, and more than 3x the App Store revenue that the Play Store has.
But that doesn't matter when it comes to antitrust laws[1]:
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
But that doesn't matter when it comes to antitrust laws[1]:
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
It does have a monopoly on third-party software running on Apple devices.
There are other possible approaches that could be taken - e.g. a full bootloader wipe required, per-app permissions that must be allowed, federated third party app stores, parental controls, etc.
Although at the end of the day people will still sometimes self-XSS themselves with the browser developer console or get phished etc.
Human error/ignorance is always a possible issue, and I don't think we should restrict everyone else for it. Cars and knives are still allowed in the world.
Although at the end of the day people will still sometimes self-XSS themselves with the browser developer console or get phished etc.
Human error/ignorance is always a possible issue, and I don't think we should restrict everyone else for it. Cars and knives are still allowed in the world.
> I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite.
Game streaming services do not exist on iOS. This is a harm.
You cannot sign up for Netlifx on iOS. This is a harm.
Game streaming services do not exist on iOS. This is a harm.
You cannot sign up for Netlifx on iOS. This is a harm.
You can't install GPL software, or software with LGPL dependencies, on iOS devices because of the App Store's policy. Apple will even remove apps from their store if they think that they contain GPL or LGPL code.
That's harm, too.
That's harm, too.
Game streaming services do exist on iOS via the web browser.
You can signup for Netflix on iOS via the web browser.
You can signup for Netflix on iOS via the web browser.
Yet, you cannot have a link to Netflix or Spotify from their app to their own website as you could subscribe on it.
And the browser is limited to whatever Apple allows. If it doesn't support some web API that has a native equivalent, you're out of luck. There are many of those.
And the browser is limited to whatever Apple allows. If it doesn't support some web API that has a native equivalent, you're out of luck. There are many of those.
These are all concessions to the user experience that harm both consumers and developers.
You Download the Netflix App and it Doesn't Work if you don't already have an account.
You Download the Netflix App and it Doesn't Work if you don't already have an account.
> I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite.
When there is no competition the prices are higher. That is one way the consumers are harmed.
> I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away. I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her.
And you can have your walled garden and your mom can still install apps without worrying if they are spaying on them. Just use apples app store, simple as that. This is a non issue.
> I like that developers aren’t allowed to use their own payment processors. I don’t want to input my credit card into your black box payment system that might or might not charge me correctly.
You still have the option of using the apples app store. Again, a non issue for you.
When there is no competition the prices are higher. That is one way the consumers are harmed.
> I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away. I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her.
And you can have your walled garden and your mom can still install apps without worrying if they are spaying on them. Just use apples app store, simple as that. This is a non issue.
> I like that developers aren’t allowed to use their own payment processors. I don’t want to input my credit card into your black box payment system that might or might not charge me correctly.
You still have the option of using the apples app store. Again, a non issue for you.
> You still have the option of using the apples app store. Again, a non issue for you.
Except apps GP uses will leave the official App Store in favor of the jenky "type in your credit card to each individual app" app store. So it actually is in GP's favor for there not to be an option.
Not saying that is justification, but let's not just pretend it's all roses.
Except apps GP uses will leave the official App Store in favor of the jenky "type in your credit card to each individual app" app store. So it actually is in GP's favor for there not to be an option.
Not saying that is justification, but let's not just pretend it's all roses.
> Except apps GP uses will leave the official App Store in favor of the jenky "type in your credit card to each individual app" app store.
This is an assumption. A weird assumption, at that. Apps wouldn't tarnish their brands by being distributed on badly implemented stores, in the same way you don't see apps worth using being advertised on porn sites or 4chan.
This is an assumption. A weird assumption, at that. Apps wouldn't tarnish their brands by being distributed on badly implemented stores, in the same way you don't see apps worth using being advertised on porn sites or 4chan.
> apps GP uses will leave the official App Store
Couldn't Apple offer a reasonable compromise that they only allow competing App Stores on their phones if those App Stores don't allow exclusive apps? App stores would still be able to compete on prices and payment methods.
I suppose that all apps would still have to be approved by Apple, though, otherwise an app creator could just hide something that Apple objects to in their app somewhere, causing it to be disallowed from Apple's App Store but allowed in third party ones.
Couldn't Apple offer a reasonable compromise that they only allow competing App Stores on their phones if those App Stores don't allow exclusive apps? App stores would still be able to compete on prices and payment methods.
I suppose that all apps would still have to be approved by Apple, though, otherwise an app creator could just hide something that Apple objects to in their app somewhere, causing it to be disallowed from Apple's App Store but allowed in third party ones.
> Couldn't Apple offer a reasonable compromise that they only allow competing App Stores on their phones if those App Stores don't allow exclusive apps?
This would not be a reasonable compromise, as one of the primary reasons for wanting competing app stores is because of Apple's insane overreach in trying to control what you are and aren't allowed to run on your own phone.
When I last had an iPhone, I wanted to install a heavy computing application that I had previously used on Android. I found out from the developers of that application that they had been rejected from the App Store because their app used too much CPU power. Apparently you're meant to just use the phone for decoration?
Google has some similarly nonsense policies (good luck finding a good adblocker on the Play Store), but at least it takes all of five seconds to circumvent that. Apple allowing competing app stores while still having complete control over the content available on them does very little to solve the problems that their monopoly causes.
This would not be a reasonable compromise, as one of the primary reasons for wanting competing app stores is because of Apple's insane overreach in trying to control what you are and aren't allowed to run on your own phone.
When I last had an iPhone, I wanted to install a heavy computing application that I had previously used on Android. I found out from the developers of that application that they had been rejected from the App Store because their app used too much CPU power. Apparently you're meant to just use the phone for decoration?
Google has some similarly nonsense policies (good luck finding a good adblocker on the Play Store), but at least it takes all of five seconds to circumvent that. Apple allowing competing app stores while still having complete control over the content available on them does very little to solve the problems that their monopoly causes.
> When there is no competition the prices are higher. That is one way the consumers are harmed.
They can also be lower (a monopsony), because the middleman in a two sided market can extract value from the provider and deliver it to the consumer. This is how universal health care, Amazon, etc work.
They can also be lower (a monopsony), because the middleman in a two sided market can extract value from the provider and deliver it to the consumer. This is how universal health care, Amazon, etc work.
> Just use apples app store, simple as that. This is a non issue.
And how do you install other App Stores? Just visit epicgames.com/ios, see a popup asking "do you want to install this app store" and click "confirm"? That's no different than the exact thing that caused Windows to be known to need an antivirus (at least, until Windows Defender and smartscreen became good enough for 'common sense' users). Anything more is going to be met with criticism for 'too much of a barrier to install' for competing app stores.
And how do you install other App Stores? Just visit epicgames.com/ios, see a popup asking "do you want to install this app store" and click "confirm"? That's no different than the exact thing that caused Windows to be known to need an antivirus (at least, until Windows Defender and smartscreen became good enough for 'common sense' users). Anything more is going to be met with criticism for 'too much of a barrier to install' for competing app stores.
Apps in iOS are sandboxed anyway so spyware/virus concerns are less of an issue just due to the platform itself.
But I agree with the other posters: literally making it impossible for me to willingly do something with my own device is not a feature.
There are other ways to help prevent payment issues or privacy concerns - one of which is just sticking to the App Store (if it really is that valuable then won't the market decide?) - the other of which is requiring hoops to jump through like Google does with third-party applications on Android. Hell - look at Gatekeeper on macOS.
But I agree with the other posters: literally making it impossible for me to willingly do something with my own device is not a feature.
There are other ways to help prevent payment issues or privacy concerns - one of which is just sticking to the App Store (if it really is that valuable then won't the market decide?) - the other of which is requiring hoops to jump through like Google does with third-party applications on Android. Hell - look at Gatekeeper on macOS.
> Apps in iOS are sandboxed anyway so spyware/virus concerns are less of an issue just due to the platform itself.
On iOS, certain API restrictions are enforced by the app review process.
Not to mention some behavioral restrictions are purely enforced by the threat of being banned from the app store.
For example, apps could[1] spam you 10x a day with 3rd party advertising push notifications, but that is banned by app store policy, not by any technical limitation of the platform.
[1] For awhile this was a serious problem on Android until Google clamped down on it, again, using store policy not technical restrictions.
On iOS, certain API restrictions are enforced by the app review process.
Not to mention some behavioral restrictions are purely enforced by the threat of being banned from the app store.
For example, apps could[1] spam you 10x a day with 3rd party advertising push notifications, but that is banned by app store policy, not by any technical limitation of the platform.
[1] For awhile this was a serious problem on Android until Google clamped down on it, again, using store policy not technical restrictions.
Fair point, but I have to believe Apple could come up with technical solutions to these issues. Or not - in which case we end up with a world not that unlike macOS. Which isn't that bad in my opinion. I'd still rather have that option than being told I can't do what I want with my own hardware.
MacOS was never a large enough target for malware and adware.
Think pre-SP2 Windows XP. Think the JRE updater installing the Ask Jeeves toolbar. (Or Chrome, that was slimy....)
Drive by app installs initiated from Safari on iOS would be Bonzai Buddy all over again.
Right now if a handful of misbehaving apps makes it past the app store review process, it is in the news.
What happens if that review store process is no longer there? How many alternative keyboards will be going around stealing credentials? How many apps spamming ads 24/7?
Think pre-SP2 Windows XP. Think the JRE updater installing the Ask Jeeves toolbar. (Or Chrome, that was slimy....)
Drive by app installs initiated from Safari on iOS would be Bonzai Buddy all over again.
Right now if a handful of misbehaving apps makes it past the app store review process, it is in the news.
What happens if that review store process is no longer there? How many alternative keyboards will be going around stealing credentials? How many apps spamming ads 24/7?
> On iOS, certain API restrictions are enforced by the app review process.
Notarization for apps on macOS already checks for private API usage[1] even if the apps aren't distributed on the Mac App Store.
[1] https://www.waynedixon.com/2019/05/16/new-notarization-requi...
Notarization for apps on macOS already checks for private API usage[1] even if the apps aren't distributed on the Mac App Store.
[1] https://www.waynedixon.com/2019/05/16/new-notarization-requi...
I think those checks are primarily for security-related private APIs, not the ones that you would normally get when submitting to the iOS and macOS App Stores.
I hear you but there is actual customer harm. There are obviously silly UX things that happen in Apple world.
Example: you cannot buy Kindle books in the Kindle app as they would be subject to 30% fees. You have to go to the web browser to buy the books. Apple inserting itself into this sort of marketplace transaction is highly questionable.
The google play store offers the same level of protections around their internal payment platform and you can confidently download apps from verified developers.
Example: you cannot buy Kindle books in the Kindle app as they would be subject to 30% fees. You have to go to the web browser to buy the books. Apple inserting itself into this sort of marketplace transaction is highly questionable.
The google play store offers the same level of protections around their internal payment platform and you can confidently download apps from verified developers.
Not only do you have to go to a web browser to buy the books, you can't tell people to use a web browser! This kind of muzzling is frankly absurd–if Apple is proud of the App Store rules, then why can't developers tell their users about them?
> I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite.
You don't have to, others, like me, do. I have been harmed by the App stores capricious rules. You can have the walled garden and still preserve my ability to have apps I want.
You don't have to, others, like me, do. I have been harmed by the App stores capricious rules. You can have the walled garden and still preserve my ability to have apps I want.
You can have a walled garden and at the same time have an exit to that garden. Apple should have their appstore with all their security measures for payment but they shouldn't prevent a third party from making an app and offering it through side loading.
Most of people might still want to use the appstore because it has the reputation of being safe. I don't see how the garden and freedom are mutually exclusive. You just tell your mom to stay in the garden and this is what most non technical people usually do on android.
Most of people might still want to use the appstore because it has the reputation of being safe. I don't see how the garden and freedom are mutually exclusive. You just tell your mom to stay in the garden and this is what most non technical people usually do on android.
> I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite.
You don't see how a lack of competition keeps prices unfairly high?
> I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away
Competition does not mean anyone is taking your app store from you.
> I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her.
Well one, they do, but two, no one is taking your mom's app store away.
> I don’t want to input my credit card into your black box payment system that might or might not charge me correctly.
No one is suggesting you do this?
> I see that it does harm developers, but that’s a different conversation entirely.
It harms everyone.
> If you want to install whatever apps you want, buy an android phone! And have fun while their bloat ware and preinstalled crap spams you with notifications and scams you.
I want to install whatever applications I'd like on the computer system I paid a thousand dollars for.
And I guess you didn't notice the un-removable iPhone apps on your phone when you bought it? Or is that some special kind of fancy bloatware?
You don't see how a lack of competition keeps prices unfairly high?
> I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away
Competition does not mean anyone is taking your app store from you.
> I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her.
Well one, they do, but two, no one is taking your mom's app store away.
> I don’t want to input my credit card into your black box payment system that might or might not charge me correctly.
No one is suggesting you do this?
> I see that it does harm developers, but that’s a different conversation entirely.
It harms everyone.
> If you want to install whatever apps you want, buy an android phone! And have fun while their bloat ware and preinstalled crap spams you with notifications and scams you.
I want to install whatever applications I'd like on the computer system I paid a thousand dollars for.
And I guess you didn't notice the un-removable iPhone apps on your phone when you bought it? Or is that some special kind of fancy bloatware?
>I see that it does harm developers, but that’s a different conversation entirely.
This is generally the conversation that's happening here. People talking about competition aren't talking about it as it relates to the quality of the product, they're talking about it from an economic perspective.
This is generally the conversation that's happening here. People talking about competition aren't talking about it as it relates to the quality of the product, they're talking about it from an economic perspective.
> I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away. I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her.
This is super ironic given how extensively Apple is spying on their customers. I guess you consider it OK too since it's Apple?
And btw, Apple's policy absolutely doesn't prevent spying: Google Chrome is still spying her your browsing habits, Gmail is reading her emails, Whatsapp has all her contact information (including identity and phone numbers of non-consenting friends of her), etc.
Apple policy is about malware, not user privacy.
This is super ironic given how extensively Apple is spying on their customers. I guess you consider it OK too since it's Apple?
And btw, Apple's policy absolutely doesn't prevent spying: Google Chrome is still spying her your browsing habits, Gmail is reading her emails, Whatsapp has all her contact information (including identity and phone numbers of non-consenting friends of her), etc.
Apple policy is about malware, not user privacy.
This again. Think about users in totalitarian countries who can't use the apps they need because Apple subserviently removed those apps from that country's section of appstore. It is widely known that Apple complies with such requests by local authorities - there is no Signal in China's AppStore.
Now, if you like your walled garden, ok, whatever, some people love their chains, but why do you feel entitled to impose the same slavish conditions on everyone else?
Now, if you like your walled garden, ok, whatever, some people love their chains, but why do you feel entitled to impose the same slavish conditions on everyone else?
Do you believe that all users should be subjected to policies that are best for your mom?
What would be wrong with a buried setting that you could flip, allowing one to install non-App Store apps?
"And have fun while their bloat ware and preinstalled crap ..."
No such crap on this Pixel device I'm using.
What would be wrong with a buried setting that you could flip, allowing one to install non-App Store apps?
"And have fun while their bloat ware and preinstalled crap ..."
No such crap on this Pixel device I'm using.
Fortunately, even if competing app stores were allowed in the iphone, nobody is forcing you to use them.
All you have to do is only use the apple app store.
This way, everyone wins! You can use the apple app store, and other people can use other app stores.
All you have to do is only use the apple app store.
This way, everyone wins! You can use the apple app store, and other people can use other app stores.
Great that you represent all consumers. I guess the debate's over then.
Your mom can continue to use the apple store in that case
> I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her.
You really think Apple not doing that?
You really think Apple not doing that?
Yes, I really think Apple is not (at least nowhere near the same degree as their competition). That's not how they make money.
Apple spies more than its competition. The competition at least allows you to turn their spying off. There is no such option on Apple devices.
Do you want to get your location without Apple also getting your location? You can't. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25355587
Do you want to install an app on your device without telling Apple? You can't.
Do you want to build apps for your own device and not have to reinstall them weekly without telling Apple your banking details? Tough luck.
Platforms that don't give users an escape hatch to run their own software have nothing to stop them from abusing their users. They will abuse their users' privacy just as much as they will abuse their users' wallets.
Do you want to get your location without Apple also getting your location? You can't. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25355587
Do you want to install an app on your device without telling Apple? You can't.
Do you want to build apps for your own device and not have to reinstall them weekly without telling Apple your banking details? Tough luck.
Platforms that don't give users an escape hatch to run their own software have nothing to stop them from abusing their users. They will abuse their users' privacy just as much as they will abuse their users' wallets.
wait until you hear about Apple Ads then.
Didn’t iAds fail because they weren’t invasive enough?
Look, you make a ton of valid points. If you like the walled garden, enjoy it.
Thing is, Apple and Google both offer the exact same benefits. They approve what gets published, they listen to complaints, they control some aspects of how you are allowed to code for their platforms. They lock you into their payment processor and they take a cut.
The difference is that if I want out of that comfy, protected walled garden, I have to do different things to get out.
On Android, I go to my security settings, enable third party sources, and then download alternative app store APKs from sites like Amazon and F-Droid. The garden isn't a jail.
On iOS, I either have to sideload software via my lighting cable in developer mode, or "jailbreak" (the garden is a jail) the operating system using third party hacks allowing me to install from new sources.
And sure, rooting Android or iOS is typically a hacky chore, but at least the Android rooting tool is published by Google.
Thing is, Apple and Google both offer the exact same benefits. They approve what gets published, they listen to complaints, they control some aspects of how you are allowed to code for their platforms. They lock you into their payment processor and they take a cut.
The difference is that if I want out of that comfy, protected walled garden, I have to do different things to get out.
On Android, I go to my security settings, enable third party sources, and then download alternative app store APKs from sites like Amazon and F-Droid. The garden isn't a jail.
On iOS, I either have to sideload software via my lighting cable in developer mode, or "jailbreak" (the garden is a jail) the operating system using third party hacks allowing me to install from new sources.
And sure, rooting Android or iOS is typically a hacky chore, but at least the Android rooting tool is published by Google.
There's a big difference between
* rooting the phone with an exploit
* rooting the phone with a modified boot image from original firmware (is this even possible any more?)
* installing a new ROM that allows root access
I think if I rooted my Note 9 it would permanently mark the phone as having been "tampered with", and at least on a 3rd party ROM I'd lose Samsung/Google Pay
* rooting the phone with an exploit
* rooting the phone with a modified boot image from original firmware (is this even possible any more?)
* installing a new ROM that allows root access
I think if I rooted my Note 9 it would permanently mark the phone as having been "tampered with", and at least on a 3rd party ROM I'd lose Samsung/Google Pay
One might say that the fact that Android offers this alternative, means Apple shouldn’t be forced to provide it.
> I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite.
Then you are blindfolded. Many companies refuse to build for ios or charge more because of it. This isn't theory, it's fact supported by those companies and even the smallest amount of applied reason.
> I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away. I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her.
Apple is spying on you. Perhaps you missed the bit where they phone home with every app that you open, thereby fingerprinting and tracking you.
> I like that developers aren’t allowed to use their own payment processors. I don’t want to input my credit card into your black box payment system that might or might not charge me correctly.
This is a nice feature, but consumer choice exists. don't like it, don't use apps that require a different payment processor.
> I see that it does harm developers, but that’s a different conversation entirely.
It's really not. If the people making the apps lose, that's a problem.
> If you want to install whatever apps you want, buy an android phone! And have fun while their bloat ware and preinstalled crap spams you with notifications and scams you.
No thanks, I like my apple integrations but I also want to install what I want.
Then you are blindfolded. Many companies refuse to build for ios or charge more because of it. This isn't theory, it's fact supported by those companies and even the smallest amount of applied reason.
> I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away. I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her.
Apple is spying on you. Perhaps you missed the bit where they phone home with every app that you open, thereby fingerprinting and tracking you.
> I like that developers aren’t allowed to use their own payment processors. I don’t want to input my credit card into your black box payment system that might or might not charge me correctly.
This is a nice feature, but consumer choice exists. don't like it, don't use apps that require a different payment processor.
> I see that it does harm developers, but that’s a different conversation entirely.
It's really not. If the people making the apps lose, that's a problem.
> If you want to install whatever apps you want, buy an android phone! And have fun while their bloat ware and preinstalled crap spams you with notifications and scams you.
No thanks, I like my apple integrations but I also want to install what I want.
It's not really significant that Apple was able to halve their fees, because the segment of developers for which the halving applies is responsible for a minimal amount of actual profit.
> The fact they were able to quickly halve their fee due to public sentiment and some lawmakers sniffing around means that competition was not working to even that out to costs plus some profit already
Apple's scheme was basically a flat tax but clearly they determined they could make it progressive with minimal effects on revenue. They could go even further if they wanted to: since the top 98% of apps supposedly account for 95% of revenue, Apple could basically eliminate fees entirely for the bottom 98% without greatly affecting their bottom line.
It's somewhat like how 96% of the US income tax is paid by the top 50% of taxpayers. So income tax for the lower 50% could be reduced drastically with minimal effects on revenue. A gradual/progressive tax scheme is more desirable than a strict step function to avoid weird paradoxes where your net income can go down even as your gross income increases (which is a problem with the Apple scheme.)
Regardless, having some entry fee (e.g. $99 developer membership) is probably helpful for reducing spam apps.
Apple's scheme was basically a flat tax but clearly they determined they could make it progressive with minimal effects on revenue. They could go even further if they wanted to: since the top 98% of apps supposedly account for 95% of revenue, Apple could basically eliminate fees entirely for the bottom 98% without greatly affecting their bottom line.
It's somewhat like how 96% of the US income tax is paid by the top 50% of taxpayers. So income tax for the lower 50% could be reduced drastically with minimal effects on revenue. A gradual/progressive tax scheme is more desirable than a strict step function to avoid weird paradoxes where your net income can go down even as your gross income increases (which is a problem with the Apple scheme.)
Regardless, having some entry fee (e.g. $99 developer membership) is probably helpful for reducing spam apps.
Have you ever published an app to Android?
That is madness - there are like 7 stores not counting official Google Play. Each has their own APIs, SDKs etc. All you do for weeks is basically update and build apks for each store, they get rejected or you find a bug later and again.
From the development point of view 1 store at saves a huge amount of time.
I am all for open platform, low fees etc. But I am against a billion store apps.
And why would consumers want 10 store apps? And then search the app you want in each of them? I really doubt that.
Also how many of other stores have resources to check and validate each app? Probably none.
We should push Apple to treat all developers equally, lower fees, etc, but creating a bunch of app stores is not the way. Just integrate all your wishes in the one.
From the development point of view 1 store at saves a huge amount of time.
I am all for open platform, low fees etc. But I am against a billion store apps.
And why would consumers want 10 store apps? And then search the app you want in each of them? I really doubt that.
Also how many of other stores have resources to check and validate each app? Probably none.
We should push Apple to treat all developers equally, lower fees, etc, but creating a bunch of app stores is not the way. Just integrate all your wishes in the one.
You are using an argument for not wanting to publish to more than one store, to defend a position of not wanting there to be more than one store.
Simply because you don't want to use it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. If you don't want to publish anywhere except Play, don't.
Simply because you don't want to use it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. If you don't want to publish anywhere except Play, don't.
If there is enough incentive, OSS devs would create some libraries with common interface across stores.. but there is no incentive, as android's main store is google's.
IMO, the money isn't even the worst problem with the app store. The worst one is that they force you, the app developer, to change your platform, whatever it is, to accommodate ever-changing arbitrary Apple policies. Real-life example: apps getting rejected with the reason that while reviewing, they typed "porn" into the search bar and gasp naked people came up! Your own rules allow it, but Apple won't let you have it. Even if you rate your app 18+. Same goes for all the copyright stuff.
Also funny how Apple keeps trying to spin its insane rules as a universally good thing. Not everyone is a US corporation. Sexuality is a very important part of a person's life. Get over it.
Also funny how Apple keeps trying to spin its insane rules as a universally good thing. Not everyone is a US corporation. Sexuality is a very important part of a person's life. Get over it.
> Even more importantly, they need to allow installation of apps via links without requiring an App Store altogether.
I really don't know about this, or rather I understand why Apple might argue that it's protecting users in addition to its services revenue. As far as I can tell from my mum's Android phone, Facebook has a lucrative business of advertising absolute garbage borderline-malware apps through their Android apps to people who don't know any better. It might be that Apple don't expose the APIs you need to make an iOS device a terrible experience for a user who installs your app at all. But if there are any holes in that walled garden once you drop the app store and review, a lot of iPhones will be a lot worse because Facebook will push horrible stuff at their less savvy users.
I really don't know about this, or rather I understand why Apple might argue that it's protecting users in addition to its services revenue. As far as I can tell from my mum's Android phone, Facebook has a lucrative business of advertising absolute garbage borderline-malware apps through their Android apps to people who don't know any better. It might be that Apple don't expose the APIs you need to make an iOS device a terrible experience for a user who installs your app at all. But if there are any holes in that walled garden once you drop the app store and review, a lot of iPhones will be a lot worse because Facebook will push horrible stuff at their less savvy users.
So, here's the thing: Apple already has this, and has had it for a decade. When large companies want to have an internal app, they go to Apple and buy an enterprise signing certificate, and then you can just download and run the app.
Well, almost - there's two hitches.
1. You have to manually trust the developer before the app will launch, which involves a huge dance of finding the developer trust settings (which are well hidden) and then selecting the developer of the enterprise-signed app 2. Apple will revoke your account if they catch your apps distributing outside of your organization
Technically speaking, there's zero changes Apple has to make in order to allow competition in app distribution. It's all policy. Apple could implement notarization requirements like they did with macOS, and they should, but that doesn't affect the underlying fact that people worried about third-party app distribution are already too late to the party. Here's the thing: plenty of developers abuse the system anyway. But it's extremely obvious and signposted to the user that they're installing a third-party app Apple hasn't reviewed. You aren't going to just click a link on a Facebook ad and suddenly have malware on your phone.
Well, almost - there's two hitches.
1. You have to manually trust the developer before the app will launch, which involves a huge dance of finding the developer trust settings (which are well hidden) and then selecting the developer of the enterprise-signed app 2. Apple will revoke your account if they catch your apps distributing outside of your organization
Technically speaking, there's zero changes Apple has to make in order to allow competition in app distribution. It's all policy. Apple could implement notarization requirements like they did with macOS, and they should, but that doesn't affect the underlying fact that people worried about third-party app distribution are already too late to the party. Here's the thing: plenty of developers abuse the system anyway. But it's extremely obvious and signposted to the user that they're installing a third-party app Apple hasn't reviewed. You aren't going to just click a link on a Facebook ad and suddenly have malware on your phone.
> You aren't going to just click a link on a Facebook ad and suddenly have malware on your phone.
I'm not sure this would be too much of a burden. After all, it wasn't long ago that the Amazon Prime app had to be side loaded on android devices [1]. If the most vulnerable users are presented with "you need this to do what you want, here's how to install it", they'll follow the directions, even if difficult, because everything tech is relatively difficult and convoluted anyways.
[1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/amazon-prime-video-app-finally-av...
I'm not sure this would be too much of a burden. After all, it wasn't long ago that the Amazon Prime app had to be side loaded on android devices [1]. If the most vulnerable users are presented with "you need this to do what you want, here's how to install it", they'll follow the directions, even if difficult, because everything tech is relatively difficult and convoluted anyways.
[1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/amazon-prime-video-app-finally-av...
> allow installation of apps via links without requiring an App Store altogether.
this is the most important aspect. I don't care how big a cut apple takes off the appstore - it's irrelevant what people "think" they should charge, because the cut is going to be determined by a market rate. But this market rate determination requires competition, and the lowest denominator competition is allowing installation from outside app store.
this is the most important aspect. I don't care how big a cut apple takes off the appstore - it's irrelevant what people "think" they should charge, because the cut is going to be determined by a market rate. But this market rate determination requires competition, and the lowest denominator competition is allowing installation from outside app store.
I used Installer.app many many years ago on both my friend's iPhone and my first iPod touch! It was one of the first things I used when fiddling around with mobile platforms as a teenager.
Thank you so much for your awesome work!
Thank you so much for your awesome work!
> Even more importantly, they need to allow installation of apps via links without requiring an App Store altogether.
No thanks. One of the main reasons I have had my whole family switch to iOS over Android over the past decade is that it's idiot proof. I no longer get a call that someone borked their phone because they followed the "unlimited farmville money with this one simple trick" tutorial that opened pandora's malware box.
No thanks. One of the main reasons I have had my whole family switch to iOS over Android over the past decade is that it's idiot proof. I no longer get a call that someone borked their phone because they followed the "unlimited farmville money with this one simple trick" tutorial that opened pandora's malware box.
> borked their phone because they followed the "unlimited farmville money with this one simple trick" tutorial that opened pandora's malware box
You don't need to pretend OS security models haven't improved in the last 10 years. The App Store isn't the only or even the best protection against malware.
You don't need to pretend OS security models haven't improved in the last 10 years. The App Store isn't the only or even the best protection against malware.
Being able to run arbitrary code on iOS means that all of the other, presently secondary platform security protections (such as sandboxing) now become the first line of defense.
That is not something they were designed to do, and I doubt they would hold up. They're just one piece of the puzzle, and were put in place with the expectation that they would always be behind the App Store automated static analysis steps.
The other issues are push and entitlements. Should every app now maintain its own separate push connection to that app's own servers, or are they expected to get APNS certs from Apple?
How about feature entitlements? Should competing app store apps be notarized by Apple via developer ID, or should running anything, able to access anything (such as installing covert spyware that installs a systemwide spying VPN) be allowed?
There are probably more I haven't even thought of, yet. Maybe "free" apps that you pay for by letting it use your iCloud storage and bandwidth to put you in some giant replicated storage botnet? There are probably all sorts of avenues for abuse of bundled cloud services that open up when Apple can't reject abusive apps that users would otherwise voluntarily install.
That is not something they were designed to do, and I doubt they would hold up. They're just one piece of the puzzle, and were put in place with the expectation that they would always be behind the App Store automated static analysis steps.
The other issues are push and entitlements. Should every app now maintain its own separate push connection to that app's own servers, or are they expected to get APNS certs from Apple?
How about feature entitlements? Should competing app store apps be notarized by Apple via developer ID, or should running anything, able to access anything (such as installing covert spyware that installs a systemwide spying VPN) be allowed?
There are probably more I haven't even thought of, yet. Maybe "free" apps that you pay for by letting it use your iCloud storage and bandwidth to put you in some giant replicated storage botnet? There are probably all sorts of avenues for abuse of bundled cloud services that open up when Apple can't reject abusive apps that users would otherwise voluntarily install.
You know what is really idiot proof? Cheap Nokia phones. They work very well for people not well-versed in technology. You can even buy a separate digital camera with the money saved.
There are many purchase options if you want a new phone. One of those options, and not the largest selling option, is a product from Apple that requires that you use their app store, and follow certain rules. If you do not like this product, then there are literally far more non-apple products to choose from. There are both for more non-apple options, and there are far more of those sold worldwide. The demand you are making is already addressed by the market. The majority of phone manufacturers, the majority of phones available to purchase, and the majority of phones actually sold world-wide all work the way you want. But, no, it must be all of them for you to be satisfied!
You are on the one hand saying that Apple is bad because it 100% insists on doing what it wants, and yet you are the one demanding that 100% of phone manufacturers do what you want. Well that's not ok. Go buy one of the alternatives please, and leave us with our intolerable, despotic iphones.
You are on the one hand saying that Apple is bad because it 100% insists on doing what it wants, and yet you are the one demanding that 100% of phone manufacturers do what you want. Well that's not ok. Go buy one of the alternatives please, and leave us with our intolerable, despotic iphones.
This isn’t about the control over users, but the app market.
Saying just buy a different phone misses the pony entirely. I, as a developer, have no control over what phone you, as a user, buy.
Saying just buy a different phone misses the pony entirely. I, as a developer, have no control over what phone you, as a user, buy.
>This isn’t about the control over users, but the app market.
On the contrary. I, a user, want a phone that is locked down. You are demanding that the government force Apple to stop making that phone. You are demanding that no such phone is allowed to exist: that the government steps in to remove that choice for me.
>I, as a developer, have no control over what phone you, as a user, buy.
No, you don't. And you shouldn't have. But you are trying to make that a moot point by demanding the government prevents me from buying the phone I want. You are trying to assert control over the choice of features of the phones I am allowed to buy.
And your propaganda is that you are all about freedom of choice.
On the contrary. I, a user, want a phone that is locked down. You are demanding that the government force Apple to stop making that phone. You are demanding that no such phone is allowed to exist: that the government steps in to remove that choice for me.
>I, as a developer, have no control over what phone you, as a user, buy.
No, you don't. And you shouldn't have. But you are trying to make that a moot point by demanding the government prevents me from buying the phone I want. You are trying to assert control over the choice of features of the phones I am allowed to buy.
And your propaganda is that you are all about freedom of choice.
Just because you want something doesn’t make it legal.
Smartphones are more PCs than PCs now - Apple and others OS makers shouldn't be even allowed to run "app stores"!
As a developer I don't want to publish my app to different stores. Each new publish costs days and thousands of dollars in time. Also development becomes much more expensive. And usually those stores have pure garbage of an APIs.
As a consumer I don't want to search an app I need in 5 stores. It is a pure waste of time and I have much better things to do.
Fix existing store? Sure.
Let it rain with new stores, so to speak? No.
As a consumer I don't want to search an app I need in 5 stores. It is a pure waste of time and I have much better things to do.
Fix existing store? Sure.
Let it rain with new stores, so to speak? No.
I don't understand why do you think that app stores are something that is even needed?
I can see both sides.
I like that apps have to pass review before being allowed on the platform, and those low-level API's are to protect users - you just don't see the "stealing all your personal data" or "mining bitcoin without telling you" apps that you do on other app stores.
I like that apps have to pass review before being allowed on the platform, and those low-level API's are to protect users - you just don't see the "stealing all your personal data" or "mining bitcoin without telling you" apps that you do on other app stores.
Installer.app was awesome. I remember the first App Store release, it was sooooo similar :)
Do you have any anecdote or story to share about Installer.app or more in general the iOS 1.0 era?
Sorry, I can’t co-sign this. My mom and dad use iPhones. Last week I overheard them giving each other advice on ‘That email about the IRS, I learned it was a scam, don’t open it’. They are extremely vulnerable, everything looks official to them if it comes in an email.
I don’t want links installing jack shit on their phone ever. There are scummy apps already on the App Store that can enable a vpn and route all your traffic through their servers, and people like my parents won’t know any better.
The walled garden is important for them. For the rest of us, we can switch to another phone.
I don’t want links installing jack shit on their phone ever. There are scummy apps already on the App Store that can enable a vpn and route all your traffic through their servers, and people like my parents won’t know any better.
The walled garden is important for them. For the rest of us, we can switch to another phone.
Except there aren’t many options for devices right now. It’s either Google spying on you or Apple babying you.
More importantly, means that as developers your distribution options are severely limited.
Let them buy another phone, or let Apple ship open and closed variants, or bury a switch in settings.
More importantly, means that as developers your distribution options are severely limited.
Let them buy another phone, or let Apple ship open and closed variants, or bury a switch in settings.
Ahh AppTapp Installer, those were the days. I had a tweak[0] up on your store way back when :)
Thank you for being one of the pioneers of the Jailbreak community!
[0] http://iphone.nudge.id.au/Cello/
Thank you for being one of the pioneers of the Jailbreak community!
[0] http://iphone.nudge.id.au/Cello/
Sure, right, yes! They also should provide us key for the apartment where money are stored.
I don't believe Apple will ever give up their infinite and effectively zero-cost source of free dough. They badly need it to justify their senseless valuation, not to mention growth.
I don't believe Apple will ever give up their infinite and effectively zero-cost source of free dough. They badly need it to justify their senseless valuation, not to mention growth.
> I think Apple should either charge considerably less than they do for distribution via their App Stores
The biggest problem for many people is not the %, but the rules and limitations of the platform that comes from Apple being the intermediary between devs and users.
For example, game streaming services should exist on the app store. It is preposterous that apple rejects these apps. They are actively harming thier own platform, making it less featureful by doing this.
Being this intermediary is both a pro and a con for both devs and users, but they disallow anyone else to innovate on the platform. If Apple is so confident that their IAP is what users prefer, then they should give users (and developers) the choice and let the market speak!
The biggest problem for many people is not the %, but the rules and limitations of the platform that comes from Apple being the intermediary between devs and users.
For example, game streaming services should exist on the app store. It is preposterous that apple rejects these apps. They are actively harming thier own platform, making it less featureful by doing this.
Being this intermediary is both a pro and a con for both devs and users, but they disallow anyone else to innovate on the platform. If Apple is so confident that their IAP is what users prefer, then they should give users (and developers) the choice and let the market speak!
They don’t actually reject game streaming services. They just reject game streaming storefronts. They have already said they are fine with streaming games, as long as each title is in the App Store.
Which is unfeasable for game streaming services, so in practice they do reject any game streaming service that functions as consumers expect them to.
It was a deliberate decision that was made to make it highly impractical to actually do. GeForce now has over 2000 games available to stream - do they actually expect Nvidia to submit 2000 apps? From a dev-infra POV that’s obviously largely impractical. Would Apple even allow that?
It’s also a baffling from the user’s point of view. What happens a single game is available on multiple platforms? I search for “Destiny 2” on the App Store and there’s 3 different listings for it on Stadia, GeForce Now and Xbox GPU.
Would it be reasonable for Apple to require Netflix to submit each movie and TV show to the App Store, and then say "no no, we do allow streaming tv!"
It was a deliberate decision that was made to make it highly impractical to actually do. GeForce now has over 2000 games available to stream - do they actually expect Nvidia to submit 2000 apps? From a dev-infra POV that’s obviously largely impractical. Would Apple even allow that?
It’s also a baffling from the user’s point of view. What happens a single game is available on multiple platforms? I search for “Destiny 2” on the App Store and there’s 3 different listings for it on Stadia, GeForce Now and Xbox GPU.
Would it be reasonable for Apple to require Netflix to submit each movie and TV show to the App Store, and then say "no no, we do allow streaming tv!"
Does Nvidia even have the proper licenses to do that? Seems like one thing to stream the games vs. upload the standalone apps to the store (implying they are available in full-featured form).
> It’s also a baffling from the user’s point of view. What happens a single game is available on multiple platforms? I search for “Destiny 2” on the App Store and there’s 3 different listings for it on Stadia, GeForce Now and Xbox GPU.
this is gross...
> It’s also a baffling from the user’s point of view. What happens a single game is available on multiple platforms? I search for “Destiny 2” on the App Store and there’s 3 different listings for it on Stadia, GeForce Now and Xbox GPU.
this is gross...
> GeForce now has over 2000 games available to stream - do they actually expect Nvidia to submit 2000 apps? From a dev-infra POV that’s obviously largely impractical.
This isn’t impractical – it’s entirely possible to set up a build / deploy pipeline to the App Store for mass submission of applications. It’s annoying in places, but Apple are slowly getting better at providing APIs to make this easier, and there are third-party tools like Fastlane which also help.
> Would Apple even allow that?
If they were all instances of a single white-labelled streaming application, Apple would probably require the games to be published using developer accounts belonging to the rights holders for the games instead of publishing everything through an Nvidia account. This is an established requirement in those circumstances. It depends upon how they view the ownership of what is being published. Again, setting up a pipeline for this is annoying but doable.
This isn’t impractical – it’s entirely possible to set up a build / deploy pipeline to the App Store for mass submission of applications. It’s annoying in places, but Apple are slowly getting better at providing APIs to make this easier, and there are third-party tools like Fastlane which also help.
> Would Apple even allow that?
If they were all instances of a single white-labelled streaming application, Apple would probably require the games to be published using developer accounts belonging to the rights holders for the games instead of publishing everything through an Nvidia account. This is an established requirement in those circumstances. It depends upon how they view the ownership of what is being published. Again, setting up a pipeline for this is annoying but doable.
Obviously it’s possible to build a pipeline for mass submission of apps.
However it’s not so obvious how Apple would manage the review process with the sudden changes in volume this would produce.
However it’s not so obvious how Apple would manage the review process with the sudden changes in volume this would produce.
There are two million applications on the App Store. An extra few thousand wouldn’t be such a big change in volume that Apple would be unable to cope.
The absolute number of apps isn’t the issue. It’s the rate at which new ones are added that matters.
Many of those apps are old and simple.
2000 new games at once would be a significant volume change.
Many of those apps are old and simple.
2000 new games at once would be a significant volume change.
So now you need a build farm of Macs to submit 2000 updates to <= 2000 developers accounts every time the host streaming app needs to be updated?
This is impractical, considering the alternative.
This is impractical, considering the alternative.
It takes a few minutes to inject a config into a build and re-sign it, plus it’s easily parallel. This is not impractical. Annoying, yes.
Guess who makes it hard to submit many templated apps in an automated fashion? You guessed it, it's Apple.
Given that they claim to individually review each app within a short timeframe, a bulk upload would make it impractical for them to provide this service.
> Given that they claim to individually review each app within a short timeframe, a bulk upload would make it impractical for them to provide this service.
And they do a super good job at reviewing apps, right? /s
And they do a super good job at reviewing apps, right? /s
I knew someone would make this comment, but sarcasm aside, you don’t seem to be disagreeing.
I am not agreeing with you, sorry. If they made good reviews, impartial reviews I could agree with you, but the way they do it nowadays could mostly be automatized (or at least do in a bulk, this is essentially what they do anyway in terms of quality).
Then they shouldn’t require it by creating stupid rules that require submitting hundreds of largely identifiable apps.
Sounds a lot like those game streaming services are just an end run around the App Store.
In any case it seems like the point is moot now because streaming games will be delivered to iOS via the web.
In any case it seems like the point is moot now because streaming games will be delivered to iOS via the web.
Would that not be analogous to them requiring Netflix or Amazon Prime Video having to list all of their videos one by one in Apple TV? I can buy that for games that you purchase through another storefront, but not for something like XBox Games Pass which gives you access to a number of games for one monthly fee.
That’s awesome that you made that!
I am not well versed in this area but why does apple “need” to do that? that would hurt them. more like everyone else needs apple to do that because they’re profiting off of our backs. so the last thing apple needs is to hurt themselves.
just curious why you phrased it like that.
I am not well versed in this area but why does apple “need” to do that? that would hurt them. more like everyone else needs apple to do that because they’re profiting off of our backs. so the last thing apple needs is to hurt themselves.
just curious why you phrased it like that.
Need can also express an obligation, not just something that is required by someone but also of someone.
But under the dynamics of capitalism, they are everything _but_ obligated to do so.
Yes, they are not literally already obligated to do so by law or economics. But GP is clearly using it as a rhetorical device to express their manifesto: we (society) should 'need' Apple to do X (for the good of society), or whatever.
Ringtones were the first app store.
The apps were not Turing complete, but you could download them and run them on your phone.
Very lucrative business.
The apps were not Turing complete, but you could download them and run them on your phone.
Very lucrative business.
Wosniak or Jobs?
Installer.app and Cydia were before Apple App Store?!
Yeah, I remember people jailbreaking iOS 1 and installing various goodies. Then I remember getting an iPod Touch and a Mac Mini when (I think it was) iOS 2 came out add the SDK and app store so that I could try developing on their platform.
Well, it was technically going to be iPhone OS 1.2, but with the second beta, they changed it to 2.0. It didn’t become iOS until the iPhone 4 and version 4.0.
Sure... Also technically, I think they called it something different on the iPod Touch as well, if memory serves me right. :)
Yup, at the time, Steve Jobs was going full bore into web apps. He actually fought against having an app store for a bit.
The primary fear is getting kicked off because Apple said so.
The fees might suck, but the concern is spending a year on an app only to be denied or lose it once you gain popularity.
The fees might suck, but the concern is spending a year on an app only to be denied or lose it once you gain popularity.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Thank you very much Cydia!
I was hoping for so long that something like that would come.
I'm always stunned that antitrust authorities do nothing on this topic where in my opinion they should have reacted a long time ago.
I see a lot of people here saying that Apple monopoly is good because they pay to maintain their app store and for the security of the users blablablah.
But no one said that they can't continue their app store with the conditions that they want on it, just it would be fair that any one be able to run competitors app stores with their conditions and the same possibilities as the official one. It's not like anyone will be forced to use another appstore if he wants to stay on apple one for security!
Now, apple world is like if we were living in north korea: we are such morons that the party has to decide everything for us, and finally to their own benefit!
I'm always stunned that antitrust authorities do nothing on this topic where in my opinion they should have reacted a long time ago.
I see a lot of people here saying that Apple monopoly is good because they pay to maintain their app store and for the security of the users blablablah.
But no one said that they can't continue their app store with the conditions that they want on it, just it would be fair that any one be able to run competitors app stores with their conditions and the same possibilities as the official one. It's not like anyone will be forced to use another appstore if he wants to stay on apple one for security!
Now, apple world is like if we were living in north korea: we are such morons that the party has to decide everything for us, and finally to their own benefit!
> > It’s not like anyone will be forced to use another AppStore if he wants to stay on the apple one for security!
Up until some app you need moves to another store. Then the choice becomes do without or use another app store to get what you need. I don't want to have to shop for iOS apps at the Amazon, Google, and Microsoft stores, each with their own app policies, billing systems, etc... not to mention some other AppStores from some vendors I've never heard of.
For as much as Facebook gets beat up the reality is, it is still popular with people like my parents and other family members. Right now Facebook is not happy about the coming tracking restrictions that Apple wants to apply. Do we not think that Facebook would be the first app to jump ship to a place where Apple rules won't apply to them and drag a lot of people with them into these new AppStores? For some people saying you can't use the Facebook or some other social media app is not an answer.
I am not torn on this at all and that's coming from someone who makes the majority of their income from selling iOS apps. Don't get me wrong I'm happy to only have to pay 15% now rather than 30% but for me, that is still worth the cost for what I get from the overall experience of making and selling apps for iOS and knowing that someone is looking out for my interests as an iOS user.
edit: typos
Up until some app you need moves to another store. Then the choice becomes do without or use another app store to get what you need. I don't want to have to shop for iOS apps at the Amazon, Google, and Microsoft stores, each with their own app policies, billing systems, etc... not to mention some other AppStores from some vendors I've never heard of.
For as much as Facebook gets beat up the reality is, it is still popular with people like my parents and other family members. Right now Facebook is not happy about the coming tracking restrictions that Apple wants to apply. Do we not think that Facebook would be the first app to jump ship to a place where Apple rules won't apply to them and drag a lot of people with them into these new AppStores? For some people saying you can't use the Facebook or some other social media app is not an answer.
I am not torn on this at all and that's coming from someone who makes the majority of their income from selling iOS apps. Don't get me wrong I'm happy to only have to pay 15% now rather than 30% but for me, that is still worth the cost for what I get from the overall experience of making and selling apps for iOS and knowing that someone is looking out for my interests as an iOS user.
edit: typos
How would you feel if Apple copied your app, and got to keep 100% of the profits while charging you 30%?
See: Spotify.
See: Spotify.
It's a stretch to say that Apple copied Spotify when they had already cornered the online music market years before they released the iPhone - Apple Music is just a subscription to that library of music (of course, licensing prohibiting some songs from being on it).
They've done it to far more companies than just spotify.
I'd feel about the same as I would if anyone copied my apps and took away business from me - not happy.
But if you're trying to point out that it is somehow unfair that Apple has a special position that they can do this and not pay 30% to anyone, well what makes you think that I can move to another iOS app store and compete with their version in their app store by going somewhere else? I certainly don't think I would fair very well. Another AppStore doesn't change that reality.
So are you suggesting that Apple should not be allow to develop and sell apps they make (even if they are doing what my apps do)?
Anyone can always come along and build a better/cheaper mousetrap than I have, that's just reality.
But if you're trying to point out that it is somehow unfair that Apple has a special position that they can do this and not pay 30% to anyone, well what makes you think that I can move to another iOS app store and compete with their version in their app store by going somewhere else? I certainly don't think I would fair very well. Another AppStore doesn't change that reality.
So are you suggesting that Apple should not be allow to develop and sell apps they make (even if they are doing what my apps do)?
Anyone can always come along and build a better/cheaper mousetrap than I have, that's just reality.
I think there’s a case to be made you might do better if you could offer your product for cheaper on an alternate app store. Price is a powerful incentive and if you offered it at, say, 6.99/mo instead of 9.99/mo that could bring many folks over.
I don't understand why you should get all you want. Your demands are unreasonable.
And the fragmentation has already happened anyway; Most lucrative services are mostly web-only, including Amazon and new cloud gaming services.
And the fragmentation has already happened anyway; Most lucrative services are mostly web-only, including Amazon and new cloud gaming services.
> It’s not like anyone will be forced to use another AppStore if he wants to stay on the apple one for security!
That’s exactly what is happening on PC gaming right now. Every game comes with it’s own AppStore (or similar bunch of extra software).
I’m torn on this. I do agree with users having more choice, but I also see the huge value of Apple being able to protect user’s privacy and security by having a tight control of the AppStore.
That’s exactly what is happening on PC gaming right now. Every game comes with it’s own AppStore (or similar bunch of extra software).
I’m torn on this. I do agree with users having more choice, but I also see the huge value of Apple being able to protect user’s privacy and security by having a tight control of the AppStore.
Back in ye olden days, apps either shipped with their own updater, or shipped with no updater.
If my understanding of the history is right, that's how Steam was born. A unified update tool for Valve's games. It was pretty cool that all my Valve games were managed in one place! "I wish every company did this!". While it was nice that there was really only one primary place for games (Steam) for a while. And it's really nice when most games can be acquired in one or two places. I think the landscape has changed and "download managers" and their glorified counter part "app stores" are much more common... at least the worst case scenario is what I once wished... "Every company/publisher has their own App Store"
Just my two cents.
If my understanding of the history is right, that's how Steam was born. A unified update tool for Valve's games. It was pretty cool that all my Valve games were managed in one place! "I wish every company did this!". While it was nice that there was really only one primary place for games (Steam) for a while. And it's really nice when most games can be acquired in one or two places. I think the landscape has changed and "download managers" and their glorified counter part "app stores" are much more common... at least the worst case scenario is what I once wished... "Every company/publisher has their own App Store"
Just my two cents.
Competition is key though. Plenty of publishers know that ditching established installers and app stores comes with a price, and so publishing or at least co-publishing on steam/epic/gog/etc is pretty important.
And the consumer experience isn't great when jumping between games during the day means opening 3 different launchers and having them constantly run in the background if you don't manually close them.
I've said this before: if Epic wins the lawsuit, you're going to either see the Epic launcher show up on Xbox, Playstation, and Switch or Epic's going to 'negotiate' with those publishers to get an extra 15% (or more) cut of sales.
I've said this before: if Epic wins the lawsuit, you're going to either see the Epic launcher show up on Xbox, Playstation, and Switch or Epic's going to 'negotiate' with those publishers to get an extra 15% (or more) cut of sales.
I’d rather have that than the current situation on mobile where because of the 30% cut, every game is littered with ads or pay to win tactics to increase their margins. The situation for games on desktop and console and handheld portable consoles is leaps and bounds better than mobile.
I don’t see how a launcher would need to be allowed. Only a new store to purchase. Xbox, PlayStation, etc. could have some policy still that says that when you launch a game it must not spawn any persistent background service or that it must launch directly without a launcher.
Right but to me that seems like a good thing. In fact, don't you think it is a little bit risky to have all your games in the steam library, protected by DRM? What if steam stops being around?
Having different stores also forces these publishers to be more creative to get people on their platforms, see the weekly free games in the Epic Games Launcher.
If there was no competition, there wouldn't be the possibility to buy DRM free games on GOG for example.
Having different stores also forces these publishers to be more creative to get people on their platforms, see the weekly free games in the Epic Games Launcher.
If there was no competition, there wouldn't be the possibility to buy DRM free games on GOG for example.
[deleted]
Not just their privacy, but also their financial details.
With multiple app stores Apple will lose some ability to force app vendors to follow good privacy practices. For example, if Facebook violates Apple’s privacy policy now they can’t be on iOS. In a world of multiple stores Facebook can just move themselves to a 3rd party store. The current set up makes it so that Facebook is available AND they are limited in how much information they can siphon off from you.
If it becomes the norm to use app stores that enforce no standards, then a lot of the privacy protections for using iOS will be gone.
If it becomes the norm to use app stores that enforce no standards, then a lot of the privacy protections for using iOS will be gone.
As long as the Apple appstore rules and support are reasonable, there's going to be a balance where being in the default appstore is very profitable / better than potential gain from use abuse. Phrased differently, if it becomes Apple's goal to be the appstore of choice for publishers and the safest option for customers, we all win.
Apple will always have control over what the apps can ultimately do using their APIs. If they don't expose "read all contacts without explicit confirmation" then even third party store apps won't be able to achieve that.
Apple will always have control over what the apps can ultimately do using their APIs. If they don't expose "read all contacts without explicit confirmation" then even third party store apps won't be able to achieve that.
I understand your argument, but it considers that Apple is a philanthropic altruistic entity, that has only your best interest in mind when deciding for its "rules".
But, Apple (same as Google) are companies and not foundations. Their only "legal" purpose is to maximize the return on investment for their shareholders.
Take your example, and imagine that it is Facebook the gatekeeper of the unique store?
And if the App Store has so much "privacy" value, why do you think that people will accept to install another AppStore? So, there is no risk of the problem that you describe.
Still, if it is not the case, and people don't care, who is Apple to decide what is good and what is bad for people?
And you see positively their action mostly based on their marketing propaganda, ie that they protect and take care of you. But, for real, they will not hesitate to censor apps or features that are competitors to them, or that threaten their revenues.
And worse, so far they are all scared of possible antitrust issues, but otherwise, the day they will have all the market locked, they will racket everyone as much as possible.
Think about it, some people say that the current appstore "fees" are rights because they need to pay for the service and co. But now, look at Apple financials, their margins, and you can see that very few companies in the world have their level of wealth with hundreds of billions of cash pilling up!
Also, one day, the boss of the company can decide that anything he don't like (ex. Blue candies) will be banned. And the world would have to accept it unilaterally.
To conclude, I would like to paste this nice quote that I just saw on internet:
<< ‘The main effects of monopoly are to misallocate resources, to reduce aggregate welfare, and to redistribute income in favour of monopolists.’ (Harberger, 1954: 2) >>
But, Apple (same as Google) are companies and not foundations. Their only "legal" purpose is to maximize the return on investment for their shareholders.
Take your example, and imagine that it is Facebook the gatekeeper of the unique store?
And if the App Store has so much "privacy" value, why do you think that people will accept to install another AppStore? So, there is no risk of the problem that you describe.
Still, if it is not the case, and people don't care, who is Apple to decide what is good and what is bad for people?
And you see positively their action mostly based on their marketing propaganda, ie that they protect and take care of you. But, for real, they will not hesitate to censor apps or features that are competitors to them, or that threaten their revenues.
And worse, so far they are all scared of possible antitrust issues, but otherwise, the day they will have all the market locked, they will racket everyone as much as possible.
Think about it, some people say that the current appstore "fees" are rights because they need to pay for the service and co. But now, look at Apple financials, their margins, and you can see that very few companies in the world have their level of wealth with hundreds of billions of cash pilling up!
Also, one day, the boss of the company can decide that anything he don't like (ex. Blue candies) will be banned. And the world would have to accept it unilaterally.
To conclude, I would like to paste this nice quote that I just saw on internet:
<< ‘The main effects of monopoly are to misallocate resources, to reduce aggregate welfare, and to redistribute income in favour of monopolists.’ (Harberger, 1954: 2) >>
> Take your example, and imagine that it is Facebook the gatekeeper of the unique store?
Key point: Apple isn’t Facebook, and Apple has made it a key of their marketing that they are protecting their user’s privacy. This isn’t a fact that you can gloss over as if they are equivalent companies seeking only profit. Notably, if Apple ceases to protect my privacy, I can move to another platform (one that won’t protect it either, but what can you do?).
Key point: Apple isn’t Facebook, and Apple has made it a key of their marketing that they are protecting their user’s privacy. This isn’t a fact that you can gloss over as if they are equivalent companies seeking only profit. Notably, if Apple ceases to protect my privacy, I can move to another platform (one that won’t protect it either, but what can you do?).
> Still, if it is not the case, and people don't care, who is Apple to decide what is good and what is bad for people?
I have relinquished that decision to them. There's obviously no market research in this topic but the fact that people only go to the App Store to download apps and need an iCloud account to do so makes it pretty apparent that Apple is running things on their phone. People don't see that as a problem but only because it hasn't directly impacted them, or it has only impacted them in a way that is, in itself, disingenuous (ie piracy) or otherwise not something <society> would back them up on (the break from that being Epic Games' lawsuit where they were removed for offering direct payment - society/their player base is indeed going "yay Epic" and supporting them).
I have relinquished that decision to them. There's obviously no market research in this topic but the fact that people only go to the App Store to download apps and need an iCloud account to do so makes it pretty apparent that Apple is running things on their phone. People don't see that as a problem but only because it hasn't directly impacted them, or it has only impacted them in a way that is, in itself, disingenuous (ie piracy) or otherwise not something <society> would back them up on (the break from that being Epic Games' lawsuit where they were removed for offering direct payment - society/their player base is indeed going "yay Epic" and supporting them).
"Privacy" is a set of tradeoffs that different people/companies make differently. People who care about Apple's privacy choices can stick to their store, and forgo apps that aren't there. (Besides, Apple gives Chinese users' data to the CCP. There is no reason to believe that they aren't/won't do the same with other demographics. Apple has both supply and demand ties to the CCP.)
We shouldn’t have to rely on Apple, a private company, to regulate tracking of users. There should be actual regulations protecting us such that we’re not at the whim of Apple.
GDPR and CCPA have made significant impacts on user privacy.
Also, Apple can keep enforcing it at the API level and prevent access to identifiable device information, tighten app sandboxes, etc.
GDPR and CCPA have made significant impacts on user privacy.
Also, Apple can keep enforcing it at the API level and prevent access to identifiable device information, tighten app sandboxes, etc.
While I doubt they can do anything in an antitrust case, they are also dragging their feet on implementing web standards (that have existed in Android for years) so that developers have no alternative but to develop native apps for things that can just as easily be web apps and pay Apple their 30% in the app store.
It seems to me a fairly reasonable piece of legislation to require devices that are quasi-PCs (i.e. the iPhone today is to many what the laptop was 10 years ago) to be able to run software of the users choosing. The manufacturer isn't obligated to do anything beyond providing a stable ground for others to build from.
Beyond the user freedom angle, this could also help reduce e-waste as there will be a niche but functional ecosystem of tools to keep the phone or games console (!) running past it's lifecycle
Beyond the user freedom angle, this could also help reduce e-waste as there will be a niche but functional ecosystem of tools to keep the phone or games console (!) running past it's lifecycle
But why exactly should Apple, or any other company, be forced to have to provide such a model? Why can’t Apple have the freedom to say that they want to build and sell a walled garden, take it or leave it, and let consumers decide if they want it?
The whole notion of what qualifies as a quasi-pc is an incredibly slippery slope. Game consoles would qualify as that and given how the lifetime profitably is made up in game sales, having third party app stores would potentially be ruinous for Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo. The incentive to spend a lot on hardware innovation disappears when the profits are dried up. Legislation based on business practice just gets to the point of being asinine. Should Apple be forced to sell hardware at a loss or near cost in order to have the privilege of having a walled garden?
The user freedom angle here is that people want their walled garden. Personally, I’m happy with the payment security it provides and a decent guarantee of privacy. I’m not sure you realizing that you’re asking for that to be taken away from me and many others who like it how it is.
The whole notion of what qualifies as a quasi-pc is an incredibly slippery slope. Game consoles would qualify as that and given how the lifetime profitably is made up in game sales, having third party app stores would potentially be ruinous for Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo. The incentive to spend a lot on hardware innovation disappears when the profits are dried up. Legislation based on business practice just gets to the point of being asinine. Should Apple be forced to sell hardware at a loss or near cost in order to have the privilege of having a walled garden?
The user freedom angle here is that people want their walled garden. Personally, I’m happy with the payment security it provides and a decent guarantee of privacy. I’m not sure you realizing that you’re asking for that to be taken away from me and many others who like it how it is.
How are gaming consoles good though? They are just normal PCs that are sold cheaper because you can only run authorized software on them, no?
Why? Because it is good for society. That's the only reason we have for a gazillion laws. It's a perfectly good reason.
There's no way for the consumers to decide when there are only two options, especially because those options are not interchangeable.
It's not like some other company can say "I'm going to make a competitor to the iPhone, that can run all of the same iOS apps, but mine will allow third party app stores!".
There's no way for the consumers to decide when there are only two options, especially because those options are not interchangeable.
It's not like some other company can say "I'm going to make a competitor to the iPhone, that can run all of the same iOS apps, but mine will allow third party app stores!".
It could also help proliferate hacking bank accounts and identity theft. People cannot be trusted with computers. They install everything that crosses their path. History has shown that, and has shown that that is a great way to get your malware onto someone's machine. The App Store, whatever you may think of the pricing, successfully prevents that, and it should not be taken away in the name of fake liberty, or someone's commercial interest.
>People cannot be trusted with computers. They install everything that crosses their path.
I think this is a point that people who advocate for breaking down the walls of the Apple garden don't adequately consider. The iPhone is not really comparable to the desktop computer you could do whatever you want with in the 1990s. It's basically an extension of the person, with all their bank, emails, locations, web history. To make it a truly "open" platform, it would open its users -- who trust them -- to these kinds of problems, and would need to somehow solve them for those customers in a way that doesn't run afoul of the "open" aspect that people demand. That's a tightrope that becomes very difficult to walk when the headlines read "Apple app let hackers steal bank details, enable widespread fraud." It doesn't matter that it wasn't an Apple app. It doesn't matter that that App was downloaded on a 3rd party App Store. It doesn't matter that the user tapped through a dialog that said "This is a third party app that doesn't have Apple's protections on it, be careful!" Those are all nuances that are lost in that headline.
It's asking Apple to risk the privacy of their users and their business profits, so that people can have marginally cheaper apps.
I think the only way forward, really, is the model where smaller developers don't have to pay a fee until they reach $1m in sales. That tiered approach seems reasonable; after all, there's no reason to let huge developers off the hook for paying their fair share to keep the system running.
I think this is a point that people who advocate for breaking down the walls of the Apple garden don't adequately consider. The iPhone is not really comparable to the desktop computer you could do whatever you want with in the 1990s. It's basically an extension of the person, with all their bank, emails, locations, web history. To make it a truly "open" platform, it would open its users -- who trust them -- to these kinds of problems, and would need to somehow solve them for those customers in a way that doesn't run afoul of the "open" aspect that people demand. That's a tightrope that becomes very difficult to walk when the headlines read "Apple app let hackers steal bank details, enable widespread fraud." It doesn't matter that it wasn't an Apple app. It doesn't matter that that App was downloaded on a 3rd party App Store. It doesn't matter that the user tapped through a dialog that said "This is a third party app that doesn't have Apple's protections on it, be careful!" Those are all nuances that are lost in that headline.
It's asking Apple to risk the privacy of their users and their business profits, so that people can have marginally cheaper apps.
I think the only way forward, really, is the model where smaller developers don't have to pay a fee until they reach $1m in sales. That tiered approach seems reasonable; after all, there's no reason to let huge developers off the hook for paying their fair share to keep the system running.
Android is already pretty open and the world has not ended.
Let apple make the process of enabling another app store on iphones as convoluted as possible. Require connecting to a computer and throw big scary messages about how it might end up in all the polar bears to eat all the penguins in the world. It would still be ok.
Consumers should have a choice. Apple doesn't have to make it convenient.
This premise assumes a building full of vacuum tubes and the punch cards are two different things.
One immutable set of toggles, and then an infinite variety of suggested settings for those.
It's not clear to me that's as true any more, when, randomly for instance, HEVC is in chips, or iPhones include an ASIC that's actually an FPGA.
This seems to require a new principle, that a device maker may decide how far up the stack their logic goes, regardless of the form in which that logic is represented.
As a check and balance on this, perhaps device makers do not get to retroactively (for a given device) take back intentional open parts of that waterline, as we've seen console makers do with what were deliberate and marketed capabilities, sometimes long after release.
One immutable set of toggles, and then an infinite variety of suggested settings for those.
It's not clear to me that's as true any more, when, randomly for instance, HEVC is in chips, or iPhones include an ASIC that's actually an FPGA.
This seems to require a new principle, that a device maker may decide how far up the stack their logic goes, regardless of the form in which that logic is represented.
As a check and balance on this, perhaps device makers do not get to retroactively (for a given device) take back intentional open parts of that waterline, as we've seen console makers do with what were deliberate and marketed capabilities, sometimes long after release.
> It's not clear to me that's as true any more, when, randomly for instance, HEVC is in chips, or iPhones include an ASIC that's actually an FPGA.
Ignoring that it would be pretty wild if I could actually throw Verilog (Yuck) at my phone, I would draw the line at roughly the OS kernel or at least it's rough outline. The OEM wouldn't be allowed to include any time bombs under that layer, but ultimately the focus is on "day to day" work rather than complete control of the hardware.
Ignoring that it would be pretty wild if I could actually throw Verilog (Yuck) at my phone, I would draw the line at roughly the OS kernel or at least it's rough outline. The OEM wouldn't be allowed to include any time bombs under that layer, but ultimately the focus is on "day to day" work rather than complete control of the hardware.
I hate apps.
I installed this app for Best Buy because I thought it was needed for curbside pickup. Turns out bestbuy.com on my phone has all the same features.
I also have Netflix, Amazon Video and Hulu - but not because I want those apps, but because you can't play their video content in the mobile browser.
But most of the time all apps do is annoy the crap out of me with pointless notifications. And I'm thankful that the latest Android let's me disable notifications for these apps - the entire experience is extremely pro-company, not pro-user. I think apps should die and if you want games get a switch.
I installed this app for Best Buy because I thought it was needed for curbside pickup. Turns out bestbuy.com on my phone has all the same features.
I also have Netflix, Amazon Video and Hulu - but not because I want those apps, but because you can't play their video content in the mobile browser.
But most of the time all apps do is annoy the crap out of me with pointless notifications. And I'm thankful that the latest Android let's me disable notifications for these apps - the entire experience is extremely pro-company, not pro-user. I think apps should die and if you want games get a switch.
You do no know that you can disable notifications on iOS right? Ever since they first added them.
Apps should not die. They provide an infinitely better user experience, battery efficiency and many more capabilities.
To the contrary, web apps should die (or maybe move to a separate medium) as they go against what the web was designed for - web apps are horribly bad for search-ability, archival and accessibility.
Apps should not die. They provide an infinitely better user experience, battery efficiency and many more capabilities.
To the contrary, web apps should die (or maybe move to a separate medium) as they go against what the web was designed for - web apps are horribly bad for search-ability, archival and accessibility.
> web apps are horribly bad for search-ability, archival and accessibility
And iOS apps are somehow better?
Also accessibility is quite good on the web, but I think iOS does a good job here too.
And iOS apps are somehow better?
Also accessibility is quite good on the web, but I think iOS does a good job here too.
iOS apps are searchable with the system search, if they choose to export data to it.
Web apps can be searchable of course, but it’s a lot more work if you can’t just expect Google to index the page.
Web apps can be searchable of course, but it’s a lot more work if you can’t just expect Google to index the page.
I find native apps to consistently be more accessible than web apps.
> Also accessibility is quite good on the web
Most of the apps out there are just webview of a web app.
I would be curious to see your sources on this. Last I checked the overwhelming majority of applications were actually native.
[1] https://insights.dice.com/2018/04/09/ios-developers-app-stor...
[1] https://insights.dice.com/2018/04/09/ios-developers-app-stor...
Those apps, if they exist, are explicitly against Apple's App Store policy.
Usually they don't pass review.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#min...
Usually they don't pass review.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#min...
This section seems to be against repackaging websites, not web apps. People ship Cordova apps all the time.
Apps are the worst. Not everything should be an app.
There's no reason web couldn't continue to be a powerful app platform with full device API access. Rust+WASM+device APIs and you could have Google Maps and Netflix be "native" web apps.
Apps were just an excuse for Jobs to own the iPhone platform. It's why they killed Flash - they didn't want a cross-platform way to develop apps and marginalize their plans.
There's no reason web couldn't continue to be a powerful app platform with full device API access. Rust+WASM+device APIs and you could have Google Maps and Netflix be "native" web apps.
Apps were just an excuse for Jobs to own the iPhone platform. It's why they killed Flash - they didn't want a cross-platform way to develop apps and marginalize their plans.
Sorry to spoil your Apple hate hard-on but your assertions about Flash cross-platform development are patently absurd.
There's easily half a dozen cross-platform frameworks for developing mobile apps. Most emit native code and others target WebKit views.
As for Flash, Jobs didn't want it on the iPhone because the Flash was a shit show. When the iPhone was released Flash Player 9 (with ActionScript 3 and the AVM2) had been out for a year. A vast majority of Flash content was using the older and much shittier AVM1. That content was also 100% developed for WIMP interfaces so there were zero affordances for multitouch or even just having hit boxes sized for fingers instead of cursors.
Even if Steve Jobs loved Flash and ached to have it on the iPhone most content available would have been designed for a minimum of SVGA screen resolution, a cursor, and a desktop processor and RAM and would have not been running in a JIT runtime with zero understanding of app restore states or any iPhone features.
Flash Lite was not a good option either as it did not support web content or run as a plug-in. It also did not have good touch support since most phones it was targeted for didn't have a touchscreen. It was number pad and hardware keys almost exclusively.
So there was very little overlap between the goals of the iPhone and any aspect of Flash. Flash on Android basically proved Steve Jobs right as to the performance of Flash on a smartphone. The UX ended up terrible for most content, it absolutely killed the battery, and its security problems were myriad.
Flash's problem was it sucked anywhere but the desktop. Even then it sucked on laptops as it was a major power drain and/or fan spinner. HTML5 obviated Flash for most of its use cases. Even Adobe eventually realized that and last their Flash authoring tools target HTML5.
There's easily half a dozen cross-platform frameworks for developing mobile apps. Most emit native code and others target WebKit views.
As for Flash, Jobs didn't want it on the iPhone because the Flash was a shit show. When the iPhone was released Flash Player 9 (with ActionScript 3 and the AVM2) had been out for a year. A vast majority of Flash content was using the older and much shittier AVM1. That content was also 100% developed for WIMP interfaces so there were zero affordances for multitouch or even just having hit boxes sized for fingers instead of cursors.
Even if Steve Jobs loved Flash and ached to have it on the iPhone most content available would have been designed for a minimum of SVGA screen resolution, a cursor, and a desktop processor and RAM and would have not been running in a JIT runtime with zero understanding of app restore states or any iPhone features.
Flash Lite was not a good option either as it did not support web content or run as a plug-in. It also did not have good touch support since most phones it was targeted for didn't have a touchscreen. It was number pad and hardware keys almost exclusively.
So there was very little overlap between the goals of the iPhone and any aspect of Flash. Flash on Android basically proved Steve Jobs right as to the performance of Flash on a smartphone. The UX ended up terrible for most content, it absolutely killed the battery, and its security problems were myriad.
Flash's problem was it sucked anywhere but the desktop. Even then it sucked on laptops as it was a major power drain and/or fan spinner. HTML5 obviated Flash for most of its use cases. Even Adobe eventually realized that and last their Flash authoring tools target HTML5.
The funny thing is, all the arguments against Flash on iPhone also apply to HTML on iPhone. Flash and the Web have a concurrent development history. Hell, AS3 almost became JavaScript 2.0 - Adobe even gave Mozilla the AVM2 runtime to replace SpiderMonkey. Conversely, pretty much no website was designed for smartphones before the iPhone. Everything was sized for large screens and had hover content.
The difference is that Apple put a lot of time and effort into making old content work. They wrote dynamic JIT compilers for JavaScript, sliced up webpages into GPU layers, downscaled old content to fit on tiny screens, changed the behavior of hovers so that you could use them with a finger, and added detects for undersized tap targets and form fields. Adobe's approach was to shove all that compatibility work onto the developer. Why make a JIT for AVM1 when you could just make a new version of ECMAScript and make everyone rewrite their movies in AS3? Why embrace GPU rendering and composition when you can just hand people a thin wrapper around OpenGL and tell them to use Starling Framework? Why bother fixing broken hovers when you can just throw more events to the developer to handle?
Like, imagine if Steve Jobs went up on stage and told people that the iPhone would run webapps, but only if people wrote everything in Angular and WebGL. That's kind of what Flash Player was trying to do. Apple knew that you had to get the existing, broken, not mobile-friendly-at-all content up and running first and they they could push through more mobile-friendly web standards. Adobe figured they could just entice developers into writing not-terrible Flash movies and then they'd be allowed on smartphones again.
The difference is that Apple put a lot of time and effort into making old content work. They wrote dynamic JIT compilers for JavaScript, sliced up webpages into GPU layers, downscaled old content to fit on tiny screens, changed the behavior of hovers so that you could use them with a finger, and added detects for undersized tap targets and form fields. Adobe's approach was to shove all that compatibility work onto the developer. Why make a JIT for AVM1 when you could just make a new version of ECMAScript and make everyone rewrite their movies in AS3? Why embrace GPU rendering and composition when you can just hand people a thin wrapper around OpenGL and tell them to use Starling Framework? Why bother fixing broken hovers when you can just throw more events to the developer to handle?
Like, imagine if Steve Jobs went up on stage and told people that the iPhone would run webapps, but only if people wrote everything in Angular and WebGL. That's kind of what Flash Player was trying to do. Apple knew that you had to get the existing, broken, not mobile-friendly-at-all content up and running first and they they could push through more mobile-friendly web standards. Adobe figured they could just entice developers into writing not-terrible Flash movies and then they'd be allowed on smartphones again.
Besides the performance and general UX for Flash on mobile, there's the pretty common pattern of its UX being a dumpster fire on the desktop [0] as well.
For every good use of Flash on web pages there were dozens of UX abortions. Flash sites were rife with mystery meat UIs. They were also accessibility hostile. While you can commit a lot of the same sins on a web page you have to go out of your way to do so.
Besides all of those problems it was also a closed platform like the GP was decrying with Apple's App Store. You can make a web app entirely FOSS with entirely FOSS tools and served from a completely FOSS stack. If you want to avoid any platform lock in it's entirely possible. Flash was the literal opposite until years after it's mobile availability was a meaningful concern.
[0] https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flash-99-percent-bad/
For every good use of Flash on web pages there were dozens of UX abortions. Flash sites were rife with mystery meat UIs. They were also accessibility hostile. While you can commit a lot of the same sins on a web page you have to go out of your way to do so.
Besides all of those problems it was also a closed platform like the GP was decrying with Apple's App Store. You can make a web app entirely FOSS with entirely FOSS tools and served from a completely FOSS stack. If you want to avoid any platform lock in it's entirely possible. Flash was the literal opposite until years after it's mobile availability was a meaningful concern.
[0] https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flash-99-percent-bad/
Apps were just an excuse for Jobs to own the iPhone platform. It's why they killed Flash - they didn't want a cross-platform way to develop apps and marginalize their plans.
This is nonsense as initially Apple was pushing web apps, it actually took a lot of convincing to get them to move to native code. Flash never provided a good user experience.
This is nonsense as initially Apple was pushing web apps, it actually took a lot of convincing to get them to move to native code. Flash never provided a good user experience.
If you believe that Apple ever really intended web apps to be the only apps, I've got a bridge to sell you.
The only reason they released a year earlier than their native app SDK was to get their product out in front of competition that they knew was coming so they could claim they were "first".
The only reason they released a year earlier than their native app SDK was to get their product out in front of competition that they knew was coming so they could claim they were "first".
> product out in front of competition that they knew was coming so they could claim they were "first"
Who was coming? What competition?
They weren't in a race with anyone to release the iPhone. Nobody was even close to what they had with iPhone at the time.
Who was coming? What competition?
They weren't in a race with anyone to release the iPhone. Nobody was even close to what they had with iPhone at the time.
You don't think that completely dismissing the other smartphone makers would have been foolish?
[deleted]
Do you really think Android popped up a year later after the release of the iPhone and nobody knew about its development?
Android didn't start at Google. Google bought them in 2005, three years before the iPhone was released.
Android didn't start at Google. Google bought them in 2005, three years before the iPhone was released.
Prototype Android looked like a BlackBerry.
https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/05/24/android-was-born-on...
https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/05/24/android-was-born-on...
Those were early prototypes. Google didn't make it into a touch interface in a single year.
The exact UI doesn't matter anyway. Apple knew they had something and they knew Google had resources to compete. Don't forget that these companies compete over hiring talent as well.
Apple never, ever planned on only web apps and there's no evidence of that.
The exact UI doesn't matter anyway. Apple knew they had something and they knew Google had resources to compete. Don't forget that these companies compete over hiring talent as well.
Apple never, ever planned on only web apps and there's no evidence of that.
Android was on track to be a Blackberry clone with no touch screen until they got wind of what Apple was up to.
They told people just to make html5 webpages for the first year or so of the iPhone.
The first third party native apps were people who managed to get the gcc toolchain to emit a binary that the iPhone could run.
Then the App Store came out a few months later. Native apps caught on very well over just making html5 sites for iPhone users, because, in a lot of cities, AT&T's network just couldn't support all the users' very well. Even then, you were limited to a max of something like 20 (?).
The first third party native apps were people who managed to get the gcc toolchain to emit a binary that the iPhone could run.
Then the App Store came out a few months later. Native apps caught on very well over just making html5 sites for iPhone users, because, in a lot of cities, AT&T's network just couldn't support all the users' very well. Even then, you were limited to a max of something like 20 (?).
That is also why they are currently preventing competition on web browser engines on iOS, by forcing other browsers to use theirs (webkit). That way they can limit the web app capabilities, by not implementing APIs like the Push API, and make the web look very bad by not fixing bugs.
I'm wondering why Mozilla, amongst other companies, hasn't taken action against this anti-competitive behaviour.
I'm wondering why Mozilla, amongst other companies, hasn't taken action against this anti-competitive behaviour.
Mozilla wins. Apple has to allow other engines on iOS. Most users switch to Chrome. Most developers stop supporting anything else. Mozilla loses.
I don't follow your logic. If a Gecko-based browser could be installed on iOS, there would be more Gecko users, which would mean developers would be slightly more likely to check rendering in Gecko. By what logic would more developers test against Gecko in the status quo. The only losers would be Safari and a good chunk of Apple's "services revenue" for selling the default search engine setting.
I think the argument is that users will install Chrome instead of Mozilla, further pushing up Chrome's market share. Even as Mozilla's share increases slightly, the loss in Safari's will lead to a super-super-majority of Chrome and thus developers not caring about any alternative browsers at all.
It's a good point, but I think some nuance is missing: yes, it's true that if the government was to suddenly direct all of their antitrust ire towards Apple, without providing a similar amount of scrutiny towards the other tech giants, it would serve to give the non-Apple tech giants more power.
They are all behaving anti-competitively in different ways, and they should all be looked at!
They are all behaving anti-competitively in different ways, and they should all be looked at!
I honestly have no idea how to fix the browser market. It’s pretty clear that Apple locking users into Safari is the only reason why Chrome isn’t the only browser that matters…but this is kind of a “sucks both ways” deal.
Well, if we for instance forced Google to spin Chrome into a separate company, I think that would go a long way.
Now Google has much less influence over web standards. Instead of shaping the web to fit the needs of its own products, Google would need to work with whatever the browsers decide to allow.
Independent Chrome, for its part, wouldn't be able to advertise itself all over Google properties for free, and would need to find ways to fund itself. They could strike their own search deals, or maybe even start charging users. Either way, they'd be on a much more level playing field with e.g. Mozilla.
Now Google has much less influence over web standards. Instead of shaping the web to fit the needs of its own products, Google would need to work with whatever the browsers decide to allow.
Independent Chrome, for its part, wouldn't be able to advertise itself all over Google properties for free, and would need to find ways to fund itself. They could strike their own search deals, or maybe even start charging users. Either way, they'd be on a much more level playing field with e.g. Mozilla.
Sure. But Mozilla can't afford fighting Apple until someone reins in Google. And Mozilla can't afford fighting Google without other income.
But they wouldn't care about Gecko-based browsers any less than they do now. They would simply not care about Webkit-based browsers. If anything, the developers who can now use a Gecko-based mobile browser who couldn't before would now care to test it. Meanwhile, Mozilla's job will be easier, only having to target mobile compatibility with one rendering engine.
When a browser has 90+% market share, you can make a credible business argument about why you can ignore every other browser.
When a browser has under X% market share, you can make a credible argument about why you can ignore it. That is happening right now. If developers could use it on their devices, they would be less likely to ignore it.
It's just a very strange argument for justifying Apple abusing its users for search engine revenue.
It's just a very strange argument for justifying Apple abusing its users for search engine revenue.
It's an explanation why Mozilla won't fight Apple harder.
Web developers don't just use 1 or 2 mobile devices they own. They develop with desktops where they could use Firefox. They test with desktops or emulated Android devices where they could use Firefox. They find ways to test Safari even if they don't have anything that can run it. They used to find ways to test IE even if they didn't use Windows.
Web developers don't just use 1 or 2 mobile devices they own. They develop with desktops where they could use Firefox. They test with desktops or emulated Android devices where they could use Firefox. They find ways to test Safari even if they don't have anything that can run it. They used to find ways to test IE even if they didn't use Windows.
They aren't going to go out of their way to emulate mobile Firefox on desktop Firefox, but if they use mobile Firefox as I do and notice bugs on their pages, they will fix them.
Web developers don't just use 1 or 2 mobile devices they own.
Bringing Gecko to a new platform is much harder than wrapping WKWebView.
Bringing Gecko to a new platform is much harder than wrapping WKWebView.
Indeed, say what you will about Safari on iOS, it certainly forces some amount of diversity in the overall browser market.
(I realise this is a controversial opinion but I don’t lament the slower feature release cadence of Safari because IMHO the web is already far too complex and feature rich for its own good.)
(I realise this is a controversial opinion but I don’t lament the slower feature release cadence of Safari because IMHO the web is already far too complex and feature rich for its own good.)
I might be biased as an app developer, but if apps are done properly they can provide a much deeper experience for users. I understand your point that most things can be done in a cross platform manner, however in my 10 years of mobile development experience, cross platform is great for 90% of things, sucks at 5%, and simply cannot do the last 5%. If your tech needs fall into any of the 5's then a native app is simply the better solution.
They killed flash because it was a bug riddled, security nightmare, owned by Adobe, (one of the greediest corporations in existence). I will never understand the flash nostalgia, good riddance.
They killed flash because it was a bug riddled, security nightmare, owned by Adobe, (one of the greediest corporations in existence). I will never understand the flash nostalgia, good riddance.
The biggest flaw with the complaint seems to be the claim that Apple locked down the iPhone as a response to the success of Cydia.
That seems hard to rationalize, given that the iPhone was already locked down before Cydia, and Cydia could only be installed by exploiting a security vulnerability.
It’s true that Apple made jailbreaking harder by fixing vulnerabilities, but you’d expect them to do that for security reasons.
If the iPhone had supported the installation of 3rd party stores, and then Apple had withdrawn this support after launching their own, I think the case would be stronger.
That seems hard to rationalize, given that the iPhone was already locked down before Cydia, and Cydia could only be installed by exploiting a security vulnerability.
It’s true that Apple made jailbreaking harder by fixing vulnerabilities, but you’d expect them to do that for security reasons.
If the iPhone had supported the installation of 3rd party stores, and then Apple had withdrawn this support after launching their own, I think the case would be stronger.
That’s like saying for an antitrust violation to have occurred, the violator must have previously intentionally not been violating.
E.g. Intel can tell PC manufacturers they must not sell AMD devices, if they started with condition when they made their first sale.
I don’t think the courts will buy this argument. What Apple did from Day 0 was anticompetitive.
E.g. Intel can tell PC manufacturers they must not sell AMD devices, if they started with condition when they made their first sale.
I don’t think the courts will buy this argument. What Apple did from Day 0 was anticompetitive.
It’s unclear how it could have been anticompetitive from day zero.
Are you suggesting that all devices capable of running an open operating system must have a way to allow one to be installed?
If so, I can get behind that as an actual law worth supporting, but it doesn’t seem like an anti-trust issue.
Are you suggesting that all devices capable of running an open operating system must have a way to allow one to be installed?
If so, I can get behind that as an actual law worth supporting, but it doesn’t seem like an anti-trust issue.
No, I’m suggesting that a company may be pursued for an antitrust remedy even if they have been in continuous violation of it in the beginning.
The argument I would be making here is that Apple used illegally bundled its app distribution system with its hardware, and used anticompetitive actions to enforce it.
The argument I would be making here is that Apple used illegally bundled its app distribution system with its hardware, and used anticompetitive actions to enforce it.
They didn’t bundle the app distribution system from day 0.
That is part of Saurik’s argument in the legal complaint.
That is part of Saurik’s argument in the legal complaint.
Apple: I can install whatever I want on my laptop, why can’t I do the same on my phone?
Oh, don't worry! They're probably working on it: soon you won't be able to install whatever you want on your laptop.
Just making some unsubstantiated irony, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened.
Just making some unsubstantiated irony, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened.
How far apart is an iPad Pro with a keyboard from the new MacBook Pro with the M1 chip? It seems pretty obvious they are converging to me. If they do converge, do you think Apple will start allowing MacOS on iPads, or will require MacBooks to run iOS and provide some virtualized OS emulation layer?
I know what I'd put my money on, given lack of legal reasons in the future to force it another way.
I know what I'd put my money on, given lack of legal reasons in the future to force it another way.
MacOS on iPads won't happen anytime soon. Not so long as Apple can sell you two devices instead of one.
LOL, that's actually a pretty good argument against them doing that. For now. :)
It's like apple got set on a course...
And they're on it...
following it...
and optimizing everything along the way...
they're going to converge off the edge of a cliff and into the abyss.
And they're on it...
following it...
and optimizing everything along the way...
they're going to converge off the edge of a cliff and into the abyss.
Why? Security and ensuring "It just works". Choice, freedom, and customization are enemies to both. We can see this in action with the last MacOS update. I'm not saying that I'm with either side, but these are the pros and cons.
What I'm not seeing is, does iOS have even enough market share dominance to require regulation? From what I remember they only have around 15% of the market.
What I'm not seeing is, does iOS have even enough market share dominance to require regulation? From what I remember they only have around 15% of the market.
It's going to blow your mind, in the US 61.23% of phone users use iOS. (It's not as bad in the rest of the world.)
"It just works" was a jingoism from before the iPhone existed.
Do Macs not "work"?
Do Macs not "work"?
> Do Macs not "work"?
Not even close to as well as iPhones do.
Speaking from personal experience I've had a few apps crash on my phone for sure, but overall it's the most "solid" computing experience I have ever had outside of Solaris.
MacOS on the other hand? Frequently gets itself into a state where "WindowServer" is consuming half my memory, or some network kerfuffle stops me being able to reach anything for a few minutes, or it kernel panics.
Not to mention the bloody updates which unlink GCC/CLANG but kinda keep it around which means I have to go clean my drive manually and crap. Ugh, exhausting.
Sometimes I consider going back to linux for work honestly.
Not even close to as well as iPhones do.
Speaking from personal experience I've had a few apps crash on my phone for sure, but overall it's the most "solid" computing experience I have ever had outside of Solaris.
MacOS on the other hand? Frequently gets itself into a state where "WindowServer" is consuming half my memory, or some network kerfuffle stops me being able to reach anything for a few minutes, or it kernel panics.
Not to mention the bloody updates which unlink GCC/CLANG but kinda keep it around which means I have to go clean my drive manually and crap. Ugh, exhausting.
Sometimes I consider going back to linux for work honestly.
They work fine, as long as you never update them within 3 weeks of a new OS release.
And if Apple's authentication servers are up.
Using them at work is a blessing and a curse.
And if Apple's authentication servers are up.
Using them at work is a blessing and a curse.
Not without various third-party adapters. Even then it's not a given that peripherals will work, or work consistently.
In the US, approximately 50% of smartphones in use are running iOS. It's lower globally, but the US market is the only one that matters when it comes to antitrust in the US.
iOS has >50% of the market in USA
Yep, and also 100% of the App market on iOS.
And Microsoft has 100% of the market on the Xbox Store? And Sony has 100% of the market on the PS Store? I’m not following... If you define the “market” so precisely, anyone can have a monopoly on something.
Game consoles are not general computing devices, PCs/Macs are. I believe phones have become so as well, but that I think thats where the debate lies.
What I’m wondering is: what makes a “general computing device”? As Sony showed with OtherOS on the PS3 (and PS3 based supercomputers), a console can be used as a general purpose computer. It ran full blown Linux and supported USB peripherals.
While a phone is integral to daily life, that doesn’t make something “general purpose”, IMO. I can’t write code comfortably on it, for example. The iPad, OTOH, could be argued to be a general purpose computer. Heck, Apple even advertises it as a laptop replacement! But phones? I just don’t see it.
----
That debate is the fundamental rub though: if you don’t see phones as “general purpose”, you’re more ok with locked down systems (consoles for example), but if you do see them as that, opening them up seems logical. The problem is that phones are in a gray area; they do many things computers do such as web browsing, email, etc., but they don’t function as them sometimes. Sure, we could put VS Code on Android, but I doubt anyone would ever use it.
So there’s not really a clear answer, and it isn’t helped by bad arguments from both sides: the “open” crowd claims nothing would change for those who don’t want it do (just keep using Apple’s App Store and ignore the others), but it would very easily cause a race to the bottom. And the “closed” crowd says to just choose Android, but Android is in many ways worse than iOS; worse privacy is a big thing.
While a phone is integral to daily life, that doesn’t make something “general purpose”, IMO. I can’t write code comfortably on it, for example. The iPad, OTOH, could be argued to be a general purpose computer. Heck, Apple even advertises it as a laptop replacement! But phones? I just don’t see it.
----
That debate is the fundamental rub though: if you don’t see phones as “general purpose”, you’re more ok with locked down systems (consoles for example), but if you do see them as that, opening them up seems logical. The problem is that phones are in a gray area; they do many things computers do such as web browsing, email, etc., but they don’t function as them sometimes. Sure, we could put VS Code on Android, but I doubt anyone would ever use it.
So there’s not really a clear answer, and it isn’t helped by bad arguments from both sides: the “open” crowd claims nothing would change for those who don’t want it do (just keep using Apple’s App Store and ignore the others), but it would very easily cause a race to the bottom. And the “closed” crowd says to just choose Android, but Android is in many ways worse than iOS; worse privacy is a big thing.
Maybe VS Code on Android is what it'd take for a decent Android tablet to appear.
Not quite, I can still buy my games on disc and not through the App store.
Those game discs are still signed by Microsoft/Sony. You’re can’t burn your own copies of your indie game. The difference is that game discs are generally digitally licensed differently to allow reselling the disc (the disc itself acts as a DRM key).
Well, something like 99.(thirty 9's)% given you can run Android on an iPhone with Project Sandcastle.
https://projectsandcastle.org/
https://projectsandcastle.org/
What do you mean, your phone?
It's not about the money, it's about not being able to leave an IMAP connection open on IDLE or change the push server for your IRC app or run guile/gcc/vim/git locally at a usable speed.
Yes - that's the real problem, too many restrictions on what apps can and can't do. This is not something Apple should be able to do - this is itself anti-competitive, as of course Apple are able to do all of those things while competing with other developers.
I'd like to see someone with more legal knowhow chip in but I'm fairly sure the fact that the app store does restrict apps to be the most compelling legal case for its existence?
If it literally blocked nothing then Apple can't say that the app store is part of the ecosystem that makes it unique. If it has a high bar for restrictions, it can successfully argue to avoid spamware and other bad quality apps Apple is going the work for the user to make the phone experience worthwhile.
If it literally blocked nothing then Apple can't say that the app store is part of the ecosystem that makes it unique. If it has a high bar for restrictions, it can successfully argue to avoid spamware and other bad quality apps Apple is going the work for the user to make the phone experience worthwhile.
Apple's bar does not successfully keep out a lot of spamware. Have you taken a look at the junk that you get when you search for any generic search term?
As an iOS developer I agree with some of the arguments, the 30% are a bit too much and should be less. The 15% for small businesses is a start but it's still not always fair. At the same time, I think the arguments Epic gives for example are bullshit. I rather give 30% of the money Epic takes for basically selling digital nothing to millions of teens to Apple. At least Apple is doing something with that money, maintaining the App Store, providing and developing tools like XCode and Swift. Also for me it makes a difference that Apple is a publicly traded company, Epic is not. But off topic here, the very closed nature of the App Store is a benefit in terms of security, especially for users that don't know much about technology or don't care to care about their security. Having several app stores would water down the whole iOS ecosystem and has actually the potential to hurt the business of many app based companies. Yes, the App Store can be strict at times and quite of few of its restrictive policies need changing. But it does force you to make good stable apps. And it puts your apps right next to every other app in that category, instead of having to care about n different ways of how to distribute your apps. It's only the one, and there you got to get it right. Having more app stores won't really increase your audience either, at the end it's still gonna be the same customers, but a lot more maintenance. So I think if Apple would change its pricing model, the App Store review process, and lift some of the more stricter limitations, which I think it has to in the next year and a half, then the App Store will be a great way to get you apps out there. But that's my opinion from a personal point of view.
> I rather give 30% of the money Epic takes for basically selling digital nothing to millions of teens to Apple. At least Apple is doing something with that money, maintaining the App Store, providing and developing tools like XCode and Swift.
Epic also would be spending some of their money on their own development, improvement to games etc. I don't quite follow the line of argument here - if things are 30% more expensive to cover Apples costs, then the consumer is the one losing out in the transaction.
Epic also would be spending some of their money on their own development, improvement to games etc. I don't quite follow the line of argument here - if things are 30% more expensive to cover Apples costs, then the consumer is the one losing out in the transaction.
And that's the case with the Epic suit: Epic literally dropped their prices when they went around Apple's cut, passing almost all of the savings directly on to consumers.
It's really incredible to me the lengths people will go to villanize Epic when they're known for not just advocating for consumer choice and lower prices, but have done crazy things like when dropping their cut... applying it retroactively since they started charging for it: https://marketplacehelp.epicgames.com/s/article/Unreal-Engin...
Can you even imagine Apple retroactively giving all those small businesses half the Apple cut back?
It's really incredible to me the lengths people will go to villanize Epic when they're known for not just advocating for consumer choice and lower prices, but have done crazy things like when dropping their cut... applying it retroactively since they started charging for it: https://marketplacehelp.epicgames.com/s/article/Unreal-Engin...
Can you even imagine Apple retroactively giving all those small businesses half the Apple cut back?
Obviously Epic dropped their prices, at first. I mean they got everyone rallied up and used their in game propaganda machine and everyone believed they are the good guys. By the end of the day, all they saw was 30 % loss of income. In a few years time their prices would have increased to their old level.
Also about that amazing fact that Epic has given part of the previously paid commision back. It's interesting to note the time of that decision compared to the popularity and online spending on Fortnite. Epic basically changed its business model, creating a precedent in the process. Using it two years later. If we can charge less, why can't you?
I mean I still think myself the 30% are too high, but Epic lining up your kids in front of a virtual stage to make them all hate Apple? It concerns me quite a bit!
Also about that amazing fact that Epic has given part of the previously paid commision back. It's interesting to note the time of that decision compared to the popularity and online spending on Fortnite. Epic basically changed its business model, creating a precedent in the process. Using it two years later. If we can charge less, why can't you?
I mean I still think myself the 30% are too high, but Epic lining up your kids in front of a virtual stage to make them all hate Apple? It concerns me quite a bit!
Epic put the prices at the same level that they already sell V-bucks for via the Epic game store. I don't buy the argument that they would jack those prices back up to the other levels when if they had the ability to process payments themselves, would then be consistent across platforms.
> I mean I still think myself the 30% are too high, but Epic lining up your kids in front of a virtual stage to make them all hate Apple? It concerns me quite a bit!
Whilst I in principal agree mostly with Epic over Apple in this case, I completely agree with you here that the whole video approach was gaudy (at best) and a bit of unfair exposition.
> I mean I still think myself the 30% are too high, but Epic lining up your kids in front of a virtual stage to make them all hate Apple? It concerns me quite a bit!
Whilst I in principal agree mostly with Epic over Apple in this case, I completely agree with you here that the whole video approach was gaudy (at best) and a bit of unfair exposition.
> Having several app stores would water down the whole iOS ecosystem and has actually the potential to hurt the business of many app based companies. Yes, the App Store can be strict at times and quite of few of its restrictive policies need changing. But it does force you to make good stable apps.
I agree so much. A lot of people here are missing the woods for the trees.
I agree so much. A lot of people here are missing the woods for the trees.
And to the average person who probably would just use the native app store, nothing would change. But people who are more comfortable with less polished apps that do utilities that they want to play with (or experiment with), they're missing out because of Apples restrictive policies.
The App Store is a great way to get your apps out there–for certain apps. The fact that alternative app stores can exist does not mean the App Store cannot or will not be used: many developers (myself included) would probably still use it because it is simple, easy, built-in, and handles many things for you. The issue arises when it is the only app store, so it no longer has to compete on features–what incentive does the App Store have to improve the app upload experience? None, really. And, finally, the tools Apple gives you to develop your apps are the ones they use themselves, and you could argue that they should be taking this money out of their iPhone sales anyways.
Apple and Google have held the mobile app distribution market hostage for over a decade now. I hope Cydia is successful in tackling Apple's anti-competitive behavior.
We need real competition in the app distribution space. There's a generation being raised right now whose exposure to computing has been limited to what Apple and Google have deemed worthy for them to consume.
We need real competition in the app distribution space. There's a generation being raised right now whose exposure to computing has been limited to what Apple and Google have deemed worthy for them to consume.
The single best-selling smartphone brand in the world is an Android phone that comes with a non-Google app store preinstalled, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that they're holding the market hostage. Certainly the Galaxy Store/Amazon Appstore/F-Droid/etc aren't anywhere near as ubiquitous as the Play Store, but they're still there and not particularly difficult to access.
In the US, iOS has 52.4% of the mobile OS market[1], and Android has 47%.
In the US, Apple's App Store is responsible for the majority of mobile app sales[2], and has 3 times the revenue of Google's Play Store.
Apple and Google dominate the mobile OS market, and Apple more so than Google, dominates the mobile app distribution market. Everything else is negligible.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held...
[2] https://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2020/01/in-2019...
In the US, Apple's App Store is responsible for the majority of mobile app sales[2], and has 3 times the revenue of Google's Play Store.
Apple and Google dominate the mobile OS market, and Apple more so than Google, dominates the mobile app distribution market. Everything else is negligible.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held...
[2] https://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2020/01/in-2019...
I very deliberately made no attempts to even hint at a defense of Apple, my comment had nothing to do with them (and very little to do with the US, for that matter). I'm simply remarking that Google is not in the same discussion in terms of anti-competitive behaviour in the mobile app market.
I don't see how this undermines the argument that Google doesn't hold the Android app market "hostage" because users usually buy devices that already have another app store preinstalled and also are free to install other app stores.
Can I install those third party app stores on any Android phone?
Also, third party app stores on Android are not allowed to compete with the Play Store on feature parity because of limitations put in place by Google.
The only way to implement automatic upgrading, background installation or batch upgrading/installation of apps is via the Play Store.
Also, third party app stores on Android are not allowed to compete with the Play Store on feature parity because of limitations put in place by Google.
The only way to implement automatic upgrading, background installation or batch upgrading/installation of apps is via the Play Store.
> Can I install those third party app stores on any Android phone?
Galaxy Store no (by Samsung's choice), F-Droid yes, Amazon Appstore I'm unsure. But for the overwhelming majority of third-party stores, yeah, you can install them on any Android device in a matter of seconds.
Galaxy Store no (by Samsung's choice), F-Droid yes, Amazon Appstore I'm unsure. But for the overwhelming majority of third-party stores, yeah, you can install them on any Android device in a matter of seconds.
F-Droid is not allowed to compete on feature parity with the Play Store. You can't install apps in the background, do batch installations, or automatically update apps.
> The only way to implement automatic upgrading, background installation or batch upgrading/installation of apps is via the Play Store
Any system app store can do those things.
Any system app store can do those things.
Millions of phones are sold that will never be rooted, and by manufacturers who purposely ensure that exploits to achieve root are patched as soon as they're found.
The statement that I quoted is false. The Amazon App Store can do those things on Amazon devices. The Samsung App Store can do those things on Samsung devices. Same with Tencent, Huawei, MIUI, the defunct Motorola app store, etc.
I fully agree that it would be better if user-installed apps could do the same thing without resorting to accessibility hacks. Google has mumbled that it might finally prioritize that feature after the Epic lawsuits, but I'll wait and see. https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2020/09/listening-...
I fully agree that it would be better if user-installed apps could do the same thing without resorting to accessibility hacks. Google has mumbled that it might finally prioritize that feature after the Epic lawsuits, but I'll wait and see. https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2020/09/listening-...
> There's a generation being raised right now whose exposure to computing has been limited to what Apple and Google have deemed worthy for them to consume.
The sad part is that all the fancy consumer hardware and software of today – or really the entire tech industry – would not exist had it not been for the last generation of hackers and tinkerers. How can we expect any real future innovation when it is controlled by corporate number crunching rather than two passionate people in a garage?
The sad part is that all the fancy consumer hardware and software of today – or really the entire tech industry – would not exist had it not been for the last generation of hackers and tinkerers. How can we expect any real future innovation when it is controlled by corporate number crunching rather than two passionate people in a garage?
Here is a copy of the actual complaint (which, of course, includes the legal theory and argument, for those who are mostly interested in that angle) -- https://cache.saurik.com/lawsuit/complaint.pdf -- which maybe people here will find more elucidating, particularly given that the article is behind a paywall :(.
Was seeing if saurik commented in this thread yet, only to see that he posted it!
Also only came here to see if saurik posted. ;)
I would not be surprised if his lawyer told him to shut up and not comment on this thread ;)
Some people advocate that it's for the safety of the users that Apple have created this walled garden.
One app store, one payment system, one browser means better security (in theory).
In reality users have no freedom and are at the total mercy of Apple's decisions.
Apple's one browser isn't working in terms of security as there's been an oversupply of Safari remote code execution, local privilege escalation and sandbox escapes.
So if Apple actually cared about users and the security of their devices instead of growing their monopoly shouldn't they instead be concentrating on fixing these vulnerabilities?
Not even the enemy of IOS users Android has had exploit brokers stop buying exploits because they are plentiful.
https://www.theregister.com/2020/05/14/zerodium_ios_flaws/
There is something about the bias of this article that bugs me. It feels like it is trying to rewrite history to suit its narrative.
It implies that developers used to be able to create whatever programs they wanted thanks to Cydia prior to the App Store. This was never the case, the Cydia ecosystem was based on unintended buggy behavior.
In the beginning Apple was clear that there were no native apps, only web apps or whatever they called them. They eventually reversed course and implemented the App Store for native apps but was that because of Cydia? That's just speculation.
Personally I always speculated that they weren't ready and in classic Apple fashion pretended the idea of native apps was stupid until they were ready.
Should Apple be forced to support other app stores or side loading? I don't know. I do feel like there are good arguments for it but they should be allowed to stand on there own merit without skewing the narrative.
It implies that developers used to be able to create whatever programs they wanted thanks to Cydia prior to the App Store. This was never the case, the Cydia ecosystem was based on unintended buggy behavior.
In the beginning Apple was clear that there were no native apps, only web apps or whatever they called them. They eventually reversed course and implemented the App Store for native apps but was that because of Cydia? That's just speculation.
Personally I always speculated that they weren't ready and in classic Apple fashion pretended the idea of native apps was stupid until they were ready.
Should Apple be forced to support other app stores or side loading? I don't know. I do feel like there are good arguments for it but they should be allowed to stand on there own merit without skewing the narrative.
I understand the philosophy of "I bought it, I own, I should be able to do what I want with what I own". However, you're fighting against a big, fat corporation for a situation you pur yourself into. Why not buy an alternative that actually does what you want?
Sure, e-waste is bad, but that's the only strong argument here IMO. Apple should be severely punished for helping create pollution. The rest is up to interpretation.
Sure, e-waste is bad, but that's the only strong argument here IMO. Apple should be severely punished for helping create pollution. The rest is up to interpretation.
There are many purchase options if you want a new phone. One of those options, and not the largest selling option, as a product from Apple that requires that you use their app store, and follow certain rules. If you do not like this product, then there are literally far more non-apple products to choose from. There are both for more non-apple options, and there are far more of those sold worldwide.
I think as lawsuits keep coming, a possible alternative for Apple is to tie the app store to the free update cycle of iOS, essentially making iOS a SaaS product. Consumers and developers will be free to choose if the cost of iOS evens out with whatever fees they may save.
This concept doesn't really work as the OS updates are required to interface with features of the new phones and support features of older phones. This would essentially force users to buy new devices every cycle, or cough up money for the updated OS. Also what about important security updates and bug fixes? Would Apple just allow these vulnerabilities to exist if people didn't pay? Either way this would be a terrible business decision on their part.
But isn’t this how OSs have been historically sold? You bought Windows XP and were entitled to a set number of years of support in terms of security parches, etc.
Similarly if you don’t like the terms of the App Store you could have the option to purchase an open iOS v.1X and install whichever store you please. The only difference would be that you would need to pay again for subsequent versions of the OS, just like ppl would pay to update windows from XP to Vista to 7, etc.
Similarly if you don’t like the terms of the App Store you could have the option to purchase an open iOS v.1X and install whichever store you please. The only difference would be that you would need to pay again for subsequent versions of the OS, just like ppl would pay to update windows from XP to Vista to 7, etc.
No, historically OS's haven't been linked to hardware like iOS is. Imagine if every time you got a new webcam, you had to buy a new version of Windows. XP was supported for 12 years, iOS 12 was officially discontinued after 1 year. You're talking about orders of magnitude difference in time.
> XP was supported for 12 years, iOS 12 was officially discontinued after 1 year.
Also a pretty false equivalence, though.
Windows 7 was a paid upgrade from Windows XP.
iOS 13 was a free upgrade from iOS 12.
Devices that shipped with iOS 10 got 11, 12, 13, and 14 for free.
(Some/many/most/all) will probably continue getting future iOS versions for free.
Also a pretty false equivalence, though.
Windows 7 was a paid upgrade from Windows XP.
iOS 13 was a free upgrade from iOS 12.
Devices that shipped with iOS 10 got 11, 12, 13, and 14 for free.
(Some/many/most/all) will probably continue getting future iOS versions for free.
I didn't make the equivalence of iOS to XP, the commenter did. I did pick iOS 12 to make a point, but you're right it is apples to oranges, and that's also proving my original assertion.
The original comment was that Apple should charge for iOS versions, to which I was saying that is a bad idea. By your comment, (I think), you would agree with my statement.
The original comment was that Apple should charge for iOS versions, to which I was saying that is a bad idea. By your comment, (I think), you would agree with my statement.
Remembering that Cydia came before the App Store was added to iPhone is one of the most important pieces of modern historical facts we should know.
One of the reasons I choose Apple products is their “closed ness”, you guys have Android and Windows/Linux tinker with.
Good, Apple totally violate antitrust with their store policies. The ban on competing browsers is a glaring example too.
Is there an actual lawsuit pdf somewhere? Could not find a link in the wapo article :(
Ehh, no matter how much I dislike Apple and hate everything they stand for, I must stand with them in this particular case (with the information the article gave).
They are suing Apple, yet the only thing Apple did in regards to them was make jailbreaking more difficult?
I don't see a real case here... If anyone has more insight, please do share.
They are suing Apple, yet the only thing Apple did in regards to them was make jailbreaking more difficult?
I don't see a real case here... If anyone has more insight, please do share.
The issue isn't that apple made jailbreaking harder, its that apple shouldn't be the sole controller of what apps people can install on their phone. For example, if you have a company with millions of users and Apple decides you are a threat to their business, (or whatever reason they make up), they can ban your apps from the store, (e.g. Epic Games). This is monopolistic behavior. If apple were to allow third party store options, (without jailbreaking required), there wouldn't be an issue. The root issue isn't jailbreaking, (that's still possible and required to install non-store apps), but rather the requirement that ONLY store apps can be installed in the first place.
That would be a completely legitimate argument except that people buy their devices with the understanding that APple is the sole controller of what they can install. It's not monopolistic behavior because Apple doesn't have a monopoly. Apple makes the devices, they are 100% legally allowed to only allow apps from their own App Store and that precedent has already been set. The only unique thing in this lawsuit is that Cydia is claiming to be a competitor to the App Store and I firmly believe that it'll be tossed because Cydia's entire existence is predicated on a process that, at the time it was operating, is illegal and violates the DMCA. I don't necessarily think Cydia is bad and people should be able to jailbreak their devices if they want but that can't be used as the basis for a lawsuit that alleges monopolistic behavior or even anti-trust.
Jailbreaking absolutely does not violate the DMCA, nor is it illegal. Circumvention that isn't related to copyright infringement is not covered under the DMCA, and jailbreaking mobile devices has been ruled explicitly exempt on those grounds:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-10-26/pdf/2018-2...
Stop spreading fud.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-10-26/pdf/2018-2...
Stop spreading fud.
I'm not spreading FUD. That decision was made in 2018. At the time of Cydia's release, in 2008, it was a violation of the DMCA. You can't apply a ruling that happened 10 years later to argue that.
It was not made in 2018, that's just the latest renewal of the ruling (which was originally made in 2010). Apple's attempts to make it illegal were denied at the time too, because even without the ruling it fairly obviously falls under exemption.
The ruling also just makes it explicit, the DMCA already doesn't cover things like jailbreaking because they don't relate to copyright, and do relate to the user enabling interoperability of their device with legally obtained software (17 U.S. Code § 1201 (f)). These rulings are not proclamations in contrast with the law, they are bound by it and must be valid interpretations of it. Apple's attempts to classify it otherwise were a clear attempt to abuse copyright law and were rejected as illegitimate.
You clearly do not know what you are talking about.
The ruling also just makes it explicit, the DMCA already doesn't cover things like jailbreaking because they don't relate to copyright, and do relate to the user enabling interoperability of their device with legally obtained software (17 U.S. Code § 1201 (f)). These rulings are not proclamations in contrast with the law, they are bound by it and must be valid interpretations of it. Apple's attempts to classify it otherwise were a clear attempt to abuse copyright law and were rejected as illegitimate.
You clearly do not know what you are talking about.
The Copyright Office didn't construct an exemption out of whole cloth - they cannot do that, and they'd be overruled by Congress if they did. It's a recognition of the underlying fact that the DMCA does not cover TPMs that do not control access to a copyrighted work. The actual text of the law says that.
Not only was it not illegal as the other commenters have mentioned, I believe Jay specifically went to the exemption discussions for it with Cydia as then example of why it should be legal. And this isn't what's being argued here regardless.
Before the decision, jailbreaking was not considered a violation of the DMCA. Apple sued and lost trying to make it one. So your premise that Cydia was somehow in violation of DMCA at the time is completely false.
Do "people" really have that understanding? I'd posit that that vast majority of Apple's userbase has given zero consideration to the issue at all.
I suggest that if presented the choice of
When you buy a phone would you rather ... A. that the maker of the phone has total and final control over what apps are available for you to install via it's own store. B. that the maker of the phone has a store pre-installed for you to install apps from, but you have the the choice to install apps from other 3rd party stores or directly yourself
I'm pretty sure if put in that type of context most people would choose B. But they are never given that choice. The choice they get is over the maker of the device, Apple and option A or an Android based device that has some variation of B.
I suggest that if presented the choice of
When you buy a phone would you rather ... A. that the maker of the phone has total and final control over what apps are available for you to install via it's own store. B. that the maker of the phone has a store pre-installed for you to install apps from, but you have the the choice to install apps from other 3rd party stores or directly yourself
I'm pretty sure if put in that type of context most people would choose B. But they are never given that choice. The choice they get is over the maker of the device, Apple and option A or an Android based device that has some variation of B.
That's not true though, Apple does make the devices, but the user owns them, and therefore has the legal right to install whatever they wish. Apple does not have control over this, as evidenced by the legality ruling of jailbreaking.
>Apple makes the devices, they are 100% legally allowed to only allow apps from their own App Store and that precedent has already been set.
This is false. As proven time and time again, the Device Owner has full legal control after purchase.
It is monopolistic behavior due to the scope of the control from Apple. The devices are the owner's property, and it is monopolistic for them to implement software/policies/hardware blocks, that prevent users from using the devices as they see fit.
Take a simplistic example, Keurig. Keurig tried to prevent users from using any other coffee pod besides theirs. There is precedent to these monopoly lawsuits.
https://time.com/2913062/k-cups-war/
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-pro....
>Apple makes the devices, they are 100% legally allowed to only allow apps from their own App Store and that precedent has already been set.
This is false. As proven time and time again, the Device Owner has full legal control after purchase.
It is monopolistic behavior due to the scope of the control from Apple. The devices are the owner's property, and it is monopolistic for them to implement software/policies/hardware blocks, that prevent users from using the devices as they see fit.
Take a simplistic example, Keurig. Keurig tried to prevent users from using any other coffee pod besides theirs. There is precedent to these monopoly lawsuits.
https://time.com/2913062/k-cups-war/
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-pro....
You are right that the legal owner has the right to install whatever they want.
However Apple is under no obligation to do the work to build a mechanism to help them do so.
However Apple is under no obligation to do the work to build a mechanism to help them do so.
>has the legal right to install whatever they wish
Absolutely. But people buy the devices knowing that that's not an option. It's not like Apple locked down these devices and changed them after people bought them. You can absolutely jailbreak your device and put whatever you want on it and I fully support that. That doesn't make Apple's behavior monopolistic or an anti-trust violation.
Your Keurig example isn't relatable or similar at all since Keurig both did have a monopoly on single-use coffee pods and that was the single purpose of the device. An optional App Store is not the same thing at all.
Absolutely. But people buy the devices knowing that that's not an option. It's not like Apple locked down these devices and changed them after people bought them. You can absolutely jailbreak your device and put whatever you want on it and I fully support that. That doesn't make Apple's behavior monopolistic or an anti-trust violation.
Your Keurig example isn't relatable or similar at all since Keurig both did have a monopoly on single-use coffee pods and that was the single purpose of the device. An optional App Store is not the same thing at all.
>But people buy the devices knowing that that's not an option.
A manufacturer cannot dictate the consumer's options regarding the owned devices, even though they have it in their terms and conditions. Apple is currently being gobsmacked by right to repair claims under this very principle.
A manufacturer cannot dictate the consumer's options regarding the owned devices, even though they have it in their terms and conditions. Apple is currently being gobsmacked by right to repair claims under this very principle.
What you are saying is that such business model, where a company creates a computing device, sells the device, and then continue to own the customer funnel for software experiences on top of the device is illegal. If this sets a precedent, and does become the new "interpretation" for anti-monopoly laws, it would also make console business model or Amazon Kindle business model illegal. I could also make the same argument for any kind of "platform" like business. Essentially, when an entity sales one category of products, it cannot use this product's platform effect to control the sale of another category of products. What about leveraging bundling and network effect? For example, Apple Watch only works with iPhone. A person bought Apple Watch a year ago cannot buy a Android phone a year later and have the Apple Watch work as advertised when he/she first bought it. This would also be illegal under this precedent. I think this is a positive thing. But it does invalidate a lot of business model's tech companies are using right now and the higher valuations software/platform companies currently getting. It would also results in fundamental re-calculation of margins and business model for a lot of companies. Might lead to decreased valuations and revenue. This would negatively impact the shareholders, employees and company, who are also stakeholders in this discussion.
And you also cannot look at this law from an ideology perspective, you need to look at the practical affects as well. Going forward, companies will also spent energy to design how their product will interoperate with other products especially those from competitors. For example, if iOS is going to have third party App Stores, it has to be designed in the OS. It cannot be an afterthought. Comparing iOS and Android, you realize when Google built Android it actually has to spent the time and the energy to design the system that enables Android's flexibility and "multiple App Store and install any app package" system. Google has also to spend energy to maintain and support the system every year since Android's release. I know that there are instances where Google want to make changes to Android to better support their own use cases but is not able to because Google has to support these flexibility points. If you look at a from angle of "how much benefit do I get from a fixed amount of effort", flexibility and interoperability becomes significant features. I think a lot of people underestimate just how much effort it is to design, engineer, test and maintain interoperability. From a business perspective, they need to think do I spend the time to engineer and maintain systems to enable interoperability? Or to enable my business use case and enable me to make more money? By changing the law interpretation, the law is making the decision for the business. It's forcing the business to say "hey you have to spend time to build things that might end up benefiting your competitors, and perhaps you don't have time to build this feature that would benefit your bottom line instead ". Not sure where your political spectrum lies, but this definitely doesn't sit well with political conservatism that advocates for less government control over private affairs.
Again, ideally this new interpretation will be good, but I feel there will be a lot of resistance for this "reform" to go forward.
btw, if Apple is going to allow other stores and ISVs to offer users application packages to download and install freely like it is on Windows, any company of significant size is going to start bypass Apple's stores and asking users download Exe's or their own app launchers. Want to play Fortnite, download Epic store and Epic game launcher. Want to use Facebook and play Oculus games? Download Facebook store. Want to use Lightroom, download Adobe CC store. It will change the Apple's user experience, which is part of brand and product proposition. I know some people actually buy Apple because of this user experience. So is it okay for government to dictate such user experience is not allowed anymore? The private entity wants to design this kind of user experience, is it ideologically okay for the government to say "you cannot design a product this way anymore"? Maybe private entity should be able to design a product anyway they see fit, and let the market decide. Look at before there is a market for closed sourced developer tools and software. Now, there is no market for you if you don't open source your developer tools. People rather write apps for open source dbs and frameworks than some companies proprietary stuff. This is an example of market demanding openness and interoperability and making the producers change their behavior.
And you also cannot look at this law from an ideology perspective, you need to look at the practical affects as well. Going forward, companies will also spent energy to design how their product will interoperate with other products especially those from competitors. For example, if iOS is going to have third party App Stores, it has to be designed in the OS. It cannot be an afterthought. Comparing iOS and Android, you realize when Google built Android it actually has to spent the time and the energy to design the system that enables Android's flexibility and "multiple App Store and install any app package" system. Google has also to spend energy to maintain and support the system every year since Android's release. I know that there are instances where Google want to make changes to Android to better support their own use cases but is not able to because Google has to support these flexibility points. If you look at a from angle of "how much benefit do I get from a fixed amount of effort", flexibility and interoperability becomes significant features. I think a lot of people underestimate just how much effort it is to design, engineer, test and maintain interoperability. From a business perspective, they need to think do I spend the time to engineer and maintain systems to enable interoperability? Or to enable my business use case and enable me to make more money? By changing the law interpretation, the law is making the decision for the business. It's forcing the business to say "hey you have to spend time to build things that might end up benefiting your competitors, and perhaps you don't have time to build this feature that would benefit your bottom line instead ". Not sure where your political spectrum lies, but this definitely doesn't sit well with political conservatism that advocates for less government control over private affairs.
Again, ideally this new interpretation will be good, but I feel there will be a lot of resistance for this "reform" to go forward.
btw, if Apple is going to allow other stores and ISVs to offer users application packages to download and install freely like it is on Windows, any company of significant size is going to start bypass Apple's stores and asking users download Exe's or their own app launchers. Want to play Fortnite, download Epic store and Epic game launcher. Want to use Facebook and play Oculus games? Download Facebook store. Want to use Lightroom, download Adobe CC store. It will change the Apple's user experience, which is part of brand and product proposition. I know some people actually buy Apple because of this user experience. So is it okay for government to dictate such user experience is not allowed anymore? The private entity wants to design this kind of user experience, is it ideologically okay for the government to say "you cannot design a product this way anymore"? Maybe private entity should be able to design a product anyway they see fit, and let the market decide. Look at before there is a market for closed sourced developer tools and software. Now, there is no market for you if you don't open source your developer tools. People rather write apps for open source dbs and frameworks than some companies proprietary stuff. This is an example of market demanding openness and interoperability and making the producers change their behavior.
> If this sets a precedent, and does become the new "interpretation" for anti-monopoly laws, it would also make console business model or Amazon Kindle business model illegal.
It sounds like you think such a thing would be scandalous, but that's how it used to be. There was a time when game studios would just give Nintendo and Atari the middle finger and produce a cartridge that worked with their consoles anyway. Back in those days, the computers and consoles weren't restricted to only running software signed and approved by the manufacturer.
It sounds like you think such a thing would be scandalous, but that's how it used to be. There was a time when game studios would just give Nintendo and Atari the middle finger and produce a cartridge that worked with their consoles anyway. Back in those days, the computers and consoles weren't restricted to only running software signed and approved by the manufacturer.
> It sounds like you think such a thing would be scandalous, but that's how it used to be. There was a time when game studios would just give Nintendo and Atari the middle finger and produce a cartridge that worked with their consoles anyway. Back in those days, the computers and consoles weren't restricted to only running software signed and approved by the manufacturer.
You're partially right.
In the case of Atari, there was no technical enforcement mechanism. Third parties figured out how to make their own cartridges, but lack of control on the market led to a glut of new games in 1982. That glut triggered rapid price reductions (as retailers were often stuck with unsold inventory that couldn't be returned to the publisher), which eventually cratered the entire business, shrinking it by about 97%.[0]
For Nintendo, they did have a technical protection mechanism present in the NES (the 10NES chip). They were allowed to enforce market restrictions based on the presence of the chip.[1]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_....
You're partially right.
In the case of Atari, there was no technical enforcement mechanism. Third parties figured out how to make their own cartridges, but lack of control on the market led to a glut of new games in 1982. That glut triggered rapid price reductions (as retailers were often stuck with unsold inventory that couldn't be returned to the publisher), which eventually cratered the entire business, shrinking it by about 97%.[0]
For Nintendo, they did have a technical protection mechanism present in the NES (the 10NES chip). They were allowed to enforce market restrictions based on the presence of the chip.[1]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_....
I apologize I don't have time for an in-depth response, but a quick note is that you have some fallacies in your arguments:
>it would also make console business model or Amazon Kindle business model illegal.
My interpretation would not make console business illegal, but rather it would make limiting the product so that you are the only means of distribution illegal. I can currently side-load books onto my kindle without any sort of jailbreaking or modification. On my android phone I can download an .apk file and install it with no issues. The Google Play Store still makes fine profit, and the App Store would as well, even with competition. This most certainly would fall under the definition of a monopoly.
>For example, Apple Watch only works with iPhone. A person bought Apple Watch a year ago cannot buy a Android phone a year later and have the Apple Watch work as advertised when he/she first bought it.
You are comparing Apples to oranges. This is a lot different as a watch is hardware, not software. Plus we are talking about 1 apple software app vs another apple software app.
>For example, if iOS is going to have third party App Stores, it has to be designed in the OS.
No it doesn't really. It's not apple's responsibility to make it easy for third parties. If their apps do not work, it isn't apples responsibility to account for them. Furthermore, the OS can already handle "third party apps", it just has to be Jailbroken, or side-loaded via an MDM account. Any third party apps still have to use the internal SDK's of Apple in order to function.
> you realize when Google built Android it actually has to spent the time and the energy to design the system that enables Android's flexibility and "multiple App Store and install any app package" system.
Google did not build Android it was purchased by them in 2005. The system of installing any app is the same as installing google apps. The same with apple. There is no extra work that you're claiming, as they have to do this in order for the respective stores to work as well. This, and the comment above, are a different point that I was not making. This would be the case if Apple only allowed Apple software on their device, in which case I would not say this is a monopoly as there wouldn't be any competition for them on the iPhone. However, they do but they do not do this, so your point is moot.
>they need to think do I spend the time to engineer and maintain systems to enable interoperability?
This isn't a question of interoperability. These are all iOS apps. The question is simply the distribution source. I can make an app on my mac and load it directly onto my phone, but the only option I currently have for distribution is the App Store that Apple controls.
Right now they charge 15% of all my purchases. Would you change your opinion if they charged 50%? I guarantee that would put some people out of business. What if apple decided to charge me 15% but you 50%, which would be perfectly within their legal right? Would you agree then that the appstore is not a monopoly?
>btw, if Apple is going to allow other stores and ISVs to offer users application packages to download and install freely like it is on Windows, any company of significant size is going to start bypass Apple's stores and asking users download Exe's or their own app launchers.
Yes and why shouldn't they be able to do so? That's the whole point of the lawsuit, Apple is enforcing this to cut their competition, they are effectively proping up their own monopoly. They currently own the base product, the means of distribution, the means of access, and the means of repair, (although right to repair rulings are becoming far more common).
>it would also make console business model or Amazon Kindle business model illegal.
My interpretation would not make console business illegal, but rather it would make limiting the product so that you are the only means of distribution illegal. I can currently side-load books onto my kindle without any sort of jailbreaking or modification. On my android phone I can download an .apk file and install it with no issues. The Google Play Store still makes fine profit, and the App Store would as well, even with competition. This most certainly would fall under the definition of a monopoly.
>For example, Apple Watch only works with iPhone. A person bought Apple Watch a year ago cannot buy a Android phone a year later and have the Apple Watch work as advertised when he/she first bought it.
You are comparing Apples to oranges. This is a lot different as a watch is hardware, not software. Plus we are talking about 1 apple software app vs another apple software app.
>For example, if iOS is going to have third party App Stores, it has to be designed in the OS.
No it doesn't really. It's not apple's responsibility to make it easy for third parties. If their apps do not work, it isn't apples responsibility to account for them. Furthermore, the OS can already handle "third party apps", it just has to be Jailbroken, or side-loaded via an MDM account. Any third party apps still have to use the internal SDK's of Apple in order to function.
> you realize when Google built Android it actually has to spent the time and the energy to design the system that enables Android's flexibility and "multiple App Store and install any app package" system.
Google did not build Android it was purchased by them in 2005. The system of installing any app is the same as installing google apps. The same with apple. There is no extra work that you're claiming, as they have to do this in order for the respective stores to work as well. This, and the comment above, are a different point that I was not making. This would be the case if Apple only allowed Apple software on their device, in which case I would not say this is a monopoly as there wouldn't be any competition for them on the iPhone. However, they do but they do not do this, so your point is moot.
>they need to think do I spend the time to engineer and maintain systems to enable interoperability?
This isn't a question of interoperability. These are all iOS apps. The question is simply the distribution source. I can make an app on my mac and load it directly onto my phone, but the only option I currently have for distribution is the App Store that Apple controls.
Right now they charge 15% of all my purchases. Would you change your opinion if they charged 50%? I guarantee that would put some people out of business. What if apple decided to charge me 15% but you 50%, which would be perfectly within their legal right? Would you agree then that the appstore is not a monopoly?
>btw, if Apple is going to allow other stores and ISVs to offer users application packages to download and install freely like it is on Windows, any company of significant size is going to start bypass Apple's stores and asking users download Exe's or their own app launchers.
Yes and why shouldn't they be able to do so? That's the whole point of the lawsuit, Apple is enforcing this to cut their competition, they are effectively proping up their own monopoly. They currently own the base product, the means of distribution, the means of access, and the means of repair, (although right to repair rulings are becoming far more common).
All the Bell Telephone company did was prevent other products/services from working with their system.
In a time that you could only get phone service from Bell. Now you have many vendors that sell Android based phones that you can choose if you want a wide open market.
The same market where Apple controls 50% under tight lock and key?
And access to those consumers is controlled by a non-government entity for everything they do? All commerce impacting their entire life up and down the stack?
Apple is the biggest monopoly since Ma Bell and Standard Oil.
They're owning people. Whole entities. You have to go through Apple to do business with them.
And access to those consumers is controlled by a non-government entity for everything they do? All commerce impacting their entire life up and down the stack?
Apple is the biggest monopoly since Ma Bell and Standard Oil.
They're owning people. Whole entities. You have to go through Apple to do business with them.
Apple is far from the biggest monopoly of today much less since the others. Amazon probably takes the cake, but Facebook and Google are right there too.
Furthermore there are plenty of monopolies in non tech industries that do the same things.
Furthermore there are plenty of monopolies in non tech industries that do the same things.
People who knew it is what it is right from the get go. They didn't do any bait and switch.
What 50% ?
I, for one, keep choosing iPhone exactly for this reason - I want only apple to control the app review process.
Without this, you’d have every single major company pishing their own installers with a ton of crapware on top of them. To give an example - Epic on Windows requires you to install their own store, with their own update system and notifications, plus ads showing each time you open up their game.
I don’t want this on my phone - battery aside, I want the device to be 100% secure, and such crapware has a poor track record of security.
I’m really for strong antitrust laws - Google and Facebook are monopolosts who abuse their position. But in case of the phones, both users and devs have a choice - they can use either Apple or Google. Unless both companies are guilty of the same thing (and in this case they are not), how this is an issue?
Without this, you’d have every single major company pishing their own installers with a ton of crapware on top of them. To give an example - Epic on Windows requires you to install their own store, with their own update system and notifications, plus ads showing each time you open up their game.
I don’t want this on my phone - battery aside, I want the device to be 100% secure, and such crapware has a poor track record of security.
I’m really for strong antitrust laws - Google and Facebook are monopolosts who abuse their position. But in case of the phones, both users and devs have a choice - they can use either Apple or Google. Unless both companies are guilty of the same thing (and in this case they are not), how this is an issue?
Apple only controls 50% of the market because consumers keep buying their products. They are free to chose android, there are even plenty of androids phones are comparable in build quality and specs.
This is like a black market suing the govt for monopoly.
Black market? Cydia pioneered the "App Store" model on iPhone, made it successful, and provided features that Apple stole and put into their own App Store. This is like Sam Walton looking at a mom-and-pop shop, deciding that selling things looks like a good idea, then starting Walmart and getting the local government to ban the idea of any other store. And then you're coming here to call the original thing a "black market"?
Back in the days of pre-computing, we had the “first sale doctrine”.
This meant that as soon as you bought something, you had the right to do whatever you wanted with that physical item.
Including selling it. Including renting it out. Including bundling it with five other books from other publishers and selling it together for whatever price. Without any of their consent.
And it certainly includes tearing a page out. Or writing your own notes over the pages.
This meant that as soon as you bought something, you had the right to do whatever you wanted with that physical item.
Including selling it. Including renting it out. Including bundling it with five other books from other publishers and selling it together for whatever price. Without any of their consent.
And it certainly includes tearing a page out. Or writing your own notes over the pages.
I think it turned out like this because supply control used to come from the time/resource limitation of making physical goods. If you wanted your product to be rarer/higher priced, even on the second-hand market, you needed to produce less of that item. With the computing age, putting software on disks is cheap and sending software via the internet is effectively free, and reproducing that software for free to send to anyone who wants it is both free and easy (less so now with blu-ray DRM but it still happens).
Nothing wrong with treating licenses as tangible digital objects: ie you get to sell YOUR license, but can’t reproduce it.
That’s how it works with physical media, and the postal system is a relatively cheap form of distribution (try mailing a 4K BluRay across the country: it might even be cheaper than bandwidth costs).
That’s how it works with physical media, and the postal system is a relatively cheap form of distribution (try mailing a 4K BluRay across the country: it might even be cheaper than bandwidth costs).
It may feel that way, but Cydia did nothing illegal. They were more or less forced out by Apple's anti-competitive practices.
... where "liberate" is a funny way of spelling "pwn", "exploit", "infest" etc.
You mean, users are so desperate to be able to install the software they want on their own devices that they are willing to use cyberweapons-grade exploits to bypass technical restrictions that Apple has increasingly been baking into their own silicon to prevent?
No mention of Synaptic anywhere? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaptic_%28software%29
Predates anything here by 5 years. Similar functionality. Yes, nothing is technically for sale in Synaptic, but it's a graphical interface to install thousands of software downloads. What am I missing here?
There's basically nothing new here. This is a similar aftermarket case to Kodak [1]. Like the Epic case, this too will fail.
A key element of Kodak was a bait and switch. If Apple had monopolized the aftermarket for iOS app distribution after customers were locked in, you may have a case against Apple (if you satisfy the other elements, like switching costs). But that was never true. From day one, the App Store was the only way to legally obtain iOS apps.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak_Co._v._Image_Tec....
A key element of Kodak was a bait and switch. If Apple had monopolized the aftermarket for iOS app distribution after customers were locked in, you may have a case against Apple (if you satisfy the other elements, like switching costs). But that was never true. From day one, the App Store was the only way to legally obtain iOS apps.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak_Co._v._Image_Tec....
I doubt they'll manage to win, but the fact that Cydia predates the official App Store looks pretty core to the complaint.
Apple monopolizes access to 50% of American computer users and forces software shops big and small to pay their tax.
Users can't install what they want on their computers and they can't upgrade them.
The DOJ should force Apple to open the iPhone or face break up. Just because a breakup of this nature hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.
And another thing. There's no reason a company this big should also be a music and film studio.
Users can't install what they want on their computers and they can't upgrade them.
The DOJ should force Apple to open the iPhone or face break up. Just because a breakup of this nature hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.
And another thing. There's no reason a company this big should also be a music and film studio.
Part of the appeal of the iOS App Store is that end users are partially shielded from developers who believe it’s their inalienable right to make apps to try to profit off of them.
App developers want to gain distribution.
> inalienable right to make apps to try to profit off of them.
What do you mean here? Do you have a problem with capitalism? The purpose of work is to earn a living. Outside of hobbyists and open source developers, nobody does this for free. It's work.
Should app developers be poor and unable to earn a living off apps? I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean, but that's how this comes across.
I think what you mean is that you're happy Apple controls distribution. My argument is that this isn't fair - they've built a computer, captured 50% of the US market, and control every economic funnel around these consumers, the likes of which we've never seen before in human history.
They have a mega monopoly. They're distorting the entire market. There are consumers, and then there are Apple consumers. Try to do business with the latter group without going through Apple, jumping through hoops, and getting taxed. And you come out without a direct relationship with your customer.
iMonopoly
> inalienable right to make apps to try to profit off of them.
What do you mean here? Do you have a problem with capitalism? The purpose of work is to earn a living. Outside of hobbyists and open source developers, nobody does this for free. It's work.
Should app developers be poor and unable to earn a living off apps? I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean, but that's how this comes across.
I think what you mean is that you're happy Apple controls distribution. My argument is that this isn't fair - they've built a computer, captured 50% of the US market, and control every economic funnel around these consumers, the likes of which we've never seen before in human history.
They have a mega monopoly. They're distorting the entire market. There are consumers, and then there are Apple consumers. Try to do business with the latter group without going through Apple, jumping through hoops, and getting taxed. And you come out without a direct relationship with your customer.
iMonopoly
> My argument is that this isn’t fair - they’ve built a computer, captured 50% of the US market, and control every economic funnel around these consumers...
> What do you mean here? Do you have a problem with capitalism?
It seems the more egregious example of being against capitalism is wanting to legislate an already successful business one to make it easier for your success.
> What do you mean here? Do you have a problem with capitalism?
It seems the more egregious example of being against capitalism is wanting to legislate an already successful business one to make it easier for your success.
Large dominant companies tend to consolidate their power through acquiring to remove competition and inhibiting the creation of competitors through their massive economical power. This is actually bad for capitalism since it removes the threats of competition.
First time ever I’m hearing a pro-capitalist person who is also pro-antitrust laws.
If you were a true capitalist, you’d grant people to choose if they want a walled garden or an „open” platform (although the alternative is not really open - just a bunch of big players forcing you to install their installers).
If you were a true capitalist, you’d grant people to choose if they want a walled garden or an „open” platform (although the alternative is not really open - just a bunch of big players forcing you to install their installers).
Capitalism works with regulation.
„Monopolizes access to 50% of users” - by definition, a monopoly is when you have access to the vast majoroty of the users :)
The entire economy around them!
- buying apps
- buying stuff online
- buying stuff in real life
- renting movies
- watching netflix
- subscribing to a dating service
- subscribing to anything
- playing games
- logging into your product
- ...
That's a super monopoly the likes of which this world hasn't seen before.
It begs the question - should Apple be forced to open iOS, or should they be split up outright into two or three different companies?
- buying apps
- buying stuff online
- buying stuff in real life
- renting movies
- watching netflix
- subscribing to a dating service
- subscribing to anything
- playing games
- logging into your product
- ...
That's a super monopoly the likes of which this world hasn't seen before.
It begs the question - should Apple be forced to open iOS, or should they be split up outright into two or three different companies?
[deleted]
That is not what monopoly legally means.
First it’s 50% of cellphones not computers, but secondly as an iPhone customer I have never paid Apple for any app, but I have still paid for apps so that’s clearly false.
Apple forces companies to give them a cut of in App purchases, but Kindle and Netflix show you can sell to iPhone customers without that.
Apple forces companies to give them a cut of in App purchases, but Kindle and Netflix show you can sell to iPhone customers without that.
> First it’s cellphone not computer
Then I'll kindly ask you stop using it for GPS navigation, email, browsing the web, banking, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, dating, calculating, and ordering food. :)
And if you write any code at all that you run on it, just get outta here. :P
> I have never paid for any app
All your money goes to Apple and you leave everyone else out high and dry? I'm not judging you, but you have to see how that's not good for non-Apple employees.
Then I'll kindly ask you stop using it for GPS navigation, email, browsing the web, banking, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, dating, calculating, and ordering food. :)
And if you write any code at all that you run on it, just get outta here. :P
> I have never paid for any app
All your money goes to Apple and you leave everyone else out high and dry? I'm not judging you, but you have to see how that's not good for non-Apple employees.
I think Apple should either charge considerably less than they do for distribution via their App Stores (that is, even less than 15%) or allow competition. Even more importantly, they need to allow installation of apps via links without requiring an App Store altogether.
They also need to provide wider access to low level APIs (with user confirmation), instead of dumbing it down for developers while keeping all the powerful APIs to themselves.