Telegram files EU antitrust complaint against Apple’s App Store(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Telegram files EU antitrust complaint against Apple’s App Store
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/07/telegram-files-eu-antitrust-complaint-against-apples-app-store/
257 comments
I don't think you get the essence of the defense.
Take New York Times. Last I checked, you can sign up online, but to cancel your subscription, you have to call and subject yourself to a slick sales pitch and all sorts of questions. It's inconvenient and borderline immoral.
One solution is, heh, the free hand / competition, but we clearly see that doesn't work all that well. A much simpler solution is to identify such behaviours and straight up outlaw that stuff. Which hasn't happened yet and probably won't for the foreseeable future.
Here's the thing: __The app store is in some ways like a government, and brings laws__. As long as that subscription were to run via the app store, you _CANNOT_ hide cancellation behind a phone number. Apple won't let you ship an app that works that way; in fact, apple does the billing.
I'm pretty sure that benefit pales in comparison to the problems that apple's sole ownership and onerous Judge Dredd-ian (judge, jury, _and_ executioner!) control over the fate of your apps on the apple app store bring.
But you paint the argument as zero cost to allowing alternate app stores, and __that is not true__.
Once alternate app stores or other enforced reduction in apple's abilities to enforce and police app store policy are in place, a bunch of apps WILL go sleazy on you where they wouldn't have otherwise.
NB: Of course, in practice, netflix etc. just do signups online, you get the same total lack of protection against sleazy stuff, and now the apps you download from the app store don't even tell you what you're supposed to do because apple won't let you explain that you need to sign up online and not in the app. Apple's solution / the current status quo sucks; probably sucks more than having alternate app stores available. All I'm saying is that having alternate app stores, whilst it brings a lot of upside, does bring downside, and that is (presumably) what the defenders of apple are trying to warn you about: Those downsides.
Take New York Times. Last I checked, you can sign up online, but to cancel your subscription, you have to call and subject yourself to a slick sales pitch and all sorts of questions. It's inconvenient and borderline immoral.
One solution is, heh, the free hand / competition, but we clearly see that doesn't work all that well. A much simpler solution is to identify such behaviours and straight up outlaw that stuff. Which hasn't happened yet and probably won't for the foreseeable future.
Here's the thing: __The app store is in some ways like a government, and brings laws__. As long as that subscription were to run via the app store, you _CANNOT_ hide cancellation behind a phone number. Apple won't let you ship an app that works that way; in fact, apple does the billing.
I'm pretty sure that benefit pales in comparison to the problems that apple's sole ownership and onerous Judge Dredd-ian (judge, jury, _and_ executioner!) control over the fate of your apps on the apple app store bring.
But you paint the argument as zero cost to allowing alternate app stores, and __that is not true__.
Once alternate app stores or other enforced reduction in apple's abilities to enforce and police app store policy are in place, a bunch of apps WILL go sleazy on you where they wouldn't have otherwise.
NB: Of course, in practice, netflix etc. just do signups online, you get the same total lack of protection against sleazy stuff, and now the apps you download from the app store don't even tell you what you're supposed to do because apple won't let you explain that you need to sign up online and not in the app. Apple's solution / the current status quo sucks; probably sucks more than having alternate app stores available. All I'm saying is that having alternate app stores, whilst it brings a lot of upside, does bring downside, and that is (presumably) what the defenders of apple are trying to warn you about: Those downsides.
> The app store is in some ways like a government, and brings laws
And just like the laws made by the government some of those laws are unjust or even stupid.
Take the hemp prohibition as an example.
It is as stupid and useless as Apple's "law" which seems to make it impossible to provide open source apps in the app store.
Take a look at UTM: https://getutm.app/
Why on earth do you have to side load such a useful app? It does not make any sense.
The "we want your safety" statement is just useful for people who do not know any better. I do not want to be patronized like this as I am a professional user. As a person with some understanding about economics I know this is about money of course but I am very interested in the outcome of this behaviour towards professionals who will turn their back on Apple when they go on like this.
Now they even managed to further decrease the value of their desktop OS - starting an app with internet connection takes literally seconds whereas they started in the blink of an eye on older versions because of their background checks. Awesome job @Apple :thumbsup:
And just like the laws made by the government some of those laws are unjust or even stupid.
Take the hemp prohibition as an example.
It is as stupid and useless as Apple's "law" which seems to make it impossible to provide open source apps in the app store.
Take a look at UTM: https://getutm.app/
Why on earth do you have to side load such a useful app? It does not make any sense.
The "we want your safety" statement is just useful for people who do not know any better. I do not want to be patronized like this as I am a professional user. As a person with some understanding about economics I know this is about money of course but I am very interested in the outcome of this behaviour towards professionals who will turn their back on Apple when they go on like this.
Now they even managed to further decrease the value of their desktop OS - starting an app with internet connection takes literally seconds whereas they started in the blink of an eye on older versions because of their background checks. Awesome job @Apple :thumbsup:
Yup, I'd certainly agree that the App Store has various consumer utilities, and even in centralizing payment it has value as a consumer; I don't really want to give out my credit card to every app and I certainly want a central place to cancel subscriptions with no bullshit.
That said, I do think that 30% is excessive. Job's original announcement [1] suggested that the App Store's 30% was the cost of running the App Store; I don't believe that it is really costing that much to run now. Reducing the payment premium and/or allowing customer choice of paying the App Store rate, or the outside the store rate is maybe the least bad option here.
It's telling that there has been no substantive movement on margin from Apple or Google here. Steam is also 30% until you reach higher tiers, then it's 25%. Epic is only 12%. I think a lot of the current concerns would be allayed if the cut was only 12%.
[1] https://youtu.be/xo9cKe_Fch8?t=212
That said, I do think that 30% is excessive. Job's original announcement [1] suggested that the App Store's 30% was the cost of running the App Store; I don't believe that it is really costing that much to run now. Reducing the payment premium and/or allowing customer choice of paying the App Store rate, or the outside the store rate is maybe the least bad option here.
It's telling that there has been no substantive movement on margin from Apple or Google here. Steam is also 30% until you reach higher tiers, then it's 25%. Epic is only 12%. I think a lot of the current concerns would be allayed if the cut was only 12%.
[1] https://youtu.be/xo9cKe_Fch8?t=212
> Once alternate app stores or other enforced reduction in apple's abilities to enforce and police app store policy are in place,
We don't need to imagine that scenario, that's Android, and Google still definitely holds massive control with it's play store rules.
> All I'm saying is that having alternate app stores, whilst it brings a lot of upside, does bring downside, and that is (presumably) what the defenders of apple are trying to warn you about: Those downsides.
So go ahead and pick your examples from the Android world.
We don't need to imagine that scenario, that's Android, and Google still definitely holds massive control with it's play store rules.
> All I'm saying is that having alternate app stores, whilst it brings a lot of upside, does bring downside, and that is (presumably) what the defenders of apple are trying to warn you about: Those downsides.
So go ahead and pick your examples from the Android world.
I think perhaps the definition of a "platform", or perhaps even organized markets like a stock exchange, is a limitation/mitering/constraint/curation of choice, if that is the right term? Versus a complete free for all. The question is how much choice?
I think a tentpole of Apple is that the billing should all flow through one source, clean and uncomplicated, along with a set guidelines of program coding/behavior. It happens to make Apple the gatekeeper, and there are deeper questions thereof, but that is the constraint inherent in the App Store.
i.e. how civil rights/discrimination law identifies how all laws are discriminatory, but which categories (i.e. race, religion, sex) are "protected" categories from discrimination/differentiation.
I think a tentpole of Apple is that the billing should all flow through one source, clean and uncomplicated, along with a set guidelines of program coding/behavior. It happens to make Apple the gatekeeper, and there are deeper questions thereof, but that is the constraint inherent in the App Store.
i.e. how civil rights/discrimination law identifies how all laws are discriminatory, but which categories (i.e. race, religion, sex) are "protected" categories from discrimination/differentiation.
> Take New York Times. Last I checked, you can sign up online, but to cancel your subscription, you have to call and subject yourself to a slick sales pitch and all sorts of questions. It's inconvenient and borderline immoral.
They asked me why I was cancelling. I said I don't really have time to get enough out of it to justify they cost. The "slick sales pitch" was to offer me a discount. I said I really don't have enough time for even that to be worth it. That was it.
I then made sure to tell him I was only cancelling the paper, not my crossword puzzle subscription, and mentioned that I realized this means that when my crossword subscription renewed (it was out of phase with my newspaper subscription) the price would be doubling because I would not longer get the 50% discount that newspaper subscribers get.
He informed me that this was not the case. Once you get the 50% of deal for the puzzle, you keep it as long as you maintain the puzzle subscription. I'd only lose it if I cancelled the puzzle, and later resubscribed while not having a newspaper subscription. I was pleasantly surprised.
They asked me why I was cancelling. I said I don't really have time to get enough out of it to justify they cost. The "slick sales pitch" was to offer me a discount. I said I really don't have enough time for even that to be worth it. That was it.
I then made sure to tell him I was only cancelling the paper, not my crossword puzzle subscription, and mentioned that I realized this means that when my crossword subscription renewed (it was out of phase with my newspaper subscription) the price would be doubling because I would not longer get the 50% discount that newspaper subscribers get.
He informed me that this was not the case. Once you get the 50% of deal for the puzzle, you keep it as long as you maintain the puzzle subscription. I'd only lose it if I cancelled the puzzle, and later resubscribed while not having a newspaper subscription. I was pleasantly surprised.
It took months of calling to get someone to cancel. Even then I still got my credit card charged. I had to cancel my card.
There is no law in US that companies need to have online cancellation if they have online signup.
NY Times loves to abuse this.
There is no law in US that companies need to have online cancellation if they have online signup.
NY Times loves to abuse this.
I disagree with you, though you have my upvote for articulating that argument well.
I don’t want Apple to act like a government. I want the government to act like a government. Why isn’t the government doing more to stop companies from employing shady sales practices? Why doesn’t the government do more to protect my 92-year-old grandmother? Why is it so hard to cancel a gym membership? We should be able to get together and say, “as a society, we want to forbid predatory sales practices.”
The Apple approach has limited efficacy anyway. Sure, my grandmother can cancel subscriptions purchased through Apple—or she could, if she knew how to make them in the first place. But no, that requires a password.
So she has free apps like Duolingo. Those apps have ads. She taps the ads. They bring her to websites. She enters her credit card number. Bam, new scam subscription that she can’t cancel.
But Duolingo carries on, displaying the same scam ads, unimpeded by Apple or any government. Duolingo probably doesn’t even know about those ads. And if they did, “that’s the ad network’s problem.”
Some people will argue that it’s difficult to write legislation that covers all the bases. Of course it is. But a private company’s contracts and guidelines are no different in that regard.
I don’t want Apple to act like a government. I want the government to act like a government. Why isn’t the government doing more to stop companies from employing shady sales practices? Why doesn’t the government do more to protect my 92-year-old grandmother? Why is it so hard to cancel a gym membership? We should be able to get together and say, “as a society, we want to forbid predatory sales practices.”
The Apple approach has limited efficacy anyway. Sure, my grandmother can cancel subscriptions purchased through Apple—or she could, if she knew how to make them in the first place. But no, that requires a password.
So she has free apps like Duolingo. Those apps have ads. She taps the ads. They bring her to websites. She enters her credit card number. Bam, new scam subscription that she can’t cancel.
But Duolingo carries on, displaying the same scam ads, unimpeded by Apple or any government. Duolingo probably doesn’t even know about those ads. And if they did, “that’s the ad network’s problem.”
Some people will argue that it’s difficult to write legislation that covers all the bases. Of course it is. But a private company’s contracts and guidelines are no different in that regard.
> I want the government to act like a government.
That's a valid point, but: the US will probably require membership cancellations to not suck eventually. EU will too, maybe even earlier then US.
Japan? Not likely. Here the enterprise is king and individual is not a priority.
Russia? I don't even want to begin with this one.
And that's only 2 localities I had experiences living in, Apple & App Store probably operates in dozens of completely different jurisdictions, brining more or less the same rules everywhere.
That's a valid point, but: the US will probably require membership cancellations to not suck eventually. EU will too, maybe even earlier then US.
Japan? Not likely. Here the enterprise is king and individual is not a priority.
Russia? I don't even want to begin with this one.
And that's only 2 localities I had experiences living in, Apple & App Store probably operates in dozens of completely different jurisdictions, brining more or less the same rules everywhere.
To be fair, if an alternative App Store was available and popular, I’d probably have to use it to download Spotify, Audible, etc. Its existence would affect me.
It would benefit in some way (like being able to subscribe to Audible in the app) but also it could be less safe (because if Amazon can, anyone else also can, possibly without supervision)
It would benefit in some way (like being able to subscribe to Audible in the app) but also it could be less safe (because if Amazon can, anyone else also can, possibly without supervision)
[deleted]
This isn't really a problem on Android, which already allows you to install apps outside the app store.
Android also has global issues with malware infections and crapware, primarily due to people downloading software from third-party app stores.
I’m not saying the apple model is how I want things (far from it), but it certainly has been effective at controlling malware on the platform.
I’m not saying the apple model is how I want things (far from it), but it certainly has been effective at controlling malware on the platform.
The problems with Android are typically caused by apps that actually make it to the official Play Store. The cause of that is poor reviewing by Google, nothing to do with OS issues.
A mac-like system for iOS would work just fine.
A mac-like system for iOS would work just fine.
Can you please tell me what app stores you're referring to, and which apps on F-Droid currently contain malware?
Here's an article from from April this year 2020
https://www.techradar.com/news/phantomlance-malware-breaches...
Dozens of malicious apps infected with the malware are being distributed via the Play Store and alternate app stores such as APKpure and APKCombo, often targeting users to spy on their habits and steal data.
According to security firm Kaspersky, this malware campaign has been live for over 4 years, and is likely the work of the OceanLotus advanced persistent threat (APT) group, thought to be based out of Vietnam.
https://www.techradar.com/news/phantomlance-malware-breaches...
Dozens of malicious apps infected with the malware are being distributed via the Play Store and alternate app stores such as APKpure and APKCombo, often targeting users to spy on their habits and steal data.
According to security firm Kaspersky, this malware campaign has been live for over 4 years, and is likely the work of the OceanLotus advanced persistent threat (APT) group, thought to be based out of Vietnam.
So its on playstores and has no relevance to alternatibe playstores or sideloadimg
> and alternate app stores such as APKpure and APKCombo
From GP’s quote directly above.
From GP’s quote directly above.
So? If it already on the pfficial appstore, its not the fault of alternative apstores.
I can tell you about an app that you might have heard of that bypassed the Google Play Store and was a security nightmare.
https://www.cnet.com/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-fo...
https://www.cnet.com/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-fo...
> Fortnite became available for Android on Aug. 9, starting with Samsung Galaxy devices, and then became available for all of Android on Aug. 12. Google brought the vulnerability to Epic Games' attention on Aug. 15. Epic Games immediately acknowledged its mistake and fixed the bug with version 2.1.0 of the launcher on Aug. 16.
Iirc the issue was that they first downloaded a file and then ran it. Thus there was a short window of time where someone can tamper with the file before it's running. Far from being a security nightmare it was a subtle flaw, and fixed quickly.
Iirc the issue was that they first downloaded a file and then ran it. Thus there was a short window of time where someone can tamper with the file before it's running. Far from being a security nightmare it was a subtle flaw, and fixed quickly.
For people who want different app stores and all the issues that go along with it can use an Android?
Good point. That might probably be the reason why Apple will be able to get away with it in the end. They’re not a monopoly and users do have a choice.
I've had no issues with F-Droid. What issues have you had?
I had enough issues with Androids over the years and switch to iPhone, I consider the slightly more "closed" ecosystem a feature, not a bug.
I work with free software too so this was a very conscious decision for me.
Run open-source software everywhere else though.
I work with free software too so this was a very conscious decision for me.
Run open-source software everywhere else though.
What do you think makes open platforms an issue for mobile phones and not an issue for other devices?
I don't believe this issues you're facing come from android being open, but from google's poor design decisions like granting network access to apps by default.
Apple can do open platforms right if it wanted. It doesn't have to do them poorly like google.
I don't believe this issues you're facing come from android being open, but from google's poor design decisions like granting network access to apps by default.
Apple can do open platforms right if it wanted. It doesn't have to do them poorly like google.
I was under the impression F-Droid only hosts free open source software?
That's the impression Wikipedia seems to give:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-Droid
So, for my use case: I want to run some proprietary software, F-Droid will be insufficient.
Happy to be proven wrong.
That's the impression Wikipedia seems to give:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-Droid
So, for my use case: I want to run some proprietary software, F-Droid will be insufficient.
Happy to be proven wrong.
Yes, however in cases like that an app store that only distributes officially signed packages and does some scanning as well as allows community to report issues should handle issues for packages that aren't open source. Nothing stopping something like that from existing if app creators wanted to start using it.
For the official/default repos, yes.
You can add custom repositories in the fdroid app, as I understand it anyone can host a repo and put whatever they like on it.
You can add custom repositories in the fdroid app, as I understand it anyone can host a repo and put whatever they like on it.
F-droid did wade into the free speech debate in relatively recent history by banning an app. I neither condone nor condemn this action but some people (probably very few given that f-droid itself is rather fringe) were probably put off by it.
Is that why I occasionally find random apk files in my downloads?
It is a problem, there’s a bunch of malware on android.
It is a problem, there’s a bunch of malware on android.
What baffles me about people attacking Apple is that they basically saying this: You first had to choose an Apple product with its restrictions over all other available devices.
You made the first choice, if the choice does not permit you to do what you want then you have made an incorrect choice. Apple did not choose you, you chose Apple.
I willingly bought my last iPhone knowing the restrictions of the App Store and it did not bother me. If it did I could have easily bought any of the Android phones or at the time Windows phones. If you bought an Apple device knowing the restriction why did you make the choice anyway?
You made the first choice, if the choice does not permit you to do what you want then you have made an incorrect choice. Apple did not choose you, you chose Apple.
I willingly bought my last iPhone knowing the restrictions of the App Store and it did not bother me. If it did I could have easily bought any of the Android phones or at the time Windows phones. If you bought an Apple device knowing the restriction why did you make the choice anyway?
>If you bought an Apple device knowing the restriction why did you make the choice anyway?
for a non-trivial amount of people because they or their peers use ios exclusive software already. There are only two major smartphone operating systems, and countless of walled gardens and exclusive features. So depending on circumstance, it's very easy to basically be forced to pick into an ecosystem.
Choice is a reasonable argument on the laptop market nowadays, the smartphone market fundamentally lacks choice and competition, at least at the ecosystem level.
for a non-trivial amount of people because they or their peers use ios exclusive software already. There are only two major smartphone operating systems, and countless of walled gardens and exclusive features. So depending on circumstance, it's very easy to basically be forced to pick into an ecosystem.
Choice is a reasonable argument on the laptop market nowadays, the smartphone market fundamentally lacks choice and competition, at least at the ecosystem level.
> What baffles me about people attacking Apple is that they basically saying this: You first had to choose an Apple product with its restrictions over all other available devices.
not necessarily - I don't have an iPhone right now and I'd still attack Apple on that. Negating me this right would be the same that saying that as a french I couldn't go to protests against Guantanamo.
not necessarily - I don't have an iPhone right now and I'd still attack Apple on that. Negating me this right would be the same that saying that as a french I couldn't go to protests against Guantanamo.
Honest question:
Why do you think people protest things in another country? I'm not saying it is a bad thing of course, but… what is the purpose?
"You made the first choice"
It's not a choice when there are very limited handset operators available.
Market power is a very real thing.
I suggest that the overwhelming majority of iOS users would opt to be able to download apps out of the App store if this were an option.
It's not a choice when there are very limited handset operators available.
Market power is a very real thing.
I suggest that the overwhelming majority of iOS users would opt to be able to download apps out of the App store if this were an option.
I don't buy iOS devices for personal use for this precise reason, so you are wrong in attributing me this "you made the first choice".
Btw, another popular argument defending Apple is "Sideloaded apps will defraud users by tricking them into giving payment information and stealing funds" - but Apple already defrauded their users by selling them the device and next blocking them from using it in any way they want.
If a user wants to run an app on iOS device, and apps developer wants a user to run this app, it should not be Apple's business to stop them from doing it.
Btw, another popular argument defending Apple is "Sideloaded apps will defraud users by tricking them into giving payment information and stealing funds" - but Apple already defrauded their users by selling them the device and next blocking them from using it in any way they want.
If a user wants to run an app on iOS device, and apps developer wants a user to run this app, it should not be Apple's business to stop them from doing it.
> If a user wants to run an app on iOS device
Which is of course possible, has been for a long long time, and doesn’t require Apple or AppStore approval. It’s even free to do if you don’t mind repeating your steps weekly.
Which is of course possible, has been for a long long time, and doesn’t require Apple or AppStore approval. It’s even free to do if you don’t mind repeating your steps weekly.
[deleted]
What baffles me about people complaining about their Apple devices being locked down - why did they buy it?
They like the hardware maybe?
Well. If they like government intervention so much and they want government’s help so they can get their perfect no tradeoff device, why not go all the way? Encourage the government to fund and create the perfect phone that meets all their needs. I’m sure all of the technologists in the EU government and US government can come up with the perfect “Five Year Plan”.
Why would an average customer want to download apps from who knows where instead of an App Store? Hey started this whole drama, they clearly did not even follow the guidelines. Why is it so hard to follow the guidelines to provide a better experience for the end user?
This is a bit subjective, but IMO the guidelines don't provide a better end user experience. Sure, some of them do. But decisions like banning apps that compete with Apple don't seem to be done to help the end user
If the guidelines are actually good for the end user, why does Apple violate so many of the app store guidelines in their own apps?
If the guidelines are actually good for the end user, why does Apple violate so many of the app store guidelines in their own apps?
I'm curious if Apple banning competing apps is a real thing or just something media/haters created to create drama. I don't have an insider looks, so I honestly cannot know how those things go down. Do you happen to know any specific details? Genuinely curious :D
It's a real thing. Take f.lux: they spearheaded a feature, were never allowed onto iOS, then Apple developed a copycat feature.
Or the browser: there is no technical reason for stopping alternative browsers from getting onto iOS, but it would make Safari commercially irrelevant.
Or the browser: there is no technical reason for stopping alternative browsers from getting onto iOS, but it would make Safari commercially irrelevant.
> Take f.lux: they spearheaded a feature, were never allowed onto iOS, then Apple developed a copycat feature.
I love the subjective memory / interpretation here. Apple didn’t block f.lux, there was no API available on iOS for it to work. Apple decided rather than provide a public API method, they’d just provide the feature itself. Sucks for f.lux, but far less than it did for LumaDisplay and Sidecar.
> there is no technical reason for stopping alternative browsers from getting onto iOS
1) alternative browsers exist on iOS. Chrome for example! Sure, you’d be fair to say “not real Chrome”, but then see point 2
2) the technical reason you claim doesn’t exist very much does. Web browsers require the ability to have dynamic code execution from untrusted sources. Look at all the OS compromises historically from browser bugs and you can potentially understand why Apple wants to try to exert control there. The counter argument of course is that Apple has also failed here, there’s been multiple jailbreaks which could be triggered by visiting a webpage, but I see Apple using that to justify their actions further (if even we can’t get it right always, no way others will). I’m not claiming that parenthetical mentality is justified, but it likely plays a part in what Apple thinks.
I love the subjective memory / interpretation here. Apple didn’t block f.lux, there was no API available on iOS for it to work. Apple decided rather than provide a public API method, they’d just provide the feature itself. Sucks for f.lux, but far less than it did for LumaDisplay and Sidecar.
> there is no technical reason for stopping alternative browsers from getting onto iOS
1) alternative browsers exist on iOS. Chrome for example! Sure, you’d be fair to say “not real Chrome”, but then see point 2
2) the technical reason you claim doesn’t exist very much does. Web browsers require the ability to have dynamic code execution from untrusted sources. Look at all the OS compromises historically from browser bugs and you can potentially understand why Apple wants to try to exert control there. The counter argument of course is that Apple has also failed here, there’s been multiple jailbreaks which could be triggered by visiting a webpage, but I see Apple using that to justify their actions further (if even we can’t get it right always, no way others will). I’m not claiming that parenthetical mentality is justified, but it likely plays a part in what Apple thinks.
I think the selective memory is not just mine... f.lux was working on iOS in 2011. Sure, they used a private API not allowed in appstore, but it worked fine - a whole 5 years before Apple released its copycat version.
As for the browser: dynamic code execution is a red herring - there are plenty of runtimes like python available on the appstore, and they execute all sorts of crap just fine. Modern browser engines are sandboxed so hard, they are equivalent to (or better than) anything you find in an OS. The security angle nowadays is just a flimsy excuse to keep Safari (the IE6 of our times) from becoming utterly irrelevant overnight.
As for the browser: dynamic code execution is a red herring - there are plenty of runtimes like python available on the appstore, and they execute all sorts of crap just fine. Modern browser engines are sandboxed so hard, they are equivalent to (or better than) anything you find in an OS. The security angle nowadays is just a flimsy excuse to keep Safari (the IE6 of our times) from becoming utterly irrelevant overnight.
Because an app is not legal in your country (ex: encrypted messaging) or because it is some app from some small developer or because you don't want to accept Apple iCloud's Terms of Service.
People justify their purchases after, not before.
iOS has never been open, though. If you bought an iOS device, then you were already fine with not being able to install whatever you wanted on it.
On the other hand, if Apple would limit MacOS in this way I would be livid.
On the other hand, if Apple would limit MacOS in this way I would be livid.
> On the other hand, if Apple would limit MacOS in this way I would be livid.
They're well on their merry way to doing exactly that.
They're well on their merry way to doing exactly that.
People have been saying that since the Mac App Store was released in 2011.
I absolutely am glad my parents don't have the choice.
I wonder if you'd think it OK if your kids thought you were not educated enough to be given a choice?
It’s not about education. Some people simply do not get how this stuff works. How difficult is it to understand it. Go on and read about how many people get scammed online or scammed via telephone using the „grand son” or „cop needs your your $1k now” trick.
Some people are easier to exploit and exploiting them online can be easy. My mother is in that group. It’s a very good feeling knowing I can tell her „just do it, as long as it is your iphone”.
Some people are easier to exploit and exploiting them online can be easy. My mother is in that group. It’s a very good feeling knowing I can tell her „just do it, as long as it is your iphone”.
>Some people are easier to exploit and exploiting them online can be easy. My mother is in that group. It’s a very good feeling knowing I can tell her „just do it, as long as it is your iphone”.
If your mother is not that "technical" do you think Apple is so incompetent they could not make the enabling of side loading complex enough so is hard for this group of people to activate it? I am just 1 person and I am thinking at possible ways to do it for 1 minute and I have some solutions, Apple could do better.
Apple could create a "kid mode" that you can enable on your less technical family members, it could require someone else to authorize "unsafe" activity. There are solutions and is obvious that if the solution is for Apple interest is always found if the solution is against Apple interest is never found.
Other solution is to allow side loading only in EU, let EU people have the choice to be scammed or tricked to install apps that use the evil GPL but keep the US citizen "safe". Apple has done a lot of things to sell in China so doing different things for different markets is not something new for them. If this happens we can also then see the numbers and determine how stupid or not are the EU citizens that unlocked their phones but I have a permonition that even if things go well in EU I will see the comments that US is special, in US it will not work.
If your mother is not that "technical" do you think Apple is so incompetent they could not make the enabling of side loading complex enough so is hard for this group of people to activate it? I am just 1 person and I am thinking at possible ways to do it for 1 minute and I have some solutions, Apple could do better.
Apple could create a "kid mode" that you can enable on your less technical family members, it could require someone else to authorize "unsafe" activity. There are solutions and is obvious that if the solution is for Apple interest is always found if the solution is against Apple interest is never found.
Other solution is to allow side loading only in EU, let EU people have the choice to be scammed or tricked to install apps that use the evil GPL but keep the US citizen "safe". Apple has done a lot of things to sell in China so doing different things for different markets is not something new for them. If this happens we can also then see the numbers and determine how stupid or not are the EU citizens that unlocked their phones but I have a permonition that even if things go well in EU I will see the comments that US is special, in US it will not work.
> Apple could create a "kid mode" that you can enable on your less technical family members, it could require someone else to authorize "unsafe" activity. There are solutions and is obvious that if the solution is for Apple interest is always found if the solution is against Apple interest is never found.
Interestingly, Apple already has 99% of this in place on iOS - if you have a "child" device in a family share account (maybe not the right word?), the "parent" has to approve even free app installs on iOS. Child hits install, it triggers a push message to the parent account to authorise the install (via touch ID/PIN).
So while it isn't quite there for authorising all unsafe activity (in fairness, maybe it is, perhaps I didn't find the options yet), but it certainly lets you control app store installs. In essence it feels like a personal version of lightweight MDM.
It would be straightforward for this to be extended to "Name wants to enable installing apps from outside the app store. This means you won't be able to approve what they install. Allow this?"
To me, if Apple were to allow sideloading, it would be controlled via this route, and manageable by MDM policies as well (so managed work devices can't run sideload apps).
Interestingly, Apple already has 99% of this in place on iOS - if you have a "child" device in a family share account (maybe not the right word?), the "parent" has to approve even free app installs on iOS. Child hits install, it triggers a push message to the parent account to authorise the install (via touch ID/PIN).
So while it isn't quite there for authorising all unsafe activity (in fairness, maybe it is, perhaps I didn't find the options yet), but it certainly lets you control app store installs. In essence it feels like a personal version of lightweight MDM.
It would be straightforward for this to be extended to "Name wants to enable installing apps from outside the app store. This means you won't be able to approve what they install. Allow this?"
To me, if Apple were to allow sideloading, it would be controlled via this route, and manageable by MDM policies as well (so managed work devices can't run sideload apps).
After thinking more about the argument that some users are naive and only Apple can prevent them installing apps that would steal their data and money I would say that this naive users could also be tricked by webpages and Apple defenders should ask for Apple to also provide a web filter and allow only Apple aproved web sites. 2
I was also reminded how in the past if you got your phone from Vodafone it would be SIM locked and after your contract expired you could not use the phone on other networks, you had to find a phone service to unlock it, I am not sure if it was a national law or EU law that demanded that unlocking should be easy to do when the contract is over(you should ask for it and you should receive a code for free). With Apple you pay for the phone, you own it but you are still locked, we need a similar law that if you own the phone you should be allowed to unlock it.
I was also reminded how in the past if you got your phone from Vodafone it would be SIM locked and after your contract expired you could not use the phone on other networks, you had to find a phone service to unlock it, I am not sure if it was a national law or EU law that demanded that unlocking should be easy to do when the contract is over(you should ask for it and you should receive a code for free). With Apple you pay for the phone, you own it but you are still locked, we need a similar law that if you own the phone you should be allowed to unlock it.
What percentage of people are like this?
We can have different edition of phones for both iOS and Android. One could be unlocked and allows side loading while the other doesn't.
Seems like an easy enough solution?
Mark the phones visibly so there is no way someone could mistake one for the other.
We can have different edition of phones for both iOS and Android. One could be unlocked and allows side loading while the other doesn't.
Seems like an easy enough solution?
Mark the phones visibly so there is no way someone could mistake one for the other.
> allows side loading
All iOS Devices allow side loading currently. You don’t even need the source to the app, you can sign any app binary (compiled yourself or from another) using a free Apple developer ID for 7 days. Don’t want to refresh every 7 days? Pay $100/year and not only can you run non-Apple approved apps for a year now, you can do the same for friends.
There’s even MacOS apps to make this trivially simple to do, even for lightly technical users.
All iOS Devices allow side loading currently. You don’t even need the source to the app, you can sign any app binary (compiled yourself or from another) using a free Apple developer ID for 7 days. Don’t want to refresh every 7 days? Pay $100/year and not only can you run non-Apple approved apps for a year now, you can do the same for friends.
There’s even MacOS apps to make this trivially simple to do, even for lightly technical users.
ballenf(3)
Ya but other people not having the choice to side load apps makes the app economy better. Seems reasonable.
I have seen many arguments, but "I like not having a choice. And I want others not having a choice too, whether they like it or not" has never been one, nor has any argument I have seen ever get close to that.
I think that Apple should allow apps to be installed from outside of the app store, but your argument is just a straw man.
I think that Apple should allow apps to be installed from outside of the app store, but your argument is just a straw man.
"Straw man"? This is a top comment in a previous thread:
As a consumer, I am 100% in favor of the way run the app store. I don't want to give random apps my credit card. I don't want to have 18 accounts to keep track of. I don't want to have to call telephone support to cancel my account. I don't want malware in my apps. I don't want apps to have my email if they don't need it. I don't need another middleman for content companies license and distribute. Everything Apple is doing is helping make a better app store for me.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24013658
I can add that he also doesn't want Chinese dissidents to run Signal or XMPP app to bypass wiretapping by the oppressive government.
As a consumer, I am 100% in favor of the way run the app store. I don't want to give random apps my credit card. I don't want to have 18 accounts to keep track of. I don't want to have to call telephone support to cancel my account. I don't want malware in my apps. I don't want apps to have my email if they don't need it. I don't need another middleman for content companies license and distribute. Everything Apple is doing is helping make a better app store for me.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24013658
I can add that he also doesn't want Chinese dissidents to run Signal or XMPP app to bypass wiretapping by the oppressive government.
Agree or disagree, none of those things in the list sounds like your "I like not having a choice." But I guess that's how you want to read them.
I am, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, for me.
Fairly certain user @spullara was talking about themselves personally.
Fairly certain user @spullara was talking about themselves personally.
a comment just a bit below yours is (unironically, sadly) :
> I'm very happy in my locked platform, I'm happy that my family are on a locked platform.
> If they (or I) want to be on a more open platform then that exists, just not for apple devcies; but for now I trust random developers less than I trust Apple.
> I'm very happy in my locked platform, I'm happy that my family are on a locked platform.
> If they (or I) want to be on a more open platform then that exists, just not for apple devcies; but for now I trust random developers less than I trust Apple.
[deleted]
"I like not having choice, so long Apple is the only choice. And I want others not having choice too, as log as Apple is their only choice, whether they like it or not."
They should at least allow optional sideloading on device versions they no longer support, e.g., "obsolete" iPhones and iPads. There should be an "official" way to "root" these devices that otherwise in effect can no longer use the AppStore (because most AppStore apps only work with the most recent iOS versions). Another idea would be to have an AppStore "archive" so older devices can still use an official AppStore.
Apple's "AppStore" is in effect a way to force obsolecence and mandate device upgrades.
They should at least allow optional sideloading on device versions they no longer support, e.g., "obsolete" iPhones and iPads. There should be an "official" way to "root" these devices that otherwise in effect can no longer use the AppStore (because most AppStore apps only work with the most recent iOS versions). Another idea would be to have an AppStore "archive" so older devices can still use an official AppStore.
Apple's "AppStore" is in effect a way to force obsolecence and mandate device upgrades.
Unpopular opinion: I see it as a little bit similar the coronavirus masks here. Your choice can potentially impact my security. (or, security of the platform).
Personally I like apple devices, I like that when I give them to my family I don't get a bunch of support questions like I do when I give them PC's or my old Android devices.
That said: I would prefer apple devices (and thus, their store) to be a minority market share, which pushes the play store to look at their own practices and increase the barrier to entry, or the standard to which applications are held.
Even my girlfriend (who is young and relatively tech savvy, though does not work in tech) has downloaded and executed virus' from the play store by mistake.
Personally I like apple devices, I like that when I give them to my family I don't get a bunch of support questions like I do when I give them PC's or my old Android devices.
That said: I would prefer apple devices (and thus, their store) to be a minority market share, which pushes the play store to look at their own practices and increase the barrier to entry, or the standard to which applications are held.
Even my girlfriend (who is young and relatively tech savvy, though does not work in tech) has downloaded and executed virus' from the play store by mistake.
if you don't install sideloaded apps, it won't impact your security in the slightest.
Or, maybe, you don't like the idea that you'll have to sideload the app you need because it isn't available in the AppStore? Hmm. Well, you'll feel a biiiiit like other people who don't have a choice under Apple's regime, with only difference that they can't run the app at all, and you can run it in a way that you don't like.
Or, maybe, you don't like the idea that you'll have to sideload the app you need because it isn't available in the AppStore? Hmm. Well, you'll feel a biiiiit like other people who don't have a choice under Apple's regime, with only difference that they can't run the app at all, and you can run it in a way that you don't like.
Context of this thread is an alternative application store;
Sideloading is still possible and is free, but you have to know what you're doing. It's a tremendous barrier to entry (your keys even expire every few days so you have to keep re-sideloading) thus people don't bother with it.
Sideloading is still possible and is free, but you have to know what you're doing. It's a tremendous barrier to entry (your keys even expire every few days so you have to keep re-sideloading) thus people don't bother with it.
Sideloading is you press a link, download app, install it (granting permissions), run it. Anything else is not sideloading.
Alternative appstore is basically same as sideloading, cause the latter is necessary for the former to function.
Btw important overlooked issue is not only sideloading per se, but unrestricted access to push notifications / subscribing to alternative push notification services. With restrictions on running in background iOS apps are next to useless without notifications - you won't get VoIP, email, chat apps working without capability to wake up on push.
Alternative appstore is basically same as sideloading, cause the latter is necessary for the former to function.
Btw important overlooked issue is not only sideloading per se, but unrestricted access to push notifications / subscribing to alternative push notification services. With restrictions on running in background iOS apps are next to useless without notifications - you won't get VoIP, email, chat apps working without capability to wake up on push.
I think we fundamentally disagree here then. :)
I'm very happy in my locked platform, I'm happy that my family are on a locked platform.
If they (or I) want to be on a more open platform then that exists, just not for apple devcies; but for now I trust random developers less than I trust Apple.
If it becomes normalised to bypass the app store, then it's going to be very difficult to control the quality of software generally; and on a macro-scale will entice even large developers (like banks) to go the 'alternative app store' route, which will force everyone to be using applications which are not vetted in a reasonable way.
I'm very happy in my locked platform, I'm happy that my family are on a locked platform.
If they (or I) want to be on a more open platform then that exists, just not for apple devcies; but for now I trust random developers less than I trust Apple.
If it becomes normalised to bypass the app store, then it's going to be very difficult to control the quality of software generally; and on a macro-scale will entice even large developers (like banks) to go the 'alternative app store' route, which will force everyone to be using applications which are not vetted in a reasonable way.
In other words, as I said in the beginning of the thread, you like not having a choice, and you do not want me to have a choice, too.
But why are you wording this as if AppStore will somehow vanish? I don't think it will be going anywhere even if some apps will start working without Apple's permission. Chances are, it'll get better if it has some real competition.
But why are you wording this as if AppStore will somehow vanish? I don't think it will be going anywhere even if some apps will start working without Apple's permission. Chances are, it'll get better if it has some real competition.
Well, very very technically; you kinda made a choice when you bought an Apple product.
It's like buying an android phone then being sour that photoshop doesn't work, I think.
As for why I'm wording it as if the AppStore will dissapear, it's because of all the reasons I laid out.
Right now it's a gate or a fence; the great filter which all must pass through; but if there exists a cheaper/easier alternative that gives the same results, why not use that? It will become incredibly normal to run the alternative app store- to the point where a lot of software will be released only to run there (which is a stated aim) and if everyone has the alternative store, why bother with Apples?
It's like buying an android phone then being sour that photoshop doesn't work, I think.
As for why I'm wording it as if the AppStore will dissapear, it's because of all the reasons I laid out.
Right now it's a gate or a fence; the great filter which all must pass through; but if there exists a cheaper/easier alternative that gives the same results, why not use that? It will become incredibly normal to run the alternative app store- to the point where a lot of software will be released only to run there (which is a stated aim) and if everyone has the alternative store, why bother with Apples?
[deleted]
Honestly, I don't see how an alternative App Store would change things for the better for most users: I'd assume that big players that don't like paying 30% to Apple would leave for other options and put a lot of marketing money to force users to switch. Remember: The thread started with a complaint filled by Telegram. So, someone who wants to use Telegram would need to use the alternate store. If there isstill an AppStore version, I'd assume it to be a "light" version heavily promoting the "PLUS" version from the financially more interesting altstore. Who would be next? Niantic? They make tons of money with IAP that are taxed by Apple. Facebook? They are known for undermining security and privacy as much as possible. How long until my mother needs to enable one or another altstore just to continue to use apps she uses right now?
Yes, for a developer or advanced user, walled gardens look bad. But we as a community need to accept that we are a small minority of users of Apple devices. I personally recommend iPhones and iPads to entry level users in my family because I know they can't mess up the device completely without knowing ... so, to be honest, because of the walled garden and the limited choices. And I accept that if I want more freedom, I have to get something else for me.
Therefore, the question isn't why someone doesn't want to give you the choice and freedom, but why you (and sometimes I, and a lot of people in our community) want to force a change to the majority of iPhone users that are perfectly happy with the current status quo. A status quo that was in place 5 to 10 years ago and was definitely in place when they bought their devices.
Yes, for a developer or advanced user, walled gardens look bad. But we as a community need to accept that we are a small minority of users of Apple devices. I personally recommend iPhones and iPads to entry level users in my family because I know they can't mess up the device completely without knowing ... so, to be honest, because of the walled garden and the limited choices. And I accept that if I want more freedom, I have to get something else for me.
Therefore, the question isn't why someone doesn't want to give you the choice and freedom, but why you (and sometimes I, and a lot of people in our community) want to force a change to the majority of iPhone users that are perfectly happy with the current status quo. A status quo that was in place 5 to 10 years ago and was definitely in place when they bought their devices.
That hasn't happened on Android, why do you think iOS will be different?
I’m wondering which legal entity has filed the complaint. Telegram has always been reluctant to provide transparency on its ownership and the legal entities in charge.
Regarding transparency, imagine the faces of the journalists who in 2018 went to check Telegram's offices in Dubai and the Aramex employees who share the floor with Telegram said they've never even seen anyone enter Telegram's office spaces. Apparently Telegram's registered in Dubai just to evade taxes.
Source? Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1chIByzDhsg
Telegram supposedly doesn't make a profit, but not having to pay corporate taxes also allows them to hide their profits. Where are they working from? How many employees are there? Also given that they had to return their ICO money and pay 18M USD in fines[1], how are they funding the supposedly free app when [2] estimates the running costs of the app are about 200M USD / year?
[1] https://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/icos/sec-orde...
[2] https://www.businessofapps.com/data/telegram-statistics/
Source? Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1chIByzDhsg
Telegram supposedly doesn't make a profit, but not having to pay corporate taxes also allows them to hide their profits. Where are they working from? How many employees are there? Also given that they had to return their ICO money and pay 18M USD in fines[1], how are they funding the supposedly free app when [2] estimates the running costs of the app are about 200M USD / year?
[1] https://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/icos/sec-orde...
[2] https://www.businessofapps.com/data/telegram-statistics/
if you're serious, then it's because of Pavel Durov's personal wealth.
if you're unfamiliar Pavel Durov created VK, which is a 'facebook-like' for Russia, although it's a bit more advanced than facebook, promoting piracy and some other stuff that wouldn't fly in the USA.
The Putin administration demanded Durov give access to personal data on the platform, Durov declined, went into self-imposed exile and the state confiscated his company. No VK is owned by the russian government, but Durov still had an enourmous personal wealth, something in the amount of 3 billion USD.
He started Telegram in exile from Russia in hopes of eventually making himself famous for being a free speech advocate, then using that fame to make money in other areas.
You can see his attempts with the TON blockchain thing and the new gaming platform. Adoption of telegram is failing, and his attempts at using telegram as a platform to gain wealth is also failing.
if you're unfamiliar Pavel Durov created VK, which is a 'facebook-like' for Russia, although it's a bit more advanced than facebook, promoting piracy and some other stuff that wouldn't fly in the USA.
The Putin administration demanded Durov give access to personal data on the platform, Durov declined, went into self-imposed exile and the state confiscated his company. No VK is owned by the russian government, but Durov still had an enourmous personal wealth, something in the amount of 3 billion USD.
He started Telegram in exile from Russia in hopes of eventually making himself famous for being a free speech advocate, then using that fame to make money in other areas.
You can see his attempts with the TON blockchain thing and the new gaming platform. Adoption of telegram is failing, and his attempts at using telegram as a platform to gain wealth is also failing.
Regardless of his seriousness, I appreciated this background.
" if you're serious, then it's because of Pavel Durov's personal wealth."
Any source on the amount?
"if you're unfamiliar Pavel Durov created VK"
Ah I see, what's the business VK is on? How did Pavel Durov make his money? Did he spy on VK users and display targeted ads like Facebook does? If, is it a good idea to trust him after that?
"went into self-imposed exile"
He returned to Russia two months later once the (possibly bogus) charges on driving over police officer's foot were dropped.
"something in the amount of 3 billion USD."
Source?
"in hopes of eventually making himself famous for being a free speech advocate"
So he set up to create a service that
* by default allows the server to see the content of all chats,
* that allows the server to always see the content of all group chats, and
* that allows the server to always see the content of all Windows/Linux desktop clients.
It's OK to be for free speech, but achieving that requires privacy for the activists, and Telegram is anything but.
"then using that fame to make money in other areas."
Are these business dealings public knowledge? Does Telegram publish anything regarding their business. I'd like to see if the records show that he indeed is not selling user data behind everyone's backs.
"his attempts at using telegram as a platform to gain wealth is also failing"
My concern is mainly, when there's so much valuable data that gets accumulated daily, what if he changes Telegram's business model once he runs out of money and it's time to cash in.
Any source on the amount?
"if you're unfamiliar Pavel Durov created VK"
Ah I see, what's the business VK is on? How did Pavel Durov make his money? Did he spy on VK users and display targeted ads like Facebook does? If, is it a good idea to trust him after that?
"went into self-imposed exile"
He returned to Russia two months later once the (possibly bogus) charges on driving over police officer's foot were dropped.
"something in the amount of 3 billion USD."
Source?
"in hopes of eventually making himself famous for being a free speech advocate"
So he set up to create a service that
* by default allows the server to see the content of all chats,
* that allows the server to always see the content of all group chats, and
* that allows the server to always see the content of all Windows/Linux desktop clients.
It's OK to be for free speech, but achieving that requires privacy for the activists, and Telegram is anything but.
"then using that fame to make money in other areas."
Are these business dealings public knowledge? Does Telegram publish anything regarding their business. I'd like to see if the records show that he indeed is not selling user data behind everyone's backs.
"his attempts at using telegram as a platform to gain wealth is also failing"
My concern is mainly, when there's so much valuable data that gets accumulated daily, what if he changes Telegram's business model once he runs out of money and it's time to cash in.
I think giving ability to download apps outside of App Store would break the entire business model that Apple has, because app owners will use other subscription providers and payment options with cheaper fees, but on the other hand there would be a huge problem with Scam apps or cracked versions. So it's not going to happen anyway...
I think one of the reasoning Telegram is giving is good though. If protesters in HK are using Telegram to communicate and Apple removes it from the App Store then they have no recourse of installing it.
I guess giving a way like in Android where you hide the setting behind a flag in settings and explicitly keep warning the user when they install an app from outside is a decent middle ground.
I am not sure of this but I think recent version of either Android/Pixel do a check on apps even installed from outside for malicious activity.
I guess giving a way like in Android where you hide the setting behind a flag in settings and explicitly keep warning the user when they install an app from outside is a decent middle ground.
I am not sure of this but I think recent version of either Android/Pixel do a check on apps even installed from outside for malicious activity.
I agree. plus, isnt it the case for Mac? you can install apps from other places.
If Apple allowed sideloading of apps it would mirror the Mac. Where apps are still approved by Apple in order to be signed. And unsigned apps are by default not allowed to be opened.
This would not change the situation in HK where China could simply force Apple not to sign the Telegram app and instead sign their fake Telegram app.
This would not change the situation in HK where China could simply force Apple not to sign the Telegram app and instead sign their fake Telegram app.
Can't you install unsigned apps on macs?
You can still run unsigned apps on macOS, either by clicking through pop-ups or (at worst) by disabling Gatekeeper.
By default to run an unsigned app you need to right-click on the app and select Open. Then it will present a dialog asking whether to ignore the signing. Otherwise there is no option.
Very few people know about this.
Very few people know about this.
I know (I've been on mac for more than a decade, arguably as a power-user), and anybody who needs to know can google it in 5 seconds. Also, gatekeeper can be completely disabled from the command line, and then you don't get even that pop-up and you can run stuff unsigned.
An arrangement like this would work fine on iOS too.
There is no technical motive behind Apple's refusal to allow sideloading. It's simply a monopolistic power-play.
An arrangement like this would work fine on iOS too.
There is no technical motive behind Apple's refusal to allow sideloading. It's simply a monopolistic power-play.
Can you define "huge"? Android enables that possibility, so a good randomized sample to prove the point: how huge is that problem in the android world, as in, how many millions of vulnerated devices and users are out there? How many millions of installs these "scam stores/apps" have?
It's a genuine questions since it's likely someone in hn can provide some peer reviewed data.
It's a genuine questions since it's likely someone in hn can provide some peer reviewed data.
Apple performs scan of all uploaded applications to check that they're not using private APIs. I might be wrong, but I think that unrestricted use of private APIs might result in broken security model. So allowing users to install any apps might affect security.
Probably better approach would be to develop better web APIs, so Telegram could be run in a browser with identical experience.
Probably better approach would be to develop better web APIs, so Telegram could be run in a browser with identical experience.
> run in a browser with identical experience.
That would enable secret chats on desktop, so I am in.
That would enable secret chats on desktop, so I am in.
Telegram Web (https://web.telegram.org/) has existed for ages. There's no technical reason that it couldn't support secret chats; it's just been neglected by the Telegram developers.
I don't see the problem. Spam and scam apps still make their way on to the Mac and iOS App Stores, and I'm sure that other app stores can use the 30% cut (or less) more efficiently compared to how Apple or Google uses it to run their app stores.
scam apps are pretty rare on the app store to be honest.
I don't mind apple providing an official, supported by default, highly curated app store. But that shouldn't be the only way to install software.
On the other hand, there is one ecosystem which i wonder is comparable : the playstation one. Can you release a game on that console without explicit whiteflagging by sony ?
I don't mind apple providing an official, supported by default, highly curated app store. But that shouldn't be the only way to install software.
On the other hand, there is one ecosystem which i wonder is comparable : the playstation one. Can you release a game on that console without explicit whiteflagging by sony ?
> On the other hand, there is one ecosystem which i wonder is comparable : the playstation one. Can you release a game on that console without explicit whiteflagging by sony ?
Nope. And the same goes for virtually all of the major video game consoles -- Xbox, Playstation, and Nintendo's various consoles are all closed systems, with significantly more stringent rules than anything in the mobile market. In many cases, even starting to develop an application for the console requires the prior approval of the manufacturer.
Nope. And the same goes for virtually all of the major video game consoles -- Xbox, Playstation, and Nintendo's various consoles are all closed systems, with significantly more stringent rules than anything in the mobile market. In many cases, even starting to develop an application for the console requires the prior approval of the manufacturer.
The App Store is only one piece of Apple's business model. They also earn significant profits from hardware sales (including seriously overpriced accessories), extended warranties, and content licensing.
you mean that OSX users are cracking apps a lot? or they get scammed all the time? IMO the OSX security feels more sane for me, you let power users to decide if they want to allow apps to do "dangerous" things and you give the option for users to run stuff they downloaded or they wrote.
Joining Spotify and Rakuten. Honestly hope there'll be more to come. The recent situation with Google and Danish record companies being in a stand-off and Google deleting Danish music from YouTube shows how bad things can get if left unchecked.
two different issues. Google is not deleting Danish music, just blocking them in Denmark. Because they don't want to agree on the higher costs for the rights. The topic is rather complex but honestly, I think the issue is not really YouTube but the contracts between musicians and record labels, if those were more fair musicians would earn a lot more, even if YouTube paid less to the record companies. But this rather off-topic.
My understanding of the matter is that while KODA and Google were negotiating, Google insisted their cut be raised with 80% until they reach a new agreement at an unknown date in the future.
I would also be wary of letting the other party in a negotiation create strong incentives to never reach a new mutually beneficial agreement.
I would also be wary of letting the other party in a negotiation create strong incentives to never reach a new mutually beneficial agreement.
Through the App Store Apple make sure IOS apps are high quality, which won't be possible if developers start publishing apps all over the place. The fee is too high, that's a fact and that's the problem. The fact that you cannot download apps outside of the App Store is not the problem
It's worth it to be able to download actual Firefox / Chrome / PPSSPP / PornHub / etc on iOS since Apple bans them for no reason
So exactly what would a Pornhub app do that you can’t do from the website?
Can I buy porn from most mainstream retailers?
Can I buy porn from most mainstream retailers?
It would depend on your definition of porn of course, but at least in Germany you can get pornographic magazines at lots of kiosks/stores, especially the bigger ones
I’m really trying to be respectful and being careful about the rabbit hole that this question could go down....
But by “porn” do you mean Playboy level nudity or more hard core?
But by “porn” do you mean Playboy level nudity or more hard core?
In most European countries, hardcore is typically on sale anywhere you can buy a newspaper or magazine.
It’s definitely not like that in the US.
> So exactly what would a Pornhub app do that you can’t do from the website?
Well, we don't know. But porn has historically been at the forefront of digital technology, so maybe some investment in sectors like AR and VR is being held back by the fact that Apple would never allow porn-related apps.
Well, we don't know. But porn has historically been at the forefront of digital technology, so maybe some investment in sectors like AR and VR is being held back by the fact that Apple would never allow porn-related apps.
We should know because Android is much more open and they would have the opportunity to create their dream app. Where are the great porn apps for Android?
It's well-known that the real money in apps is in iOS, which dominates the top-end of the market. The AppStore makes much more profit than the Play Store despite being on 1 device for every 4 Android ones. In that situation, if you have no access to the most lucrative audience, it makes sense not to invest into apps at all.
It's also not trivial to install Android apps outside the Play Store, for non-geeks.
It's also not trivial to install Android apps outside the Play Store, for non-geeks.
We are talking about porn. Do you know the lengths that people will go to see it? That would be a killer app. Heck Pornhub could sell a custom Android device just for that one killer product. Anyone who has a modicum of capital can get a run of customized AOSP based devices to resell.
I bet there is a reason. Not following guidelines is a good enough reason
Note that the Telegram messaging app is free, with no in-app purchases or premium membership. They are paying Apple only the annual developer program membership.
> Telegram said that in 2016 Apple restricted the messaging app from launching a gaming platform on the grounds that it went against App Store rules.
Ok, so they wanted to launch their own game store, basically? And what would their business model have been?
> In its complaint, Telegram took issue with Apple’s argument that the App Store commission keeps it running.
Why do I doubt that they were going to offer their gaming platform at-cost?
> Telegram said that in 2016 Apple restricted the messaging app from launching a gaming platform on the grounds that it went against App Store rules.
Ok, so they wanted to launch their own game store, basically? And what would their business model have been?
> In its complaint, Telegram took issue with Apple’s argument that the App Store commission keeps it running.
Why do I doubt that they were going to offer their gaming platform at-cost?
You must be unfamiliar with telegram. They were going to offer their gaming platform for free.
Their "gaming platform" was on the same level as early Facebook Games, except a decade too late -- little dinky HTML5 games you could play in group chats. It was never going to be a major source of profit even if Apple hadn't blocked it.
The fact that something is free to you does not mean no one is paying.
Telegram is also open source.
I don’t know if you are seeking to counter my point, but open source seems orthogonal to expenses associated with maintaining infrastructure, ongoing development, reviewing massive amounts of UGC and so on.
I was under the impression you were trying to indicate that just because Telegram is free, that it's users are paying one way or another. However, agreed that Telegram does end up paying for backend costs but the app could be modified to utilize a different backend.
here is what article says:
> Telegram, which has been used by demonstrators—most notably in Hong Kong—and drawn attacks from governments including China, has previously accused Apple of blocking updates as it faced mounting pressure in Russia. A two-year ban in the country for Telegram has recently been lifted.
I guess they want easier access to application in countries that telegram is banned and apple is helping
> Telegram, which has been used by demonstrators—most notably in Hong Kong—and drawn attacks from governments including China, has previously accused Apple of blocking updates as it faced mounting pressure in Russia. A two-year ban in the country for Telegram has recently been lifted.
I guess they want easier access to application in countries that telegram is banned and apple is helping
They can file complaints but that's not going to change much. If the EC decides to bring a case against Apple they will have the herculean task of arguing to the courts that Apple is dominant with less than 25% share of the smartphone market. I'm willing to bet it will be a repeat of the EC's state aid case.
I pay premium for their hardware cause I want to use their software. yet even after I bought it - I somehow dont own it. Im not renting iphone - they have no business telling me which apps to install. market share should be irrelevant in this argument - this is my devise.
But when you bought it, you knew of those restrictions, right?
A fully unrestricted phone might have cost more (because it is not cross subsidized by App Store profit), so it is unfair to demand full functionality at the subsidized price.
A fully unrestricted phone might have cost more (because it is not cross subsidized by App Store profit), so it is unfair to demand full functionality at the subsidized price.
How can you seriously argue that iPhones are "subsidized by AppStore profit", when one division pulls in 40%+ of Apple profits and the other barely 15% (and not even alone - appstore profits get added with iCloud and others under "Services" in Apple reports; realistically, it's probably 10% at best)...?
It's iPhones that subsidize everything else, including the AppStore. For all their talk of "going services", Apple is still first and foremost a hardware company.
It's iPhones that subsidize everything else, including the AppStore. For all their talk of "going services", Apple is still first and foremost a hardware company.
I’m not doubting the facts you mention and the amount of the hypothetical subsidy might be on average in the low two digit dollar range.
The overall point is however that the App Store restriction was known at the time of purchase, so demanding to remove it without compensation is unfair.
(What would you say if your employer or client demands to pay a bit less after signing a contract with you?)
(What would you say if your employer or client demands to pay a bit less after signing a contract with you?)
> I’m not doubting the facts you mention
That's because they are facts. I mean, look up Apple reports, they are very readable.
> and the amount of the hypothetical subsidy
There is no such subsidy! Why would you "subsidize" something that makes 3-4 times as much money as you do...? The AppStore didn't even exist and the iPhone was already making money!
> The overall point is however that the App Store restriction was known at the time of purchase
Key point being was. One can just demand that new phones be sold without this restriction, if you really want to stick to the old rules.
> What would you say if your employer or client demands to pay a bit less
The government can mandate that your employer should pay you less from today, or even that it should pay you more for stuff done in the past (although retroactivity in law is pretty bad, it is still occasionally applied). Laws change every day, all over the world. Stuff that was legal yesterday might not be tomorrow, that's just a fact of life. And let's not even get into clients: cutting prices, credit notes, and discounts, are just the price of doing business and happen every minute of every day.
That's because they are facts. I mean, look up Apple reports, they are very readable.
> and the amount of the hypothetical subsidy
There is no such subsidy! Why would you "subsidize" something that makes 3-4 times as much money as you do...? The AppStore didn't even exist and the iPhone was already making money!
> The overall point is however that the App Store restriction was known at the time of purchase
Key point being was. One can just demand that new phones be sold without this restriction, if you really want to stick to the old rules.
> What would you say if your employer or client demands to pay a bit less
The government can mandate that your employer should pay you less from today, or even that it should pay you more for stuff done in the past (although retroactivity in law is pretty bad, it is still occasionally applied). Laws change every day, all over the world. Stuff that was legal yesterday might not be tomorrow, that's just a fact of life. And let's not even get into clients: cutting prices, credit notes, and discounts, are just the price of doing business and happen every minute of every day.
Not op, but no. However I'm not talking about the phones, not directly.
I write code for a living, and has had a MBP as my work machine for more than s decade, but each version is a worse experience for me.
Some hyperbole follows, but you know, I'm so, so, so fed up with this crap.
More code signing, triple click and spin around the Christmas tree to install an application, notarization, more things that you have turn off to be able to get things done, all of which essentially leaves me with a less secure computer since more and more of the security is based on the same things that makes using this +2000$ tool worse each iteration. The amazing time machine they were so proud of, isn't available for sale. The revolutionary magsafe, which I love, and as a contractor has saved my computer more than once, isn't en vogue any more. Keyboards that doesn't work.
One can't even just use the old version, as you are essentially forced to update the os/software, because things just stop working if you don't, and the nag screens never stop
However, changing platforms is not easy, or cheap. This wasn't anything that was easy to predict +10 years ago.
But then the iPhone, other mobile devices, and the app store started to pull in all the money. Since a few years, each release is a downgrade, but where to go?
People lauded Windows 10 for being so slick, but you essentially can't get the thing to not show random popups, nag you about "wrong live password", and just randomly reboot because it's decided you're not allowed to work right now, because this update has to run. Administration tools spread over 10 different apps and screens of various kinds.
Linux gives me heartache, most is not much different from when I ran Gentoo +10 years ago. Pseudo gui apps abounds, clipboard almost works, but there are 27 window managers, 97 different docks, oh, yes, seven different package managers that all really wants to be the only true package manager. Getting fonts to render readably in the majority of apps on a 4k screen was probably not more then a few days work. So many terrible apps. The kernel is of course rock solid, but no, still no drivers for many graphics cards, ati is quite good I heard, but exactly which card to buy? Touchpad support is also wonky, but it's like three guys mostly in their spare time, so that's not strange.
But no, I really didn't think the company that had been obsessed with user centricity and hci would stop caring about anything but the bank account, and which new fancy toy to try to entice people to buy. Making phones that are practically made to be easy to drop due to non-existent tactile feedback.
This year was the first year you could buy a non Apple machine with a touchpad that actually works. Embarrassing is what it is.
But no it's not a monopoly in one way, it's three different options that each are terrible in its own way.
Clearly, the market is not working. As everyone only tries to build walls around their piece of the cake instead of actually competing. While not a monopoly in name, the platforms are monopolies in anything but, because the cost, in time, skill, and money of changing platform is so high.
I write code for a living, and has had a MBP as my work machine for more than s decade, but each version is a worse experience for me.
Some hyperbole follows, but you know, I'm so, so, so fed up with this crap.
More code signing, triple click and spin around the Christmas tree to install an application, notarization, more things that you have turn off to be able to get things done, all of which essentially leaves me with a less secure computer since more and more of the security is based on the same things that makes using this +2000$ tool worse each iteration. The amazing time machine they were so proud of, isn't available for sale. The revolutionary magsafe, which I love, and as a contractor has saved my computer more than once, isn't en vogue any more. Keyboards that doesn't work.
One can't even just use the old version, as you are essentially forced to update the os/software, because things just stop working if you don't, and the nag screens never stop
However, changing platforms is not easy, or cheap. This wasn't anything that was easy to predict +10 years ago.
But then the iPhone, other mobile devices, and the app store started to pull in all the money. Since a few years, each release is a downgrade, but where to go?
People lauded Windows 10 for being so slick, but you essentially can't get the thing to not show random popups, nag you about "wrong live password", and just randomly reboot because it's decided you're not allowed to work right now, because this update has to run. Administration tools spread over 10 different apps and screens of various kinds.
Linux gives me heartache, most is not much different from when I ran Gentoo +10 years ago. Pseudo gui apps abounds, clipboard almost works, but there are 27 window managers, 97 different docks, oh, yes, seven different package managers that all really wants to be the only true package manager. Getting fonts to render readably in the majority of apps on a 4k screen was probably not more then a few days work. So many terrible apps. The kernel is of course rock solid, but no, still no drivers for many graphics cards, ati is quite good I heard, but exactly which card to buy? Touchpad support is also wonky, but it's like three guys mostly in their spare time, so that's not strange.
But no, I really didn't think the company that had been obsessed with user centricity and hci would stop caring about anything but the bank account, and which new fancy toy to try to entice people to buy. Making phones that are practically made to be easy to drop due to non-existent tactile feedback.
This year was the first year you could buy a non Apple machine with a touchpad that actually works. Embarrassing is what it is.
But no it's not a monopoly in one way, it's three different options that each are terrible in its own way.
Clearly, the market is not working. As everyone only tries to build walls around their piece of the cake instead of actually competing. While not a monopoly in name, the platforms are monopolies in anything but, because the cost, in time, skill, and money of changing platform is so high.
Then you made that choice when there was an alternate choice available.
> Meanwhile, the expenses required to host and review these apps are in the tens of millions, not billions of dollars. We know that because we at Telegram host and review more public content than the App Store ever will.
That’s some hyperbole from Telegram. How big is the App Store engineering and review team? I don’t know, but one report had at least 300 reviewers alone[1]. Add devops, engineering, management...this is easily a team of 500 people, almost certainly more. And then you’ve got to add hardware and opex costs.
Does Telegram seriously believe a team of that size costs “tens of millions”? Because I’ve never seen a project of that size and complexity come in at that level.
[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/21/how-apples-app-review-proces...
That’s some hyperbole from Telegram. How big is the App Store engineering and review team? I don’t know, but one report had at least 300 reviewers alone[1]. Add devops, engineering, management...this is easily a team of 500 people, almost certainly more. And then you’ve got to add hardware and opex costs.
Does Telegram seriously believe a team of that size costs “tens of millions”? Because I’ve never seen a project of that size and complexity come in at that level.
[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/21/how-apples-app-review-proces...
Whatever the true cost is, the argument is spurious: Apple is not forced to provide this service at cost (or with a “reasonable” markup), they can charge in any case what they want.
Telegram should rather make a convincing argument why Apple should be considered a monopolist, which is not clear to me given the overall <30% market share of Apple in the phone market.
Telegram should rather make a convincing argument why Apple should be considered a monopolist, which is not clear to me given the overall <30% market share of Apple in the phone market.
You don't get to charge what you want when your platform approaches monopoly in a market.
The trick is defining the market. Apple already has 90+% market share in many less broadly defined markets - e.g. for young consumers, or in higher priced apps - and what happens depends on who successfully segments the market in the eyes of regulators.
The trick is defining the market. Apple already has 90+% market share in many less broadly defined markets - e.g. for young consumers, or in higher priced apps - and what happens depends on who successfully segments the market in the eyes of regulators.
By gerrymandering the market definition you can make any company a monopoly. McDonalds is not a restaurant: it’s a burger parlor. No wait, a fast-food burger parlor. With a clown mascot. All who depend on clown-themed burgers are under their bootheel. Watch out, your startup might be a monopoly too.
Imagine a town of 50 people with only one restaurant: a mc donalds. The next town is three hours away and only has a burger king. You can move there, but it's pretty inconvenient.
Imagine a residential building that has only one coffee shop on its ground floor. The next coffee shop is across the road, you can go there, but it's pretty inconvenient.
Inconvenience is not a word in a definition of monopoly.
Inconvenience is not a word in a definition of monopoly.
You don't get to arbitrarily redefine the market until you hit your desired threshold either. The courts will typically consider whether the consumer has reasonable access to alternatives to your product. Which in the case of Apple, there definitely are.
> whether the consumer has reasonable access to alternatives
No, because in this case the alternative is not another phone but another app store.
No, because in this case the alternative is not another phone but another app store.
The apps available are part of the purchasing decision of which phone to buy, just like which games are available are part of the purchasing decision of which console to buy. You don't get to buy an Xbox and then demand to be able to play Mario Kart on it.
This isn't a valid analogy. A more appropriate one would be if Nintendo wanted to release Mario kart on the Xbox but Microsoft refused to allow them unless Nintendo gave them 30% of the revenue from it.
You realize that's actually the case, right? If Nintendo wanted to publish Mario Kart on the Xbox they would have to sign a publisher agreement with Microsoft and pay a royalty for every copy of Mario Kart sold on the Xbox.
Why do you think that I as consumer need another app store? What if I hate app stores and I don't want to download your weekly editions of "bug fixes and performance improvements" and just want a working mobile-friendly web app? Telegram is pretty much the same whether it's a native app or a web app to me.
Being a monopoly is NOT illegal. It seems many people think once a company has a monopoly, they need to be broken into separate pieces. This is fiction. A monopoly would only be illegal if a business uses its monopoly power to stifle competition.
This is not the legal principal in the EU, where the case is raised.
Mere exclusive purchase would be a problem if Apple is defined as a monopoly, and you are forced to use Apple as your vendor to release on iOS.
Mere exclusive purchase would be a problem if Apple is defined as a monopoly, and you are forced to use Apple as your vendor to release on iOS.
My last course in competition law was a while ago, but I remember this: while there are many differences in detail between the US and the EU approach, the broad strokes are the same.
Also in the EU, having a monopoly is not illegal (as long as it was obtained fairly) - abuse of monopoly power is.
Surely being a monopolist means you are subject to additional rules, no doubt about that.
Also in the EU, having a monopoly is not illegal (as long as it was obtained fairly) - abuse of monopoly power is.
Surely being a monopolist means you are subject to additional rules, no doubt about that.
I could be wrong, but I think Telegram's lawyers are advancing on the grounds of anti-trust, not necessarily anti-monopoly. Which, as you correctly point out, would require convincing a court that a company with a minority market share is a monopoly. (Apple doesn't even have a threatening minority. They have maybe 25% if that.)
In any case, I think they can make a convincing argument that Apple is operating as an illegal trust. (If you alter the historical definition of "Trust" a bit.) I think that's more what they are going for here.
Whether the court will buy it? We'll see? I certainly would not plan on a win if I were Telegram, but it's worth a shot.
In any case, I think they can make a convincing argument that Apple is operating as an illegal trust. (If you alter the historical definition of "Trust" a bit.) I think that's more what they are going for here.
Whether the court will buy it? We'll see? I certainly would not plan on a win if I were Telegram, but it's worth a shot.
100% of apps installed on iOS are through the iOS lockdown walled garden app store. This is monopoly bundling by definition.
It' doesn't matter than they're only ~11% marketshare of smartphones sold.
It' doesn't matter than they're only ~11% marketshare of smartphones sold.
And how do you reconcile online stores for software businesses e.g. Atlassian, Github, Shopify ?
I can't install addons without going through their "app store".
I can't install addons without going through their "app store".
Forget about app stores. You probably can't get your branded products into Trader Joe's, but nobody's calling them a monopoly.
To be fair, Trader Joe's or any other store does not require me to go through them, without any other alternative, every time I want to modify or use in new ways my stuff after I bought it.
> This is monopoly bundling by definition.
We've been having this debate for the better part of the last decade because whether this constitutes a monopoly really isn't clear as either side insists that it is. There's not much precedent for this specific kind of maybe-monopoly out there, and it's unclear to me whether the semi-precedents I can think of really support the notion that the App Store is a monopoly.
Also, as people have pointed out elsewhere, a monopoly is not in and of itself illegal. European antitrust law focuses on anti-competitive behavior, but American antitrust law focuses on perceived consumer harm. Look at antitrust suits against Apple's iBooks from years ago -- Apple's collusion with publishers was to break Amazon's de facto monopoly on ebooks. Giving pricing control back to publishers would have increased competition, but it would have raised prices for consumers, and that was what the courts cared about.
And this is actually a big thorn in the side of American antitrust action against Apple's app store. We can shout "walled garden" all we want (although I am getting super tired of that phrase, so let's not), but you need to find cases where this harmed consumers, not developers. Developers can line up around the block saying that Apple's policies are destroying their business, but unless America changes our standard of antitrust to be more like Europe's, that simply doesn't matter. Those cases are arguably out there -- I keep coming back to Apple's store policies that force Amazon to release a Kindle app that not only won't let you purchase books but can't even tell you a URL to go to -- but on the whole, this is a relatively high bar.
We've been having this debate for the better part of the last decade because whether this constitutes a monopoly really isn't clear as either side insists that it is. There's not much precedent for this specific kind of maybe-monopoly out there, and it's unclear to me whether the semi-precedents I can think of really support the notion that the App Store is a monopoly.
Also, as people have pointed out elsewhere, a monopoly is not in and of itself illegal. European antitrust law focuses on anti-competitive behavior, but American antitrust law focuses on perceived consumer harm. Look at antitrust suits against Apple's iBooks from years ago -- Apple's collusion with publishers was to break Amazon's de facto monopoly on ebooks. Giving pricing control back to publishers would have increased competition, but it would have raised prices for consumers, and that was what the courts cared about.
And this is actually a big thorn in the side of American antitrust action against Apple's app store. We can shout "walled garden" all we want (although I am getting super tired of that phrase, so let's not), but you need to find cases where this harmed consumers, not developers. Developers can line up around the block saying that Apple's policies are destroying their business, but unless America changes our standard of antitrust to be more like Europe's, that simply doesn't matter. Those cases are arguably out there -- I keep coming back to Apple's store policies that force Amazon to release a Kindle app that not only won't let you purchase books but can't even tell you a URL to go to -- but on the whole, this is a relatively high bar.
100% of lemonade sold on my front lawn is sold through my lemonade stand. Is that a monopoly too? Of course not, because it's not representative of the overall market and the alternative choices the consumer has.
> It' doesn't matter than they're only ~11% marketshare of smartphones sold.
It very much does, because it means the consumer can choose to buy an alternative smartphone that is better suited to them.
Moreover, for the purposes of antitrust action, both the US and Europe have thresholds for the consideration of monopoly power that are well above 11%:
US: Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. [1]
Europe: The Commission considers that low market shares are generally a good proxy for the absence of substantial market power. The Commission's experience suggests that dominance is not likely if the undertaking's market share is below 40 % in the relevant market. [2]
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
[2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A...
> It' doesn't matter than they're only ~11% marketshare of smartphones sold.
It very much does, because it means the consumer can choose to buy an alternative smartphone that is better suited to them.
Moreover, for the purposes of antitrust action, both the US and Europe have thresholds for the consideration of monopoly power that are well above 11%:
US: Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. [1]
Europe: The Commission considers that low market shares are generally a good proxy for the absence of substantial market power. The Commission's experience suggests that dominance is not likely if the undertaking's market share is below 40 % in the relevant market. [2]
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
[2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A...
The quote explicitly states that this is per quarter. Let's say "tens of millions" means 30 millions. So that's 10 million per month. If there are 500 people that's an average cost of 20K/month per person. I assume many people will have much lower salary but I also assume there will be infrastructure costs.
Can you clarify how it's hyperbole? Did you read it as being a yearly cost despite the quote referring to it as quarterly?
Can you clarify how it's hyperbole? Did you read it as being a yearly cost despite the quote referring to it as quarterly?
The article implies tens of millions being per month. $10m/500 people = $20k/person/month. That's a reasonable price estimate for a staff that big (considering tens could mean multiples more)
$250k annually per person just for downloading apps and using them is excessive to the point of unbelievable - That's a high tier developer salary, not app review pay. I would be surprised if these reviewers broke $50k, especially since the article mentions they're opening offices in other countries (with lower COL).
I agree, but when you factor in offices, equipment, utilities, benefits, healthcare, employment taxes, and corporate beaurocracy I think it gets pretty close.
> We know that because we at Telegram host and review more public content than the App Store ever will.
This reads funny since Telegram, after being banned by Russian authorities with a demand to disclose the E2E keys, got that ban lifted this June with Durov reportedly saying they can “catch and delete extremist and terrorist content”. In light of that I find it reckless not to presume that E2E chat content is among the “public content” Telegram “reviews”.
This reads funny since Telegram, after being banned by Russian authorities with a demand to disclose the E2E keys, got that ban lifted this June with Durov reportedly saying they can “catch and delete extremist and terrorist content”. In light of that I find it reckless not to presume that E2E chat content is among the “public content” Telegram “reviews”.
It is full of Apple (and other corporate) apologists. But I just want to point out that Google executives were saying some years ago that if Android was not part of Google, it would have been one of hottest startups in the valley.
Similarly, I am sure that if PASemi is spun off Apple, it may be the hottest CPU company in the world. I am sure that the Apple services will also do better outside the Apple hardware group. There are plenty of innovations and certainly there is the tendency to use them to raise the prices for consumers (which is illegal) as opposed to grow the market. I will refrain to say if Apple if guilty in this case, just saying that if hypothetically it is, this is not the end. In fact, many good things may happen in the long term by actually applying the anti-monopoly laws and breaking up a few companies instead of working around the laws.
Similarly, I am sure that if PASemi is spun off Apple, it may be the hottest CPU company in the world. I am sure that the Apple services will also do better outside the Apple hardware group. There are plenty of innovations and certainly there is the tendency to use them to raise the prices for consumers (which is illegal) as opposed to grow the market. I will refrain to say if Apple if guilty in this case, just saying that if hypothetically it is, this is not the end. In fact, many good things may happen in the long term by actually applying the anti-monopoly laws and breaking up a few companies instead of working around the laws.
> I am sure that if PASemi is spun off Apple, it may be the hottest CPU company in the world.
This may be true, but it seems hard to make the case that Apple is using monopoly power to stifle innovation in the CPU market, of all things.
> I am sure that the Apple services will also do better outside the Apple hardware group.
Really? I'm not at all sure that Apple Music, for instance, would be competitive with Spotify if it wasn't bundled with iOS devices -- I can't think of any other unbundled music service that's competitive with them. (And how many of your Android-using friends are Apple Music subscribers? It's technically possible, right?) Likewise, would lots of people be lining up to use iCloud if Macs, iPhones and iPads started with what amounts to "click here to use iCloud?" iMessage, maybe? Eh, maybe, but.
> In fact, many good things may happen in the long term by actually applying the anti-monopoly laws and breaking up a few companies instead of working around the laws.
Sure, but I'm not convinced the problems with Apple's App Store policies are best addressed by forcing Apple to spin off "The App Store Company." They'd be much better addressed by forcing Apple to allow sideloading of apps (probably using the "Gatekeeper" technology they already have in place on Macs, which I naïvely thought would have come to iOS by now) and relaxing in-app purchase rules to the point where apps that don't -- or can't, like Amazon Kindle -- use Apple's in-app purchase framework can at least tell you how to buy content from it. Hell, as some HN nerds would tell you, you could get a huge chunk of the way there simply by forcing Apple to build full PWA support into WebKit. None of those things require Apple to be broken up in any material way.
Also, side note:
> Google executives were saying some years ago that if Android was not part of Google, it would have been one of hottest startups in the valley.
You know Android was one of the hottest startups in the Valley and that's why Google bought them, right? :) (Arguably hotter than PA Semi was when Apple bought them!)
This may be true, but it seems hard to make the case that Apple is using monopoly power to stifle innovation in the CPU market, of all things.
> I am sure that the Apple services will also do better outside the Apple hardware group.
Really? I'm not at all sure that Apple Music, for instance, would be competitive with Spotify if it wasn't bundled with iOS devices -- I can't think of any other unbundled music service that's competitive with them. (And how many of your Android-using friends are Apple Music subscribers? It's technically possible, right?) Likewise, would lots of people be lining up to use iCloud if Macs, iPhones and iPads started with what amounts to "click here to use iCloud?" iMessage, maybe? Eh, maybe, but.
> In fact, many good things may happen in the long term by actually applying the anti-monopoly laws and breaking up a few companies instead of working around the laws.
Sure, but I'm not convinced the problems with Apple's App Store policies are best addressed by forcing Apple to spin off "The App Store Company." They'd be much better addressed by forcing Apple to allow sideloading of apps (probably using the "Gatekeeper" technology they already have in place on Macs, which I naïvely thought would have come to iOS by now) and relaxing in-app purchase rules to the point where apps that don't -- or can't, like Amazon Kindle -- use Apple's in-app purchase framework can at least tell you how to buy content from it. Hell, as some HN nerds would tell you, you could get a huge chunk of the way there simply by forcing Apple to build full PWA support into WebKit. None of those things require Apple to be broken up in any material way.
Also, side note:
> Google executives were saying some years ago that if Android was not part of Google, it would have been one of hottest startups in the valley.
You know Android was one of the hottest startups in the Valley and that's why Google bought them, right? :) (Arguably hotter than PA Semi was when Apple bought them!)
Agreed for PASemi and Android. They were hot, certainly they won in the short-mid term by being part of the bigger organizations. But by now, I think it severely limits their possible impact.
All the big app stores that are also part of another purchase (e.g. hardware in this case) will almost inevitably have monopoly problems (nobody can compete with Apple on speed of devices so Apple can raise the "prices" of apps). You are talking about the technical aspect that sideloading should be allowed (i.e. some competition), but this is not enough - eventually this competition should have some form of an "equal" start, probably by allowing them to install the market from the App Store, which is what Telegram wanted in their case.
All the big app stores that are also part of another purchase (e.g. hardware in this case) will almost inevitably have monopoly problems (nobody can compete with Apple on speed of devices so Apple can raise the "prices" of apps). You are talking about the technical aspect that sideloading should be allowed (i.e. some competition), but this is not enough - eventually this competition should have some form of an "equal" start, probably by allowing them to install the market from the App Store, which is what Telegram wanted in their case.
> It is full of Apple (and other corporate) apologists
Just because someone has a different opinion to yours doesn't make them an "apologist".
Especially given that your opinion that every company needs to spin off their internal units into seperate companies is frankly insane.
Just because someone has a different opinion to yours doesn't make them an "apologist".
Especially given that your opinion that every company needs to spin off their internal units into seperate companies is frankly insane.
> Just because someone has a different opinion to yours doesn't make them an "apologist".
When people dismiss the harm caused by the 30% tax, the lack of other ways to install software, the draconian rules and enforcement, the pain of developing for two completely different platforms, and the erosion of web tech, it's hard to see them as empathetic colleagues.
We're being shaken down here. It hurts. And we're mad.
When people dismiss the harm caused by the 30% tax, the lack of other ways to install software, the draconian rules and enforcement, the pain of developing for two completely different platforms, and the erosion of web tech, it's hard to see them as empathetic colleagues.
We're being shaken down here. It hurts. And we're mad.
Yep. I like iOS, and the value of iPhones is excellent. But I have an enormous problem with the App Store being the sole means of installing software. Especially since it's curated in step with Apple's puritanical corporate moralism.
How many stories have we seen about social networking apps being suspended from the app store because it's possible to view nude images? That's not really any concern of Apple's. How about when they started kicking out apps for controlling vaping devices? I detest people smoking/vaping around me as much as anyone, but I don't think Apple should be able to wield their vendor lock-in inflict their views on others.
This isn't even about markets or Apple choosing what they want to sell or other fluff. Apple has made themselves the gatekeeper of an expensive device tightly integrated into peoples' day-to-day lives, and is actively abusing that position to control individuals and profiteer egregiously by controlling what software is allowed in. It's as if the company that made your car blocked you from listening to metal or rap inside it, and took 30% of the cost of every gallon of fuel.
How many stories have we seen about social networking apps being suspended from the app store because it's possible to view nude images? That's not really any concern of Apple's. How about when they started kicking out apps for controlling vaping devices? I detest people smoking/vaping around me as much as anyone, but I don't think Apple should be able to wield their vendor lock-in inflict their views on others.
This isn't even about markets or Apple choosing what they want to sell or other fluff. Apple has made themselves the gatekeeper of an expensive device tightly integrated into peoples' day-to-day lives, and is actively abusing that position to control individuals and profiteer egregiously by controlling what software is allowed in. It's as if the company that made your car blocked you from listening to metal or rap inside it, and took 30% of the cost of every gallon of fuel.
As an phone user, I don’t care about your app being available or not - there are three other alternatives and they all at equally good. I’m pretty sure the same situation holds for Android.
All your arguments apply equally to the US federal income tax. Try to sue the government on that and see where you end up. We all hate taxes as much as the next guy. Picking a stupid fight instead of focussing on your product will be detrimental to you and you will lose users. Just because you are part of a loud crowd doesn’t make you right or have the moral high ground.
All your arguments apply equally to the US federal income tax. Try to sue the government on that and see where you end up. We all hate taxes as much as the next guy. Picking a stupid fight instead of focussing on your product will be detrimental to you and you will lose users. Just because you are part of a loud crowd doesn’t make you right or have the moral high ground.
Except Apple doesn't have a monopoly in any of its markets. They don't have a monopoly in phones, laptops, desktops, tablets, music, TV, processors, none of their products dominate their market.
Of course you can try and distort the meaning of monopoly but that isn't going to get you very far.
Of course you can try and distort the meaning of monopoly but that isn't going to get you very far.
They have a monopoly on iOS app stores. This is a different market than Android app stores because the set of customers is completely different.
It's like having a monopoly in California. "Just sell in New York instead" doesn't work, because you already sell in New York and not selling in California doesn't get the California customers to the New York store.
Compare this to stores that actually have competition, e.g. three grocers on the same street corner. If you don't want to sell to one of them, the customers who want your product just go across the street and buy it there. If you sell to all of them they each represent a third of your sales. If you don't want to sell to one of them, you don't actually lose all of those sales because the same customers can still buy your product from the other stores.
If you don't sell to Apple, none of those app sales go to Android because people don't replace their $1000 phone to buy a $1 app. That's what makes it a different market, which is what makes it a monopoly.
It's like having a monopoly in California. "Just sell in New York instead" doesn't work, because you already sell in New York and not selling in California doesn't get the California customers to the New York store.
Compare this to stores that actually have competition, e.g. three grocers on the same street corner. If you don't want to sell to one of them, the customers who want your product just go across the street and buy it there. If you sell to all of them they each represent a third of your sales. If you don't want to sell to one of them, you don't actually lose all of those sales because the same customers can still buy your product from the other stores.
If you don't sell to Apple, none of those app sales go to Android because people don't replace their $1000 phone to buy a $1 app. That's what makes it a different market, which is what makes it a monopoly.
Is Mercedes a monopoly for Mercedes leather seating?
> Is Mercedes a monopoly for Mercedes leather seating?
The key to understanding this is to realize that you're talking about two different markets, which makes your question ambiguous.
Are you asking, do they have a monopoly over the market for the Mercedes brand of leather seating? In that case the answer doesn't really matter, and I suspect this is the point you were trying to make, because the market for the Mercedes brand of leather seating is not a meaningful market definition, since there could be other seating brands that compete for the same customers.
But the analogous question to the one I'm asking is, do they have a monopoly over seating for Mercedes vehicles? That could very well be a sensible market definition, because if you need a new seat for your Mercedes, one designed for a Chevy may not fit. And then the answer depends entirely on whether they have any competitors in that market. If five different companies make seats you can put in a Mercedes, none of them have a monopoly. If Mercedes -- or another company which isn't Mercedes, if Mercedes itself doesn't make them anymore -- is the only one making seats that fit in a Mercedes, then they have a monopoly on that market.
The question is whether the customer who has a Mercedes and needs a seat can only buy it from one place.
The key to understanding this is to realize that you're talking about two different markets, which makes your question ambiguous.
Are you asking, do they have a monopoly over the market for the Mercedes brand of leather seating? In that case the answer doesn't really matter, and I suspect this is the point you were trying to make, because the market for the Mercedes brand of leather seating is not a meaningful market definition, since there could be other seating brands that compete for the same customers.
But the analogous question to the one I'm asking is, do they have a monopoly over seating for Mercedes vehicles? That could very well be a sensible market definition, because if you need a new seat for your Mercedes, one designed for a Chevy may not fit. And then the answer depends entirely on whether they have any competitors in that market. If five different companies make seats you can put in a Mercedes, none of them have a monopoly. If Mercedes -- or another company which isn't Mercedes, if Mercedes itself doesn't make them anymore -- is the only one making seats that fit in a Mercedes, then they have a monopoly on that market.
The question is whether the customer who has a Mercedes and needs a seat can only buy it from one place.
Mercedes doesn't stop you from replacing the leather, does it? Why do you need a flawed analogy to make a flawed argument? You can make a flawed argument as is.
No, you can replace the seats without violating any laws or licenses.
The way you have defined the word monopoly does not make legal or practical sense. Consider this, if Apple only ever made 100 smartphones and sold them to 100 people and had 0.00001% share of the smartphone market, no one in their right mind would consider them a monopoly or ever consider bringing an anti-trust case against them for the restrictions they impose on their own App Store.
But everything you said would still hold true:
"They have a monopoly on iOS app stores." "This is a different market than Android app stores because the set of customers is completely different."
So clearly this definition cannot be the correct way to define what is and isn't a monopoly.
But everything you said would still hold true:
"They have a monopoly on iOS app stores." "This is a different market than Android app stores because the set of customers is completely different."
So clearly this definition cannot be the correct way to define what is and isn't a monopoly.
> But everything you said would still hold true
That's because it would still be true, because the market for apps for a particular type of phone that has its own type of apps is a separate market no matter what percentage of the market for phones that type of phone represents.
In practice if the market was that small then nobody would care. It takes a certain market size before it's worth the effort of bringing a case against the monopolist. But that's a different question than whether there is one or not.
Your argument is essentially that if a small town with a population of 100 has only a single retail store within two hours drive, that store doesn't have a local monopoly because not enough people live there. But they still do. Even if they're too small for anybody to do anything about it in practice.
Apple, of course, is not that small.
That's because it would still be true, because the market for apps for a particular type of phone that has its own type of apps is a separate market no matter what percentage of the market for phones that type of phone represents.
In practice if the market was that small then nobody would care. It takes a certain market size before it's worth the effort of bringing a case against the monopolist. But that's a different question than whether there is one or not.
Your argument is essentially that if a small town with a population of 100 has only a single retail store within two hours drive, that store doesn't have a local monopoly because not enough people live there. But they still do. Even if they're too small for anybody to do anything about it in practice.
Apple, of course, is not that small.
> That's because it would still be true, because the market for apps for a particular type of phone that has its own type of apps is a separate market no matter what percentage of the market for phones that type of phone represents.
That's incredibly tautological. Walmart has a monopoly on the distribution of products sold in Walmarts. Nintendo has a monopoly on the distribution of games on Nintendo products. Visa has a monopoly on Visa transactions.
These are not meaningful distinctions: the consumer has a choice not to shop at Walmart, not to buy a Nintendo product, and not to use a Visa card. Similarly, the consumer has a choice not to buy an Apple product.
The types of apps available on a particular phone are part of the purchasing decision of which phone to buy, just like which games are available for a gaming console might influence which console you buy.
That's incredibly tautological. Walmart has a monopoly on the distribution of products sold in Walmarts. Nintendo has a monopoly on the distribution of games on Nintendo products. Visa has a monopoly on Visa transactions.
These are not meaningful distinctions: the consumer has a choice not to shop at Walmart, not to buy a Nintendo product, and not to use a Visa card. Similarly, the consumer has a choice not to buy an Apple product.
The types of apps available on a particular phone are part of the purchasing decision of which phone to buy, just like which games are available for a gaming console might influence which console you buy.
> That's incredibly tautological.
It's not, because markets are defined by economics and not brands. People keep asserting over and over again that a brand is not a market, but nobody is claiming that, they just happen to coincide in this case.
What defines a market is whether there are substitutes. If you have an iPhone and need an app, and you could install an Android app on your iPhone, then iPhone apps and Android apps would be the same market. But since you can't, they're not.
Notice how this doesn't apply to random Walmart products. There may be a Walmart brand of motor oil that only Walmart sells, but you can go to Amazon and buy a different brand of motor oil and still use it in the same car. The relevant market is "motor oil of the spec that works with your car" rather than "Walmart motor oil" and Walmart doesn't have a monopoly on that.
But for the market "apps of the spec that works with your iPhone" you can only buy through Apple, so they do have a monopoly.
It's not, because markets are defined by economics and not brands. People keep asserting over and over again that a brand is not a market, but nobody is claiming that, they just happen to coincide in this case.
What defines a market is whether there are substitutes. If you have an iPhone and need an app, and you could install an Android app on your iPhone, then iPhone apps and Android apps would be the same market. But since you can't, they're not.
Notice how this doesn't apply to random Walmart products. There may be a Walmart brand of motor oil that only Walmart sells, but you can go to Amazon and buy a different brand of motor oil and still use it in the same car. The relevant market is "motor oil of the spec that works with your car" rather than "Walmart motor oil" and Walmart doesn't have a monopoly on that.
But for the market "apps of the spec that works with your iPhone" you can only buy through Apple, so they do have a monopoly.
"If you have an Xbox and need a game, and you could install a Nintendo game on your Xbox, then Xbox games and Nintendo games would be the same market. But since you can't, they're not."
Sorry, that makes no sense. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all compete in the market of video games. They are not competing in three separate markets of "video games for Xbox", "video games for Playstations", and "video games for Nintendos". Nintendo games are substitutes for Xbox games, even though you can't take a Nintendo game and directly plug it into an Xbox.
As another commenter put it, you're gerrymandering the definition of the market to suit your argument.
Sorry, that makes no sense. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all compete in the market of video games. They are not competing in three separate markets of "video games for Xbox", "video games for Playstations", and "video games for Nintendos". Nintendo games are substitutes for Xbox games, even though you can't take a Nintendo game and directly plug it into an Xbox.
As another commenter put it, you're gerrymandering the definition of the market to suit your argument.
> These are not meaningful distinctions: the consumer has a choice not to shop at Walmart, not to buy a Nintendo product, and not to use a Visa card. Similarly, the consumer has a choice not to buy an Apple product.
A better analogy would be having a person with you all the time and told you what products you can buy or not buy from any of these stores and took a 30% either from you or the producers everytime you did.
Walmart is only a monopoly on walmart branded products sold on Walmart, for everything else you have the option to buy them somewhere else. Apple has monopoly on every single app sold on their app store, you can't buy them somewhere else without depending on the developer making a different version and forgoing the iPhone you had already bought.
A better analogy would be having a person with you all the time and told you what products you can buy or not buy from any of these stores and took a 30% either from you or the producers everytime you did.
Walmart is only a monopoly on walmart branded products sold on Walmart, for everything else you have the option to buy them somewhere else. Apple has monopoly on every single app sold on their app store, you can't buy them somewhere else without depending on the developer making a different version and forgoing the iPhone you had already bought.
I was not actually trying to make an analogy here to the overall situation, only pointing out the absurdity of determining whether a company has a monopoly based on arbitrarily restricting the definition of the market. That is not how the courts determine those things. They look at factors like market share and whether or not the consumer has access to alternative products.
> Apple has monopoly on every single app sold on their app store, you can't buy them somewhere else without depending on the developer making a different version and forgoing the iPhone you had already bought.
As I said elsewhere, both the hardware and software are part of the purchasing decision you make when you buy a phone. If you don't like the software, you can choose to buy a different phone.
> Apple has monopoly on every single app sold on their app store, you can't buy them somewhere else without depending on the developer making a different version and forgoing the iPhone you had already bought.
As I said elsewhere, both the hardware and software are part of the purchasing decision you make when you buy a phone. If you don't like the software, you can choose to buy a different phone.
>The way you have defined the word monopoly does not make legal or practical sense
Maybe not to you but it is how the anti-monopoly law work in lots of countries. Funny that you can just say "Doesn't work, NEXT!" as if you know better than Telegram's lawyers. Apple will be fined or settle.
Maybe not to you but it is how the anti-monopoly law work in lots of countries. Funny that you can just say "Doesn't work, NEXT!" as if you know better than Telegram's lawyers. Apple will be fined or settle.
I can't speak for every country, but in the EU I think it's likely the case will be thrown out due to the inability to prove that Apple has "substantial market power" with 25% market share.
The Commission considers that low market shares are generally a good proxy for the absence of substantial market power. The Commission's experience suggests that dominance is not likely if the undertaking's market share is below 40 % in the relevant market.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A...
The Commission considers that low market shares are generally a good proxy for the absence of substantial market power. The Commission's experience suggests that dominance is not likely if the undertaking's market share is below 40 % in the relevant market.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A...
You keep using their share of the phone market when we're talking about the app market. Whether the iOS app market and the Android app market are the same market has nothing to do with what percentage of the market for phone hardware each platform has.
The two are inextricably linked. Which apps are available on a phone are part of the decision of which phone you might prefer to buy.
> The way you have defined the word monopoly does not make legal or practical sense... if Apple only ever made 100 smartphones ...
That is precisely the point. iPhone has a market share of 45% in the US. Therefore Apple has absolute control on 45% of the US population's app provision, they are precisely a monopoly (etymology: single - provider) for that market. If 45% of the roads in the US was built by Apple and they had absolute control what cars run on it, they would still be a monopoly for all intents and purposes of why a monopoly is harmful and extractive.
Before we think "but users can buy Android too", iOS and Android are not completely fungible operating systems nor the hardware they come with. Even if they were, at best it would mean we had a duopoly instead.
That is precisely the point. iPhone has a market share of 45% in the US. Therefore Apple has absolute control on 45% of the US population's app provision, they are precisely a monopoly (etymology: single - provider) for that market. If 45% of the roads in the US was built by Apple and they had absolute control what cars run on it, they would still be a monopoly for all intents and purposes of why a monopoly is harmful and extractive.
Before we think "but users can buy Android too", iOS and Android are not completely fungible operating systems nor the hardware they come with. Even if they were, at best it would mean we had a duopoly instead.
I don't disagree with you here. iOS and Android definitely constitute a duopoly worldwide, and Apple's market share in the US may be high enough for anti-trust concerns to apply. The key point is the percentage market share is an important consideration in determining whether a company has a monopoly or not.
I'm only taking exception with claim that "Apple has a monopoly on iOS app stores" based on reasoning that ignores market share, because that reasoning is tautological.
Also, Telegram's complaint was filed in the EU where Apple only has 25% market share and likely would not be considered to have a monopoly.
> Before we think "but users can buy Android too", iOS and Android are not completely fungible operating systems nor the hardware they come with.
Competitors do not need to be 100% identical to be considered alternative products to each other. Xboxes, Playstations, and Nintendos have different hardware and software but they are all competing in the gaming console market.
I'm only taking exception with claim that "Apple has a monopoly on iOS app stores" based on reasoning that ignores market share, because that reasoning is tautological.
Also, Telegram's complaint was filed in the EU where Apple only has 25% market share and likely would not be considered to have a monopoly.
> Before we think "but users can buy Android too", iOS and Android are not completely fungible operating systems nor the hardware they come with.
Competitors do not need to be 100% identical to be considered alternative products to each other. Xboxes, Playstations, and Nintendos have different hardware and software but they are all competing in the gaming console market.
Yes only Apple can sell it’s own products. That’s not how monopolies work.
Once sold, an Apple device is no longer the property of Apple. Maintaining exclusive access to the primary (and I'd argue only) means of purchasing software for a device they do not own is a monopoly, even if it might not have been classically considered as such.
I hope the investigation ends in telegrams favor.
I hope the investigation ends in telegrams favor.
Do you feel the same way about consoles? But the question remains, why buy a device that doesn’t meet your needs if there are alternatives?
Perhaps they bought the device based on the primary metric of security and privacy. But with the banning of Telegram, it turns out the potential for secure chat is insufficient on iOS. Therefore, Apple is falsely advertising themselves as a privacy-focused platform. [0]
Therefore, the legal options available to Apple are either 1) open up their platform, 2) permit Telegram to be sold on the App Store, or 3) rescind their false advertising. The ball is in the EU court.
[0] https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/03/14/privacy-thats-iph...
Therefore, the legal options available to Apple are either 1) open up their platform, 2) permit Telegram to be sold on the App Store, or 3) rescind their false advertising. The ball is in the EU court.
[0] https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/03/14/privacy-thats-iph...
Telegram was not banned.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/telegram-messenger/id686449807
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/telegram-messenger/id686449807
> Maintaining exclusive access to the primary (and I'd argue only) means of purchasing software for a device they do not own is a monopoly
The device is yours, the operating system is not, it has its own license and you even get regular updates of its terms. If you don't agree with them, you are free to jailbreak your device and use it at your own discretion & expense.
The device is yours, the operating system is not, it has its own license and you even get regular updates of its terms. If you don't agree with them, you are free to jailbreak your device and use it at your own discretion & expense.
Unlike the US, Europe doesn't require a monopoly for certain anticompetitive behaviours to be deemed illegal.
Nor does the US (if we're talking about the strictest definition of "monopoly", which rarely occurs in the private sector), but there are probably degrees of difference in what will set off regulators in the EU versus the US.
Apple Store is not a monopoly, but it is a monopsony and i really don't understand why people defends this. A monopsony is arguably worst than a monopoly.
Can you explain which market is a single buyer market (monopsony)?
Are you arguing app developers have to see their apps to Apple? Which then sells them to consumers (as a monopoly)?
Are you arguing app developers have to see their apps to Apple? Which then sells them to consumers (as a monopoly)?
"There are plenty of innovations and certainly there is the tendency to use them to raise the prices for consumers (which is illegal) as opposed to grow the market."
Ouf, no, every company developers or buys technologies, which gives them competitive advantage and hence some margin.
This is not 'illegal' this is just normal business.
The App Store, however, is a different thing altogether, and there may be anti-trust issues there.
Finally - if Android was not part of Google, it's possibly they never would have seen the light of day. Android is not special. That it was free, backed by a massive company, chock full of all sorts of other services and 100's of millions in app development and R&D, promoted by the biggest software distributor in the world - is what made it 'special'. Danger was just a way for Google to move quickly into the space.
Without 'free Android' eating away at the bottom end of BlackBerry while the iPhone ate away at the top end ... we might be using iPhones and BlackBerries today.
The anti-trust case against Apple is legit, but it's also not perfectly straight forward. I hope Telegram wins, because if the EU requires Apps out of the App Store even just in Europe, I feel it would probably roil into the rest of thew world quickly enough and we can be free of that walled garden.
Ouf, no, every company developers or buys technologies, which gives them competitive advantage and hence some margin.
This is not 'illegal' this is just normal business.
The App Store, however, is a different thing altogether, and there may be anti-trust issues there.
Finally - if Android was not part of Google, it's possibly they never would have seen the light of day. Android is not special. That it was free, backed by a massive company, chock full of all sorts of other services and 100's of millions in app development and R&D, promoted by the biggest software distributor in the world - is what made it 'special'. Danger was just a way for Google to move quickly into the space.
Without 'free Android' eating away at the bottom end of BlackBerry while the iPhone ate away at the top end ... we might be using iPhones and BlackBerries today.
The anti-trust case against Apple is legit, but it's also not perfectly straight forward. I hope Telegram wins, because if the EU requires Apps out of the App Store even just in Europe, I feel it would probably roil into the rest of thew world quickly enough and we can be free of that walled garden.
> Similarly, I am sure that if PASemi is spun off Apple, it may be the hottest CPU company in the world.
Who would buy their processor? Nobody.
Those people could leave now and build that startup. The valley is not known for its loyalty. Instead, ever more VLSI designers are parking themselves in the established companies.
There is a reason there have been almost no VLSI startups for 15+ years (what was the last "successful" one--Atheros?). It's a brutal business and takes multiple chunks of $100 million to succeed.
Who would buy their processor? Nobody.
Those people could leave now and build that startup. The valley is not known for its loyalty. Instead, ever more VLSI designers are parking themselves in the established companies.
There is a reason there have been almost no VLSI startups for 15+ years (what was the last "successful" one--Atheros?). It's a brutal business and takes multiple chunks of $100 million to succeed.
If Android were not part of Google, it wouldn't have gotten distribution just like Firefox OS. If this story is true, it amazes me that Google executives still don't understand why Android worked. It wasn't because of Andy Rubin's bumbling executive leadership.
It's important to remember that the root issue is not Apple's profit margin, it's Apple's refusal to allow users to install the apps they wish to install on phones that they've legally purchased.
The margin, if it is indeed very high—and common sense says it must be very high—is just an indicator of how much power this control gets them and what the degree of harm might be.
The margin, if it is indeed very high—and common sense says it must be very high—is just an indicator of how much power this control gets them and what the degree of harm might be.
I can't install the apps I wish to install on my Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Tesla, VW etc.
Your argument that "every platform must allow open access" is an unprecedented one that would destroy many business models.
Consoles being an obvious one.
Your argument that "every platform must allow open access" is an unprecedented one that would destroy many business models.
Consoles being an obvious one.
> I can't install the apps I wish to install on my Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Tesla, VW etc.
People keep bringing this up as if it wouldn't be better if they were required to allow competition too.
> Your argument that "every platform must allow open access" is an unprecedented one that would destroy many business models.
The illegality of murder destroys the business model of hitmen. Destroying harmful business models is the idea.
It's not as if consoles wouldn't exist under a different business model. The console itself would cost more (or just generate less profit) and the games would cost less. It's hard to see how that wouldn't be an improvement.
People keep bringing this up as if it wouldn't be better if they were required to allow competition too.
> Your argument that "every platform must allow open access" is an unprecedented one that would destroy many business models.
The illegality of murder destroys the business model of hitmen. Destroying harmful business models is the idea.
It's not as if consoles wouldn't exist under a different business model. The console itself would cost more (or just generate less profit) and the games would cost less. It's hard to see how that wouldn't be an improvement.
I'm not convinced it would exist in any meaningful way. We already have such a "console", it's called a PC. You could buy one today but for whatever reasons people still buy the locked down consoles.
The consoles are purpose-built devices. They come with game controllers rather than keyboards. They're designed to be attached to a television with an interface designed to be used from across the room.
You might very well end up in a market where you could build your own console by plugging a game controller into a PC and installing SteamOS on it in addition to companies selling them pre-built like that, but what's so bad about that?
You might very well end up in a market where you could build your own console by plugging a game controller into a PC and installing SteamOS on it in addition to companies selling them pre-built like that, but what's so bad about that?
"Harmful business model" is a reductive, meaningless argument.
I don't buy many games and have 2 latest gen consoles. I would be harmed by your suggestion.
How do you choose which group's harm is more important? And who do you trust to make that analysis?
I don't buy many games and have 2 latest gen consoles. I would be harmed by your suggestion.
How do you choose which group's harm is more important? And who do you trust to make that analysis?
> "Harmful business model" is a reductive, meaningless argument.
It has a very specific meaning here. It means a market where the company is not subject to significant competitive pressure.
> I don't buy many games and have 2 latest gen consoles. I would be harmed by your suggestion.
You are engaged in arbitrage. The company sold you a subsidized game console on the theory that you would buy games for it, and you didn't. If everyone did what you did the business model would fail anyway (or the company would devise a way to prevent you from doing that), so you're hardly in a position to argue against something else that attacks the same business model that you're attacking yourself. You would also have no recourse if the company implemented some method of preventing your arbitrage.
> How do you choose which group's harm is more important?
The one being deprived of the benefits of competition.
> And who do you trust to make that analysis?
You can make it yourself. Obviously you have to hire someone to actually do the enforcement, but if they come to the same conclusion as you then you know they're doing it right.
It has a very specific meaning here. It means a market where the company is not subject to significant competitive pressure.
> I don't buy many games and have 2 latest gen consoles. I would be harmed by your suggestion.
You are engaged in arbitrage. The company sold you a subsidized game console on the theory that you would buy games for it, and you didn't. If everyone did what you did the business model would fail anyway (or the company would devise a way to prevent you from doing that), so you're hardly in a position to argue against something else that attacks the same business model that you're attacking yourself. You would also have no recourse if the company implemented some method of preventing your arbitrage.
> How do you choose which group's harm is more important?
The one being deprived of the benefits of competition.
> And who do you trust to make that analysis?
You can make it yourself. Obviously you have to hire someone to actually do the enforcement, but if they come to the same conclusion as you then you know they're doing it right.
[deleted]
Consoles are single-purpose entertainment devices. There are dozens of choices in this market, even openly distributed PC games.
Pocket computers are generic compute devices. These should be the most open systems in the world, and yet, somehow we've been mind controlled into them becoming locked down fiefdoms.
People take pictures, make calls, make payments, find love, do business, arrange their schedule, take notes, post online, order food. Literally everything. On these devices.
For most, they've even taken the place of the PC.
They need to be open.
I continue to tell my representatives about this travesty.
Pocket computers are generic compute devices. These should be the most open systems in the world, and yet, somehow we've been mind controlled into them becoming locked down fiefdoms.
People take pictures, make calls, make payments, find love, do business, arrange their schedule, take notes, post online, order food. Literally everything. On these devices.
For most, they've even taken the place of the PC.
They need to be open.
I continue to tell my representatives about this travesty.
> Consoles are single-purpose entertainment devices
How do we determine what is single-purpose and what isn't? Consoles have been used as everything from media servers (such as XBMC-turned-Kodi) to supercomputers (such as the Condor Cluster for the US Air Force). I'm certain there are more non-standard uses I haven't heard of, too.
There are dozens of choices for open smartphones in the market, just like there are multiple choices for open gaming solutions. However, only one choice runs iOS - just like only one choice runs the Playstation's OS.
I whole-heartedly agree that iPhones should be more open, I'm just curious why you're so quick to dismiss easier access to all consoles.
How do we determine what is single-purpose and what isn't? Consoles have been used as everything from media servers (such as XBMC-turned-Kodi) to supercomputers (such as the Condor Cluster for the US Air Force). I'm certain there are more non-standard uses I haven't heard of, too.
There are dozens of choices for open smartphones in the market, just like there are multiple choices for open gaming solutions. However, only one choice runs iOS - just like only one choice runs the Playstation's OS.
I whole-heartedly agree that iPhones should be more open, I'm just curious why you're so quick to dismiss easier access to all consoles.
>How do we determine what is single-purpose and what isn't?
how about, "throwing all other computing devices away, can you get by with only using the one left?". If yes, it's propably a general purpose device.
Smartphones have become/are rapidly becoming the primary, often only computer people use to interact with the world, in the developing world in particular. It's a travesty that an entire generation will grow up without even the chance to have an open computation platform.
Just as an anecdote about how much damage this does in my opinion. When I was teaching first semester CS students a few years ago, an overwhelming majority already did not know how to boot from a USB stick or install an operating system on a machine.
how about, "throwing all other computing devices away, can you get by with only using the one left?". If yes, it's propably a general purpose device.
Smartphones have become/are rapidly becoming the primary, often only computer people use to interact with the world, in the developing world in particular. It's a travesty that an entire generation will grow up without even the chance to have an open computation platform.
Just as an anecdote about how much damage this does in my opinion. When I was teaching first semester CS students a few years ago, an overwhelming majority already did not know how to boot from a USB stick or install an operating system on a machine.
I'm confused at what point Apple reached 100% market share and there are now no open alternatives for people to choose from.
Or why Apple's approach to mobile extends to PCs in general. Even though they have made crystal clear they will never have a completely locked down Mac.
Or why Apple's approach to mobile extends to PCs in general. Even though they have made crystal clear they will never have a completely locked down Mac.
Apple’s very own marketing material acts as if their platform is indispensable and life-saving:
https://www.macrumors.com/2018/12/06/apple-watch-real-storie...
Obviously PR speak is PR speak, but it goes to show that the narrative of Apple as an essential product is out there, and even courted by the company. The government usually has a hand in regulating such products.
https://www.macrumors.com/2018/12/06/apple-watch-real-storie...
Obviously PR speak is PR speak, but it goes to show that the narrative of Apple as an essential product is out there, and even courted by the company. The government usually has a hand in regulating such products.
It's not just a critique of Apple but of both Google/Android and Apple, although Apple is the worse offender here. Why I think 'mobile' isn't an accuse I lined out in the post, because it's quickly becoming the primary general purpose computer of pretty much every person. Apple already sells ten times more phones than laptops per year.
How often have you seen people pay their coffee (or something bigger like airtravel) with a Nintendo device?
Many governments around the world are relying on apps to address the pandemic: how many of those government apps are released for Tesla or Sony?
Do you still think the importance of those companies/brands you listed are the same as iOS devices?
Many governments around the world are relying on apps to address the pandemic: how many of those government apps are released for Tesla or Sony?
Do you still think the importance of those companies/brands you listed are the same as iOS devices?
> Your argument that "every platform must allow open access" is an unprecedented one that would destroy many business models.
> Consoles being an obvious one.
Source?
Most of the latest consoles make profit from day 1 or after few months. It's not like PS3 anymore.
You can argue this model of extracting value and money in a roundabout way qualifies as predatory and should not exist. EU is already looking into it btw.
Check: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right
The argument itself is flawed too. It ignores that there are some things you cannot live with. That is your phone, not the console.
> Consoles being an obvious one.
Source?
Most of the latest consoles make profit from day 1 or after few months. It's not like PS3 anymore.
You can argue this model of extracting value and money in a roundabout way qualifies as predatory and should not exist. EU is already looking into it btw.
Check: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right
The argument itself is flawed too. It ignores that there are some things you cannot live with. That is your phone, not the console.
There is also the security angle; keeping a Windows laptop safe if you're someone who struggles with basic usage is pretty much down to luck, and that's how it is for a huge lot of people.
It's much harder to shoot yourself in the foot with iOS (and Android, I guess), and I'd say a considerable part of this stems from a relatively clean app store and few (or no) easy options to bypass that.
Of course, keeping app stores clean doesn't require the current predatory conditions, but for me it's a strong counter-argument to abolishing walled gardens completely, even though some, as power users, professionals, developers might desire the most open platform imaginable. I think especially app stores and the large walled gardens in general should be regulated a lot more strongly, though.
It's much harder to shoot yourself in the foot with iOS (and Android, I guess), and I'd say a considerable part of this stems from a relatively clean app store and few (or no) easy options to bypass that.
Of course, keeping app stores clean doesn't require the current predatory conditions, but for me it's a strong counter-argument to abolishing walled gardens completely, even though some, as power users, professionals, developers might desire the most open platform imaginable. I think especially app stores and the large walled gardens in general should be regulated a lot more strongly, though.
It's hardly unprecedented, although it might be one of the more hard-core interpretations of the free software movement.
These are not platform providers Apple and Android are.
I would argue that digital app stores should be treated as important and critical infrastructure. There should be a way for you to install (based on a contract) whatever you want from whoever you want.
I am all for capitalism but this is a monopolized area and deserves to be regulated.
I would argue that digital app stores should be treated as important and critical infrastructure. There should be a way for you to install (based on a contract) whatever you want from whoever you want.
I am all for capitalism but this is a monopolized area and deserves to be regulated.
Your definition is completely arbitrary.
So if Sony approves a non-gaming app suddenly their entire platform switches to critical infrastructure and must be opened up ?
And companies like Shopify run digital app stores. By what definition is their platform important and critical infrastructure ?
So if Sony approves a non-gaming app suddenly their entire platform switches to critical infrastructure and must be opened up ?
And companies like Shopify run digital app stores. By what definition is their platform important and critical infrastructure ?
By definition of fair trading?
Spotify is so huge that it would be a suicide not releasing on their platform.
Console being a monopsony does not have the same impact as Apple being one.
What if microsoft app store became the only app store available on microsoft?
What if microsoft app store became the only app store available on microsoft?
To add to this, we don't even know what the Internet would look like now if half of the U.S. mobile market wasn't subject to Apple control. It's likely that there are amazing apps that never got worked on because of ambiguity about whether Apple would accept them.
I had to choose to be part of Apple's market, Apple did not choose me. Seriously all arguments to fall short for that one simple reason.
No one forced anyone to buy an Apple product. Now if Apple tried to dictate what software you could use on platforms connected to your Apple product it would be an issue but they don't.
No one forced anyone to buy an Apple product. Now if Apple tried to dictate what software you could use on platforms connected to your Apple product it would be an issue but they don't.
This case is so full of pot calling kettle back, it's amusing. Not to detract from their claim, but cmon, at least use arguments that hold water.
"Meanwhile, the expenses required to host and review these apps are in the tens of millions, not billions of dollars."
As if the price a company charges for its product has to be tied strictly to the cost it incurs to make that product. Does Telegram follow the same rule in its business dealings?
As in so many disputes, the parties will claim this is about principles and yada yada yada, "Apple/Google exercises monopoly control, etc.
You can be guaranteed though, it's always just about the price and how the one party doesn't want to pay it, and the other party doesn't want to change it. Simple as that.
"Meanwhile, the expenses required to host and review these apps are in the tens of millions, not billions of dollars."
As if the price a company charges for its product has to be tied strictly to the cost it incurs to make that product. Does Telegram follow the same rule in its business dealings?
As in so many disputes, the parties will claim this is about principles and yada yada yada, "Apple/Google exercises monopoly control, etc.
You can be guaranteed though, it's always just about the price and how the one party doesn't want to pay it, and the other party doesn't want to change it. Simple as that.
Imho the app store clearly hinders innovation.
In a recent project of ours (corona related) we had to wait over 1 month for Apple to approve our app - never knowing whether they would actually approve it. Google Play rejected it, saying it wouldn‘t allow any corona related apps from parties that are not government entities.
As a response we ported everything to a web based solution.
While I can understand their aim to keep scammers out (probably mainly to avoid PR issues) it was a real inhibitor to our legit project.
For future projects I will always build web first. With the app store/ google play you are at the whim of some person at the other end of a textarea.
If that’s the whole story, that’s not the strongest of arguments. Google rejected it, Apple ¿approved? it (that isn’t clear to me from your writing), but in your opinion took too long. If Apple did approve it, how does that make Apple bad? AFAIK, you’re ou can’t sue companies for being inefficient.
Even if Apple didn’t approve it, the statement “As a response we ported everything to a web based application” seems to imply the amount of “innovation hindering” isn’t that large.
Even if Apple didn’t approve it, the statement “As a response we ported everything to a web based application” seems to imply the amount of “innovation hindering” isn’t that large.
It doesn‘t make Apple bad. It just means they inhibit innovation. The same way that a micro-managing manager that needs to sign-off on everything stops progress, but that doesn‘t make them a bad person.
Your argument of porting everything to the web is absolutely valid. We are a small team though and having to rebuild everything for web meant we had to delay our launch - of course this is on us.
Also some of our features don‘t work in web, since the native camera libraries are much better, but they aren‘t available on the web in sufficient quality (neither for ios nor android). And some camera functionalities are generally only available to safari on ios. It looks to me as if this is on apple, but may be a chrome/firefox issue.
I believe one can launch an "app-store" like platform, WeChat has done it with its mini apps. But it will get tricky with Apple when you start earning money from your app developers.
WeChat is the whole OS. The mini apps are the actual apps people want. China runs on them. Apple can’t afford not to have it, so they’re basically allowed to do (almost) anything.
The comments here might as well be on reddit or facebook. The amount of people that think they know better then telegram's lawyers if mindbaffeling.
[deleted]
This was spot on. Not sure how Tim Crook can state there is no anti trust behaviour.
Must be pretty disorienting if you're an EU lawmaker who loves these products and have to make these calls.
Apple products are beloved the way sports teams are.
Now you have to decide if those products should be tarnished (because that's what Apple would see it as) or not.
Apple products are beloved the way sports teams are.
Now you have to decide if those products should be tarnished (because that's what Apple would see it as) or not.
Users were able to run apps on their Mac directly bypassing AppStore since forever. Why would it suddenly be a dreadful problem if Apple would allow app sideloading on iOS?