I fear App Review is getting too powerful (2015) [pdf](judiciary.house.gov)
judiciary.house.gov
I fear App Review is getting too powerful (2015) [pdf]
https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/015127.pdf
366 comments
1) I worked at a game company 2011: kicked out of facebook (quizzes restrictions were added to the toss)
2) I worked at a mobile ads company 2013: kicked out of apple store
3) I worked at a mobile hosting company for small shops 2015: salons, restaurants, etc: kicked out of apple store
4) I worked at a mobile social network company (2017): kicked out of apple store.
5) I built an app where people can promote their github projects (2017): account suspended by github
6) Built another app to help locate doctors: blacklisted by google
2) I worked at a mobile ads company 2013: kicked out of apple store
3) I worked at a mobile hosting company for small shops 2015: salons, restaurants, etc: kicked out of apple store
4) I worked at a mobile social network company (2017): kicked out of apple store.
5) I built an app where people can promote their github projects (2017): account suspended by github
6) Built another app to help locate doctors: blacklisted by google
you've really had it rough. I guess the lesson to all of us is to never rely on third-party platforms as much as possible
Even if you develop for bare metal, you’re at the mercy of hardware manufacturers, who sometimes change specs without warnings.
Windows and Linux are third-party platforms too. I mostly develop for these two platforms (been doing for couple decades now), and never had the unfortunate experience of GP.
Windows and Linux are third-party platforms too. I mostly develop for these two platforms (been doing for couple decades now), and never had the unfortunate experience of GP.
OK, so that's a good argument for not tying your product to the "bare-metal" / Win32 / (specific distro?) APIs, and using something higher level and portable. Which, frankly, everybody should be doing anyway, if you're not in the business of writing kernel drivers.
None of those are quite as arbitrary as the App Store, though.
It's one thing if an app stops working on newer versions of the system due to fundamental change to that system. It's totally different if you get banned simply because the gatekeeper doesn't like your face.
It's one thing if an app stops working on newer versions of the system due to fundamental change to that system. It's totally different if you get banned simply because the gatekeeper doesn't like your face.
Should also be a lesson to anyone trying to build a third party platform that if you build a walled garden, people will start to resent it
Conversely, we wouldn't be here bickering about such platforms if it wasn't immensely profitable. So, depending on your morals, it's a lesson on what to aim for. I wouldn't run a platform that stifles use, but I'm sure there are industrious people who will be able to exploit such a business _device_ to bring more good into the world.
Industrious people like Steve Jobs, Tim Cook, Larry Page, and Sundar Pichai?
Dude, you win today's unluckiest developer award. Most of those were good ideas to work on, right up until they were banned.
The flip side is, you've been involved with a lot of projects. And that's often a big advantage. Some devs stay with the same company for 5 to 10 years.
The flip side is, you've been involved with a lot of projects. And that's often a big advantage. Some devs stay with the same company for 5 to 10 years.
> Some devs stay with the same company for 5 to 10 years.
Depending on how you play it, that doesn't have to be the worst thing in the world. The megacorps have an incredible diversity of roles you can try out.
Depending on how you play it, that doesn't have to be the worst thing in the world. The megacorps have an incredible diversity of roles you can try out.
Absolutely! I only meant to encourage them / focus on the silver lining. It's true that there are some wonderful megacorps to work for.
The thing I fear most here, is companies getting banned because they employ a developer who worked at another company that gets banned. I've heard that either for Apple or Google (I forgot which), any relationship at all to a banned account can get you banned.
So an unlucky developer could rapidly become even more unlucky, and infect others with that 'bad luck'.
So an unlucky developer could rapidly become even more unlucky, and infect others with that 'bad luck'.
Indeed, for that reason I will never use any google products for my businesses. The risk of being destroyed overnight and without any possible appeal is just too high.
Curious do you just stick with web apps or just don't do any sort of business that requires it? I was thinking about a career shift into apps or web apps, leaning towards web actually because I do have a little bit of "full stack" experience on simple web applications/databases in the embedded sphere.
Yes I now focus on business ideas that cannot be blocked/banned/rejected ... Since 2011 I had 4 startups that where killed by either google, apple, Facebook and YouTube.
In 2016 I decided to avoid them as much as possible and never rely on third parties, ... Yes this is discarding a lot of good business ideas ... But your business then cannot be killed by a third party at any time
If you don't mind, it would be helpful to the discussion if you can explain why/what justification was given in each case.
Just wonder, what are you gonna do next? You know, just my simple curiousity;)
You just want to know what seemingly-safe category to stay away from :p
Why were 2, 3, 4, and 6 banned?
2 - driving traffic to apps (advertising), it was considered "manipulating the rankings"
3 - the apps for were too similar, we were kicked out for being "templated". eg two different hair salons stores had too similar functionality - but were aesthetically totally different
4 - the social network allowed people to post text, someone said something horrible on the network and reported it (with screenshot) to apple
6 - google reported the content was too similar, eg generated. every doctor had different content but the structure was too similar
3 - the apps for were too similar, we were kicked out for being "templated". eg two different hair salons stores had too similar functionality - but were aesthetically totally different
4 - the social network allowed people to post text, someone said something horrible on the network and reported it (with screenshot) to apple
6 - google reported the content was too similar, eg generated. every doctor had different content but the structure was too similar
> 4 - the social network allowed people to post text, someone said something horrible on the network and reported it (with screenshot) to apple
This was clearly exploitation of their power. Let's find some horrible comments on Reddit now and report to Apple with screenshots, huh?
This was clearly exploitation of their power. Let's find some horrible comments on Reddit now and report to Apple with screenshots, huh?
I have a distinct impression we aren’t getting the whole story.
This feels a bit like “if you meet assholes all day, you’re the asshole” territory. Or someone who works in the space really doesn’t like them.
This feels a bit like “if you meet assholes all day, you’re the asshole” territory. Or someone who works in the space really doesn’t like them.
We're working on a decentralized app platform that mechanically is unable to kick devs off. Its early and doesn't have a monetization layer yet, but it's our goal to provide developers and users alike with a home that will outlast the whims of a single corporation.
https://siasky.net
https://siasky.net
Forgive me if this is a stupid question but if you’re unable to remove apps from the store how will you handle blatant issues of spam or, worse, viruses?
Current plan is to support opt-in moderation. Users can subscribe to banlists or curated lists (which could be machine generated) which filter content.
If a user doesn't like their moderation/filter, they can swap in a different one or disable it altogether.
If a user doesn't like their moderation/filter, they can swap in a different one or disable it altogether.
Wow interesting idea. I am probably way behind you on the thought process, but my first thought is: I wonder if you are just shifting the meta game and adding an extra step for those wishing to push malware etc. They would need to become list curators and promote some percent of legitimately good apps while also pushing their bad apps.
In my opinion yet another symptom of our chronic lack of public options when it comes to the internet. I would have no issue with the App Store applying whatever arbitrary and capricious actions it wants if there were another option for Apple users. It's like if Walmart sold self-driving cars that wouldn't drive you to any other store and everybody was just ok with that because you could always buy a self-driving car from Target, except you have to modify the Target car's settings to let you drive manually to get to any other store than Target.
Something is obviously wrong with you! ;)
More seriously you're a cautionary tale to what Stallman has warned us for so long.
More seriously you're a cautionary tale to what Stallman has warned us for so long.
My sympathies. That's a really sad story. I don't know if it's any consolation that it was at least discussed among the executives.
I don't know why you originally eschewed the web. I've developed on closed platforms in the past: Facebook (when Facebook games like Farmville and Mafia Wars were crazy hot), Silverlight, OpenSocial, Twitter, and now Google Apps Script. My work is always worthless in 2-3 years, and what I "learned" about that platform is useless.
Now when I develop for a platform, my mindset is only if it's temporary, and if I will be okay if this is shut down in a year.
I don't know why you originally eschewed the web. I've developed on closed platforms in the past: Facebook (when Facebook games like Farmville and Mafia Wars were crazy hot), Silverlight, OpenSocial, Twitter, and now Google Apps Script. My work is always worthless in 2-3 years, and what I "learned" about that platform is useless.
Now when I develop for a platform, my mindset is only if it's temporary, and if I will be okay if this is shut down in a year.
In hindsight this was obviously a mistake. We were young and genuinely loved the App Store. We bought the kool-aid (and still drinking it to be honest) that this a new better way to consume content. So we wanted to be as native as possible and take full advantage from the power of being native. We never thought Apple would someday object to us helping promote their platform.
Honestly, making fun of old platforms like the web (which isn't even that old) suggests that the writer is the kind of wide-eyed business huckster playing into Americans' cultural affinity for new tech, and folks like that are a huge chunk of the reason why we have so much technology churn today
Old, mature technology is a treasure. Not something to make fun of
Old, mature technology is a treasure. Not something to make fun of
This is a rude and unkind way to refer another person in this conversation (the poster two comments up from you in the thread and the author of the letter in question). Reconsider your approach.
Web development absolutely epitomizes this same technology churn.
Regardless if one personally sticks to older standards but its impossible to ignore the large section of commercial web applications that are just as much on the tech churn treadmill.
> just as much on the tech churn treadmill.
Really? I doubt you could run an app written for Android in 2010 (2.2 Froyo) today. But a website written in 2010 using HTML, Javascript, and CSS and no plugins will almost always work.
Really? I doubt you could run an app written for Android in 2010 (2.2 Froyo) today. But a website written in 2010 using HTML, Javascript, and CSS and no plugins will almost always work.
I use a shopping list app[1] that was last updated in January 2011 (so pretty close to 2010) and still works fine. The UI is huge and blurry, but it works.
[1] https://f-droid.org/app/caldwell.ben.trolly
[1] https://f-droid.org/app/caldwell.ben.trolly
Aintcha kinda makin' the opposition's point? That usage case is at a bare-minimum level of dead-simple and minimal-time-in-app usage. Any app with a more involved workflow would effectively be considered obsolete due to being so inferior.
I don't know, I wasn't necessarily making a point, just giving a counter-example. And this simple app is hardly inferior - I use it because I like it.
As a counter point, there are always some business oldsters who remain attached to their old technology stack, don't really contribute anything to moving innovation forward, and arrive 5 years after a tech has matured with wisecracks which are technology's equivalent of "If you wait long enough, everything reverts to the mean". Sure, but I think we already know that.
Besides, I am not sure how anyone can argue that the level of churn is bad, considering that it is usually proportional to the volume of new ideas and an eventual winner emerging (albeit not always in a meritocratic fashion).
Besides, I am not sure how anyone can argue that the level of churn is bad, considering that it is usually proportional to the volume of new ideas and an eventual winner emerging (albeit not always in a meritocratic fashion).
Silverlight? What did you use it for? The only public Silerlight code I ever came across was Netflix’s client for Windows Internet Explorer around 2010-2012, then everyone switched to Widevine.
I can tell you the software provider in the insurance industry requires its claims adjusters to use IE10 and Silverlight to file a claim. Every house damaged by wind, every flood claim, etc. all goes through a Silverlight interface.
I was using it to make GUI-centric web apps. Back then, web applications were a nightmare, and the idea of being able to have .NET for layout instead of the mess that html/css layout was at that time, was compelling.
Netflix and a tower defence game on Facebook I used to play are the only I know.
If I'm not mistaken I think MLB Advanced Media used it for a time, as well.
IIUC a web app is essentially a some very old though popular protocols plus a web browser as the runtime. IMO it will always lag behind a native app in terms of access to OS capabilities and runtime efficiency.
Much like a "desktop" app will always lag behind bare metal software in terms of access to hardware capabilities and runtime efficiency.
That's a caricature, but all these platforms provide a variety of scaffolding and security, and the optimal setup is non-obvious.
That's a caricature, but all these platforms provide a variety of scaffolding and security, and the optimal setup is non-obvious.
> and what I "learned" about that platform is useless.
Most of what I’ve learned about Silverlight was directly reusable for the rest of MS XAML platforms: WPF, WinRT, UWP, and now WinUI.
Most of what I’ve learned about Silverlight was directly reusable for the rest of MS XAML platforms: WPF, WinRT, UWP, and now WinUI.
[deleted]
I had a retro arachnoid type game in Appstore for years which was under 'Arcade' category, when apple branded its gaming subscription service as 'Arcade', it forced me to change it to an irrelevant category(Casual). I'm confident, none of the earlier 'Arcade' type games made it to the new 'Apple Arcade' program as it required to be a shiny new unreleased game, developed according to Apple's wishes for its subscription program.
Bam, just like that all Arcade games became non-Arcade with a single email.
If this is not clear abuse of power, then what it is? Don't tell me that a Trillion dollar company couldn't come up with a better name for its subscription service without hurting hundreds, perhaps thousands of small time developers?
Bam, just like that all Arcade games became non-Arcade with a single email.
If this is not clear abuse of power, then what it is? Don't tell me that a Trillion dollar company couldn't come up with a better name for its subscription service without hurting hundreds, perhaps thousands of small time developers?
This is the kind of thing that makes me think that yourself and others who are able to demonstrate a loss of earnings due to this decision could litigate. Generally I'm against that sort of thing, but sometimes there is only one course of action that will make someone like Apple listen.
You're correct, but if the financial capacity of a disabled solopreneur from a village in India vs Californian monolith didn't make any difference in the judicial process; I would have taken that course.
Congratulations, you are now part of an antitrust suit.
https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/015127.pdf
https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/015127.pdf
This is the same file as the original submission. But can you explain how this email got its way to the House Judiciary Committee?
I have no idea. I was not contacted by anyone. This email is an email Tim Cook forwarded to the executive team. So my guess is when doing discovery for this case, they got to look at Tim Cook emails regarding the App Store and this one came up. Again, this is an email that Tim Cook read and forwarded - it did not come from me providing it to anyone
How sad is it that in order to build and run a Trillion dollar company on values like trust and joy you need to dissect human emotion so fundamentally that in the end you loose your own capability to empathize.
Thank you for telling your story to the man up in the ivory tower in such a beautiful way. It may not haven been listened to there, but it certainly has impacted me.
Thank you for telling your story to the man up in the ivory tower in such a beautiful way. It may not haven been listened to there, but it certainly has impacted me.
Friend mine works as a legal at secretary white shoe law firm. Not what it sounds like. His job is using software to grind through corporate records and communications. Big part of that is finding interesting documents and teasing out the back channels inside the company. The better to find people to depose. That they found that email isn't a surprise. In a lawsuit between to companies someone that wrote an email like yours would be someone you absolutely want to talk to.
The most alarming part of this is actually the clear evidence that they use arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement of vague rules to actually enforce OTHER secret rules. In this case "no app recommendation engines", or more broadly "nothing that drives downloads".
They didn't just say that. They pretended it was some other rule. Which means what people suspected is true -- they lie to you about the reason for your app being removed. You may have zero chance of complying with the rule they said you violated, because it wasn't really about that rule at all, it was about another secret rule or policy decision.
To me that's far more alarming than the fact that they decided to forbid a class of app that had previously been allowed.
They could arguably defend the ability to forbid any category or type of app they want with no notice; it's their store, they make the rules, they decided that kind of app was unwelcome. Although that they don't simply admit this must mean they think it would make them look bad, and/or discourage developers from developing for their platform, and/or be evidence of antitrust illegality, and/or something.
But when they instead lie about it... it makes the whole sytem into a kafkaesque maze, you never know when they are lying to you about their rules and when they are telling the truth, when there's something you could do to "fix" your app so it would be allowed, and when they have just already decided the whole category your app is in is banned; it's not because you actually accidentally violated any rules, and there's nothing you can do to fix it, but they will instead try to, well, "gaslight" you (I normally am not fond of that phrase, but it seems apt) into thinking you were in violation of a rule.
> He said he thought it was unfair, but this was something Apple set out to do, and even as Senior Director of App Store (person directly in charge of App Review), he could not stop it.
I would like to believe if I were him, I would have had the courage to quit. NOT because it is unfair to the apps banned. But because LYING about it makes the entire App Review process illegitimate and unethical and "gaslighting" developers, and I wouldn't be willing to be the person directly in charge of all App Review if it's gonna be BS like that.
They didn't just say that. They pretended it was some other rule. Which means what people suspected is true -- they lie to you about the reason for your app being removed. You may have zero chance of complying with the rule they said you violated, because it wasn't really about that rule at all, it was about another secret rule or policy decision.
To me that's far more alarming than the fact that they decided to forbid a class of app that had previously been allowed.
They could arguably defend the ability to forbid any category or type of app they want with no notice; it's their store, they make the rules, they decided that kind of app was unwelcome. Although that they don't simply admit this must mean they think it would make them look bad, and/or discourage developers from developing for their platform, and/or be evidence of antitrust illegality, and/or something.
But when they instead lie about it... it makes the whole sytem into a kafkaesque maze, you never know when they are lying to you about their rules and when they are telling the truth, when there's something you could do to "fix" your app so it would be allowed, and when they have just already decided the whole category your app is in is banned; it's not because you actually accidentally violated any rules, and there's nothing you can do to fix it, but they will instead try to, well, "gaslight" you (I normally am not fond of that phrase, but it seems apt) into thinking you were in violation of a rule.
> He said he thought it was unfair, but this was something Apple set out to do, and even as Senior Director of App Store (person directly in charge of App Review), he could not stop it.
I would like to believe if I were him, I would have had the courage to quit. NOT because it is unfair to the apps banned. But because LYING about it makes the entire App Review process illegitimate and unethical and "gaslighting" developers, and I wouldn't be willing to be the person directly in charge of all App Review if it's gonna be BS like that.
>they use arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement
I've experienced this directly a few times. In one case, we had an app in the store for several years and a random update that fixed a crash was blocked for violating the rule around allowing out of app purchases. It took a couple weeks to appeal and get it approved. In that process, we changed nothing functional and resubmitted with a couple bits twiddled to make the package different and that passed.
In another instance, we made three white-labelled versions of the app. Both differed from the original app only in the colors in the design palette, and the name of the publisher since these were to be published under our customers' own accounts. One passed review without comment, and the other was abandoned after several months of back-and-forth.
I've experienced this directly a few times. In one case, we had an app in the store for several years and a random update that fixed a crash was blocked for violating the rule around allowing out of app purchases. It took a couple weeks to appeal and get it approved. In that process, we changed nothing functional and resubmitted with a couple bits twiddled to make the package different and that passed.
In another instance, we made three white-labelled versions of the app. Both differed from the original app only in the colors in the design palette, and the name of the publisher since these were to be published under our customers' own accounts. One passed review without comment, and the other was abandoned after several months of back-and-forth.
> a random update that fixed a crash was blocked for violating the rule around allowing out of app purchases.
>... and the other was abandoned after several months of back-and-forth.
This.
Once you get on their bad side with an App there is no end to it. The App Store review team will keep on rejecting every single update you do for totally unrelated random reasons.
One of my apps got approved when first submitted. Everything after that was just absurd to the point we had to abandon it. The App Store review team kept on rejecting any update we would make. The last one which was supposed to be a bugfix release got through three reviews. Each one got rejected due to different reasons. Each one addressed the problem the review team asked us to 'fix'. It was clear they did not want us in the store. We had to stop it. Half a year of work vanishing just like that.
It would have been so much easier if they had told us that they did not want us in the App Store. Such a waste of time.
This.
Once you get on their bad side with an App there is no end to it. The App Store review team will keep on rejecting every single update you do for totally unrelated random reasons.
One of my apps got approved when first submitted. Everything after that was just absurd to the point we had to abandon it. The App Store review team kept on rejecting any update we would make. The last one which was supposed to be a bugfix release got through three reviews. Each one got rejected due to different reasons. Each one addressed the problem the review team asked us to 'fix'. It was clear they did not want us in the store. We had to stop it. Half a year of work vanishing just like that.
It would have been so much easier if they had told us that they did not want us in the App Store. Such a waste of time.
> was blocked for violating the rule around allowing out of app purchases. It took a couple weeks to appeal and get it approve
That is impressive. We can't get our app past review because Apple is insisting we are permitting out-of-app purchases (not true, but they are insisting on in-app purchase capability).
That is impressive. We can't get our app past review because Apple is insisting we are permitting out-of-app purchases (not true, but they are insisting on in-app purchase capability).
Imagine being led to believe you are breaking one rule, and you spent hours, days, weeks or even months as was suggested just to try to get your app back on the app store and continue your revenue stream, one which you may depend on for living, when they actually never intend to put your app back on the app store in the first place.
They could be playing with people's livelihood in cases such as this.
They could be playing with people's livelihood in cases such as this.
Yep. They spent 2.5 months trying to do what Apple said, when it was all a lie and no matter what they did they weren't gonna be back in the store.
They could have shut down in a more orderly fashion with 2.5 more months of severance.
They could have shut down in a more orderly fashion with 2.5 more months of severance.
I think Apple knows that their inconsistency helps suppress criticism of their developer program. Look at any HN thread about apps being removed from the store over the years and its usually filled with users saying how the developer should have followed the rules and they have only themselves to blame for being removed. Apple can promote rules that "protect" users and then apply them in any way they want.
Like mobsters!
> they use arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement of vague rules to actually enforce OTHER secret rules.
In the context of criminal law, this is sometimes called "selective enforcement," and refers to the criminalization of normal behavior in order to provide plausible cover for violations of the actual, secret law. It's devastatingly unjust, and unsurprisingly applied in private jurisdictions.
In the context of criminal law, this is sometimes called "selective enforcement," and refers to the criminalization of normal behavior in order to provide plausible cover for violations of the actual, secret law. It's devastatingly unjust, and unsurprisingly applied in private jurisdictions.
That was an excellent letter by the way. It is too bad the source does not include any responses by the product team.
Thank you. I would have loved to see their response. My guess it was something to the effect of it's our store, and we gave them distribution to begin with. I have seen similar comments here on HN. I honestly get that argument, but they have been rewarded very handsomely for making this platform…they are almost 2 TRILLION dollar company. At some point, the platform is bigger than you. If I was one case, okay fine, but this is happening across many product categories.
I wouldn't bank on your assumption about how the conversation went after the letter was forwarded. My experience is that when the CEO forwards you something and asks for your thoughts you don't respond without doing the homework.
I suspect there was a fairly detailed conversation about how apps such as yours could be supported while simultaneously being able to detect and mitigate 'cram and jam' strategies where apps pay per install. Short of doing quarterly audits of your books, I'm not sure how those dubious business practices could be avoided[1].
[1] And even with regular auditing, criminal enterprises manage to operate successfully with multiple ledgers.
I suspect there was a fairly detailed conversation about how apps such as yours could be supported while simultaneously being able to detect and mitigate 'cram and jam' strategies where apps pay per install. Short of doing quarterly audits of your books, I'm not sure how those dubious business practices could be avoided[1].
[1] And even with regular auditing, criminal enterprises manage to operate successfully with multiple ledgers.
I am so curious about these executives and where they are now. They are destroying the Apple I love. Which reminds me of how the the Boeing acquisition of McDonnell-Douglas resulted in MD bean counters taking over the company resulting in the 737 Max mess.
Sounds like apple didn't want any competition for in-store ads
I still don't understand those. I paid god damn 1200 euro for this phone. Why am I seeing ads for shitty apps?
Because the stock market demands eternal growth. They've already sold phones to half the planet, they know you won't pay 1300 euro next year, and now they have to find more creative ways to show growth.
Because as someone paying 1200 euro for a piece of hardware that you don't control, you deserve to be treated like someone not in control.
At least they are not actively blackmailing you (yet).
At least they are not actively blackmailing you (yet).
This comment is written in a very aggressive way, but if you read it from another angle, the point still stands. My family buys Apple _because_ that way they lose control over the device. They trust that Apple will control those devices better than they would, it's one less thing to think about.
The ads parent is seeing are not actually for shitty apps (as long as Apple does a decent job in app curation). They are part of the customer delight strategy, by making customers think "Cool, I didn't know my phone could be used for that".
The ads parent is seeing are not actually for shitty apps (as long as Apple does a decent job in app curation). They are part of the customer delight strategy, by making customers think "Cool, I didn't know my phone could be used for that".
Because Apple went to trash after Jobs.
Because you paid $1200 for a device that doesn't allow you to run arbitrary software.
Very sad to read this, but also an important lesson to every entrepreneur :(
The answer you never got from Apple was actually already in your own E-Mail all along.
Pay-Per-Install Ads will be a $118 BILLION industry by 2022. [1]
While you've missed out on millions of dollars, Apple sure saw this coming (Facebook probably was having quite a lot of success with it at the time?) and wanted those billions for themselves.
Protecting the user experience IS important to Apple, too, of course.., and it will always be the story they tell on the outside, but Craig, Phil or whoever was responsible for the AppStore at the time will have given a very different answer to Tim
[1] https://www.appsflyer.com/blog/app-install-ad-spend/
The answer you never got from Apple was actually already in your own E-Mail all along.
Pay-Per-Install Ads will be a $118 BILLION industry by 2022. [1]
While you've missed out on millions of dollars, Apple sure saw this coming (Facebook probably was having quite a lot of success with it at the time?) and wanted those billions for themselves.
Protecting the user experience IS important to Apple, too, of course.., and it will always be the story they tell on the outside, but Craig, Phil or whoever was responsible for the AppStore at the time will have given a very different answer to Tim
[1] https://www.appsflyer.com/blog/app-install-ad-spend/
Can I ask what your app was/did?
Our company was AppAdvice - we did iOS app recommendation. We were most popular for our detailed curated lists, and looping gameplay videos here: https://appadvice.com/game/collections
Basically the idea was we helped you figure out which apps / games you would love and then link you directly to the official App Store to download it
Basically the idea was we helped you figure out which apps / games you would love and then link you directly to the official App Store to download it
As I understand it, AppAdvice has curated content. Nothing about curated content requires special permissions of a phone (location, bluetooth, etc). Therefore, it seems like a good match for the web. Indeed, there is no dearth of app recommendation websites today -- so many that who knows whom to trust, but that is besides the point.
I guess I'm asking: why did you choose to make this an app in the first place? Was that the only way to get commissions from apple?
I guess I'm asking: why did you choose to make this an app in the first place? Was that the only way to get commissions from apple?
Apps had - and probably still have - much higher discoverability and repeat usage than websites / webapps, in practice. Sure, you can make your website so it installs onto the home screen and behaves just like an app, but without the app store, nobody will bother to look for it / find it. The app store's recommendations and features are super powerful, and any app or game that gets featured will be instantly successful.
I attended an Apple TV event in Berlin once, it was actually really good and well polished, but at the same time it felt like a marketing event aimed at developers to please make things for the Apple TV platform. They shared an e-mail address as well, going "If you've made something cool, send us an email and we may feature it".
Still a bit salty that I didn't pursue it further, but honestly, I need a team to work on an app. I'm comfortable with the technical side of things, but I suck at ideas, product management and design, and design is incredibly important.
I attended an Apple TV event in Berlin once, it was actually really good and well polished, but at the same time it felt like a marketing event aimed at developers to please make things for the Apple TV platform. They shared an e-mail address as well, going "If you've made something cool, send us an email and we may feature it".
Still a bit salty that I didn't pursue it further, but honestly, I need a team to work on an app. I'm comfortable with the technical side of things, but I suck at ideas, product management and design, and design is incredibly important.
I went to your site and found a new app I’m excited to try [0] in about 7 seconds!
Banning you guys from the AppStore is Apple’s loss. I’m glad to have found you now though.
[0] https://appadvice.com/tvgame/app/epic-orchestra/1063781546
Banning you guys from the AppStore is Apple’s loss. I’m glad to have found you now though.
[0] https://appadvice.com/tvgame/app/epic-orchestra/1063781546
I loved that app! Apple killed your service and the AppStore ‘wish list’ feature and my app discovery/purchasing habits returned back to the web...
Wow, this almost makes me want to get an iPhone.
Awkward but genuine question: is there anything out there like this for Android? :)
Awkward but genuine question: is there anything out there like this for Android? :)
> Apple executives ordered the elimination of apps that drove downloads to the App Store. He said "Your app drove download volume. Apple doesn’t want any outside sources to drive ratings. So yeah, we got rid of all app recommendation apps." He said he thought it was unfair, but this was something.
Seems like an app recommendation app.
Seems like an app recommendation app.
I wouldn't mind one of those. Especially if it helped me find games that don't have in-app purchases and don't have in-game advertising. I'd buy those. But it's fucking impossible to find them.
I think the idea behind this ban (could be wrong) is that Apple wants to be the main (only?) app-based curator of apps. It lets them control the narrative and flow of money.
There was an insanely popular one, TouchArcade, that died because of the same burst of action by Apple. Crazy to see this come full circle, TouchArcade was run by one of the most loyal and oldest Apple blogs, MacRumors.
actually another HNer started a website exactly for this purpose after the idea resonated in another thread (don't remember the thread; user is stavros): https://nobsgames.stavros.io/
Oooh thanks! That's super useful!
Apple Arcade for $5 / month is a good deal. Fun games and no more money to pay ever. If you like the old Zelda games check out Oceanhorn as well.
[deleted]
Bummer! So, what platform(s) are you developing for nowadays?
No longer in the app recommendation game (too bad that was my passion. The same team who built AppAdvice has now created a B2B company helping businesses annoyomize personal documents: https://redacted.ai
Has this letter be anonymized with readacted.ai? :D
I feel sorry for you. but you placed your bets, on a closed platform you don't control.in short, you dug your grave. in your own words, the web as we know it is dead [sic]. Had you stuck to the web, maybe the business would still exist to this day.
Awesome service and app.
The nuance here was there a fair number of bad players in this space and abuse was not uncommon. Ie, "ratings" apps that were not really ratings / user reviews were bogus / paid for etc.
Apple has a fair bit of visability into app store reviews (ie, did users actually install apps). That said, STILL lots of fakes on app store itself in terms of reviews, so in the end I think your app was actually the BETTER solution (curated lists meant you didn't have the app review spam problem, some ethics means you hopefully didn't push the adware type apps).
So yeah, apple screwed up. I do wish you could filter app reviews by verified in-country users (ie, apple uses the gps of the device and icloud account length / other verifications) to weed out the crappy reviews. If you look you can see where people "buy" their reviews (lumps of all 5 star reviews with min content length).
The nuance here was there a fair number of bad players in this space and abuse was not uncommon. Ie, "ratings" apps that were not really ratings / user reviews were bogus / paid for etc.
Apple has a fair bit of visability into app store reviews (ie, did users actually install apps). That said, STILL lots of fakes on app store itself in terms of reviews, so in the end I think your app was actually the BETTER solution (curated lists meant you didn't have the app review spam problem, some ethics means you hopefully didn't push the adware type apps).
So yeah, apple screwed up. I do wish you could filter app reviews by verified in-country users (ie, apple uses the gps of the device and icloud account length / other verifications) to weed out the crappy reviews. If you look you can see where people "buy" their reviews (lumps of all 5 star reviews with min content length).
Not trying to start a flame war, but as an Android user, I often hear things from Apple users along the lines of what you said "I picked up an Android phone and after 5 mins I couldn't handle how they completely missed delighting the user over and over again". It all sounds rather wishy-washy and ambiguous to me, do you mind to elaborate and give some examples? In all fairness, I tried out the demo units of Iphones and Ipads at the Apple Stores and never found the interface to be immediately intuitive despite the hype about Apple's polished UI.
On Android, scrolling to top|bottom doesn't bounce back into final position. Rather, it feels like a lifeless, cheap plastic scroll bar that thuds into place with no intuitiveness.
I know this seems completely pointless and useless, but.. this same disregard for UX is repeated in other major ways. Such as allowing less-than-60fps scrolling on modern phones. Last time I used Android was 2016 or so, and the inefficient animations are probably less noticeable now, but I bet it's still inefficient.
Everything just seems way more thought out and well executed on iOS.
I know this seems completely pointless and useless, but.. this same disregard for UX is repeated in other major ways. Such as allowing less-than-60fps scrolling on modern phones. Last time I used Android was 2016 or so, and the inefficient animations are probably less noticeable now, but I bet it's still inefficient.
Everything just seems way more thought out and well executed on iOS.
Did you get a response? It looks like it was forwarded to some very senior people asking for input.
Never got a response. I am still in shock that it was actually read and even passed along. I wish things turned out differently, I at least they heard me and the got to learn the damage it did.
Unfortunate to see you “betting against” the web so vehemently. What a peculiar stance.
What happened after Tim Cook wrote "Thoughts"?
Hello. I read your email to Tim Cook with interest and I sympathize with the plight of your company. But I wish you would treat other platforms with more respect.
To be clear, I'm glad you enjoy Apple products and I'm not trying to talk you out of that -- as if that were possible. But I do want you to understand that my experience with them is different than yours. Apple products don't delight me. I've tried them. Every time an iOS device ends up in my hands (something that happens way too often, including earlier today) it's a frustrating experience. They feel cold, uncaring and limited. Android has moved in this direction, getting more polished but less delightful over the years, but it's still a better experience for me.
Again, I'm not saying your feelings about Apple products aren't valid. They certainly are. I'm glad you've shared them and I admire your efforts to support the iOS platform. I just wish you respected people like me who don't experience technology the same way you do. I'm glad that iOS and Android products both exist in the market. There are audiences for both -- and then some.
And as for the web, we will have to agree to disagree. Not only do I think it's not dead, I don't think it will ever be dead. That's not something I'd say about either iOS or Android. The web can't go out of business or get bought. Anything it's missing can be added. The first web browser didn't support images! On the other side, it wasn't too long ago that people thought Blackberry was here to stay.
Clearly there are many features iOS and Android offer that are difficult to match with the web. For now. Clearly the development tools are more convenient than those available for the web. But there is one feature of the web that other platforms will never be able to match: it belongs to all of us. No one has to take a 30% cut of your revenue. No one gets to decide what you can and cannot make available. In your letter to Tim Cook you make it clear that you made use of that advantage yourself, even if you don't seem grateful. Freedom always comes at a price and it's up to you to decide whether it's a price worth paying. If it's not then develop for the platform you prefer. But please remember that there are people like me who think differently.
To be clear, I'm glad you enjoy Apple products and I'm not trying to talk you out of that -- as if that were possible. But I do want you to understand that my experience with them is different than yours. Apple products don't delight me. I've tried them. Every time an iOS device ends up in my hands (something that happens way too often, including earlier today) it's a frustrating experience. They feel cold, uncaring and limited. Android has moved in this direction, getting more polished but less delightful over the years, but it's still a better experience for me.
Again, I'm not saying your feelings about Apple products aren't valid. They certainly are. I'm glad you've shared them and I admire your efforts to support the iOS platform. I just wish you respected people like me who don't experience technology the same way you do. I'm glad that iOS and Android products both exist in the market. There are audiences for both -- and then some.
And as for the web, we will have to agree to disagree. Not only do I think it's not dead, I don't think it will ever be dead. That's not something I'd say about either iOS or Android. The web can't go out of business or get bought. Anything it's missing can be added. The first web browser didn't support images! On the other side, it wasn't too long ago that people thought Blackberry was here to stay.
Clearly there are many features iOS and Android offer that are difficult to match with the web. For now. Clearly the development tools are more convenient than those available for the web. But there is one feature of the web that other platforms will never be able to match: it belongs to all of us. No one has to take a 30% cut of your revenue. No one gets to decide what you can and cannot make available. In your letter to Tim Cook you make it clear that you made use of that advantage yourself, even if you don't seem grateful. Freedom always comes at a price and it's up to you to decide whether it's a price worth paying. If it's not then develop for the platform you prefer. But please remember that there are people like me who think differently.
Consider that he tailored his message for the recipient, as most anyone would do.
Imagine if you had spent years (maybe you have, I don't know you) building an app and a business for a platform you love only to have it snatched away.
Wouldn't it bring out strong emotion and cause you to want to appeal to them in the same way?
Imagine if you had spent years (maybe you have, I don't know you) building an app and a business for a platform you love only to have it snatched away.
Wouldn't it bring out strong emotion and cause you to want to appeal to them in the same way?
This is exactly right. This email was never meant for public consumption, although I am glad it's out now in case it may change things for others. I do love native mobile experiences, and especially iOS. Keep in mind, Android has come a very long way to close the gap in the last 6 years. I may have dismissed other platforms too quickly, but I also believe that I would not have been able to build the products I did without this singular focus / passion. It was an iOS recommendation app, in my opinion the only way to make a great product for that is to be on the native platform.
What is the context for this being hosted at house.gov? I didn't follow the hearings THAT closely. Was this particular letter discussed?
The hearings the other day were just one part of the subcommittees anti-trust investigation.
This constitutes the evidence gathering/discovery part of the investigation.
This constitutes the evidence gathering/discovery part of the investigation.
How did the House find this email? Did one of the recipients leak if to the committee, or did Apple have to deliver all emails of this type?
It's evidence submitted as part of the House hearings from July 29th where the CEOs of Apple/Amazon/Google/Facebook testified.
I am not sure, but would guess that someone (a member of the house) put it on the record, so that they could discuss the issues it brings up.
Man, from the title I was really hoping this was an internal Apple doc written to Tim Cook by an Apple higher-up, or that it would maybe include a response from Tim Cook but, nope, it's just a well-written complaint expouding on the chokehold Apple has on their walled garden ecosystem.
Saying that would be tantamount to openly admitting they have a monopoly, which, morals aside, any CEO at that level would never even hint at. At most they would change the rules and say something like "we can serve our users better by increasing the openness of our ecosystem".
I think the worst part of this letter is the date; over 5 years ago and nothing is really different in any of the areas raised.
Yet the same execs that were CC’d are in charge. I’m glad they had some great “thoughts” on the matter.
Yet the same execs that were CC’d are in charge. I’m glad they had some great “thoughts” on the matter.
> In November last year the App Review team made it clear that our apps were not welcome in the
Store anymore as they actively removed our main app from the Store. They pointed to the rule
(2.26) created just a couple of years ago about what kind of apps can recommend apps other than
its own (by the way I still believe my apps fit the description). We of course have been aware of
this rule since it came out, as we already had a healthy business and significant payroll doing app
journalism. When we saw some apps get removed, it made us more steadfast in our mission.
Because we believed the fact that we were not bothered is because we were doing it the "right 11
way. We were really serving the user and the App Store. Not selling fake "recommendations" as
deceptive ads. We literally turned down millions of dollars in revenues, as developers repeatedly
asked to pay per install to be featured in our app (outside of tradition advertising). It was hard to
turn down the money even though we knew it was not right to users. One thing that made it
easier is our belief that playing it straight would keep us in the App Store and in Apple's good
graces.
The rule exists for precisely the reason this email notes: to prevent the selling of deceptive in-app ads. How are App Review personnel supposed to know if the in-app links to other apps are there to really "serve the user" or as paid advertising? They can't, hence the rule. I don't see this is a problem, I see this as a good thing - I don't want to be exposed to deceptive advertising.
The rule exists for precisely the reason this email notes: to prevent the selling of deceptive in-app ads. How are App Review personnel supposed to know if the in-app links to other apps are there to really "serve the user" or as paid advertising? They can't, hence the rule. I don't see this is a problem, I see this as a good thing - I don't want to be exposed to deceptive advertising.
You seem to not be interested in living with your right to install any app you want on your device, which is fine. But do you also believe that other people should not have the right to install software that has not been blessed by an authority on their devices?
Do you think that general purpose computing devices, which an iPhone is, should no longer have the capability to run software without third-party auditing and approval?
You are free to stay in the walled garden if you wish, but I think there is something disturbing about rallying for others to also lose the rights that are not important to you.
Do you think that general purpose computing devices, which an iPhone is, should no longer have the capability to run software without third-party auditing and approval?
You are free to stay in the walled garden if you wish, but I think there is something disturbing about rallying for others to also lose the rights that are not important to you.
> You seem to not be interested in living with your right to install any app you want on your device, which is fine.
Yep, i'm very happy that privacy/security audit is done already by the app store.
> But do you also believe that other people should not have the right to install software that has not been blessed by an authority on their devices?
This is tricky question. Suppose they can, after opt-in. 1) Tons of crap weather and flashlight and Coupons apps gets user data breached, scams ensue. 2) Incentive to build quality apps drops, as people install clone apps your profits will evaporate. 3) Malware
Yep, i'm very happy that privacy/security audit is done already by the app store.
> But do you also believe that other people should not have the right to install software that has not been blessed by an authority on their devices?
This is tricky question. Suppose they can, after opt-in. 1) Tons of crap weather and flashlight and Coupons apps gets user data breached, scams ensue. 2) Incentive to build quality apps drops, as people install clone apps your profits will evaporate. 3) Malware
what makes something a general purpose computing device?
This is a boring, off-topic response. You can litigate the entire concept of app review anywhere, and you can attach a response like this to practically any comment supporting any app review rule. A better response would take direct aim at the guideline this comment is referring to.
The main issue is not the app review process, but the missing alternatives to the App Store on iPhones, and I think arguing about more just App Store rules is not the solution, but a distraction to our eroding right to control our own devices.
> our eroding right to control our own devices.
If you want to frame this as an ideological debate over freedom of user choice, instead of a very specific debate about a very specific App Store rule (even though the latter, and not the former, is what the email in the OP is about), then sure: you have the choice to select a device with a tightly-controlled ecosystem. You also have the choice not to. It was your choice to obtain this device, knowing full well that it would be tightly controlled. Or if you didn't know, you also have the right to return the device and no longer use it.
If you want to frame this as an ideological debate over freedom of user choice, instead of a very specific debate about a very specific App Store rule (even though the latter, and not the former, is what the email in the OP is about), then sure: you have the choice to select a device with a tightly-controlled ecosystem. You also have the choice not to. It was your choice to obtain this device, knowing full well that it would be tightly controlled. Or if you didn't know, you also have the right to return the device and no longer use it.
> the missing alternatives to the App Store on iPhones
Get an Android phone and use the Play Store (or any of the 3rd party Android stores). The magic of a smartphone isn't only on iPhone and there's nothing you can do on iPhone that you can't do elsewhere.
Get an Android phone and use the Play Store (or any of the 3rd party Android stores). The magic of a smartphone isn't only on iPhone and there's nothing you can do on iPhone that you can't do elsewhere.
Third party app stores on Android are purposely hindered in their functionality by Google. Restrictions in Android mean that they cannot install apps in the background, autoupdate apps or batch install apps. The Play Store can do all of those things, however.
Apple and Google have an effective duopoly on the mobile and tablet app distribution markets.
Apple and Google have an effective duopoly on the mobile and tablet app distribution markets.
Let me know when you find a decent alternative to Hindenburg [1] that work as well and that field reporter might want to actually use on Android.
[1]: https://hindenburg.com/products/hindenburg-field-recorder
[1]: https://hindenburg.com/products/hindenburg-field-recorder
There are a lot of opinions packed in your description of the app - I'm sure there are apps that meet reasonable bar for replacement.
> You seem to not be interested in living with your right to install any app you want on your device
I am unclear on how you have made that inference based on me saying that I do not want deceptive advertising in apps.
> Do you think that general purpose computing devices, which an iPhone is, should no longer have the capability to run software without third-party auditing and approval?
No, I think that if users _want_ to download malware, spyware, or simply ad-laden apps, then they should certainly have the capability to do so (hence, sideloading). My suspicions however, is that outside of malware researchers, users do not want this.
Meanwhile, do you think that users should be exposed to deceptive advertising in their apps?
I am unclear on how you have made that inference based on me saying that I do not want deceptive advertising in apps.
> Do you think that general purpose computing devices, which an iPhone is, should no longer have the capability to run software without third-party auditing and approval?
No, I think that if users _want_ to download malware, spyware, or simply ad-laden apps, then they should certainly have the capability to do so (hence, sideloading). My suspicions however, is that outside of malware researchers, users do not want this.
Meanwhile, do you think that users should be exposed to deceptive advertising in their apps?
> But do you also believe that other people should not have the right to install software that has not been blessed by an authority on their devices?
If they did thirty seconds of research in the market they would see that there is a large ecosystem of devices that allow unsigned apps to be installed by the owner that they could have chosen.
If they did thirty seconds of research in the market they would see that there is a large ecosystem of devices that allow unsigned apps to be installed by the owner that they could have chosen.
This argument keeps being repeated, and it's basically just "if you don't like it, find a different platform". Do you think that's how our rights should be preserved, by hopping to places and platforms that respect our rights?
Where do we leave those who have to live with their devices, or simply lacked the knowledge to make that important distinction at the time, or things have changed and now they need to install apps that have not been approved by Apple. Wouldn't the solution be to offer people that need to live with their right to sideload apps on their devices an escape hatch, instead of telling them to change platforms?
Where do we leave those who have to live with their devices, or simply lacked the knowledge to make that important distinction at the time, or things have changed and now they need to install apps that have not been approved by Apple. Wouldn't the solution be to offer people that need to live with their right to sideload apps on their devices an escape hatch, instead of telling them to change platforms?
Why would you buy a device where much of the value it provides is derived from its walled garden, then complain about the walls around the garden?
People can have devices without explicitly choosing them, or understanding the consequences if they get to have a choice, and the rights of those people are needlessly restricted.
> are needlessly restricted.
Its equally correct to say, "the rights of those people are needfully restricted."
If people cannot choose their devices, or are miss-informed that is a big issue and should not be tolerated. Meanwhile, allowing Apple to build an amazing, curated customer experience for me is why I choose Apple's ecosystem for me and my family. I don't want my parents or future children getting misled into downloading malware, or berated by ads, or giving out their credit cards to an un-trusted application disguised as "verified by Apple".
The walled garden is a feature, with tradeoffs. Not different from my shower head or fridge making feature based tradeoffs. If you don't like the energy bills for your washing machine, suing or regulating the company to improve it isn't the right strategy. Just buy a different brand that matches your needs.
If you want sideloading on iOS (beyond what the web offers), buy an Android.
Its equally correct to say, "the rights of those people are needfully restricted."
If people cannot choose their devices, or are miss-informed that is a big issue and should not be tolerated. Meanwhile, allowing Apple to build an amazing, curated customer experience for me is why I choose Apple's ecosystem for me and my family. I don't want my parents or future children getting misled into downloading malware, or berated by ads, or giving out their credit cards to an un-trusted application disguised as "verified by Apple".
The walled garden is a feature, with tradeoffs. Not different from my shower head or fridge making feature based tradeoffs. If you don't like the energy bills for your washing machine, suing or regulating the company to improve it isn't the right strategy. Just buy a different brand that matches your needs.
If you want sideloading on iOS (beyond what the web offers), buy an Android.
> simply lacked the knowledge to make that important distinction at the time
What about the users who lacked the important knowledge that the apps they downloaded had deceptive advertising, or malware?
What about the users who lacked the important knowledge that the apps they downloaded had deceptive advertising, or malware?
Are you arguing that because of the current possibility to install apps from third-party sources that might turn out to be malware, Windows should only allow installing apps from the Windows Store?
Should we no longer be able to run software that has not received third-party approval?
Should we no longer be able to run software that has not received third-party approval?
No, I am not arguing any of those things. Users should be able to sideload apps if they wish to enable sideloading and are fully cognizant of the risks. However, users who wish to use the official installation channel should be protected from malicious behaviours. This is why the official distribution channels have rules which block behaviour very open to malicious gaming, such as in-app links, which is what the OP is about. My argument is that the OP author should not be complaining about being kicked out of the official channel for violating the established rules.
I agree that Apple should be free to make their own rules on the App Store, but because of the lack of sideloading, some of the rules they enforce eliminate legitimate apps from the iOS platform, not just malware, and they can destroy businesses. OP is complaining about App Store rules because that's the only distribution platform for apps on iOS, but I agree that they should instead argue for the possibility of sideloading.
I think you have the motivations of iOS users a little backwards. I use an iPhone specifically because I want and benefit from Apple strong-arming developers.
Software is in a lot of cases non-fungible and so I gain exactly zero choice and freedom when a piece of software I need decides in the name of "freedom" to switch payment systems and app stores. I at least chose to buy an iPhone and want to use the App Store, the same can't be said for a would-be game that's exclusively on the Epic store.
My only real choice as a user on most platforms is just not using an app, but Apple actually has some weight to throw around in my interest. It's technically not "choice" or "freedom" in the way you want but broadly they make the decisions I would have made and actually have the power to make it happen.
Software is in a lot of cases non-fungible and so I gain exactly zero choice and freedom when a piece of software I need decides in the name of "freedom" to switch payment systems and app stores. I at least chose to buy an iPhone and want to use the App Store, the same can't be said for a would-be game that's exclusively on the Epic store.
My only real choice as a user on most platforms is just not using an app, but Apple actually has some weight to throw around in my interest. It's technically not "choice" or "freedom" in the way you want but broadly they make the decisions I would have made and actually have the power to make it happen.
> Do you think that general purpose computing devices, which an iPhone is, should no longer have the capability to run software without third-party auditing and approval?
There are barely any devices these days which cannot meet the definition of "general purpose computing device" without drawing some arbitrary line somewhere. Certainly every modern game console qualifies. Are Roku boxes general purpose if it weren't for their locked down nature?
I mean, I'm all for legislation saying you can't lock down products like this, I just don't think that's what the people advocating for this want in most cases. They just want special rules for iPhones in particular.
There are barely any devices these days which cannot meet the definition of "general purpose computing device" without drawing some arbitrary line somewhere. Certainly every modern game console qualifies. Are Roku boxes general purpose if it weren't for their locked down nature?
I mean, I'm all for legislation saying you can't lock down products like this, I just don't think that's what the people advocating for this want in most cases. They just want special rules for iPhones in particular.
While it's true that almost all computers these days use "general purpose computer hardware" (x86/ARM CPU, GPU of some kind, fast RAM, slower disk, networking, etc), that's not the same thing as being a "general purpose device".
A quick search for the term "general purpose device" gives me definitions such as the following:
A quick search for the term "general purpose device" gives me definitions such as the following:
Any computer-based device that accepts different applications.
Like I said, arbitrary line drawing. The only reason you can't do photo editing on a switch is that Nintendo hasn't approved a photo editing app on its store.
How is that really different than what Apple does?
How is that really different than what Apple does?
I have no expectation of using the controllers of my Nintendo Switch to slowly and arduously type out an email. It features input devices made exclusively to be great at playing games. I cannot "daily drive" a Nintendo switch even if Nintendo allowed me sideload whatever apps I want, because all it has are game controllers. Because of this, while technically it contains general purpose hardware, practically it is a game machine.
On an iPhone, I do expect to be able to do general purpose tasks because it's input methods allow me to conveniently do those general purpose tasks.
On an iPhone, I do expect to be able to do general purpose tasks because it's input methods allow me to conveniently do those general purpose tasks.
> I have no expectation of using the controllers of my Nintendo Switch to slowly and arduously type out an email.
As far as I am aware, there is no reason other than artificially imposed limitations that a Bluetooth or USB keyboard could not be connected to a Swtich.
It's the same thing, the manufacturer arbitrarily chose what functionality to allow and what not to allow.
As far as I am aware, there is no reason other than artificially imposed limitations that a Bluetooth or USB keyboard could not be connected to a Swtich.
It's the same thing, the manufacturer arbitrarily chose what functionality to allow and what not to allow.
You can side load apps
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.iclarified.com/52314/how-to...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.iclarified.com/52314/how-to...
The original author of the email posted in this thread shortly after this comment that might add some color here.
“I subsequently spoke to Phillip Shoemaker, who confirmed that Apple executives ordered the elimination of apps that drove downloads to the App Store. He said "Your app drove download volume. Apple doesn’t want any outside sources to drive ratings. So yeah, we got rid of all app recommendation apps." He said he thought it was unfair, but this was something Apple set out to do, and even as Senior Director of App Store (person directly in charge of App Review), he could not stop it.”
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24190694
“I subsequently spoke to Phillip Shoemaker, who confirmed that Apple executives ordered the elimination of apps that drove downloads to the App Store. He said "Your app drove download volume. Apple doesn’t want any outside sources to drive ratings. So yeah, we got rid of all app recommendation apps." He said he thought it was unfair, but this was something Apple set out to do, and even as Senior Director of App Store (person directly in charge of App Review), he could not stop it.”
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24190694
Based on what people have said in these threads, said app couldn't recommend apps like that because the Apple review system makes sure that there's no such apps to recommend.
That's only a danger if the app review program doesn't work
That's only a danger if the app review program doesn't work
floren(1)
This is an impressive letter. It makes solid points, and it walks the fine line between emotional and reasonable.
Since this is a recent release from the house investigation, I'm not sure if it should be marked 2015 or not. But it was sent in 2015. I also wonder if it had any affect. If anyone knows more details, that would be great to hear.
I mean, there’s a point to be made about how much monopoly power Apple holds, and it’s now clear these questions weren’t asked until now because lawmakers were really sweet on the maker of their shiny iPhone - but this letter ain’t it.
The author is grovelling to the point of it being honestly pitiful. The amount of derogatory references to the web and Android also make it really hard for me not to question the motivation behind this letter.
It’s transparently from an author who built their entire business on the shoulders of a single third party and is now horrified in realising it’s been taken away.
If anything, the lesson to be learned here is that if your business depends exclusively on another company for its survival then it’s not your business.
To the authors point - yes, Apple can change it’s policies whenever it likes, and can use those policies to kill other companies it views as competing with it’s own interests.
This in itself isn’t news. Dropbox got flat out told by Steve Jobs to sell immediately for whatever he felt generous enough to give them or he’d crush them with a competitor. There was a podcast recently wherein someone who sold to Apple (I’m sorry I can’t remember who it was, will try to dig it out and update) got his deal reduced by 25% or so by Steve Jobs in person - after accepting it and flying out to Cupertino just because Jobs could and he wanted to make a point.
This isn’t new information or a new policy, although maybe it’ll be a fairer playing field now that the hornet’s nest has received a good kicking.
The author is grovelling to the point of it being honestly pitiful. The amount of derogatory references to the web and Android also make it really hard for me not to question the motivation behind this letter.
It’s transparently from an author who built their entire business on the shoulders of a single third party and is now horrified in realising it’s been taken away.
If anything, the lesson to be learned here is that if your business depends exclusively on another company for its survival then it’s not your business.
To the authors point - yes, Apple can change it’s policies whenever it likes, and can use those policies to kill other companies it views as competing with it’s own interests.
This in itself isn’t news. Dropbox got flat out told by Steve Jobs to sell immediately for whatever he felt generous enough to give them or he’d crush them with a competitor. There was a podcast recently wherein someone who sold to Apple (I’m sorry I can’t remember who it was, will try to dig it out and update) got his deal reduced by 25% or so by Steve Jobs in person - after accepting it and flying out to Cupertino just because Jobs could and he wanted to make a point.
This isn’t new information or a new policy, although maybe it’ll be a fairer playing field now that the hornet’s nest has received a good kicking.
> the lesson to be learned here is that if your business depends exclusively on another company for its survival then it’s not your business.
This point is made frequently, and it's generally true. But, at the same time, every business is built on top of some kind of opportunity and there is no guarantee in life that opportunities are perpetual.
The mine runs out of ore. People stop buying records. The fish stop biting. The tax code changes. A foreign competitor appears with access to better resources. An invention instantly makes yours out of date. People stop eating out.
I don't think the answer is to avoid all possible opportunities that may not last forever. Instead, you just have to factor that into your business plan. That can mean diversifying, pivoting, or simply acknowledging that that particular business has run its course.
This point is made frequently, and it's generally true. But, at the same time, every business is built on top of some kind of opportunity and there is no guarantee in life that opportunities are perpetual.
The mine runs out of ore. People stop buying records. The fish stop biting. The tax code changes. A foreign competitor appears with access to better resources. An invention instantly makes yours out of date. People stop eating out.
I don't think the answer is to avoid all possible opportunities that may not last forever. Instead, you just have to factor that into your business plan. That can mean diversifying, pivoting, or simply acknowledging that that particular business has run its course.
I agree -- for everyone complaining about sharecropping there's someone else making money from the platform. One just has to be aware of the risk and more people are getting aware of that risk every day.
Perhaps this risk is not justified but that's a moral and legal issue not a business one.
Perhaps this risk is not justified but that's a moral and legal issue not a business one.
Generally, the solution presented is to get a contract ensuring your access. That's usually because people are building on some open API for free which then changes or stops working altogether.
The App Store isn't a contract, but it is (or should be) quite a bit better than building your app on top of some open API that you have no assurances on, as the rules are published.
The problem is that there's no real introspection as to how the rules are applied, and not way to really appeal a decision and expect to influence the result, so the closest thing to a contract in this case is completely one sided.
Part of me wonders if the fact they charge for developer accounts means they might be liable in some way (although I'm sure this approach has been explored in the past), but Apple has deep enough pockets they could probably just refund every Developer the $99 and not bat an eye. If it affected the revenues they collected as their cut though... going after that money could really make a big dent if it was a class action (again, not sure this is even feasible under the law).
The App Store isn't a contract, but it is (or should be) quite a bit better than building your app on top of some open API that you have no assurances on, as the rules are published.
The problem is that there's no real introspection as to how the rules are applied, and not way to really appeal a decision and expect to influence the result, so the closest thing to a contract in this case is completely one sided.
Part of me wonders if the fact they charge for developer accounts means they might be liable in some way (although I'm sure this approach has been explored in the past), but Apple has deep enough pockets they could probably just refund every Developer the $99 and not bat an eye. If it affected the revenues they collected as their cut though... going after that money could really make a big dent if it was a class action (again, not sure this is even feasible under the law).
I think the larger point of the post above is that building an app for an in-vogue platform should be seen as a business opportunity. It is important to know it won't last forever, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't build apps for one of the most lucrative marketplaces of the moment.
You do need to realize that this can change fairly quickly, so you should either use this as a springboard to something else, or just accept that it's a temporary business and not something that will stick around.
The concept still applies even if the problem isn't about being kicked out (which a contract could maybe solve), but simply about the market fading for one reason or another. One common thing that can happen is that the platform provider may decide to compete with you, which is often very hard to come back from - they usually have access to the platform in ways you can't replicate.
You do need to realize that this can change fairly quickly, so you should either use this as a springboard to something else, or just accept that it's a temporary business and not something that will stick around.
The concept still applies even if the problem isn't about being kicked out (which a contract could maybe solve), but simply about the market fading for one reason or another. One common thing that can happen is that the platform provider may decide to compete with you, which is often very hard to come back from - they usually have access to the platform in ways you can't replicate.
I guess I was groveling. This was my livelihood and I was employing 20+ people. I did not want to give up on this and have to tell the team our work and their jobs were over. I tried to be honest and explain the situation, because I believed if Tim Cook understood what happened, he would make it right.
What happened to the company and the 20+ people? Did it indeed just wind down, everyone lost their job?
Pretty much. Site still up, but only one part time publisher making very little to keep it afloat. Site is now loaded with Google ads (we used to have no ads on the site). I'm kind of embarrassed to show the site in its current form. It's 99% old content, and no maintenance is several years. It was the best time of my life in its heyday.
The founders and dev team started a new company unrelated to apps. I tried my best to place our reviewers / curation team at other outlets. I had some success here, but it still pains me knowing that some of my previous team are still looking for something after all this time.
The founders and dev team started a new company unrelated to apps. I tried my best to place our reviewers / curation team at other outlets. I had some success here, but it still pains me knowing that some of my previous team are still looking for something after all this time.
GP.
Seeing your response here has me appreciating your position in a way I didn’t above - given the circumstances and that you ultimately had to lay off your people I’m sorry for any offence caused. This must have been a rough time to work through.
The point I was making, and which I think is valid in any case, is that it’s simply not safe to build a business that’s reliant upon the whims of another company that has shown time and again that it’s policies will change with the wind.
Also, the web is still a wonderful platform with a bright future. Not least as PWAs aren’t subject to 30% taxes and subjective reviews!
Seeing your response here has me appreciating your position in a way I didn’t above - given the circumstances and that you ultimately had to lay off your people I’m sorry for any offence caused. This must have been a rough time to work through.
The point I was making, and which I think is valid in any case, is that it’s simply not safe to build a business that’s reliant upon the whims of another company that has shown time and again that it’s policies will change with the wind.
Also, the web is still a wonderful platform with a bright future. Not least as PWAs aren’t subject to 30% taxes and subjective reviews!
If you still have some involvement with the site then I would suggest moving to a premium ad network (Ezoic, Mediavine, AdThrive) instead of google.
You seem like a really good person. Thank you for being you :-).
FWIW, I don't think you were groveling. I think you were justly concerned with the livelihoods of your employees.
The GP just didn't want to put in the effort to empathize with your struggle, so he tried to paint you as pathetic and stupid and therefore deserving of suffering.
The GP just didn't want to put in the effort to empathize with your struggle, so he tried to paint you as pathetic and stupid and therefore deserving of suffering.
I actually think it's awesome that you went to bat for your employees.
>there’s a point to be made about how much monopoly power Apple holds
>If anything, the lesson to be learned here is that if your business depends exclusively on another company for its survival then it’s not your business.
The problem is that these two ideas shouldn't coexist. If Apple does have monopoly powers then mobile app developers have no choice but to base their business's survival on the whims of Apple. Once a company reaches a near monopoly, both the laws and obligations regarding how that company must operate change.
>If anything, the lesson to be learned here is that if your business depends exclusively on another company for its survival then it’s not your business.
The problem is that these two ideas shouldn't coexist. If Apple does have monopoly powers then mobile app developers have no choice but to base their business's survival on the whims of Apple. Once a company reaches a near monopoly, both the laws and obligations regarding how that company must operate change.
> The author is grovelling to the point of it being honestly pitiful. The amount of derogatory references to the web and Android also make it really hard for me not to question the motivation behind this letter.
This is standard behavior when talking to Apple. Since they're so incredibly editorial about what they permit on their platform, it behooves you to suck up as much as possible.
Source: have personally represented my previous tiny startup and Dropbox at Apple HQ. Have been pissing off Apple executives with my creations for more than a decade.
This is standard behavior when talking to Apple. Since they're so incredibly editorial about what they permit on their platform, it behooves you to suck up as much as possible.
Source: have personally represented my previous tiny startup and Dropbox at Apple HQ. Have been pissing off Apple executives with my creations for more than a decade.
> The author is grovelling to the point of it being honestly pitiful. The amount of derogatory references to the web and Android also make it really hard for me not to question the motivation behind this letter.
Honestly, I interpreted it differently, I saw someone passionate about something, respectfully addressing someone who’s extremely hard to get the attention, and succeeding at it! The problem being discussed is genuine, but I had a good feeling seeing Tim Cook asking his top executives to ponder about it.
Honestly, I interpreted it differently, I saw someone passionate about something, respectfully addressing someone who’s extremely hard to get the attention, and succeeding at it! The problem being discussed is genuine, but I had a good feeling seeing Tim Cook asking his top executives to ponder about it.
Also, I assume some of it is playing to your audience. That doesn't necessarily mean making stuff up, but sometimes it means emphasizing and de-emphasizing different things (play up love of Apple and dislike of Android usability, etc). It doesn't have to even be fake at all, I imagine writing this letter was emotional, and how you feel in that state and how you feel at your most rational may be quite far apart.
>The amount of derogatory references to the web and Android also make it really hard for me not to question the motivation behind this letter.
The way the letter writer feels a need to keep on praising Apple and their vision and how everything]else is not worth anything make me nauseous.
The way the letter writer feels a need to keep on praising Apple and their vision and how everything]else is not worth anything make me nauseous.
tl;dr: Only haters and lovers write you. Everyone else is indifferent. You don't care about the haters, only the lovers.
Well, that's what makes his letter interesting. There are a hundred and one people who don't like your product. There are all the undecided people and non-promoter users who won't write you about things about your product. And then there are the super-fans.
You can win over the undecided and the non-promoter users, you have the super-fans, and it'll take a lot of work to get the people who don't like you to like you, so you spend your time on the first two categories.
Given that only the last two write you, and you don't care about the last, it makes sense for the super-fans to make it clear that they're super-fans. And if a super-fan is telling you you're making things hard for them, you care.
Well, that's what makes his letter interesting. There are a hundred and one people who don't like your product. There are all the undecided people and non-promoter users who won't write you about things about your product. And then there are the super-fans.
You can win over the undecided and the non-promoter users, you have the super-fans, and it'll take a lot of work to get the people who don't like you to like you, so you spend your time on the first two categories.
Given that only the last two write you, and you don't care about the last, it makes sense for the super-fans to make it clear that they're super-fans. And if a super-fan is telling you you're making things hard for them, you care.
> haters and lovers
You mean people who drive revenue for you and people who don't. Emotions don't matter.
You mean people who drive revenue for you and people who don't. Emotions don't matter.
It really makes me wonder about why this letter, out of the presumably many about App Store review, is the one that Tim Cook would read and forward. From where I’m standing it looks like you’d have to come off as an otherwise huge fan to have your criticism taken into account.
I used to be the person in that letter, for years, and suffice it to say you're correct - the Apple community, at least on Twitter, is divided into those who Get It and understand that what Apple is doing is better for humanity, and those that don't.
Only the people that find their way to the 'right' arguments are consistently welcomed - more than a few famous people in the community had to backpedal into saying Epic is just as bad because they want to make money off app sellers too, and not only that, they _entrapped_ Apple.
Daring Fireball plays a key role in what exactly 'Get It' means - ex. the nauseating amount of people saying all this is cool because something something Epic is a big corporation too.
Only the people that find their way to the 'right' arguments are consistently welcomed - more than a few famous people in the community had to backpedal into saying Epic is just as bad because they want to make money off app sellers too, and not only that, they _entrapped_ Apple.
Daring Fireball plays a key role in what exactly 'Get It' means - ex. the nauseating amount of people saying all this is cool because something something Epic is a big corporation too.
> If anything, the lesson to be learned here is that if your business depends exclusively on another company for its survival then it’s not your business.
> To the authors point - yes, Apple can change it’s policies whenever it likes, and can use those policies to kill other companies it views as competing with it’s own interests.
And in a world without antitrust regulation, a monopoly or cartel can use its market power to make massive profits and squash any and all competitors. Your "lesson" is one that takes the status quo as a given (in this case, the anti-competitive power of platforms), even when that status quo should be changed.
It's also far too extreme to be reasonable, since practically every small to medium business that depends on non-commodity inputs fails the test (for instance, pretty much every consumer software company, ever). I think the real lesson is that no business is every truly independent of others, and the platforms have discovered new classes of anti-competitive control that need to be legislated against.
> To the authors point - yes, Apple can change it’s policies whenever it likes, and can use those policies to kill other companies it views as competing with it’s own interests.
And in a world without antitrust regulation, a monopoly or cartel can use its market power to make massive profits and squash any and all competitors. Your "lesson" is one that takes the status quo as a given (in this case, the anti-competitive power of platforms), even when that status quo should be changed.
It's also far too extreme to be reasonable, since practically every small to medium business that depends on non-commodity inputs fails the test (for instance, pretty much every consumer software company, ever). I think the real lesson is that no business is every truly independent of others, and the platforms have discovered new classes of anti-competitive control that need to be legislated against.
Agreed insofar as legislating against this.
I’m wondering if the solution is forcing the platform vendors to allow the device owners to “bless” an App Store in the way that they can permit individual sideloaded apps.
I’m wondering if the solution is forcing the platform vendors to allow the device owners to “bless” an App Store in the way that they can permit individual sideloaded apps.
> If anything, the lesson to be learned here is that if your business depends exclusively on another company for its survival then it’s not your business.
But this means it's nearly impossible to build a software business that's "your business". Do you really not see the problem with that?
The major platforms are iOS, Android, MacOS, Windows and the web. Of those, the web is theoretically open, except that the browsers are made by Apple and Google, and both of them drive change to the platforms based on their business strategy (Apple hobbling PWAs, for example.) Firefox exists, but with single-digit market share, and with a substantial portion of their budget evidently coming from Google, it's not clear how much of a force they really are.
This is why I think even though these platform are not technically monopolies, some kind of regulation or oversight is warranted. The economic value of the software world is too great to leave entirely to the whims of private companies.
But this means it's nearly impossible to build a software business that's "your business". Do you really not see the problem with that?
The major platforms are iOS, Android, MacOS, Windows and the web. Of those, the web is theoretically open, except that the browsers are made by Apple and Google, and both of them drive change to the platforms based on their business strategy (Apple hobbling PWAs, for example.) Firefox exists, but with single-digit market share, and with a substantial portion of their budget evidently coming from Google, it's not clear how much of a force they really are.
This is why I think even though these platform are not technically monopolies, some kind of regulation or oversight is warranted. The economic value of the software world is too great to leave entirely to the whims of private companies.
> To the authors point - yes, Apple can change it’s policies whenever it likes, and can use those policies to kill other companies it views as competing with it’s own interests.
It's only a question of when, not if, app stores will get regulated. And given very cocky attitude from Apple, regulations will be likely pretty strong.
Like with all new technology, laws take some time to catch up with specific of it, but the spirt of regulation is very well known. Giving too much power and tight grip over the competition, in increasingly important part of the economy is not something government will allow for single entity to posses. Apple, and few other tech companies, are on a highway to be new Standard Oil.
It's only a question of when, not if, app stores will get regulated. And given very cocky attitude from Apple, regulations will be likely pretty strong.
Like with all new technology, laws take some time to catch up with specific of it, but the spirt of regulation is very well known. Giving too much power and tight grip over the competition, in increasingly important part of the economy is not something government will allow for single entity to posses. Apple, and few other tech companies, are on a highway to be new Standard Oil.
Your point, that nobody should make iOS apps as a business because that puts them in a lousy situation, is fair but not actionable. Sure, it's a risky proposition, but there are something like 20 million registered iOS app developers out there, and so we've moved well beyond whether this was a good decision on their part. Now we have to figure out how to make society work well for these 20 million people.
To clarify what I meant, I think devs should absolutely build for iOS. I just think they should consider the future very carefully before building exclusively for iOS.
many sources estimate there are ~25 million developers worldwide - majority of them are neither iOS nor Mac developers. Apple maybe have 20 million registered developers but some of them might in inactive, dedicated companies accounts for publishing or many journalists, fans who want to test beta versions before releasing to the public.
I'm iOS developer myself but currently making more investment to learn other tech stack (flutter, reactnative, qt).
iOS is definitely a huge market especially the biggest regarding revenue, but globally their marker share is being slowly eaten by android. If WeChat will get banned globally from app store their market share will fell drastically. Apple not gonna disappear anytime soon but worth to ask yourself how the future might look in 10 years. Especially if you are indie or small shop and cannot afford supporting multiple platforms natively.
I'm iOS developer myself but currently making more investment to learn other tech stack (flutter, reactnative, qt).
iOS is definitely a huge market especially the biggest regarding revenue, but globally their marker share is being slowly eaten by android. If WeChat will get banned globally from app store their market share will fell drastically. Apple not gonna disappear anytime soon but worth to ask yourself how the future might look in 10 years. Especially if you are indie or small shop and cannot afford supporting multiple platforms natively.
Not only that, but apple depends on the 3rd party apps and makes tools just for them. Don't depends solely on apple is actionable.
> really hard for me not to question the motivation behind this letter.
What? I think the motivation behind the letter is pretty transparent -- trying to get the app back in the app store. Groveling is pretty consistent with that.
Were you thinking the motivation was something else? What motivation are you questioning?
What? I think the motivation behind the letter is pretty transparent -- trying to get the app back in the app store. Groveling is pretty consistent with that.
Were you thinking the motivation was something else? What motivation are you questioning?
> If anything, the lesson to be learned here is that if your business depends exclusively on another company for its survival then it’s not your business.
Cool, but some of the world's largest companies evidently care enough about the platform to develop for it anyways–or feel the need to do so. When you have a party that controls access to such a large market, then telling people who develop for that platform that it's their fault that they decided to do that is basically victim-blaming.
Cool, but some of the world's largest companies evidently care enough about the platform to develop for it anyways–or feel the need to do so. When you have a party that controls access to such a large market, then telling people who develop for that platform that it's their fault that they decided to do that is basically victim-blaming.
The companies running it have their own stake in it as well - especially Apple since curation is part of their business model. There is no entitlement to a business model nor market - as tempting as a given juicy market may be.
The alternative to ownership is an absurdity like gmail can't block spam because "antitrust".
The alternative to ownership is an absurdity like gmail can't block spam because "antitrust".
> The amount of derogatory references to the web and Android also make it really hard for me not to question the motivation behind this letter.
A lot of people and developers feel the same way about these technologies as the author. They are just opinions, and yours is obviously different, but I wouldn't say it is pitiful.
A lot of people and developers feel the same way about these technologies as the author. They are just opinions, and yours is obviously different, but I wouldn't say it is pitiful.
>got his deal reduced by 25% or so by Steve Jobs in person - after accepting it and flying out to Cupertino just because Jobs could and he wanted to make a point.
make a point... to whom? The guy selling? He's already selling. He gave in. What more do you want?
make a point... to whom? The guy selling? He's already selling. He gave in. What more do you want?
A lot of people don't understand your point about your business not being yours. You stated that they solely depended on apple, and that is the point. That is why many are multiplatform. The function of the apps are also different, you want enough functionality to be different but not to rule breaking, or a sandbox environment. Lots of games are multiplatform now, software may not be but they usually don't depend on one piece of software. They did not keep a web page, even though I'm almost sure they made it in HTML.
That is the point, they relied on one thing only too much. It seems a job of passion too.
That is the point, they relied on one thing only too much. It seems a job of passion too.
> the lesson to be learned here is that if your business depends exclusively on another company for its survival then
That's easy to say now 10 years later, when you can look back at history.
But not equally obvious in the beginning when the app stores had just appeared.
That's easy to say now 10 years later, when you can look back at history.
But not equally obvious in the beginning when the app stores had just appeared.
>There was a podcast recently wherein someone who sold to Apple (I’m sorry I can’t remember who it was, will try to dig it out and update) ....
Did you find this? I would be curious to listen
Did you find this? I would be curious to listen
>got his deal reduced by 25% or so by Steve Jobs in person
Was it the task-manager / parallel execution developer?
Was it the task-manager / parallel execution developer?
I'd be really interested to hear this podcast episode if anyone knows where to find it.
The podcast you mentioned sounds interesting. Could you please link it?
This seems to me to be about trust.
How did we get from the attitude that web apps will be everything and native is backward to spending a lot of time concerned with App/Play Store monopolies?
I guess my question is, why do native apps suddenly matter so much?
I guess my question is, why do native apps suddenly matter so much?
At least on iOS, native apps matter because Apple suffocated web apps by blocking a lot of functionality (APIs, PWA support).
> Apple suffocated web apps by blocking a lot of functionality (APIs, PWA support)
Rightfully so: I, as a user, do not want the web to have anywhere near the functionality that Google grants it; and absolutely not without clear and explicit permission.
The unfortunate flip side is that native apps sidestep that whole paradigm anyway.
Rightfully so: I, as a user, do not want the web to have anywhere near the functionality that Google grants it; and absolutely not without clear and explicit permission.
The unfortunate flip side is that native apps sidestep that whole paradigm anyway.
So just add a manifest to a web app, like in KaiOS, the third largest phone OS?
A permission model isn't hard to implement
>I guess my question is, why do native apps suddenly matter so much?
They've always mattered -- native vs web vs hybrid is a war going on much longer than iOS or Android OS.
Native apps matter because they have much better access to Apple hardware functionality on the phones like Apple Pay, GPS, Push Notifications, Persitent Storage, Accelerometer, Camera et cetera.
A good example is video games -- while WebGL is a thing the simple reality is AAA games need to run natively.
They've always mattered -- native vs web vs hybrid is a war going on much longer than iOS or Android OS.
Native apps matter because they have much better access to Apple hardware functionality on the phones like Apple Pay, GPS, Push Notifications, Persitent Storage, Accelerometer, Camera et cetera.
A good example is video games -- while WebGL is a thing the simple reality is AAA games need to run natively.
Native apps make money. The web itself makes surprisingly little, unless you get revenue from Google.
> It's very weird to be in love with and scared of the same thing: Apple.
Sound like an abusive relationship, and like what an abused partner would say to try to rationalize the fact that they're economically dependent on the abuser.
Sound like an abusive relationship, and like what an abused partner would say to try to rationalize the fact that they're economically dependent on the abuser.
While I try not to use that phrase publicly (because I know it will offend some people who see it as exaggeration), thinking of an Apple developer/customer as being in an abusive relationship is exactly what convinced me to get out & stop using/developing for Apple platforms. It took me a few years to see it, and nudges from friends ("Why do you put up with them treating you like that?") but it was a very useful perspective on Apple for me.
I also read "abuse" in this quote.
I think this is called Stockholm syndrome[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
Can we get a (2015) tag on the title?
The letter is from 2015, the fact that the US house of representatives is looking at the letter appears to be current and the main point of the submission.
2015 is not the correct tag; this was publically published recently, I believe this year, as part of House antitrust discovery. So the date of authorship, while usually a good guide, would not be helpful to users looking to filter out reposts and other recycled content.
> I fear App Review is getting too powerful. It's no longer about keeping iDevices safe or protecting the user's best
Its amazing that people right here on hackernews, 5 years later, actually think it is about keeping iDevices safe when they see these legislature and regulatory movements against Apple
I’m glad to see your email now
Its amazing that people right here on hackernews, 5 years later, actually think it is about keeping iDevices safe when they see these legislature and regulatory movements against Apple
I’m glad to see your email now
We also see government “movements” against them Post Office, voting, the right to have encrypted messages, net neutrality, citizens being able to film police misconduct, etc.
So am I suppose to trust the government?
So am I suppose to trust the government?
The government is not some imaginary person in the sky: it is me and you. You can influence it - but you cannot influence Apple.
Of course, being involved in government / politic is hard and takes time. You cannot change things by posting on internet forums. I'm trying to be involved in politic on local, state and federal level. And here are some hints if you are in interested:
- Call a member of congress. Try to get someone on the phone, rather than leaving a voicemail (which, like an email, can be ignored). Ask to speak to the member of Congress.
- Find (or make) a group for key your issue
- Show up on town hall meetings (with your friends, group)
- Volunteer
Of course, being involved in government / politic is hard and takes time. You cannot change things by posting on internet forums. I'm trying to be involved in politic on local, state and federal level. And here are some hints if you are in interested:
- Call a member of congress. Try to get someone on the phone, rather than leaving a voicemail (which, like an email, can be ignored). Ask to speak to the member of Congress.
- Find (or make) a group for key your issue
- Show up on town hall meetings (with your friends, group)
- Volunteer
How much good will that do when the government doesn’t represent the people, by design? If you live in California or Texas, you have the same number of Senators as someone who lives in Rhode Island.
Any power given to the government is worse than the power of a corporation. No matter what side of the aisle you’re on, you should be way more concerned about the power of the government. Have you seen what the government can do with its power?
How effective was the consent decree in the MS case two decades ago?
Apple can keep me from side loading apps. The government can literally reach into my bank account and take my money without any kind of trial through civil forfeiture and imminent domain. They can take away my liberty. They can actually compel me to do something.
Any power given to the government is worse than the power of a corporation. No matter what side of the aisle you’re on, you should be way more concerned about the power of the government. Have you seen what the government can do with its power?
How effective was the consent decree in the MS case two decades ago?
Apple can keep me from side loading apps. The government can literally reach into my bank account and take my money without any kind of trial through civil forfeiture and imminent domain. They can take away my liberty. They can actually compel me to do something.
You certainly can influnce a company - it is called being or not being a customer. There is no such opt out option for government as much as sovereign citizens may believe otherwise.
> You certainly can influnce a company - it is called being or not being a customer.
Let's be optimistic and assume 10% of the population is informed and passionate enough about a company's wrongdoings to boycott it. That company is still going to thrive just fine on the business from the other 90%. Holdouts alone won't stop it from accumulating power and reach.
Let's be optimistic and assume 10% of the population is informed and passionate enough about a company's wrongdoings to boycott it. That company is still going to thrive just fine on the business from the other 90%. Holdouts alone won't stop it from accumulating power and reach.
But how is that your problem if you cut Apple away from your life?
The line between company and customers is now blurred due to a lot of people being shareholders.
As such, the feedback from customers to companies that is part of the “invisible handle of the market” is now distorted.
As such, the feedback from customers to companies that is part of the “invisible handle of the market” is now distorted.
I actually think it’s about keeping iDevices safe.
However I’m also someone who thinks app recommendation apps are a good thing and should be allowed on the store.
I think the author of the PDF is not only trying to provide a valuable service, but is also right in pointing out that there are problems.
These things are not mutually exclusive.
However I’m also someone who thinks app recommendation apps are a good thing and should be allowed on the store.
I think the author of the PDF is not only trying to provide a valuable service, but is also right in pointing out that there are problems.
These things are not mutually exclusive.
Security is a goal, but the purpose is control. For example, this is different than in Microsoft, where the purpose is security, and more control is sometimes a goal, but mostly comes along for the ride because it's needed (at least traditionally, we'll see how much that continues to change for Microsoft).
This is obvious in all Apple's decisions. Metal/OpenGL, UI changes, custom CPUs, etc. Apple long ago latched onto control as their path to success, and it's worked quite well for them. It's only natural for them to reach for more control wherever they can. Sometimes that doesn't really affect users or developers much, other times it does.
This is obvious in all Apple's decisions. Metal/OpenGL, UI changes, custom CPUs, etc. Apple long ago latched onto control as their path to success, and it's worked quite well for them. It's only natural for them to reach for more control wherever they can. Sometimes that doesn't really affect users or developers much, other times it does.
I agree with much of this except for the arbitrary conclusion ‘the purpose is control’.
The strategy is control, most definitely.
The goal is to deliver desirable end user features, security being an essential one of these.
I worked in consumer electronics software development during the early 2000s, when Microsoft was still considered the dominant force.
There were many parts of the software stack where no individual entity had control and standards and features were beholden to consortia and standards bodies which were essentially political bodies, all about capturing leverage over one part of the platform or another.
The result was that the user was simply not in the picture, and obvious ways to improve the user experience just couldn’t be executed because every decision about how to do so was a political battle.
Apple’s strategy of vertical integration allowed them to avoid all of this and simply deliver proprietary features that users wanted.
The problem in this case was not Apple delivering proprietary features.
It was Apple’s competitors failure to cooperate to deliver what consumers wanted.
Android is where it is because it became simply a repeat of that early 2000’s failure, and of course Google was forced to abandon “Open always wins” in favor of progressively trying to take back control.
If we want a more open alternative to Apple’s ecosystem, we need to be honest about why they has been successful, and how the alternatives underperformed.
I think Apple’s continued success is contingent on there being no low end disruption (which is definitely not a given), and would be competitors continuing to fail to create a healthy alternative ecosystem of their own.
My contention is that the lack of a healthy alternative is not due to anything Apple has done.
Apple has been on this upward trajectory for nearly 20 years, and for most of that time they were not dominant.
The problem is that the comparing ecosystems haven’t figured out how to work together to make an alternative yet.
If Apple is failing to allow people to play the games they want, and gaming is an increasingly relevant cultural activity, this is an opportunity for growth outside of Apple’s control.
Just as the music industry and the cellphone industry fell to Apple giving customers what they wanted and what was possible, Apple can fall to a competitor to does understand the value of games.
The arguments about not being able to get people to switch are moot. It’s always true that there are switching costs to overcome.
Competing with Apple would take patience, good management, and a lot of capital being deployed.
There is no shortage of capital looking for a place to invest - there is only a shortage of management talent and imagination.
If we don’t hobble Apple artificially, someone will figure this out, and the whole industry will be better off for it.
Remember Apple’s renaissance began with Steve Jobs saying “We have been thinking that in order for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose. We need to stop thinking that way.”
The strategy is control, most definitely.
The goal is to deliver desirable end user features, security being an essential one of these.
I worked in consumer electronics software development during the early 2000s, when Microsoft was still considered the dominant force.
There were many parts of the software stack where no individual entity had control and standards and features were beholden to consortia and standards bodies which were essentially political bodies, all about capturing leverage over one part of the platform or another.
The result was that the user was simply not in the picture, and obvious ways to improve the user experience just couldn’t be executed because every decision about how to do so was a political battle.
Apple’s strategy of vertical integration allowed them to avoid all of this and simply deliver proprietary features that users wanted.
The problem in this case was not Apple delivering proprietary features.
It was Apple’s competitors failure to cooperate to deliver what consumers wanted.
Android is where it is because it became simply a repeat of that early 2000’s failure, and of course Google was forced to abandon “Open always wins” in favor of progressively trying to take back control.
If we want a more open alternative to Apple’s ecosystem, we need to be honest about why they has been successful, and how the alternatives underperformed.
I think Apple’s continued success is contingent on there being no low end disruption (which is definitely not a given), and would be competitors continuing to fail to create a healthy alternative ecosystem of their own.
My contention is that the lack of a healthy alternative is not due to anything Apple has done.
Apple has been on this upward trajectory for nearly 20 years, and for most of that time they were not dominant.
The problem is that the comparing ecosystems haven’t figured out how to work together to make an alternative yet.
If Apple is failing to allow people to play the games they want, and gaming is an increasingly relevant cultural activity, this is an opportunity for growth outside of Apple’s control.
Just as the music industry and the cellphone industry fell to Apple giving customers what they wanted and what was possible, Apple can fall to a competitor to does understand the value of games.
The arguments about not being able to get people to switch are moot. It’s always true that there are switching costs to overcome.
Competing with Apple would take patience, good management, and a lot of capital being deployed.
There is no shortage of capital looking for a place to invest - there is only a shortage of management talent and imagination.
If we don’t hobble Apple artificially, someone will figure this out, and the whole industry will be better off for it.
Remember Apple’s renaissance began with Steve Jobs saying “We have been thinking that in order for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose. We need to stop thinking that way.”
> My contention is that the lack of a healthy alternative is not due to anything Apple has done.
Apple absolutely has done things to prevent alternatives to their platforms. Not only can you not make hardware that iOS and MacOS run on (and in rare cases where people have, Apple has sued them[1]).
Can you run something other than iOS on an iPhone? Less and less possible, as they lock the phone hardware (and bootloader) down more and more.
Can you run an alternative app store? Nope, totally not allowed. You seem to think that if enough capital was gathered, you could do so, but you can't. It's completely locked out by Apple, and any way you have to circumvent it is either blocked by EULA, contract, or digital and physical controls. Without legal intervention, this isn't happening no matter how much capital you have, because Apple has specifically closed off all other avenues.
So, is it possible to gather enough capital to compete? I'm not sure sure. You'd have to take a page from Apple's playbook and close everything down to control it, and that's far more expensive now than it was a decade ago, and somehow get enough developers and apps and users in a marketplace that doesn't have anything in it to start. And you have to close everything down to outsiders because otherwise Apple will just support whatever your standards are while not allowing you to interoperate with theirs (look at the history iMessage and XMPP, and why Google eventually had to copy Apple's tactic of a closed IM system).
I think it's important to note that this is, at it's essence, anti-competitive behavior. Apple leverages their control over their system to provide benefit to their users, but they do this in a way that denies competition at all but the highest level, even when working at the lowest level. Again, iMessage is a good example of this. You have to buy into the entire Apple platform, from hardware to OS to App Store and control to be able to send messages across that system, and only to other iPhone/MacOS users, because Apple refuses to develop or provide an API to utilize the system from any non Apple device, while at the same time automatically making SMS messages use the system for iPhone to iPhone communication, forcing their users to use it. Is it better than SMS? Yes. Does Apple give it extra capabilities that other systems can't compete with? Also yes. How is this different than Internet Explorer on Windows back in the day?
The bottom line is that Apple's behavior is anti-competitive (in the true sense of the word, whether or not it meets with the antitrust definition in all cases). They use their control of different levels of the platform to stifle competition on other levels. No piece of their platform can be exchanged for another, so there's absolutely no competition at individual levels, only on the platform as a whole.
I want to be clear here, currently it's not Apple vs Android, it's Apple vs everyone and everything else. There's plenty of Android hardware I can take and load AOSP, or LineageOS, or even a Linux based OS. I can take any of those OS's and run them on lots of different hardware (the limiting factor is what people have bothered to port, not what has been restricted). Calling for enough capital to support another walled garden that can compete on the platform level with Apple in the same manner is not only not useful, it's actively harmful to competition overall as they are only able to compete at the platform level.
I want to make one last note. Have you considered that the reason Apple provides a great product and service isn't because they've leveraged their profit from anti-competitive behaviors to their own benefit, to make it even harder to compete with them? What if instead of a couple hundred billion in cash reserves held at Apple, it was partially spread around to various competing companies in the different segments the platform covers over the last decade? A valid third contender maybe? I don't know, but I have a hard time believing that Apple's been the most efficient steward of all that capital, nor that preventing competition leads to a better situation in the end.
1: https://www.computerworld.com/article/2534792/apple-sues-mac...
Apple absolutely has done things to prevent alternatives to their platforms. Not only can you not make hardware that iOS and MacOS run on (and in rare cases where people have, Apple has sued them[1]).
Can you run something other than iOS on an iPhone? Less and less possible, as they lock the phone hardware (and bootloader) down more and more.
Can you run an alternative app store? Nope, totally not allowed. You seem to think that if enough capital was gathered, you could do so, but you can't. It's completely locked out by Apple, and any way you have to circumvent it is either blocked by EULA, contract, or digital and physical controls. Without legal intervention, this isn't happening no matter how much capital you have, because Apple has specifically closed off all other avenues.
So, is it possible to gather enough capital to compete? I'm not sure sure. You'd have to take a page from Apple's playbook and close everything down to control it, and that's far more expensive now than it was a decade ago, and somehow get enough developers and apps and users in a marketplace that doesn't have anything in it to start. And you have to close everything down to outsiders because otherwise Apple will just support whatever your standards are while not allowing you to interoperate with theirs (look at the history iMessage and XMPP, and why Google eventually had to copy Apple's tactic of a closed IM system).
I think it's important to note that this is, at it's essence, anti-competitive behavior. Apple leverages their control over their system to provide benefit to their users, but they do this in a way that denies competition at all but the highest level, even when working at the lowest level. Again, iMessage is a good example of this. You have to buy into the entire Apple platform, from hardware to OS to App Store and control to be able to send messages across that system, and only to other iPhone/MacOS users, because Apple refuses to develop or provide an API to utilize the system from any non Apple device, while at the same time automatically making SMS messages use the system for iPhone to iPhone communication, forcing their users to use it. Is it better than SMS? Yes. Does Apple give it extra capabilities that other systems can't compete with? Also yes. How is this different than Internet Explorer on Windows back in the day?
The bottom line is that Apple's behavior is anti-competitive (in the true sense of the word, whether or not it meets with the antitrust definition in all cases). They use their control of different levels of the platform to stifle competition on other levels. No piece of their platform can be exchanged for another, so there's absolutely no competition at individual levels, only on the platform as a whole.
I want to be clear here, currently it's not Apple vs Android, it's Apple vs everyone and everything else. There's plenty of Android hardware I can take and load AOSP, or LineageOS, or even a Linux based OS. I can take any of those OS's and run them on lots of different hardware (the limiting factor is what people have bothered to port, not what has been restricted). Calling for enough capital to support another walled garden that can compete on the platform level with Apple in the same manner is not only not useful, it's actively harmful to competition overall as they are only able to compete at the platform level.
I want to make one last note. Have you considered that the reason Apple provides a great product and service isn't because they've leveraged their profit from anti-competitive behaviors to their own benefit, to make it even harder to compete with them? What if instead of a couple hundred billion in cash reserves held at Apple, it was partially spread around to various competing companies in the different segments the platform covers over the last decade? A valid third contender maybe? I don't know, but I have a hard time believing that Apple's been the most efficient steward of all that capital, nor that preventing competition leads to a better situation in the end.
1: https://www.computerworld.com/article/2534792/apple-sues-mac...
Preventing people using your software on other hardware is not anti-competitive.
It doesn’t do anything to prevent others from developing their own hardware or software.
It’s not as if Apple has a monopoly on good operating systems or developers. Apple’s software isn’t magic.
It’s just well designed and managed relative to the competition. There is no reason it can’t be bettered, except that nobody is trying.
As far as the ‘at every level you can’t substitute other components’ definition of ‘anti-competitive’. That doesn’t work. Every company is like that. The only things which aren’t are certain open source licenses.
At any point where you want substitutable components, one must have agreed interfaces.
As I said earlier, the competitors failed in the early 2000’s because the process of agreeing on interfaces was hopelessly political. At that time the prevailing wisdom amongst VC’s was ‘there’s no money in hardware’.
The only way around that is for competitors (or open source contributors) to establish a truly open platform that commoditizes Apple’s core asset, and then for them all to realize it isn’t in their interest for anyone to seize control of it. That, or someone to just outdo Apple with low end disruption.
I’d like to think that this is what Google will do with Fuchsia, but anyone else can do it.
I actually agree with you that it would be good to have competition at levels other than the platform.
I believe that over a time it’s possible that such an ecosystem could be better for consumers than Apple’s ecosystem.
I do not believe that you can create such an ecosystem by forcing Apple to open certain arbitrarily selected parts of their system.
If anything, I think this would prevent the emergence of a new model indefinitely.
I also don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that it would be better - only that it is a possibility.
As for the cash reserves. Those look quite wise in the present situation. At Apple’s scale, geopolitical risk is real. China as a last resort in the trade war with Trump could easily make it impossible for them to continue to work there. Trump could do the same.
$200B seems like a reasonable hedge against needing to rebuild their supply chains without Chinese cooperation.
It’s also just a concentration of wealth.
Look at all the other players with concentrated wealth who could just as easily be funding a competitor, and actually have a business interest in doing so.
If your argument is that Apple should be funding its competitors, surely that same argument should apply to anyone with enough money.
VC funds, Hedge Funds, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.
The part we agree on is that someone should be funding serious competition against Apple.
There is plenty of capital outside of Apple which could be doing this.
The reason it hasn’t been doing so is that there have been much quicker and easier ways to make money. Advertising engines, Ride share services, Office building scams, etc.
Any way you look at it, building a giant company slowly over decades is a bad way to make money compared to a quick investment in a Unicorn which never even becomes profitable.
That’s what we should be addressing.
It doesn’t do anything to prevent others from developing their own hardware or software.
It’s not as if Apple has a monopoly on good operating systems or developers. Apple’s software isn’t magic.
It’s just well designed and managed relative to the competition. There is no reason it can’t be bettered, except that nobody is trying.
As far as the ‘at every level you can’t substitute other components’ definition of ‘anti-competitive’. That doesn’t work. Every company is like that. The only things which aren’t are certain open source licenses.
At any point where you want substitutable components, one must have agreed interfaces.
As I said earlier, the competitors failed in the early 2000’s because the process of agreeing on interfaces was hopelessly political. At that time the prevailing wisdom amongst VC’s was ‘there’s no money in hardware’.
The only way around that is for competitors (or open source contributors) to establish a truly open platform that commoditizes Apple’s core asset, and then for them all to realize it isn’t in their interest for anyone to seize control of it. That, or someone to just outdo Apple with low end disruption.
I’d like to think that this is what Google will do with Fuchsia, but anyone else can do it.
I actually agree with you that it would be good to have competition at levels other than the platform.
I believe that over a time it’s possible that such an ecosystem could be better for consumers than Apple’s ecosystem.
I do not believe that you can create such an ecosystem by forcing Apple to open certain arbitrarily selected parts of their system.
If anything, I think this would prevent the emergence of a new model indefinitely.
I also don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that it would be better - only that it is a possibility.
As for the cash reserves. Those look quite wise in the present situation. At Apple’s scale, geopolitical risk is real. China as a last resort in the trade war with Trump could easily make it impossible for them to continue to work there. Trump could do the same.
$200B seems like a reasonable hedge against needing to rebuild their supply chains without Chinese cooperation.
It’s also just a concentration of wealth.
Look at all the other players with concentrated wealth who could just as easily be funding a competitor, and actually have a business interest in doing so.
If your argument is that Apple should be funding its competitors, surely that same argument should apply to anyone with enough money.
VC funds, Hedge Funds, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.
The part we agree on is that someone should be funding serious competition against Apple.
There is plenty of capital outside of Apple which could be doing this.
The reason it hasn’t been doing so is that there have been much quicker and easier ways to make money. Advertising engines, Ride share services, Office building scams, etc.
Any way you look at it, building a giant company slowly over decades is a bad way to make money compared to a quick investment in a Unicorn which never even becomes profitable.
That’s what we should be addressing.
> Preventing people using your software on other hardware is not anti-competitive. ... It doesn’t do anything to prevent others from developing their own hardware or software.
Actually, since they also provide the hardware, in the truest sense of the word, it is. They are preventing alternative hardware for their software (they've sued over this), and preventing alternative software on their hardware. No competition is allowed in these areas, to compete you have to replace both.
If you then consider that they lock down what apps can run on their software, that extends the link to software able to run on the device. That means to actually compete on an App level with an Apple app on iOS, you need to not just write a better app, but provide an OS of comparable quality and hardware of comparable quality means they have artificially prevented competition at those levels, since there's no reason that they have to be linked. It provides some small benefits, but there's a large difference between not supporting their OS on other hardware and actively preventing it from running on it, and not providing any softawre except their own for their hardware, and locking it down so no other software will boot. That difference is why those actions are anti-competitive.
> I do not believe that you can create such an ecosystem by forcing Apple to open certain arbitrarily selected parts of their system.
And yet the only reason we don't have that competition is because Apple has closed certain non-arbitrary selected parts of their system/platform. I'm not sure why preventing them from closing those to competition wouldn't help spur more competition in them.
> If anything, I think this would prevent the emergence of a new model indefinitely.
I'm not even sure "model" means in this context. What do you suspect preventing arbitrary removal of competition, which is what Apple does, would somehow prevent a new model?
> $200B seems like a reasonable hedge against needing to rebuild their supply chains without Chinese cooperation.
Having a few full years worth of profit stacked away so they can replicate their entire manufacturing infrastructure needs of a nation that specializes in manufacturing is ridiculous. The comparison to Japanese Zaibatsu was apt before, but you're actually saying it's a good idea if some conditions are met here. Those are known to have outsize negative effects on economies.
> If your argument is that Apple should be funding its competitors
No, my argument is that they have too much control over their platform, with allows them to be anti-competitive. This makes them more money, but at the expense of their users (who do not benefit from that competition), and most likely some ceompetitors, unless you believe Apple would still provide a much better solution, in which case it's just he users that win.
> The part we agree on is that someone should be funding serious competition against Apple.
The fact that you think VC is the answer is part of the problem. Right now VC is the answer, because it's almost impossible for anyone to compete without huge amounts of money, but that's because of Apple's arbitrary barriers to compete.
Actually, since they also provide the hardware, in the truest sense of the word, it is. They are preventing alternative hardware for their software (they've sued over this), and preventing alternative software on their hardware. No competition is allowed in these areas, to compete you have to replace both.
If you then consider that they lock down what apps can run on their software, that extends the link to software able to run on the device. That means to actually compete on an App level with an Apple app on iOS, you need to not just write a better app, but provide an OS of comparable quality and hardware of comparable quality means they have artificially prevented competition at those levels, since there's no reason that they have to be linked. It provides some small benefits, but there's a large difference between not supporting their OS on other hardware and actively preventing it from running on it, and not providing any softawre except their own for their hardware, and locking it down so no other software will boot. That difference is why those actions are anti-competitive.
> I do not believe that you can create such an ecosystem by forcing Apple to open certain arbitrarily selected parts of their system.
And yet the only reason we don't have that competition is because Apple has closed certain non-arbitrary selected parts of their system/platform. I'm not sure why preventing them from closing those to competition wouldn't help spur more competition in them.
> If anything, I think this would prevent the emergence of a new model indefinitely.
I'm not even sure "model" means in this context. What do you suspect preventing arbitrary removal of competition, which is what Apple does, would somehow prevent a new model?
> $200B seems like a reasonable hedge against needing to rebuild their supply chains without Chinese cooperation.
Having a few full years worth of profit stacked away so they can replicate their entire manufacturing infrastructure needs of a nation that specializes in manufacturing is ridiculous. The comparison to Japanese Zaibatsu was apt before, but you're actually saying it's a good idea if some conditions are met here. Those are known to have outsize negative effects on economies.
> If your argument is that Apple should be funding its competitors
No, my argument is that they have too much control over their platform, with allows them to be anti-competitive. This makes them more money, but at the expense of their users (who do not benefit from that competition), and most likely some ceompetitors, unless you believe Apple would still provide a much better solution, in which case it's just he users that win.
> The part we agree on is that someone should be funding serious competition against Apple.
The fact that you think VC is the answer is part of the problem. Right now VC is the answer, because it's almost impossible for anyone to compete without huge amounts of money, but that's because of Apple's arbitrary barriers to compete.
You say it’s ‘ridiculous’ for Apple to have money in case they need to rebuild their supply chains.
Ok, what do you think they should do if China starts to interrupt their manufacturing there?
I’m saying the risk is obviously real, and that it’s obviously reasonable for them to make contingencies.
What would you do in their situation, and how much would it cost?
The rest of your argument is based on the idea that the only way to compete with Apple is by using either their software, or their hardware.
That seems like an extraordinarily claim, which you need to justify.
At face value it is obviously false given that most phones do not use Apple’s software or hardware.
As for the comment about VC. I didn’t just say VC. I listed a range of people who might be interested in investing in competitors to Apple.
It seems like a weird argument to suggest here on Hacker news, that competing with the world’s largest corporations shouldn’t require investment.
This is a very bizarre assertion.
I’d seriously like to live in a world where it was true - e.g. where we had UBI and hackers could get together to collaborate on an open solution without having to make a living. I’m not saying this as a rhetorical maneuver. I am quite serious.
However, solving that problem has nothing to do with Apple.
As for the ‘model’ question. What you are talking about - where there is competition at every level of the stack, is known as a modular approach.
Generally modularity is possible when the components are commodities. People agree on standards and then innovate in other areas.
If we want the competitive environment you are proposing, what we are talking about is a modular approach to personal computing.
Apple’s approach is an integrated one, where modularity is not part of their offering. M
One way to attempt a modular environment would be to seize control of apple and have a committee dictate how they open up parts of their system to competition.
This is what you are proposing.
Another way would be for a group of people who believe that a modular approach would yield better consumer products to create a modular platform.
I believe that this is what Google originally wanted to do with Android.
The reason they failed and reversed course towards an integrated approach is that we simply are not at the stage where software can be treated as a commodity.
The pace of change in how we build software is still rapid.
I agree with you that a modular landscape might potentially be better, but I believe that we can only know if it is by building a modular platform that produces better consumer experiences than the integrated ones.
Again, I don’t think this has anything to do with Apple.
I see no reason why for example, WASM couldn’t be a vehicle for a more modern, modular approach to software creation.
Of course you can argue that Apple will hobble it, but that doesn’t matter over time. Their platform will become expensive to develop for compared to the others, and stop being people’s first choice.
If it yields a faster path to better software, the open platform will win. We just need to build it.
But if we just dismantle Apple by force, it will not.
Ok, what do you think they should do if China starts to interrupt their manufacturing there?
I’m saying the risk is obviously real, and that it’s obviously reasonable for them to make contingencies.
What would you do in their situation, and how much would it cost?
The rest of your argument is based on the idea that the only way to compete with Apple is by using either their software, or their hardware.
That seems like an extraordinarily claim, which you need to justify.
At face value it is obviously false given that most phones do not use Apple’s software or hardware.
As for the comment about VC. I didn’t just say VC. I listed a range of people who might be interested in investing in competitors to Apple.
It seems like a weird argument to suggest here on Hacker news, that competing with the world’s largest corporations shouldn’t require investment.
This is a very bizarre assertion.
I’d seriously like to live in a world where it was true - e.g. where we had UBI and hackers could get together to collaborate on an open solution without having to make a living. I’m not saying this as a rhetorical maneuver. I am quite serious.
However, solving that problem has nothing to do with Apple.
As for the ‘model’ question. What you are talking about - where there is competition at every level of the stack, is known as a modular approach.
Generally modularity is possible when the components are commodities. People agree on standards and then innovate in other areas.
If we want the competitive environment you are proposing, what we are talking about is a modular approach to personal computing.
Apple’s approach is an integrated one, where modularity is not part of their offering. M
One way to attempt a modular environment would be to seize control of apple and have a committee dictate how they open up parts of their system to competition.
This is what you are proposing.
Another way would be for a group of people who believe that a modular approach would yield better consumer products to create a modular platform.
I believe that this is what Google originally wanted to do with Android.
The reason they failed and reversed course towards an integrated approach is that we simply are not at the stage where software can be treated as a commodity.
The pace of change in how we build software is still rapid.
I agree with you that a modular landscape might potentially be better, but I believe that we can only know if it is by building a modular platform that produces better consumer experiences than the integrated ones.
Again, I don’t think this has anything to do with Apple.
I see no reason why for example, WASM couldn’t be a vehicle for a more modern, modular approach to software creation.
Of course you can argue that Apple will hobble it, but that doesn’t matter over time. Their platform will become expensive to develop for compared to the others, and stop being people’s first choice.
If it yields a faster path to better software, the open platform will win. We just need to build it.
But if we just dismantle Apple by force, it will not.
> You say it’s ‘ridiculous’ for Apple to have money in case they need to rebuild their supply chains.
> Ok, what do you think they should do if China starts to interrupt their manufacturing there?
Choose another manufacturer in a different nation? China is not the only one on the market. Saving up enough monety to create a new one from scratch instead of finding a new one "just in case" is ridiculous. That's like you renting and saving up enough money to buy a house "just in case" your landlord evicts you, even though you're perfectly happy renting. There are better uses for that money than sitting as a contingency plan you're better off not doing anyway even if that case happens.
> The rest of your argument is based on the idea that the only way to compete with Apple is by using either their software, or their hardware.
No, my argument is based on the fact the only way to compete with Apple is on the whole platform level, because they've erected barriers to make it impossible to do otherwise.
You can't create better hardware for Apple OS software. You can't create a better OS for Apple hardware. You can't create a new App store for their OS, and you can't even compete on a specific App they don't want you to. You can compete on these specific items of their stack only if they allow you to, and at this point that means you can create apps. Usually. Hopefully.
> Generally modularity is possible when the components are commodities. People agree on standards and then innovate in other areas.
It doesn't take modularity to allow competition. I can buy a Ford automobile and put another engine in it. Because I can do that, I can sell engines that work in Fords. I can also buy Fords and alter them with new engines, and any other new parts I want, and then re-sell them. This is how Shelby American created the first Shelby Mustangs.
If Ford were to take a page from Apple's book, they would both create custom screw and bolt sets for all items in the car, and only sell under a contract that says you aren't allowed to disassemble any parts they don't give explicit permission to, and you're only allowed to use certified Ford parts, except they can't because those are consumer rights protected under law.
> One way to attempt a modular environment would be to seize control of apple and have a committee dictate how they open up parts of their system to competition.
> This is what you are proposing.
No, I'm really just proposing that consumers have more rights over the devices and software they buy. That gets tricky because we don't "buy" our software anymore, we lease it, but we sure as hell buy our hardware, so why is it okay for the manufacturer to use a technical block to thwart a right we are already guaranteed under law?
> I agree with you that a modular landscape might potentially be better, but I believe that we can only know if it is by building a modular platform that produces better consumer experiences than the integrated ones.
Every one of these platforms is already modular, because that's the only way we know how to build software this large and complex. Modularity is not the problem, it's the coordinating updates between components and explaining of the interfaces Apple doesn't want to deal with, because it allows them to provide a smoother user experience. That's nice, but Apple wanting something does not, IMO, excuse the anti-competitive practices used to achieve it. They could easily sign all the components they provide and always show whether you're running official or non-official components not care at all about third parties knowing how to interface with them, and as long as they didn't actively prevent third parties, we'd still be a thousand times better off than we are with regards to choice and user control.
> I see no reason why for example, WASM couldn’t be a vehicle for a more modern, modular approach to software creation.
WASM runs in the browser, iOS only allows for one browser runtime, so they control what capabilities are allowed from WASM code. Again, everything is locked down from Apple as much as they want. They could, arbitrarily, decide tomorrow that only WASM signed by an Apple Developer account and certified by them would run in Safari, and nobody could do a thing about it. Will they? Very unlikely, but the fact there's absolutely no user recourse in that case means WASM fundamentally is no different than something from the App store, even if right now it seems less constrained in some ways and more constrained in others.
> But if we just dismantle Apple by force, it will not.
Nobody is saying dismantle Apple. They would survive just fine if they were forces to provide a mechanism to allow a different App store, or a new OS on their hardware. Since only a very small amount of people would do so, the only difference is they would be slightly less profitable, which is still immensely profitable.
> Ok, what do you think they should do if China starts to interrupt their manufacturing there?
Choose another manufacturer in a different nation? China is not the only one on the market. Saving up enough monety to create a new one from scratch instead of finding a new one "just in case" is ridiculous. That's like you renting and saving up enough money to buy a house "just in case" your landlord evicts you, even though you're perfectly happy renting. There are better uses for that money than sitting as a contingency plan you're better off not doing anyway even if that case happens.
> The rest of your argument is based on the idea that the only way to compete with Apple is by using either their software, or their hardware.
No, my argument is based on the fact the only way to compete with Apple is on the whole platform level, because they've erected barriers to make it impossible to do otherwise.
You can't create better hardware for Apple OS software. You can't create a better OS for Apple hardware. You can't create a new App store for their OS, and you can't even compete on a specific App they don't want you to. You can compete on these specific items of their stack only if they allow you to, and at this point that means you can create apps. Usually. Hopefully.
> Generally modularity is possible when the components are commodities. People agree on standards and then innovate in other areas.
It doesn't take modularity to allow competition. I can buy a Ford automobile and put another engine in it. Because I can do that, I can sell engines that work in Fords. I can also buy Fords and alter them with new engines, and any other new parts I want, and then re-sell them. This is how Shelby American created the first Shelby Mustangs.
If Ford were to take a page from Apple's book, they would both create custom screw and bolt sets for all items in the car, and only sell under a contract that says you aren't allowed to disassemble any parts they don't give explicit permission to, and you're only allowed to use certified Ford parts, except they can't because those are consumer rights protected under law.
> One way to attempt a modular environment would be to seize control of apple and have a committee dictate how they open up parts of their system to competition.
> This is what you are proposing.
No, I'm really just proposing that consumers have more rights over the devices and software they buy. That gets tricky because we don't "buy" our software anymore, we lease it, but we sure as hell buy our hardware, so why is it okay for the manufacturer to use a technical block to thwart a right we are already guaranteed under law?
> I agree with you that a modular landscape might potentially be better, but I believe that we can only know if it is by building a modular platform that produces better consumer experiences than the integrated ones.
Every one of these platforms is already modular, because that's the only way we know how to build software this large and complex. Modularity is not the problem, it's the coordinating updates between components and explaining of the interfaces Apple doesn't want to deal with, because it allows them to provide a smoother user experience. That's nice, but Apple wanting something does not, IMO, excuse the anti-competitive practices used to achieve it. They could easily sign all the components they provide and always show whether you're running official or non-official components not care at all about third parties knowing how to interface with them, and as long as they didn't actively prevent third parties, we'd still be a thousand times better off than we are with regards to choice and user control.
> I see no reason why for example, WASM couldn’t be a vehicle for a more modern, modular approach to software creation.
WASM runs in the browser, iOS only allows for one browser runtime, so they control what capabilities are allowed from WASM code. Again, everything is locked down from Apple as much as they want. They could, arbitrarily, decide tomorrow that only WASM signed by an Apple Developer account and certified by them would run in Safari, and nobody could do a thing about it. Will they? Very unlikely, but the fact there's absolutely no user recourse in that case means WASM fundamentally is no different than something from the App store, even if right now it seems less constrained in some ways and more constrained in others.
> But if we just dismantle Apple by force, it will not.
Nobody is saying dismantle Apple. They would survive just fine if they were forces to provide a mechanism to allow a different App store, or a new OS on their hardware. Since only a very small amount of people would do so, the only difference is they would be slightly less profitable, which is still immensely profitable.
>I actually think it’s about keeping iDevices safe.
How are Hey or xCloud about keeping iDevices safe?
How are Hey or xCloud about keeping iDevices safe?
xCloud deliberately avoids the app review process AIUI by allowing it to be an umbrella for any game.
Yeah, but the technology used for all of the games is the same isn't it? It's just streaming.
And if it's about content, I doube Apple is pre-approving every Netflix show. I bet some of the offerings on Netflix even show female nipples.
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-instagram-bans-freetheni...
And if it's about content, I doube Apple is pre-approving every Netflix show. I bet some of the offerings on Netflix even show female nipples.
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-instagram-bans-freetheni...
The Witcher shows a lot of nipple
are you really comparing video to executable code?
What executable code? The executable code running on Microsofts servers?
Am I comparing streaming video to streaming video? Why yes, I am.
You keep repeating this, but at this point it’s hard to imagine that you really see no difference in either the technology or the experience between what Netflix does and what xCloud does.
Do you really not see that there is a difference between watching a movie, and controlling a remote video console which is playing a fully interactive video game?
Do you really not see that there is a difference between watching a movie, and controlling a remote video console which is playing a fully interactive video game?
There’s a difference but it’s relatively pedantic. Netflix has interactive shows and the play/pause is necessarily controlling a remote server as well.
It’s not pedantic to say that movies and videogames are different.
Most people in the world would think you insane if you said you perceived them to be the same thing.
Most people in the world would think you insane if you said you perceived them to be the same thing.
You’re misreading me. I’m saying that the technological distinction does not justify the policy distinction. I don’t at all believe they’re the same thing.
The comments you’re replying to suggest that executables are being streamed or something, and they’re not.
The comments you’re replying to suggest that executables are being streamed or something, and they’re not.
It doesn’t download executables, it streams your inputs to a server which streams synced AV back.
Apps and videos pose different security risks, but I assume you know this.
Do you think xCloud copies a binary executable of Halo Infinite on every Android and iOS device?
Do you think it’s possible to enter a credit card number into a steaming video of ‘friends’?
A steaming app (game or not) can pop up a fraudulent credit card payment interface at any time.
A steaming app (game or not) can pop up a fraudulent credit card payment interface at any time.
I don't see the point you are making.
If video streaming is so bad, Netflix should not be on the App Store for "iDevice security". If video game streaming is so bad, Twitch should not be on the App Store for "iDevice security".
If video streaming is so bad, Netflix should not be on the App Store for "iDevice security". If video game streaming is so bad, Twitch should not be on the App Store for "iDevice security".
> If video game streaming is so bad
It's not just streaming, it's interactive streaming where it could well happen that PayToWin / LootBox / etc games can appear.
Now, of course, they already exist on the App Store (and I honestly wish Apple would ban them outright) but there, at least, Apple has some kind of leverage - with xCloud, they have none.
It's not just streaming, it's interactive streaming where it could well happen that PayToWin / LootBox / etc games can appear.
Now, of course, they already exist on the App Store (and I honestly wish Apple would ban them outright) but there, at least, Apple has some kind of leverage - with xCloud, they have none.
Netflix offers "interactive movies", and those are apparently ok, for some reason.
That’s a fair point. At some point far down the road of complexity, those could cross into the territory of ‘gaming’.
But Netflix can read the same rules the rest of us can, and know that they signed a contract that doesn’t allow App storefronts.
But Netflix can read the same rules the rest of us can, and know that they signed a contract that doesn’t allow App storefronts.
What capabilities would the streamed app have for deception that a website lacks?
[deleted]
The mechanisms used by Hey and xCloud would clearly be used by less trustworthy companies for nefarious purposes.
Hey was able to alter their app trivially to comply with the guidelines, so it actually represents nothing at all here.
xCloud can’t be altered to comply, but nevertheless if app steaming were allowed in general, all of App review could be bypassed by bad actors.
Hey was able to alter their app trivially to comply with the guidelines, so it actually represents nothing at all here.
xCloud can’t be altered to comply, but nevertheless if app steaming were allowed in general, all of App review could be bypassed by bad actors.
> The mechanisms used by Hey and xCloud would clearly be used by less trustworthy companies for nefarious purposes.
Sorry but no.
What mechanism was “Hey” using that could possibly be abused by a malicious app or malicious app author?
If “Hey” advertised themselves as B2B without any self-service option then Apple, by their own words, would have let the app on the store. Being B2C or having self-service (even if the self-service is outside of the app!) means Apple requires you to have a sign-up form in the app - and if you take punters’ money then that means you need to use IAP and so give Apple their 30% rent. The outrage isn’t over this requirement itself, but because Apple arbitrarily carved-out undocumented exceptions for Netflix, Amazon Kindle, and other “reader” apps even though they’re B2C and self-service - which we can tell is because Apple would get into a worse spat and lose public opinion if they tried to pull Netflix or Amazon’s apps for the same reason.
Sorry but no.
What mechanism was “Hey” using that could possibly be abused by a malicious app or malicious app author?
If “Hey” advertised themselves as B2B without any self-service option then Apple, by their own words, would have let the app on the store. Being B2C or having self-service (even if the self-service is outside of the app!) means Apple requires you to have a sign-up form in the app - and if you take punters’ money then that means you need to use IAP and so give Apple their 30% rent. The outrage isn’t over this requirement itself, but because Apple arbitrarily carved-out undocumented exceptions for Netflix, Amazon Kindle, and other “reader” apps even though they’re B2C and self-service - which we can tell is because Apple would get into a worse spat and lose public opinion if they tried to pull Netflix or Amazon’s apps for the same reason.
They aren’t undocumented carve outs. Anyone can produce a reader app.
Anyone can make a B2C reader app, but those reader-apps must have built-in self-service sign-up, including accepting payment through Apple. There is no way around that unless you offer a free tier and never prompt your users to upgrade or tell them that they can upgrade through their web-browser. Logically this extends to free-trials-without-payment-details because when the free trial ends what are you supposed to display in the app?
Netflix, Kindle and others are exempted from the self-service sign-up requirement because Apple knows they can’t win a PR fight against them. Spotify has self-service sign-up in the app, but that’s because they’ve always had a free tier, where’s there’s no free/gratis membership tier for Netflix or Kindle.
If you try it yourself right now Apple will require you to have a self-service signup flow in your app, which is only viable if you have a free tier - otherwise you’ll have to pay the 30% rent or let your iOS users use your service for free indefinitely because you can’t put up a “your free trial has ended” message.
Netflix, Kindle and others are exempted from the self-service sign-up requirement because Apple knows they can’t win a PR fight against them. Spotify has self-service sign-up in the app, but that’s because they’ve always had a free tier, where’s there’s no free/gratis membership tier for Netflix or Kindle.
If you try it yourself right now Apple will require you to have a self-service signup flow in your app, which is only viable if you have a free tier - otherwise you’ll have to pay the 30% rent or let your iOS users use your service for free indefinitely because you can’t put up a “your free trial has ended” message.
If the app review process is supposed to ban objectionable content then why is Netflix allowed? What stops Netflix from putting bestiality porn on their service (and thus onto iDevices) any more than Microsoft putting objectionable games on xCloud? Simply, because Apple knows that iPhones are commercially unviable without Netflix.
Don’t accept the bullshit Apple offers for the App Store. It has always been about the benjamins, and to over a trillion dollars of success.
Don’t accept the bullshit Apple offers for the App Store. It has always been about the benjamins, and to over a trillion dollars of success.
It’s not just about objectionable content - it’s also about fraud.
Apps can be used for fraud in ways that video cannot.
Apps can be used for fraud in ways that video cannot.
So Safari is top attack surface, why don't they ban Safari?
Because people know the difference between websites and apps.
You’re giving the same answers that Apple Marketing would.
Do you think it isn’t true? You seem to be just deflecting.
I do not think it's true that Apple's decision to ban Microsoft's xCloud is to protect their customers from games that are actually trying to defraud players. If this is deflecting then I guess call me the Great Deflector.
Do you think it’s true that users can tell the difference between Apps and Websites?
That’s the question you replied to without answering before.
That’s the question you replied to without answering before.
AppStore guideline is too arbitrary for Apple.
App Store review doesn't really do all that much there.
Security or freedom, chose one. You can't have both.
I think we are slowly coming to the consensus (as a society) that security is preferable to freedom because it maximizes harm reduction (harm reduction being the ultimate metric by which to measure the value of something).
I don't agree at all, but the way our government is, it's a one way ratchet to get new laws passed. Speech laws only get stricter (one inch at a time) over the years, never looser. Gun laws only get stricter (one inch at a time) over the years, never looser. Intellectual property laws only get stricter (one inch at a time) over the years, never looser.
Lives are saved every time the ratchet torques an inch of freedom into security, so I guess that's the upside. I just worry that life won't be as fulfilling when we are perfectly secure.
I don't agree at all, but the way our government is, it's a one way ratchet to get new laws passed. Speech laws only get stricter (one inch at a time) over the years, never looser. Gun laws only get stricter (one inch at a time) over the years, never looser. Intellectual property laws only get stricter (one inch at a time) over the years, never looser.
Lives are saved every time the ratchet torques an inch of freedom into security, so I guess that's the upside. I just worry that life won't be as fulfilling when we are perfectly secure.
We are in the middle of a pandemic that the US has been singularly unable/unwilling among the world's developed countries to apply the necessary measures to solve, and still you argue that the real problem is too much harm reduction...
I'm sure enjoying my fulfilling free life as I make plans to sit alone in my apartment for another entire year because I live in the land of freedom, where people can dine in indoor restaurants without a mask.
I'm sure enjoying my fulfilling free life as I make plans to sit alone in my apartment for another entire year because I live in the land of freedom, where people can dine in indoor restaurants without a mask.
Are you saying you'd rather live in a country where the police will chokeslam you if you are caught not properly wearing a mask outside of your house[0]?
If yes => you prefer security over freedom. And that's okay.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC7JnT3JaQk
If yes => you prefer security over freedom. And that's okay.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC7JnT3JaQk
The Disney Copyright term actually ended
It's not amazing. If the regulatory and govt moves against apple succeed apple will be shipping devices with back door / root access for intercept purposes within months. The idea that the govt is going to do more to protect your privacy than apple is is a joke.
If you are the out group -> govt will be after you (depending on which administration is in power the out groups may change). I'm all for subpoena's and access to records, but there is a whole secondary national security letter / secret process you never get to challenge. And yes, there are agents harassing ex-girlfriends using their existing tools.
So what's amazing to some of us is that there are folks looking to gobble up whatever garbage is coming from the regulatory movements against apple.
There is a reason Apple get to charge so much. They are TRUSTED - trusted FAR FAR more than tump admin political appointees running DOJ / FTC etc despite the fact the govt spends trillions and should be most trusted player out there.
Heads up - look to australia to see govt "succeeding" - pretty soon we will all have to pay a mandatory murdoch license fee if the regulatory lovers get their way.
If you are the out group -> govt will be after you (depending on which administration is in power the out groups may change). I'm all for subpoena's and access to records, but there is a whole secondary national security letter / secret process you never get to challenge. And yes, there are agents harassing ex-girlfriends using their existing tools.
So what's amazing to some of us is that there are folks looking to gobble up whatever garbage is coming from the regulatory movements against apple.
There is a reason Apple get to charge so much. They are TRUSTED - trusted FAR FAR more than tump admin political appointees running DOJ / FTC etc despite the fact the govt spends trillions and should be most trusted player out there.
Heads up - look to australia to see govt "succeeding" - pretty soon we will all have to pay a mandatory murdoch license fee if the regulatory lovers get their way.
Who redacted this email? Apple, or the House?
I wonder which of Cue, Schiller, or Federighi replied, and what their thoughts were.
oh man dissing hololens on the last page! AR has come a long way in 5 years
One thing missing from this discussion is: where is academia? The WWW was created inside academia, and it's because of that that it's still open and competitive. The internet itself was created in the military. Where is the equivalent for mobile apps? It's a problematic category that is wholly dominated by 2 actors, one of which isn't even interested in phones. We need a common set of standards for mobile development in order to open up the competition
>where is academia?
Where is the need? The web was invented to expedite publishing journal articles. Unless you're advocating that academics start publishing apps instead of articles, I don't think we can expect some unrelated non-profit sector to solve society's problems.
Where is the need? The web was invented to expedite publishing journal articles. Unless you're advocating that academics start publishing apps instead of articles, I don't think we can expect some unrelated non-profit sector to solve society's problems.
It is called "websites" - not being sarcastic, browser code is pretty portable although of course there needs to be efforts to test it for all platforms.
Also that wouldn't be Academia's wheelhouse. Standard serting and propagation are set by "industries" in practice. Academia is more theory development which essentially catches on "by accident" at best.
There are a few free software phones but they are a niche even by desktop Linux standards.
Also that wouldn't be Academia's wheelhouse. Standard serting and propagation are set by "industries" in practice. Academia is more theory development which essentially catches on "by accident" at best.
There are a few free software phones but they are a niche even by desktop Linux standards.
Why not use the web as the standard? I mean progressive web apps can do nearly everything that 95% of the apps do, they can present notifications, have a local persistent storage, there are even proposal to let them access bluetooth, USB and other hardware.
But of course now Apple is trying to oppose PWA by imposing stupid limitations.
But of course now Apple is trying to oppose PWA by imposing stupid limitations.
they just aren't good enough. even on android, with google supposedly being the patron saint of PWA, native apps just offer a better experience.
OTOH more effort hasn't been put into PWAs (by developers and Google) precisely because these won't work properly in iOS.
What doesn't actually work properly on iOS? Like what are the specific APIs that are missing (because PWA isn't actually a real thing, it's just a collection of APIs), or are buggy? IIRC you can't prompt for "app" "install", and service worker support for background activity is limited (as it should be IMHO).
It's funny Apple gets this bad rep, when on the UI front they've actually had some really good APIs much earlier than Chrome. CSS Snap Points, backdrop-filter, and position: sticky on iOS all have been really great at creating more native-like experiences on web.
But really, despite being a web developer, I just have very little experience in trying to compete with actual native apps which will always inherently be more capable and performant. This isn't really due to the platform being supposedly hindered by a particular company, but more down to the inherent free for all nature of the web where there's very little _authorised intent_ you can express.
It's funny Apple gets this bad rep, when on the UI front they've actually had some really good APIs much earlier than Chrome. CSS Snap Points, backdrop-filter, and position: sticky on iOS all have been really great at creating more native-like experiences on web.
But really, despite being a web developer, I just have very little experience in trying to compete with actual native apps which will always inherently be more capable and performant. This isn't really due to the platform being supposedly hindered by a particular company, but more down to the inherent free for all nature of the web where there's very little _authorised intent_ you can express.
> Like what are the specific APIs that are missing
Push notifications and background sync for instance.
Push notifications and background sync for instance.
Did apple remove some functionality? It always sounds like that, but when I look into it it’s more about adding new features that websites didn’t use to have?
I suspect you’d quickly find that consumers don’t have much of an appetite for a third set of standards, unless it offers a substantially better UX than existing offerings.
Am I the only one that is creeped out that this email is public?
As the author I was shocked to see it out there, and seeing my emotions out there like that made me feel something, I'm not sure what. But ultimately I am happy that this conversation is finally happening. I have a good feeling things are going to change for the better soon.
> I have a good feeling things are going to change for the better soon.
I hope you're right.
What do you think will happen? Apple will be forced to allow other app stores on iOS?
I hope you're right.
What do you think will happen? Apple will be forced to allow other app stores on iOS?
Not really. In an open society, courts and government bodies will sometimes have to make private things public if there's a compelling public-interest reason for doing so. That's needed for public oversight, and all that can be asked is that reasonable actions are taken to minimize any private harm.
In this case, the email was redacted to hide the identity of its author, so I don't there's any real problem with making it public.
In this case, the email was redacted to hide the identity of its author, so I don't there's any real problem with making it public.
People sometimes give the advice "Never write in an email what you wouldn't want to see on the front page of a newspaper".
I guess the hacker news frontpage is close enough.
I guess the hacker news frontpage is close enough.
Apple shares your communication with them with the public?!? What happened to privacy?!? Sue them! Do it now! /s
Can we correct the title? 2015 is not the correct date of public publication; this document was published as part of House antitrust discovery, I believe this year, and was private communication before that. Finding the precise date is beyond my brief Googling efforts, though.
It has a real “serf begging his lord” feel to it.
Am I the only one that supports Apple here? As a smaller indie dev they have been great to me. The best developer support I've experienced from a company and I don't mind the 30% cut.
The email wasn't complaining about Apple's cut of profits, but rather having their app being killed seemingly arbitrarily when Apple decided to kill a category of apps from the store.
Folks can have a good experience with the app store, until they don't. There's survivorship bias in creating an app unaffected by the ever changing app review policies.
This isn't exclusive to Apple's walled garden either.
Folks can have a good experience with the app store, until they don't. There's survivorship bias in creating an app unaffected by the ever changing app review policies.
This isn't exclusive to Apple's walled garden either.
I mind it in that I'd like to pay less, but I personally think Apple has every right to control their own ecosystem and charge whatever they want to be listed in their store, on their hardware.
I think it is a tough pill to swallow for larger corps who see much less value in Apple's marketing / support.
I think it is a tough pill to swallow for larger corps who see much less value in Apple's marketing / support.
If you're a small indie band, or a large act, Bandcamp only charges 10% - 15% for digital assets purchased on their platform.
Surely if fair competition was allowed between app store platforms, other companies could be more efficient with the 30% cut Apple currently takes, and could even take less.
Surely if fair competition was allowed between app store platforms, other companies could be more efficient with the 30% cut Apple currently takes, and could even take less.
"We believed the web was dead"... well there's your problem.
[deleted]
I feel happy that aside of doing couple of small contract things I've never had to deal with App stores and their respective owners. I just can't tolerate that kind of control over my products hence refuse to participate.
I fully agree with the author, and "App Review is getting too powerful" was an extremely prescient thing to say back then - let alone today.
I've had my own share of similar experiences with Apple in the past, one of which was here on HN recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23585682
Apple currently has an unreasonable amount of control not only on what apps can be available on their devices, but also on how they look, work, and generate revenue. They allow 3rd-party innovation to occur only down specific paths that they deem beneficial.
On top of everything, Apple is also systematically erasing all App Review rejection communications [1] and keeping most of this abuse in the dark, thus buying themselves more time to stay in this dominant position.
Something definitely needs to change here, hopefully sooner than later.
[1] https://www.change.org/p/apple-let-us-browse-all-our-past-re...
I've had my own share of similar experiences with Apple in the past, one of which was here on HN recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23585682
Apple currently has an unreasonable amount of control not only on what apps can be available on their devices, but also on how they look, work, and generate revenue. They allow 3rd-party innovation to occur only down specific paths that they deem beneficial.
On top of everything, Apple is also systematically erasing all App Review rejection communications [1] and keeping most of this abuse in the dark, thus buying themselves more time to stay in this dominant position.
Something definitely needs to change here, hopefully sooner than later.
[1] https://www.change.org/p/apple-let-us-browse-all-our-past-re...
On top of everything, Apple is also systematically erasing all App Review rejection communications [1]
If someone were to sue them for any reason related to rejection of an app submission, they could probably obtain an injunction to bring that bullshit to a screeching halt. Just saying.
If someone were to sue them for any reason related to rejection of an app submission, they could probably obtain an injunction to bring that bullshit to a screeching halt. Just saying.
Signed the petition! Thanks for helping make change.
I’ll just repost what the top comment said. But I see it as really disingenuous to try to put what you are trying to do, in the same category as Basecamp/Hey, whose side I completely support.
Here's the thing: why should anyone trust that you will actually honor this 3-day money back guarantee, or that even if you honor it now that you will continue to honor it in the future? Part of the benefit of the App Store payment system is that it puts the user in control of their trials and subscriptions and lets them easily manage, cancel, and request refunds in a way that is guaranteed. But if your refund form magically disappeared one day, no one would have any recourse against that.
Here's the thing: why should anyone trust that you will actually honor this 3-day money back guarantee, or that even if you honor it now that you will continue to honor it in the future? Part of the benefit of the App Store payment system is that it puts the user in control of their trials and subscriptions and lets them easily manage, cancel, and request refunds in a way that is guaranteed. But if your refund form magically disappeared one day, no one would have any recourse against that.
What does the parent comment have to do with payments? What are they "trying to do" that's relevant to that quote?
He linked to his initial complaint about why Apple rejected his app.
My app has been repeatedly rejected because I do not offer free in-app trials (but offer money-back guarantee on my website) and also do not offer in-apps purchases. I asked if I offered in-app purchases, would the app be approved? No, since I offer 3-day money-back guarantee on website-based purchses, I must ALSO offer a free trial in the app. But I don’t want to offer free trials. I’m ok offering a 3-day money-back guarantee, but Apple says that’s not an option for apps. They insist that I (1) change my business model from 3-day money back guarantee to free trial and (2) purchase a shit ton more infrastructure to handle the audience that free trials attract (I’ve tried free trial business model and it created a lot of use but no more revenue than 3-day money back guarantee). The money-back guarantee seems to weed out a lot of free loaders, at least in this domain — not necessarily others.
My app has been repeatedly rejected because I do not offer free in-app trials (but offer money-back guarantee on my website) and also do not offer in-apps purchases. I asked if I offered in-app purchases, would the app be approved? No, since I offer 3-day money-back guarantee on website-based purchses, I must ALSO offer a free trial in the app. But I don’t want to offer free trials. I’m ok offering a 3-day money-back guarantee, but Apple says that’s not an option for apps. They insist that I (1) change my business model from 3-day money back guarantee to free trial and (2) purchase a shit ton more infrastructure to handle the audience that free trials attract (I’ve tried free trial business model and it created a lot of use but no more revenue than 3-day money back guarantee). The money-back guarantee seems to weed out a lot of free loaders, at least in this domain — not necessarily others.
Now I get what happened...
Look again: He (/u/egocentric) linked to his HN submission of his twitter thread about his experience. What you are referencing is the top comment in the that discussion, by someone else (/u/TedDoesntTalk) talking about their app. So your (understandable) ire is directed at the wrong person here.
Look again: He (/u/egocentric) linked to his HN submission of his twitter thread about his experience. What you are referencing is the top comment in the that discussion, by someone else (/u/TedDoesntTalk) talking about their app. So your (understandable) ire is directed at the wrong person here.
You are correct. Handlers were always a little bit more confusing than pointers....
We're in the process to leave the App store ecosystem ourselves by migrating our Apps to a WebApp, responsive, PWA, HTML5.
Surprisingly, somehow, it is actually based on Steve's amazing Thoughts on flash Open Letter, that emphasizes HTML5
Surprisingly, somehow, it is actually based on Steve's amazing Thoughts on flash Open Letter, that emphasizes HTML5
Don't all users understand this before giving Apple money?
No sympathy here. Make people use web apps instead of feeding the beast.
No sympathy here. Make people use web apps instead of feeding the beast.
Good luck with web apps on iOS. Safari is a shitshow with more serious bugs than anything else I know of. You can report bugs, and maybe someone working on WebKit will look at it in 5 years, and maybe it will be fixed in 10 years. And then probably appear again in the next iOS version.
Either Apple is incompetent, or they're making/keeping it bad on purpose.
Either Apple is incompetent, or they're making/keeping it bad on purpose.
Can't you install chrome?
All browsers on iOS use a Safari webview. iOS does not allow the installation of competing browser engines. So, no. It may be called chrome, it may look like chrome, but it is Safari, with all the limitations that implies (and a few extra limitations as a webview, just for good measure).
Apple does this on purpose to push people to use native apps, and then they lock down access to a market of 1 billion people to their whim of the day.
Edit: another poster pulled the trigger at the same time as me, will leave my comment for good measure.
Apple does this on purpose to push people to use native apps, and then they lock down access to a market of 1 billion people to their whim of the day.
Edit: another poster pulled the trigger at the same time as me, will leave my comment for good measure.
And even Microsoft let people install browsers that didn't use IE as a base.
Basic feature support is missing too. Every native app can do push notifications and so can every other browser, yet Apple still haven't added support for it in Safari.
Coincidentally, iOS 13 updated iBeacon in a way that also made it a lot less useful to developers (although there was a clear privacy benefit for users.)
>> We didn't even have a web version of the product because we believed the web was dead
Well he deserved what he's got...like all the people pumping up dictators because they are "good" for a short period of time just to find out later they are not so good anymore and they have no way to change that.
Well he deserved what he's got...like all the people pumping up dictators because they are "good" for a short period of time just to find out later they are not so good anymore and they have no way to change that.
I honestly feel the best option would be for spotify, netflix, microsoft, facebook, epic, and all other companies who have been burned by apple to pull their apps indefinitely.
Sort of like a hunger strike. I am confident apple will cave first.
Sort of like a hunger strike. I am confident apple will cave first.
Imagine telling someone with an iphone that there is no facebook, whatsapp, spotify, or netflix. I think android would gain a huge boost from this.
All at the same time? Yeah. One app at a time? Just a chance for their competitors to gain ground.
And I would bet anything all the companies you listed would do the same thing if they were in Apple’s position.
And I would bet anything all the companies you listed would do the same thing if they were in Apple’s position.
I actually don't think it will make a difference. Apple users are used to accepting weird compromises. Iphone 4 was notorious for bad reception during calls. Apple's solution: hold it correctly. People buy apple h/w for the shine, not any specific use, whose absence would make them buy something else. So they will just endure without Fortnite, MS Word, Google Maps, Youtube etc.
In fact I'm sure many people will blame Microsoft/Google/Epic and say that Apple is in the clear, just look at this thread.
In fact I'm sure many people will blame Microsoft/Google/Epic and say that Apple is in the clear, just look at this thread.
Collusion, wouldn’t it be?
The first time I read the guidance documents for branding and submission of apps to the Apple and Google App stores, I had to look around and ask myself why no one else was calling it out as anti-competitive. I know what a free market looks like, I also know when onerous requirements are being place on something just to get in. Both companies have done the same things. When you see as many companies acquired and killed as has gone on in the last 20 years or so it becomes pretty damn obvious what is going on. It's just amazing it has taken this long for traction to develop in that regard.
The legislation I'd get behind is to enforce import / export of data across platforms a la. Google takeout but better where you can both export and import with a single click.
That is, rather than getting into some abstract arguments on what an App store should or shouldn't do the focus should be on lowering the cost of switching mobile / wearable computing platforms down to a single click of a button.
There is no issue with making an ecosystem more appealing by making them well integrated but there has to be an out of some kind for the consumer.
All those "Their app store, their rule" arguments don't hold water if you compare it to, say, AT&T holding your phone number hostage and claiming that they're not a monopoly and you can switch to another carrier but need to use a new phone number if you do.
That is, rather than getting into some abstract arguments on what an App store should or shouldn't do the focus should be on lowering the cost of switching mobile / wearable computing platforms down to a single click of a button.
There is no issue with making an ecosystem more appealing by making them well integrated but there has to be an out of some kind for the consumer.
All those "Their app store, their rule" arguments don't hold water if you compare it to, say, AT&T holding your phone number hostage and claiming that they're not a monopoly and you can switch to another carrier but need to use a new phone number if you do.
Isn't that issue orthogonal? I don't think the iPhone has the userbase it does because it takes more than 1 click to switch to android. Many people have expensive devices that they like along with the software they prefer.
The fact that android and iOS compete for users is irrelevant to the fact that Apple has a monopoly over access to iOS users and Google has a monopoly over access to Android users. If you want to access people on mobile, you must interact with one or both largely disjoint monopolies.
The fact that android and iOS compete for users is irrelevant to the fact that Apple has a monopoly over access to iOS users and Google has a monopoly over access to Android users. If you want to access people on mobile, you must interact with one or both largely disjoint monopolies.
Monopoly over iOS or Android is a bit murky definition IMO. They are both creations of those companies and it seems fine for them to have a monopoly over them.
Ring devices by Amazon or Nest devices by Google can have a monopoly over the devices in their ecosystem but no one cares [yet].
Mobile computing is what Apple and Google have created and of course you need to go through them to access the users there. You have to go through MS and Sony for example to access game console users, duh!
The issue is if for example tomorrow a new company builds a nicer hardware and software package there's no easy way for users to migrate. The migration cost is super high. That company can't emulate iOS or Windows to be compatible with the existing apps. I don't think they can do a clean room reimplementation of the OS calls either. The users would need to repurchase all the apps, music, games, movies and other media they've already paid for even though none of those content were created by the platform owners.
Imagine running a web server on Azure VMs and try to migrate to AWS to GCP but then realize you need to repurchase all the stock images you used in your website and any other software you run on your servers.
I think for popular enough platforms like iOS, Android, Windows, etc. the cost of switching should be regulated. That way the quick feedback loop from consumers will ensure the platforms owners are always kept on their toes to keep all the consumers happy without relying on the moat they've built.
Ring devices by Amazon or Nest devices by Google can have a monopoly over the devices in their ecosystem but no one cares [yet].
Mobile computing is what Apple and Google have created and of course you need to go through them to access the users there. You have to go through MS and Sony for example to access game console users, duh!
The issue is if for example tomorrow a new company builds a nicer hardware and software package there's no easy way for users to migrate. The migration cost is super high. That company can't emulate iOS or Windows to be compatible with the existing apps. I don't think they can do a clean room reimplementation of the OS calls either. The users would need to repurchase all the apps, music, games, movies and other media they've already paid for even though none of those content were created by the platform owners.
Imagine running a web server on Azure VMs and try to migrate to AWS to GCP but then realize you need to repurchase all the stock images you used in your website and any other software you run on your servers.
I think for popular enough platforms like iOS, Android, Windows, etc. the cost of switching should be regulated. That way the quick feedback loop from consumers will ensure the platforms owners are always kept on their toes to keep all the consumers happy without relying on the moat they've built.
The difference between Apple and Google in this instance is a matter of transparency and predatory actions.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I don't really understand why Apple is allowed to have the amount of power it has today: it provides the hardware, the operating system, the software store (which they make sure is the only way to get software for most users), _and_ gets to decide whether any particular piece of software is allowed on the store? Surely there needs to be some separation of powers? e.g. a third party (could be set up by the government or in some other ways) will review the apps and Apple only maintains the software store without having much power over the contents in the store.
It was understandable at the time when everything was uncharted territory so Apple got to do whatever it wanted, but now that smart phones are so tightly integrated into the lives of many people, it seems Apple shouldn't be allowed to hold on to all those power. Is anything being done in that direction that might become effective?
It was understandable at the time when everything was uncharted territory so Apple got to do whatever it wanted, but now that smart phones are so tightly integrated into the lives of many people, it seems Apple shouldn't be allowed to hold on to all those power. Is anything being done in that direction that might become effective?
Because the gov should not control what a private business could do unless it's against the laws? The debate is whether Apple is a monopoly, until we conclude that Apple should be able to run their store as they see fit. Personally I would say Apple is not a monopoly, but Apple + Google is a duopoly and maybe gov should do something about BOTH of them.
People are saying that what Apple is doing should be against the law.
When talking about ethics and regulation, it’s not enough to simply say the status quo should be preserved.
When talking about ethics and regulation, it’s not enough to simply say the status quo should be preserved.
I'm simply replying to GP's point about the legality of Apple's action. Until a court found Apple's action is against the laws, or new laws are written to make it so, Apple is free to operate the store as is. Tim Cook talks a lot about ethics and whatnot but Apple's profit (and share price) always come first.
> Until a court found Apple's action is against the laws, or new laws are written to make it so, Apple is free to operate the store as is.
"How far can we go before we get fined?" is ethically dubious and isn't behaviour that should be rewarded.
"How far can we go before we get fined?" is ethically dubious and isn't behaviour that should be rewarded.
I do agree and I want the App Store to change, I personally have been rejected many times for random reasons by Apple. But we must be pragmatic and realize users don't care, and as long as Apple can sell iPhone and services to users, they won't change.
> Is anything being done in that direction that might become effective?
Stop buying iphones and macs.
Stop buying iphones and macs.
So much this.
Apple customers are funding this behavior.
Apple customers are funding this behavior.
Because other companies are worse and do all sorts of other shit.
Yes they pay Apple for reinforcing this notion too.
The App Store was always a walled garden with notably tall walls. The power Apple has over who gets into the App Store has been described as the primary virtue and attraction of iOS devices for years. Users love that it is a curated collection with a very high bar for quality, and many are willing to accept the trade-off that not all apps (even technically legitimate ones) will be published there.
This is why the web is so important. More to the topic at hand: this is why Apple purposely, broadly second-classing the web on iOS is so important, and needs to stop.
On Android, a directory-style app would be trivial to distribute on the web as an installable PWA that eventually becomes indistinguishable from a native app from the user's perspective. It's 2020; this is a sub-basement level of capability that all platforms should include by now. Let's stop pretending that ceding all the publishing power to one company is a trade-off that makes sense in the long-run (this goes for Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and all the rest).
This is why the web is so important. More to the topic at hand: this is why Apple purposely, broadly second-classing the web on iOS is so important, and needs to stop.
On Android, a directory-style app would be trivial to distribute on the web as an installable PWA that eventually becomes indistinguishable from a native app from the user's perspective. It's 2020; this is a sub-basement level of capability that all platforms should include by now. Let's stop pretending that ceding all the publishing power to one company is a trade-off that makes sense in the long-run (this goes for Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and all the rest).
Have you seen the web lately?
If you don't like the web, nobody is forcing you to use it.
But, your decision not to use it shouldn't come at the cost of someone else's freedom to distribute legitimate software or creative works to those users who seek it out.
Speaking for myself, most of the "apps" I use on my phone and desktop on a daily basis are PWAs, and they are generally indistinguishable from the native apps I use in terms of quality.
But, your decision not to use it shouldn't come at the cost of someone else's freedom to distribute legitimate software or creative works to those users who seek it out.
Speaking for myself, most of the "apps" I use on my phone and desktop on a daily basis are PWAs, and they are generally indistinguishable from the native apps I use in terms of quality.
I don't think the above poster was critiquing the quality of the web, but rather stating that the web has the same problem of generally being consolidated into the hands of a few big players (Google/Facebook).
If you make a website and Google decides to remove you from their search index for whatever reason, the financial effects on most companies would also be disastrous. Perhaps even comparable to being removed from the App Store.
If you make a website and Google decides to remove you from their search index for whatever reason, the financial effects on most companies would also be disastrous. Perhaps even comparable to being removed from the App Store.
Google is basically providing free advertising. If they remove you, then you can just use paid advertising.
There are many verticals in which Google cannot drive traffic to anyone except the top players, so everyone not in the top 10 uses other means. Being in the top index, is a perk of being already being famous and successful.
There are many verticals in which Google cannot drive traffic to anyone except the top players, so everyone not in the top 10 uses other means. Being in the top index, is a perk of being already being famous and successful.
I'd be curious to see the letters written directly to jeff@amazon by small businesses (3rd party merchants) which were suspended. Would be interesting to see if they:
* went out of business * took predatory loans * were given loans directly by Amazon [1].
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200416132704/https://sell.amaz...
* went out of business * took predatory loans * were given loans directly by Amazon [1].
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200416132704/https://sell.amaz...
[deleted]
Here is the list of more such documents from the hearing: https://judiciary.house.gov/online-platforms-and-market-powe...
The sad thing is it was not just my company which was targeted, but Apple removed this entire product category. We never knew the real reason why, or if it was bigger than just a random app reviewer trying to apply Apple policy, until May 2019.
That's when Bloomberg interviewed Phillip Shoemaker, who ran app reviews from 2009 to 2016 - regarding how Apple systemically removes whole categories of apps. I subsequently spoke to Phillip Shoemaker, who confirmed that Apple executives ordered the elimination of apps that drove downloads to the App Store. He said "Your app drove download volume. Apple doesn’t want any outside sources to drive ratings. So yeah, we got rid of all app recommendation apps." He said he thought it was unfair, but this was something Apple set out to do, and even as Senior Director of App Store (person directly in charge of App Review), he could not stop it.
The other thing that was hard to understand, is we used to have a great relationship with Apple. We were not flying under the radar. Since the App Store first launched in 2008, we used to be invited to all Apple events to see the new product launches, we met with the iTunes team to discuss upcoming initiates for the App Store, our apps were featured on the devices inside of many demo units into Apple Stores. It felt like a complete 180, and until this day I never got a formal conversation on what they actually objected to, beyond being pointed to a vague rule which was applied arbitrarily. They became a brick wall in terms of communication, and this is why I resorted to emailing Tim Cook. I assumed nothing would come of it, but it was the last thing I could think of.I never received a response, and never knew if he even got it, so I was shocked to see it again today from his inbox.