Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing
https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/22/22448139/tim-cook-epic-fortnite-trial-testimony-privacy-iap-antitrust
828 コメント
> And yet it’s apparently insecure for me to buy a Kindle book with the exact same mechanism in the exact same app? Get the fuck out of here.
Gonna play the devil's advocate here.
If I pay for a physical good, I have an expectation of continued use of that physical good absent of the use the technology medium I used to pay for it. If I buy a physical book and Amazon shut down, I can still read the book.
If I pay for a digital good that uses Apple's hardware in some shape or form (Kindle is a weird grey area because you could technically use an Amazon Kindle device, but that is an edge case) then giving Apple money provides an expectation that they continue to commercially support App Developers. A great example - App Store guidelines that enforce a yearly update (or whatever the cadence is) to the app store so that developers don't get lazy and their apps break with new releases of iOS. I think this is effectively what Cook is saying - we need an economic incentive to keep app developers honest and in a symbiotic relationship with them.
Gonna play the devil's advocate here.
If I pay for a physical good, I have an expectation of continued use of that physical good absent of the use the technology medium I used to pay for it. If I buy a physical book and Amazon shut down, I can still read the book.
If I pay for a digital good that uses Apple's hardware in some shape or form (Kindle is a weird grey area because you could technically use an Amazon Kindle device, but that is an edge case) then giving Apple money provides an expectation that they continue to commercially support App Developers. A great example - App Store guidelines that enforce a yearly update (or whatever the cadence is) to the app store so that developers don't get lazy and their apps break with new releases of iOS. I think this is effectively what Cook is saying - we need an economic incentive to keep app developers honest and in a symbiotic relationship with them.
Why does a book reader app need yearly updates? I bought my ereader years ago still opens epubs fine without updates. If the epub worked when I bought it why does it need to keep updating? Why does an ebook only work on the certified™ app?
[deleted]
Right? Reading this discussion and posting this comment from an iBook G4 from 2005. It actually works great (other than many websites being inaccessible due to SSL compatibility issues). That said I'm only using it for the heck of it while the battery is charging… ;) Still, yes, I wish there wasn't such a constant expectation from tech companies to constantly update to the latest & greatest (complete with persistently-nagging update reminders, UX dark patterns, etc.) So much waste inherent to the industry IMO. Though people seem to just happily go along with it too…
> Reading this discussion and posting this comment from an iBook G4 from 2005.
Which version of MacOS are you using? Is it officially supported by Apple? Do you receive security updates?
Which version of MacOS are you using? Is it officially supported by Apple? Do you receive security updates?
This iBook is running OS X 10.4.11 … No, it definitely is not supported and hasn't received updates in years. I wouldn't try to use it as a daily driver for general usage unless I installed a new OS like FreeBSD or OpenBSD on it.
And so you're a great target for a malicious actor since you no longer receive security updates. I guess you just proved my point.
Oh.. yeah, malicious actors will definitely have easy pickings with the outdated iBook I connected to a firewalled internet-only wifi AP for an hour or so, and haven't powered on in close to a year. Perfect opportunity for the elite hackers that were just chomping at the bit for me to connect an outdated device to the internet, that doesn't have access to my LAN or anything else of mine.
You understand anyone, anywhere is great target for a malicious actor, right? Unless every single piece of software on every piece of hardware on their network is fully patched and up to date, and doesn't contain any zero-day vulnerabilities, of course.
What point do you think I apparently helped prove? Are you referring to software entropy? The Wikipedia article you adjacently linked suggests that software bugs will only increase with every change, unless specifically mitigated - "as a system is modified, its disorder, or entropy, tends to increase".
You understand anyone, anywhere is great target for a malicious actor, right? Unless every single piece of software on every piece of hardware on their network is fully patched and up to date, and doesn't contain any zero-day vulnerabilities, of course.
What point do you think I apparently helped prove? Are you referring to software entropy? The Wikipedia article you adjacently linked suggests that software bugs will only increase with every change, unless specifically mitigated - "as a system is modified, its disorder, or entropy, tends to increase".
> haven't powered on in close to a year.
Didn't you just say you were viewing that website from the iBook but yet it hasn't been turned on in over year? So which is it? Are you actively using that computer or are you just using it as a strawman to prove some orthogonal point..
> Unless every single piece of software on every piece of hardware on their network is fully patched and up to date, and doesn't contain any zero-day vulnerabilities, of course.
Take two scenarios: one where everyone is on a unpatched 2004 iBook and one that we live in today. The chances of the former being hacked are WAY higher.
> What point do you think I apparently helped prove?
That you're an edge case and people aren't actively running on older versions of software because software vendors provide support to those systems. Support requires costly resources (humans, systems, etc.) to maintain. Those updates don't just come for free. The "system" that the WP article is referring to is the whole mobile ecosystem and internet. iOS needs to constantly be updated (including the SDK) to mitigate every new attack that comes with changes in ISPs, people's usage behavior, SSL/TLS changes, Wi-fi changes, and and and...this list goes on forever.
So how do you expect Apple to keep up with those changes? How do they enforce their walled garden has gardeners who water their plants and give them nutrients?
EDIT:
To further reiterate, back to one of your points before:
> Still, yes, I wish there wasn't such a constant expectation from tech companies to constantly update to the latest & greatest
For exactly the reasons I put above. There's probably a good reason TLS/SSL is throwing an error...because SSL2/3 is deemed insecure and this is an enforcement policy to change webmaster's behaviors.
Didn't you just say you were viewing that website from the iBook but yet it hasn't been turned on in over year? So which is it? Are you actively using that computer or are you just using it as a strawman to prove some orthogonal point..
> Unless every single piece of software on every piece of hardware on their network is fully patched and up to date, and doesn't contain any zero-day vulnerabilities, of course.
Take two scenarios: one where everyone is on a unpatched 2004 iBook and one that we live in today. The chances of the former being hacked are WAY higher.
> What point do you think I apparently helped prove?
That you're an edge case and people aren't actively running on older versions of software because software vendors provide support to those systems. Support requires costly resources (humans, systems, etc.) to maintain. Those updates don't just come for free. The "system" that the WP article is referring to is the whole mobile ecosystem and internet. iOS needs to constantly be updated (including the SDK) to mitigate every new attack that comes with changes in ISPs, people's usage behavior, SSL/TLS changes, Wi-fi changes, and and and...this list goes on forever.
So how do you expect Apple to keep up with those changes? How do they enforce their walled garden has gardeners who water their plants and give them nutrients?
EDIT:
To further reiterate, back to one of your points before:
> Still, yes, I wish there wasn't such a constant expectation from tech companies to constantly update to the latest & greatest
For exactly the reasons I put above. There's probably a good reason TLS/SSL is throwing an error...because SSL2/3 is deemed insecure and this is an enforcement policy to change webmaster's behaviors.
Yeah, I went and downloaded TenFourFox and then went to HN. Not going to going to respond any further than this because you're obviously just a troll who can't discuss a subject in good faith.
> Perfect opportunity for the elite hackers that were just chomping at the bit for me to connect an outdated device to the internet,
And this tone is good faith? lol, OK.
And this tone is good faith? lol, OK.
1. You picked one example that I explicitly mentioned was an edge case. Thanks.
2. More importantly, if your question is why does <INSERT LITERALLY ANY TECHNOLoGY> ever need updates? Answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_entropy
2. More importantly, if your question is why does <INSERT LITERALLY ANY TECHNOLoGY> ever need updates? Answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_entropy
Your incentive seems particularly perverse to me.
How is taking money away from developers and giving it to apple somehow an incentive to the developers updating their apps? Apple creating arbitrary rules doesn’t cost Apple anything but costs the app developers a lot of time.
How is taking money away from developers and giving it to apple somehow an incentive to the developers updating their apps? Apple creating arbitrary rules doesn’t cost Apple anything but costs the app developers a lot of time.
That's the most irrelevant argument I've ever heard.
Why okay devil's advocate? What is the reasoning behind that?
Maybe it's time to start selling paperclips with an ebook (or any other digital goods) as a gift.
I can imagine the listings now.
> Paperclips for rent, will ship to any location within 2 metres of my house, must be returned within five seconds. Complementary electronic copy of my latest book.
> Paperclips for rent, will ship to any location within 2 metres of my house, must be returned within five seconds. Complementary electronic copy of my latest book.
"Buyers may optionally choose to purchase paperclips for donation to a charity of my choice"
Just imagine the confusion at Red Cross as they're inundated with hundreds of thousands of paperclips.
Just imagine the confusion at Red Cross as they're inundated with hundreds of thousands of paperclips.
Given how easy it is to trick users, i feel like that's a decent trade-off. Its untennable for amazon maybe, but every sketchy app in the world processing credit cards as a normal thing would lead to a lot of phising.
On the surface, ebooks as a category of content make sense to allow direct sale as you described.
However, your use of Amazon also serves as an illustration of Apple’s case.
Among kindle enthusiasts, Amazon had notoriously neglected the Kindle product hardware and software platform.
From neglecting Goodreads to stagnation, to not including USB-C on its very expensive Oasis product, the whole brand is a picture of “we don’t improve it because we don’t have to.”
Kindle ebooks do offer interactive behavior like showing commonly highlighted passages and other light features.
But in most of the hardware, the interfaces are very laggy in comparison to iOS.
As much as text selection on iOS still isn’t great, it is certainly better than what you get on Oasis right now.
If Amazon cared to create a stronger social experience around goodreads and kindle for iOS users any time soon, it will leverage a huge amount of investment Apple has made in their software and hardware.
This is money Amazon had failed to invest themselves and it shows.
However, your use of Amazon also serves as an illustration of Apple’s case.
Among kindle enthusiasts, Amazon had notoriously neglected the Kindle product hardware and software platform.
From neglecting Goodreads to stagnation, to not including USB-C on its very expensive Oasis product, the whole brand is a picture of “we don’t improve it because we don’t have to.”
Kindle ebooks do offer interactive behavior like showing commonly highlighted passages and other light features.
But in most of the hardware, the interfaces are very laggy in comparison to iOS.
As much as text selection on iOS still isn’t great, it is certainly better than what you get on Oasis right now.
If Amazon cared to create a stronger social experience around goodreads and kindle for iOS users any time soon, it will leverage a huge amount of investment Apple has made in their software and hardware.
This is money Amazon had failed to invest themselves and it shows.
If you're making a usability case between an Apple product, you have to use the comparable Amazon product: Kindle Fire. Amazon's eink readers are a completely different product class than anything from Apple. And on a Kindle fire the experience isn't dramatically different than any other android based system, and the kindle reader apps between Apple and Fires are nearly identical.
Comparing an eink interface to iOS is simply not at all appropriate. Eink technology does not optimize for interface speed. It is not part of its primary design goals.
Comparing an eink interface to iOS is simply not at all appropriate. Eink technology does not optimize for interface speed. It is not part of its primary design goals.
How do you account for Amazon's investment in making the Kindle Fire OS updated and valuable? Haven't they paid their own expense to deliver a comparable application?
My point on e-ink was to show that Amazon has not invested in the Kindle product line.
Kindle readers can't support any modern interaction. And that part of the reason the interface speed is bad is because Amazon has neglected to invest whatsoever in the technology.
But to focus on the Kindle Fire app and its comparison, if you look at the most negative recent reviews, they generally focus on device incompatibility.
If you look at the App Store reviews for the kindle reader, they do not focus on that. They focus on other common issues between the platforms.
Device compatibility and support is a real value that Amazon Kindle users on iOS get.
My point on e-ink was to show that Amazon has not invested in the Kindle product line.
Kindle readers can't support any modern interaction. And that part of the reason the interface speed is bad is because Amazon has neglected to invest whatsoever in the technology.
But to focus on the Kindle Fire app and its comparison, if you look at the most negative recent reviews, they generally focus on device incompatibility.
If you look at the App Store reviews for the kindle reader, they do not focus on that. They focus on other common issues between the platforms.
Device compatibility and support is a real value that Amazon Kindle users on iOS get.
Amazon has produced 11 generations of Fire devices, but they all serve a very specific purpose: a portal to purchasing things from Amazon. That means their innovation has come in the form of having the absolute lowest cost devices for their level of build and hardware quality. They've innovated in that direction, investing quite heavily. You seem to want them to innovate in terms of features: That's fine as an opinion, but that is not the only direction for innovation, and Fires already have the most important feature Amazon wants for consumers: a smooth integration to buying stuff.
Eink readers, as I said, are a completely different product class, not at all comparable to iOS. And if you chart the progress they've made since their original eink devices there have been significant improvements.
The kindle app on Android has a 4.7 star rating. On iOS it's 4.8. A few negative reviews don't mean anything when their ratings are that high. Whatever issues people have, they are outliers.
I'm no Amazon fanboy-- I don't like them very much as a company. But they have absolutely innovated, you just disagree with the directions they have chosen to go with that innovation.
Eink readers, as I said, are a completely different product class, not at all comparable to iOS. And if you chart the progress they've made since their original eink devices there have been significant improvements.
The kindle app on Android has a 4.7 star rating. On iOS it's 4.8. A few negative reviews don't mean anything when their ratings are that high. Whatever issues people have, they are outliers.
I'm no Amazon fanboy-- I don't like them very much as a company. But they have absolutely innovated, you just disagree with the directions they have chosen to go with that innovation.
It is fine to say Amazon has innovated.
Some further ideas:
- Amazon has not seriously invested in Kindle or its ecosystem. Amazon does not because it does not face competition.
- Amazon does not allow apps or a HW sdk for eBook readers, which might make the products much more useful. (such as offering a wireless page turning device)
- Apple should charge for eBook purchases through the kindle app, because iOS does provide value that Amazon realizes.
- Amazon makes major financial investment in their own Android ecosystem. Amazon charges 70% itself for "in-app products" to cover all of their innovation in that area.
- While my original comment's parent focused on the security of the App Store as a value, it is only a contribution to the innovation Apple also has made into that ecosystem.
I disagree that the negative reviews can be equated. It would take analysis, but it appears to me that device incompatibility which is a platform problem is the main source of negative reviews on Android.
Whereas on the iOS side, the negative reviews are related to product features that affect both Android (Google and Amazon marketplaces and iOS.
If this is true, then it suggests that iOS users of the Kindle app are getting even more value out of the iOS platform than Android users. This would be greater underlying reason Apple should be compensated for the sale of eBooks from Amazon.
Sort of separately, but worth mentioning: our local library uses Overdrive to distribute and handle eBook loans and their licensing. Overdrive has a native app and it integrates with Amazon. The Overdrive app is free, and so is the use of Amazon to perform this loaning process.
So eBooks can be readily had in the App store for free.
Some further ideas:
- Amazon has not seriously invested in Kindle or its ecosystem. Amazon does not because it does not face competition.
- Amazon does not allow apps or a HW sdk for eBook readers, which might make the products much more useful. (such as offering a wireless page turning device)
- Apple should charge for eBook purchases through the kindle app, because iOS does provide value that Amazon realizes.
- Amazon makes major financial investment in their own Android ecosystem. Amazon charges 70% itself for "in-app products" to cover all of their innovation in that area.
- While my original comment's parent focused on the security of the App Store as a value, it is only a contribution to the innovation Apple also has made into that ecosystem.
I disagree that the negative reviews can be equated. It would take analysis, but it appears to me that device incompatibility which is a platform problem is the main source of negative reviews on Android.
Whereas on the iOS side, the negative reviews are related to product features that affect both Android (Google and Amazon marketplaces and iOS.
If this is true, then it suggests that iOS users of the Kindle app are getting even more value out of the iOS platform than Android users. This would be greater underlying reason Apple should be compensated for the sale of eBooks from Amazon.
Sort of separately, but worth mentioning: our local library uses Overdrive to distribute and handle eBook loans and their licensing. Overdrive has a native app and it integrates with Amazon. The Overdrive app is free, and so is the use of Amazon to perform this loaning process.
So eBooks can be readily had in the App store for free.
[deleted]
It's not like Amazon is crushing competitors trying to build inexpensive reasonable quality tablets. What would a competitor even look like? The average buyer is looking for a tablet that let's them consume content purchased through Amazon, a bit of web browsing, and buying things off the Amazon store. Amazon doesn't care about investing in the kindle ecosystem because because if another competitor came along that met those same consumer needs, they wouldn't care. They aren't selling tablets as a profit center. They're selling them as an interface to their ecosystem, which is why consumers want them. If someone else came along and did the same thing they'd be thrilled that tablets that accomplish their goals might get more market penetration.
Anything that isn't aligned with making it a streamlined portal to buying more stuff is needless fluff, especially anything that allows interoperability with content not purchased through Amazon.
Anything that isn't aligned with making it a streamlined portal to buying more stuff is needless fluff, especially anything that allows interoperability with content not purchased through Amazon.
I think kindle has ended up in this place but it isn’t where it was hoped to go.
I remember when the Amazon App Store was first announced and there was no talk of the devices being these value oriented Amazon content consuming portals.
There were a lot of competitors back then.
This was still around the time Palm had just given up, BlackBerry was briefly hopeful with the Playbook but most importantly the Barnes and Noble Nook was competing hard for these users.
In my anecdotal experience, Amazon Kindle fire purchasers were not in love with Amazon back then.
They just didn’t want to spend the money Apple was asking for iPads (which lacked as many purchase points and previous gens)
In one clear example, the person was downloading apps to do soduku, trying to listen to podcasts. whatever but did not subscribe to Prime and did not do delivery of items.
Do you understand the current posture of Amazon toward app dev on Fire to be negative / not encouraging?
I can see why these would be focused now entirely on portal to Amazon, but then I wonder why have an App Store for the product at all.
I remember when the Amazon App Store was first announced and there was no talk of the devices being these value oriented Amazon content consuming portals.
There were a lot of competitors back then.
This was still around the time Palm had just given up, BlackBerry was briefly hopeful with the Playbook but most importantly the Barnes and Noble Nook was competing hard for these users.
In my anecdotal experience, Amazon Kindle fire purchasers were not in love with Amazon back then.
They just didn’t want to spend the money Apple was asking for iPads (which lacked as many purchase points and previous gens)
In one clear example, the person was downloading apps to do soduku, trying to listen to podcasts. whatever but did not subscribe to Prime and did not do delivery of items.
Do you understand the current posture of Amazon toward app dev on Fire to be negative / not encouraging?
I can see why these would be focused now entirely on portal to Amazon, but then I wonder why have an App Store for the product at all.
I suppose they have an app store because that's a key desire for consumers. Amazon knows customers want to play angry birds or whatever, so they have an app store with the minimum selection necessary to make sure customers don't pass on purchasing one.
As for the development ecosystem, I really don't know. Even as a user, I side-load the normal Android app store.
As for the development ecosystem, I really don't know. Even as a user, I side-load the normal Android app store.
[deleted]
The only aspect of the Apple App Store that strikes me as truly anticompetitive is their prohibition on adjusting prices to include Apple’s fees, or even to tell the user what they are.
I can accept that Apple can demand a 30% fee for billing customers on their devices. And I can accept that they would prohibit installation/sales of software any other way. But I should be allowed to mark up the price by 30% and then call it out as a line item.
The fact that Apple can control what prices I set on other platforms and prohibit me from disclosing what’s happening to my users...
That is the part of this that strikes me as dystopian, and that’s the area where I think antitrust and free speech laws perhaps ought to step in.
I can accept that Apple can demand a 30% fee for billing customers on their devices. And I can accept that they would prohibit installation/sales of software any other way. But I should be allowed to mark up the price by 30% and then call it out as a line item.
The fact that Apple can control what prices I set on other platforms and prohibit me from disclosing what’s happening to my users...
That is the part of this that strikes me as dystopian, and that’s the area where I think antitrust and free speech laws perhaps ought to step in.
Dystopian is the word for it. It's fucking insane that you can't talk about why it's priced that way.
Of course, if you include the fee explicitly then people will think to look elsewhere and realize they can avoid it. But that's fine, taking a cut is stupid anyway. Really just seems like the app should be paying more to Apple (like a physical store paying rent on real estate) up front and getting the full price of their purchases anyway.
Of course, if you include the fee explicitly then people will think to look elsewhere and realize they can avoid it. But that's fine, taking a cut is stupid anyway. Really just seems like the app should be paying more to Apple (like a physical store paying rent on real estate) up front and getting the full price of their purchases anyway.
No. This is not dystopian. That is over-dramatic. We’re not talking about the loss of meaningful society. And iOS and Apple are not the whole of society. This is capitalism, plain and simple. Market position creates behavior, the market attempts to route around.
More economic activity is shifting from meat space and onto our phones over time. Apple’s idea that they deserve a 30% cut of “economic activity that happens on an iDevice” will appear ever more expansive.
During the pandemic, when fitness classes shifted to virtual video sessions, Apple demanded a 30% cut because what was once an offline “delivery of the goods” became online and iPhone -facilitated. What’s so dystopian about this example is that a virtual gym session is not too different from any kind of remote work.
Under the “value is delivered over an iDevice” philosophy, Apple’s tax can take a bite from nearly any plate in the economy.
During the pandemic, when fitness classes shifted to virtual video sessions, Apple demanded a 30% cut because what was once an offline “delivery of the goods” became online and iPhone -facilitated. What’s so dystopian about this example is that a virtual gym session is not too different from any kind of remote work.
Under the “value is delivered over an iDevice” philosophy, Apple’s tax can take a bite from nearly any plate in the economy.
> And iOS and Apple are not the whole of society.
I dont think it is over-dramatic. It is little exaggerated to make the point, but not over-dramatic for sure. The Smartphone impact to our society will be if not already unprecedented. We will ( unfortunately ) "live" on our Smartphone.
For those who have been looking forward to Smartphone since ( Apple ) Newton era, which is now coming close to 30 years, this has been long time coming. But now we are actually here, it is kind of scary the direction we are heading.
I dont think it is over-dramatic. It is little exaggerated to make the point, but not over-dramatic for sure. The Smartphone impact to our society will be if not already unprecedented. We will ( unfortunately ) "live" on our Smartphone.
For those who have been looking forward to Smartphone since ( Apple ) Newton era, which is now coming close to 30 years, this has been long time coming. But now we are actually here, it is kind of scary the direction we are heading.
Really can't agree more.
It's clear that the App Store offers significant value for many vendors, and charging for it is fine. Epic apparently generates $500m of revenue per year from the iPhone, and they're doing so using platforms, tools, and APIs that Apple built to help developers do that. It's reasonable that Apple would get a slice of that. The company I work for makes, well, a lot less revenue that Epic, but a decent chunk of the revenue we do make goes to AWS and Stripe, as compensation for their help in letting us earn that revenue.
What's not great is the specific way Apple has chosen to get this cut. AWS and Stripe both run, more-or-less, on a cost-plus model; they package up a service, and resell it to us at a markup (in the case of AWS bandwidth, a very, very, fat markup), and they let us decide how much of that service to consume, and how we want to balance our purchases between them and competing vendors.
Apple's stance here is a little like if AWS tried to force people who use any AWS service to use their overpriced egress bandwidth for everything, and sued customers found to be using Cloudflare to reduce their costs.
It's clear that the App Store offers significant value for many vendors, and charging for it is fine. Epic apparently generates $500m of revenue per year from the iPhone, and they're doing so using platforms, tools, and APIs that Apple built to help developers do that. It's reasonable that Apple would get a slice of that. The company I work for makes, well, a lot less revenue that Epic, but a decent chunk of the revenue we do make goes to AWS and Stripe, as compensation for their help in letting us earn that revenue.
What's not great is the specific way Apple has chosen to get this cut. AWS and Stripe both run, more-or-less, on a cost-plus model; they package up a service, and resell it to us at a markup (in the case of AWS bandwidth, a very, very, fat markup), and they let us decide how much of that service to consume, and how we want to balance our purchases between them and competing vendors.
Apple's stance here is a little like if AWS tried to force people who use any AWS service to use their overpriced egress bandwidth for everything, and sued customers found to be using Cloudflare to reduce their costs.
A lot of the design elements that are part of modern iOS, macOS design were first created by third party developers for free.
Simple example is the sidebar [1]
Before it became the commonly used it is not in early OSX i twas third party libraries that would allow you do use these views. A lot of what is now macOS HIG was first made popular by third party developers (for free) then integrated into the OS X and then third party developers would migrate to the officially supported version.
To pretend Apple created all of this in a vaccum is a convenient lie people tell themselves.
https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline...
Simple example is the sidebar [1]
Before it became the commonly used it is not in early OSX i twas third party libraries that would allow you do use these views. A lot of what is now macOS HIG was first made popular by third party developers (for free) then integrated into the OS X and then third party developers would migrate to the officially supported version.
To pretend Apple created all of this in a vaccum is a convenient lie people tell themselves.
https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline...
> Apple's stance here is a little like if AWS tried to force people who use any AWS service to use their overpriced egress bandwidth for everything, and sued customers found to be using Cloudflare to reduce their costs.
Is that a good example? I think that's how it works. Egress out to cloudflare is billed at the full rate last I checked. GCP gives you a discount, but not AWS.
Is that a good example? I think that's how it works. Egress out to cloudflare is billed at the full rate last I checked. GCP gives you a discount, but not AWS.
I meant using it as a cacheing layer, yes. Perhaps not the best example, but still!
AWS doesn't care if you try and offload some processing to cheap Hetzner servers; Stripe doesn't care if you offer Paypal as a second option. Apple very much cares about anything you do which might reduce the amount of money routed through the app store.
AWS doesn't care if you try and offload some processing to cheap Hetzner servers; Stripe doesn't care if you offer Paypal as a second option. Apple very much cares about anything you do which might reduce the amount of money routed through the app store.
I assume the situation here was using Cloudflare in front of your AWS so it doesn’t get hit as much, so your costs stay low. Of course AWS↔Cloudflare is going to cost money, but ideally they will be doing caching for you do the traffic on this is less.
Yes, if your using it as a caching layer, that's correct.
Yeah, the current model is basically sharecropping with all the possible methods of abusing the farmers leveraged in favor of Apple as if they were Monsanto. I love being able to side load classic Android apps and I've only had one recently stop working entirely, Google Tracks.
I think Apple really considers this a store. If we compare to Walmart, I’d say 2 out of 3 are obviously the way it works.
When selling in Walmart, they won’t let you advertise that you can buy the same product cheaper elsewhere.
They also want their distribution deal with you a secret. You don’t go post your terms of engagement with Walmart on your corporate blog if you expect to keep selling stuff in Walmart.
The pricing is where things start to change and I think I agree with you that it’s a step too far.
When selling in Walmart, they won’t let you advertise that you can buy the same product cheaper elsewhere.
They also want their distribution deal with you a secret. You don’t go post your terms of engagement with Walmart on your corporate blog if you expect to keep selling stuff in Walmart.
The pricing is where things start to change and I think I agree with you that it’s a step too far.
I find that analogy very bad. It would be more like you buy a Sodastream (that can make carborated water). When you want to refill it you have to go back to Walmart. You are not allowed to go to any other store, including Sodastream. Even if you order a refill gas bottle from Sodastream directly the payment will have to go through Walmart since you bought the machine there a long time ago. And they will add 30% to the price.
Yes, but after you take the product home from Walmart, and open the packaging, a little card slips out with more deals from the manufacturer…deals that are neither controlled nor raked by Walmart.
The app upselling you on more features afterwards is equivalent to that. Apples view would only make sense if even when inside the app, you’re STILL in the store. Because to Apple, the AppStore is not Walmart, the iPhone is Walmart. You never leave.
The app upselling you on more features afterwards is equivalent to that. Apples view would only make sense if even when inside the app, you’re STILL in the store. Because to Apple, the AppStore is not Walmart, the iPhone is Walmart. You never leave.
This Walmart store analogy often over simplifies the problem that is not accurate in the grand scheme of things.
Everything about the Walmart as a "store" in the above are correct. Except iOS is also a "State", and this State only accept one "store". While in the Walmart example, which is a real world example, one could always expect you to open a Store next to Walmart selling exactly the same thing with a lower price.
The Store, The State ( Platform ) , Judiciary ( App Store Rules ) are all interlinked together. You cant compare one thing without mentioning the other. And that is not even including the payment processing.
Everything about the Walmart as a "store" in the above are correct. Except iOS is also a "State", and this State only accept one "store". While in the Walmart example, which is a real world example, one could always expect you to open a Store next to Walmart selling exactly the same thing with a lower price.
The Store, The State ( Platform ) , Judiciary ( App Store Rules ) are all interlinked together. You cant compare one thing without mentioning the other. And that is not even including the payment processing.
Perhaps it’s more like Costco’s decade(s) of “you can only pay with Amex”. Visa card holders could not shop there.
You want to use a Visa, you find a Sam’s Club. Don’t like state of iOS, travel to territory of Android.
You want to use a Visa, you find a Sam’s Club. Don’t like state of iOS, travel to territory of Android.
Well that would be payment processing with Amex. You are still allowed to go to Sam's Club next door, or Sam's Club ( Store ) opening one close to Costco.
>Don’t like state of iOS, travel to territory of Android.
Except the "State" of iOS currently holds close to 70% of Smartphone user in US with close to 80% of the spending. You are basically telling business to either comply with the "State" or go else where. Which is why something "above" the state has to come in.
I am not arguing for or against opening or side loading App Store. But there are no competition on each of those different levels. Which Apple likes to lump it all together as one thing. And this idea shouldn't be hard to grasp.
>Don’t like state of iOS, travel to territory of Android.
Except the "State" of iOS currently holds close to 70% of Smartphone user in US with close to 80% of the spending. You are basically telling business to either comply with the "State" or go else where. Which is why something "above" the state has to come in.
I am not arguing for or against opening or side loading App Store. But there are no competition on each of those different levels. Which Apple likes to lump it all together as one thing. And this idea shouldn't be hard to grasp.
Apple's use of its own market power on its store to regulate conduct on other markets is deeply concerning.
Another example is Apple ID. If I use Google or Facebook SSO in my app, I have to offer Apple SSO alongside it. That is okay. However Apple will refuse the app into the App Store if I don't also offer Apple ID login on desktop and Android platforms.
Apple should keep its nose in its own business.
Another example is Apple ID. If I use Google or Facebook SSO in my app, I have to offer Apple SSO alongside it. That is okay. However Apple will refuse the app into the App Store if I don't also offer Apple ID login on desktop and Android platforms.
Apple should keep its nose in its own business.
Apple also tried to delete all of Epic's Apple ID users, with no way for Epic to contact them, affecting users on non-Apple platforms who just happened to sign up with Apple ID. They ended up backing down to avoid judicial scrutiny, but now everyone knows the threat. If Apple comes out of the antitrust stuff on top, they can push ahead with this later to see how far they can take it.
If a user chooses to sign up using Apple’s SSO, how are they supposed to also use your desktop or other apps if those don’t also support Apple SSO?
That is not a matter of concern of Apple. This is just one of several examples of Apple forcing behaviour changes outside its own walled garden.
Whether or not it makes business sense to restrict the use of Apple ID elsewhere is a matter properly left to the app developer and not Apple.
I should have added - this is based on my own interpretation of the App Store guidelines. If I'm wrong, I'd like someone to point it out, since I don't want to be spreading misinformation.
Whether or not it makes business sense to restrict the use of Apple ID elsewhere is a matter properly left to the app developer and not Apple.
I should have added - this is based on my own interpretation of the App Store guidelines. If I'm wrong, I'd like someone to point it out, since I don't want to be spreading misinformation.
> their prohibition on adjusting prices to include Apple’s fees
I believe that credit card processors include this policy as well. Otherwise, I’m sure a lot more places would offer a discount if you pay by cash.
I believe that credit card processors include this policy as well. Otherwise, I’m sure a lot more places would offer a discount if you pay by cash.
That was historically the case, but allowing merchants to offer cash discounts is protected under U.S. federal law since 2010: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durbin_amendment. Around me, only gas stations and liquor stores seem to commonly offer such discounts though.
What's less settled is whether businesses can charge credit-card customers a CC surcharge to pass on the fees. Economic theory would consider this functionally the same as offering a cash discount, but it differs in calling out the CC fee as a line item charge. Some state laws prohibit that, and they've been tied up in litigation, e.g. this mostly inconclusive 2017 Supreme Court ruling that kicked the question back down to lower courts: https://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/opinion-analysis-justices...
What's less settled is whether businesses can charge credit-card customers a CC surcharge to pass on the fees. Economic theory would consider this functionally the same as offering a cash discount, but it differs in calling out the CC fee as a line item charge. Some state laws prohibit that, and they've been tied up in litigation, e.g. this mostly inconclusive 2017 Supreme Court ruling that kicked the question back down to lower courts: https://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/opinion-analysis-justices...
The credit card companies still demand that it should be called cache discount and not credit card surcharge. Various marketing studies show that the term surcharge leaves bad impression supposedly due to priming effect.
I actually like this as consumers don’t care about price breakdowns. One of the biggest annoyances with consumer prices in the US is the separate price for taxes.
Many countries require net prices advertised and it’s so much simpler, both for ease of mind and for lower prices. Having $10 advertised and then 10% taxes layers on, and convenience fees, and service fees, etc sucks. I’d rather have $12 advertised and not care about all the stuff that goes into it.
Many countries require net prices advertised and it’s so much simpler, both for ease of mind and for lower prices. Having $10 advertised and then 10% taxes layers on, and convenience fees, and service fees, etc sucks. I’d rather have $12 advertised and not care about all the stuff that goes into it.
It's not about having to pay it separately, but having it as a separate item on receipt.
Here, all prices are advertised after tax, but the receipt lists tax percent for each item, and amount.
A B C next to items denote tax percent, then below you have value of items with tax group "Sprzed. opod. PTU A", tax amount "Kwota A 23%", and sum of all taxes "Podatek PTU".
https://www.wykop.pl/cdn/c3201142/comment_EFFuzBF17reBWZvxpe...
Here, all prices are advertised after tax, but the receipt lists tax percent for each item, and amount.
A B C next to items denote tax percent, then below you have value of items with tax group "Sprzed. opod. PTU A", tax amount "Kwota A 23%", and sum of all taxes "Podatek PTU".
https://www.wykop.pl/cdn/c3201142/comment_EFFuzBF17reBWZvxpe...
I don’t mind this method. In the US, typically the advertised price is base and then extras are added on afterwards.
In my order of preference I like: - your way -Apple’s way (although seems to be the way other app stores do it too) -current US way
In my order of preference I like: - your way -Apple’s way (although seems to be the way other app stores do it too) -current US way
I will not buy any device that does not give me control of the device. If I can't sideload apps, can't install a 3rd party store, do not have the ability to root my own device, I won't buy it. Apple has decided that's not allowed, fine, I won't buy their product. That's between Apple and their customers.
But it is certifiably insane that Apple thinks they have the right to dictate to Epic what Epic charges for its apps on their store. If Epic thinks Fortnite is worth $30, and Epic charges Android users $30 for the binary to sideload onto their Android devices, and because Apple charges a 30% surcharge, Epic sells the same app on iOS for $42.86, and Apple says, "no, you're not allowed to do that, you have to charge $30 just like you do on Android" -- no. Absolutely not. Apple does not have the moral/ethical right to do that.
But it is certifiably insane that Apple thinks they have the right to dictate to Epic what Epic charges for its apps on their store. If Epic thinks Fortnite is worth $30, and Epic charges Android users $30 for the binary to sideload onto their Android devices, and because Apple charges a 30% surcharge, Epic sells the same app on iOS for $42.86, and Apple says, "no, you're not allowed to do that, you have to charge $30 just like you do on Android" -- no. Absolutely not. Apple does not have the moral/ethical right to do that.
From the outside looking in, it looks like Apple are so ashamed of their own 30% price-gouging that they won't allow you to include it. It makes no sense whatsoever to dictate Epic's pricing, and this seems like an obviously dangerous hill for Apple to choose to die on.
It’s still unclear to me why Apple should have any limits in what rules they set for their store.
Don’t publishers have the option to skip Apple’s store and sell in other ones?
I mean this isn’t price gouging generators during a winter storm. This is video games and apps.
What stops publishers from simply shrugging, walking away, and letting Apple users miss out?
I mean this isn’t price gouging generators during a winter storm. This is video games and apps.
What stops publishers from simply shrugging, walking away, and letting Apple users miss out?
It's still unclear to me why anticompetitive behavior is so hard to understand for people here. Free markets don't exist. Stop pretending they do. Apple has a crazy amount of power over companies selling apps on their platform. Power that would easily be considered a monopoly and anticompetitive if brought to court in, say, Germany. The fact that Apple doesn't own the smartphone market completely is irrelevant. What matters is their potential and real power to unilaterally decide on contract/business matters affecting any number of companies that use their platform.
Because it accounts for a huge portion of the mobile market. This is exactly what antitrust is for. When you have large swaths of a market controlled by so few, you don’t actually get proper free market dynamics. Antitrust cases like this put limits on few large players that abuse their positions and generally promote and incentivize further development in the market.
If Apple was forced to allow 3rd party stores or even forced to allow apps to be transparent to their users about pricing, it would allow room for more consumer choice.
If Apple was forced to allow 3rd party stores or even forced to allow apps to be transparent to their users about pricing, it would allow room for more consumer choice.
The only problem here is that you have to show Apple changes practices to become anti-competitive once achieving large marketshare/control.
It's OK to have a monopoly, it's not ok to abuse it under U.S. law.
Apple has actually loosened restrictions over time as the platform gained marketshare/size. And when Apple created the App Store they more than doubled how much developers took home from gross revenue (70-80% of revenue went to distributors/retail prior to the App Store).
The only anti-competitive area I'm concerned about is Spotify/streaming services. I think Apple is being overzealous here.
Everything else appears to be a game/software distribution norm.
Epic pays 30% on Android, Nintendo, Xbox, and Playstation markets.
Steam needs 15% and GOG needs 22% of gross revenue from games to break even operationally.
Stripe charges about 3% of gross revenue for transaction services.
The 30% doesn't seem that high when you consider those factors:
15% just to keep the lights on (Steam break-even royalty rate). 3% for transactions at minimum (e.g. Stripe fee) Ongoing R&D costs of maintaining iOS/iPhones (more technically and cost intensive than Xbox and Playstation combined).
The kit for iOS development is remarkably cheap too, $99/yr developer account (mostly a gatekeeping path to keep malware out), and $700 for an M1 Mac Mini (If you don't want to just use a VM from AWS for < $100 yr).
I think they can do better for small-time app developers (the 15% fee has helped), but I still feel like these people should STFU and look up how expensive Gaming Console, Embedded SoC, and IoT dev kits are in comparison (And god, don't look at the agreements we sign on embedded hardware dev kits). I wish I only had to spend $99 a year, and be able to use $100 used cell phones to test my software on.
It's OK to have a monopoly, it's not ok to abuse it under U.S. law.
Apple has actually loosened restrictions over time as the platform gained marketshare/size. And when Apple created the App Store they more than doubled how much developers took home from gross revenue (70-80% of revenue went to distributors/retail prior to the App Store).
The only anti-competitive area I'm concerned about is Spotify/streaming services. I think Apple is being overzealous here.
Everything else appears to be a game/software distribution norm.
Epic pays 30% on Android, Nintendo, Xbox, and Playstation markets.
Steam needs 15% and GOG needs 22% of gross revenue from games to break even operationally.
Stripe charges about 3% of gross revenue for transaction services.
The 30% doesn't seem that high when you consider those factors:
15% just to keep the lights on (Steam break-even royalty rate). 3% for transactions at minimum (e.g. Stripe fee) Ongoing R&D costs of maintaining iOS/iPhones (more technically and cost intensive than Xbox and Playstation combined).
The kit for iOS development is remarkably cheap too, $99/yr developer account (mostly a gatekeeping path to keep malware out), and $700 for an M1 Mac Mini (If you don't want to just use a VM from AWS for < $100 yr).
I think they can do better for small-time app developers (the 15% fee has helped), but I still feel like these people should STFU and look up how expensive Gaming Console, Embedded SoC, and IoT dev kits are in comparison (And god, don't look at the agreements we sign on embedded hardware dev kits). I wish I only had to spend $99 a year, and be able to use $100 used cell phones to test my software on.
> It’s still unclear to me why Apple should have any limits in what rules they set for their store.
It's an exploitative monopoly. That's more than enough reason to place severe limits on it.
It's an exploitative monopoly. That's more than enough reason to place severe limits on it.
One of the things that came up in the trial was that Apple's share of Fortnite was more than $100 million in a single year. Which means that Epic's earnings from Fortnite on iOS for that year were more than $334 million.
That explains why Epic doesn't want to walk away.
That explains why Epic doesn't want to walk away.
So they don’t get to be on iOS. I’d leave ethics and morals out of this convo since neither side has anyone’s interest but their own. Sounds like you already found a solution to this court case - don’t buy Apple if you want to tinker with your hardware. I’m shocked that is news to anyone. I’m shocked so many of us want to dictate what the rest of us have as the status quo because it doesn’t align with your feelings and belief system.
Anti-competition cases are about consumer protection,as it says in the article.
We'd be in a grim society if our values were "Don't like? Don't use it" without any capacity of deeper discussion.
We'd be in a grim society if our values were "Don't like? Don't use it" without any capacity of deeper discussion.
Nothing so far has convinced me this will improve things for consumers. It will let minority of users who game or are technically savvy do more with their device at the expense of the current ecosystem. It is quite literally an outspoken minority riding the coat tails of a massive corporate law suit about one company wanting to make more money. Everything else is speculation and horseshit bundled as what’s best for the consumer.
'At the expense of the current ecosystem'. Stop peddling this nonsense that adding alternatives will somehow degrade the current App Store.
> don’t buy Apple if you want to tinker with your hardware
Apple makes good hardware. I should be able to buy an Apple device and use my own software on it.
Apple makes good hardware. I should be able to buy an Apple device and use my own software on it.
> I’m shocked so many of us want to dictate what the rest of us have as the status quo because it doesn’t align with your feelings and belief system.
Would you still support Apple if they said certain race of people cannot use Apple devices. They can always use non Apple devices.
Would you still support Apple if they said certain race of people cannot use Apple devices. They can always use non Apple devices.
In the US there are protected classes, race being one, that are illegal for discrimination.
Side-loading, right to repair are not similarly protected. Although maybe they will be passed one day.
So if Apple had illegal discriminations, I think that would greatly decrease their support on this issue. Definitely from me.
Side-loading, right to repair are not similarly protected. Although maybe they will be passed one day.
So if Apple had illegal discriminations, I think that would greatly decrease their support on this issue. Definitely from me.
The law should follow what we think is right, not the other way around.
I agree. And in this case, I think the law does follow. As more people think side-loading is as important as protected classes, the laws will change.
These civil rights classes are fairly new and less than a hundred years old, reflecting changes in the way people think and believe.
These civil rights classes are fairly new and less than a hundred years old, reflecting changes in the way people think and believe.
> “IAP helps Apple efficiently collect a commission” — for payment processing, but also customer service and the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Without in-app purchases, “we would have to come up with another system to invoice developers, which I think would be a mess.” If Apple let developers tell users about other payment methods, Cook said later, “we would in essence give up our total return on our IP.”
Apple doesn't provide payment processing, customer service or anything on payments made using other payment methods, so there's nothing to invoice developers for. They also already charge developers a yearly fee for a developer account.
Am I misunderstanding the argument, does the article misrepresent it, or does it just not make sense?
Apple doesn't provide payment processing, customer service or anything on payments made using other payment methods, so there's nothing to invoice developers for. They also already charge developers a yearly fee for a developer account.
Am I misunderstanding the argument, does the article misrepresent it, or does it just not make sense?
> If Apple let developers tell users about other payment methods, Cook said later, “we would in essence give up our total return on our IP.”
Apple believes ("insists"?) that they deserve a cut of your app's revenue--however you might collect the money--because your app is using their "IP" in the form of all the libraries and tooling they nigh unto force you to use to build apps that run on their phone; like, to them, UIKit (I presume), Metal (which many people are only using because Apple refused to implement OpenGL or Vulcan), and (this is rich) apparently even Xcode (wtf: that thing sucks ;P) is so awesome that they deserve 30% of your revenue, and they spent a bunch of time during their testimony trying to show the various ways Epic used--and even liked--their software.
Apple believes ("insists"?) that they deserve a cut of your app's revenue--however you might collect the money--because your app is using their "IP" in the form of all the libraries and tooling they nigh unto force you to use to build apps that run on their phone; like, to them, UIKit (I presume), Metal (which many people are only using because Apple refused to implement OpenGL or Vulcan), and (this is rich) apparently even Xcode (wtf: that thing sucks ;P) is so awesome that they deserve 30% of your revenue, and they spent a bunch of time during their testimony trying to show the various ways Epic used--and even liked--their software.
You're paying for access to their userbase.
... which is monopolistic rent-seeking, the like of which would have been shut down (and was) in the 90’s
And the userbase is there because of the apps.
Let’s not pretend Apple doesn’t also benefit from having apps in its store and on its phone.
Let’s not pretend Apple doesn’t also benefit from having apps in its store and on its phone.
Everyone is gawking over the M1
> because your app is using their "IP" in the form of all the libraries and tooling they nigh unto force you to use to build apps that run on their phone; like, to them, UIKit (I presume), Metal (which many people are only using because Apple refused to implement OpenGL or Vulcan), and (this is rich) apparently even Xcode
And say what you will about Xcode, but I’m literally building in Vapor 4 (server side Swift) with all of its warts because I experience trauma leaving Xcode. JetBrains and VSCode are painful to get to function like Xcode - but if there are any pointers to make it a better experience I’m al ears...
Edit: just to reiterate. Users want long battery life, fast compile times / snappy apps, better connectivity into life...
And honestly Apple has almost screwed itself executing perfectly on those demands in its native platform.
We forget at the end of the day we all (devs, manufacturers, etc) are working to bring value to a customer, who has other relationships with other suppliers. Those other relationships create multiple Pareto equilibriums based on the utility function of the customer... this case is trying to reweight (with more philosophical reason) how millions of customers have previously and consistently chosen to balance their decisions
> because your app is using their "IP" in the form of all the libraries and tooling they nigh unto force you to use to build apps that run on their phone; like, to them, UIKit (I presume), Metal (which many people are only using because Apple refused to implement OpenGL or Vulcan), and (this is rich) apparently even Xcode
And say what you will about Xcode, but I’m literally building in Vapor 4 (server side Swift) with all of its warts because I experience trauma leaving Xcode. JetBrains and VSCode are painful to get to function like Xcode - but if there are any pointers to make it a better experience I’m al ears...
Edit: just to reiterate. Users want long battery life, fast compile times / snappy apps, better connectivity into life...
And honestly Apple has almost screwed itself executing perfectly on those demands in its native platform.
We forget at the end of the day we all (devs, manufacturers, etc) are working to bring value to a customer, who has other relationships with other suppliers. Those other relationships create multiple Pareto equilibriums based on the utility function of the customer... this case is trying to reweight (with more philosophical reason) how millions of customers have previously and consistently chosen to balance their decisions
> JetBrains and VSCode are painful to get to function like Xcode
Because nobody sane wants them to? Like, to me, I can jump into most any IDE I’ve ever used without too much trouble, but Xcode is impenetrable.
It’s like Apple tried to throw up an artificial wall by making all Xcode paradigms different from anything else.
Because nobody sane wants them to? Like, to me, I can jump into most any IDE I’ve ever used without too much trouble, but Xcode is impenetrable.
It’s like Apple tried to throw up an artificial wall by making all Xcode paradigms different from anything else.
I think that's a bit harsh. I'm quite able to be productive in both JetBrains products and in Xcode. I'd say JetBrains is superior due to the whole Intentions debugging system, but conceptual it is not a quantum leap between the two of them.
Where Xcode falls down is its sheer bugginess.
Where Xcode falls down is its sheer bugginess.
The largest part of app store revenue is games, most games use only a small subset of Apple APIs, and very often only because Apple is not supporting industry standards (like Vulkan or OpenGL)
This is a good argument that it isn't a monopoly.
Really it’s not that specific - all the APIs and features is just back-solving to justify their core belief that iPhone is God’s gift to developers and the economy, and Apple deserves a cut of all (digital) commerce that happens on it.
It just does not make sense.
They are measuring themselves with double standards. On one side they want to defend their App Store tax and its immense height by counting usage of APIs, the store's distribution bandwidth etc. as value the developer pays for via commissions. On the other side they advertise to the world how many millions of free apps they have in their store.
Either those free apps are somehow not using any of their IP, not consuming any bandwidth and not using any support resources, or the entire argument is BS.
They are measuring themselves with double standards. On one side they want to defend their App Store tax and its immense height by counting usage of APIs, the store's distribution bandwidth etc. as value the developer pays for via commissions. On the other side they advertise to the world how many millions of free apps they have in their store.
Either those free apps are somehow not using any of their IP, not consuming any bandwidth and not using any support resources, or the entire argument is BS.
For the customer service part, I suppose that if the user has any issue, they'll likely go to Apple first which can't do anything and make the user experience less ideal. As of today, they can refund the user which keeps them happy.
My problem has always been that Apple is both the gatekeeper and a competitor in its app store. I'd have a lot more trust in Apple as a consumer if they didn't offer up first party products such as Apple TV and Apple Arcade. It makes the shutdown of game streaming services seem particularly disingenuous.
The payments issue is more complex, but I can't get a metaphor to origins of monopoly law out of my head: If payments processing is like shipping around little bags of money, its like we have a railroad that controls half the market forcing exclusive transport contracts on manufacturers. It certainly FEELS wrong.
I think, ideally, Apple should be barred from offering first party services without providing a mechanism for third parties to receive the same treatment via a certification process. That means that other game stores could get access to that apple arcade button in the app store and that other payment processors could be used, so long as they met Apple's declared standards for privacy and security.
The payments issue is more complex, but I can't get a metaphor to origins of monopoly law out of my head: If payments processing is like shipping around little bags of money, its like we have a railroad that controls half the market forcing exclusive transport contracts on manufacturers. It certainly FEELS wrong.
I think, ideally, Apple should be barred from offering first party services without providing a mechanism for third parties to receive the same treatment via a certification process. That means that other game stores could get access to that apple arcade button in the app store and that other payment processors could be used, so long as they met Apple's declared standards for privacy and security.
My iOS game which was in arcade category for years before Apple launched Apple Arcade was changed to an irrelevant category(Casual) as soon as Apple launched its Arcade platform. Just information over email, No permission was asked.
I’d love to know more about this, mind sharing some more details over DM? Thanks! https://twitter.com/keleftheriou
This is the best solution. Apple should not be operating the platform and then compete on that same platform.
They can either shut off all their services and operate the store, charging whatever tax they like. Or they can shut off the store, allow others to operate stores on iOS, and continue distrbuting stuff like Apple music over any third party store they like.
Otherwise it is just a blatant abuse against apps like Netflix and Spotify. I'm surprised why those companies are not fighting this.
They can either shut off all their services and operate the store, charging whatever tax they like. Or they can shut off the store, allow others to operate stores on iOS, and continue distrbuting stuff like Apple music over any third party store they like.
Otherwise it is just a blatant abuse against apps like Netflix and Spotify. I'm surprised why those companies are not fighting this.
"in 2020, Apple’s app store commission revenue was close to $15bn, which was larger than total global revenue from the entire digital music industry... Around 90% of this revenue comes from games, and almost all of that comes from in-app purchases."
https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2021/5/13/apples-ads...
https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2021/5/13/apples-ads...
Has someone written a treatise on in-app game purchases? It's a huge aspect of human behavior that I cannot understand intuitively and I guess I ought to. I have no desire to do it. I'll pay under $10 for an old Grand Theft Auto game that I can play start to finish, but the in-app stuff I don't get. It's like some sort of exploit for human psychologically that is phenomenally lucrative that somehow I got a patch for.
It works like this:
Distribute resources at predictable intervals and only if the player has used the previous items. This will create a powerful habit in players: they will feel the need to log into the game frequently in order to use up resources and keep the timer running at all times.
1. Make the game require resources to play
2. Use timers to rate-limit the player's progression
Distribute resources at predictable intervals and only if the player has used the previous items. This will create a powerful habit in players: they will feel the need to log into the game frequently in order to use up resources and keep the timer running at all times.
3. Allow players to pay money to reset the timers
4. Make players outspend each other
I've tried to play a few games that do that. As soon as I see that dynamic, I think to myself... What idiot thinks this is fun? What am I a mouse in a Skinner box pushing a f*king lever? Then I stop playing and delete the game. It amazes me that people keep going with the game like they can't see the little mouse maze they're in. Is there a name in the psychological literature for this type of lack of awareness?
> What am I a mouse in a Skinner box pushing a f*king lever?
That's exactly how the game companies view the people who play their Skinner's box simulato-- their games. They deliberately design their games like this. They use the same psychological terminology. They design "reward schedules". They wire the reward button to the player's credit card and make players compete to see who can press it more.
> It amazes me that people keep going with the game like they can't see the little mouse maze they're in.
Yeah, addiction sucks. The games are designed to form habits in players via the almighty timers. I've been down that rabbit hole before, there were people in my gaming groups who literally set up alarms at 3 AM in order to do little bullshit daily game tasks. They exist precisely to get players addicted to the rewards. You can spend hundreds of dollars on a mobile game before you realize the truths I described above.
A sufficiently addicted player is indistinguishable from a bot. It's not that hard to write one and they can't detect it statistically because of their own progression rate limits. Bots are an excellent treatment for addiction to these exploitative games.
That's exactly how the game companies view the people who play their Skinner's box simulato-- their games. They deliberately design their games like this. They use the same psychological terminology. They design "reward schedules". They wire the reward button to the player's credit card and make players compete to see who can press it more.
> It amazes me that people keep going with the game like they can't see the little mouse maze they're in.
Yeah, addiction sucks. The games are designed to form habits in players via the almighty timers. I've been down that rabbit hole before, there were people in my gaming groups who literally set up alarms at 3 AM in order to do little bullshit daily game tasks. They exist precisely to get players addicted to the rewards. You can spend hundreds of dollars on a mobile game before you realize the truths I described above.
A sufficiently addicted player is indistinguishable from a bot. It's not that hard to write one and they can't detect it statistically because of their own progression rate limits. Bots are an excellent treatment for addiction to these exploitative games.
I liked one of the answers in another thread, “did you go to the arcade as a kid?”. I think as children we enjoy fantasy and are more able to suspend belief to take part in it. Games almost all have some fantasy wrapped around the mechanics. A part of the fun is maintaining that fantasy. For many people, the exploitation loop costs little enough that they don’t mind paying it to maintain the fantasy and enjoy the game. If it’s below some threshold of acceptable spending for them, they still take pleasure in playing.
You could take money out of the equation, for an example like amateur chess. To get good you have to practice. Practice takes time. Time is finite. Why does some crazy good amateur haches player bother to I c’est so much time to get that good? For some arbitrary score on chess.com, but why? Because they enjoy it, even if it’s another hamster wheel.
You could take money out of the equation, for an example like amateur chess. To get good you have to practice. Practice takes time. Time is finite. Why does some crazy good amateur haches player bother to I c’est so much time to get that good? For some arbitrary score on chess.com, but why? Because they enjoy it, even if it’s another hamster wheel.
So you're saying they view the game world as actually real, or they want to believe it's real, and thus when stuff costs money, they view it as legitimate, just like you have to pay for food and shelter in the real world and pay up?
I don't think the chess example really works because playing chess can be fun all by itself. Paying money for avoiding waiting in a game can't reasonably be considered to be an end in itself.
I don't think the chess example really works because playing chess can be fun all by itself. Paying money for avoiding waiting in a game can't reasonably be considered to be an end in itself.
Yes.
"who killed videogames? (a ghost story)" by Tim Rogers.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120128084303/https://insertcre...
"who killed videogames? (a ghost story)" by Tim Rogers.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120128084303/https://insertcre...
I mean what exactly is hard to understand? You presumably went to arcades as a kid?
Tim Cook's line of argument seemed a bit weird to me. On one hand he's saying that he doesn't know if Apple's customers would be able to distinguish between Apple's good and holy curated store and Epic's filthy shitheap of porn and blackjack, but he's also saying that Apple's customers definitely want Apple's App Store as-is.
>Lawyer says, “if people really value Apple’s curation and Apple’s App Store, even if there are multiple stores, people could still go shop at Apple,” right?
>“It seems like a decision that they shouldn’t have to make,” Cook says.
https://twitter.com/thedextriarchy/status/139579670438178406...
>Will people not be able to distinguish between an official and unofficial store?
>“They’ve never had to do it before. They’ve bought into something that’s an ecosystem that just works.”
>So you don’t know if people can tell the difference?
>“I’m saying I don’t know,” Cook says.
https://twitter.com/thedextriarchy/status/139579711859036569...
>Apple can’t really know that it runs a better app store than anyone else, when it’s never let anyone try, right?
>“It’s an experiment I didn’t want to run,” Cook says. Customers “uniformly” want it to “stay like it is."
https://twitter.com/thedextriarchy/status/139579741076549632...
>Lawyer says, “if people really value Apple’s curation and Apple’s App Store, even if there are multiple stores, people could still go shop at Apple,” right?
>“It seems like a decision that they shouldn’t have to make,” Cook says.
https://twitter.com/thedextriarchy/status/139579670438178406...
>Will people not be able to distinguish between an official and unofficial store?
>“They’ve never had to do it before. They’ve bought into something that’s an ecosystem that just works.”
>So you don’t know if people can tell the difference?
>“I’m saying I don’t know,” Cook says.
https://twitter.com/thedextriarchy/status/139579711859036569...
>Apple can’t really know that it runs a better app store than anyone else, when it’s never let anyone try, right?
>“It’s an experiment I didn’t want to run,” Cook says. Customers “uniformly” want it to “stay like it is."
https://twitter.com/thedextriarchy/status/139579741076549632...
Why not give customers the choice to run other app stores? Imagine if all the software on your laptop must be downloaded from the windows store..
Because my grandma is clueless and I give her an iPhone so she doesn’t install malware like she managed to on her Android phone
It's weird that a clueless person was able to download and install a malware apk when by default Android forces you to go to your settings and allow apps to install other apps (the behaviour has changed over the years, but you always need to do something). Not to mention that Google Play Protect scans your apps and warns you if it finds something sketchy.
In any case and as much as I like my own clueless grandma, I don't think my Android phone should only allow me to use the play store or that windows/macos/linux should stop me from installing Steam just because she's clueless about tech.
In any case and as much as I like my own clueless grandma, I don't think my Android phone should only allow me to use the play store or that windows/macos/linux should stop me from installing Steam just because she's clueless about tech.
Why is that weird? Facebook has to put warnings in the browser console to prevent people from pasting malicious code that some viral post said would give them super powers on Facebook. Obviously these warnings aren’t for people who understand developer tools and internet security. They’re there because malicious people trick other people into running malicious code.
It's not weird because it didn't happen.
It's actually happened more than once. Perhaps the person you were replying to was lying; doesn't make their point valid, because it has actually happened.
People can follow the most complicated step by step instructions if they're explained clearly enough, by someone they feel they don't need to trust, and there's an incentive to follow them.
People can follow the most complicated step by step instructions if they're explained clearly enough, by someone they feel they don't need to trust, and there's an incentive to follow them.
If grandma ignores my advice and installs the unsafe app despite the steadily more large and screaming warnings doesn’t that become individual responsibility at some point?
But what do you want to ensure: that grandma only installs malware on her phone via mistakes she is individually responsible for, or that she doesn't install malware on her phone? Maybe for the abstract 'grandma' you would take the first option. But for someone you personally care about, you're not going to choose the option that predictably ends with her being harmed, even if it will be her own fault when it happens.
You may notice we don’t cover all power outlets because kids (or grandma) may stick their fingers in them either.
I trust them not to do that.
Then again, if iOS has a setting that ‘enables’ the unsafe app store I’m confident grandma won’t reach it since it’s hidden behind the actual passcode, not a fingerprint.
I trust them not to do that.
Then again, if iOS has a setting that ‘enables’ the unsafe app store I’m confident grandma won’t reach it since it’s hidden behind the actual passcode, not a fingerprint.
[deleted]
Power outlets in the UK have a mechanism to cover the live holes with a rubber plug unless the Earth pin is connected, so yes, we do.
You’re free to argue that, but my guess is that Apple actually cares about customer satisfaction regardless of who you or anyone else decides to blame for any particular instance of dissatisfaction.
And when grandma gives all of her retirement money to scammers by hitting the wrong button, she will get her rightful comeuppance dying on the street instead of taking up your guest bedroom.
In the real world, avoiding mistakes is more important than people suffering the consequences of mistakes.
In the real world, avoiding mistakes is more important than people suffering the consequences of mistakes.
Current behavior on downloading an apk makes it pretty easy, IIRC it says you need to set a setting, has a (working) deeplink to the setting, and when you set the setting it prompts you to finish installing.
It's really not that hard anymore. Google Play Protect then yells at you about the app you just installed (but maybe that was because I was installing rooting apps). The best solution to someone installing garbage apps would be a system with an app whitelist managed by a trusted person off the phone. And no browser or incoming phone calls.
It's really not that hard anymore. Google Play Protect then yells at you about the app you just installed (but maybe that was because I was installing rooting apps). The best solution to someone installing garbage apps would be a system with an app whitelist managed by a trusted person off the phone. And no browser or incoming phone calls.
What’s your argument here, that the GP is lying or that their grandmother wanted the malware or something else?
I find it very easy to believe that some malware vendor managed to trick someone into enabling things in settings. I would also believe that malware was just sitting in the play store[1] and available to install the normal way.
[1] same goes for the App Store.
I find it very easy to believe that some malware vendor managed to trick someone into enabling things in settings. I would also believe that malware was just sitting in the play store[1] and available to install the normal way.
[1] same goes for the App Store.
His grandmother already has an iPhone, so it's unlikely that she was using Android 10 or 11 (which made it fairly easy to install an apk file). Until Android 9 you had to go through some menus and allow sideloading, something that "clueless" people usually don't do. It's more likely that the "malware" came from an app installed via the Play Store.
Three or so years ago I was asked by someone to see if there was a virus on their phone. The "virus" was in fact a religious app, installed via the official store, which was opening a popup with ads every few hours.
Now, I could be wrong and it's possible that his grandma actually sideloaded an apk. If she did, I still think that you should be able to install an app that isn't allowed by Apple on their store, after all they block more than just malware: apps with free licenses, some VPN apps in some countries, torrent apps without any illegal content in it, etc.
If Apple wants to continue on this path, hopefully they'll go a step further and also remove the web browser and the ability to receive calls. Scam calls are a problem after all and we don't want people to send all their savings to "Microsoft" or "Amazon".
Three or so years ago I was asked by someone to see if there was a virus on their phone. The "virus" was in fact a religious app, installed via the official store, which was opening a popup with ads every few hours.
Now, I could be wrong and it's possible that his grandma actually sideloaded an apk. If she did, I still think that you should be able to install an app that isn't allowed by Apple on their store, after all they block more than just malware: apps with free licenses, some VPN apps in some countries, torrent apps without any illegal content in it, etc.
If Apple wants to continue on this path, hopefully they'll go a step further and also remove the web browser and the ability to receive calls. Scam calls are a problem after all and we don't want people to send all their savings to "Microsoft" or "Amazon".
Not only that but I don't see how this problem isn't just trivially solved by putting an optional "parental" control on the setting. God forbid someone has to take 5 seconds to set a phone up for their mum.
It's not exactly difficult to walk users through the process - Epic Games already makes you bypass all the warnings if you want to install fortnite.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-get-fortnite-on-andro...
Once it becomes normalized for users to click through the warnings, they become meaningless and powerless, just like any warning.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-get-fortnite-on-andro...
Once it becomes normalized for users to click through the warnings, they become meaningless and powerless, just like any warning.
Never underestimate a malware makers ability to instruct a user to do something. Out for that matter a users ability to get themselves into trouble.
True, but we probably don't want to remove the ability to receive calls just because users might receive a scam call or the browser just because it can be used to trick someone to give their information. It's the same with apps, especially when Apple bans more than just apps with malware.
Actually I definitely do want to A) make it more difficult for spam callers to exist and B) make it more difficult for people to be fooled by them.
The problem with an App Store-like approach to that problem is that Apple would control who could call you and not give you the option to receive calls from someone they don't like.
I'm not against security or privacy. My problem is not having a way to bypass the App Store and what they allow (they ban more than just malware) when I want to install something.
I use Android for this reason. As soon macOS becomes like iOS, I'm out too.
I'm not against security or privacy. My problem is not having a way to bypass the App Store and what they allow (they ban more than just malware) when I want to install something.
I use Android for this reason. As soon macOS becomes like iOS, I'm out too.
> My problem is not having a way to bypass the App Store
The ability to bypass the App Store for yourself exists and has for a long time. The process might not be to your liking, but let’s stop pretending that you have no choice if you want to use iOS but not go through the App Store.
The ability to bypass the App Store for yourself exists and has for a long time. The process might not be to your liking, but let’s stop pretending that you have no choice if you want to use iOS but not go through the App Store.
When I say "bypass the App Store", I mean installing an app like you can do on Android, Windows, macOS or Linux.
Jailbreak isn't supported by Apple and it's not something most people can or would do.
Jailbreak isn't supported by Apple and it's not something most people can or would do.
> I mean installing an app
I meant exactly that and didn’t mean Jailbreaking. Apple officially supports allowing you to sign apps for your own device with a free developer account, it’s just the signing expires after 7 days (unlike the paid developer accounts which expire after a year). It’s a hassle to need to reinstall weekly (hence my point about it likely not being to one’s liking), but there are apps[0] available to automate the process. So my point stands, nothing is stopping you from using iOS and installing apps from outside the App Store but yourself.
[0] https://altstore.io/
I meant exactly that and didn’t mean Jailbreaking. Apple officially supports allowing you to sign apps for your own device with a free developer account, it’s just the signing expires after 7 days (unlike the paid developer accounts which expire after a year). It’s a hassle to need to reinstall weekly (hence my point about it likely not being to one’s liking), but there are apps[0] available to automate the process. So my point stands, nothing is stopping you from using iOS and installing apps from outside the App Store but yourself.
[0] https://altstore.io/
It's an interesting solution which I wasn't aware of (thanks for sharing), but requiring a weekly reinstall and a free developer account (and a computer to automate the process) doesn't seem to be something most people would use. It's also not comparable to what all other mainstream OS allow you to do.
When I install an apk on Android, it works until something breaks. Same on Windows, macOS or Linux. I also don't have to ask Google, Microsoft or Canonical for a free key so I can sign an app created by someone else.
I'm sure this is enough and acceptable for some users, just not for me.
When I install an apk on Android, it works until something breaks. Same on Windows, macOS or Linux. I also don't have to ask Google, Microsoft or Canonical for a free key so I can sign an app created by someone else.
I'm sure this is enough and acceptable for some users, just not for me.
IMO the right question to ask here is how do we, as a society, make people not be this trustful?
It’s not really weird at all. When a dialog pops up while a user is trying to do something like install an app 90% of users will blindly click “ok” in order to get on with it.
Neither the user or a website/app can install an apk file on Android by just clicking "OK".
This extends to any number of dialogs standing between the user and their goal. If a user wants to install an application they will not be deterred by warnings because they fundamentally don't care - they've already decided they want this app.
So the solution is to force majority of the population to use Apple store, to protect minority of the population who aren't tech savvy?
If Apple allowed other stores, before a user can install an app from non-Apple store, iOS can show a message saying the app is not from Apple's holy store and that it is users responsibility to make sure the app is trustworthy? This won't be pretty, but at least it is a compromise.
They want their 30% cut and they want to tightly control everything. That is the only true, logical reason. Everything else is a flimsy excuse
If Apple allowed other stores, before a user can install an app from non-Apple store, iOS can show a message saying the app is not from Apple's holy store and that it is users responsibility to make sure the app is trustworthy? This won't be pretty, but at least it is a compromise.
They want their 30% cut and they want to tightly control everything. That is the only true, logical reason. Everything else is a flimsy excuse
But then Epic will have detailed instructions on how to sideload apps, and if enough apps do this it will be common practice for users to do so. If users are trained to do this by safe apps, they won't be on the lookout for the malware that does the same thing.
Maybe a wacky idea, but what if Apple required you to go to an Apple store to sideload a new app or app store. That way the person at the store can stop really stupid mistakes.
They already basically do; they require you to go to the digital equivalent and ask Apple pretty please for a signature.
Pretty hard to know who the minority is in this case. Based on other HN opinions about Apple products, there seems to be a consensus that Apple customers are mostly not tech savvy. If they were, they wouldn’t buy Apple stuff.
Why is it hard to know? Apple has at most like a 20% market share globally, and around 50% in the United States. The overwhelming majority of smartphone owners have a non-Apple smartphone.
What is hard to know is whether Apple (iPhone) users are sophisticated enough to not be exploited by non-Apple App stores.
Even though this is a stereotype not grounded in reality and there are plenty of techie people who buy Apple products.
Lots of tech folks buy apple and at the same time vast majority of Apple customers should not be trusted to do valid security assessment or maintain good operational security.
I am not particularly a fan of Apple. Still, I think Apple is better than Google. That is how sad the situation is. There is simply no choice other than iOS and Android. I really wish Microsoft hadn't given up so soon on windows phone. Microsoft isn't great either, but at least there would be three choices instead of two.
I hope projects like Librem 5 succeed, but they are a long way :(
I hope projects like Librem 5 succeed, but they are a long way :(
One possible solution is to start giving our money to companies that are not Apple or Google. Otherwise we'll be forever stuck with this duopoly and various alternative OS will keep being niche at best.
Show me a viable 3rd party OS phone that doesn't require me to jump through 1000 hoops and accept subpar reception/user experience and I'll hop right on it. Until then I'll choose iPhone for it's superior user privacy policy (compared to Android/Google)
I hope projects like librem 5 will catch on, at least amongst the tech savvy, might take a while though.
> So the solution is to force majority of the population to use Apple store, to protect minority of the population who aren't tech savvy?
You could always get an android.
I realise that this can come off as silly, but what, id not the walled garden differentiate the two systems? If you tear those walls down, you’re basically using a really expensive android device with all the tracking and malware that includes.
I do think the courts should force Apple to open up. Closed systems are evil, even though they are very nice to use. I just hope they do it in such a way that it’s optional and has no effect on the rest of us.
You could always get an android.
I realise that this can come off as silly, but what, id not the walled garden differentiate the two systems? If you tear those walls down, you’re basically using a really expensive android device with all the tracking and malware that includes.
I do think the courts should force Apple to open up. Closed systems are evil, even though they are very nice to use. I just hope they do it in such a way that it’s optional and has no effect on the rest of us.
Why, exactly, are they evil? It's not as if people who buy Apple (like me, and I develop for iPhone/iPad too) don't know what they're getting. I like the walled garden Apple has because:
* It makes my life as a developer much easier. I only have one App Store to aim at, and with a few hiccups here and there from inexperienced or overzealous reviewers the guidelines are pretty clear. If I had to design for half a dozen or more apps I'd have that many more versions of guidelines to worry about.
* I don't need to worry nearly as much about scam or knock-off apps siphoning off users, since Apple is proactive about that. Not perfect, but very proactive.
Those are just two off the top of my head. There are more, but I'm getting hungry.
* It makes my life as a developer much easier. I only have one App Store to aim at, and with a few hiccups here and there from inexperienced or overzealous reviewers the guidelines are pretty clear. If I had to design for half a dozen or more apps I'd have that many more versions of guidelines to worry about.
* I don't need to worry nearly as much about scam or knock-off apps siphoning off users, since Apple is proactive about that. Not perfect, but very proactive.
Those are just two off the top of my head. There are more, but I'm getting hungry.
Because they are limiting. I’m personally in the iOS boat, and it’s great until you try programming on your iPad instead of your non-closed MacBook.
Phones, consoles, tablets are closed because the companies that build them didn’t have competition from open platforms. Computers are still open because they still have competition, if they didn’t they’d likely all be chrome books.
I know it’s sort of hypocritical, but the walled-garden is only nice until it’s curators considers your needs to be weeds.
Phones, consoles, tablets are closed because the companies that build them didn’t have competition from open platforms. Computers are still open because they still have competition, if they didn’t they’d likely all be chrome books.
I know it’s sort of hypocritical, but the walled-garden is only nice until it’s curators considers your needs to be weeds.
You might not have seen this: https://developer.apple.com/swift-playgrounds/
It's pretty nice to be able to build entire Swift playgrounds on your iPad, then share them with your Mac/MacBook. The IDE is simple and very straightforward, and it's useful for prototyping things on your iPad or iPad Pro.
It's pretty nice to be able to build entire Swift playgrounds on your iPad, then share them with your Mac/MacBook. The IDE is simple and very straightforward, and it's useful for prototyping things on your iPad or iPad Pro.
Could the guest mode on android or enterprise/fleet thingy be used to achieve that (preventing user from installing malware) ?
Fuck, Time said that 2 years old are using iOS so , "Great news, the lowest common denominator will be lowered from grandma to toddlers"
And Apple protecting her from that is the only solution? I don't think so...
With just a tiny bit of imagination I'm sure we can come up with something which will work. Here's an idea: Let Apple sell Apple-locked and unlocked iPhones. It can work just like carrier locking. Buy one unlocked, maybe pay a little extra, and you can have 3rd party app stores.
That took me a minute to come up with. I am absolutely positive that there are many other degrees of options between full-control by Apple and full-control by End-user.
I get it though... people who like Apple aren't very appreciative of having options.
With just a tiny bit of imagination I'm sure we can come up with something which will work. Here's an idea: Let Apple sell Apple-locked and unlocked iPhones. It can work just like carrier locking. Buy one unlocked, maybe pay a little extra, and you can have 3rd party app stores.
That took me a minute to come up with. I am absolutely positive that there are many other degrees of options between full-control by Apple and full-control by End-user.
I get it though... people who like Apple aren't very appreciative of having options.
> Let Apple sell Apple-locked and unlocked iPhones. It can work just like carrier locking. Buy one unlocked, maybe pay a little extra
But that won't work for Epic, or for any competitor. Epic wants access to every iPhone customer, not just the ones who paid extra to add third party app stores. Heck, you don't even have to pay extra to sideload apps on Android, but they still lost a ton of people when Google kicked them out of the Play Store.
But that won't work for Epic, or for any competitor. Epic wants access to every iPhone customer, not just the ones who paid extra to add third party app stores. Heck, you don't even have to pay extra to sideload apps on Android, but they still lost a ton of people when Google kicked them out of the Play Store.
There's a thing called "choice paralysis" that Apple minimizes as a value-add.
My technically-savvy associates, I suggest an Android to (especially if they want to dabble in mobile development themselves). For my family that just wants a phone that works, I suggest iPhone. The ecosystem tends to have a single right way to do any given task, which is a boon when they just want it to work without having to think about details.
My technically-savvy associates, I suggest an Android to (especially if they want to dabble in mobile development themselves). For my family that just wants a phone that works, I suggest iPhone. The ecosystem tends to have a single right way to do any given task, which is a boon when they just want it to work without having to think about details.
I just want a commodity pocket computer. I don't need to be able to install linux on it or Uncle Jack's latest new app idea. I just want to see my calendar, answer emails, and take calls, I dgaf about "oh I can put git on my phone and download the latest rustc and compile my web backend and test it on my phone!"
Ok, thats fine. But you don't need to force everyone else to make the same decisions.
If other people want to have unlocked iPhones, due to Apple's behavior being illegally anti-competitive, then thats OK.
If other people want to have unlocked iPhones, due to Apple's behavior being illegally anti-competitive, then thats OK.
If that was the law then sure, Apple could just sell a Samsung Android phone on their store so they don’t get fined. This approach obviously doesn’t actually change anything for smartphone users or developers.
I know you mean well. But it’s ironic that with the first iPhones, Apple was combating the tight gripe of carriers, especially in the US on consumer control.
Apple's corporate charter is pretty simple: keep the girl with the hammer from getting too close to the screen.
Yes, they won important victories against the cellular carriers -- victories that we all continue to benefit from -- but let's not kid ourselves regarding why they fought those battles in the first place. They didn't just set out to defeat the incumbent gatekeepers, they set out to become them.
Yes, they won important victories against the cellular carriers -- victories that we all continue to benefit from -- but let's not kid ourselves regarding why they fought those battles in the first place. They didn't just set out to defeat the incumbent gatekeepers, they set out to become them.
So your Grandma installed apks? I find that hard to believe. The google store has a slightly worse history for malware than the Apple Store but not that much worse, especially relative to PC malware. Also anecdotes generally don't prove much in the greater scheme of "Android is a malware platform and your grandmother is going to get a virus"
why is that hard to believe? literal children do it to get fortnite. any site that is trying to get you to sideload will have convenient instructions for how to do it.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-get-fortnite-on-andro...
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-get-fortnite-on-andro...
Also on HN today, endless comments about how Amazon is a shitheap full of fake products and fake reviews and wishing Amazon would tighten up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27253047
> "Why not give customers the choice to run other app stores?"
Why can't people who don't want Apple's curation and want to install other app stores buy Android phones, instead of trying to ruin nice things for everyone else?
> "Why not give customers the choice to run other app stores?"
Why can't people who don't want Apple's curation and want to install other app stores buy Android phones, instead of trying to ruin nice things for everyone else?
> Why not give customers the choice to run other app stores?
Why would Apple want to do so? That would obviously reduce their earnings.
> Imagine if all the software on your laptop must be downloaded from the windows store..
I bet that is Microsoft's dream. They can't just do that because of disruption would be too big. But they did something similar with Windows RT, so they definitely looking into it.
Why would Apple want to do so? That would obviously reduce their earnings.
> Imagine if all the software on your laptop must be downloaded from the windows store..
I bet that is Microsoft's dream. They can't just do that because of disruption would be too big. But they did something similar with Windows RT, so they definitely looking into it.
>They can't just do that because of disruption would be too big.
Microsoft became rather antitrust shy at some point. Not sure if that's the case anymore but I think it affected many of the decisions.
Microsoft became rather antitrust shy at some point. Not sure if that's the case anymore but I think it affected many of the decisions.
They became shy exactly when they lost a massive antitrust suit in the late 90’s.
Customers have that choice today.
On the Android platform.
On the Android platform.
Which is partially why Apple makes it very hard to move to Android. No iMessage, Calendars, Contacts, iTunes Purchases, etc.
You can very easily link your iCal with Google Calendar, and likewise sync your contacts with your Google account. I know because I've done both.
You can't access iCloud calendars on an Android phone, they even block it over the browser.
It's a bit convoluted, but you can get the CalDAV URLs for your calendars which then work just fine with any CalDAV client (including those on Android). When googling "iCloud caldav" detailed instructions are the first result.
Key point here is "very hard to move to Android". Seeing as this is not at all easy (and I have gotten to work via this method at some point), it presents a barrier to changing platforms. Likewise ,not allowing access to calendar on a mobile browser is pretty blatant.
Sometimes less freedom is a good thing. It frees the customer's mind to let an organization they trust make the tedious product evaluations for you. We do it all the time with retail shopping where we enjoy the curated decisions of the shop's owner instead of a giant bazaar.
On the other hand, when Apple decides to block some app (eg: certain VPN apps in China) for reasons that aren't in your interest, you're screwed.
Being able to use a different app store (which may or may not be as "curated" as Apple's own store) or to simply download the app from the devs website and install it doesn't seem to be a problem for Android users. Or for Windows, Linux and even macOS (eg: is it that bad being able to install Steam?)
The thing is, most people will use the store that comes with the phone. I have F-Droid installed for some open source apps, but my parents have no idea of what that is. They use Google's Play Store, like most users... if Facebook wants them to use their apps, that's where their app needs to be.
Being able to use a different app store (which may or may not be as "curated" as Apple's own store) or to simply download the app from the devs website and install it doesn't seem to be a problem for Android users. Or for Windows, Linux and even macOS (eg: is it that bad being able to install Steam?)
The thing is, most people will use the store that comes with the phone. I have F-Droid installed for some open source apps, but my parents have no idea of what that is. They use Google's Play Store, like most users... if Facebook wants them to use their apps, that's where their app needs to be.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27221083
Apparently, yes, it is a problem.
Apparently, yes, it is a problem.
They're trying to defend their own store and business model... of course having a more open system is a problem.
After years of "there are no viruses for mac", I find it funny to see an Apple exec saying that his own family members have been infected by malware on macOS.
After years of "there are no viruses for mac", I find it funny to see an Apple exec saying that his own family members have been infected by malware on macOS.
I own the hardware (the floor space of the store). Should I not be able to decide who sets up shop in my phone?
I think the zoning laws in your area prevent you from operating a nuclear plant or a meat processing facility.
(Sorry, it's just Hello Kitty shops for you! :) )
They curate their stores to draw in customers, placing popular items up front and usually having SALE signs up. Why? because it is an extremely competitive environment.
The store owners pay rent, they are not obliged to give a 30% commission on purchases to the company who owns the shopping centre and they are not forced to use the shopping centres chosen payment service to make sure they collect on commissions.
Less freedom is not a good thing. Nothing is being taken away from you when you provide other options, quite the opposite.
The store owners pay rent, they are not obliged to give a 30% commission on purchases to the company who owns the shopping centre and they are not forced to use the shopping centres chosen payment service to make sure they collect on commissions.
Less freedom is not a good thing. Nothing is being taken away from you when you provide other options, quite the opposite.
I'm with you on this... and then remember the many useful tools that are only available outside the app store.
BTW, Have you seen the app store catalog for macOS on apple silicon? Still very sparse.
Trusting one company to provide the whole stack is not necessarily practical, even for the average user.
BTW, Have you seen the app store catalog for macOS on apple silicon? Still very sparse.
Trusting one company to provide the whole stack is not necessarily practical, even for the average user.
If your phone is a central part of your IT job (you mention tools), then you need flexibility. But if you're like me any just use it as a phone, casual web browser, and messenger device, freedom is no value. I'm confident all the basic important stuff will be available and if it's not, I don't really care anyway. I don't want to have to think about or manage my phone. I want it to just do its basic job and get out of my way. I think a lot of people are like this.
But we do allow more than one or two shops to exist.
But you do! Buy an Android. Or jailbreak the iPhone.
As a consumer, his comments were spot on about me at least.
As a consumer, his comments were spot on about me at least.
I hope multiple App Stores don’t become a thing on iOS. The reason I like iPhone is that I am assured that apps I download from App Store are not shit and curated by Apple. Apple has vested interest to keep apps made available to be clean and not going to compromise iPhone. Android play store, in comparison, is full of crap and free for all, basically buyer (or downloader) beware.
Phone is used by too broad of user groups, from very young to very old, for apps to be left unchecked unlike laptops and desktops.
Phone is used by too broad of user groups, from very young to very old, for apps to be left unchecked unlike laptops and desktops.
"I hope multiple App Stores don’t become a thing on iOS. The reason I like iPhone is that I am assured that apps I download from App Store are not shit and curated by Apple."
Then dont install those other app stores and only rely on apples curated list, if other app stores ever become a thing on ios.
Then dont install those other app stores and only rely on apples curated list, if other app stores ever become a thing on ios.
It'll end up similarly to macOS AppStore. Developers will avoid it, so user will be forced to use other stores to make his phone useful.
vbezhenar, for some reason there is no reply link visible in your commenr, so have to reply like this.
"It'll end up similarly to macOS AppStore. Developers will avoid it, so user will be forced to use other stores to make his phone useful."
So, kinda like on Androi... No, wait. It wont. Other stores will be in the margins likd on Android.
"It'll end up similarly to macOS AppStore. Developers will avoid it, so user will be forced to use other stores to make his phone useful."
So, kinda like on Androi... No, wait. It wont. Other stores will be in the margins likd on Android.
Have you seen the prompt you get when you install an app outside the play store, (and even worse give it permission to install other apps)?
Epic have made instructions on how to do it [0], it's a four step process to be able to install the game that involves changing two system default settings that both warn you not to do what you're about to do.
[0] https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/mobile/android/new-...
Epic have made instructions on how to do it [0], it's a four step process to be able to install the game that involves changing two system default settings that both warn you not to do what you're about to do.
[0] https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/mobile/android/new-...
I'm happy F-Droid user, so yes, i know the process.
The reality of what ends up happening is you end up with an app store per publisher, and needing to manage your payment details with each one individually, and deal with each stores handling of your data. I don't want to install the NYT store to download the nyt cooking app so they can take a bigger cut on their subscription. The reason this hasn't happened on Android is because you get a scary warning when you install apps from other sources.
> I don't want to install the NYT store to download the nyt cooking app so they can take a bigger cut on their subscription.
Then don't. Nobody is forcing you. That's what this is all about, not forcing people.
Then don't. Nobody is forcing you. That's what this is all about, not forcing people.
Except android has multiple app stores and most people just end up using the main one.
There is no good reason to restrict user choice
Exactly what's blocking apple from using same kinda warning? So no, it wont happen.
Good thing epic aren't suing google at the same time for the exact reason we're discussing right here then isn't it?
Epic is free to sue who ever they whish. That means nothing. The argument was that 3rd party app stores would somehow affect apples appstore quality. That's false. If apple would allow installing apps from unknown sources and just give ugly warnings then, thus letting 3rd party appstores on ios, it would have no effect on qpple appstore content.
> The argument was that 3rd party app stores would somehow affect apples appstore quality. That's false.
With Apple in control, the developer faces the choice to play by Apple's rules, or lose out on the money to be made in their walled garden.
With Apple no longer in control, the user now faces the choice to play by the developer's rules, or lose out on the app.
That said, I'm actually not a fan of the walled garden approach, and won't be buying an iPhone in the forseeable future. It's just that I do understand the appeal.
With Apple in control, the developer faces the choice to play by Apple's rules, or lose out on the money to be made in their walled garden.
With Apple no longer in control, the user now faces the choice to play by the developer's rules, or lose out on the app.
That said, I'm actually not a fan of the walled garden approach, and won't be buying an iPhone in the forseeable future. It's just that I do understand the appeal.
>With Apple in control, the developer faces the choice to play by Apple's rules, or lose out on the money to be made in their walled garden.
>With Apple no longer in control, the user now faces the choice to play by the developer's rules, or lose out on the app.
Android has proven this is not true. Google has the same policies as Apple and does allow alternative app stores. Turns out the world works in a common sense way and everything turned out fine.
>With Apple no longer in control, the user now faces the choice to play by the developer's rules, or lose out on the app.
Android has proven this is not true. Google has the same policies as Apple and does allow alternative app stores. Turns out the world works in a common sense way and everything turned out fine.
Do you think the existence of the epic store on wjncows has had an effect on the content of steam?
A really good example right now is riot. They distribute through their own launcher on PC rather than on steam. They have two sizeable games on mobile right now (wild rift and TFT). In a world where these are downloadable from the riot launcher on iOS rather than the app store, it seems likely riot (and other major publishers who do the same on PC) would follow suit? I don't see how having an app store without hearthstone, TFT, fortnite is the same quality as one with.
A really good example right now is riot. They distribute through their own launcher on PC rather than on steam. They have two sizeable games on mobile right now (wild rift and TFT). In a world where these are downloadable from the riot launcher on iOS rather than the app store, it seems likely riot (and other major publishers who do the same on PC) would follow suit? I don't see how having an app store without hearthstone, TFT, fortnite is the same quality as one with.
Instead of trying to compare to other totally different products, do the comparison to Android. Has any 3rd party appstore affected play store in any way? No. Start your argument from that fact.
Yes. Fortnite isn't on the play store.
And it's not in apple appstore neither, so clearly the reason is not the fact that non-playstore apps can be installed.
fortnite was in the app store until epic game's account was terminated for terms-of-service violations, so whatever point you're trying to make here isn't correct.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53955183
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53955183
The counter-argument runs like this:
Third party developers want to get their apps onto the iPhone, because the platform has a lot of users, and there's a lot of money to be made. However, they will be forced to play by Apple's rules, which (according to the argument) is good for the customer, as the custodian of the platform has a vested interest in keeping them happy.
Now, if 3rd party stores were allowed, Apple's bargaining power which allowed them to force 3rd parties to respect the user's interest would go away, allowing developers to deliver a worse (eg privacy-violating) product.
Users who do not like this deal are free to go with an Android device instead of an iPhone. The popularity of the latter might suggest that quite a few people are reasonably happy with the status quo.
Third party developers want to get their apps onto the iPhone, because the platform has a lot of users, and there's a lot of money to be made. However, they will be forced to play by Apple's rules, which (according to the argument) is good for the customer, as the custodian of the platform has a vested interest in keeping them happy.
Now, if 3rd party stores were allowed, Apple's bargaining power which allowed them to force 3rd parties to respect the user's interest would go away, allowing developers to deliver a worse (eg privacy-violating) product.
Users who do not like this deal are free to go with an Android device instead of an iPhone. The popularity of the latter might suggest that quite a few people are reasonably happy with the status quo.
Counter-argument to what? As Android shows, allowing 3rd party appstores has 0 effect on the main appstore offering.
But if the iOS store is so much worse for devs than the Play store, wouldn’t there be more incentive for devs to push for a legitimate alt store to succeed on iOS?
Android's third-party app stores have been majorly gimped for a long time unless they were installed by the manufacturer. Further, they don't even have great reach even if they're installed as such, as evidenced by Epic wanting Fortnite back on the Play Store despite it being available on the Galaxy store.
> The popularity of the latter might suggest that quite a few people are reasonably happy with the status quo.
People haven't thought it through at all. If they've even considered this aspect of it, I'd be surprised.
iPhone popularity is due to a mix of very good engineering, presentation, marketing and network effects.
Smartphones are also very, very new for people. Give them time and they'll rebel against a single point of control sooner or later.
People haven't thought it through at all. If they've even considered this aspect of it, I'd be surprised.
iPhone popularity is due to a mix of very good engineering, presentation, marketing and network effects.
Smartphones are also very, very new for people. Give them time and they'll rebel against a single point of control sooner or later.
> Give them time and they'll rebel against a single point of control sooner or later.
Who knows. Gaming consoles have had a decent run, but of course that may not be that good a precedent as they've not evolved into general-purpose computing devices to the same degree that phones have...
Who knows. Gaming consoles have had a decent run, but of course that may not be that good a precedent as they've not evolved into general-purpose computing devices to the same degree that phones have...
The customers who don't like the console system can game on a PC. It's not a perfect substitute, but it's pretty close. Is there any real equivalent that offers more user control for smartphones though? Stock Android is a bit less restrictive, but still pretty bad, and custom ROMs are extremely niche.
Android already has the majority of the market. Apple is, perhaps deliberately, pricing themselves out of the emerging markets in Africa and Asia.
It's the reason why I don't even really give a toss: there's nothing on iOS that you can't get on Android.
It's the reason why I don't even really give a toss: there's nothing on iOS that you can't get on Android.
The question is does Apple's bargaining power come from monopoly power? That's exactly what makes it anti-competitive.
> Apple's bargaining power which allowed them to force 3rd parties
You are literally saying that you agree that Apple has very serious market power, and has the ability to force the rest of the market, to do what it wants, using its illegal, anticompetitive behavior.
Go ahead and say that you want this. But you are just straight up admitting that Apple has anti-trust level market power, and is using illegal anti-competitive behavior.
Therefore, they would lose the lawsuit, under your argument.
You are literally saying that you agree that Apple has very serious market power, and has the ability to force the rest of the market, to do what it wants, using its illegal, anticompetitive behavior.
Go ahead and say that you want this. But you are just straight up admitting that Apple has anti-trust level market power, and is using illegal anti-competitive behavior.
Therefore, they would lose the lawsuit, under your argument.
How do you explain that the majority of apps are contaminated by spyware like the Facebook SDK and dozens of other equivalents? (which for the record is in breach of the GDPR and Apple could be considered complicit if they allow this while at the same time requiring all apps to comply with local laws and has removed apps who break or could be used to break the law before)
How do you explain scam apps that deliberately mislead users into signing up to a "free trial" subscription that renews at a ridiculous price 3 days later?
How do you explain scam apps that deliberately mislead users into signing up to a "free trial" subscription that renews at a ridiculous price 3 days later?
I would match rather sign up for a subscription through the iOS ecosystem, where I can easily and realisably cancel that subscription through Apple themselves as opposed to entering my credit card info and figuring out how to cancel for each and every application differently.
FWIW, people usually like to support lots of payment options, particularly ones that already have the customer's payment details on file and that the customer likes using, so as long as you are OK with the realization that people who pay not through Apple are going to pay like 10-25% less (depending on any number of factors, as Apple is honestly offering non-0 value) than you (which I honestly doubt, but you need to remember that a key part of this isn't the functionality but the cost: a ton of the money you are paying is just going to Apple right now) I would be shocked if companies didn't throw in Apple's IAP as a (more expensive) option. Like: for my store (Cydia), I never required developers to use my payment options (as that would be a horrible and anit-competitive thing to do) but they did anyway because users liked them so much and they were easy for the developer and I actually solved problems they had (license transfer, some of the customer support, etc.).
Personally I would prefer to sign up to a subscription via PayPal, where I can easily manage the subscription though a web site instead opening the "Music" app (!?!) and navigating through that nightmare
I am confused, are you saying that the only way to manage your subscriptions in iOS is via the music app and not the App Store?
Have you looked at Google play store, in comparison? Apple is still doing 100x better job. 100% cleanliness is utopia but I will take an App Store that weeds out lot of contaminated apps than every other app being contaminated in some sort of way.
I do think that the apple app store has better quality apps. But to be frank, those 3 day trial autorenew apps are definitely more common on iOS.
There are so many highly rated iOS apps that look great and where you can't even get past the initial stage without having to sign up to a subscription without even know what it is.
There are so many highly rated iOS apps that look great and where you can't even get past the initial stage without having to sign up to a subscription without even know what it is.
Is someone taking the App Store from you? Does adding alternative options somehow corrupt the original App Store?
There could be an argument that allowing alternative stores would just mean every app would switch to those and be able to work around Apple's rules and act against consumers' best interests.
However, the fact that Apple only enforces the rules when it benefits them as opposed to consumers (so they are happy to turn a blind eye to spyware, but will crack down immediately on alternative payment options) means that in practice I don't see it making the situation any worse.
However, the fact that Apple only enforces the rules when it benefits them as opposed to consumers (so they are happy to turn a blind eye to spyware, but will crack down immediately on alternative payment options) means that in practice I don't see it making the situation any worse.
>There could be an argument that allowing alternative stores would just mean every app would switch to those
Which is a ridiculous argument as the network effects and default preference status of the App Store mean it'll still be pretty much a requirement to publish there if you want any users.
Which is a ridiculous argument as the network effects and default preference status of the App Store mean it'll still be pretty much a requirement to publish there if you want any users.
Not really.
Apple currently has the market power to keep Facebook and other similar scum at bay if they chose to (unfortunately, they're not doing anywhere near enough on this front).
Opening the floodgates to alternate stores would simply mean every mainstream service out there would require you to use that alternate store (isolated from Apple's enforcement) where all kinds of nastiness is permitted.
Apple currently has the market power to keep Facebook and other similar scum at bay if they chose to (unfortunately, they're not doing anywhere near enough on this front).
Opening the floodgates to alternate stores would simply mean every mainstream service out there would require you to use that alternate store (isolated from Apple's enforcement) where all kinds of nastiness is permitted.
Nobody is proposing that the Apple app store should go away, or that other stores shouldn't be curated. (E.g. exactly because the play store is as it is, on Android I go look at F-Droid first, because if it has something I trust it more)
What I fear is that as a reaction to Apple's recent moves on privacy (tracking transparency, requiring user consent prior to tracking, etc), Facebook is going to spin up its own App Store without such rules where user data is a free for all.
This wouldn't be a threat in itself, but having control of heavy hitters like the Facebook app, Instagram, and WhatsApp among others, they could drive traffic levels that no third-party App Store has ever seen overnight. They can also afford to buy other heavy-hitting exclusives, and some data hungry devs would likely come on board with no incentive at all.
This would be a terrible outcome. If iOS is to support third party app stores, I'd rather it be after legislation is passed that effectively enforces Apple's App Store privacy policies at a federal level.
This wouldn't be a threat in itself, but having control of heavy hitters like the Facebook app, Instagram, and WhatsApp among others, they could drive traffic levels that no third-party App Store has ever seen overnight. They can also afford to buy other heavy-hitting exclusives, and some data hungry devs would likely come on board with no incentive at all.
This would be a terrible outcome. If iOS is to support third party app stores, I'd rather it be after legislation is passed that effectively enforces Apple's App Store privacy policies at a federal level.
Aren’t Apples policies enforced via app sandboxing though? Why would that be any different for third party apps?
Not really taking sides here, but sandboxing is not a panacea, unfortunately. There's also fingerprinting, abusing bugs in the system, faking system password fields, forcing the user to disable restrictions to the app so it works. There isn't much of a purely technological solution.
I don't get this argument. How can an alternative app Store affect the quality of the Apple app Store ? The alternate app Store is not gonna come installed by default. No one is gonna mistake the alternative app Store for the apple one. Apple is gonna make sure of that. Apple can even put up loads of warnings and dark UI stuff when installing an alternate app Store to dissuade the "noob" users.
If a major app moves to a different App Store, people will install the second (and third, and fourth, etc.) No one will say “oh, well, I want Instagram because all my friends have it but I’m not going to install Facebook’s store to get it because I want to keep my phone secure.”
The problem is that security and privacy benefits are somewhat intangible and hidden, so they are not enough to convince people to weight them heavily - this is the same reason why people download random software off the net and why the web is such a mess of trackers.
Apple’s approach tries to remove the need for users to think about the issue at all. Of course, it has downsides as well, but don’t underestimate what the ecosystem would be giving up once the door is opened to multiple stores.
The problem is that security and privacy benefits are somewhat intangible and hidden, so they are not enough to convince people to weight them heavily - this is the same reason why people download random software off the net and why the web is such a mess of trackers.
Apple’s approach tries to remove the need for users to think about the issue at all. Of course, it has downsides as well, but don’t underestimate what the ecosystem would be giving up once the door is opened to multiple stores.
Developers won't leave the App Store if Apple are offering good value to them and their customers.
If Apple stops offering good value (fair policies, commissions), then Apple should be "punished" by losing business.
Offering competing stores provides a strong incentive for Apple to make theirs even better. Developers would win and consumers would win. The only "loser" would be Apple (at least as far as short term financials are concerned).
If Apple stops offering good value (fair policies, commissions), then Apple should be "punished" by losing business.
Offering competing stores provides a strong incentive for Apple to make theirs even better. Developers would win and consumers would win. The only "loser" would be Apple (at least as far as short term financials are concerned).
Facebook, instagram or any ad-backed app users are the product not the customer.
Granted. But the underlying principle is the same, no? If Apple is offering better discovery, consumer protections, policies and support, then they should have the better store experience.
For the record, I think they are offering the best experience at present (by a long shot). That isn't guaranteed going forward though, and I believe competition here would be healthy.
For the record, I think they are offering the best experience at present (by a long shot). That isn't guaranteed going forward though, and I believe competition here would be healthy.
Hypothetical progression:
Epic sets up alternative App Store which becomes the only source of Fortnite 2.0, which is popular enough to drive installs of new alt store. Some other newly-popular viral app comes along (probably a social app that causes its users to exert pressure on their social group to join) and gambles on going with the Epic store only, piggybacking on Fortnite’s beachhead. Repeat. This process normalizes an alt store, forcing iOS customers to have to choose between trusting a new source vs missing out on apps. They can currently miss out on Android-only apps, but at least currently 99.9% of apps that run on iOS come from the single “trusted” store.
Another maybe-more-realistic version of this would be if some business software used their power over line workers to install things (since end-users are not really the customers in corporate software sales). Microsoft sets up their own store as the only source of Office Redux, and millions of iOS users are forced into this store via their employers. Same process as above: beachhead, gamble, dilution of Apple’s store.
It’s not hard to see how the process could snowball, though it’s certainly not guaranteed as there must be the right combination of events.
Another maybe-more-realistic version of this would be if some business software used their power over line workers to install things (since end-users are not really the customers in corporate software sales). Microsoft sets up their own store as the only source of Office Redux, and millions of iOS users are forced into this store via their employers. Same process as above: beachhead, gamble, dilution of Apple’s store.
It’s not hard to see how the process could snowball, though it’s certainly not guaranteed as there must be the right combination of events.
Another comment mentioned this. The fragmentation issue that comes up with multiple app stores. I agree that it is an issue that can come up. Pretty sure epic is trying for something like this in android.
But it dosent take away from my point that an alternative store does not affect the quality of apps in the main store.
As for an alt store becoming normalized I feel that users will only install the necessary app from the alt store and not anything else. A lot of alt stores tried to set themselves up in android but didn't succeed. I think it mostly comes down to incentives. Apple can easily change them to make sure no other store gets the upper hand
But it dosent take away from my point that an alternative store does not affect the quality of apps in the main store.
As for an alt store becoming normalized I feel that users will only install the necessary app from the alt store and not anything else. A lot of alt stores tried to set themselves up in android but didn't succeed. I think it mostly comes down to incentives. Apple can easily change them to make sure no other store gets the upper hand
"I feel that users will only install the necessary app from the alt store and not anything else."
Have you ever had to wipe a relative's computer to get rid of the malware-infested browser toolbars they installed, not knowing any better? Or worse, pay a ransom in bitcoins to unlock the billing systems that help control a gasoline distribution pipeline? You may be somewhat overestimating the sophistication of users when it comes to technology.
Have you ever had to wipe a relative's computer to get rid of the malware-infested browser toolbars they installed, not knowing any better? Or worse, pay a ransom in bitcoins to unlock the billing systems that help control a gasoline distribution pipeline? You may be somewhat overestimating the sophistication of users when it comes to technology.
I’ve heard it put this way: if you give the user root on the device, you are giving the malware the user is tricked into installing root.
iOS is an OS for people who are non-technical or for applications where people don’t want to worry about that stuff. If you want full control run Linux. MacOS and Windows also offer a balance that is skewed a lot more toward user control because they’re for “pro” use cases.
iOS is an OS for people who are non-technical or for applications where people don’t want to worry about that stuff. If you want full control run Linux. MacOS and Windows also offer a balance that is skewed a lot more toward user control because they’re for “pro” use cases.
None of this happens on Android despite allowing multiple app stores. And companies can already install software for their employers via MDM.
OP did not say that it would affect the quality of the Apple app store. The specific quote was: "Apple has vested interest to keep apps made available to be clean and not going to compromise iPhone".
Allowing third-party app stores effectively means providing a vector to bypass the official app-review process, which is the cornerstone on which the permissioning system rests. If you allow third-party app stores, then any sufficiently-popular app can create their own "app store" and demand that you give it full permissions, which they will turn around and use to scrape data. It will become a race to the bottom, permissioning systems cannot stand if the app-review process does not exist, and the app-review cannot exist if third-party stores exist as a mechanism to let anyone publish anything.
Facebook has already gotten their hands slapped for exploiting sideloading to mine user data, and if they could spread it to the general user-base then they will do so immediately.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...
So your question about "how can an alternative app store affect the Apple app store" is a red herring, and not at all what OP said - what OP said was "allowing third-party app stores will degrade the experience of iOS users" and that is absolutely true, Facebook has already tried to do this before and this will allow them to take another turn at the ring.
Allowing third-party app stores effectively means providing a vector to bypass the official app-review process, which is the cornerstone on which the permissioning system rests. If you allow third-party app stores, then any sufficiently-popular app can create their own "app store" and demand that you give it full permissions, which they will turn around and use to scrape data. It will become a race to the bottom, permissioning systems cannot stand if the app-review process does not exist, and the app-review cannot exist if third-party stores exist as a mechanism to let anyone publish anything.
Facebook has already gotten their hands slapped for exploiting sideloading to mine user data, and if they could spread it to the general user-base then they will do so immediately.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...
So your question about "how can an alternative app store affect the Apple app store" is a red herring, and not at all what OP said - what OP said was "allowing third-party app stores will degrade the experience of iOS users" and that is absolutely true, Facebook has already tried to do this before and this will allow them to take another turn at the ring.
> "No one is gonna mistake the alternative app Store for the apple one"
You've never heard any stories like "I put FireFox/Chrome on my parent's desktop and next time I went back they were using IE and said they didn't notice"? Or same with apps installed from an App store between real and imitation?
> "Apple can even put up loads of warnings and dark UI stuff when installing an alternate app Store to dissuade the "noob" users."
Why would they need to do that if "no one" is gonna mistake them?
You've never heard any stories like "I put FireFox/Chrome on my parent's desktop and next time I went back they were using IE and said they didn't notice"? Or same with apps installed from an App store between real and imitation?
> "Apple can even put up loads of warnings and dark UI stuff when installing an alternate app Store to dissuade the "noob" users."
Why would they need to do that if "no one" is gonna mistake them?
As I said in the next sentence, apple is going to make sure that no app Store looks like theirs. It's pretty easy to do it too. Make sure app stores are only available to install from the Apple app Store. That way apple can look for any possible imitations.
The dissuading stuff was not needed. I was just frustrated with the line that some users are not tech savvy so all users must be equally restricted. It just seems unnecessarily black and white
The dissuading stuff was not needed. I was just frustrated with the line that some users are not tech savvy so all users must be equally restricted. It just seems unnecessarily black and white
It is tricky. Most people are pretty trusting of things they don’t understand. But a world where you walk into a cafe and 80% of the devices around you are malevolent is worse than one where only 5% are malevolent. I would like root on all my devices and also I would like to be able to run apps that want more permissions than I want them to have and they just get fake data when they call get location or whatever. But I don’t want to have to security assess all the apps I might like. To be sure mostly my apps are like the browser, the like doe reader, and find my iPhone. But I do have a weakness for solitaire and free flow and similar games. It seems very hard to get the open source versions of these and the other ones seem to display questionable ethics and to be ad revenue driven (where as I would happily pay a bit for new levels etc).
> Most people are pretty trusting of things they don’t understand.
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
Gestures around at almost everything.
Cleaning products, anaesthesia, electrical goods, microwaves, internal combustion engines, skyscrapers, hydrogenated vegetable oil and other such ingredients, fire retardant in furniture, blockchains, cryptography, smoke detectors, x-rays, coronary bypass surgery, bridges, hydraulics, reservoirs, water treatment plants, refridgerators. Would you say the people who understand them in some meaningful way is >50% of the people who use/benefit from them them?
If people see others doing something, we assume it must be okay to do. If we see others selling something, we assume it must be okay to buy and use. We default to yes (pretty trusting), unless it's proven otherwise strongly enough to be banned.
Cleaning products, anaesthesia, electrical goods, microwaves, internal combustion engines, skyscrapers, hydrogenated vegetable oil and other such ingredients, fire retardant in furniture, blockchains, cryptography, smoke detectors, x-rays, coronary bypass surgery, bridges, hydraulics, reservoirs, water treatment plants, refridgerators. Would you say the people who understand them in some meaningful way is >50% of the people who use/benefit from them them?
If people see others doing something, we assume it must be okay to do. If we see others selling something, we assume it must be okay to buy and use. We default to yes (pretty trusting), unless it's proven otherwise strongly enough to be banned.
Suppose you install a messaging app to talk to your friend. How do you know they installed their copy from the good App Store and not the bad one?
Most messaging apps are centralized. Some form of server side checking can be easily added to make sure the client is legit and not tampered with. Same form of checking thing if it's P2P but it would be very cumbersome.
Now it is possible that someones has cracked the encrypted messaged payload and figured out how to fool the client authenticity checking part but at that point you are probably dealing with a state actor and even apple with their secure app Store cannot save you.
Now it is possible that someones has cracked the encrypted messaged payload and figured out how to fool the client authenticity checking part but at that point you are probably dealing with a state actor and even apple with their secure app Store cannot save you.
That's not state actor level of effort. Kids do that stuff for video games.
Why do you care what software your friend runs? Why do you feel the need to dictate what software someone else runs?
This is especially weird because your username is 0xEFF which initially made me think Electronic Frontier Foundation but it's definitely not that.
This is especially weird because your username is 0xEFF which initially made me think Electronic Frontier Foundation but it's definitely not that.
I don’t feel the need to dictate anything, but I care because my messaging app exchanges my personal data with my friends messaging app so there’s value knowing their copy is authentic.
Your friend's messaging app is not installing apps on your phone, so it doesn't matter (to you).
Im not sure why you got downvoted. Its a legit opinion.
I can see the argument for why this is better for iOS users, but it is also painfully obvious how it benefits Apple's monopoly and works against app developers.
I can see the argument for why this is better for iOS users, but it is also painfully obvious how it benefits Apple's monopoly and works against app developers.
I agree that it disproportionately benefits Apple but alternative is free for all like Android and all responsibilities fall on end user (not possible when you have from very young users to very old users, both unsophisticated and sophisticated users).
I just don’t buy the argument that end customers will lose out. The Apple AppStore will still be the default and available. People that want alternatives can get them at their own peril (like responsible adults, can you imagine?). And what percentage of people actually use alt app stores on Android?
I’m surprised fragmentation isn’t mentioned.
With multiple app stores, developers may not release to the Apple app store any more. Causing users to either use other app stores or miss out on apps that would previously been in the Apple store.
Causing them to be forced to evaluate the trustworthiness of each new app store they have to use.
Which will inevitably lead to some less tech savvy users having their information phished out from their phones.
Personally, it sounds like a hassle to me. I’m a big fan of the walled garden approach because I have zero desire to evaluate app store’s credibility and don’t feel I’m missing out on anything that could be side loaded, but then again, I only use my phone for communication, dating, photos, craigslist, and hackernews lately.
With multiple app stores, developers may not release to the Apple app store any more. Causing users to either use other app stores or miss out on apps that would previously been in the Apple store.
Causing them to be forced to evaluate the trustworthiness of each new app store they have to use.
Which will inevitably lead to some less tech savvy users having their information phished out from their phones.
Personally, it sounds like a hassle to me. I’m a big fan of the walled garden approach because I have zero desire to evaluate app store’s credibility and don’t feel I’m missing out on anything that could be side loaded, but then again, I only use my phone for communication, dating, photos, craigslist, and hackernews lately.
Further, the Play store is evidence against supporting the company store concept at all and not an explanation for why an exclusive one should be allowed if it doesn't immediately induce vomiting.
China has had multiple app storeson both ios (through widespread jailbreaking- the shop you buy your iphine from will install it for you)and android. The experience is very poor. They are full of scammy, pirated apps(although they do have emulators)
The majority of users just want their phone to work.
The majority of users just want their phone to work.
Then don't download apps that aren't from the app store, no one is forcing you to.
But dont restrict choices of users who want to.
>I hope multiple App Stores don’t become a thing on iOS.
I hope Apple will also force only 1 browser, 1 text editor, 1 video player, 1 search engine, 1 bank/payment system. I hate PayPal so everyone should use Apple Pay because I want so, please Apple force them all to use what I like! /sarcasm
I hope Apple will also force only 1 browser, 1 text editor, 1 video player, 1 search engine, 1 bank/payment system. I hate PayPal so everyone should use Apple Pay because I want so, please Apple force them all to use what I like! /sarcasm
I wish this was actually sarcasm for most people. I legitimately don't understand why this group of people believe this is a good thing.
You're making Tim Cook sound stupid and/or evil, but he does have a point.
> If customers really value real, safe drugs, even if there's multiple drug suppliers (some offering fake, unsafe drugs), people should still go to a pharmacy?
> It seems like a decision that they shouldn't have to make.
> Will people not be able to distinguish between safe drugs and fake unsafe drugs?
> They've never had to do it before.
> If customers really value real, safe drugs, even if there's multiple drug suppliers (some offering fake, unsafe drugs), people should still go to a pharmacy?
> It seems like a decision that they shouldn't have to make.
> Will people not be able to distinguish between safe drugs and fake unsafe drugs?
> They've never had to do it before.
This is a good illustration of the point. But at the same time, customers have multiple pharmacies to choose from. And I'm pretty sure that it's still more the government regulators' job (FDA, etc) to decide what's safe to sell or not, than it is the for-profit corporations'.
Customers have multiple smartphone choices too, and most people choose non-Apple smartphones. If people want a smartphone where they can easily install any software from any source, there are plenty of very good options.
Plenty? There’s one option. Which is Android.
Most people aren't buying Android because "they can easily install software from any source", they buy it because they've already bought (locked) into it because of experience/apps and because you can get cheaper phones.
This is my take on what Tim Cook should have answered
> If customers really value real, safe drugs, even if there's multiple drug suppliers (some offering fake, unsafe drugs), people should still go to a pharmacy?
That shouldn't be Apple problem, we have governments for that.
> Will people not be able to distinguish between safe drugs and fake unsafe drugs
That shouldn't be our concern, we as the supplier of the market place should only worry about abiding to the law and report those that don't when they use our system
If they don't use our system, it shouldn't be our responsibility.
But Tim Cook is not on trial for selling illegal drugs, he's trying to make Apple look like the only possible guardian of user's safety. Because it's in Apple interests, not because it's best for users (I mean that Tim Cook can't possibly know if Epic store would be less safe than theirs, he - admittedly - never made that experiment)
> If customers really value real, safe drugs, even if there's multiple drug suppliers (some offering fake, unsafe drugs), people should still go to a pharmacy?
That shouldn't be Apple problem, we have governments for that.
> Will people not be able to distinguish between safe drugs and fake unsafe drugs
That shouldn't be our concern, we as the supplier of the market place should only worry about abiding to the law and report those that don't when they use our system
If they don't use our system, it shouldn't be our responsibility.
But Tim Cook is not on trial for selling illegal drugs, he's trying to make Apple look like the only possible guardian of user's safety. Because it's in Apple interests, not because it's best for users (I mean that Tim Cook can't possibly know if Epic store would be less safe than theirs, he - admittedly - never made that experiment)
> That shouldn't be Apple problem, we have governments for that.
Given the fast pace that technology moves at, and the comparatively-slow pace at which government / legislation works, this may not be the best move in terms of keeping progress going. Especially since governments are notoriously bad at understanding tech.
Given the fast pace that technology moves at, and the comparatively-slow pace at which government / legislation works, this may not be the best move in terms of keeping progress going. Especially since governments are notoriously bad at understanding tech.
In my opinion tech companies are also historically bad at "understanding" boundaries and blame the government for it.
In this case in particular Apple is not doing the government's job because government is bad at understanding tech, it's not about progress, it's about control.
They are betting, IMO, on the fact that politics and laws have a lot of inertia and are slow at adapting to new fringe interpretations of the norms.
In this case in particular Apple is not doing the government's job because government is bad at understanding tech, it's not about progress, it's about control.
They are betting, IMO, on the fact that politics and laws have a lot of inertia and are slow at adapting to new fringe interpretations of the norms.
Pretending to be ignorant of what is obvious to hold onto your power/money is pretty close to evil. If he believes customers genuinely value his curated app store, let him show us.
>If he believes customers genuinely value his curated app store, let him show us.
They already did - they choose iOS over Android / other possibilities.
They already did - they choose iOS over Android / other possibilities.
I value iOS hardware and operating system. I couldn’t care less about other apple software, and especially the app store which i only use as a package repository, and never as a recommandation or browsing tool (which is ideally what a store should be)
There was a time when the app store had higher quality apps, but the time when they’d be held to higher standards is long gone.
Just like the internet, it’s now flooded by crap.
Just like the internet, it’s now flooded by crap.
> If he believes customers genuinely value his curated app store, let him show us.
I think they consider the massive success of the iPhone and App Store proof of that.
I think they consider the massive success of the iPhone and App Store proof of that.
And they can continue to think that after they're forced to permit other app stores. It changes nothing, except their bottom line.
Probably, yeah.
I think it's proof that people really like the camera, or the battery life, or the calculator app, or etc.
Without actually asking people, how are sales numbers proof that buyers care a lot about any specific aspect of the product?
And why is everyone forgetting that obviously Apple does ask people and run focus groups, they know very well what their customers are most interested in.
Without actually asking people, how are sales numbers proof that buyers care a lot about any specific aspect of the product?
And why is everyone forgetting that obviously Apple does ask people and run focus groups, they know very well what their customers are most interested in.
Analogy to drug safety makes no sense - FDA regulates drug safety and 'fake' generic drugs are very much allowed, so customers may choose generic drugs without needing to distinguish safe/unsafe themselves.
Counter to your point, pretend Apple is the FDA and the drugs are apps. Now pretend the government wants to get rid of Apple/FDA.
Right. And to add to the scenario: in this world the FDA is a for-profit corporation that owns the only drug store and uses its regulatory power to prevent any others from existing.
does the FDA not get a fee to review and approve drugs? is it not the exclusive arbiter of approved drugs in the US?
ignoring the for-profit corp vs govt regulatory body statutory difference, there isn't much different in operation.
ignoring the for-profit corp vs govt regulatory body statutory difference, there isn't much different in operation.
Pretend that Apple is a federal agency, not a corporation? Then its monopoly power would be legitimate and antitrust laws would not apply.
Equating alternative app stores to literal drug dealers.
I don't think I even need to say anything to point out how bad of an argument it is.
I don't think I even need to say anything to point out how bad of an argument it is.
I think that’s a little unfair - this example implies there are good _and_ bad actors in an unregulated app distribution system, which we already have some evidence for.
Given we have seen real malware like Xcodeghost that has successfully breached apples own App Store review process, he clearly has a point. Removing all binaries compiled with Xcodeghost to protect consumers would have been harder with multiple stores hosting binaries for sale vs one, and is indeed an example of one benefit of the single storefront. Incidentally, the internal emails from Apple regarding handling the Xcodeghost problem have arguably been some of the most interesting documents we’ve seen in this trial.
There are trade offs here, and while one option may appear to be fairer it is not going to be a free lunch. There’s always issues with software analogies if you dig too deeply too!
Given we have seen real malware like Xcodeghost that has successfully breached apples own App Store review process, he clearly has a point. Removing all binaries compiled with Xcodeghost to protect consumers would have been harder with multiple stores hosting binaries for sale vs one, and is indeed an example of one benefit of the single storefront. Incidentally, the internal emails from Apple regarding handling the Xcodeghost problem have arguably been some of the most interesting documents we’ve seen in this trial.
There are trade offs here, and while one option may appear to be fairer it is not going to be a free lunch. There’s always issues with software analogies if you dig too deeply too!
I'm attacking the argument in general, not a specific instance of it.
You’re right. The counter examples here are comparing the availability of non-Apple approved apps to matters of life and death. It’s disingenuous.
This exchange appears to be open admission of unapolegtic, monopolistic behaviour.
Also, the suggestion that customers want it to stay like it is is a flat out lie given his preceding statement where he admits they've never offered the choice, so can't possibly know.
Also, the suggestion that customers want it to stay like it is is a flat out lie given his preceding statement where he admits they've never offered the choice, so can't possibly know.
It’s really interesting to observe the way that we can all read that exchange with different interpretations. I don’t see the conflict you’re pointing to at all— to me, it makes sense that Cook can say users don’t want to navigate multiple stores if they had done, for example, focus groups.
Meanwhile the experiment that he didn’t want to run is whether users could distinguish between good quality app stores and bad quality ones, which he doesn’t know because they’ve never had to do it before.
That all seems sensible enough to me.
Meanwhile the experiment that he didn’t want to run is whether users could distinguish between good quality app stores and bad quality ones, which he doesn’t know because they’ve never had to do it before.
That all seems sensible enough to me.
I think you have a good point, but is there any proof they have focus tested it?
My second question would be, are focus groups equipped to make a decision for potentially billions of users (given the sheer volume, and that focus groups are cherry-picked)?
My second question would be, are focus groups equipped to make a decision for potentially billions of users (given the sheer volume, and that focus groups are cherry-picked)?
Focus groups? Who is unaware of what they are buying at this point? We have had no choice but one store and if we demanded two stores we would be on Android. Why in the hell do you think they’d go out to do market research on a key marketing plan they already devised? Privacy is their next marketing angle and third party app stores don’t go hand in hand with that desire.
I don't get the whole Apple thing though. I can see the prices as inflated, but there are literally dozens of other options to iphones if you don't like iphone. Do you just want government to step in and run Apple as it sees fit like corps in China?
There's nothing weird about it.
If there were no food regulations, I don't know if I'd be able to pick restaurants and grocery store brands that were safe to eat.
But I definitely know I want safe food to eat.
Most people want safe food but they want the government to figure out what that means.
Same thing here -- most people just want a safe app store. They don't want the work of having to figure out which app stores are how safe. They just want Apple to figure that out for them.
If there were no food regulations, I don't know if I'd be able to pick restaurants and grocery store brands that were safe to eat.
But I definitely know I want safe food to eat.
Most people want safe food but they want the government to figure out what that means.
Same thing here -- most people just want a safe app store. They don't want the work of having to figure out which app stores are how safe. They just want Apple to figure that out for them.
Apple isn't the govt
It would more be like if food safety inspections were optional, but only restaurants that opt in would be allowed to show a sign they were inspected either physically or on their web page. It would be trivial to be able to check for this. Door dash would show a sign saying which restaurant is safe to avoid being sued after an incident.
If you think restaurants and food safety is a good analogy it’s not a good argument for Apple in my opinion.
If you think restaurants and food safety is a good analogy it’s not a good argument for Apple in my opinion.
Except now there isn’t just 1 inspector, but many. And you have to figure out which you trust.
Now imagine there’s a very popular restaurant, but it uses an inspector you don’t know if you trust. But you want to eat the food because all your friends are already there… so you’ll go.
This is exactly what would happen— various companies once they reach a certain size will just want to have their own store because either it makes them more money or they have less restrictions. Just look at Facebook and the new 14.5 privacy features that are cutting into their ability to collect data. If you let FB the chance to pull out, they’d do it in a heartbeat knowing they could easily force everyone to install their App Store… which would have 0 privacy restrictions and far less oversight (just look at the Cambridge Analytica scandal for how FB might run an App Store).
Given Apple mostly makes money selling hardware, they’re the best incentivized to protect its user base.
Disclaimer: I work for Apple but all views my own.
Now imagine there’s a very popular restaurant, but it uses an inspector you don’t know if you trust. But you want to eat the food because all your friends are already there… so you’ll go.
This is exactly what would happen— various companies once they reach a certain size will just want to have their own store because either it makes them more money or they have less restrictions. Just look at Facebook and the new 14.5 privacy features that are cutting into their ability to collect data. If you let FB the chance to pull out, they’d do it in a heartbeat knowing they could easily force everyone to install their App Store… which would have 0 privacy restrictions and far less oversight (just look at the Cambridge Analytica scandal for how FB might run an App Store).
Given Apple mostly makes money selling hardware, they’re the best incentivized to protect its user base.
Disclaimer: I work for Apple but all views my own.
facebook literally already got their hand slapped for abusing the very limited sideloading mechanisms that Apple already provided.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...
This would generalize that and allow them to sideload for everyone. They straight-up would pull out of the app store, block Safari users from the website, and force everyone to sideload a tracker build on day 1.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...
This would generalize that and allow them to sideload for everyone. They straight-up would pull out of the app store, block Safari users from the website, and force everyone to sideload a tracker build on day 1.
Facebook’s apps have significantly more access than their website does, but they still allow users to use the web to access their services.
> and allow them to sideload for everyone. They straight-up would pull out of the app store, block Safari users from the website, and force everyone to sideload a tracker build on day 1.
I don't understand how people can come up with these crazy hypotheticals when Android has allowed side-loading since forever.
I don't understand how people can come up with these crazy hypotheticals when Android has allowed side-loading since forever.
Android allows FB to track people, so why would FB have the need to side load an app on Android? Whereas Apple recently stopped allowing FB to track people in a big way.
I'm not saying the hypothetical is likely to happen, but your argument makes absolutely no sense in this case.
I'm not saying the hypothetical is likely to happen, but your argument makes absolutely no sense in this case.
To be clear I am not saying Apple are wrong here (and they are clearly my own views and not my employer's), but I don't think the food analogy is great.
People can still use the Apple app store if they want to, I guess the key thing here is they don't really though, they would rather save a bit of money. Or at least that is what everyone here (well at least Apple I guess) thinks.
And the want to eat with your friends argument is also not good I think, I can't see why crossplay would not work regardless of which store you bought the app/game in.
People can still use the Apple app store if they want to, I guess the key thing here is they don't really though, they would rather save a bit of money. Or at least that is what everyone here (well at least Apple I guess) thinks.
And the want to eat with your friends argument is also not good I think, I can't see why crossplay would not work regardless of which store you bought the app/game in.
> Given Apple mostly makes money selling hardware
Sadly, it looks like they’re trying to diversify away from this, and every time they do we see misaligned incentives that cause them to do the wrong things.
Sadly, it looks like they’re trying to diversify away from this, and every time they do we see misaligned incentives that cause them to do the wrong things.
We'll I think now we are talking about the government reviewing apps for the app store. By the people for the people.
Apple could still limit the APIs that are available to developers.
But if there’s no Apple App Store, you not only can’t prevent private APIs from being used (or abused), but you certainly can’t prevent cross—app tracking and a whole host of other issues.
Well.. you could still limit certain APIs to official "app store" signatures, and in fact I guarantee that Apple will take this tactic and it will take further legal wrangling to deal with the overstepping they will no doubt do.
And on a more base level, Apple has overplayed their hand for far too long for me to be very sympathetic to their arguments. The app store is still loaded with scams, they still deny things for arbitrary and inconsistent reasons with little-to-no explanation, and they've had years to clean this up. It's not 2007 anymore.
Apple isn't acting in good faith. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.
And on a more base level, Apple has overplayed their hand for far too long for me to be very sympathetic to their arguments. The app store is still loaded with scams, they still deny things for arbitrary and inconsistent reasons with little-to-no explanation, and they've had years to clean this up. It's not 2007 anymore.
Apple isn't acting in good faith. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Do you believe any large store front acts in good faith? You are inviting less privacy into the room at the expense of money for other people. It’s a bit crazy that we think Apple would somehow be able to limit cross app tracking after being forced to allow side loading and independent app stores. Hey let’s make this one bad actor allow in the rest! It’s not fair that they get to make the rules for the rest of us, we also want to act in bad faith!
What I am inviting into the room is the ability of people to run what they wish on hardware that belongs to them. This argument that general purpose devices used by an appreciable amount of the general public must be arbitrarily locked down and beholden entirely to the arbitrary, often greed-based whims of multinational, multi-billion-dollar tech corporations because tech-illiterate grown-ass adults might hurt themselves on sharp edges is both paternalistic and offensive, and I'm really quite over it.
Make the unlocking process something equivalent to rooting a modern android device (something that requires PC software, terminal commands, a number of steps on the phone, and a data wipe - i.e. something absolutely nobody will do accidentally and vanishingly few will do just because Facebook told them to) and both concerns are allayed.
This isn't some dichotomy, and treating it as such is playing right into the hands of the tech corps. This "for your own protection" thing is marketing. We already know that no principles are in play. Besides, mitigating forced obsolescence (and so, e-waste, carbon footprint, etc) is more important than Facebook getting another data point from a minority of users, and this can be addressed legislatively anyways.
Make the unlocking process something equivalent to rooting a modern android device (something that requires PC software, terminal commands, a number of steps on the phone, and a data wipe - i.e. something absolutely nobody will do accidentally and vanishingly few will do just because Facebook told them to) and both concerns are allayed.
This isn't some dichotomy, and treating it as such is playing right into the hands of the tech corps. This "for your own protection" thing is marketing. We already know that no principles are in play. Besides, mitigating forced obsolescence (and so, e-waste, carbon footprint, etc) is more important than Facebook getting another data point from a minority of users, and this can be addressed legislatively anyways.
Apple is still the food inspector in this situation, and epic wants an App Store without any apple oversight - I doubt they allow a notarization-type system to be the outcome of this court case.
If there were two, or ten, food safety inspection groups, we could figure out which ones had trustworthy ratings. No need for end consumers to inspect every restaurant (every app) individually. That's what Epic is asking for - to have its own app store on iOS.
Which is exactly what everyone wants to avoid.
Imagine if there were 10 inspection groups, but sometimes they get bought by corrupt investors who let standards slide while pocketing the extra profit, and consumers constantly have to stay on top of which food inspection groups are the current OK ones and which aren't, and restaurants can't afford to get inspected by all 10 so they only do 2 but then people who only trust another 2 won't go there at all even though the food's fine, meanwhile the most trustworthy group jacks up prices for restaurants like crazy because restaurants know they have no choice...
It would be a nightmare. There's a reason that literally no country does this, that food safety is virtually universally considered to be a basic function of modern government.
Imagine if there were 10 inspection groups, but sometimes they get bought by corrupt investors who let standards slide while pocketing the extra profit, and consumers constantly have to stay on top of which food inspection groups are the current OK ones and which aren't, and restaurants can't afford to get inspected by all 10 so they only do 2 but then people who only trust another 2 won't go there at all even though the food's fine, meanwhile the most trustworthy group jacks up prices for restaurants like crazy because restaurants know they have no choice...
It would be a nightmare. There's a reason that literally no country does this, that food safety is virtually universally considered to be a basic function of modern government.
> Imagine... consumers constantly have to stay on top of which [regulators] are the current OK ones and which aren't...
A thriving market in marijuana has existed your entire life. It works exactly this way.
Countless examples. PC hardware. Vaping. Yelp.
It's fine. Which is lucky: who watches the watchers?
You want real-time feedback without perverse incentives. Only customers can provide it.
A thriving market in marijuana has existed your entire life. It works exactly this way.
Countless examples. PC hardware. Vaping. Yelp.
It's fine. Which is lucky: who watches the watchers?
You want real-time feedback without perverse incentives. Only customers can provide it.
[deleted]
Apple would definitely need to make guidelines for stores. They would obviously be different than for apps, and deal with more meta aspects of the regulation (such as, fair examination of app submission, possibility for rejected apps to appeal, obligation for app owner to be identified, etc).
Much like a government can create quality standards and then outsource parts of its missions to private sector.
Much like a government can create quality standards and then outsource parts of its missions to private sector.
> Which is exactly what everyone wants to avoid.
Then don't use those other apps stores.
I think that people who care about all this stuff, can very easily just continue to use the Apple app store.
Then don't use those other apps stores.
I think that people who care about all this stuff, can very easily just continue to use the Apple app store.
Okay, don’t use iOS. It’s very easy to just not engage with Apple entirely. Why do you even care? Money? Illusion of choice? The status quo should remain and you should find a different product to use with less restrictive rules.
> Why do you even care?
Well, because Apple's behavior is illegally anti-competitive, and it is possible for everyone to get what they want.
You can simply not install other app stores, and other people can get what they want, if Apple is forced to allow other people to install other app stores, because their illegal anti-competitive behavior is stopped.
You should not care, if other people install whatever they want, on the phone that they own.
Because you can simply choose to not use those app stores. Problem solved, and everyone wins.
> The status quo should remain
Actually, a better solution is for Apple's illegally anti-competitive behavior to be stopped, by allowing other people to install what they want on the iPhone if they choose to do so.
Well, because Apple's behavior is illegally anti-competitive, and it is possible for everyone to get what they want.
You can simply not install other app stores, and other people can get what they want, if Apple is forced to allow other people to install other app stores, because their illegal anti-competitive behavior is stopped.
You should not care, if other people install whatever they want, on the phone that they own.
Because you can simply choose to not use those app stores. Problem solved, and everyone wins.
> The status quo should remain
Actually, a better solution is for Apple's illegally anti-competitive behavior to be stopped, by allowing other people to install what they want on the iPhone if they choose to do so.
First of all, I don't want to have to download a different store every time a big app decides that they're too big for the App Store, a la that EA piece Origin, the Epic Store, the Curse Launcher - or whatever it's called this month - and the Ubisoft Store, all competing with Steam. I just want 1 and no more. That's the best user experience.
Second, I shouldn't have to remind you how well competing regulators worked for the financial sector
Basically, I think something needs doing, but this ain't it. Maybe Apple need their cut cut. They make enough damn money. You could take their cut down to 5% and they'd still be raking it in by the truckload
Second, I shouldn't have to remind you how well competing regulators worked for the financial sector
Basically, I think something needs doing, but this ain't it. Maybe Apple need their cut cut. They make enough damn money. You could take their cut down to 5% and they'd still be raking it in by the truckload
Funny reading this. it’s as if people installing games from steam on their laptop, and mac apps from the apple app store, then install adobe softwares from adobe installers are living an insufferable life.
They’re not. There are very easy ways to recognize a trustworthy store. We’re doing that every single day for things we actually ingest.
They’re not. There are very easy ways to recognize a trustworthy store. We’re doing that every single day for things we actually ingest.
it’s not insufferable, it’s just not the ideal user experience
The difference is that the government is in theory accountable to the people through elections and don't have a profit motive. They have no reason to fail a restaurant on their health inspection because they own a competing restaurant.
Apple has broken incentives here. Otherwise they would approve third party apps that compete with their own.
Apple has broken incentives here. Otherwise they would approve third party apps that compete with their own.
Your comparison lags. There are food regulations yet there are a lot of stores where I can buy food.
I trust the government to impose regulation on food manufacturers but I trust vendors with their selection of manufacturers. Why should the store landscape on iOS be any different where I put my trust in the store?
This would actually mirror my food shopping as well. I trust my vendor, why would this not translate to store operators on the OS? Aside from the fact that Google and Apple have done a piss poor job with this... I'm fairly certain I would trust Epic, Valve or MS (or even EA and Ubi).
I trust the government to impose regulation on food manufacturers but I trust vendors with their selection of manufacturers. Why should the store landscape on iOS be any different where I put my trust in the store?
This would actually mirror my food shopping as well. I trust my vendor, why would this not translate to store operators on the OS? Aside from the fact that Google and Apple have done a piss poor job with this... I'm fairly certain I would trust Epic, Valve or MS (or even EA and Ubi).
This argument lends itself to constantly shifting goal posts. The moment Apple (the food safety authority) closes down a store for a breach of standards it has enforced, people will simply say that Apple is engaging in censorship, or not being open enough with its platform, or engaging in anti competitive behaviour.
The issue is compounded by imagining that the food safety board ran its own restaurant. It then closes down the cafe next door for unhygenic practices. Looks pretty bad right? That's the situation Apple will be in every time it has to make a call on something like this.
The issue is compounded by imagining that the food safety board ran its own restaurant. It then closes down the cafe next door for unhygenic practices. Looks pretty bad right? That's the situation Apple will be in every time it has to make a call on something like this.
That’s an interesting point. Note however that there are countless stories of app removed by apple because they supposedly duplicated apple apps or os features. So, in some way they’re already in that boat.
Sounds like a terrible position to be in, perhaps we should require the vendors and the manufacturers to be separate entities in order to avoid forcing anyone into it.
There's an important distinction here in that Apple is a for-profit company, not a government. It responds to market forces, not democratic ones. Its motivation is profit and shareholder value, not some semblance of fairness or a good society.
> most people just want a safe app store
We already have an example of how users behave when there's a platform that has a default app store and the ability to install others: only a tiny fraction of Android users sideload apps at all, much less install other stores. Users who don't want to think about which app stores are safe simply won't; they'll use the default one.
> most people just want a safe app store
We already have an example of how users behave when there's a platform that has a default app store and the ability to install others: only a tiny fraction of Android users sideload apps at all, much less install other stores. Users who don't want to think about which app stores are safe simply won't; they'll use the default one.
> Its motivation is profit and shareholder value, not some semblance of fairness or a good society.
It derrives profit from iphones being relatively secure, which in practise means making it difficult for average users to install stupid things like malware.
Just because corporate overlords have a profit motive, doesn't mean it can't overlap with more alturustic motives. Being an evil villian typically pays well in the short term but not the long term (plenty of exceptions)
It derrives profit from iphones being relatively secure, which in practise means making it difficult for average users to install stupid things like malware.
Just because corporate overlords have a profit motive, doesn't mean it can't overlap with more alturustic motives. Being an evil villian typically pays well in the short term but not the long term (plenty of exceptions)
Right, but I would argue that the Android Play Store is terrible. I've switched to Android multiple times and I cannot stand the poor quality of the Android store.
I would argue that the US government is also a for-profit government, don't give up your rights so quickly to them. At least with Apple you know what they want: money. With government it could be money, a power play, government official looking to get on the map (ambition), a policy lobbied for by a bought off politician, etc
You can argue that all you like, but it is a ridiculous point. It's not perfect, but most of the time democracy works. This much is self evident.
If you are comparing the difference between having a company in charge of public health and a democratic government, you might as well compare the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy. Customers are not stakeholders in the same way that citizens are stakeholders.
When the public is angry at the government, heads will roll. When the public is angry at corporations, heads will glide down in golden parachutes.
If you are comparing the difference between having a company in charge of public health and a democratic government, you might as well compare the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy. Customers are not stakeholders in the same way that citizens are stakeholders.
When the public is angry at the government, heads will roll. When the public is angry at corporations, heads will glide down in golden parachutes.
> When the public is angry at the government, heads will roll. When the public is angry at corporations, heads will glide down in golden parachutes.
That's hardly true. People are rarely angry enough for heads to roll, and almost never that angry at corporations. But if they are that angry, heads have certainly rolled at corporations. Most of the time, nothing happens when people are angry at govs, and if they are angry enough for heads to roll, its more likely to be the people's heads than the government's.
That's hardly true. People are rarely angry enough for heads to roll, and almost never that angry at corporations. But if they are that angry, heads have certainly rolled at corporations. Most of the time, nothing happens when people are angry at govs, and if they are angry enough for heads to roll, its more likely to be the people's heads than the government's.
Agreed, but only one party there is supposed to be working in your interest.
It's why i'm pro-big-government, but also very heavy handed about what i want to see with government transparency and power dynamics.
It's why i'm pro-big-government, but also very heavy handed about what i want to see with government transparency and power dynamics.
But what you want is regulation to ensure safety, not that your only way to visit any restaurant is to use a shuttle bus that only stops at restaurants that paid protection money to the shuttle bus company.
Apple can impose standards, limit access, etc without obliging all developers to only go through their store. E.g. already now Apple has no way to guarantee what the company providing an app does with the user data.
Apple can impose standards, limit access, etc without obliging all developers to only go through their store. E.g. already now Apple has no way to guarantee what the company providing an app does with the user data.
One of the other things I keep thinking about, is that Apple created the iPhone and kickstarted the smartphone industry, they also effectively created the "App Store" way back when they first released the iPhone.
Therefore in my head when almost nobody was creating a decent App store and Apple did just that, there would not have been really any competitors at the time for Apple to consider opening up to.
If you create something that nobody else did, then years later when other industries create a similar product based on the success of yours. It seems silly to then be questioned about why you've never opened up to integrating with others. It is blatantly obvious that Apple have the better app store otherwise we wouldn't be complaining about the amount of leverage they have within the market. If Apple's app store was tiny and was filled with terrible ad ridden apps, we wouldn't be having this discussion in court, they would have gone out of business.
Therefore in my head when almost nobody was creating a decent App store and Apple did just that, there would not have been really any competitors at the time for Apple to consider opening up to.
If you create something that nobody else did, then years later when other industries create a similar product based on the success of yours. It seems silly to then be questioned about why you've never opened up to integrating with others. It is blatantly obvious that Apple have the better app store otherwise we wouldn't be complaining about the amount of leverage they have within the market. If Apple's app store was tiny and was filled with terrible ad ridden apps, we wouldn't be having this discussion in court, they would have gone out of business.
The average iPhone user would not be able to tell the difference between an official App Store and a sophisticated copy.
Even though one of them is preloaded on the device and the other one has to be separately added?
Depends a) on who is doing the adding and b) if they know what they are adding.
Therefor the average user will not be able to keep themselves safe. QED. Om the other hand, I do want root on my devices. It can see both sides and it is not clear to me what the solution is. I have already left Android because I don’t have time or interest to security assess all the evil apps that look real similar to the free flow games I like or the solitaire games. But thirty percent is steep. And arguably Epic can curate games as well or better than Apple. Debian for phones would be good but so far the open source things are pricy and underpowered. And the it is true the Apple store has a lot of bad apps already and fake reviews. Lot of evil people clustering around so many chances to become rich without delighting customers.
Given that tons of people blindly mash through any vaguely worded permission box, you either have to have so many strongly worded permission boxes that genuine competitors cry foul (like what Epic alleged Google was doing) or you have to make it easy for people to install alternatives, making it ripe for abuse.
Yes. Users have always been willing to disable security measures to get shady software. Think of all the free screensaver malware out there. To a pretty big chunk of users basic computer security is inscrutable technobabble.
> Customers “uniformly” want it to “stay like it is."
I'm a customer and I don't.
I'm a customer and I don't.
You comment on Hacker News. Therefore you are not an “uniform” customer.
I'm a customer (and I have no apps on the AppStore), and I constantly feel that the customer perspective is the best reason to want multiple AppStores: the Apple AppStore sucks.
1. Search is worthless. It's basically only useful for exact string matches on app names. And even then, you get the competitor app's ad that takes up 80% of the screen. They took every bad aspect of Google's search (the confusing take-up too much space ads), with none of the good parts (you know, the actual searching smarts).
2. The review section sucks. Instead of providing a streamlined system to get help from the developer, they just give you a place to rant. Reading the reviews isn't exactly ergonomic on a phone screen either, so it's just a waste bin to throw complaints at. Imagine if Apple actually lived up to their lip service of app quality and integrated a support mechanism that would reward apps that promptly replied (they would be marked with the "helpful developer" badge and get more prominent search placement for example).
3. Discovery is non-existent. At some point in the last 5 years I kind of just stopped "window shopping" the AppStore. I used to think that the Top Charts were a lazy way to encourage trying new things out -- but wow, it was way better than what we have now. The first thing the AppStore shoves in my face is these absurdly long profiles on developers or whatever as if the AppStore is a magazine I want to read. I don't. I don't care about some editorial article about the makers of some game. And it takes up the entirety of the start screen instead of trying to customize a variety of app suggestions just for me. This is such a missed opportunity. I would spend so much more money on the AppStore if it helped me at all to see new things. The experience instead requires you to be proactive to find things. Hence why it's really just a glorified database that's only really useful if you already know exactly what you want ahead of time.
4. It isn't safe at all. There are so many scams on the store. Subscription scams, etc. Apple does this weird thing where they simultaneously pretend they don't exist, and uses them as proof that their arcane review system is needed. If the store had no scams, they'd say "see, our filters work!". If it does have scams, they say "see, this is why the filters are so necessary, imagine how much worse it would be without them!". Anyways, as a customer, being "on the AppStore" no longer means anything to me from a quality or security perspective.
5. The UI feels generally like it was designed by a government bureaucracy or something. The tabs are: "Today", "Games", "Apps", "Arcade", "Search". The only tab that makes sense on first glance is Search (but then you find out how much the Search sucks). Why is there an "Apps" section in the "AppStore"? Aren't they all apps? It's like how there's Apple TV+ in the TV app of Apple TV. And what the hell is the difference between Games and Arcade? 40% of the UI is dedicated to games, but split into two opaque categories, with "Apps" in-between them. And "Today" is of course this stupid magazine interface I've already complained about. It seems like it's an infinite scroll interface of random bullshit, but eventually you do reach the end of "Today," where you find how to redeem a gift card and read the Terms & Conditions. All very "Today" items.
Anyways, the AppStore Tim describes only makes sense in the abstract. I wish they would just open the stupid store on someone's phone in the trial and just try to use it. They've managed to perfectly capture the combination of boredom and cheapness of the free samples section of a grocery store, complete with the employee not knowing what aisle you can actually find the product at if you end up actually liking it and wanting to buy it.
1. Search is worthless. It's basically only useful for exact string matches on app names. And even then, you get the competitor app's ad that takes up 80% of the screen. They took every bad aspect of Google's search (the confusing take-up too much space ads), with none of the good parts (you know, the actual searching smarts).
2. The review section sucks. Instead of providing a streamlined system to get help from the developer, they just give you a place to rant. Reading the reviews isn't exactly ergonomic on a phone screen either, so it's just a waste bin to throw complaints at. Imagine if Apple actually lived up to their lip service of app quality and integrated a support mechanism that would reward apps that promptly replied (they would be marked with the "helpful developer" badge and get more prominent search placement for example).
3. Discovery is non-existent. At some point in the last 5 years I kind of just stopped "window shopping" the AppStore. I used to think that the Top Charts were a lazy way to encourage trying new things out -- but wow, it was way better than what we have now. The first thing the AppStore shoves in my face is these absurdly long profiles on developers or whatever as if the AppStore is a magazine I want to read. I don't. I don't care about some editorial article about the makers of some game. And it takes up the entirety of the start screen instead of trying to customize a variety of app suggestions just for me. This is such a missed opportunity. I would spend so much more money on the AppStore if it helped me at all to see new things. The experience instead requires you to be proactive to find things. Hence why it's really just a glorified database that's only really useful if you already know exactly what you want ahead of time.
4. It isn't safe at all. There are so many scams on the store. Subscription scams, etc. Apple does this weird thing where they simultaneously pretend they don't exist, and uses them as proof that their arcane review system is needed. If the store had no scams, they'd say "see, our filters work!". If it does have scams, they say "see, this is why the filters are so necessary, imagine how much worse it would be without them!". Anyways, as a customer, being "on the AppStore" no longer means anything to me from a quality or security perspective.
5. The UI feels generally like it was designed by a government bureaucracy or something. The tabs are: "Today", "Games", "Apps", "Arcade", "Search". The only tab that makes sense on first glance is Search (but then you find out how much the Search sucks). Why is there an "Apps" section in the "AppStore"? Aren't they all apps? It's like how there's Apple TV+ in the TV app of Apple TV. And what the hell is the difference between Games and Arcade? 40% of the UI is dedicated to games, but split into two opaque categories, with "Apps" in-between them. And "Today" is of course this stupid magazine interface I've already complained about. It seems like it's an infinite scroll interface of random bullshit, but eventually you do reach the end of "Today," where you find how to redeem a gift card and read the Terms & Conditions. All very "Today" items.
Anyways, the AppStore Tim describes only makes sense in the abstract. I wish they would just open the stupid store on someone's phone in the trial and just try to use it. They've managed to perfectly capture the combination of boredom and cheapness of the free samples section of a grocery store, complete with the employee not knowing what aisle you can actually find the product at if you end up actually liking it and wanting to buy it.
A fairly obvious situation where the top google result is “Kid friendly happy fun town App Store” set up by dark web Corp where you can get pre hacked versions of all major commercial apps for free with built in cheats at the cost of porn pop ups and just trust me levels of scamware.
Most would go straight to Apple with their issues and how do you fix “I don’t know. My cousin installed it for me”?
Most would go straight to Apple with their issues and how do you fix “I don’t know. My cousin installed it for me”?
> Most would go straight to Apple with their issues and how do you fix “I don’t know. My cousin installed it for me”?
Presumably Apple has run into the "my cousin installed it for me" issue with Macs and they don't want to deal with it (or pay for it) at iPhone scale.
Presumably Apple has run into the "my cousin installed it for me" issue with Macs and they don't want to deal with it (or pay for it) at iPhone scale.
So where's the evidence that this is a common issue with Android?
[deleted]
Other news on this has quotes from Tim Cook saying that they'd have to find a way to track purchases on IOS and bill developers so that Apple still gets their cut when using other payment processors.
For me, this is way over the line. If they want to charge developers to be on their store, fine. I don't have a problem with that. And charging for using them as a payment processor makes sense. Charging for using Apple services makes sense.
But charging them simply because they make money while on a device that an end-user owns? No. Apple doesn't own that device any more. They sold it to someone. Apple owns the store, and the infrastructure. If a developer isn't using that infrastructure, they don't owe anything.
I'd be fine with however they want to charge, if there was another way to be on IOS.
I'd be less happy with developers being able to use their own payment processors and be on the app store for free. There's a chilling anti-free-speech type of thing going on there.
But I'm dead set against both of those happening at once, as it currently is.
For me, this is way over the line. If they want to charge developers to be on their store, fine. I don't have a problem with that. And charging for using them as a payment processor makes sense. Charging for using Apple services makes sense.
But charging them simply because they make money while on a device that an end-user owns? No. Apple doesn't own that device any more. They sold it to someone. Apple owns the store, and the infrastructure. If a developer isn't using that infrastructure, they don't owe anything.
I'd be fine with however they want to charge, if there was another way to be on IOS.
I'd be less happy with developers being able to use their own payment processors and be on the app store for free. There's a chilling anti-free-speech type of thing going on there.
But I'm dead set against both of those happening at once, as it currently is.
Unfortunately, Apple has to maintain this rule because otherwise developers will implement workarounds to avoid charging in the App Store altogether.
Remember when eBay charged a commission on the sale price but not shipping? Suddenly $50 items became $1 with $49 shipping -- so eBay had to charge the commission on the shipping too even though it didn't seem "fair".
Same here -- every app would turn free, and charge to unlock features within using their own payment mechanism. Apple's App Store revenue would drop to zero. No developer in their right mind would let Apple take a cut of anything.
As a general rule, app stores simply don't allow third-party payment in apps that don't go through the store, for this exact reason. It's not just Apple with this policy.
Remember when eBay charged a commission on the sale price but not shipping? Suddenly $50 items became $1 with $49 shipping -- so eBay had to charge the commission on the shipping too even though it didn't seem "fair".
Same here -- every app would turn free, and charge to unlock features within using their own payment mechanism. Apple's App Store revenue would drop to zero. No developer in their right mind would let Apple take a cut of anything.
As a general rule, app stores simply don't allow third-party payment in apps that don't go through the store, for this exact reason. It's not just Apple with this policy.
Couldn't Apple recoup any losses by charging app publishers 'rent' to be listed on the app store?
No.
Think it through: free apps would not be able to afford the rent, so they would need a discount.
Then in the limit all apps would become free, so as to get the discount.
But some apps would be making a killing with external payment methods, while other apps would be making nothing.
Meantime Apple would also be making nothing.
I would think Apple has thought about this.
Think it through: free apps would not be able to afford the rent, so they would need a discount.
Then in the limit all apps would become free, so as to get the discount.
But some apps would be making a killing with external payment methods, while other apps would be making nothing.
Meantime Apple would also be making nothing.
I would think Apple has thought about this.
They already charge this: 99 USD annually.
https://developer.apple.com/programs/how-it-works/
https://developer.apple.com/programs/how-it-works/
Is your argument that Apple shouldn't themselves bear the responsibility of choosing an unsustainable/immoral/illegal business model?
unsustainable ? It sustained alright for many years and has brought lots of profit for apple
immoral? Its subjective. I disagree and apple likely don't think its immoral
illegal? isn't that what the trial is for ? to decide whether this is illegal.
immoral? Its subjective. I disagree and apple likely don't think its immoral
illegal? isn't that what the trial is for ? to decide whether this is illegal.
And free + ads is a moral business model?
No ones forcing you to buy an iPhone; if this is really bothering you, go to Android or petition Microsoft or Amazon to start up their phone efforts again.
The problem with that is that this isn't just about end-users. Apple is being unfair to developers too, and just leaving iOS isn't a viable choice for them. Apple has a 50% market share in the US, so any American company who cut ties with them would instantly lose half of their customer base, since most people won't buy a new phone over a single app.
You act like it’s the developers fault that they hitched their wagon to apple. They knew going in with eyes wide open what the deal is. They can always leave en masse to Android if they feel the deal is not fair.
Yes, they knew going in how unfair Apple is, but they knew the alternative, being shut out from half of their customers, was worse. And are you really suggesting that all app developers need to form a cartel to level the playing field with Apple? If not, how do you suppose they all leave en masse, rather than some staying behind to steal the market share the others left behind?
I’m glad we agree that they willingly entered a contract, no one forced them.
Yes, I’m suggesting that people leave if they are unhappy with Apple. Go to Google; or maybe MS or Amazon will see how hated apple is and start a new phone division. That’s how markets work.
Companies that have seemed on top and undefeatable before have fallen due to customer unhappiness, and can fall quite quickly, too.
Yes, I’m suggesting that people leave if they are unhappy with Apple. Go to Google; or maybe MS or Amazon will see how hated apple is and start a new phone division. That’s how markets work.
Companies that have seemed on top and undefeatable before have fallen due to customer unhappiness, and can fall quite quickly, too.
There are other ways if you're honestly trying to be fair. eBay for instance could have made 10% of (price+shipping) exempt assuming 10% was the nominal fraction before abuses.
I never understood why eBay didn't resell shipping to their sellers. They could have gotten very favorable rates from the carriers with that kind of leverage.
> When you print a shipping label on eBay, our negotiated rates let you save money relative to what you would pay at the post office or to a carrier for most services, and you'll save time by not having to stand in line. The cost of the label is then charged to your invoice, PayPal account, or Processing funds if you're a managed payments seller.
Source: https://www.ebay.com/help/selling/shipping-items/labels-pack...
Source: https://www.ebay.com/help/selling/shipping-items/labels-pack...
Ah, well then that would have been the easy path. No commission if you pass-through charge eBay rates.
You’re also not really lying commission on the shipping when you factor in the discounts they provide and what they charge the customer. There’s some cases where you get screwed a little but it’s not as bad as a lot of people think. I still make money on shipping if it’s beaver and goes out priority.
Not true, the eBay analogy is pretty flawed. Unlike with eBay this isn’t a matter of simply shifting classification of revenue - the app store is guaranteed to be the most convenient and obvious way to charge for any given app or service related to that app due to Apple’s other rules. They prevent developers from mentioning or linking other payments avenues. And if you want to charge in app of course it’s only via Apple. From what I’ve seen only big existing and strong brand services like Netflix are able to overcome these barriers and even some of those still pay Apples feee (Spotify).
The playing field remains tilted heavily in Apples favor. But they (apparently) wanted even more - extensive compensation for economic activity that happens far from the App Store even when the link to the App Store is secondary.
The economic history of this sort of activity is well documented, and the extent to which it distorts markets well established. It’s plainly an antitrust violation, and both society and the software market would be free-er and more prosperous if our laws were enforced here.
The playing field remains tilted heavily in Apples favor. But they (apparently) wanted even more - extensive compensation for economic activity that happens far from the App Store even when the link to the App Store is secondary.
The economic history of this sort of activity is well documented, and the extent to which it distorts markets well established. It’s plainly an antitrust violation, and both society and the software market would be free-er and more prosperous if our laws were enforced here.
This is bull. Apple deserves a "rent", and not a "cut". They are providing infrastructure and services, and they deserve a minimum rent for these, which they already take.
But Apple should not take cut on every purchases made through the app. It makes no sense.
AWS does not take a "cut" on every Netflix subscription bought. They just charge for the storage and traffic. This is how App Store should function.
But Apple should not take cut on every purchases made through the app. It makes no sense.
AWS does not take a "cut" on every Netflix subscription bought. They just charge for the storage and traffic. This is how App Store should function.
I find it telling that you use AWS as an example because they are different than the apple model, while ignoring all the companies using the exact same model as apple, including how Epic charges developers to host content on the Epic store.
Epic is a great example. Their own store lists alternative stores on the Epic store, like itch.io. But they don't take a cut of games bought from those stores. Once you launch itch, you're in itch.
This would be true if they listed "alternative store_s_", but what they actually did is add itch.io to their store in a token way once they started the lawsuit in order to say "Look, we have no problem working with other stores". It's a stunt for the lawsuit. Even the Itch founder who signed the deal said they basically found it bemusing and an effort to gain legal leverage without really doing anything else.
It'd be like if Apple took all of the developers who testified against Apple, reduced their commission to 0% in perpetuity, and then asked the judge to throw out their testimony because the complaints were moot.
(That being said, I do think there are conditions where stores would/should allow other stores, and I think those conditions could be more permissive than the Roblox example. Apple should, medium term, resolve the GeForce Now/XCloud objections.)
It'd be like if Apple took all of the developers who testified against Apple, reduced their commission to 0% in perpetuity, and then asked the judge to throw out their testimony because the complaints were moot.
(That being said, I do think there are conditions where stores would/should allow other stores, and I think those conditions could be more permissive than the Roblox example. Apple should, medium term, resolve the GeForce Now/XCloud objections.)
I bought The Division 2 after seeing a promotion on the Epic store. To install it, you have to install the Ubisoft store Uplay, which is launched through an integration with the Epic store.
After playing that game, I saw promotions for Assassin's Creed Odyssey on Uplay, and purchased it. I later went on to purchase many other games on Uplay.
In short, Epic allows Ubisoft to sell games on its store, for which they presumably pay a cut - for those sales. But Epic has no problems letting Ubisoft require their store be installed for those games, and if you buy something there - even though the Epic Launcher installed it - they don't get a cut.
This is more akin to the App Store installing Fortnite - which Apple could get a cut out of, but not getting a cut for purchases in the app.
After playing that game, I saw promotions for Assassin's Creed Odyssey on Uplay, and purchased it. I later went on to purchase many other games on Uplay.
In short, Epic allows Ubisoft to sell games on its store, for which they presumably pay a cut - for those sales. But Epic has no problems letting Ubisoft require their store be installed for those games, and if you buy something there - even though the Epic Launcher installed it - they don't get a cut.
This is more akin to the App Store installing Fortnite - which Apple could get a cut out of, but not getting a cut for purchases in the app.
Both Apple and Valve (Steam) allow similar arrangements, although not precisely the same. EA games on Steam, and Ubisoft games on Steam before they left Steam, require installing Origin and UPlay respectively. But don't you find it notable that Epic does not distribute Uplay on its own, unbundled from purchases?
On the Apple side, it's ok for applications to require the user make an account on services like Uplay (I believe several Ubisoft games require this; and Fortnite requires the Epic equivalent). You can then use that account to buy stuff on the stores. It's not an exact parallel because there are no (non-jailbreak) external app stores on the iPhone, but it's a close parallel.
On the Apple side, it's ok for applications to require the user make an account on services like Uplay (I believe several Ubisoft games require this; and Fortnite requires the Epic equivalent). You can then use that account to buy stuff on the stores. It's not an exact parallel because there are no (non-jailbreak) external app stores on the iPhone, but it's a close parallel.
Steam is a better example as Epic is operating at a loss position to disrupt the incumbent.
My friends and I play Apex through Steam, which I downloaded for free. When you click to purchase "Apex coins", it takes you straight to EA's website. Apple wants to enforce a cut on every purchase of in-game currency. Steam does not do this.
And Valve allows you to sell steam keys on your own website also without paying the cut, so long as you don't undercut the steam store.
And Valve allows you to sell steam keys on your own website also without paying the cut, so long as you don't undercut the steam store.
Steam does take a cut for microtransactions, very likely force price parity, and put the developers under NDAs:
https://www.reddit.com/r/pathofexile/comments/1ogbo7/will_mo...
https://www.reddit.com/r/pathofexile/comments/1ogbo7/will_mo...
They take a cut for microtransactions that they process, but you are free to use your own service. They do require price parity. That link doesn't seem related at all.
>you are free to use your own service
Do you have any sources on how restrictive valve are or have been with that, or is that just speculation? Can developers default to their own payment systems and bypass valve's, or is theirs required to take a secondary, less-accessible option (when it's even allowed)?
From the same thread, the mtx cut taken was a dealbreaker for redfall studios, so it certainly sounds like they didnt get the option for their own mtx transaction service: https://www.reddit.com/r/pathofexile/comments/1ogbo7/will_mo...
If the direct links to comments aren't working, try logging into your reddit account.
Do you have any sources on how restrictive valve are or have been with that, or is that just speculation? Can developers default to their own payment systems and bypass valve's, or is theirs required to take a secondary, less-accessible option (when it's even allowed)?
From the same thread, the mtx cut taken was a dealbreaker for redfall studios, so it certainly sounds like they didnt get the option for their own mtx transaction service: https://www.reddit.com/r/pathofexile/comments/1ogbo7/will_mo...
If the direct links to comments aren't working, try logging into your reddit account.
There's no device or platform for which the Epic Store is the only way to get apps, so it shouldn't be held to the same standard as Apple's App Store.
I’m not sure what standard you are appealing to? Who cares if Apple only lets whatever they want on their own store? It’s their store. I hope Microsoft or Amazon would get back in the phone game and allow alternate stores.
> It’s their store.
But once you buy a phone from them, it's your phone, not theirs. You shouldn't have to use their store exclusively on your phone, but since you do, it should be subject to way stricter rules regarding anticompetitiveness and unfairness than non-exclusive stores that other platforms have.
But once you buy a phone from them, it's your phone, not theirs. You shouldn't have to use their store exclusively on your phone, but since you do, it should be subject to way stricter rules regarding anticompetitiveness and unfairness than non-exclusive stores that other platforms have.
Moreover, once AWS has sold storage, their duty isn't over. They must provide the compute and traffic. That's why they deserve more rent than Apple.
When someone uses an app downloaded from the App Store, the compute is provided by the device owned and paid for by the user. Apple does not own it or maintain it anymore.
And the compute is either completely provided by the device or is shared by the app vendor.
Apple does not give anything in this scenario. They only take.
When someone uses an app downloaded from the App Store, the compute is provided by the device owned and paid for by the user. Apple does not own it or maintain it anymore.
And the compute is either completely provided by the device or is shared by the app vendor.
Apple does not give anything in this scenario. They only take.
I agree it is your phone, you should be able to put whatever OS you want on it if you are unhappy with the default. But don’t take the extreme position of forcing apple through law to write software the way you want. You have other options, buy an Android device.
He's saying the App Store should be held to a different standard because it is the ONLY store for iPhones. That isn't true for the Epic store - you can just install one of the other stores, or purchase from a different method.
Everyone should be held to the same standard of respecting private property. You know what you are getting into when going onto apples store; if you don’t like it then encourage all your clients to use Android.
Respecting private property? Whose property is an iPhone? Apple's or the end user's? Whose (intellectual) property is the Epic Store? Apple's or Epic's? Apple wants to use the only thing that's theirs in the equation (the App Store) to restrict an interaction between both of the other things that aren't theirs.
Yea, their OS, their store, their software stack. Sure, you own the device, so put whatever OS you want on it. But you can’t force Apple to write their OS however you want except by market forces. Well, you could try using extreme tactics like government regulation, but that’s a severe overreach and uncalled for just because you don’t like the way apple writes their software.
> Sure, you own the device, so put whatever OS you want on it.
Apple keeps you from doing that.
Apple keeps you from doing that.
Didn’t realize, I wish they wouldn’t. even more reason to not buy Apple (I’m typing this on an iPhone :) )
I agree with you that I wish they would allow it. I agree that I should be able to put windows 10 on my iPhone. Thanks for the back and forth, and we may not be able to get past our starting assumptions about the nature of trade/commerce, but I still wouldn’t want to legally force apple to do anything. People should definitely make a big stink about it, though. Thanks for the back and forth, but I’ll leave it there.
I agree with you that I wish they would allow it. I agree that I should be able to put windows 10 on my iPhone. Thanks for the back and forth, and we may not be able to get past our starting assumptions about the nature of trade/commerce, but I still wouldn’t want to legally force apple to do anything. People should definitely make a big stink about it, though. Thanks for the back and forth, but I’ll leave it there.
Bull. Without apple the iOS ecosystem wouldn't exist.
Without Microsoft, the windows eco system wouldnt exist. Should MS get a cut of all windows applications?
Should MS get a cut of all Xbox applications?
If they want? I’m not sure why you think you have a right to dictate private policy on a private platform.
If you buy a Camry and then become an Uber driver, should you have to give Toyota a cut of your earnings?
Depends, If I'm the buyer I don't want it but if I'm Toyota and if I can get a way with it while making more money then its no brainer.
I think you misunderstood my question. I'm asking whether you think the law should let Toyota get away with it.
I’m also saying that our culture absolute swims in regulation and we as fish just get used to it and are quick to reach for it as a hammer, seeing everything as nails. We are so steeped in it, that in many ways _China_ has a freer economy than the US does. I’d urge much caution here.
Whatever the law I would like to be would depends on whether I'm Toyota or I'm the customer.
Which do you think is more fair and better for society as a whole?
as a whole ? I believe there can't be such thing. Fair for one may not be fair for other. 'Better' for one may not be better for other.
If they tell you going then won’t buy that Camry. Get a Honda.
I don't quite understand your first sentence, but by your second one it sounds like your answer is basically "yes". That seems like a rather extreme position to take. Are you also opposed to the First Sale Doctrine?
I’m saying if someone tells you that the software sold with his device is locked to to only work with company X, then you are free to buy it or not. You should also be free to put other software on it yourself, like a new OS. You should not take the extreme position of leveraging law to force the seller to write his software the way you like.
So then you do not support the first sale doctrine?
If someone buys something, even like a physical good, you do not believe that the person who bought it, actually owns its, and the seller can put whatever restrictions that they want on the thing that was purchased?
For example, if someone sells a book, you think it would be OK for the book writer to prevent someone from reselling it, or reading the book in a way that the writer does not like.
And even more so, it seems like you do not believe in any form of anti trust laws at all. And you think that all anti trust laws are just illegitimate?
This is an odd position to take, because most people support the first sale doctrine, and also support some form of anti-trust law.
If someone buys something, even like a physical good, you do not believe that the person who bought it, actually owns its, and the seller can put whatever restrictions that they want on the thing that was purchased?
For example, if someone sells a book, you think it would be OK for the book writer to prevent someone from reselling it, or reading the book in a way that the writer does not like.
And even more so, it seems like you do not believe in any form of anti trust laws at all. And you think that all anti trust laws are just illegitimate?
This is an odd position to take, because most people support the first sale doctrine, and also support some form of anti-trust law.
Of course you own it and should be able to put whatever OS you want on it. But you are confusing that with forcing apple to write their software in a way that suits you.
Antitrust laws _can_ be good, but like I said elsewhere, we are a country swimming neck deep in regulation and seem to like our particular hammer. It has a cooling effect on innovation, and China in some ways has a freer economy than we do.
I think it odd that many people rush to strongarm companies through law when there is a perfectly good alternative in Android. Even Microsoft and Amazon have been in the phone business and could get back in, offering you a phone with multiple app stores. Epic could even do it. There doesn’t seem to be enough people who care. You apparently do, and actually I agree with you that Apple should allow alternative app stores. But voluntarily because the people demand it or are leaving for Android, not because the hammer came down on them.
Antitrust laws _can_ be good, but like I said elsewhere, we are a country swimming neck deep in regulation and seem to like our particular hammer. It has a cooling effect on innovation, and China in some ways has a freer economy than we do.
I think it odd that many people rush to strongarm companies through law when there is a perfectly good alternative in Android. Even Microsoft and Amazon have been in the phone business and could get back in, offering you a phone with multiple app stores. Epic could even do it. There doesn’t seem to be enough people who care. You apparently do, and actually I agree with you that Apple should allow alternative app stores. But voluntarily because the people demand it or are leaving for Android, not because the hammer came down on them.
> I’m not sure why you think you have a right to dictate private policy on a private platform.
Well, because it is illegally anti-competitive, and the courts already ruled against microsoft, regarding web browsers.
So thats why. It is because of anti-trust law.
Well, because it is illegally anti-competitive, and the courts already ruled against microsoft, regarding web browsers.
So thats why. It is because of anti-trust law.
And the Microsoft ruling was a ridiculous one.
They should if they could get a way with it.
Without app developers iOS device sales would be a lot lower. it's a symbiotic relationship.
The problem is Apple has greater negotiating power, because they don't need any one developer and it is difficult for all the app developers to organize to negotiate together. But imagine if they did organize, and threatened to remove their apps from the app store unless Apple gave them more favorable terms.
The problem is Apple has greater negotiating power, because they don't need any one developer and it is difficult for all the app developers to organize to negotiate together. But imagine if they did organize, and threatened to remove their apps from the app store unless Apple gave them more favorable terms.
Do Netflix customer have to keep AWS components updated on their client device to keep Netflix working fine? Because app customers have to depend on App store vendors for OS and other components.
AWS pricing is extremely thorough and not at all comparable with Apple's App Store:
- AWS charge you on bandwidth used, Apple don't charge developers for the number of downloads
- AWS charge you on compute time, Apple don't charge you for ongoing use of their services beyond one initial charge for app submission
- AWS charge you for storage, Apple don't charge you for storing your app
I'm not a fan of Apple's App Store terms any more than the next person, but the GP's comparison to eBay is a hell of a lot more apt than your comparison with AWS.
- AWS charge you on bandwidth used, Apple don't charge developers for the number of downloads
- AWS charge you on compute time, Apple don't charge you for ongoing use of their services beyond one initial charge for app submission
- AWS charge you for storage, Apple don't charge you for storing your app
I'm not a fan of Apple's App Store terms any more than the next person, but the GP's comparison to eBay is a hell of a lot more apt than your comparison with AWS.
> - AWS charge you on compute time, Apple don't charge you for ongoing use of their services beyond one initial charge for app submission
Yes they do, the fee is yearly, and they make billions in revenue from this. Google charge one-time.
Yes they do, the fee is yearly, and they make billions in revenue from this. Google charge one-time.
Not to mention that you have to purchase expensive apple hardware to develop for iOS.
I saw the new Mac Mini on sale at Costco for $600 yesterday, I don’t see how Apple hardware can be called “expensive” anymore.
$600 is a lot for a small dev who already has a computer. What if they’re a windows gamer and they’re happy with their old desktop? $600 is a lot to many people if it’s not strictly necessary.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted, you're right. Besides, the cheapest Mac Mini M1 is $1000 in my country. Not everyone can afford that.
Apple is not obligated to make tools for every platform...
Apple does more than just not make tools for other platforms though. They make it impossible for anyone else to make tools on other platforms that can deploy to the App store. And after a certain scale, it isn't even the development machines that are the problem, it's your CI/CD pipeline.
[deleted](1)
Don't you still need to buy a monitor and all peripherals?
I mean you also need to buy a monitor and peripherals for a PC. Since they’re not built in you could find a 1080p monitor on Facebook marketplace locally for almost nothing. If you’re just doing iOS development the Mac mini should be fine.
Doing iOS development includes a whole other bundle of costs associated with it. $1000/yr if you want to even try to sell on the app store?
Those don’t need to be apple products - the mini has standard ports.
The new M1 Mac Mini might literally be the first 'affordable' Apple machine that isn't underpowered. Will need to cough up some $ for display adaptors if you want more than one monitor for development though.
Billions in revenue on $99/year? Is 1% of the planet a paid up iOS developer?
Math much? 20 million (that's 3-year old numbers [1]) apple developers. Probably a lot of them on the $299 enterprise plan, but let's assume they're all using the $99 one. 20mil * $100 = $2 billions. QED
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/04/app-store-hits-20m-registe...
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/04/app-store-hits-20m-registe...
To be fair, the 1% isn't off either.
The figure available was "billions". For ease of calculation, say it was 7b. That means if each developer pays $100 and total revenue was 7b, 1% of the world must be a developer. (1% of 7b * $100 = $7b)
Also, by your own figure, 20 million is already ~0.25% of the world population.
The figure available was "billions". For ease of calculation, say it was 7b. That means if each developer pays $100 and total revenue was 7b, 1% of the world must be a developer. (1% of 7b * $100 = $7b)
Also, by your own figure, 20 million is already ~0.25% of the world population.
Who cares how much they make? If you’re unhappy, go to Google or petition Microsoft or Amazon to get back in the game. I’d also like a provider that allows other app stores and has high quality like Apple — one of those companies should do it. But it’s ridiculous to force apple to do it when you could go elsewhere.
[deleted]
So they are making billions -while- creating an effective incentive against spam on their platform? That must the most obvious case of profits well deserved in the history of modern LTDs, good for Apple and their shareholders!
Apple's App Store has plenty of scummy apps. A yearly 100 fee isn't going to stop that from happening.
https://9to5mac.com/2021/02/11/app-store-scam-apps-how-to-sp...
https://9to5mac.com/2021/02/11/app-store-scam-apps-how-to-sp...
> - AWS charge you on bandwidth used, Apple don't charge developers for the number of downloads
Their point is that Apple could charge based on bandwidth used, and that this could be more fair for some developers.
> AWS charge you for storage, Apple don't charge you for storing your app
I would be pretty happy with Apple charging for app storage if it was at S3 rates - it would amount to almost nothing.
Their point is that Apple could charge based on bandwidth used, and that this could be more fair for some developers.
> AWS charge you for storage, Apple don't charge you for storing your app
I would be pretty happy with Apple charging for app storage if it was at S3 rates - it would amount to almost nothing.
It's clear that any change to the equilibrium would have winners and losers.
We can scope out who those are likely to be: free applications which provide some useful educational service would lose; currently they provide no revenue (beyond the token developer fee). Banking, rewards, credit, etc. applications (applications which interface consumers with their pre-existing accounts for CRUD-style management purposes) would lose. They provide no revenue. Subscription products with very low conversion rates would lose if their free:pay user ratio exceeds, say, 10:1 -- or some other breakeven point with respect to money saved by ditching Apple's payment stuff.
It would also hurt applications like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram where the product is completely free and monetized by advertising Apple currently doesn't take a cut of.
It's clear the winners are mostly extremely popular multi-billion dollar applications where the app portion is a pretty thin layer and they charge all or most users to subscribe on an ongoing basis. Fortnite doesn't exactly have a subscription, but it relies on fairly frequent impulse purchases and monetization of free users.
I don't think it's straightforward to imagine the world would be better or worse if the basis for billing changed to something like cost basis.
My overwhelming reaction to this trial is that it seems like both sides have fairly good reasons to prefer things the way they prefer things, but it's not clear to me why a court should essentially vacate a particular business model or contract. When courts intervene to strike broad classes of contract provisions (for example, to allow or disallow mandatory arbitration provisions), typically it's because there's an obvious public interest. Here the interests seem private on both sides, and it doesn't seem obvious to me that end consumers will either be harmed or helped by what's being asked for. Which seems like the kind of territory courts traditionally run away from.
We can scope out who those are likely to be: free applications which provide some useful educational service would lose; currently they provide no revenue (beyond the token developer fee). Banking, rewards, credit, etc. applications (applications which interface consumers with their pre-existing accounts for CRUD-style management purposes) would lose. They provide no revenue. Subscription products with very low conversion rates would lose if their free:pay user ratio exceeds, say, 10:1 -- or some other breakeven point with respect to money saved by ditching Apple's payment stuff.
It would also hurt applications like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram where the product is completely free and monetized by advertising Apple currently doesn't take a cut of.
It's clear the winners are mostly extremely popular multi-billion dollar applications where the app portion is a pretty thin layer and they charge all or most users to subscribe on an ongoing basis. Fortnite doesn't exactly have a subscription, but it relies on fairly frequent impulse purchases and monetization of free users.
I don't think it's straightforward to imagine the world would be better or worse if the basis for billing changed to something like cost basis.
My overwhelming reaction to this trial is that it seems like both sides have fairly good reasons to prefer things the way they prefer things, but it's not clear to me why a court should essentially vacate a particular business model or contract. When courts intervene to strike broad classes of contract provisions (for example, to allow or disallow mandatory arbitration provisions), typically it's because there's an obvious public interest. Here the interests seem private on both sides, and it doesn't seem obvious to me that end consumers will either be harmed or helped by what's being asked for. Which seems like the kind of territory courts traditionally run away from.
> It's clear that any change to the equilibrium would have winners and losers.
What equilibrium?
Equilibrium implies multiple forces balancing each other out. This doesn't seem to be the case here, because Apple are effectively dictating terms.
A better term would be "status quo".
What equilibrium?
Equilibrium implies multiple forces balancing each other out. This doesn't seem to be the case here, because Apple are effectively dictating terms.
A better term would be "status quo".
(Nash) equilibrium is a game theory term meaning the outcome that occurs when each player plays their optimal strategy; it's not a term that refers to any particular presence or absence of equity in light of that. You can think of it as similar to a "status quo" if you prefer.
I can understand that colloquially it could mean the latter, so I apologize for using a technical term.
I can understand that colloquially it could mean the latter, so I apologize for using a technical term.
I understand what an equilibrium is. The question is: who are the players who are in equilibrium? Apple dictates the terms of the iOS app store. It's clear that Apple has a set of moves it can choose from. What moves do other players have, really, even if they were suboptimal?
It doesn't seem there really are any, other than to leave the app store entirely, which most would consider pretty extreme to the point where it's really hypotehtical. That's why I questioned whether the language of equilibria is appropriate in the first place: it just doesn't seem to be a pretty misleading framing of the situation.
It doesn't seem there really are any, other than to leave the app store entirely, which most would consider pretty extreme to the point where it's really hypotehtical. That's why I questioned whether the language of equilibria is appropriate in the first place: it just doesn't seem to be a pretty misleading framing of the situation.
Players: Apple, developers, user; playing a finite iterated game of uncertain time horizon.
Game order: Apple chooses a policy burden \omega ~ [0, 1] which stands in for the restrictions they place on developers or the cut of purchases they take. Apple takes \omega \beta in profit and incurs no costs.
Let's take you at your word that a developer's only choice is to leave or stay -- Developers choose whether to develop exclusively on Apple [reward (1 - \omega) \beta], on all platforms (1 - \omega) \beta + \theta, or not on Apple [reward \theta]. \beta and \theta are both constrained to be non-negative. Developers pay a cost of development -c where c is constrained to be non-negative. Developers all decide simultaneously.
You could model this as one developer choosing a fraction of effort. You could make costs variable. You could make developers decide sequentially. You could model Google, who is not an actor in this scenario. etc. etc.
Users observe the fraction of developers who opted in ||d||. Each user has a type [0, 1] which determines the threshold amount of developer support it will require for them to choose Apple over another platform. \beta and \theta both update to be higher or lower depending on user choices according to some update function you prefer.
Let each player have either an individual or shared discount parameter \delta.
This is clearly a well-specified game. I am not going to solve it for the equilibriums; it may well be the case for any practice \beta, \theta, c, etc. that Apple's incentive is to choose a very high \omega and developers best response is to choose "develop for Apple anyway". That would still be an equilibrium. Most games have degenerate equilibria.
It seems to me that if you adjust developers to be sequential rather than simultaneous this is very nearly the Chain Store Game; if you make it a single developer this probably gets close to something like divide the dollar; if you want to model the lawsuit, it's a costly signalling game (Epic burning cash to establish type)
All of this is very traditional game theory. I get that your point is that Apple is mean and the government should do something about it, but there's nothing wrong with me describing the current arrangement of winners and losers as an equilibrium, or to describe the shock a lawsuit could induce via policy change as something that will establish a new equilibrium by exogenously changing or constraining parameters. I left all this out because I didn't think anyone would require this effort to accept the use of a very uncontroversial term.
Game order: Apple chooses a policy burden \omega ~ [0, 1] which stands in for the restrictions they place on developers or the cut of purchases they take. Apple takes \omega \beta in profit and incurs no costs.
Let's take you at your word that a developer's only choice is to leave or stay -- Developers choose whether to develop exclusively on Apple [reward (1 - \omega) \beta], on all platforms (1 - \omega) \beta + \theta, or not on Apple [reward \theta]. \beta and \theta are both constrained to be non-negative. Developers pay a cost of development -c where c is constrained to be non-negative. Developers all decide simultaneously.
You could model this as one developer choosing a fraction of effort. You could make costs variable. You could make developers decide sequentially. You could model Google, who is not an actor in this scenario. etc. etc.
Users observe the fraction of developers who opted in ||d||. Each user has a type [0, 1] which determines the threshold amount of developer support it will require for them to choose Apple over another platform. \beta and \theta both update to be higher or lower depending on user choices according to some update function you prefer.
Let each player have either an individual or shared discount parameter \delta.
This is clearly a well-specified game. I am not going to solve it for the equilibriums; it may well be the case for any practice \beta, \theta, c, etc. that Apple's incentive is to choose a very high \omega and developers best response is to choose "develop for Apple anyway". That would still be an equilibrium. Most games have degenerate equilibria.
It seems to me that if you adjust developers to be sequential rather than simultaneous this is very nearly the Chain Store Game; if you make it a single developer this probably gets close to something like divide the dollar; if you want to model the lawsuit, it's a costly signalling game (Epic burning cash to establish type)
All of this is very traditional game theory. I get that your point is that Apple is mean and the government should do something about it, but there's nothing wrong with me describing the current arrangement of winners and losers as an equilibrium, or to describe the shock a lawsuit could induce via policy change as something that will establish a new equilibrium by exogenously changing or constraining parameters. I left all this out because I didn't think anyone would require this effort to accept the use of a very uncontroversial term.
> It's clear that any change to the equilibrium would have winners and losers.
Thank god our object isn't to design rules that would pick the winners and losers we want, but to design rules that prevent Apple from using their platform leverage in an anti-competitive way. It's fine if Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram lose, and "extremely popular multi-billion dollar" applications win. Being extremely popular and successful while using few Apple resources should give you some degree of control over your own application.
Thank god our object isn't to design rules that would pick the winners and losers we want, but to design rules that prevent Apple from using their platform leverage in an anti-competitive way. It's fine if Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram lose, and "extremely popular multi-billion dollar" applications win. Being extremely popular and successful while using few Apple resources should give you some degree of control over your own application.
S3 is actually quite pricey. Not as much on the monthly storage (tho it can be depending on size), but network egress is really where they get you. On the scale of the App Store where the app might be 100mb but it gets downloaded potentially millions of times it gets expensive fast.
Now imagine your app is free. Yet you have to pay for all these downloads. There wouldn’t be any free apps anymore.
Now imagine your app is free. Yet you have to pay for all these downloads. There wouldn’t be any free apps anymore.
At $0.05 per gb transfer, it would be half a penny per 100mb app download. Someone has to pay for that - at the moment Apple subsidises the free apps, presumably because they think they are good for the ecosystem.
Although lets be honest here, free apps could easily continue to be subsidised by Apple in any future model. We are talking about far less than a dollar per iPhone in terms of hosting/bandwidth costs for all the apps, so this really is something that Apple could easily just swallow.
Let's not forget that the availability, quality and abundance of apps, made by developers, is a key driver of success of the iPhone, and Apple makes plenty money from hardware sales. I won't lose sleep over the thought that they might have to pay for some hosting.
Although lets be honest here, free apps could easily continue to be subsidised by Apple in any future model. We are talking about far less than a dollar per iPhone in terms of hosting/bandwidth costs for all the apps, so this really is something that Apple could easily just swallow.
Let's not forget that the availability, quality and abundance of apps, made by developers, is a key driver of success of the iPhone, and Apple makes plenty money from hardware sales. I won't lose sleep over the thought that they might have to pay for some hosting.
> $0.05 per gb transfer
That's including AWS's insane profit margin, though. I have my cloud deployments with Hetzner, where extra traffic costs € 1.19 per TiB, so that 100 MiB app download would not be half cent, it would be 1/100th of a cent. (And that's before we consider that Hetzner gives 20 TiB per month free traffic with every VM.)
That's including AWS's insane profit margin, though. I have my cloud deployments with Hetzner, where extra traffic costs € 1.19 per TiB, so that 100 MiB app download would not be half cent, it would be 1/100th of a cent. (And that's before we consider that Hetzner gives 20 TiB per month free traffic with every VM.)
Very true!
> Their point is that Apple could charge based on bandwidth used, and that this could be more fair for some developers.
That is what the 30% cut is meant to cover (amongst other things too). Like with a high street retail store, the mark up is intended to cover the running costs of the store. Which brings us full circle to why Apple deduct it from transactions.
Sure you "could" have an App Store that calculates the operational costs and then charges it to the developer, but you then potentially destroy the free app market (and contrary to what people often say about the App Store, there are a lot of decent free apps on there).
Having a split payment and billing system also adds complexity to invoicing. Did you know that AWS and other cloud providers don't provide credits and refunds as payments into the customers bank accounts? No, what they do is they offset your costs against your credits and invoice the difference if owed to AWS. If Apple were to adopt that then we'd basically be back at deducting $n from transactions again. And once again we've come full circle.
There is so many arguments about what Apple "could" do but when you start to distil the requirements down to a workable operation you almost always end up right back at the status quo.
Now I'm not saying that Apple aren't taking advantage of developers either. The cost of development on a Apples ecosystem is ridiculously high and Apple are notoriously hostile towards their developers too. But charging a percentage of transactions is a reasonable approach to the problems outlined above and limiting transactions outside of Apple's payment channel does at least solve the problem of developers cheating by funnelling funds in via a side channel (as exampled in an earlier comment which discussed people selling items on eBay for $1 but with a $49 shipping fee before eBay clamped down on exaggerated shipping fees).
That is what the 30% cut is meant to cover (amongst other things too). Like with a high street retail store, the mark up is intended to cover the running costs of the store. Which brings us full circle to why Apple deduct it from transactions.
Sure you "could" have an App Store that calculates the operational costs and then charges it to the developer, but you then potentially destroy the free app market (and contrary to what people often say about the App Store, there are a lot of decent free apps on there).
Having a split payment and billing system also adds complexity to invoicing. Did you know that AWS and other cloud providers don't provide credits and refunds as payments into the customers bank accounts? No, what they do is they offset your costs against your credits and invoice the difference if owed to AWS. If Apple were to adopt that then we'd basically be back at deducting $n from transactions again. And once again we've come full circle.
There is so many arguments about what Apple "could" do but when you start to distil the requirements down to a workable operation you almost always end up right back at the status quo.
Now I'm not saying that Apple aren't taking advantage of developers either. The cost of development on a Apples ecosystem is ridiculously high and Apple are notoriously hostile towards their developers too. But charging a percentage of transactions is a reasonable approach to the problems outlined above and limiting transactions outside of Apple's payment channel does at least solve the problem of developers cheating by funnelling funds in via a side channel (as exampled in an earlier comment which discussed people selling items on eBay for $1 but with a $49 shipping fee before eBay clamped down on exaggerated shipping fees).
The point is that while Apple doesn’t charge like that, they could.
"Could" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. My point is AWS and Apple's App Store are very different business models. Once is about providing compute resource while the other is about providing a single pane of glass for software purchases.
Sure, the App Store "could" follow AWS's pricing model, but it makes more sense for it not to given the App Store is more analogous to a shop like eBay or even a physical store like Argos than it is a cloud computing data centre.
This is why I said the AWS/App Store comparison isn't apt.
Sure, the App Store "could" follow AWS's pricing model, but it makes more sense for it not to given the App Store is more analogous to a shop like eBay or even a physical store like Argos than it is a cloud computing data centre.
This is why I said the AWS/App Store comparison isn't apt.
Rent would go up and there would be basically 0 actually free apps anymore. It’s already hard to pay 99$ a year for many people. Now you have to pay some larger number and your app may never make money. It’s always an achievement just to get your 99$ back anyway.
With the risk of sounding overly harsh - If 99$ per annum is a concrete financial risk maybe being a solo developer is not such a good lifepath financially. I imagine anyone capable of deploying an app store app has pretty good skills and is quite hireable.
Of course individual situations can be different, but this is discussion about the "generic situation".
Of course individual situations can be different, but this is discussion about the "generic situation".
One thing I don't like about the iOS model is that 100/yr is a significant barrier to hosting "open source" type apps out of the goodness of your heart. Concrete example: best ssh app on android is ConnectBot which is gratis and free. Best ssh app on iOS is Termius which is crippled by default, nonfree, and requires a $10/mo *subscription* to unlock. I don't mind paying for software I use, but 120/yr for a phone ssh app is too much.
And this is the best app on the store, a less costly and freer competitor hasn't emerged.
And I can't even sideload my own apps.
And this is the best app on the store, a less costly and freer competitor hasn't emerged.
And I can't even sideload my own apps.
Buy an Android phone? A Raspberry PI? A Linux box? I don't get it, if a person can't afford to be on a prestige platform like Apple, then that's not a problem, choose another platform.
What does Termius offer that Panic’s Prompt doesn’t? One-time fee and Panic make some of the best software I’ve used on Apple devices.
> I don't mind paying for software I use, but 120/yr for a phone ssh app is too much.
This is because it's much easier to earn money on the long-tail dedicated fans than the masses. Especially when those masses are likely to hate advertising based models with a passion.
This is because it's much easier to earn money on the long-tail dedicated fans than the masses. Especially when those masses are likely to hate advertising based models with a passion.
Android has mostly free apps, ad supported.
iOS has more paid apps, for one because people that can afford a high end phone are more willing to pay for $99 for an app.
Look at the pricing for the same app on Android vs iOS.
iOS has more paid apps, for one because people that can afford a high end phone are more willing to pay for $99 for an app.
Look at the pricing for the same app on Android vs iOS.
Logically apple makes most of their money selling IPhones based on them being desirable phones in large part because of useful apps.
The cost of sending your app through automated processing and serving it to 99 people needed to make back your fee is probably on net less than a penny.
Offering this service to small time developers would still be 99.99% profit so there would be no reason to make up for lost profits.
The cost of sending your app through automated processing and serving it to 99 people needed to make back your fee is probably on net less than a penny.
Offering this service to small time developers would still be 99.99% profit so there would be no reason to make up for lost profits.
> Rent would go up and there would be basically 0 actually free apps anymore.
I don't think there's nothing getting in the way of Apple charging a very high rent for Amazon's app and a very low one for a random vegan recipe app.
I don't think there's nothing getting in the way of Apple charging a very high rent for Amazon's app and a very low one for a random vegan recipe app.
AWS captures you by being the custodian of your data and charging you to move it.
That’s the real magic of AWS and is the reason S3 was the mother service. Pre-AWS, colo at scale meant circuits and high friction networking. With the modern cloud providers, there’s less friction, but a tollbooth.
That’s the real magic of AWS and is the reason S3 was the mother service. Pre-AWS, colo at scale meant circuits and high friction networking. With the modern cloud providers, there’s less friction, but a tollbooth.
By that logic, should Apple charge something like $1/user/month to allow companies to publish apps and run software on iPhones?
How is that the same logic? Amazon does not charge end users for allowing services they use to run on AWS.
Yes they do. They charge you compute time, data egress and storage costs. They charge you for premium support, DNS lookups, and even just having an unused IP reservation. AWS has an extensive and diverse model for charges. So much so that it's very difficult to accurately calculate the total cost of a new project ahead of deploying it due to all the hidden costs.
If Apple adopted the same model as AWS, people would still moan.
If Apple adopted the same model as AWS, people would still moan.
[deleted]
AWS charges for bandwidth. Should Apple start charging the developer $1 for every download?
Netflix pays AWS (and their other services) based on their use. AWS "takes a cut" in that Netflix pays for their service.
Apple requires developers to offer sign-in with Apple if they use other sign-in systems (like FB). They could have the same requirement with payments.
Users should be given the option of using Apple's system if they want to.
After all, It's Apples' argument that their payment system is light-years better for consumers. If true, then users will naturally gravitate towards Apples' payment system. Right? This would result in a cycle where Apple (and other payment systems) are incentivised to continuously improve. What's wrong with that? Why not let the consumers decide what is best?
Let Apple's payment system compete on its actual merits. Apple says it's a much better system after all. I say - let them prove it. They should "put up or shut up", so to speak.
Users should be given the option of using Apple's system if they want to.
After all, It's Apples' argument that their payment system is light-years better for consumers. If true, then users will naturally gravitate towards Apples' payment system. Right? This would result in a cycle where Apple (and other payment systems) are incentivised to continuously improve. What's wrong with that? Why not let the consumers decide what is best?
Let Apple's payment system compete on its actual merits. Apple says it's a much better system after all. I say - let them prove it. They should "put up or shut up", so to speak.
But then if you force every option to be priced the same, despite how much it costs the developer, then you're distorting everything again.
For example, I can pay $0.99 to buy a game using Square or Apple, but Apple takes a 30% cut and will give me a full refund if I don't like the game. I chose Apple every time, but not because it's "better", it's just better for me and I'm not the one paying for it.
For example, I can pay $0.99 to buy a game using Square or Apple, but Apple takes a 30% cut and will give me a full refund if I don't like the game. I chose Apple every time, but not because it's "better", it's just better for me and I'm not the one paying for it.
How is this different from credit cards that have "rewards"? If you think of the independent software vendors as the corner store where you buy groceries and Apple as Visa or some payment processor...
Actually now that I think about it the difference is the walled garden. I think pretty much the only compromise I can accept is something like Apple and Google must be required to add something like F-Droid that is run at arms length from Apple and Google and accepts third party software repositories.
This way users can download and use any software they like from any repository anywhere. The benefit for Apple and Google is we won't shut them down and really they have inertia behind them so many if not most people will stick to the default stores, and Google can forbid OEMs from adding applications or repositories. A user must do so deliberately and manually.
The benefit for users is applications installed from F-Droid will be able to auto update.
The benefit for independent software vendors is they can publish their stuff outside of app store and play store and not have to adhere to any policy by the app store or play store and not have to pay any money to the default stores.
Anything less and we are basically at status quo.
Actually now that I think about it the difference is the walled garden. I think pretty much the only compromise I can accept is something like Apple and Google must be required to add something like F-Droid that is run at arms length from Apple and Google and accepts third party software repositories.
This way users can download and use any software they like from any repository anywhere. The benefit for Apple and Google is we won't shut them down and really they have inertia behind them so many if not most people will stick to the default stores, and Google can forbid OEMs from adding applications or repositories. A user must do so deliberately and manually.
The benefit for users is applications installed from F-Droid will be able to auto update.
The benefit for independent software vendors is they can publish their stuff outside of app store and play store and not have to adhere to any policy by the app store or play store and not have to pay any money to the default stores.
Anything less and we are basically at status quo.
In the US, rewards are usually 1-2% on most credit cards, and up to 5% for certain purchase categories on a few credit cards. These rewards are funded by interest income, annual fees, penalty fees, and interchange fees. Interchange fees are typically between 1.3% and 3.5%: https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/average-credit-card...
The Durbin amendment allows merchants to offer lower prices to customers who choose a payment option that incurs lower fees (such as cash or debit card) at the point of sale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durbin_amendment
Compare this to Apple, which takes a 30% cut. Developers must raise their prices by 42.9% to compensate for that 30% cut. Apple does not allow developers to offer alternative payment options for most categories of in-app purchases.
For a long time, the standard rate for payment processing for small businesses has been 2.9% + $0.30 for credit cards. Larger businesses with higher transaction volumes are able to negotiate lower rates. If Apple allows developers to offer payment processing options that take smaller cuts, and allows developers to offer lower prices when customers choose those options, I'm certain that most developers and customers would prefer the third-party payment processors.
The Durbin amendment allows merchants to offer lower prices to customers who choose a payment option that incurs lower fees (such as cash or debit card) at the point of sale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durbin_amendment
Compare this to Apple, which takes a 30% cut. Developers must raise their prices by 42.9% to compensate for that 30% cut. Apple does not allow developers to offer alternative payment options for most categories of in-app purchases.
For a long time, the standard rate for payment processing for small businesses has been 2.9% + $0.30 for credit cards. Larger businesses with higher transaction volumes are able to negotiate lower rates. If Apple allows developers to offer payment processing options that take smaller cuts, and allows developers to offer lower prices when customers choose those options, I'm certain that most developers and customers would prefer the third-party payment processors.
Being able to get a refund is quantifiably better. What do you mean?
Are you suggesting other vendors would be unable to compete with that for some reason?
As an aside: I don't think the same pricing among different vendors is necessarily a requirement. If one entity offers more security or other benefits, then their pricing should reflect that.
Are you suggesting other vendors would be unable to compete with that for some reason?
As an aside: I don't think the same pricing among different vendors is necessarily a requirement. If one entity offers more security or other benefits, then their pricing should reflect that.
Would you still choose Apple's payment processor of it meant paying 30% more than third-party payment processors that don't charge a fee?
It's actually 42.9% more. 1 / (1 - 0.3) = about 1.429.
Yeah, I was thinking it was something like that, just couldn't be bothered to figure it out.
The point of Apple’s payment system isn’t to compete on merits with other systems. Sure they want it to be the best. The purpose, however, is to collect fees from app developers.
Apple “puts up or shuts up” with the phone itself. Thats the product and the consumer choice they focus on.
Apple “puts up or shuts up” with the phone itself. Thats the product and the consumer choice they focus on.
'has to'?
App store policies were not handed down on stone tablets on Mount Sinai. Charges that better track the incremental costs are not a logical contradiction.
App store policies were not handed down on stone tablets on Mount Sinai. Charges that better track the incremental costs are not a logical contradiction.
>otherwise developers will implement workarounds to avoid charging in the App Store altogether.
The Windows store has plenty of applications despite having fees (5%).
As an aside- to me that seems like an important differentiating factor. Apps must pay a fee to be on these platforms. Who do they pay the fee to? Whoever they pay a fee to shouldn't be allowed to also have apps on there since this is unfair and anti competitive. Fees do not negatively affect Apple but they negatively affect competition.
The Windows store has plenty of applications despite having fees (5%).
As an aside- to me that seems like an important differentiating factor. Apps must pay a fee to be on these platforms. Who do they pay the fee to? Whoever they pay a fee to shouldn't be allowed to also have apps on there since this is unfair and anti competitive. Fees do not negatively affect Apple but they negatively affect competition.
>Same here -- every app would turn free, and charge to unlock features within using their own payment mechanism.
This is trivial to deal with. Apple already has rules on apps, they could go from banning fremium apps, to disallowing apps without a substantial free version to enforcing a reporting API on payments.
What they can't do is use their position in one market to force marketshare in another market (payment processors). That's classic anticompetitive behaviour.
(Aside, freemium apps have a low reputation, and that's why other stores without that rule aren't overrun with such apps)
This is trivial to deal with. Apple already has rules on apps, they could go from banning fremium apps, to disallowing apps without a substantial free version to enforcing a reporting API on payments.
What they can't do is use their position in one market to force marketshare in another market (payment processors). That's classic anticompetitive behaviour.
(Aside, freemium apps have a low reputation, and that's why other stores without that rule aren't overrun with such apps)
> Same here -- every app would turn free, and charge to unlock features within using their own payment mechanism.
Not necessarily. Apple would likely be unable to extract the rents it currently does, but if a dev has the choice of paying a 5% fee using an rarely-used payment system, or paying a 15% fee using a payment system that most users already have set up and that has very little friction, the latter is likely more profitable.
Not necessarily. Apple would likely be unable to extract the rents it currently does, but if a dev has the choice of paying a 5% fee using an rarely-used payment system, or paying a 15% fee using a payment system that most users already have set up and that has very little friction, the latter is likely more profitable.
> No developer in their right mind would let Apple take a cut of anything.
No developer in their right mind would let Apple take a 30% cut of anything.
Most developers would pay Apple a 3% cut in order to use Apple's built in-payment mechanism, and not force their users to leave the app and type their credit card information into a browser.
30% is exploitive, and not at all proportional to the value provided. People pay it because they have to, not because it's fair.
No developer in their right mind would let Apple take a 30% cut of anything.
Most developers would pay Apple a 3% cut in order to use Apple's built in-payment mechanism, and not force their users to leave the app and type their credit card information into a browser.
30% is exploitive, and not at all proportional to the value provided. People pay it because they have to, not because it's fair.
Visa charges you 3% but doesn’t have an online store that I can find your app on, and don’t run security checks against your app to check for malicious apps, etc.
So I think we can agree that a realistic number for Apple is definitely above 3% for the service they provide.
We can argue about 30%, and that’s a good discussion, but 3% is no way comparable.
So I think we can agree that a realistic number for Apple is definitely above 3% for the service they provide.
We can argue about 30%, and that’s a good discussion, but 3% is no way comparable.
I think most credit card processors charge something like 30 cents + 2.9%. On large purchases that's about 3%, but on smaller transactions (like those usually used in mobile apps) that 30 cents dominates and could end up being about 30%. So from that perspective Apple's 30% cut could be a good deal in some cases.
It's not a "good deal" in any case....
The minimum purchase price on iOS is $0.99, so at worst you'd be paying basically the same rate (~30%).
But most payment processors offer separate pricing for micro-transactions (e.g. Paypal is 5% + $0.05 IIRC). Which works out at around 10% for a $0.99 transaction.
And actually - Adyen offer much better pricing than the "Stripe rate" of $0.30 + 2.9% in the first place.
The minimum purchase price on iOS is $0.99, so at worst you'd be paying basically the same rate (~30%).
But most payment processors offer separate pricing for micro-transactions (e.g. Paypal is 5% + $0.05 IIRC). Which works out at around 10% for a $0.99 transaction.
And actually - Adyen offer much better pricing than the "Stripe rate" of $0.30 + 2.9% in the first place.
A few years ago when making a micro transaction app, PayPal only allowed one type of fee structure — either the 5% or the 2.9%.
Meaning you couldn’t segregate low tickets from high tickets and get the most optimal fee - your whole merchant account was one fee or the other.
‘Twas quite a PITA
Meaning you couldn’t segregate low tickets from high tickets and get the most optimal fee - your whole merchant account was one fee or the other.
‘Twas quite a PITA
Yeah this is still the case AFAIK - very annoying. I believe their recommended workaround was to have 2 separate merchant accounts with different fee structures and group your products accordingly.
[deleted]
The 12% that Epic and now Microsoft charge seems about right IMO
Based on what arguments?
If Apple’s cut were 12% and Epic and Microsoft now charged 6%, would you claim “The 12% that Apple charges seems about right IMO”?
If Apple’s cut were 12% and Epic and Microsoft now charged 6%, would you claim “The 12% that Apple charges seems about right IMO”?
Yep, if someone is able to maintain above market level profits for so long it's usually a sign of monopolistic pricing. That's not necessarily bad, but in Apples case it's just double dipping on their monopolistic position and is clearly a drain on the market with no benefit. They have the same incentives to invest in R&D and support the ecosystem on the insane HW margins alone, I'd be willing to bet their dev budget doesn't change at all if this change in rate was made.
But how do you know 12% is about right, and not 10%, 2%, …
Also, Apple will claim they have a better product that warrants higher margins. Data from independent parties shows that they attract more users willing to pay for apps, and developers aren’t leaving en masse for Android.
Also, Apple will claim they have a better product that warrants higher margins. Data from independent parties shows that they attract more users willing to pay for apps, and developers aren’t leaving en masse for Android.
>Also, Apple will claim they have a better product that warrants higher margins.
And this argument is fine in the hardware market because they have competition, it's efficiency monopoly - that's why I said it's not always bad.
However their app store controlls access to 50% of US market (even more by revenue) simply because it comes as the only option and the consumers can't unbundle it. If they had competition on the platform (different stores/distribution methods) - you wouldn't have to say what % is right, the market would decide the value added by their app store/payment methods.
And this argument is fine in the hardware market because they have competition, it's efficiency monopoly - that's why I said it's not always bad.
However their app store controlls access to 50% of US market (even more by revenue) simply because it comes as the only option and the consumers can't unbundle it. If they had competition on the platform (different stores/distribution methods) - you wouldn't have to say what % is right, the market would decide the value added by their app store/payment methods.
For some even 3% could be too high let alone 30%. For instance, Kindle iOS app doesn’t let you purchase books. It’s a read-only version, so to speak.
Most credit card processors charge around 3%, so it's rarely an issue. The number I usually throw out that Apple could charge and no one would be mad over is 5%. It's more than a credit card processor, but not that much, and it would likely help conversion rates enough that app developers would be happy.
Apple had 72.3 billion revenue from App Store in 2020. I can assure you that I can provide you with online store that I can find your app on, and run security checks against your app to check for malicious apps, etc. for 2.1 billion $ per year (3%).
Ah yes, and I’ll have that feature done in 2 weeks, max! How hard could it be?
The excuse is hardship? Are you saying that Apple's app store profit margin is low, or comparing $2.1 billion to 2 weeks?
I never said it would be done in two weeks but I think you underestimate what can be achieved with 2.1 billion dollars per year. For 200-250$ mil you will have ~1000 software engineers/project managers/other staff and you are left with 1.9 billion, costs for infrastructure + bandwidth not more than 400 mil, you are left with 1.5 billion.
They also don't curate a language and IDE for you to make your stuff with as well, nor offer logins or ways to find past transactions.
> curate a language and IDE for you to make your stuff with as well
That's an odd way to put it. Approximately 0.001% of developers would complain if instead they were allowed to use the language and IDE they prefer.
That's an odd way to put it. Approximately 0.001% of developers would complain if instead they were allowed to use the language and IDE they prefer.
They can use their IDE, at least. And given every phone platform I know of has restricted language support, I can't imagine it's a simple problem to solve.
I’m going to repeat the same thing I always repeat in these threads because it feels like people are out of touch with closed platforms.
To “play” on Xbox or PlayStation, they take a 30% cut.
Steam also takes a 30% cut.
It’s pretty standard, certainly not “exploitative” (at least not on apples part, if not others), though obviously as a game developer I’d prefer it be much less.
To “play” on Xbox or PlayStation, they take a 30% cut.
Steam also takes a 30% cut.
It’s pretty standard, certainly not “exploitative” (at least not on apples part, if not others), though obviously as a game developer I’d prefer it be much less.
Microsoft store on PC is a 12% cut. Documents revealed during this case show that the same is (or was) planned for Xbox store: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...
For Steam there are many viable alternatives, which allows for user/developer choice and fair competition in the long run. Epic Store is about half as popular now (31.3m vs 62.6m daily active users), but it's growing fast. I don't think what Steam is offering is worth the 30% cut, and I imagine we'll either see them reduce that cut or get overtaken by Epic in another few years.
I don't like what the other stores are doing, but to me it's a smaller concern on game consoles/stores than on every application for general purpose computers and smartphones. I'd fight the fight on the latter first.
I also disagree with the implication that something is "certainly not exploitative" because of it being an industry standard - in fact I'd say that can be a contributing factor to it being exploitative in many cases (price fixing/oligopolies). To me it's exploitative if the only reason they're getting away with charging so much is because they're hindering competition in that particular area (e.g: can't change app store without buying a whole new phone).
For Steam there are many viable alternatives, which allows for user/developer choice and fair competition in the long run. Epic Store is about half as popular now (31.3m vs 62.6m daily active users), but it's growing fast. I don't think what Steam is offering is worth the 30% cut, and I imagine we'll either see them reduce that cut or get overtaken by Epic in another few years.
I don't like what the other stores are doing, but to me it's a smaller concern on game consoles/stores than on every application for general purpose computers and smartphones. I'd fight the fight on the latter first.
I also disagree with the implication that something is "certainly not exploitative" because of it being an industry standard - in fact I'd say that can be a contributing factor to it being exploitative in many cases (price fixing/oligopolies). To me it's exploitative if the only reason they're getting away with charging so much is because they're hindering competition in that particular area (e.g: can't change app store without buying a whole new phone).
I mostly think that your points here, while correct, miss the forest for the trees.
1. Steam's cut isn't 30%; it's 30% on keys sold through Steam and 0% on keys generated to be sold elsewhere. Most games sell about 1/3rd of their Steam copies via external keys on sites like Humble, GreenManGaming, Nuuvem, WinGameStore, directly on their websites, etc. Valve's implied cut would be from 15-20% for most of these games. Of course, publishers and developers voluntarily give up some of the cut Valve doesn't take to those intermediaries, which is another knock against the claim that Valve is an exploiter. It seems hard to argue that in a world where a game is sold for $60 and GreenManGaming takes $6, passes on a $12 discount to the consumer, Valve takes $0, and the publisher takes $42, that Valve is the one exploiting the publisher, despite giving the publisher free keys.
Why does Valve do this? To maximize lock-in in their ecosystem and make money on in-app purchases. They have selfish interests at mind, but those manifest through giving away some of their cut on purchases.
2. Valve also has a fee reduction program that's the exact opposite of Apple/Google. Apple/Google charges 15% up to $1 million revenue and then charge you the full amount. Valve charges progressively less after $1 million revenue (down as low as 20%). I think this reflects closed/open systems;
Valve is worried about publishers like EA (who left Steam and then came back hat in hand because their own service was an expensive and technically poor failure), Ubisoft (who left Steam and are currently bilking Epic for upfront cash while pushing their own UPlay service), Bethesda/MS (who flirt with Beth.net/Microsoft Games Store but both ultimately returned to Steam in the end), Activision (have abandoned Steam for Battle.net). So they want to make it easier for big publishers to come back to them. Whereas Apple wants to maximize revenue off big clients and maximize the PR benefits of helping small businesses. But the point is that Apple, Google, and Valve alike actually do have flexibility in the % they take.
3. Finally, I think the Epic active user numbers are really not super useful. The vast majority of those Epic users are simply Fortnite players (and it's actually a little unclear whether Epic is counting non-PC Fortnite players who sign it under Epic accounts). Having acquired Rocket League, they now can use Rocket League players in the same way. Having acquired Fall Guys, they will likely do the same there in the coming years.
The actual number of users of the Epic Games Store are not trivial, it'd definitely be a strong second having overtaken GOG and Itch and other competitors. But they're likely in the single digit millions.
This in part reflects that the Epic Games Store is not very good. The client does not support basic features, nor does the store interface. Their onboarding process is entirely manual, which they characterize as giving them a "curated" game library but actually it means there's just not that much variety on the store and almost nothing at the low end. They have sales where they eat huge losses to give users discounts, but these are not appreciably better than the kinds of sales that occur on Steam and in the broader ecosystem.
Crucially, to your point that Steam might be over "overtaken" by Epic is that it's not clear there's any competition at all. Every game that released on Epic and not Steam did so because Epic signed exclusivity contracts with the game (typically 12 month exclusivity contracts). It's predictable that all of these exclusives, bar one -- World War Z, have released on Steam within a month or so of their exclusivity expiring. Most seem to report doing better on Steam. Most developers that release on Epic and Steam, without a formal exclusivity deal, are developers who signed "free game" deals with Epic where Epic bulk-pays developers upfront in exchange for allowing every Epic user to redeem the game for free. Epic reports a relatively low conversion rate from free game redeemers to buyers.
All of this suggests that the Epic Game Store, while putting up impressive numbers, isn't really peeling off developers or users because of its lowers cut. I could imagine a world where Valve/Steam are materially hurt if Epic greatly extends their exclusivity contracts, losing billions of dollars specifically to destroy Steam. But I don't see Epic organically overtaking Steam.
My main point here is that the complexities of what's being offered and what's being charged here are obscured when we just say "You ate one third of my pizza! But I wanted that pizza!"
1. Steam's cut isn't 30%; it's 30% on keys sold through Steam and 0% on keys generated to be sold elsewhere. Most games sell about 1/3rd of their Steam copies via external keys on sites like Humble, GreenManGaming, Nuuvem, WinGameStore, directly on their websites, etc. Valve's implied cut would be from 15-20% for most of these games. Of course, publishers and developers voluntarily give up some of the cut Valve doesn't take to those intermediaries, which is another knock against the claim that Valve is an exploiter. It seems hard to argue that in a world where a game is sold for $60 and GreenManGaming takes $6, passes on a $12 discount to the consumer, Valve takes $0, and the publisher takes $42, that Valve is the one exploiting the publisher, despite giving the publisher free keys.
Why does Valve do this? To maximize lock-in in their ecosystem and make money on in-app purchases. They have selfish interests at mind, but those manifest through giving away some of their cut on purchases.
2. Valve also has a fee reduction program that's the exact opposite of Apple/Google. Apple/Google charges 15% up to $1 million revenue and then charge you the full amount. Valve charges progressively less after $1 million revenue (down as low as 20%). I think this reflects closed/open systems;
Valve is worried about publishers like EA (who left Steam and then came back hat in hand because their own service was an expensive and technically poor failure), Ubisoft (who left Steam and are currently bilking Epic for upfront cash while pushing their own UPlay service), Bethesda/MS (who flirt with Beth.net/Microsoft Games Store but both ultimately returned to Steam in the end), Activision (have abandoned Steam for Battle.net). So they want to make it easier for big publishers to come back to them. Whereas Apple wants to maximize revenue off big clients and maximize the PR benefits of helping small businesses. But the point is that Apple, Google, and Valve alike actually do have flexibility in the % they take.
3. Finally, I think the Epic active user numbers are really not super useful. The vast majority of those Epic users are simply Fortnite players (and it's actually a little unclear whether Epic is counting non-PC Fortnite players who sign it under Epic accounts). Having acquired Rocket League, they now can use Rocket League players in the same way. Having acquired Fall Guys, they will likely do the same there in the coming years.
The actual number of users of the Epic Games Store are not trivial, it'd definitely be a strong second having overtaken GOG and Itch and other competitors. But they're likely in the single digit millions.
This in part reflects that the Epic Games Store is not very good. The client does not support basic features, nor does the store interface. Their onboarding process is entirely manual, which they characterize as giving them a "curated" game library but actually it means there's just not that much variety on the store and almost nothing at the low end. They have sales where they eat huge losses to give users discounts, but these are not appreciably better than the kinds of sales that occur on Steam and in the broader ecosystem.
Crucially, to your point that Steam might be over "overtaken" by Epic is that it's not clear there's any competition at all. Every game that released on Epic and not Steam did so because Epic signed exclusivity contracts with the game (typically 12 month exclusivity contracts). It's predictable that all of these exclusives, bar one -- World War Z, have released on Steam within a month or so of their exclusivity expiring. Most seem to report doing better on Steam. Most developers that release on Epic and Steam, without a formal exclusivity deal, are developers who signed "free game" deals with Epic where Epic bulk-pays developers upfront in exchange for allowing every Epic user to redeem the game for free. Epic reports a relatively low conversion rate from free game redeemers to buyers.
All of this suggests that the Epic Game Store, while putting up impressive numbers, isn't really peeling off developers or users because of its lowers cut. I could imagine a world where Valve/Steam are materially hurt if Epic greatly extends their exclusivity contracts, losing billions of dollars specifically to destroy Steam. But I don't see Epic organically overtaking Steam.
My main point here is that the complexities of what's being offered and what's being charged here are obscured when we just say "You ate one third of my pizza! But I wanted that pizza!"
I just mean that if we’re penalising one platform it seems fair to penalise the others.
Microsoft store on PC is not a closed platform like Xbox is, ergo it is not what I was claiming.
It’s cool that Epic is taking on Steam. But they’re doing so at a large loss right now, we’ll see how it goes.
Microsoft store on PC is not a closed platform like Xbox is, ergo it is not what I was claiming.
It’s cool that Epic is taking on Steam. But they’re doing so at a large loss right now, we’ll see how it goes.
> Microsoft store on PC is not a closed platform like Xbox is, ergo it is not what I was claiming.
I mostly mentioned that to make the point about Xbox 12% cut. But you also mentioned Steam, so it doesn't look like you're solely talking about closed platforms.
> I just mean that if we’re penalising one platform it seems fair to penalise the others.
If that's your point then I'd agree. Though it matters less for game consoles, and by "penalize" I'd mostly just want them to stop the active suppression of alternate app stores. It looked more like you were defending the practice as non-exploitative.
I mostly mentioned that to make the point about Xbox 12% cut. But you also mentioned Steam, so it doesn't look like you're solely talking about closed platforms.
> I just mean that if we’re penalising one platform it seems fair to penalise the others.
If that's your point then I'd agree. Though it matters less for game consoles, and by "penalize" I'd mostly just want them to stop the active suppression of alternate app stores. It looked more like you were defending the practice as non-exploitative.
What was the cut when software was published physically and sold in a store? 30% is not a lot for being in a store.
Depends on how you look at it. I used to work in a store that sold software in the 90s. The publisher would sell us the game wholesale and we'd charge retail.
So they would sell it to us for $22.50 and set the retail price at $29. So in that sense it was a 22% cut, because we only kept 22% of the sale price.
But in most cases the publisher didn't make the game. They were a middleman who took a game from a studio and sold it to us. I have no idea what their cut was between them and the actual maker of the game, but I'll bet it was more than 8%.
So in that regard, the app store is a really good deal because it lets developers publish directly to consumers without a middleman.
So they would sell it to us for $22.50 and set the retail price at $29. So in that sense it was a 22% cut, because we only kept 22% of the sale price.
But in most cases the publisher didn't make the game. They were a middleman who took a game from a studio and sold it to us. I have no idea what their cut was between them and the actual maker of the game, but I'll bet it was more than 8%.
So in that regard, the app store is a really good deal because it lets developers publish directly to consumers without a middleman.
Except physical distribution is expensive by its nature. It involves producing and moving around physical objects — that's material and labor per copy.
App store, on the other hand, is a digital distributor. Making a digital copy is so cheap it could as well be free. And even then, not all app developers publish on the app store because they want or need its distribution services. There are many developers who would happily arrange the distribution of their apps themselves, with their own infrastructure they already have anyway, but they have to publish on the app store because that's the only way onto millions of iOS devices.
I'll say it again: it should not be legal for a hardware manufacturer to retain any kind of control over hardware after it's been sold.
App store, on the other hand, is a digital distributor. Making a digital copy is so cheap it could as well be free. And even then, not all app developers publish on the app store because they want or need its distribution services. There are many developers who would happily arrange the distribution of their apps themselves, with their own infrastructure they already have anyway, but they have to publish on the app store because that's the only way onto millions of iOS devices.
I'll say it again: it should not be legal for a hardware manufacturer to retain any kind of control over hardware after it's been sold.
This is what they're talking about when they say that productivity gains have gone only to the wealthiest. Buying an album digitally, when every single step in the production and distribution of that album have become an order of magnitude cheaper (outside of labor costs, which somehow remain flat no matter what), costs the same as it did 50 years ago.
Every part of application distribution has become cheaper, so you lock down every platform and charge the same percentage.
Every part of application distribution has become cheaper, so you lock down every platform and charge the same percentage.
So what? Why does the price have to remain the same despite technological advancements that are totally capable of reducing it to almost zero? It's as if we suddenly discovered a way to produce unlimited amounts of food, for free, anywhere in the world, but food manufacturers would start raising a stink about how important it is that people would still starve.
I agree with you completely. I think Apple should, at the very least, allow side loading.
I was just answering the question about what the cut used to be in the packaged software world.
I was just answering the question about what the cut used to be in the packaged software world.
That argument might hold water if Apple allowed for other methods of software installation. Since they don't, that argument is pretty hollow.
> Unfortunately, Apple has to maintain this rule because otherwise developers will implement workarounds to avoid charging in the App Store altogether
If the decision goes against Apple, I'd be surprised if they didn't just 'charge rent' to be on the App Store, just like a retail mall charges stores. Apple would have to take on the additional work of negotiating with each App, which would likely be "take it or leave it" pricing for all except the big ones, but I can't imagine it being illegal.
That doesn't cut to the core claim of lack of competition, though, and that's why the choice of remedy here will be interesting.
If the decision goes against Apple, I'd be surprised if they didn't just 'charge rent' to be on the App Store, just like a retail mall charges stores. Apple would have to take on the additional work of negotiating with each App, which would likely be "take it or leave it" pricing for all except the big ones, but I can't imagine it being illegal.
That doesn't cut to the core claim of lack of competition, though, and that's why the choice of remedy here will be interesting.
> just like a retail mall charges stores
Of course, as we all know, rent in a retail mall often includes a percentage cut of monthly revenue, so we would be right back where we started.
Of course, as we all know, rent in a retail mall often includes a percentage cut of monthly revenue, so we would be right back where we started.
No they don't "have to". Every other platform gets by just fine without this rule. Windows Store, Play Store, Samsung Store, Steam, Origin, Epic Game Store, even Apple's own MacOS store.
> As a general rule, app stores simply don't allow third-party payment in apps that don't go through the store, for this exact reason. It's not just Apple with this policy.
This is not a "general rule". I can't think of any examples other than Apple's app store.
This is not a "general rule". I can't think of any examples other than Apple's app store.
It is literally just Apple because you can install apps outside the company store on other platforms.
The inability to install outside the store is what makes disallowing outside payment an issue.
The combination means that you can't sell to a customer without going through apple because they have used their control of the hardware to take the decision of whom to do business with from you in order to stand there with their hand out.
The inability to install outside the store is what makes disallowing outside payment an issue.
The combination means that you can't sell to a customer without going through apple because they have used their control of the hardware to take the decision of whom to do business with from you in order to stand there with their hand out.
allowing sideloading instantly shreds user privacy because any sufficiently-large customer (f.ex facebook) will immediately demand their app be sideloaded to bypass app review, and given full permissions so they can scrape everything. Facebook for example has already gotten their hand slapped for doing exactly this using their developer credentials, and if it suddenly becomes viable to do this for the full user-base then it will happen immediately and without any recourse by users.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...
that is the true red-line from a user perspective. go on and have your spat about whether 30% is fair or not, but the app-review process is the keystone on which the permissions system rests, allowing sideloading is tantamount to allowing all major apps full-permissions overnight and essentially making the permissions system meaningless.
the only viable solution I can see that allows third-party app stores would be to require that Apple still review all apps on third-party app stores to enforce the requirements surrounding permissioning (i.e. having a valid reason to request the permissions you're requesting) and they would still need to charge for that.
"third party app stores without any review, but Apple still gets a cut" would be the worst of all possible outcomes.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...
that is the true red-line from a user perspective. go on and have your spat about whether 30% is fair or not, but the app-review process is the keystone on which the permissions system rests, allowing sideloading is tantamount to allowing all major apps full-permissions overnight and essentially making the permissions system meaningless.
the only viable solution I can see that allows third-party app stores would be to require that Apple still review all apps on third-party app stores to enforce the requirements surrounding permissioning (i.e. having a valid reason to request the permissions you're requesting) and they would still need to charge for that.
"third party app stores without any review, but Apple still gets a cut" would be the worst of all possible outcomes.
> any sufficiently-large customer (f.ex facebook) will immediately demand their app be sideloaded to bypass app review, and given full permissions so they can scrape everything.
If Facebook is chomping at the bit to do this on iOS as soon as they can, then why haven't they done it on Android where they already can?
If Facebook is chomping at the bit to do this on iOS as soon as they can, then why haven't they done it on Android where they already can?
Its the users phone let them decide. Apple can strongly encourage users to stick to first party stores and require developers to agree to terms and conditions to access the sdk. Warn users who side load in as scary terms as you please.
Nobody who doesn't opt in for privacy shredding will have their privacy shredded.
Nobody who doesn't opt in for privacy shredding will have their privacy shredded.
> Its the users phone let them decide. ... Nobody who doesn't opt in for privacy shredding will have their privacy shredded.
If you don't opt-in to privacy shredding then you will be locked out of being able to use facebook, whatsapp, and other "network effect" things that you more or less don't have a choice about without cutting out communication with large parts of your social network, so this is not really a "free choice" at all.
Right now those companies don't have the leverage to lock out Apple users. This immediately gives them that leverage and they will use it, just like they already have tried (and gotten their hands slapped for).
App store review is the only thing standing between you and Facebook demanding full permissions for everything, and allowing third-party app stores or sideloading is a mortal blow to app store review.
I understand that you don't personally care but the Apple customer base does, a large number of them specifically choose that because Apple is using their leverage in favor of the customer here. You can get the experience you desire on the dominant smartphone platform (with 85% of the global smartphone marketshare), just leave us the freedom to choose this experience as well. You're arguing that we should be explicitly denied this because it's not convenient for Facebook.
If you don't opt-in to privacy shredding then you will be locked out of being able to use facebook, whatsapp, and other "network effect" things that you more or less don't have a choice about without cutting out communication with large parts of your social network, so this is not really a "free choice" at all.
Right now those companies don't have the leverage to lock out Apple users. This immediately gives them that leverage and they will use it, just like they already have tried (and gotten their hands slapped for).
App store review is the only thing standing between you and Facebook demanding full permissions for everything, and allowing third-party app stores or sideloading is a mortal blow to app store review.
I understand that you don't personally care but the Apple customer base does, a large number of them specifically choose that because Apple is using their leverage in favor of the customer here. You can get the experience you desire on the dominant smartphone platform (with 85% of the global smartphone marketshare), just leave us the freedom to choose this experience as well. You're arguing that we should be explicitly denied this because it's not convenient for Facebook.
It's entirely possible to simply delete Facebook if you don't like the copious amounts of data they are certainly collecting on you.
We don't need to sacrifice general purpose computing and user freedom on any platform so you can protect your false impression that your privacy is protected while actually giving it away cheap.
I believe Zuckerberg said it wwll years back when he called people who trusted him suckers.
We don't need to sacrifice general purpose computing and user freedom on any platform so you can protect your false impression that your privacy is protected while actually giving it away cheap.
I believe Zuckerberg said it wwll years back when he called people who trusted him suckers.
What happens if I buy it on Google Play on my android device and then use it on my iPhone? This is a preposterous idea.
> to avoid charging in the App Store altogether.
Not if the AppStore is to offer competitive processing fees.
Not if the AppStore is to offer competitive processing fees.
> otherwise developers will implement workarounds to avoid charging in the App Store altogether
That's fine. Apple have this amazing review system that is really thorough and that is funded by every single developer paying into it. That's the main reason Apple considers their store to be so safe and useful for customers.
That's fine. Apple have this amazing review system that is really thorough and that is funded by every single developer paying into it. That's the main reason Apple considers their store to be so safe and useful for customers.
How does it work for trading apps like Coinbase, Robinhood, Degiro, Binance etc?
> If a developer isn't using that infrastructure, they don't owe anything
I’ve been following this case and the only thing I can conclude is that their executives genuinely believe that Apple is responsible for all commerce that happens on an iPhone. It’s bordering on delusion.
Without third party developers the iPhone would be nothing by now.
I’ve been following this case and the only thing I can conclude is that their executives genuinely believe that Apple is responsible for all commerce that happens on an iPhone. It’s bordering on delusion.
Without third party developers the iPhone would be nothing by now.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
- Upton Sinclair
- Upton Sinclair
I don't think they believe that so much they believe they can skim off the top of certain areas of commerce on iOS. If they did it with bank transactions, Apple Pay, Venmo, Robinhood, etc then people would be up in arms.
Divide and conquer. It's gaming and software apps now. It'll be bank transactions and commerce later on.
A 1% "Apple Platform Safety Fee" on Robinhood wouldn't surprise me....
A 1% "Apple Platform Safety Fee" on Robinhood wouldn't surprise me....
Sounds like you’re complaining about a hypothetical future where they charge less than Visa and MasterCard?
https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/average-credit-card...
https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/average-credit-card...
No, in this world they will charge on top of Visa and Mastercard.
What about funding your robinhood account from your bank and not a card, so neither you nor robinhood pay transaction fees?
[deleted]
> If they did it with bank transactions, Apple Pay, Venmo, Robinhood, etc then people would be up in arms.
Would they? Don't they literally already do this too?
Isn't Apple Card https://www.apple.com/apple-card/ them literally skimming off the top of every financial transaction, despite them doing nothing but provide a branded whitelabeled Goldman Sachs Mastercard? (admittedly, a very pretty fancy card)
I don't think the general population will ever be terribly up in arms with Apple's behaviour anymore, so long as Apple keeps forcing other businesses to hide Apple's taxes/fees/cuts for them.
Would they? Don't they literally already do this too?
Isn't Apple Card https://www.apple.com/apple-card/ them literally skimming off the top of every financial transaction, despite them doing nothing but provide a branded whitelabeled Goldman Sachs Mastercard? (admittedly, a very pretty fancy card)
I don't think the general population will ever be terribly up in arms with Apple's behaviour anymore, so long as Apple keeps forcing other businesses to hide Apple's taxes/fees/cuts for them.
A credit card with standard transaction fees and interest is very different than taking 30% of every transaction on the platform while also having the power to forbid venders on the platform from increasing their prices to make up the difference.
> A credit card with standard transaction fees
But they're only standard because the credit cards asserted these fees, we got used to them, and now they seem obvious, right? (I remember plenty of merchants who used not to accept credit cards to avoid the fees, but, whether by bank pressure or just the weight of expectation, there aren't many of those any more.)
It surely won't be too long until these fees are 'standard' too, in the sense that they're totally usual and customary, whether or not they're reasonable.
But they're only standard because the credit cards asserted these fees, we got used to them, and now they seem obvious, right? (I remember plenty of merchants who used not to accept credit cards to avoid the fees, but, whether by bank pressure or just the weight of expectation, there aren't many of those any more.)
It surely won't be too long until these fees are 'standard' too, in the sense that they're totally usual and customary, whether or not they're reasonable.
> (I remember plenty of merchants who used not to accept credit cards to avoid the fees, but, whether by bank pressure or just the weight of expectation, there aren't many of those any more.)
It's a difference between small merchants and large merchants. Small merchants still feel free to refuse cards or charge higher prices when you use them. Large merchants aren't free to refuse (too much of a customer loss) or to charge (against the credit company terms).
It's a difference between small merchants and large merchants. Small merchants still feel free to refuse cards or charge higher prices when you use them. Large merchants aren't free to refuse (too much of a customer loss) or to charge (against the credit company terms).
[deleted]
Absolutely agree, but it's not that much different than expecting a tax on every Venmo/PayPal/Robinhood transaction on the store (if I'm reading this correctly, this is a thing Cook just implied they might do in sworn testimony today)
At the end of the day it's all about power, price and value. A small transaction fee to handle payment processing is reasonable, since everyone creates value for everyone somewhere.
A tax for existence on a platform is just rent seeking and increases prices for everyone but Apple. That's not desirable and likely illegal.
The worst case scenario is Spotify-cation of services where Apple used the App Store to identify popular services, counters with their own, and then charges extortionate fees such that they cannot compete with Apple's native services. I would be concerned if we start seeing an Apple Brokerage.
Apple Pay doesn't have a direct competitor in Venmo since Venmo is about payment processing between people who don't normally deal with credit card processing, and cross platform functionality is the biggest value prop. Apple Pay isnt a threat unless it works on all platforms equally.
A tax for existence on a platform is just rent seeking and increases prices for everyone but Apple. That's not desirable and likely illegal.
The worst case scenario is Spotify-cation of services where Apple used the App Store to identify popular services, counters with their own, and then charges extortionate fees such that they cannot compete with Apple's native services. I would be concerned if we start seeing an Apple Brokerage.
Apple Pay doesn't have a direct competitor in Venmo since Venmo is about payment processing between people who don't normally deal with credit card processing, and cross platform functionality is the biggest value prop. Apple Pay isnt a threat unless it works on all platforms equally.
Apple doesn’t take a cut of transactions I make in my iPhones browser.
This is why Apple holds back important APIs from their browser, years after they are available in other browsers: fast 3D graphics, offline storage and compute, push notifications, to name a few.
Yes. To avoid the crappification of mobile, where everything it's a bunch of slow, memory and battery draining Electron apps, doing whatever they want, each with custom UI...
Definitely that and not to avoid the potential for circumventing their lock-in. If Apple were that obsessed with performance, their LLVM backends wouldn't be closed source.
How is that not what exists? Aren't many apps based on web technologies, and/or have custom UIs? There's little standardisation even among 'real' native apps.
>How is that not what exists? Aren't many apps based on web technologies, and/or have custom UIs?
Yes, but
(a) some, as opposed to all which is the dream of the pro web-app camp.
(b) forbidding custom JS and web engines helps keep this low
(c) even the crappy mobile-webview apps at least have to be wrapped in an app container, be installable and uninstallable the same way, be notarized, use the same payment system with central control, and be tied to the same policies (e.g. regarding privacy, notifications, use of apis) as native mobile apps
Yes, but
(a) some, as opposed to all which is the dream of the pro web-app camp.
(b) forbidding custom JS and web engines helps keep this low
(c) even the crappy mobile-webview apps at least have to be wrapped in an app container, be installable and uninstallable the same way, be notarized, use the same payment system with central control, and be tied to the same policies (e.g. regarding privacy, notifications, use of apis) as native mobile apps
I might buy into that theory if they didn't have Apple Pay in the browser.
You mean the feature that lets them take a cut of every transaction that goes through it?
Yes, the feature that massively reduces friction for paying for things on the web for which Apple collects about 1/200th the fee that they do when you buy in their store.
If you are a web app developer who wants users to pay you, Apple Pay is awesome in that it takes away a lot of friction.
If you are a web app developer who wants users to pay you, Apple Pay is awesome in that it takes away a lot of friction.
Good. The "browser is a mini-OS" metaphor has proven to be an absolutely terrible experience for both developers and end-users. Time to find another way.
Let the market decide? If it's so obviously terrible it will fail.
Like with cigarettes.
Please don't make unsubstantial comments on HN. You're not being as clever as you think you are.
Edit: The context of my pro-free-market comment is app stores. Of course it's not absolute. You very well know this. Please don't argue in bad faith.
Edit: The context of my pro-free-market comment is app stores. Of course it's not absolute. You very well know this. Please don't argue in bad faith.
The comment was not unsubstantial, nor was it “clever” in the way you suggest was attempted. Cigarettes were quite a popular market driven product for literally decades. The point being, obviously, that “the market decides” isn’t necessarily a good way to determine or identify quality, or what consumers actually want or need.
The "what about cigarettes?" argument would be relevant if one of the market participants in this scenario was literally killing people (or otherwise harming society in some way).
An honest reader would not interpret my pro-free-market comment as being 100% absolute in any and all circumstances. An honest reader would consider the context. You're not arguing in good faith.
Try again?
An honest reader would not interpret my pro-free-market comment as being 100% absolute in any and all circumstances. An honest reader would consider the context. You're not arguing in good faith.
Try again?
> An honest reader would not interpret my pro-free-market comment as being 100% absolute in any and all circumstances.
FWIW, based on my experience, whenever I see Americans arguing pro-free-market, I am going to assume that they genuinely argue in absolutes. ("FWIW" because I can see from your profile that you're Canadian.)
FWIW, based on my experience, whenever I see Americans arguing pro-free-market, I am going to assume that they genuinely argue in absolutes. ("FWIW" because I can see from your profile that you're Canadian.)
Generally fair I guess, but extending the argument from electronics all the way to something as universally reviled as cigarettes? That's quite a leap! I mean, why stop there? Why not flame throwers and ballistic missiles? :-)
This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me want to participate less and less in online discussion. HN's rules require people to interpret comments charitably but it's still full of stuff like this. It's exhausting.
I just don't have the energy for it anymore and honestly that makes me quite sad.
This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me want to participate less and less in online discussion. HN's rules require people to interpret comments charitably but it's still full of stuff like this. It's exhausting.
I just don't have the energy for it anymore and honestly that makes me quite sad.
[deleted]
And for how long would Safari on iOS keep up with new features or not get its performance nuked if for example games started to move into browser apps in major numbers on iOS. Apple itself said in the trial that games pretty much subsidize all other apps in terms of the money Apple makes out of the App Store.
iOS Safari already lags behind in features. Apple would just make it even worse if it started to cost them significant amount of money to have a truly great web browser.
iOS Safari already lags behind in features. Apple would just make it even worse if it started to cost them significant amount of money to have a truly great web browser.
Apple lags behind Chrome in some features which curiously directly benefit Google.
It's not slow, it's not broken. It's a great mobile browser. So stick to reality and not bunch of made up "what ifs".
It's not slow, it's not broken. It's a great mobile browser. So stick to reality and not bunch of made up "what ifs".
PWAs and web based push notifications only benefit Google?
Yes.
Google's strategy is simple:
1. The web should be able to control everything (i.e. PWA features not normally found in a browser).
2. Google should control the web (they can index it, track, monetize it, but it has to be on the web).
3. Profit.
Do you think Apple users are super excited at the prospect of most apps turning into battery-draining non-native shitty experiences, instead of using the iOS frameworks? No, they're not.
And push notifications on iOS work as a service, to avoid battery drain, they all go through Apple on a single connection. This is free for all native apps. It can't be implemented for web apps both for technical reasons and because web apps can't be curated, so it'll just be abused like there's no tomorrow.
Have you noticed on the desktop that EVERY SITE asks you for push notifications? This is super annoying and bless your soul if you ever clicked "YES" on any of those. They'll spam you until you die, or eventually ask your nephew to reset your permissions.
EVERY single feature not in Safari, has a reason not to be there. And I'm sick of everyone eating up Google's propaganda and becoming their tools in this. I don't mind Google at all, they should fight for their PoV on all this, and they have a right to expand their business.
But not at the expense of Apple or Apple's users. F that.
Google's strategy is simple:
1. The web should be able to control everything (i.e. PWA features not normally found in a browser).
2. Google should control the web (they can index it, track, monetize it, but it has to be on the web).
3. Profit.
Do you think Apple users are super excited at the prospect of most apps turning into battery-draining non-native shitty experiences, instead of using the iOS frameworks? No, they're not.
And push notifications on iOS work as a service, to avoid battery drain, they all go through Apple on a single connection. This is free for all native apps. It can't be implemented for web apps both for technical reasons and because web apps can't be curated, so it'll just be abused like there's no tomorrow.
Have you noticed on the desktop that EVERY SITE asks you for push notifications? This is super annoying and bless your soul if you ever clicked "YES" on any of those. They'll spam you until you die, or eventually ask your nephew to reset your permissions.
EVERY single feature not in Safari, has a reason not to be there. And I'm sick of everyone eating up Google's propaganda and becoming their tools in this. I don't mind Google at all, they should fight for their PoV on all this, and they have a right to expand their business.
But not at the expense of Apple or Apple's users. F that.
> apps turning into battery-draining non-native shitty experiences
There is no reason why non-native apps should be a shitty experience that drains the battery. That is just a tooling/feature issue.
> Have you noticed on the desktop that EVERY SITE asks you for push notifications? This is super annoying and bless your soul if you ever clicked "YES" on any of those. They'll spam you until you die, or eventually ask your nephew to reset your permissions.
The spam for installing the native app is 10x worse when using a mobile browser.
There is no reason why non-native apps should be a shitty experience that drains the battery. That is just a tooling/feature issue.
> Have you noticed on the desktop that EVERY SITE asks you for push notifications? This is super annoying and bless your soul if you ever clicked "YES" on any of those. They'll spam you until you die, or eventually ask your nephew to reset your permissions.
The spam for installing the native app is 10x worse when using a mobile browser.
Why can I play 3D games in every browser except Safari on iOS? What is the technical reason for that?
Have you not noticed that EVERY APP asks for push notifications and uses them as a marketing funnel?
Have you not noticed that EVERY APP asks for push notifications and uses them as a marketing funnel?
Long-time iOS developer here who does not want cross-platform dreck to become the standard. UIKit and SwiftUI are deep frameworks that let you build really great user experiences (if you're willing to put in the work to learn them), and Apple spends a ton of time and money making sure they can work together and build an iOS app that looks and feels like an iOS app, not someone's crappy "web site in a native wrapper" or "several extra layers of abstraction to hide an API and god help you if you need to debug an API problem" approach.
I'm honestly glad to see one dev who cares about their craft and not just "I wanna spit some HTML and boom, it's on all phones".
HN is mostly frequented by developers, and it's so frustrating to see how many of them are outright lazy and don't think about UX but rather about how to get quickest from point A to point B.
Rest assured most phone users are with you all the way. But again, we wouldn't know it reading developer forums.
HN is mostly frequented by developers, and it's so frustrating to see how many of them are outright lazy and don't think about UX but rather about how to get quickest from point A to point B.
Rest assured most phone users are with you all the way. But again, we wouldn't know it reading developer forums.
What you are ignoring (and in a pretty condescending way if I may say so) is that the best allocation of limited resources in the interest of users is not always to create scores of native client apps and device integrations. It's not all laziness.
No, it isn't always laziness.
Sometimes it's politics (I had a colleague leave a job because the new director of development mandated they rewrite their flagship enterprise apps in React Native because he got a song and dance from a React Native trainer/consultant and wouldn't listen to the people who knew what they were talking about).
Sometimes it's different priorities (a meetup buddy of mine some years ago had to write apps in PhoneGap because "We're in the oil bidness, not the app badness").
It isn't always "the best allocation of limited resources", either. Apart from having to do extra work to make the UX close to native (which isn't trivial), using a "cross platform" solution means you've just included a giant third party dependency that you don't control or maintain. Call it FUD if you want to, but in the forty-odd years I've done programming/development that's never been a good bet. If resources are really limited, the best bet is to have a decent design and very clear (reasonable) expectations and pay someone good to execute them.
Sometimes it's politics (I had a colleague leave a job because the new director of development mandated they rewrite their flagship enterprise apps in React Native because he got a song and dance from a React Native trainer/consultant and wouldn't listen to the people who knew what they were talking about).
Sometimes it's different priorities (a meetup buddy of mine some years ago had to write apps in PhoneGap because "We're in the oil bidness, not the app badness").
It isn't always "the best allocation of limited resources", either. Apart from having to do extra work to make the UX close to native (which isn't trivial), using a "cross platform" solution means you've just included a giant third party dependency that you don't control or maintain. Call it FUD if you want to, but in the forty-odd years I've done programming/development that's never been a good bet. If resources are really limited, the best bet is to have a decent design and very clear (reasonable) expectations and pay someone good to execute them.
I still mourn the loss of Windows Phone (aka one of three mobile OS choices) because of the "app gap". Small developers wouldn't invest the time or money into porting their app to the small marketshare. Even worse though, large companies would let their apps flounder, if they had one at all; the Bank of America app was simply disabled rather than being updated.
If the PWA concept had caught on, users on all platforms would have an equally good UX, increasing user choice.
If the PWA concept had caught on, users on all platforms would have an equally good UX, increasing user choice.
Do most phone users really want to install apps for Reddit, Imgur, etc.?
I think this is a really great point. PWAs are not a threat to native apps - they are a great in-between that adapts to different use cases.
Installation, push notifications, etc... are all optional and can be mixed and matched based on what users actually want.
An example would be individual forums are a great use case for PWAs.
Installation, push notifications, etc... are all optional and can be mixed and matched based on what users actually want.
An example would be individual forums are a great use case for PWAs.
If you visit a site a lot, you want to install an icon for it. If you're willing to install an icon for it, you prefer the quality and speed of a native experience. That's just common sense.
Funny enough I couldn't find a decent native app for HN, so I just placed a link to the site in my folder with social apps. That site is the worst thing in that folder.
Funny enough I couldn't find a decent native app for HN, so I just placed a link to the site in my folder with social apps. That site is the worst thing in that folder.
I know a couple people who dislike Reddit's degraded web experience to drive users to their app. I haven't installed the app myself. Maybe it's a minority opinion. But supposedly Reddit has 1.6 billion unique visitors per month, and about 120 million app installs.
The web push notification restriction is exactly what makes people create quick and dirty websites in a native wrapper.
Let websites be websites. If you cripple them without a good technical reason then they become exactly the sort of app you're complaining about.
Let websites be websites. If you cripple them without a good technical reason then they become exactly the sort of app you're complaining about.
I don’t know about “only Google”, but Apple feels that web push in its current form doesn’t benefit the user (at least, how most browsers currently implement it where every page can ask you for notification privileges). They could gate the functionality behind PWA install, but right now they don’t.
I don't see how this restriction benefits anyone but Apple. What this restriction does is replace an annoyance that doesn't benefit Apple with one that does.
Instead of websites asking to send notifications, they are now nagging us to install useless apps that ask to send notifications and clutter our screens. An honest curator would never even allow these apps into their app store.
This is purely a business decision on Apple's part, nothing to do with user interests at all.
Instead of websites asking to send notifications, they are now nagging us to install useless apps that ask to send notifications and clutter our screens. An honest curator would never even allow these apps into their app store.
This is purely a business decision on Apple's part, nothing to do with user interests at all.
So you're annoyed by a few dozen apps you've installed sending notifications that "clutter your screen", and the solution is to allow the thousands of sites you visit do the same.
Okay.
Okay.
No, you don't understand. What annoys me is that Apple has created an additional incentive for companies to clutter my screen with useless apps that wouldn't have any reason to be apps if it wasn't for push notifications.
These "apps" should never be allowed in the app store. They should be websites that get to ask me exactly once whether I want to receive their notifications. Instead they keep pushing and nagging me to install their apps and Apple's policies are encouraging this behaviour.
In some cases, the notifications are useful, but there is no other reason for them to be apps installed on my device.
These "apps" should never be allowed in the app store. They should be websites that get to ask me exactly once whether I want to receive their notifications. Instead they keep pushing and nagging me to install their apps and Apple's policies are encouraging this behaviour.
In some cases, the notifications are useful, but there is no other reason for them to be apps installed on my device.
Apps do also ask you exactly once if you want notifications.
And you don't have to install any apps. Use the sites if it's the same for you.
And you don't have to install any apps. Use the sites if it's the same for you.
I want some sites to send me notifications just like I want some apps to send me notifications. I don't want websites to turn themselves into otherwise useless apps just to be able to send me notifications.
But they'll nag you forever to install their app if you use the website. Like Reddit's constant stream of dark pattern pop-ups and ads for their app.
Well you can't send push notifications without a Firebase account ... https://stackoverflow.com/a/41829063
Because it's Apple's incentive to offer a good web browser to sell very expensive devices? The same incentive Microsoft has to make Edge and Google has to make Chrome for Android. They do not have a god-given right to make money on every piece of software that happens to run on devices they sell.
Besides, this wouldn't be an issue in the first place if other web rendering engines weren't forbidden on ios. Google / Mozilla could have their own browsers that aren't just safari reskins.
Besides, this wouldn't be an issue in the first place if other web rendering engines weren't forbidden on ios. Google / Mozilla could have their own browsers that aren't just safari reskins.
> Apple itself said in the trial that games pretty much subsidize all other apps in terms of the money Apple makes out of the App Store.
How does that work? It's not like Apple spent money to develop the games or the apps. And they are diverting money from the profitable games to the unprofitable apps. So how, exactly, are the games subsidizing the apps?
How does that work? It's not like Apple spent money to develop the games or the apps. And they are diverting money from the profitable games to the unprofitable apps. So how, exactly, are the games subsidizing the apps?
I assume it's that for most apps, the hosting/payment processing/... costs outweight the revenues they make from their cut, but not for games.
I’ve haven’t met any "feature" on desktop Chrome I wish existed on Safari on iOS but don’t and I browse the web few hours a day from mobile. If anything, web browsers are bloated enough already and should remove features or fix the existing ones before adding news things.
Exactly, which is what makes their argument so flimsy.
Sure sometimes apps get promotion and featured by the store but for the vast majority of apps, any downloads they get have about as much to do with Apple as the results of your web searches do.
Sure sometimes apps get promotion and featured by the store but for the vast majority of apps, any downloads they get have about as much to do with Apple as the results of your web searches do.
They do actually get a cut if you pay with Apple Pay.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204274
>Are there additional fees to accept Apple Pay?
>No. Apple doesn't charge any additional fees.
>Are there additional fees to accept Apple Pay?
>No. Apple doesn't charge any additional fees.
> Apple doesn't charge any additional fees.
They do charge additional fees, just not to customers. Those fees get tacked onto the bank/merchant in the transaction. Apple charges between 0.15% to 0.30% of total transaction, according to Financial Times.
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/09/12/more-apple-pay-details/
They do charge additional fees, just not to customers. Those fees get tacked onto the bank/merchant in the transaction. Apple charges between 0.15% to 0.30% of total transaction, according to Financial Times.
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/09/12/more-apple-pay-details/
No additional fees is not incompatible with getting a cut. e.g. they could take some of the card issuer's portion.
For now
> their executives genuinely believe that Apple is responsible for all commerce that happens on an iPhone
iPhones concentrate rich users who buy stuff. There’s nothing delusional about this. Likewise, Epic Game Store giving away games they paid huge advances for also makes those games more money than they ever would directly selling on Steam.
iPhones concentrate rich users who buy stuff. There’s nothing delusional about this. Likewise, Epic Game Store giving away games they paid huge advances for also makes those games more money than they ever would directly selling on Steam.
I m pretty sure their users think so too. It's Apple's store, they are IPhone's apps. Which is fine , effective marketing halo effect and all, but somebody has to think of the developers
"When questioned by Epic Games lawyers, Cook declined to answer a question about whether Apple's iPhone competes with Google's Android in the operating system market."
Let us rephrase the question. Does iOS compete with Android in the operating system market.
"Customers don't buy operating systems. They buy devices," Cook said."
True. Operating systems can be had for free. Customers generally do not buy them (as a separate item), but they do choose them, when they are allowed to do so.
What if customers had the option to buy Apple devices without Apple's choice of operating system pre-installed. Apple would never let customers have that choice. A million excuses.
"Tech" companies, as well as Microsoft and Apple, remove choice. Users pay nothing for the OS. Someone else pays (OEMs in the case of Microsoft). The OS is pre-installed. Choice is removed. No different than a "default setting" (e.g., "default search engine" for which Google paid $1B to Apple in 2014). The friction to change a pre-installed OS or default setting is too great for most customers. The companies know this and exploit it.
Cook suggests that if the customer wants another OS, one that allows a wider variety of apps to be installed, then she can buy a different device. How is that for interoperability.
The OS, when controlled by an intermediary such as Apple, is a means of control over users (as well as developers). Any argument that theroretically the most safe, secure and private OS by design is one that the user cannot fully control is unconvincing. If a customer wants privacy against Apple or its business partners, for example, iOS is not designed to offer that.
Let us rephrase the question. Does iOS compete with Android in the operating system market.
"Customers don't buy operating systems. They buy devices," Cook said."
True. Operating systems can be had for free. Customers generally do not buy them (as a separate item), but they do choose them, when they are allowed to do so.
What if customers had the option to buy Apple devices without Apple's choice of operating system pre-installed. Apple would never let customers have that choice. A million excuses.
"Tech" companies, as well as Microsoft and Apple, remove choice. Users pay nothing for the OS. Someone else pays (OEMs in the case of Microsoft). The OS is pre-installed. Choice is removed. No different than a "default setting" (e.g., "default search engine" for which Google paid $1B to Apple in 2014). The friction to change a pre-installed OS or default setting is too great for most customers. The companies know this and exploit it.
Cook suggests that if the customer wants another OS, one that allows a wider variety of apps to be installed, then she can buy a different device. How is that for interoperability.
The OS, when controlled by an intermediary such as Apple, is a means of control over users (as well as developers). Any argument that theroretically the most safe, secure and private OS by design is one that the user cannot fully control is unconvincing. If a customer wants privacy against Apple or its business partners, for example, iOS is not designed to offer that.
What if the platform strategy is inherently flawed from the perspective of a public good, and is inherently monopolistic and anticompetitive? How does this not reach the absolute definition of a de facto monopoly, especially if you’ve read about the powers that monopolies already broken up we’re using to keep theirs? No monopoly ever will admit it is one.
I would like to see a world where platforms are forcibly opened - it seems like any downside could be easily mitigated with competition or regulation. If Apple wants to be a privacy platform great. But they don’t get to take an arbitrary cut out of every companies bottom line with no recourse because they own the hardware. I think anyone saying the potential bad effects don’t have enough imagination as to how well things can work when everything isn’t owned by one company. You could even argue it’s anti capitalist if you wanted.
I would like to see a world where platforms are forcibly opened - it seems like any downside could be easily mitigated with competition or regulation. If Apple wants to be a privacy platform great. But they don’t get to take an arbitrary cut out of every companies bottom line with no recourse because they own the hardware. I think anyone saying the potential bad effects don’t have enough imagination as to how well things can work when everything isn’t owned by one company. You could even argue it’s anti capitalist if you wanted.
> they own the hardware
They don't — the users bought it, it's theirs now. It should be illegal to restrict hardware like this.
They don't — the users bought it, it's theirs now. It should be illegal to restrict hardware like this.
So when you buy a vehicle, you should be allowed to run any custom OSS on the hardware?
Why not? It's your property. Though it's your responsibility to not endanger other people with your actions.
I believe that you are already allowed to do whatever you want on your property but if you want to drive it on public roads you need to comply with some minimal safety standards imposed by the state.
At what point do we look at the internet as public roads? With the recent ransomwares, the line appears to be shifting.
rusEFI.com
Meant to say they build the hardware. Quite agree.
>For me, this is way over the line. If they want to charge developers to be on their store, fine. I don't have a problem with that. And charging for using them as a payment processor makes sense. Charging for using Apple services makes sense.
Developers have been so steeped in propaganda about "payment processing" that they have no idea what the 30% commission is for.
A court or regulator could force Apple to allow third-party payment processing, side-loading, and third-party app stores, and Apple could change their business model to directly charge for the tools and the SDKs that every developer uses to make native apps. The only way to avoid those costs is the way that already exists today: make a web app.
Right now the payment processing costs have been integrated into the commission, but they could charge whatever the market could bear to license their IP for a royalty, so in effect developers could end up paying more.
There's nothing in law that says Apple can't charge money for their software. That the use of developer tools and SDKs were free on other platforms like the Mac doesn't mean that it's legally required that it be given away for free.
Developers have been so steeped in propaganda about "payment processing" that they have no idea what the 30% commission is for.
A court or regulator could force Apple to allow third-party payment processing, side-loading, and third-party app stores, and Apple could change their business model to directly charge for the tools and the SDKs that every developer uses to make native apps. The only way to avoid those costs is the way that already exists today: make a web app.
Right now the payment processing costs have been integrated into the commission, but they could charge whatever the market could bear to license their IP for a royalty, so in effect developers could end up paying more.
There's nothing in law that says Apple can't charge money for their software. That the use of developer tools and SDKs were free on other platforms like the Mac doesn't mean that it's legally required that it be given away for free.
They make billions from that 30% cut, and the only reason they can do that is because they disallow all other payments, or even a mention in your app that you can pay elsewhere. They would never be able to charge that much if they allowed any competition, which is exactly why they need to be regulated to allow it.
They can't charge a cut of revenue unless they monopolize payment processing, so if as you say they start charging for developer tools, if they charge too much of a flat rate for those, many developers will rightfully walk away, so no, they can't make obscene profits like they're doing now without controlling all payments in iOS apps.
They can't charge a cut of revenue unless they monopolize payment processing, so if as you say they start charging for developer tools, if they charge too much of a flat rate for those, many developers will rightfully walk away, so no, they can't make obscene profits like they're doing now without controlling all payments in iOS apps.
No they get the billions from their intellectual property. There's a bunch of pro-user, pro-Apple, and pro-developer reasons why they are the single source for apps and payment processing, but that's not the source of the billions, as I just explained.
There's a bunch of reasons why it'd be a PITA for everyone involved if they were forced to do this, but no matter what happens the revenue sharing is never going to go away as long as Apple wants to keep that business model. All the frictional costs (more lawyers and accountants) to verify they collect the right royalties is exactly why courts are ultimately going to side with Apple, because the current system is the ideal one for all parties.
There's a bunch of reasons why it'd be a PITA for everyone involved if they were forced to do this, but no matter what happens the revenue sharing is never going to go away as long as Apple wants to keep that business model. All the frictional costs (more lawyers and accountants) to verify they collect the right royalties is exactly why courts are ultimately going to side with Apple, because the current system is the ideal one for all parties.
I have seen this time after time, that when the question of Apple store comes up, a top-rated comment always makes a comparison with game consoles to argue it is all fair. I don't personally believe the comparison makes sense, but many on HN do. So I am going to ask, how is this different from PS/Xbox/etc? If the game consoles still 'own' the device after you have bought it, e.g. when PS disabled Linux installation feature via update on consoles they had already sold, why shouldn't Apple be entitled to do the same, to do as it pleases with the devices in perpetuity?
>how is this different from PS/Xbox/etc?
They aren't that different but I'm not sure this has been challenged yet. So perhaps that's the difference- nobody has yet challenged Microsoft's monopoly on the Xbox or Sony's monopoly on the Playstation.
I would love these platforms to be opened up as well. The fact consoles are closed walled gardens too doesn't excuse Apple's App Store monopoly.
Edit: From what I can gather there isn't anywhere near a billion total consoles in use worldwide however there is over a billion active iPhones in use right now:
> Apple says there are now over 1 billion active iPhones, with 1.65 billion Apple devices in use overall.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/27/22253162/iphone-users-tot...
They aren't that different but I'm not sure this has been challenged yet. So perhaps that's the difference- nobody has yet challenged Microsoft's monopoly on the Xbox or Sony's monopoly on the Playstation.
I would love these platforms to be opened up as well. The fact consoles are closed walled gardens too doesn't excuse Apple's App Store monopoly.
Edit: From what I can gather there isn't anywhere near a billion total consoles in use worldwide however there is over a billion active iPhones in use right now:
> Apple says there are now over 1 billion active iPhones, with 1.65 billion Apple devices in use overall.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/27/22253162/iphone-users-tot...
Not many companies are in the business of being fair or moral, usually it's about making money. Lawmakers have the power to force companies into being more fair (for whatever definition of "fair").
On the comparison between Apple and Sony, — objectively there is no difference except that they work in different markets and the devices they sell have slightly different purposes. If as a result of all of this Apple is forced to make their devices more general-purpose-like, it would be easier to insist that Sony should do the same.
On the comparison between Apple and Sony, — objectively there is no difference except that they work in different markets and the devices they sell have slightly different purposes. If as a result of all of this Apple is forced to make their devices more general-purpose-like, it would be easier to insist that Sony should do the same.
Since the console gaming have already gotten the worst parts of the pc gaming, I don't think that bringing the positives to consoles is as threatening as you think.
> So I am going to ask, how is this different from PS/Xbox/etc?
Game consoles are specific-purpose computing devices: they play video games with a secondary use of running other entertainment apps (netflix).
Phones are general purpose computing devices: they are use to do practically anything that a computer can do; check email, look up navigation, buy things online, check bank balance, create and edit photos/videos.
There is an entire universe of apps that don't make sense on an Xbox. Why would your bank create an Xbox app, or why would Adobe port over a version of Photoshop for the Xbox? They wouldn't. And that's the difference between the two.
Game consoles are specific-purpose computing devices: they play video games with a secondary use of running other entertainment apps (netflix).
Phones are general purpose computing devices: they are use to do practically anything that a computer can do; check email, look up navigation, buy things online, check bank balance, create and edit photos/videos.
There is an entire universe of apps that don't make sense on an Xbox. Why would your bank create an Xbox app, or why would Adobe port over a version of Photoshop for the Xbox? They wouldn't. And that's the difference between the two.
I'm not necessarily in favour of Apple here, but I do not find this to be a compelling argument.
"General-purpose" is an artificial distinction. The idea of "general-purpose" devices do not exist in any legal sense.
>Game consoles are specific-purpose computing devices: they play video games with a secondary use of running other entertainment apps (netflix).
This is a circular argument. Game consoles are "specific-purpose" because they've been made to be "specific-purpose". The Xbox could be a perfectly adequate gaming PC had Microsoft not decided to artificially lock it down. There's no technical reasons why I shouldn't be able to plug an Xbox into a monitor and get real productivity done on the same machine I play games (like any gaming PC).
An even better distinction: the Nintendo Switch. The Switch could easily function as a tablet PC had Nintendo not locked down the system.
>There is an entire universe of apps that don't make sense on an Xbox. Why would your bank create an Xbox app, or why would Adobe port over a version of Photoshop for the Xbox? They wouldn't. And that's the difference between the two.
And why is this where the line is drawn? I wouldn't put Xcode on my iPhone. Nor would I put Blender or Final Cut Pro. You certainly wouldn't run a web server on an iPhone. These are all things "general-purpose" computers are capable of. You've just drawn the line where it happens to be convenient for this argument.
Edit: We should also consider the dangers of this argument too. If we codified what a "general-purpose" device is, the response from manufacturers would be to simply restrict the capabilities of their devices to not be "general-purpose". If banking apps and Photoshop are what makes a computer "general-purpose", then we'll see banking apps and Photoshop banned from platforms.
"General-purpose" is an artificial distinction. The idea of "general-purpose" devices do not exist in any legal sense.
>Game consoles are specific-purpose computing devices: they play video games with a secondary use of running other entertainment apps (netflix).
This is a circular argument. Game consoles are "specific-purpose" because they've been made to be "specific-purpose". The Xbox could be a perfectly adequate gaming PC had Microsoft not decided to artificially lock it down. There's no technical reasons why I shouldn't be able to plug an Xbox into a monitor and get real productivity done on the same machine I play games (like any gaming PC).
An even better distinction: the Nintendo Switch. The Switch could easily function as a tablet PC had Nintendo not locked down the system.
>There is an entire universe of apps that don't make sense on an Xbox. Why would your bank create an Xbox app, or why would Adobe port over a version of Photoshop for the Xbox? They wouldn't. And that's the difference between the two.
And why is this where the line is drawn? I wouldn't put Xcode on my iPhone. Nor would I put Blender or Final Cut Pro. You certainly wouldn't run a web server on an iPhone. These are all things "general-purpose" computers are capable of. You've just drawn the line where it happens to be convenient for this argument.
Edit: We should also consider the dangers of this argument too. If we codified what a "general-purpose" device is, the response from manufacturers would be to simply restrict the capabilities of their devices to not be "general-purpose". If banking apps and Photoshop are what makes a computer "general-purpose", then we'll see banking apps and Photoshop banned from platforms.
Exactly. I keep seeing people saying "but iPhones are general purpose and consoles aren't so what Apple's doing is illegal!" and I'm like, where did you get that idea from? Where did you learn that meant anything? But I see it all the time all over the place.
The law, as you said, makes no distinction between these devices because they are all computers, and all computers are theoretically capable of running code from anywhere unless effort is taken to restrict that. Nor, in my opinion, should the law try to make a distinction because that would quickly become arbitrary or very messy as companies tried to qualify as non-general-purpose.
The law, as you said, makes no distinction between these devices because they are all computers, and all computers are theoretically capable of running code from anywhere unless effort is taken to restrict that. Nor, in my opinion, should the law try to make a distinction because that would quickly become arbitrary or very messy as companies tried to qualify as non-general-purpose.
I agree. I'm sure Sony, Nintendo, and the MS Xbox division are paying close attention to all these App Store discussions. In some ways, the success of the Apple/Google app stores may lead to the general undoing of all app stores, consoles included.
As I mentioned somewhere else in this thread, the App Store situation is unique. Existing anti-trust doesn't really fit, and it's also not completely good or bad for consumers. I think Apple is taking a big risk here continuing to push the more heavy handed aspects, and all but inviting government (usually heavy handed) regulation.
As I mentioned somewhere else in this thread, the App Store situation is unique. Existing anti-trust doesn't really fit, and it's also not completely good or bad for consumers. I think Apple is taking a big risk here continuing to push the more heavy handed aspects, and all but inviting government (usually heavy handed) regulation.
> These are all things "general-purpose" computers are capable of. You've just drawn the line where it happens to be convenient for this argument.
That's basically the entire purpose of court decisions: to draw a line in the sand regarding what behavior is allowed. This is free speech; that is not. This is an illegal search; that is not. This is cruel & unusual punishment; that is not. This is tortuous negligence; that is not. So yes, I am drawing a line exactly where I think it should be.
The alternative is that there is no legal distinction between computing devices. So software in a car, laundry machine, POS terminal, phone, laptop, smart light, etc all share the same rules. So if a Windows laptop must be able to install arbitrary software, then Toyota needs allow for the same in their cars. And if Apple can lock down installation of software on their devices, then Dell is allowed to do the same (and if that's the case, can Intel do the same and only run certain code?).
A legal classification here is, IMHO, the preferred outcome of this case. Whatever the decision made here is, it will have very far reaching implications on technology. Though, if the case were to say that all computing systems are the same, I'd prefer Apple to lose and all computer systems be forced open, than allowed to be closed. Since having cheap video game consoles is not really worth the cost to society of allowing for locked down computer systems.
> If banking apps and Photoshop are what makes a computer "general-purpose", then we'll see banking apps and Photoshop banned from platforms.
Also, my argument is whether or not these types of apps "make sense," as in, a customer base exists for such apps on said platform that there is the market pressure to create one. Not whether not such apps are "allowed." It's certainly allowable to make such apps for the Xbox, there's just not a market to do so; it doesn't jibe with customers perceived uses of said devices. Customers want to check their bank account on their iPhones; they have no desire to do so on their Xbox.
That's basically the entire purpose of court decisions: to draw a line in the sand regarding what behavior is allowed. This is free speech; that is not. This is an illegal search; that is not. This is cruel & unusual punishment; that is not. This is tortuous negligence; that is not. So yes, I am drawing a line exactly where I think it should be.
The alternative is that there is no legal distinction between computing devices. So software in a car, laundry machine, POS terminal, phone, laptop, smart light, etc all share the same rules. So if a Windows laptop must be able to install arbitrary software, then Toyota needs allow for the same in their cars. And if Apple can lock down installation of software on their devices, then Dell is allowed to do the same (and if that's the case, can Intel do the same and only run certain code?).
A legal classification here is, IMHO, the preferred outcome of this case. Whatever the decision made here is, it will have very far reaching implications on technology. Though, if the case were to say that all computing systems are the same, I'd prefer Apple to lose and all computer systems be forced open, than allowed to be closed. Since having cheap video game consoles is not really worth the cost to society of allowing for locked down computer systems.
> If banking apps and Photoshop are what makes a computer "general-purpose", then we'll see banking apps and Photoshop banned from platforms.
Also, my argument is whether or not these types of apps "make sense," as in, a customer base exists for such apps on said platform that there is the market pressure to create one. Not whether not such apps are "allowed." It's certainly allowable to make such apps for the Xbox, there's just not a market to do so; it doesn't jibe with customers perceived uses of said devices. Customers want to check their bank account on their iPhones; they have no desire to do so on their Xbox.
The latest Xbox and PlayStation are literally just AMD PCs that support connecting a keyboard and mouse if you have one (and the Xbox running a locked down version of Windows ripe with APIs explicitly made to have general purpose apps run without rewrite from standard Windows even!) - the only thing not making them a general purpose computing device is the restrictions on what you can run. That the restrictions don't let you run general purpose computing isn't reasoning on why the restrictions are okay to be there in the first place.
Now one could argue the intent is they not be general purpose devices, but so could the intent of anyone not wanting competing stores. I'm not sure the intent of how manufacturers want users to use it factors in as such.
One argument that comes up often related to this set is consoles are sold at a loss (and iPhones are not) on the assumption profitability (not increased profits) will be made through purchases on the platform. This is more of an bona fide difference between phones and consoles but has it's own debate as well (which I'm not going to get into here as this is already veering pretty far off the article topic).
Now one could argue the intent is they not be general purpose devices, but so could the intent of anyone not wanting competing stores. I'm not sure the intent of how manufacturers want users to use it factors in as such.
One argument that comes up often related to this set is consoles are sold at a loss (and iPhones are not) on the assumption profitability (not increased profits) will be made through purchases on the platform. This is more of an bona fide difference between phones and consoles but has it's own debate as well (which I'm not going to get into here as this is already veering pretty far off the article topic).
I can buy a game from a store as well. Or a friend. And sell my games as well. I can choose which console I buy to consume these games on. It's a game-centric system.
Sure, the path consoles are heading down will look like the current Apple situation very soon. And I think the same criticisms apply then, too.
Sure, the path consoles are heading down will look like the current Apple situation very soon. And I think the same criticisms apply then, too.
> I can buy a game from a store as well.
Console games sold in stores pay a licensing fee to the console maker, so the maker still gets their 30%.
> I can choose which console I buy to consume these games on.
Not really? You can't play the new Demons' Souls on an Xbox, no matter how much you want to. You also can't get Gamepass on a PS. Console sales are driven by exclusives.
Console games sold in stores pay a licensing fee to the console maker, so the maker still gets their 30%.
> I can choose which console I buy to consume these games on.
Not really? You can't play the new Demons' Souls on an Xbox, no matter how much you want to. You also can't get Gamepass on a PS. Console sales are driven by exclusives.
It is the other way around, consoles are like this since they were introduced.
One holds your saved games. The other connects you to local emergency services, the global economy, your financial assets, your government, your family, your education, and increasingly - your health care provider.
To suggest they should be treated the same is downright laughable.
Yes, the underlying technology is similar, but their importance and impact on society is orders of magnitude different.
To suggest they should be treated the same is downright laughable.
Yes, the underlying technology is similar, but their importance and impact on society is orders of magnitude different.
From a legal perspective though, where this matters most, the law makes zero distinction between single purpose and general purpose computing devices whatsoever. Furthermore, they are all computers capable of running code from anywhere and the law views them as such. The distinction you are drawing that consoles are "specific" and iPhones are "general purpose" has no bearing in the law, nor in my opinion should it.
From the law's perspective, the iPhone is on the same legal grounds as a PlayStation or Nintendo Switch. Frankly, I don't think the law should try to separate devices. Either this lock-in is legally permitted, for any manufacturer, or it's not permitted and all manufacturers must be open.
From the law's perspective, the iPhone is on the same legal grounds as a PlayStation or Nintendo Switch. Frankly, I don't think the law should try to separate devices. Either this lock-in is legally permitted, for any manufacturer, or it's not permitted and all manufacturers must be open.
Strong disagree. We should regulate based on what's best for consumers and the free market.
Consider that different classes of vehicles are regulated differently, even though they all rely on the same underlying technology.
The law should serve the people, not some rigid doctrine.
Consider that different classes of vehicles are regulated differently, even though they all rely on the same underlying technology.
The law should serve the people, not some rigid doctrine.
> We should regulate based on what's best for consumers and the free market.
I agree completely, which is why hopefully Apple prevails. Their ecosystem is the best for Apple customers and the free market.
I agree completely, which is why hopefully Apple prevails. Their ecosystem is the best for Apple customers and the free market.
That's a perfectly valid argument IMHO. The argument equating smart phones with consoles however, is downright silly.
Can I ask, how does letting me have the option of occasionally purchasing songs, books, movies and character skins direct from vendors hurt your ability to enjoy the benefits of purchasing everything direct from Apple?
I just don't understand how that would ruin the system for you. If anything, wouldn't it force Apple to improve their store in order to be more competitive? Would that not be a benefit to you?
Can I ask, how does letting me have the option of occasionally purchasing songs, books, movies and character skins direct from vendors hurt your ability to enjoy the benefits of purchasing everything direct from Apple?
I just don't understand how that would ruin the system for you. If anything, wouldn't it force Apple to improve their store in order to be more competitive? Would that not be a benefit to you?
> The argument equating smart phones with consoles however, is downright silly.
Yea I’m kind of the opposite. I don’t really see the difference. An Xbox has many of the same apps, a web browser, etc.
> I just don't understand how that would ruin the system for you. If anything, wouldn't it force Apple to improve their store in order to be more competitive? Would that not be a benefit to you?
The App Store on iOS and how Apple manages it is effectively a collective bargaining agreement that individual users wouldn’t be all that effective in enforcing. Items like mandating what’s being tracked and how, allowing for anonymous sign-ins, and others are possible because Apple can bargain for users via their control of the App Store.
If you take away the App Store, it’s possible (idk how likely or not though I view it as extremely likely) that Apple I as the user lose that ability to collectively bargain. Companies like Facebook will migrate their apps to third party App Stores where Apple’s beneficial (in my view) rules and terms won’t be enforced. The network effect of apps moving to third party app stores will overwhelm the iOS App Store, and the benefits I enjoy will be largely unenforceable. There won’t be anybody who is even somewhat on my side. There won’t be some sort of competition between a privacy-first Facebook and data harvesting one. So we can’t really tell what users prefer.
Apple also creates a great user experience. One way to pay, a single App Store where everything is, and via their collective bargaining position I can mostly trust that they are trying to enforce rules around privacy, not let junk or scam apps in, etc. I know these rules are not always properly enforced, but they’re there.
So I view third-party app stores as not only not beneficial but hostile to the user experience I enjoy with the iPhone. I’m vehemently against those changes. I’d rather the App Store lose support from major Apps than Apple change how they’re doing things.
And this is kind of how things work on all platforms, stores, etc. There are more strong and loose rules, but I can’t just sell skins on the Epic game store for Fortnite, they don’t allow third-party integrations. I can’t sell apples I grow in my backyard at Wal-Mart either - they have a problem with that. For some reason since Apple makes the best phone and makes the most money people think they should be treated differently, and I don’t.
If users really value these things they’ll buy Android phones or jailbreak iPhones or demand Apple open up things. So far they aren’t. It’s a vocal minority - an absolutely tiny one, and the market seems to pretty clearly say that they prefer things how they are by buying iPhone.
Yea I’m kind of the opposite. I don’t really see the difference. An Xbox has many of the same apps, a web browser, etc.
> I just don't understand how that would ruin the system for you. If anything, wouldn't it force Apple to improve their store in order to be more competitive? Would that not be a benefit to you?
The App Store on iOS and how Apple manages it is effectively a collective bargaining agreement that individual users wouldn’t be all that effective in enforcing. Items like mandating what’s being tracked and how, allowing for anonymous sign-ins, and others are possible because Apple can bargain for users via their control of the App Store.
If you take away the App Store, it’s possible (idk how likely or not though I view it as extremely likely) that Apple I as the user lose that ability to collectively bargain. Companies like Facebook will migrate their apps to third party App Stores where Apple’s beneficial (in my view) rules and terms won’t be enforced. The network effect of apps moving to third party app stores will overwhelm the iOS App Store, and the benefits I enjoy will be largely unenforceable. There won’t be anybody who is even somewhat on my side. There won’t be some sort of competition between a privacy-first Facebook and data harvesting one. So we can’t really tell what users prefer.
Apple also creates a great user experience. One way to pay, a single App Store where everything is, and via their collective bargaining position I can mostly trust that they are trying to enforce rules around privacy, not let junk or scam apps in, etc. I know these rules are not always properly enforced, but they’re there.
So I view third-party app stores as not only not beneficial but hostile to the user experience I enjoy with the iPhone. I’m vehemently against those changes. I’d rather the App Store lose support from major Apps than Apple change how they’re doing things.
And this is kind of how things work on all platforms, stores, etc. There are more strong and loose rules, but I can’t just sell skins on the Epic game store for Fortnite, they don’t allow third-party integrations. I can’t sell apples I grow in my backyard at Wal-Mart either - they have a problem with that. For some reason since Apple makes the best phone and makes the most money people think they should be treated differently, and I don’t.
If users really value these things they’ll buy Android phones or jailbreak iPhones or demand Apple open up things. So far they aren’t. It’s a vocal minority - an absolutely tiny one, and the market seems to pretty clearly say that they prefer things how they are by buying iPhone.
You've articulated your argument very well with the "collective bargaining" metaphor. I like it.
I still strongly disagree that consoles and smart phones should be treated the same way by society just because the underlying hardware is more or less the same. I think we should start with a human-centric view. As in: if consoles disappeared tomorrow how much would the world change? Now what if smartphones did? How would that change the world?
If smartphones disappeared then the world would be entirely different. We are dependant on them for everything from personal and collective security, business and personal communication, to banking, to commerce, and access to knowledge.
Maybe I'm biased because I'm in my 40's and remember a time before smart phones existed, and before game consoles were commonplace. There is no comparison. None. Equating the two because the underlying electronics are the same entirely misses the forest for the trees. Though it's not entirely surprising that HN users would think this way - we tend to think of the underlying tech first and foremost.
Let me use a metaphor - Facebook and Google should be treated differently than a niche message board even though the underlying technology is the same. Right? They are both servers running compiled or interpreted code. They both connect to databases. They both allow users to communicate and share content.
The main difference is the impact they have on society.
Smartphones have become indispensable infrastructure for much of the world. Consoles are a luxury item.
I still strongly disagree that consoles and smart phones should be treated the same way by society just because the underlying hardware is more or less the same. I think we should start with a human-centric view. As in: if consoles disappeared tomorrow how much would the world change? Now what if smartphones did? How would that change the world?
If smartphones disappeared then the world would be entirely different. We are dependant on them for everything from personal and collective security, business and personal communication, to banking, to commerce, and access to knowledge.
Maybe I'm biased because I'm in my 40's and remember a time before smart phones existed, and before game consoles were commonplace. There is no comparison. None. Equating the two because the underlying electronics are the same entirely misses the forest for the trees. Though it's not entirely surprising that HN users would think this way - we tend to think of the underlying tech first and foremost.
Let me use a metaphor - Facebook and Google should be treated differently than a niche message board even though the underlying technology is the same. Right? They are both servers running compiled or interpreted code. They both connect to databases. They both allow users to communicate and share content.
The main difference is the impact they have on society.
Smartphones have become indispensable infrastructure for much of the world. Consoles are a luxury item.
I don't think it's different. I think game console makers are also being unfair and should open up their consoles.
Microsoft is a signatory to this suit and yet is explicitly arguing that they shouldn't have to open up their devices.
It's a suit of convenience for everyone involved, nobody is making a principled stand for user freedoms here, they just want to pry open Apple's bank vault, and they don't care if user privacy (permissioning/app review, etc) gets shredded in the process.
That the software freedom argument just happens to resonate with a lot of people who will sympathetically argue along with Microsoft and others as they continue to deny user freedoms is merely a bonus.
It's a suit of convenience for everyone involved, nobody is making a principled stand for user freedoms here, they just want to pry open Apple's bank vault, and they don't care if user privacy (permissioning/app review, etc) gets shredded in the process.
That the software freedom argument just happens to resonate with a lot of people who will sympathetically argue along with Microsoft and others as they continue to deny user freedoms is merely a bonus.
> Microsoft is a signatory to this suit and yet is explicitly arguing that they shouldn't have to open up their devices.
Can't I agree with Microsoft on some things but disagree on other things?
> they don't care if user privacy (permissioning/app review, etc) gets shredded in the process.
I don't think there actually has to be a tradeoff between privacy and freedom, but if there were, I'd pick freedom every time.
Can't I agree with Microsoft on some things but disagree on other things?
> they don't care if user privacy (permissioning/app review, etc) gets shredded in the process.
I don't think there actually has to be a tradeoff between privacy and freedom, but if there were, I'd pick freedom every time.
Well, the dominant market player supports the approach you want. iOS controls about 15% of the global market, why should the force of law be used to extinguish an alternate user experience that some users want?
Like, literally, you're trying to use the force of law to blot out an alternate user experience that you don't like, so that you can make a point about "user freedom". It's a pretty awful thing you're trying to do.
Like, literally, you're trying to use the force of law to blot out an alternate user experience that you don't like, so that you can make a point about "user freedom". It's a pretty awful thing you're trying to do.
I'm not proposing that any user experience be extinguished. I'm fine with the Apple App Store being the default app store, and users being able to continue getting apps only through them and making all payments through them if they want to. I just don't think it should be forced even on people who don't want it.
Removing the requirement for app store review will extinguish the option for a curated user experience, as major apps will explicitly use sideloading/third party app stores to bypass the app review process and permissioning systems, just as they have already attempted. You literally are arguing for something with the immediately foreseeable consequence of removing the choice for a curated experience with applications required to undergo app review.
Again, you already have the choice for your user-freedom oriented experience on the dominant market platform with 85% global smartphone marketshare. Stop arguing to deny us the choice for this user experience.
But for you it's not enough to merely choose the experience you desire, you have to force it on me too.
Again, you already have the choice for your user-freedom oriented experience on the dominant market platform with 85% global smartphone marketshare. Stop arguing to deny us the choice for this user experience.
But for you it's not enough to merely choose the experience you desire, you have to force it on me too.
The global split of 85% Android and 15% iOS is super misleading, since a lot of companies' primary customer base is Americans, and among Americans it's basically a 50/50 split.
And there's no reason that fixing this problem would allow bypassing permissioning systems. On Android, apps installed from third-party sources still need to have a list of permissions and request them the same way apps from the Play Store do.
> major apps will explicitly use sideloading/third party app stores to bypass the app review process and permissioning systems, just as they have already attempted.
And if this were true, then why do so many apps still use the Play Store on Android? Why haven't they all switched exclusively to third-party stores?
And there's no reason that fixing this problem would allow bypassing permissioning systems. On Android, apps installed from third-party sources still need to have a list of permissions and request them the same way apps from the Play Store do.
> major apps will explicitly use sideloading/third party app stores to bypass the app review process and permissioning systems, just as they have already attempted.
And if this were true, then why do so many apps still use the Play Store on Android? Why haven't they all switched exclusively to third-party stores?
Is it misleading, or inconvenient to your argument?
50/50 still means you have a major choice that implements the user-freedom model that you desire, while you're arguing to extinguish the user-privacy model.
> And if this were true, then why do so many apps still use the Play Store on Android? Why haven't they all switched exclusively to third-party stores?
Play Store doesn't have an app review process, and yes, permissioning is a major problem there, the "flashlight app that wants network access and your contacts list" was a very real thing (until Android finally implemented a flashlight app) and continues to be a thing for other types of applications.
https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/298363-why-do-android-fla...
That's the thing app store review prevents on iOS, and the changes you're suggesting fundamentally undermine that process. When facebook removes themselves from the app store and creates their own so they can demand full permissions, the choice will become "give the permissions or stop using facebook" and that's a degradation of the iOS user experience, all for a nebulous argument that the app store cut is too much.
50/50 still means you have a major choice that implements the user-freedom model that you desire, while you're arguing to extinguish the user-privacy model.
> And if this were true, then why do so many apps still use the Play Store on Android? Why haven't they all switched exclusively to third-party stores?
Play Store doesn't have an app review process, and yes, permissioning is a major problem there, the "flashlight app that wants network access and your contacts list" was a very real thing (until Android finally implemented a flashlight app) and continues to be a thing for other types of applications.
https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/298363-why-do-android-fla...
That's the thing app store review prevents on iOS, and the changes you're suggesting fundamentally undermine that process. When facebook removes themselves from the app store and creates their own so they can demand full permissions, the choice will become "give the permissions or stop using facebook" and that's a degradation of the iOS user experience, all for a nebulous argument that the app store cut is too much.
50% of all customers is way too much for most developers to be able to give up. And your arguments that gaining freedom will require losing privacy still haven't been convincing.
Whether or not you are personally convinced is irrelevant, the facts are that Facebook literally already has tried to do this and gotten their hand slapped for it.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...
The facts don't care about your feelings here - facebook and others have already attempted to exploit the limited mechanisms of sideloading available to violate user privacy, and they will do so again if given broader permissions.
You are directly arguing for the removal of the mechanism that was used to slap their hand.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...
The facts don't care about your feelings here - facebook and others have already attempted to exploit the limited mechanisms of sideloading available to violate user privacy, and they will do so again if given broader permissions.
You are directly arguing for the removal of the mechanism that was used to slap their hand.
Game consoles have negative margins, it’s their business model.
If apple started selling iphones at negative margins maybe they would have a better moral stand in charging a tax.
If apple started selling iphones at negative margins maybe they would have a better moral stand in charging a tax.
Apple subsidizing the cost of iPhones with revenue from elsewhere in their walled-garden ecosystem would arguably be even more anticompetitive. Apple's competitors don't have the ecosystem advantage that would allow them to generate revenue from other parts of their business. Apple would be able to drive down their iPhone prices, while mainlining exceptional quality, which would be very difficult to compete against.
Are consoles sold as general computing devices?
This is irrelevant - the law makes zero distinction between "general purpose" and "specific" computing devices. They're all computers.
> Yet the anti-Nintendo sentiment in the country didn’t ultimately do much to help either of the two Ataris’ legal cases; the courts proved willing to buck that rising tide. In a landmark ruling against Tengen in March of 1991, Judge Fern Smith stated that Nintendo had the right to “exclude others” from the NES if they so chose, thus providing the legal soil on which many more walled gardens would be tilled in the years to come.
https://www.filfre.net/2016/04/generation-nintendo/
This was back in March 1991, mind you. The US courts decided that for some categories of things which compute, the manufacturer gets to control 100% of what runs on them. That makes them quite specific in my eyes.
I don't know the exact legal term, but that's what a walled garden amounts to. Yeah, you take a general computing architecture, and you lock it down by law. It doesn't need to be non-Turing complete or what have you to be "specific".
https://www.filfre.net/2016/04/generation-nintendo/
This was back in March 1991, mind you. The US courts decided that for some categories of things which compute, the manufacturer gets to control 100% of what runs on them. That makes them quite specific in my eyes.
I don't know the exact legal term, but that's what a walled garden amounts to. Yeah, you take a general computing architecture, and you lock it down by law. It doesn't need to be non-Turing complete or what have you to be "specific".
The difference is that Nintendo isn't a monopolist. When you are, you do not get as many rights to 'refuse to deal'. From the FTC itself "Under certain circumstances, there may be limits on this freedom for a firm with market power."
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
Can you cite this "law" you're talking about?
Can you define a "general computing device" in a way that includes PCs and phones, but not game consoles?
That's easy. Can you run spreadsheet programs, image editors, IDES, etc by default on consoles? Just approved software, no jailbreaks, hacks, etc.
I can’t run Xcode on my iPhone either even though that’s what I need to develop apps for my iPhone. Even more strangely I can’t run Xcode on the iPad Pro despite it literally running the same chip that runs Xcode on a cheaper device (the Mac Mini).
Yes, all of this is available via web browser.
Ah, nice, can I do any of that offline?
Given you can't run most games on current-gen consoles offline I'm not sure that's the point you think it is.
Well, you've asked if it's possible, not if it's practical and convenient under any circumstances.
Imagine Apple wanting their cut from Google, because I used the chrome app to buy something off of Amazon.
> If a developer isn't using that infrastructure, they don't owe anything.
How would a developer build an iOS app without using any system calls or OS frameworks? Xcode?
“Infrastructure” is a blurry concept in such a deeply integrated system.
How would a developer build an iOS app without using any system calls or OS frameworks? Xcode?
“Infrastructure” is a blurry concept in such a deeply integrated system.
IMO it's not that blurry.
The real point is if Apple wants (or should have the right) to collect taxes on their infrastructure and act like a Government - think about VAT - or they are only selling consumer devices instead.
If I buy a tractor from John Deere and make money out of the products I can grow using that tractor I don't have to pay a fee to John Deere, even thought without the JD my fields would probably be much less profitable or plainly unprofitable.
So the question is: has Apple built a digital Nation? And in that case, should they be the only monopolistic option?
The real point is if Apple wants (or should have the right) to collect taxes on their infrastructure and act like a Government - think about VAT - or they are only selling consumer devices instead.
If I buy a tractor from John Deere and make money out of the products I can grow using that tractor I don't have to pay a fee to John Deere, even thought without the JD my fields would probably be much less profitable or plainly unprofitable.
So the question is: has Apple built a digital Nation? And in that case, should they be the only monopolistic option?
However, what makes it even blurrier is that, in the US, being a monopoly (despite what you may have heard) is actually NOT illegal. What is illegal is the monopoly using its monopoly power to perpetuate its monopoly power.
However, historically, this was almost always because the monopoly did something like change the rules to benefit themselves after they became a monopoly. From the law's perspective, Apple didn't do anything like that. Apple didn't raise the commission to, say, 50%. Apple hasn't changed the rules since, like, 2009 before they had the theoretical "monopoly" status. This makes proving an illegal monopoly case against Apple (because monopolies are not intrinsically illegal) more difficult.
However, historically, this was almost always because the monopoly did something like change the rules to benefit themselves after they became a monopoly. From the law's perspective, Apple didn't do anything like that. Apple didn't raise the commission to, say, 50%. Apple hasn't changed the rules since, like, 2009 before they had the theoretical "monopoly" status. This makes proving an illegal monopoly case against Apple (because monopolies are not intrinsically illegal) more difficult.
One of the illegal things under US monopoly law is tying--using your monopoly power in one market to enter another market by bundling the two products together and undercutting the competition.
Apple's push into payment processing here smacks very heavily of illegal tying to me, especially given how broadly Apple interprets competitor payment processing methods. In effect, the specific sin that got Fortnite kicked off was charging a lower price for using a company-specific gift card instead of using Apple's payment method. I don't see how that's not abusive tying.
Apple's push into payment processing here smacks very heavily of illegal tying to me, especially given how broadly Apple interprets competitor payment processing methods. In effect, the specific sin that got Fortnite kicked off was charging a lower price for using a company-specific gift card instead of using Apple's payment method. I don't see how that's not abusive tying.
Tying is actually not illegal and is common business practice if you don't have a monopoly. Apple started doing this all the way back in 2009, before they had a monopoly even from Epic's perspective. Therefore, the argument is that they aren't tying monopolistically because they were tying before they were even close to monopoly status. In which case, they haven't changed the rules, and also in which case the current antitrust law doesn't really address.
If you are following Apple vs Epic, even Epic admits this and says they can't pinpoint when Apple became a supposed monopoly, and argues that the tying is illegal because Apple is so large, not that it was illegal to begin with (because Epic admits that it would not have been illegal when Apple started). This is also why many legal experts say Epic has an uphill battle, because antitrust really only addresses abuses in monopoly power, not so much on what got you to that monopoly power.
If you are following Apple vs Epic, even Epic admits this and says they can't pinpoint when Apple became a supposed monopoly, and argues that the tying is illegal because Apple is so large, not that it was illegal to begin with (because Epic admits that it would not have been illegal when Apple started). This is also why many legal experts say Epic has an uphill battle, because antitrust really only addresses abuses in monopoly power, not so much on what got you to that monopoly power.
> Apple hasn't changed the rules since, like, 2009 before they had the theoretical "monopoly" status.
This couldn't be further from the truth. They have carved out many exceptions to the 30% commission over the years - often as part of sweetheart deals to attract larger entities that have negotiating leverage, such as Netflix and Amazon.
This couldn't be further from the truth. They have carved out many exceptions to the 30% commission over the years - often as part of sweetheart deals to attract larger entities that have negotiating leverage, such as Netflix and Amazon.
Yes, but in monopoly law, the rules haven't changed from the perspective that Apple hasn't raised prices. Apple can lower them all they want, but if they raise them when they got their monopoly status so as to take advantage of their market, that would be illegal.
However, that relies on the idea that Apple is even a monopoly to begin with, and that really depends on what you define "the market" as. Is the product an iPhone and the whole cohesive experience with it (IAP and App Store included) in which case it's a duopoly at best, or are these separate markets that it is possible to have a monopoly in?
However, that relies on the idea that Apple is even a monopoly to begin with, and that really depends on what you define "the market" as. Is the product an iPhone and the whole cohesive experience with it (IAP and App Store included) in which case it's a duopoly at best, or are these separate markets that it is possible to have a monopoly in?
> Yes, but in monopoly law, the rules haven't changed from the perspective that Apple hasn't raised prices. Apple can lower them all they want, but if they raise them when they got their monopoly status so as to take advantage of their market, that would be illegal.
Once again you're wrong and you should really stop commenting on business law. There are a wide range of legal precedents that have bearing here and these specific dealings could absolutely be ruled as anticompetitive in court.
Once again you're wrong and you should really stop commenting on business law. There are a wide range of legal precedents that have bearing here and these specific dealings could absolutely be ruled as anticompetitive in court.
As a non American this is very interesting knowledge.
I have a question: in USA could Tesla force Tesla Powerwall owners to only buy electricity from Tesla approved suppliers and when they sell their product through Tesla store, Tesla gets a 30% cut?
I have a question: in USA could Tesla force Tesla Powerwall owners to only buy electricity from Tesla approved suppliers and when they sell their product through Tesla store, Tesla gets a 30% cut?
In theory, if they sold you the product with that restriction out of the box and didn't change it later to do this, so you bought the product knowing with basic research that it would be restricted in this way, yes they could.
Apple already charges developers for the privilege of developing on/for its platform.
And notably, Android seems to do fine both a) letting devs use the Android ecosystem for free, and b) allowing sideloading apps outside the Play Store.
And notably, Android seems to do fine both a) letting devs use the Android ecosystem for free, and b) allowing sideloading apps outside the Play Store.
The argument goes that then the consumer pays with their privacy. Ie Google foots the R&D bill to get the end user data and to keep users in the Google ecosystem.
Cook didn't say anything about tracking purchases, or even getting a cut as such. He said they would need to find another way to invoice developers, which just means another revenue model, that's all.
He did, actually. I finally found the quote again.
https://9to5mac.com/2021/05/21/live-blog-apple-ceo-tim-cook-...
> “We would also have to come up with an alternate way of collecting our commission,” Cook says. “We would then have to figure out how to track what’s going on and invoice it and then chase the developers down. It seems like a process that doesn’t need to exist.”
https://9to5mac.com/2021/05/21/live-blog-apple-ceo-tim-cook-...
> “We would also have to come up with an alternate way of collecting our commission,” Cook says. “We would then have to figure out how to track what’s going on and invoice it and then chase the developers down. It seems like a process that doesn’t need to exist.”
Invoice developers for using their intellectual property? How dare Apple expect a revenue share from developers who use their tools and libraries.
Companies that make tools and libraries should be forced to give them away for free. Like Unreal Engine. Completely free, no exceptions.
Companies that make tools and libraries should be forced to give them away for free. Like Unreal Engine. Completely free, no exceptions.
...why?
Because it's Apple's intellectual property. We don't steal it from them because we feel entitled to it.
It seems that Tim Cook considers the devices and the ecosystem that they create a *aaS. So they shouldn’t be considered general purpose devices on which you can run anything. Think of them as cloud devices with local/edge cacheing for improved experience, very similarly to what Google offers.
So how do you feel about consoles? Because if they don’t get a cut they don’t survive. I can’t see how you can set a legal precedent against Apple that doesn’t apply to Sony/MS/Nintendo as well.
Microsoft already made the claim that smartphones are general purpose computing devices, while a game console is single use one that justifies their walled garden.
>with developers being able to use
I guess you mean not being able to? Normally I wouldn't bring it up but I spent a several read throughs trying to make sense of that sentence, and still not sure if I'm right?
I guess you mean not being able to? Normally I wouldn't bring it up but I spent a several read throughs trying to make sense of that sentence, and still not sure if I'm right?
What you're saying is that you're OK with basically every single developer declaring their app as free, and then asking for your credit card, which will be processed in god knows what ways with most of them.
So developers get in the shortterm to avoid the 30% cut. But what happens next?
The payment process becomes much more cumbersome and much less safe for users. So they start avoiding any payments on iPhone.
Apple loses basically all funding to maintain and curate the store.
And in the long-term developers lose the entire platform, because it's based on the goodwill of the users.
Who wins?
So developers get in the shortterm to avoid the 30% cut. But what happens next?
The payment process becomes much more cumbersome and much less safe for users. So they start avoiding any payments on iPhone.
Apple loses basically all funding to maintain and curate the store.
And in the long-term developers lose the entire platform, because it's based on the goodwill of the users.
Who wins?
This will not happen as long as Apple's cut percentage is lower than the percentage of users that will give up or not download the app when asked for their credit card in-app.
Obviously any reasonable Apple's cut will satisfy this requirement.
Obviously any reasonable Apple's cut will satisfy this requirement.
4 users or 4 million the review process needs to be done and done well otherwise it’s just as risky as installing random crap people download from the internet. So the issue is Apples ‘cut’ needs to cover all those apps with few buyers.
It’s a complex problem because applications like BonziBuddy mean you can’t actually trust users to detect issues. That’s not to say Apple ensures quality, just that minimum standards have actual value.
On the other hand it’s reasonable for large companies to disagree with subsidizing lone developers. As such a substantial fee to submit apps would likely be required.
It’s a complex problem because applications like BonziBuddy mean you can’t actually trust users to detect issues. That’s not to say Apple ensures quality, just that minimum standards have actual value.
On the other hand it’s reasonable for large companies to disagree with subsidizing lone developers. As such a substantial fee to submit apps would likely be required.
[deleted]
This is FUD. Where is the evidence that letting developers choose how to process payments leads to rampant fraud? The online payment landscape outside the App Store is actually very safe for users.
Try to cancel an in-app subscription without Googling how to do it. Good luck.
Also, if you try using the store, you’ll see it’s not curated in any meaningful way. It’s full of garbage and fake reviews. Someone properly incentivized to improve it could do a much better job.
Try to cancel an in-app subscription without Googling how to do it. Good luck.
Also, if you try using the store, you’ll see it’s not curated in any meaningful way. It’s full of garbage and fake reviews. Someone properly incentivized to improve it could do a much better job.
>This is FUD. Where is the evidence that letting developers choose how to process payments leads to rampant fraud?
Here, for one: https://www.pandasecurity.com/en/mediacenter/mobile-security....
And in the general open web, for another, where online fraud is a multi-billion business...
Here, for one: https://www.pandasecurity.com/en/mediacenter/mobile-security....
And in the general open web, for another, where online fraud is a multi-billion business...
Yeah, online fraud is a multi-billion business. But how big is the open web? I'd imagine that it's transactions are on the order of hundreds of billions and most likely trillions, which would make that fraud an unavoidable drop in the bucket.
And with Apple's system, are there any studies that shoes it makes a material difference in this fraud level? Even if it did, I'm not sure it's worth giving up all this freedom when we already have a system that works.
And with Apple's system, are there any studies that shoes it makes a material difference in this fraud level? Even if it did, I'm not sure it's worth giving up all this freedom when we already have a system that works.
Not a single sentence in that article is relevant to this topic.
The topic is opening up the app store, allowing developers to implement their own payments, and someone asked: "where is the evidence that letting developers choose how to process payments leads to rampant fraud?"
Well, Android is open to sideloading and less "walled" and ends up with 50 times more malware than IOS. That's what "that article" is about.
If someone connects the dots, they'll see that (a) opening up iOS similarly will lead to similar levels of malware, (b) letting developers have their own payment systems in such an environment would just lead to tons of that malware getting people's credit card details, charging for BS, and so on.
Well, Android is open to sideloading and less "walled" and ends up with 50 times more malware than IOS. That's what "that article" is about.
If someone connects the dots, they'll see that (a) opening up iOS similarly will lead to similar levels of malware, (b) letting developers have their own payment systems in such an environment would just lead to tons of that malware getting people's credit card details, charging for BS, and so on.
I have worked a few places where customer credit card information was kept in spreadsheets or other open databases. At the scale of an app developer who has trouble affording a $99 developer account spending money on securing customer information is a virtual non starter. Also third party interfaces you may attempt to use are often purchased and repurposed.
There are huge numbers of dark pattern companies who thrive on the ability to thwart subscription cancellation and the Apple method can at least be googled.
I have not seen any platform which has resolved the fake review problem through incentives and many that are far worse.
There are huge numbers of dark pattern companies who thrive on the ability to thwart subscription cancellation and the Apple method can at least be googled.
I have not seen any platform which has resolved the fake review problem through incentives and many that are far worse.
The user. If I like netflix and want to pay outside of iOS I should be able to manage that without apple taking a cut.
Managing payment outside of a closed system makes so much more sense.
Apple losing all funding to operate the app store is the least of all issues. They can shutdown the store and thirdparty stores would take over. If they can't afford the app they probably won't sell many phones. Perhaps taking some of the phone profits to fund the app store would make business sense.
Managing payment outside of a closed system makes so much more sense.
Apple losing all funding to operate the app store is the least of all issues. They can shutdown the store and thirdparty stores would take over. If they can't afford the app they probably won't sell many phones. Perhaps taking some of the phone profits to fund the app store would make business sense.
I just like to remember - the cut gets passed onto the customers.
There are times this is appropriate - there are times this is not.
There are times this is appropriate - there are times this is not.
Sure. But who owns the software? You bought a license for that.
This is no different from a lot of other platforms. And quite frankly, I’m happy about that, if you compare with incompatible, unupdated, and malicious software on android
Google will and is already following Apple with this
This is no different from a lot of other platforms. And quite frankly, I’m happy about that, if you compare with incompatible, unupdated, and malicious software on android
Google will and is already following Apple with this
> I'd be less happy with developers being able to use their own payment processors and be on the app store for free. There's a chilling anti-free-speech type of thing going on there.
How would this have an effect on free speech?
How would this have an effect on free speech?
> Apple doesn't own that device any more. They sold it to someone.
Ownership is so pre-cloud. Now everything is cloud tethered so nothing belongs to anyone except whoever runs it’s cloud.
Ownership is so pre-cloud. Now everything is cloud tethered so nothing belongs to anyone except whoever runs it’s cloud.
> But charging them simply because they make money while on a device that an end-user owns?
What Apple are trying to do is to make back the CapEx of developing the OS frameworks developers are relying upon. Those frameworks often make up a non-negligible fraction of an app's USP, i.e. they're partly why the developer is making money.
Apple see whatever slice of market value their OS frameworks added to the developer's product, as morally being their money. Whether there's a legal/contractual framework in place to grab that money or not, they feel like they should be pursuing it.
Compare and contrast: music producers sampling some other IP-holder's work. You'd expect, as a producer, that if half of your song was just sampled from another particular song, then 50% of the revenue of your song would be morally owed to the IP-holder of the other song.
And also, if you had a contract with the IP-holder that paid less than 50% out to them, that'd certainly be legal, but you'd also likely feel that it'd be you getting one up on them — you'd be coming away with more margin than you "deserve", and them with less than they "deserve", given the amount of work each of you put into the final product.
Apple thinks that they "deserve" 10–30% of the value App Store apps capture, because they do 10–30% of the work in making every App Store app (in advance, by building frameworks.) It's not about how the app wants to capture that value, any more than income taxes are about how you make money. They're both about the fact that you did make the money, and the 'infrastructural substrate' that 'invested' in you to help you make that money, wants what it sees as its implicit preferred-shareholder-dividend for that 'investment'.
What Apple are trying to do is to make back the CapEx of developing the OS frameworks developers are relying upon. Those frameworks often make up a non-negligible fraction of an app's USP, i.e. they're partly why the developer is making money.
Apple see whatever slice of market value their OS frameworks added to the developer's product, as morally being their money. Whether there's a legal/contractual framework in place to grab that money or not, they feel like they should be pursuing it.
Compare and contrast: music producers sampling some other IP-holder's work. You'd expect, as a producer, that if half of your song was just sampled from another particular song, then 50% of the revenue of your song would be morally owed to the IP-holder of the other song.
And also, if you had a contract with the IP-holder that paid less than 50% out to them, that'd certainly be legal, but you'd also likely feel that it'd be you getting one up on them — you'd be coming away with more margin than you "deserve", and them with less than they "deserve", given the amount of work each of you put into the final product.
Apple thinks that they "deserve" 10–30% of the value App Store apps capture, because they do 10–30% of the work in making every App Store app (in advance, by building frameworks.) It's not about how the app wants to capture that value, any more than income taxes are about how you make money. They're both about the fact that you did make the money, and the 'infrastructural substrate' that 'invested' in you to help you make that money, wants what it sees as its implicit preferred-shareholder-dividend for that 'investment'.
Who the hell needs an OS or a device that can't run third party apps? Their devices are nothing without those. Those frameworks aren't optional frills for the sake for developers' benefit, they're basic functionality that end users already paid hundreds or thousands of dollars for. End users paying is how it always worked on desktop too before they spread this monopolistic poison there too.
It's amazing how far people will go to justify a monopoly squeezing everyone it deals with just because they have a good brand and make nice products.
It's amazing how far people will go to justify a monopoly squeezing everyone it deals with just because they have a good brand and make nice products.
> Who the hell needs an OS or a device that can't run third party apps?
The first iPhone didn't run third-party apps. Also, the average number of apps paid for per smart-device is < 1. Most people just use free apps.
Those free apps — and their users — are essentially free riders on the CapEx of OS framework development, since Apple can't put a tax on income an app doesn't have. So the remaining apps need to be taxed at a higher rate to compensate.
> Those frameworks aren't optional frills for the sake for developers' benefit, they're basic functionality that end users already paid hundreds or thousands of dollars for.
There are basic OS frameworks that are just table-stakes for having a mobile OS, yes. But there are also some incredibly-specialized frameworks — things that differentiate iOS development from Android development. Reasons devs choose to build an iOS-exclusive app.
Apple has, for example, a 3D AR framework, with specialized (neural-network; depth-sensing) hardware in every device put there just to enable the 3D AR framework. No first-party apps really use it for anything. It's just there for third-party devs.
That's not "basic functionality." That's an extremely-specialized tool that only a few apps will take advantage of, and for those apps, it's a large part of what makes the app a distinctive experience that can't be had on Android.
If not for the fact of requiring special hardware that only Apple can add to the phone, it wouldn't be an OS feature; it'd be a fancy standalone SDK that Apple recoups costs on by selling to developers. Same as they sold e.g. WebObjects, back when.
Think of it like this: a city will build most roads "for free", with no increase to your taxes. Those roads are table-stakes to running city infrastructure. They take them out of the budget by reallocating funding away from other things, because citizens would riot if their taxes went up with every road built.
But some very-capital-intensive roads that not everybody in the city needs equal access to — e.g. bridges — are built by the city to be toll roads. The business model for these roads is different: rather than the costs of building them coming from the treasury, they're passed on directly to the people who are most advantaged by the road being built: exactly those who will still use the road even with a toll, meaning exactly those who are economically gaining from travelling the road.
More often than not, that's businesses (e.g. freight/logistics services.) The 18-wheeler delivering your groceries is paying to use the more-efficient route over the bridge, because that route saves it money, and so increases its profits; and the trade still makes sense even when a part of those increased profits go to the city.
> It's amazing how far people will go to justify a monopoly squeezing everyone it deals with just because they have a good brand and make nice products.
I'm just trying to explain here why Apple think they're owed 10% of devs' money. I'm not saying they're right in that perception. Just that it's clearly a tempting chain of logic from their perspective.
Also, it's a chain of logic that I believe is correct when applied to small businesses (like the aforementioned small music artist getting deeply sampled by a song that makes a lot of money.) I don't see any difference in applying it to a monopoly.
Apple's App Store monopoly enables the extraction of "what they think they're owed" on a scale not possible with regular market players, and I'd say that that's definitely bad — but the answer isn't to reject the whole chain of logic of "your profitable thing is 90% my copyrighted IP, so I want royalties" being a valid business model. It just means that Apple should have the power that enables that extraction taken away.
The first iPhone didn't run third-party apps. Also, the average number of apps paid for per smart-device is < 1. Most people just use free apps.
Those free apps — and their users — are essentially free riders on the CapEx of OS framework development, since Apple can't put a tax on income an app doesn't have. So the remaining apps need to be taxed at a higher rate to compensate.
> Those frameworks aren't optional frills for the sake for developers' benefit, they're basic functionality that end users already paid hundreds or thousands of dollars for.
There are basic OS frameworks that are just table-stakes for having a mobile OS, yes. But there are also some incredibly-specialized frameworks — things that differentiate iOS development from Android development. Reasons devs choose to build an iOS-exclusive app.
Apple has, for example, a 3D AR framework, with specialized (neural-network; depth-sensing) hardware in every device put there just to enable the 3D AR framework. No first-party apps really use it for anything. It's just there for third-party devs.
That's not "basic functionality." That's an extremely-specialized tool that only a few apps will take advantage of, and for those apps, it's a large part of what makes the app a distinctive experience that can't be had on Android.
If not for the fact of requiring special hardware that only Apple can add to the phone, it wouldn't be an OS feature; it'd be a fancy standalone SDK that Apple recoups costs on by selling to developers. Same as they sold e.g. WebObjects, back when.
Think of it like this: a city will build most roads "for free", with no increase to your taxes. Those roads are table-stakes to running city infrastructure. They take them out of the budget by reallocating funding away from other things, because citizens would riot if their taxes went up with every road built.
But some very-capital-intensive roads that not everybody in the city needs equal access to — e.g. bridges — are built by the city to be toll roads. The business model for these roads is different: rather than the costs of building them coming from the treasury, they're passed on directly to the people who are most advantaged by the road being built: exactly those who will still use the road even with a toll, meaning exactly those who are economically gaining from travelling the road.
More often than not, that's businesses (e.g. freight/logistics services.) The 18-wheeler delivering your groceries is paying to use the more-efficient route over the bridge, because that route saves it money, and so increases its profits; and the trade still makes sense even when a part of those increased profits go to the city.
> It's amazing how far people will go to justify a monopoly squeezing everyone it deals with just because they have a good brand and make nice products.
I'm just trying to explain here why Apple think they're owed 10% of devs' money. I'm not saying they're right in that perception. Just that it's clearly a tempting chain of logic from their perspective.
Also, it's a chain of logic that I believe is correct when applied to small businesses (like the aforementioned small music artist getting deeply sampled by a song that makes a lot of money.) I don't see any difference in applying it to a monopoly.
Apple's App Store monopoly enables the extraction of "what they think they're owed" on a scale not possible with regular market players, and I'd say that that's definitely bad — but the answer isn't to reject the whole chain of logic of "your profitable thing is 90% my copyrighted IP, so I want royalties" being a valid business model. It just means that Apple should have the power that enables that extraction taken away.
Charging people to make use of their IP is fair IMO. Its similar to paying taxes, even if you don't use the services the taxes are for. The user benefits from Apple maintaining their OS, so has to pay. A citizen paying taxes benefits from all the services the country offers, so he pays taxes.
As the judge mentions during the trial, many large corporations such as banks have apps with millions of users, yet they don’t pay Apple a cent. Meanwhile Epic has to give Apple 30% of everything they make. Video games are subsidizing banks, it’s absurd.
The problem with this view is it assumes developers need the iPhone more than the iPhone needs developers, which is absolutely not the case. It’s symbiotic certainly—for better or worse far more money is spent on iOS than Android—but without apps the iPhone would be basically useless.
In my opinion, Apple needs to acknowledge that, rather than acting like developers owe them the shirt off their backs.
In my opinion, Apple needs to acknowledge that, rather than acting like developers owe them the shirt off their backs.
Each developer needs apple more than Apple needs each developer.
Developers need to ally with each other, then they can force Apple’s hands.
What’s funny is that developers are practically in the best job to do that. Their jobs allow them tons of time to communicate with each other, they’re highly educated and able to communicate, and they have the know how to operate the mechanisms allowing them to communicate (forums, email, chat groups).
So what is stopping developers? I can only assume they’re not yet being taken advantage of by Apple sufficiently to warrant the efforts of banding together.
Developers need to ally with each other, then they can force Apple’s hands.
What’s funny is that developers are practically in the best job to do that. Their jobs allow them tons of time to communicate with each other, they’re highly educated and able to communicate, and they have the know how to operate the mechanisms allowing them to communicate (forums, email, chat groups).
So what is stopping developers? I can only assume they’re not yet being taken advantage of by Apple sufficiently to warrant the efforts of banding together.
Developers have no leverage because there are no alternatives. What can they do, take their apps and leave the store?
Yes, exactly that - go on strike.
And the position is just like employees - one leaves, and mgt says "so what"? Many leave and mgt is screwed.
Maybe developers could even create a fund to help themselves survive a 'strike', and/or to help fund alternatives such as versions on Android.
Enough leave en masse, and Apple will have no choice but to listen.
Until then, Apple divides & conquers.
And the position is just like employees - one leaves, and mgt says "so what"? Many leave and mgt is screwed.
Maybe developers could even create a fund to help themselves survive a 'strike', and/or to help fund alternatives such as versions on Android.
Enough leave en masse, and Apple will have no choice but to listen.
Until then, Apple divides & conquers.
So developers on mass will decide to effectively kill their mobile apps and revenue streams on principle alone and hope by setting up a fund that people can donate money to ‘help fight for developers’ it will subsidise their lost income. This fund will support entire businesses who’s primary interface to its customers are it’s mobile apps. Destroy your business to ‘stick it to Apple’.
You seem to also be bizarrely comparing the app store and the apps hosted to the plight of workers and union action. Apps are in 99% of cases produced by business. Developers are but a single part of a business workforce, which could include HR, support, accounting, management and any number of other personal needed to keep a business running. Businesses don’t just go ‘on strike’.
You seem to also be bizarrely comparing the app store and the apps hosted to the plight of workers and union action. Apps are in 99% of cases produced by business. Developers are but a single part of a business workforce, which could include HR, support, accounting, management and any number of other personal needed to keep a business running. Businesses don’t just go ‘on strike’.
> Businesses don’t just go ‘on strike’.
That is exactly what businesses do, and workers bargaining for wages is also “business”. If you do not like the terms of a deal, you walk away. Like Costco walking away from American Express, for example.
Another example is healthcare in the US. Payers (governments and managed care organizations), hospitals groups, doctor groups, and nurse unions have to band together to negotiate with each other.
Another example is when cable/satellite TV operators drop channels from their service if they do not like the terms being offered by the content owner.
That is exactly what businesses do, and workers bargaining for wages is also “business”. If you do not like the terms of a deal, you walk away. Like Costco walking away from American Express, for example.
Another example is healthcare in the US. Payers (governments and managed care organizations), hospitals groups, doctor groups, and nurse unions have to band together to negotiate with each other.
Another example is when cable/satellite TV operators drop channels from their service if they do not like the terms being offered by the content owner.
Do you understand the power dynamics of the business you listed in your example. Costco is a worldwide juggernaut and American Express is not the only payment gateway in business. That is not the case with iOS devices. Apples services are the ONLY OPTION, you either like it or leave. You seem to be having difficulty understanding the anti-competitive argument the trial is addressing.
Yes. I am making an analogy; of course apps are produced by businesses. And, no, it wouldn't be a literal strike, but there are many parallels.
The first parallel is that if one developer quits Apple, Apple won't even notice, but if enough do take the same action en masse, they have real power.
The second parallel is that if the the developers (not individual workers) want to seize this power, could form a consortium (analogous, but not equal to, a union). This consortium would pay into a collective fund via dues (not random donations). Yes, this costs part of the business' income, just as union dues cost part of workers' wages.
When they collectively decide to wield their power and attempt to force changes upon Apple, they could then use the savings to bridge the chasm of no income while negotiations proceed. They could also use the fund to support alternative platform development so the consortium members would be better able to sustain any 'strike' by having alternate platform revenue streams.
Apple is very much in the position of an exploitative employer. Apple and the employer both own key elements of the means of production, but are pretty much nowhere without the developers or the workers. Until developers band together to take some kind of collective action like this, Apple will continue to exploit them and extract every last possible fee. You might say "Apple will go too far and no one will develop for them", but at the point where they start losing developers, they just reduce the fees by a marginal amount.
It really is a no-win game for developers until they work together. (And when they do, it'll also be a bit the reverse if they go too far.).
EDIT: The alternative route is for most of them to suffer and hope one developer can spend the funds to take Apple to court and force changes that way, which is what is now happening, but that may also apply only country-by-country.
The first parallel is that if one developer quits Apple, Apple won't even notice, but if enough do take the same action en masse, they have real power.
The second parallel is that if the the developers (not individual workers) want to seize this power, could form a consortium (analogous, but not equal to, a union). This consortium would pay into a collective fund via dues (not random donations). Yes, this costs part of the business' income, just as union dues cost part of workers' wages.
When they collectively decide to wield their power and attempt to force changes upon Apple, they could then use the savings to bridge the chasm of no income while negotiations proceed. They could also use the fund to support alternative platform development so the consortium members would be better able to sustain any 'strike' by having alternate platform revenue streams.
Apple is very much in the position of an exploitative employer. Apple and the employer both own key elements of the means of production, but are pretty much nowhere without the developers or the workers. Until developers band together to take some kind of collective action like this, Apple will continue to exploit them and extract every last possible fee. You might say "Apple will go too far and no one will develop for them", but at the point where they start losing developers, they just reduce the fees by a marginal amount.
It really is a no-win game for developers until they work together. (And when they do, it'll also be a bit the reverse if they go too far.).
EDIT: The alternative route is for most of them to suffer and hope one developer can spend the funds to take Apple to court and force changes that way, which is what is now happening, but that may also apply only country-by-country.
Again, apps are owned by businesses, not developers. Developers don't work for Apple, they work for their employer. Any industrial action by developers hurts their employer, not Apple. If what you suggested was an effective strategy it would have been taken already.
Release on Android only.
The idea of halving your potential customer reach sounds so appealing.
Yes, and if that does not work, then the situation is that not only does each developer need Apple more than Apple needs each developer, but that developers in general need Apple more than Apple needs developers.
Which would contradict the claim that developers are having to pay outsize fees compared to their relevance to Apple’s business.
Which would contradict the claim that developers are having to pay outsize fees compared to their relevance to Apple’s business.
Why are you ignoring the whole purpose of this case? Apple has created an anti-competitive environment that allows them to dictate terms by controlling app distribution on its devices. If there were alternative ways to distribute apps on an iOS device, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I’m not opining on the merits of the case, just on who needs who more.
For the record, I think transparency (in general) is always good, and so any terms and conditions that restrict price transparency are inherently bad for society.
For the record, I think transparency (in general) is always good, and so any terms and conditions that restrict price transparency are inherently bad for society.
The anti-competitive environment setup by Apple means that the developers are beholden to Apple. That is the whole point of the case.
[deleted]
Yeah maybe in the land of make believe where developers kill their apps, their user base and their profit on principle.
without apps the iPhone would be basically useless.
An IPhone is pretty useful right out of the box. Not to mention that most of the apps that people actually use could be web pages. And if they really wanted to, apple could always dip into their cash reserves and start making more of their own apps.
An IPhone is pretty useful right out of the box. Not to mention that most of the apps that people actually use could be web pages. And if they really wanted to, apple could always dip into their cash reserves and start making more of their own apps.
> without [third party] apps the iPhone would be basically useless.
It was good enough for the first year before the App Store existed, and it sold well enough to prove it.
Even now, it's plenty capable right out of the box without installing anything.
A device in 2007 that had first-party apps for email, web browsing, YouTube, weather, calendar, clock, address book, phone, calculator and music player, that also synced with your main personal computer was perfectly fine for many people.
It was good enough for the first year before the App Store existed, and it sold well enough to prove it.
Even now, it's plenty capable right out of the box without installing anything.
A device in 2007 that had first-party apps for email, web browsing, YouTube, weather, calendar, clock, address book, phone, calculator and music player, that also synced with your main personal computer was perfectly fine for many people.
It was fine for the time (just about)—it would very much not have been fine over the last 10 years or so.
Just look at Windows Phone, the biggest sticking point of every single device was that the app support just wasn’t there. While it’s hard to say with certainty, it seems that’s what ultimately stopped the platform gaining any traction.
Just look at Windows Phone, the biggest sticking point of every single device was that the app support just wasn’t there. While it’s hard to say with certainty, it seems that’s what ultimately stopped the platform gaining any traction.
Imagine Microsoft doing this on Windows.
They planned to (or started putting the frog in the port with some lukewarm water) and got heavy push back from their partners. This is what precipitated Valve to make the Steam Machine.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18996377
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18996377
Worth noting that one of the people complaining loudest was Tim Sweeney, ex. https://venturebeat.com/2016/03/04/epics-tim-sweeney-questio...
or any web browser doing this for e-commerce..
MS and Windows is simply not related to the Apple situation, unless MS decided to only allow Windows on its own hardware thus creating a closed ecosystem.
The closest analogy to Apple is the game console industry. Even then it's a different scale.
IMO, the App Store situation is an entirely new class of problem unlikely to be solved in this case. It doesn't easily fall under existing monopoly regulation, and does have some advantages for consumers along with disadvantages. Unfortunately, I think Apple is being short sighted here. By not addressing the most egregious issues (30% for example), they are setting themselves up to be regulated which will probably end up being worse for everyone. A sledgehammer will end being used where a scalpel was needed.
The closest analogy to Apple is the game console industry. Even then it's a different scale.
IMO, the App Store situation is an entirely new class of problem unlikely to be solved in this case. It doesn't easily fall under existing monopoly regulation, and does have some advantages for consumers along with disadvantages. Unfortunately, I think Apple is being short sighted here. By not addressing the most egregious issues (30% for example), they are setting themselves up to be regulated which will probably end up being worse for everyone. A sledgehammer will end being used where a scalpel was needed.
> unless MS decided to only allow Windows on its own hardware thus creating a closed ecosystem.
I presume this was what the word "imagine" meant?
I presume this was what the word "imagine" meant?
There appear to be a lot of comments effectively saying that Apple's "altruism" is what keeps the app store advocating for user privacy and security.
Let's say that's both true and a good quality of the app store that could be lost on another curator's store.
This is still not a problem, because Apple can instead improve the iOS permission API system to achieve a similar result. The store that delivers you the app is irrelevant - the permission model is what users should be expected to learn, not where they get it from.
This is a computer literacy problem and is the user's responsibility, not the platform. Not to sound too harsh, but how long will users like Grandma - who don't know better - live? Should we cater the entire system to these (comparatively) incapable users when they are a disappearing demographic?
Not to mention, Grandma won't even know how to enable a third party store, so Apple has absolutely no leg to stand on. Apple will continue to make a killing being the default store since they are posturing that their users are too dumb to do anything else.
Let's say that's both true and a good quality of the app store that could be lost on another curator's store.
This is still not a problem, because Apple can instead improve the iOS permission API system to achieve a similar result. The store that delivers you the app is irrelevant - the permission model is what users should be expected to learn, not where they get it from.
This is a computer literacy problem and is the user's responsibility, not the platform. Not to sound too harsh, but how long will users like Grandma - who don't know better - live? Should we cater the entire system to these (comparatively) incapable users when they are a disappearing demographic?
Not to mention, Grandma won't even know how to enable a third party store, so Apple has absolutely no leg to stand on. Apple will continue to make a killing being the default store since they are posturing that their users are too dumb to do anything else.
Punting responsibility to users is well and good until (for example) their IoT devices start doing damage under the control of Mirai. I’m not saying that a patrician approach is the only solution, but we are not each our own perfectly isolated islands.
One issue with this is that people are finding humans essentially become more gullible and trusting as they age as part of the natural dying process.
Insurance companies are even considering whether they have to create a new class of fraud insurance that becomes activated after a certain number of years of age.
To put it simply, we all become grandma
Insurance companies are even considering whether they have to create a new class of fraud insurance that becomes activated after a certain number of years of age.
To put it simply, we all become grandma
I just don't buy this argument that Apple maintaining control over iOS is necessary for privacy. I think it's a false dichotomy. If you build a good OS, with good strong APIs, you can achieve both privacy and a more open ecosystem.
Lets say Apple allowed side-loading. They would have no way to examine side-loaded apps to see what they do. iOS would have to provide access to various basic services like networking and connectivity, but not e.g. your address book without checking with the user. All well and good.
So I could write an app that interrogates the cellular network and other sources to implement location tracking (cruder than GPS but good enough for many purposes), snoops local wifi networks for information about connected devices. Even if it couldn't run in the background, it could snoop network traffic from iOS built in background services while it was running. If it had a built-in browser function it could track whatever browsing activity it liked. I'm sure there are plenty of other snooping activities that could be implemented that I can't think of in 5 minutes.
So there are plenty of ways such an app could violate your privacy, and you would never know. Right now, such apps have to pass App Store Review and such activity can be detected and the App kicked out. So side-loading potentially bypasses a lot of controls that can't really be implemented directly in the OS.
Users like yourself might assume that Apple could prevent these things in the OS, might think that even with side loading this is Apple's responsibility to protect you from it, as you seem to do. That a "good OS" as you put it would not allow these things to happen even in side loaded apps, therefore iOS can't be a "good OS" if side loaded apps break your privacy in ways you hadn't anticipated. But it's not all about the OS. This is the sort of reputational damage Apple is trying to avoid.
So I could write an app that interrogates the cellular network and other sources to implement location tracking (cruder than GPS but good enough for many purposes), snoops local wifi networks for information about connected devices. Even if it couldn't run in the background, it could snoop network traffic from iOS built in background services while it was running. If it had a built-in browser function it could track whatever browsing activity it liked. I'm sure there are plenty of other snooping activities that could be implemented that I can't think of in 5 minutes.
So there are plenty of ways such an app could violate your privacy, and you would never know. Right now, such apps have to pass App Store Review and such activity can be detected and the App kicked out. So side-loading potentially bypasses a lot of controls that can't really be implemented directly in the OS.
Users like yourself might assume that Apple could prevent these things in the OS, might think that even with side loading this is Apple's responsibility to protect you from it, as you seem to do. That a "good OS" as you put it would not allow these things to happen even in side loaded apps, therefore iOS can't be a "good OS" if side loaded apps break your privacy in ways you hadn't anticipated. But it's not all about the OS. This is the sort of reputational damage Apple is trying to avoid.
Android allows sideloading today and none of the things you claim are possible. If you want to interrogate the cellular network for tower locations, you need location permission. Same for WiFi and BT.
Your argument presumes apps get capabilities by default. OSes have been invented where apps get nothing implicitly (the object-capability model); it's a design problem to install mass-market apps with usable security in that paradigm, and it might be a difficult one. But there's been a little work on it and it's worth pursuing.
Sure, but when you grant capabilities you can't be sure what is being done with them. That's why you need static analysis, behavioural analysis and the whole test regime of App Store review to catch these sorts of activities. That's why Apple has an app store review process, otherwise they could bake all the restrictions into the OS itself. With permissioning for side loaded apps you can't know or enforce activities with the granted services. Yet people like framecowbird will still blame Apple for not producing a "good OS" that protects them anyway.
The capability you give an app for X doesn't have to be the raw system X. It can interpose some policy or tracking-of-use, or let you revoke just the X, or fake the whole X to begin with, etc. This is one of the things distinguishing the object capability model from basic sandboxing. Another is that the set of kinds of X's is open-ended -- anyone can make up higher-level abstractions like an advertising server with a defined protocol, so that users who've gotta have a free ad-supported app can use one without giving it unlimited and unaudited network access.
I'd expect the store to come with standardized packages of capabilities for common kinds of apps.
I'd expect the store to come with standardized packages of capabilities for common kinds of apps.
Do you really think that companies lobbying for side-loading of their apps, and getting legislation through to force it on Apple, would be satisfied with heavily locked down access to subsets of functionality? To more restricted access than App Store apps? Somehow I don't see that being acceptable to the side-loading lobby.
An App Store App can be granted low level network access etc because it can be vetted and censured if found in violation of policies. Side loaded app developers will demand the same access.
An App Store App can be granted low level network access etc because it can be vetted and censured if found in violation of policies. Side loaded app developers will demand the same access.
Every hardware capability is potentially available in this kind of framework. It's ultimately up to the user whether an app can get at it, or with what limits. This is an inevitable source of problems for sufficiently reckless users, but it should be possible for reasonable users to keep reasonable control -- not just hacker types.
A "side-loading lobby" wouldn't have grounds to demand more. (The overenthusiastic copyright lobby would probably have better luck in getting their demands wired in, going by history, but that's another issue.)
A "side-loading lobby" wouldn't have grounds to demand more. (The overenthusiastic copyright lobby would probably have better luck in getting their demands wired in, going by history, but that's another issue.)
If there is no app-store review process then all apps will demand full permissions, which means apps effectively get everything by default.
If it's a choice between permissions and not using the app then users will give them the permissions, and that is the choice app developers will give users, if they are sufficiently large to get away with it (Facebook, Fortnite, etc).
If it's a choice between permissions and not using the app then users will give them the permissions, and that is the choice app developers will give users, if they are sufficiently large to get away with it (Facebook, Fortnite, etc).
See my other replies. Standard bundles of caps by app type; limited/fake caps in place of system cap; yes it's a problem that needs work to demonstrate success at scale; ultimately it's up to the user who owns the device -- we can only design to support their judgement, not replace it. Replacing individual judgement with one central emperor of all phone software leaves everyone vulnerable to the emperor, as the recent and unsurprising news about iCloud in China should highlight.
It's not that I expect Apple to jump right on redesigning their OS. It's the claim that usable security is incompatible with universal computation, requiring a locked-down app store, that I'm objecting to. We have promising ideas about how to do better. We have actual experience of a handful of mass-market OSes, none using those ideas. If we had a lot of diverse experience of mass-market OSes and none of them worked, that would be a powerful argument from experience. But I think in our reality it's just status-quo bias.
(Fuchsia apparently is capability-based.)
It's not that I expect Apple to jump right on redesigning their OS. It's the claim that usable security is incompatible with universal computation, requiring a locked-down app store, that I'm objecting to. We have promising ideas about how to do better. We have actual experience of a handful of mass-market OSes, none using those ideas. If we had a lot of diverse experience of mass-market OSes and none of them worked, that would be a powerful argument from experience. But I think in our reality it's just status-quo bias.
(Fuchsia apparently is capability-based.)
Also, Apple is conflating AppStore with ContentFilter. They are separate things which can be installed separately depending on the user's wishes.
I do not understand why they didn't touch the point on Tim Cook lying before Congress, when he said that Apple doesn't make special deals with company, and then it later surfaced that Netflix and Amazon get a special deal...
I don’t know the legalities, but I think Apple should be free to set their App Store policies but allow alternative app stores to be installed (with some hoops to jump through so that it isn’t too easy for the tech-blind to do).
That's the same trash Google does with Android and it's effectively as anti-competitive. They shouldn't be permitted to limit competition at all. In any way.
How do you think malware should be controlled?
An App Store has the ability to load executable code that might do anything onto your device. I don’t think an OS can just opt to do nothing about this.
Some basic guard rails, designed to dissuade the technically unsavvy seems like the least that could be done. Additionally, I think there would need to be a malware management system, similar to ones on other more open platforms like macOS or Windows.
An App Store has the ability to load executable code that might do anything onto your device. I don’t think an OS can just opt to do nothing about this.
Some basic guard rails, designed to dissuade the technically unsavvy seems like the least that could be done. Additionally, I think there would need to be a malware management system, similar to ones on other more open platforms like macOS or Windows.
Require code to be signed by a certificate issued to verified individuals by the government. Prosecute individuals who produce the illegal code.
There are some problems with that approach…
(1) Which government? Governments have limited jurisdictions, so, e.g., the U.S. federal government, or the State of Michigan, is going to have a hard time prosecuting a Russian citizen in Russia.
(2) Under what laws? There are a lot of things that are malware that aren’t strictly illegal, at least not yet. Laws like this aren’t easy to write, either. They almost surely need to include the element of intent, which will make them hard to use.
(3) What agency (in each country) is going to be given the responsibility *and budget* to enforce the anti-malware laws (once they exist)? You’re proposing the creating of a fairly large new bureaucracy for most places.
(4) For good reason, the justice system in most places moves slowly. Presumably, malware apps will need to be left up at least until the criminal investigation is complete and a court order can be obtained. Possibly until a guilty verdict.
It seems so much more efficient to put in some up-front barriers to malware stores.
I’ll also just point out that we have had malware problems for some time and the threat of criminal prosecution does not seem to have proven to be a deterrent, so I don’t think we can count on it now.
(1) Which government? Governments have limited jurisdictions, so, e.g., the U.S. federal government, or the State of Michigan, is going to have a hard time prosecuting a Russian citizen in Russia.
(2) Under what laws? There are a lot of things that are malware that aren’t strictly illegal, at least not yet. Laws like this aren’t easy to write, either. They almost surely need to include the element of intent, which will make them hard to use.
(3) What agency (in each country) is going to be given the responsibility *and budget* to enforce the anti-malware laws (once they exist)? You’re proposing the creating of a fairly large new bureaucracy for most places.
(4) For good reason, the justice system in most places moves slowly. Presumably, malware apps will need to be left up at least until the criminal investigation is complete and a court order can be obtained. Possibly until a guilty verdict.
It seems so much more efficient to put in some up-front barriers to malware stores.
I’ll also just point out that we have had malware problems for some time and the threat of criminal prosecution does not seem to have proven to be a deterrent, so I don’t think we can count on it now.
(1) The government that also governs your power, water, roads, etc. Maybe some sort of visa process for people who wish to "import" software.
(2) For sure new laws would need to be created, and it would be difficult.
(3) Right now that "agency" is Google and Apple, and even though it is additional bureaucracy to bring those functions into something controlled by citizens, I think that is obviously better.
(4) Let's see if we can stretch existing criminal processes into this problem domain. For severe crimes, an individual can be arrested and have to pay bail to go free. How about the allegedly illegal software has its certificate revoked and is reinstated if bail is paid? That would be for "felony"-class software; maybe just tickets and fines for misdemeanors.
> the threat of criminal prosecution does not seem to have proven to be a deterrent
I believe this is largely due to the very high levels of anonymity that are currently possible on the platforms where malware is prevalent (Win32). It is much less of a problem on the platforms where anonymity of software creators is mostly removed (iOS and Android). I think it is VERY interesting to ponder a scenario where the government removes the anonymity, rather than a corporation.
(2) For sure new laws would need to be created, and it would be difficult.
(3) Right now that "agency" is Google and Apple, and even though it is additional bureaucracy to bring those functions into something controlled by citizens, I think that is obviously better.
(4) Let's see if we can stretch existing criminal processes into this problem domain. For severe crimes, an individual can be arrested and have to pay bail to go free. How about the allegedly illegal software has its certificate revoked and is reinstated if bail is paid? That would be for "felony"-class software; maybe just tickets and fines for misdemeanors.
> the threat of criminal prosecution does not seem to have proven to be a deterrent
I believe this is largely due to the very high levels of anonymity that are currently possible on the platforms where malware is prevalent (Win32). It is much less of a problem on the platforms where anonymity of software creators is mostly removed (iOS and Android). I think it is VERY interesting to ponder a scenario where the government removes the anonymity, rather than a corporation.
The AOL walled garden approach that befits the company, and the users who can't deal with 'choice'. Decide for me what is best please!
It won't last, but by golly has it been successful. No wonder, history is replete with examples of this. Only difference is that as money continues to devalue, the nominal financial heights seem ever higher.
It won't last, but by golly has it been successful. No wonder, history is replete with examples of this. Only difference is that as money continues to devalue, the nominal financial heights seem ever higher.
Apple's lawyers screwed up, big time. It is unimaginable that a party to a lawsuit would tell the judge, "You and I have a different view." OMG. Better go in the hall right there and then, Timmy, because the person holding the "different view" is deciding your case. There are dozens of other ways to get your point across without openly disagreeing with the judge. Apple is toast.
There are dozens of other ways to get your point across without openly disagreeing with the judge. Apple is toast.
That's only true if the judge is petty and unprofessional. Sure, judges are people, and people could always give into emotions. Though I think that's a pretty big leap to say they are "toast" for disagreeing.
That's only true if the judge is petty and unprofessional. Sure, judges are people, and people could always give into emotions. Though I think that's a pretty big leap to say they are "toast" for disagreeing.
I have an inkling that the Apple legal team might have more legal expertise than someone on HN
30% of a revenue is extortion. Why should an app developer pay that fee? It's like owning almost half of a business.
Apple is the most developer hostile company.It charges $100 every year to devs for developing apps to it's platform. And additionally charge another 30% of their business. The worst thing is apps cannot use third party payments, why? Some people argue it's for security. I disagree. It's greed.
Tim Cook said it does not charge companies for services apps serves to end users e.g Uber, e-commerce, etc. Are your serious? It's like postal service saying hey we need 30% of every IPhone we deliver. Or the workers at china demanding cuts on every financial transactions that happens through the iPhone.
Some even argue devs need apple more than Apple needs devs. Do you guys know why Windows phone failed? Cos they didn't have enough devs developing enough apps. Take aways all the apps from IPhone, and what is it? A Brick.
Apple is the most developer hostile company.It charges $100 every year to devs for developing apps to it's platform. And additionally charge another 30% of their business. The worst thing is apps cannot use third party payments, why? Some people argue it's for security. I disagree. It's greed.
Tim Cook said it does not charge companies for services apps serves to end users e.g Uber, e-commerce, etc. Are your serious? It's like postal service saying hey we need 30% of every IPhone we deliver. Or the workers at china demanding cuts on every financial transactions that happens through the iPhone.
Some even argue devs need apple more than Apple needs devs. Do you guys know why Windows phone failed? Cos they didn't have enough devs developing enough apps. Take aways all the apps from IPhone, and what is it? A Brick.
If a developer's net profit margin, after dev and marketing costs, is less than 60%, then Apple makes more money on the app than the developer. 30% is outrageous.
You’re saying that 60% of 70% is less than 30%?
Doesn't seem quite right.
Users Will Pay: $100
Dev Profit per $100: $60
Apples Cut/Profit: $30/$29.99
Dev Cut/Profit: $70/$42
Users Will Pay: $100
Dev Profit per $100: $60
Apples Cut/Profit: $30/$29.99
Dev Cut/Profit: $70/$42
> Apples Cut/Profit: $30/$29.99
> Dev Cut/Profit: $70/$42
Apple's cut is $30 but their profit certainly isn't $30 minus one cent.
Obviously there's the hard cost of transactions, which includes but certainly isn't limited to merchant fees. If it's an international app, there's the currency exchange involved in selling that app in local currency, under local merchant rules. Apple also absorbs various costs caused by avoiding and dealing with fraud. The transaction could be performed with gift card, which means maintaining that network, physical manufacturing costs, retailer profit margin... I seriously doubt that Apple even breaks even on the 70% when the payment uses a gift card.
There's the work Apple does in policing their store. While it does irritate developers, the end result is that the App Store is significantly less overrun with scams and junk than it would otherwise be—which means that customers are going to be more trusting of your app than would be the case if the store was a total free-for-all.
Then of course there's a subset of consumers who discovered your app because it's in Apple's app store. Providing you these eyeballs is valuable and worth something.
And of course there are a lot of soft costs—Apple did put a lot of work into all the resources for developers. How you personally believe these should be accounted for is obviously a matter of personal opinion, but that work does cost money and has benefited developers. There's an argument to be made that some amount of it could be assigned to Apple's app store revenues.
> Dev Cut/Profit: $70/$42
Apple's cut is $30 but their profit certainly isn't $30 minus one cent.
Obviously there's the hard cost of transactions, which includes but certainly isn't limited to merchant fees. If it's an international app, there's the currency exchange involved in selling that app in local currency, under local merchant rules. Apple also absorbs various costs caused by avoiding and dealing with fraud. The transaction could be performed with gift card, which means maintaining that network, physical manufacturing costs, retailer profit margin... I seriously doubt that Apple even breaks even on the 70% when the payment uses a gift card.
There's the work Apple does in policing their store. While it does irritate developers, the end result is that the App Store is significantly less overrun with scams and junk than it would otherwise be—which means that customers are going to be more trusting of your app than would be the case if the store was a total free-for-all.
Then of course there's a subset of consumers who discovered your app because it's in Apple's app store. Providing you these eyeballs is valuable and worth something.
And of course there are a lot of soft costs—Apple did put a lot of work into all the resources for developers. How you personally believe these should be accounted for is obviously a matter of personal opinion, but that work does cost money and has benefited developers. There's an argument to be made that some amount of it could be assigned to Apple's app store revenues.
I don't really think it's unreasonable to think that the app store costs them $1 per $1000 they take in, even including all of the work you described. Tellingly, they avoided admitting to their actual margins during the hearing with EPIC.
That seems unrealistic considering credit card margins alone. Stripe will get you 2.9% + $0,30. Even if we assume Apple pays half that, it's already quite a bit more than you assume.
The physical gift card network is likely vastly more expensive. Not only are there frequent sales on these cards (I have no idea of why or how the economics of them work) but the cards need to be printed and the retailer will take a (small) cut.
Lastly, paid apps subsidise free apps. There is a ton of free apps, both from small indie devs and big businesses. They all pay $99/year. I'm pretty sure the bandwidth cost for all of Google's apps is a few orders of magnitude higher than that.
My, relatively unfounded, suspicion is that the App Store has a profit margin of around ~60%. Apple overall seems to strive for a gross profit margin of around 40% and it seems likely the App Store is doing a lot better. Of course this highly depends on what you consider part of the cost associated with the App Store.
The physical gift card network is likely vastly more expensive. Not only are there frequent sales on these cards (I have no idea of why or how the economics of them work) but the cards need to be printed and the retailer will take a (small) cut.
Lastly, paid apps subsidise free apps. There is a ton of free apps, both from small indie devs and big businesses. They all pay $99/year. I'm pretty sure the bandwidth cost for all of Google's apps is a few orders of magnitude higher than that.
My, relatively unfounded, suspicion is that the App Store has a profit margin of around ~60%. Apple overall seems to strive for a gross profit margin of around 40% and it seems likely the App Store is doing a lot better. Of course this highly depends on what you consider part of the cost associated with the App Store.
You're holding their margin % equal, but cutting 30% off revenue probably won't cut 30% off their margin costs.
In reality it's too complicated to figure with a simple formula. But, he was right if margin is a fixed cost (like, all initial development). If margin is purely an incremental cost (like network costs that increase with each sale), then he would be wrong.
In reality it's too complicated to figure with a simple formula. But, he was right if margin is a fixed cost (like, all initial development). If margin is purely an incremental cost (like network costs that increase with each sale), then he would be wrong.
Dev pays $99 each year for apple subscription. So until you make certain numbers, you are loosing money.
Every developers knows ahead of time that Apple's integrative fee for [software licenses/developer support/hosting services/customer discovery/residual goodwill/merchant costs] is 30%. Your direct competitors probably aren't getting out of a comparable fee either, so it's not like the fee is making you uniquely uncompetitive. If you can't afford to maintain an app from 70% of the top line revenue perhaps the price of your app is too low?
For decades, developers were lucky to see 50% of the retail price. More likely they'd see 20-40% after the retailer and distributor took their cut. And then this 20-40% has to pay some very expensive licenses for software development tools (we forget that these tools used to be commercial software) as well as licence fees for any toolkits you might have used (such as Unreal Engine).
For decades, developers were lucky to see 50% of the retail price. More likely they'd see 20-40% after the retailer and distributor took their cut. And then this 20-40% has to pay some very expensive licenses for software development tools (we forget that these tools used to be commercial software) as well as licence fees for any toolkits you might have used (such as Unreal Engine).
He's saying that <60% minus 30% is <30%.
Assuming Apples takes their cut from gross revenue and not margin, which I believe is true.
Assuming Apples takes their cut from gross revenue and not margin, which I believe is true.
Sales price: $100
Apple's cut: $30
Costs (including dev and mktg): $40 (60% net profit)
Profit: $30
Apple's cut: $30
Costs (including dev and mktg): $40 (60% net profit)
Profit: $30
[deleted]
Xbox, steam, google play store, Nintendo and sony are comparable. Same percentages and everything, 30% is kinda game industry standard. Game engines starting to take bigger cut too.
> Take away all the apps from iPhone and what is it? A brick
Saying that Apple needs devs more than devs need Apple is as stupid as saying the opposite. Is the same chicken/egg game. They both coexist and no one can exist without the other. Do you really think that dev can just trash iPhone apps and send a middle finger to Apple? I’ll tell you why it’s BS:
1 - iPhone users are more willing to pay for an app than android users. Given that Google take the same cut, you are just going to shoot yourself in the foot having less users.
2 - The iOS market share even if not as big as the android one, it’s still huge compared to what WS Phone was at its peak. Do you really think your app is that important that the average user is gonna buy and entire new phone (with an OS that he potentially never used) just to use your app?
3 - If you think ALL the devs can leave Apple, to invalidate pt 2, you are delusional. The moment you leave the store, another dev is just gonna eat your user base and profit from it.
The success of the platform always goes around the user base, not the developers. Developers make money from users, so the developers follow the user, not the other way around.
The success of the platform always goes around the user base, not the developers. Developers make money from users, so the developers follow the user, not the other way around.
A simple experiment will open your eyes wide.
Lets ship iPhones which cannot install any third party apps and see who goes bankrupt. Apple or the app developers?
No one with sane mind will by the iPhones. Where as devs can always make money from other platform like web.
Apple needs devs more than devs need apple. Proved !!!
Lets ship iPhones which cannot install any third party apps and see who goes bankrupt. Apple or the app developers?
No one with sane mind will by the iPhones. Where as devs can always make money from other platform like web.
Apple needs devs more than devs need apple. Proved !!!
> If Apple let developers tell users about other payment methods, Cook said later, “we would in essence give up our total return on our IP
Well you could charge developers per download. I find these arguments very audacious and entitled. Saying that developers are not entitled to profits, only apple is, with a straight face, is... remarkable
Well you could charge developers per download. I find these arguments very audacious and entitled. Saying that developers are not entitled to profits, only apple is, with a straight face, is... remarkable
With some limited amount of downloads for free bundled in apple developer subscription.
Just imagine car manufacturers demanding you to provide listing of every trip, person traveling in the car, every product delivered, so that the manufacturer can get their percentage of the value of goods and services, on top of the value of the car itself.
Hmmm.. Apple makes the phones that run only Apple's OS. Apple's OS runs apps that others create, but only Apple controls (they can dis-approve of you at any time, and can change the rules at any time). Despite paying fees and sharing revenue with Apple, that developer cannot create any other revenue for themself without also paying-off Apple.
If this isn't a monopoly, then what the hell are antitrust laws for?
If this isn't a monopoly, then what the hell are antitrust laws for?
People are too fixated on the definition of monopoly. We should just focus on anti-competitive practices.
That would solve a lot of “well at worse it’s a duopoly so you still have a choice!”. But I’ve given up on purchasable politicians to enforce antitrust on big tech a long time ago. So I don’t know how it will happen. I’d sooner expect congressional term limits which might help.
What is Apple doing that’s anti-competitive? How have consumers been harmed?
Compare it with this
> Microsoft makes gaming consoles that run only Xbox OS. Xbox OS runs apps that others create, but only Microsoft controls (they can dis-approve of you at any time, and can change the rules at any time). Despite paying fees and sharing revenue with Microsoft, that developer cannot create any other revenue for themself without also paying-off Microsoft.
Now do the same with Sony and Playstation, Nintendo and their consoles etc.
> Microsoft makes gaming consoles that run only Xbox OS. Xbox OS runs apps that others create, but only Microsoft controls (they can dis-approve of you at any time, and can change the rules at any time). Despite paying fees and sharing revenue with Microsoft, that developer cannot create any other revenue for themself without also paying-off Microsoft.
Now do the same with Sony and Playstation, Nintendo and their consoles etc.
Apple doesn’t even have 30% of the smart phone market globally how can they have a monopoly on apps? Developers can just stop developing for Apple based systems if they chose.
It is not, because Apple is not the only supplier of the said commodity (apps). And apps are not only not a basic human right, but you can easilly get them elsewhere - Google, Microsoft.. or just from the web.
What Apple is, is a private corporation with certain standards and rules for their products (which is one of the things that makes them desireable in the first place IMO). You have to obey these rules to get the benefit of their distribution platform. Millions of people end enterprises do because they believe those benefits outweight the cost and risk, us included.
Imagine I want to sell my goods at a local farmer's market. I have to get their approval, obey their rules and pay their fees. It is up to me to wage in pros and cons. We accept that as perfectly normal. If it was the only farmer's market in the country then it would become problematic.
What should happen is that this regulates through market forces. If indeed enough people are in protest of those rules so much that they start voting with their wallets elsewhere, thus hurting Apple's bottomline in a meaningful way, then the market just created pressures for Apple to change those rules.
What Apple is, is a private corporation with certain standards and rules for their products (which is one of the things that makes them desireable in the first place IMO). You have to obey these rules to get the benefit of their distribution platform. Millions of people end enterprises do because they believe those benefits outweight the cost and risk, us included.
Imagine I want to sell my goods at a local farmer's market. I have to get their approval, obey their rules and pay their fees. It is up to me to wage in pros and cons. We accept that as perfectly normal. If it was the only farmer's market in the country then it would become problematic.
What should happen is that this regulates through market forces. If indeed enough people are in protest of those rules so much that they start voting with their wallets elsewhere, thus hurting Apple's bottomline in a meaningful way, then the market just created pressures for Apple to change those rules.
> Giving users control creates risk, and Cook argued that people choose iOS specifically so they won’t have to make risky decisions with sensitive data. “We’re trying to give the customer an integrated solution of hardware, software, and services,” he said. “I just don’t think you replicate that in a third party.”
A million times this.
I own an Apple phone because I want a device that works like an appliance. I don't have to program my toaster. I don't have to worry about security risks in my washing machine. I want the same consistency and dependability in the device I communicate with. Android doesn't deliver this.
If I want to tinker with something I'll get on a Linux computer.
A million times this.
I own an Apple phone because I want a device that works like an appliance. I don't have to program my toaster. I don't have to worry about security risks in my washing machine. I want the same consistency and dependability in the device I communicate with. Android doesn't deliver this.
If I want to tinker with something I'll get on a Linux computer.
[deleted]
"While Rogers’ questions don’t necessarily indicate how she’ll rule"
Really? Here's some quotes from her:
“The gaming industry seems to be generating a disproportionate amount of money to the IP you’re giving them and everyone else”
“You don’t have competition in those in-app purchases, though,”
“It doesn’t seem to me that you feel any pressure or competition to actually change the manner in which you act to address the concerns of developers”
I suppose that doesn't say exactly how she'll rule, but it seems like there's at least some indication of how she feels about it.
Really? Here's some quotes from her:
“The gaming industry seems to be generating a disproportionate amount of money to the IP you’re giving them and everyone else”
“You don’t have competition in those in-app purchases, though,”
“It doesn’t seem to me that you feel any pressure or competition to actually change the manner in which you act to address the concerns of developers”
I suppose that doesn't say exactly how she'll rule, but it seems like there's at least some indication of how she feels about it.
>but it seems like there's at least some indication of how she feels about it.
This is not true. The judge's job is to follow pertinent line of inquiries to the case and get responses from the plaintiff and defense. Not pursuing a line of questioning might indicate that the questions were already resolved in briefs, and are therefore not needed in open court. Open court is a very, very small part of these trials, so trying to get a read on what a judge thinks based on questions in open court is spurious at best.
This is not true. The judge's job is to follow pertinent line of inquiries to the case and get responses from the plaintiff and defense. Not pursuing a line of questioning might indicate that the questions were already resolved in briefs, and are therefore not needed in open court. Open court is a very, very small part of these trials, so trying to get a read on what a judge thinks based on questions in open court is spurious at best.
What I posted weren't questions though. They are statements from the judge that don't sound like "devil's advocate" type set ups.
It applies to anything said by the judge in open court. It is intended to elicit a response from the parties. Judges don’t make comments on their thoughts out loud for the benefit of participants.
Apple should line item the 30% charge on the bill, not have it hidden.
Just to iterate my take on this trial:
If Apple either lowers fees or comes up with an API allowing alternative payment processing this all goes away I think. This is what developers care about. This isn’t really about alternative app stores, I don’t think Epic or any company cares about the distribution model ok the whole, and certainly it’s not something the average consumer is thinking about. See the lack of success with alternative app stores en masses on Android for example. It’s the payment model thers got the whole thing twisted up.
The irony here is if they just charged more for a developer license Thera based in the size of your org I think everyone would be happy, and it would compensate Apple for the lowering of the processing fees.
If it was 5% I don’t think this trial would have ever happened.
I am stilll really interested to see how this turns out
If Apple either lowers fees or comes up with an API allowing alternative payment processing this all goes away I think. This is what developers care about. This isn’t really about alternative app stores, I don’t think Epic or any company cares about the distribution model ok the whole, and certainly it’s not something the average consumer is thinking about. See the lack of success with alternative app stores en masses on Android for example. It’s the payment model thers got the whole thing twisted up.
The irony here is if they just charged more for a developer license Thera based in the size of your org I think everyone would be happy, and it would compensate Apple for the lowering of the processing fees.
If it was 5% I don’t think this trial would have ever happened.
I am stilll really interested to see how this turns out
Cook's narrative looks a lot like a dictator's political propaganda:
"Without us the world would turn into hell. Our centralized control, punishment, extortion, and dictatorship are the only way for all of us to survive. Otherwise the hell would let loose and y'all wouldn't want that. So, obey! Pay your share for our protection!"
This is absolute classic and through the whole human history this was the main narrative for dictators to defend their position. The same goes in Russia, China etc. — everywhere there is a dictator, there is this exact rhetoric. They try to scare and paint themselves as the only barrier that protects paradise from hell.
"Without us the world would turn into hell. Our centralized control, punishment, extortion, and dictatorship are the only way for all of us to survive. Otherwise the hell would let loose and y'all wouldn't want that. So, obey! Pay your share for our protection!"
This is absolute classic and through the whole human history this was the main narrative for dictators to defend their position. The same goes in Russia, China etc. — everywhere there is a dictator, there is this exact rhetoric. They try to scare and paint themselves as the only barrier that protects paradise from hell.
Lying through his greedy teeth
I will have the minority opinion here: I love having at least two Linux laptops (not to mention servers) to play with and configure just how I want them.
I also want my Apple devices to be locked down (security wise) - secure and sort-of privacy enhanced digital appliances for research programming, writing my books, and as part of my personal digital life.
I know that it can be rough on iOS and macOS devs, but I buy apps, and hopefully the extra hassles are compensated by making sufficient money.
I also want my Apple devices to be locked down (security wise) - secure and sort-of privacy enhanced digital appliances for research programming, writing my books, and as part of my personal digital life.
I know that it can be rough on iOS and macOS devs, but I buy apps, and hopefully the extra hassles are compensated by making sufficient money.
i’d like to think if Apple allowed the AppStore to be an interface/gateway to other stores, most users would be happy. similar to how RSS works, but it keeps it unified for the user.
as many people have mentioned before, one of the main reasons people choose iOS is that it removes the choice and worry about unintentionally installing malware.
opening up the AppStore like this i think would allow Apple to ease up a bit on the gouging they’ve been doing now and instead become a pro-active leader in creating a specification/platform that others can adopt.
as many people have mentioned before, one of the main reasons people choose iOS is that it removes the choice and worry about unintentionally installing malware.
opening up the AppStore like this i think would allow Apple to ease up a bit on the gouging they’ve been doing now and instead become a pro-active leader in creating a specification/platform that others can adopt.
I bet that Apple will be forced to make big changes to its App Store policies, including allowing third parties payment processing for digital goods.
But it will remain the only store on iOS.
But it will remain the only store on iOS.
I think so too, because even with those concessions app store combined with the absolute control over a billion phones is outrageously profitable.
On the other hand allowing users to use their phones as they see fit would result in huge loss of profit. Users like me would literally never pay a penny (apart from $1200 for the hardware) to Apple after that happens.
On the other hand allowing users to use their phones as they see fit would result in huge loss of profit. Users like me would literally never pay a penny (apart from $1200 for the hardware) to Apple after that happens.
As an fdroid user, this is laughable.
We need a WASM box for QT and Node running with full API access. This is the best way I can see to bypass the restrictions of the App Store.
The best way to bypass their restrictions is to stop buying Apple devices.
I somehow imagine that is a less realistic an expectation.
Why? Are you tied to Apple and unable to leave?
I don't buy Apple devices, and so am not affected by their restrictions.
I don't buy Apple devices, and so am not affected by their restrictions.
Then your preexisting boycott makes no difference to the appstore.
Yes, I'm tied to Apple and unable to leave.
Even if for the simple reason that I find other OSes and devices that run them shit in comparison.
Even if for the simple reason that I find other OSes and devices that run them shit in comparison.
Has it occured to you that maybe those other OSes and devices are shit precisely because they give unfettered access to developers/scammers/adtech on their platform?
As a user, I actually like Apple devices and iOS much better than Android, but I also want them to be more open. I want to install browser extensions freely and I want that the app distribution (quasi) duopoly gets broken. I also want full control over my phone's network activity.
Apple needs to be forced to enable alternative app stores, like Microsoft got forced to offer alternative browsers, because they will never do it on their own.
Since these issues are increasingly covered in the media and people are waking up to these issues, I am optimistic that things will change for the better in the near future.
Apple needs to be forced to enable alternative app stores, like Microsoft got forced to offer alternative browsers, because they will never do it on their own.
Since these issues are increasingly covered in the media and people are waking up to these issues, I am optimistic that things will change for the better in the near future.
I suspect this was downvoted because.... money.
This one is always funny to me, because sellers of physical goods are of course totally exempt from IAP rules, because it would be untenable otherwise.
I can type my card number directly into the Amazon app and buy a paperback without any intervention from Apple.
And yet it’s apparently insecure for me to buy a Kindle book with the exact same mechanism in the exact same app? Get the fuck out of here.