Apple admits it ranked its Files app ahead of competitor Dropbox(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Apple admits it ranked its Files app ahead of competitor Dropbox
https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/11/22528701/apple-rank-own-app-over-competitor-files-dropbox-wwdc-2017
335 comments
Their use of ‘advantage’ as a word reminds me of this classic Calvin & Hobbes strip.
https://www.languagetrainers.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/201...
Looks like the 80s/90s kids that were brought up on these skits are finally taking over!
https://www.languagetrainers.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/201...
Looks like the 80s/90s kids that were brought up on these skits are finally taking over!
You can also "noun" verbs. One I hear in SV is "an ask". I find myself a bit peeved by it but I don't know why.
One of the ones I hate the most is "let's find a solve" when they mean to say "let's find a solution."
I think it's worse when they flip it around and inappropriately use a noun as a verb: "Let's solution this."
"Let's solve the problem."
“Ask” has had a noun form for as long as I can recall in British English. Phrases like “that’s quite a big ask” and “what’s the ask?” are commonplace IME.
I still want to believe it’s people dropping the “t” in “task”.
I’ve heard both phrases you mention a lot in American English too.
Just out of curiosity, I looked it up in an American dictionary and it does have a noun form over here, as well, but it's noted as "chiefly British, informal".
Although, the term "big ask" is something I'm certain I've used before, as well as others, but more in a business/corporate context.
Or maybe I've just watched a lot of British television?
Although, the term "big ask" is something I'm certain I've used before, as well as others, but more in a business/corporate context.
Or maybe I've just watched a lot of British television?
I remember that phrase appearing seemingly out of nowhere 10 years or so ago. (UK)
Very weird. Maybe it had been percolating in business circles earlier than that. I don't tend to mix much in those circles.
Very weird. Maybe it had been percolating in business circles earlier than that. I don't tend to mix much in those circles.
Much as I tend to be in favor of language evolving, I react almost viscerally to 'compute' as a noun. It is a major irk.
Wait a minute, did you just "noun" irk? I'm irked.
Wait a minute, did you just "verb" noun? I'm adjectived
Did you just adjective adjective?
Yes it is called "verbing"
When people say they grok something it hurts me deep inside.
Why?
Maybe because to truly grok a person, you have to eat them [1]. I’d imagine that could hurt that person deep inside if they were alive when you started.
[1] Per the end of A Stranger In a Strange Land
[1] Per the end of A Stranger In a Strange Land
I wonder if that whale groks Michael Packard.
Eating someone isn’t required to grok them in a Stranger in a Strange Land, it’s an aid in doing so.
Yeah, tell me about it. People nouning things... argh, eyeroll.
What’s a better noun for “abstract resource I can use to do computations on?” Because computer is too general — literally encompassing everything, or too specific — as a synonym for a PC.
Wait until you hear someone noun “solve,” it’s the most infuriating sound to leave a PMs mouth.
I’m hoping we can come to an agreement during this meeting to find the solve.
Would ___ work for this solve?
I’m hoping we can come to an agreement during this meeting to find the solve.
Would ___ work for this solve?
I love that. It's an attempt to look smart when it really only makes you look stupid or pretentious. Or both. Do they not realize that there's already a word for that - solution?
A "solve" is common parlance in puzzling in my experience (ie puzzle hunt). Never used it in my day to day PM role though, agreed it would sound awkward.
”Learnings" is the one that gets my goat.
With no context, that sounds like a trading term to me, like "a put".
You can "hit the ask" during a trade
[deleted]
This is incorrect, old sport. You hit the bid and lift the offer (in your parlance "ask" although no one actually calls it that IRL).
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hitthebid.asp
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hitthebid.asp
You can. It just doesn’t seem as clever to say “‘noun’ verbs”. It doesn’t have the property where the term is an example of itself.
In context it sounds like calling in a favor, like “calling in a chit”, in that it’s transactional unlike of the common usage.
You’re peeved by “ask” as a noun?! How the hell is “math” plural?! Why maths? The subject (singular) is math (singular). Do you study Englishes? Anthropologies? Medicines?
You know that “math” is just the abbreviated form of “mathematics” right?
"mathematics" may end in "s", but that doesn't make it plural. We say "Mathematics is a science" not "Mathematics are sciences" (replace with "art/arts" if you don't belive it's a science). We also say "mathematics is a growing field", not "mathematics are growing fields". Because it's singular, the fact that it ends in "s" doesn't naturally require shortened forms of it to carry the last letter at the end. I get that in the UK people say "maths", but let's not make this out to be like one side is correct and the other is not because mathematics ends in "s". Particularly as "math" was first coined in the U.K. (much of contemporary U.S. English is an older form of contemporary British English).
Yes, I'm also very peeved by "maths". And a million other things. Calling Universities "Uni". Horned-Rim glasses. A whole slew of grammatical oddities.
I guess that's why I ended up on this site.
I guess that's why I ended up on this site.
There are shortened forms of singular nouns that end in -s, which also end in -s. Some forms are more common in some cultures/places - "stat" vs "stats" for "statistics" comes to mind.
Mathematics are plural because it's a group of several disciplines, arithmetic and geometry today (music and astronomy used to be two other math branches in the past). It's actually an adjective that became a noun, so these four were the disciplines mathématiques, becoming simply les mathématiques later on.
At least that's why it's plural in French. I wouldn't be surprised if the English term is plural simply because it comes from French.
At least that's why it's plural in French. I wouldn't be surprised if the English term is plural simply because it comes from French.
In case you're interested, word creation is a pretty interesting topic in linguistics. The wikipedia page on this -- they call it "conversion" [1] -- seems like a good starting off point for someone interested in the subject.
[1]: Conversion (word formation), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(word_formation)
[1]: Conversion (word formation), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(word_formation)
Perhaps they use the word “advantage” specifically because it has no clearly defined meaning, so it is just a weasel word for legal purposes. Clarity is not your goal when the wrong sentence could cost a metric fuck tonne of money in court.
Lol. Calvin & Hobbes is amazing.
Randal Munroe has one in a similar vein: https://xkcd.com/1443/
Randal Munroe has one in a similar vein: https://xkcd.com/1443/
I am grateful to Bill Watterson for gifting us with that.
For nearly a decade, they preferred to open addresses with Apple Maps instead of my preference of Google Maps. And they gave me no option to use Google Maps as the default. Apple defaulted to their own apps and I think they still do (I’m not sure if this changed)
The worst offender for this is opening Bing when I mistype something in the Windows Start menu. I can't help but think this accounts for a large percentage of claimed traffic for Edge and Bing. It certainly is the only time I use them (and by use I mean click the exit button)
it is really annoying and pisses me off every time it happens, it is a dark pattern for sure.
Isn't it obvious? They say they don't give advantage to their own apps as a company policy but they made exception to this during an event.
The follow up e-mails indicate that the upper management wasn't happy about this and demanded high level approval before this happens next time.
So it's not really evil Apple caught doing something that they say they don't. Its more like corrupt Apple where someone did something somewhat justifiable(A relevant app being boosted during an event could be justified, though better not make it a habit) and then conveniently forgot to turn it back. Later a high level officer created a mechanism for preventing this happening again.
If it was something fineable, I would have been completely fine if Apple paid a fine and damages to Dropbox and others. Yet, I would stop short from labelling the company as "lying" as their words seem to match their actions with an exception of one event that was taken care of.
Remember the time when it was revealed that Google invited developers to discuss hiring or acquisition but copy their work, apply for patents before them? That also wasn't Google doing it, it was more like "ambitious white collars hacking their way to boost career", to put it lightly.
After all, companies are simply made of people with contracts. Surely the company is responsible for the actions of their employees but there's a distinction between company policy and individuals actions.
The follow up e-mails indicate that the upper management wasn't happy about this and demanded high level approval before this happens next time.
So it's not really evil Apple caught doing something that they say they don't. Its more like corrupt Apple where someone did something somewhat justifiable(A relevant app being boosted during an event could be justified, though better not make it a habit) and then conveniently forgot to turn it back. Later a high level officer created a mechanism for preventing this happening again.
If it was something fineable, I would have been completely fine if Apple paid a fine and damages to Dropbox and others. Yet, I would stop short from labelling the company as "lying" as their words seem to match their actions with an exception of one event that was taken care of.
Remember the time when it was revealed that Google invited developers to discuss hiring or acquisition but copy their work, apply for patents before them? That also wasn't Google doing it, it was more like "ambitious white collars hacking their way to boost career", to put it lightly.
After all, companies are simply made of people with contracts. Surely the company is responsible for the actions of their employees but there's a distinction between company policy and individuals actions.
The statement "we do not advantage our apps over those of any developer or competitor" is not about a policy, and is false even if you aren't only doing something "during an event"; eve more to the point: it is even still a lie if you have only done it as some kind of mistake, and even if everyone involved was fired over that mistake. It might be OK that it happened, but it did happen, and you need to explain it and justify the situation... you can't claim it simply doesn't happen and still be considered "honest".
I am not under the impression that it's a honest mistake. What I think had happen is that someone involved in the Files app let it happen, then boosted about the spectacular adoption rates of the app in their presentations.
The Apple's statement is technically correct as it could be interpreted about what's the current situation or what is their company policy. It doesn't say it never happen.
Think of it like the "muslims don't eat pork" statement. Although the general policy is that muslims don't eat pork, there are clear exceptions where they can eat pork(when no other food is available and they starve). Also, there are muslims that simply love prosciutto and they sin.
The Apple's statement is technically correct as it could be interpreted about what's the current situation or what is their company policy. It doesn't say it never happen.
Think of it like the "muslims don't eat pork" statement. Although the general policy is that muslims don't eat pork, there are clear exceptions where they can eat pork(when no other food is available and they starve). Also, there are muslims that simply love prosciutto and they sin.
> A relevant app being boosted during an event could be justified, though better not make it a habit
That doesn't stand if it's only Apple's apps and events that get this special treatment. Did Dropbox's app get a boost during Dropbox promotional events?
That doesn't stand if it's only Apple's apps and events that get this special treatment. Did Dropbox's app get a boost during Dropbox promotional events?
Actually, with iOS 15 that would be the case. They introduced events functionality that is supposed to give extra visibility in the App Store for apps with live events.
Check: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/in-app-events/
Anyway, it’s obviously a case of special treatment that was forbidden of being repeated once made aware by the higher management.
Anyway, it’s obviously a case of special treatment that was forbidden of being repeated once made aware by the higher management.
> they made exception to this during an event.
It was for 11 months, and the event was for launching the competitor product.
I would understand the argument if they boosted for a reason which wasn’t to give themselves an advantage over the competition, but in this example that was their exact plan! Boost during launch to give their new competing product a kick start, and give themselves an advantage nobody else has launching a service.
And I might understand it if they boosted to the top for the keyword “files”, but the keyword was “Dropbox”.
It was for 11 months, and the event was for launching the competitor product.
I would understand the argument if they boosted for a reason which wasn’t to give themselves an advantage over the competition, but in this example that was their exact plan! Boost during launch to give their new competing product a kick start, and give themselves an advantage nobody else has launching a service.
And I might understand it if they boosted to the top for the keyword “files”, but the keyword was “Dropbox”.
Surely the company is responsible for the actions of their employees but there's a distinction between company policy and individuals actions.
That depends on the interpretation og the data available. From the published e-mails, my understanding is that an action was taken to stop and prevent it from happening again before the incident was made public which I would interpret as Apple doesn't do it as a company policy.
Of course someone can claim that these were sham mails designed to make upper management look good despite not having any indications whatsoever to support that. I've heard that the world is only 4000 years old and the god put dinosaur fossils to confuse us, therefore I'm willing to accept that people are going to believe whatever they would like to believe.
Of course someone can claim that these were sham mails designed to make upper management look good despite not having any indications whatsoever to support that. I've heard that the world is only 4000 years old and the god put dinosaur fossils to confuse us, therefore I'm willing to accept that people are going to believe whatever they would like to believe.
I'm willing to accept that people are going to believe whatever they would like to believe.
Apple PR often says things that are not reality... It is almost like Apple PR does not really know what is happening inside of Apple....
It's probably better that way. Knowing any details is not their job and would only distract them.
But they still have to be cleared by legal. And for the past 6 years lots of Apple PR put out were lying by omission. Both Qualcomm and IMG's case has plenty of concrete evidence.
For example
>> we do not advantage our apps over those of any developer or competitor
They could redefine the word "advantage" or "competitor" in this scenario where the above sentence would be factually correct.
However in court, it becomes quite clear Tim Cook does't care about the PR speak. He does when he is in front of media, but not in front of court. So I am now convinced "someone" deciding on the tone of PR has been sending these memo and infecting Apple. And I would not be suspend if he/she came from Google because they sound exactly the same as google in the early 00s. And it changed after Katie Cotton retired mo 2014.
For example
>> we do not advantage our apps over those of any developer or competitor
They could redefine the word "advantage" or "competitor" in this scenario where the above sentence would be factually correct.
However in court, it becomes quite clear Tim Cook does't care about the PR speak. He does when he is in front of media, but not in front of court. So I am now convinced "someone" deciding on the tone of PR has been sending these memo and infecting Apple. And I would not be suspend if he/she came from Google because they sound exactly the same as google in the early 00s. And it changed after Katie Cotton retired mo 2014.
Unity support tells people all sorts of things that aren’t true about the licensing. You have to press them, then they ask legal, and then they backpedal because it was all a mistake, and one that you are on the hook for
This inferred charge of hypocrisy would make sense if the Files app competes with Dropbox. I can see why that would be assumed. But while there’s certainly some overlap, Files isn’t a replacement for Dropbox, or vice versa. Perhaps controversially, I would argue that they do not compete.
Files is a built-in app that ostensibly fills the role of Windows Explorer on macOS Finder, to the extent that the concept of a file browser makes any sense on iOS.
The purpose of the Dropbox app is to access the Dropbox service and to buy their cloud storage. Apple’s Files app does not compete with this—except insofar as it shows you the cloud storage that you are currently paying for (potentially including Dropbox) or local storage that you have already paid for.
Let’s be real here, if anyone typed dropbox into an App Store search because they wanted the dropbox app, literally nobody is going to be confused. Literally nobody is going to be misled by an app that isn’t called Dropbox. We all understand this sensation when doing Google searches—even when a competitor’s ad is bigger and more prominent, we can be functionally blind to it when exactly the result we wanted is right there underneath.
(By they way, let’s also remember that the word dropbox is a generic term. It is a word that has been used for file sharing before the Dropbox(tm) service existed. Companies shouldn’t get to own generic words just because they were first to commercialise them. Microsoft wouldn’t have a leg to stand on, legally or morally, if Oracle or postgres wanted to market the offering as an “SQL server”.)
Files is a built-in app that ostensibly fills the role of Windows Explorer on macOS Finder, to the extent that the concept of a file browser makes any sense on iOS.
The purpose of the Dropbox app is to access the Dropbox service and to buy their cloud storage. Apple’s Files app does not compete with this—except insofar as it shows you the cloud storage that you are currently paying for (potentially including Dropbox) or local storage that you have already paid for.
Let’s be real here, if anyone typed dropbox into an App Store search because they wanted the dropbox app, literally nobody is going to be confused. Literally nobody is going to be misled by an app that isn’t called Dropbox. We all understand this sensation when doing Google searches—even when a competitor’s ad is bigger and more prominent, we can be functionally blind to it when exactly the result we wanted is right there underneath.
(By they way, let’s also remember that the word dropbox is a generic term. It is a word that has been used for file sharing before the Dropbox(tm) service existed. Companies shouldn’t get to own generic words just because they were first to commercialise them. Microsoft wouldn’t have a leg to stand on, legally or morally, if Oracle or postgres wanted to market the offering as an “SQL server”.)
The entire concept of how the files app works and integrates indirectly with everything on iOS is effectively a stand-in replacement--maybe a better one for some use cases, for sure, but that seems besides the point--to Dropbox. This is because iOS ostensibly doesn't really want to have a file system, and so the concept of storing things into the Files app--which is the interface for and is largely backed by iCloud Drive, which is 100% a competitor to Dropbox--is about as weirdly indirect as storing something into Dropbox. I would thereby think that, in fact, a number of people looking for Dropbox's functionality--to share files between apps on their phone and store them in the cloud--might get tempted to use Files instead to accomplish that exact same core use case.
Files takes an extension (plugin) approach to files, and is decidedly non-Posix since it was focused on supporting remote/slow file sources first.
iCloud, WebDAV and CIFS (as well as On Your <device>) are examples of support that Apple ships first party, while third party extensions include Dropbox and OneDrive as well as more exotic things like emulator file systems (iSH) and SSHFS.
Before Files came out, every app that wanted to integrate with DropBox had to ship a dropbox SDK which included people logging into dropbox through each app, individual developer API tokens, etc.
Now the user just installs Dropbox and it works.
The challenge for Dropbox has and continues to be being a product and not a feature (with a nod to Steve jobs).
iCloud, WebDAV and CIFS (as well as On Your <device>) are examples of support that Apple ships first party, while third party extensions include Dropbox and OneDrive as well as more exotic things like emulator file systems (iSH) and SSHFS.
Before Files came out, every app that wanted to integrate with DropBox had to ship a dropbox SDK which included people logging into dropbox through each app, individual developer API tokens, etc.
Now the user just installs Dropbox and it works.
The challenge for Dropbox has and continues to be being a product and not a feature (with a nod to Steve jobs).
Apple has made life of small developers hard. Mac software and app industry has died. Even after notarising apps they show malicious popup to users.
Same practices has adapted by apple like search ad etc etc. They make competing services and steal ideas of developers and those app dies. For eg screen time for Moments app.
They have unfair advantage and small developers could not complete. Only handful of indie developers making money from appstore and rest apps have died.
They killed the industry.
Same practices has adapted by apple like search ad etc etc. They make competing services and steal ideas of developers and those app dies. For eg screen time for Moments app.
They have unfair advantage and small developers could not complete. Only handful of indie developers making money from appstore and rest apps have died.
They killed the industry.
> Mac software and app industry has died. Even after notarising apps they show malicious popup to users.
I maintain a handful of open source apps for macOS, and have for years. If I don't pay the $100 Apple tax, macOS will treat those apps as if they're radioactive, and it will trick users into believing the apps are either broken or malicious.
In order to run them, users must know how to change arcane settings and do a magic ritual with the UI, otherwise they just won't open.
If the tables were turned and it was Linux that wouldn't run apps that were not signed and approved by Red Hat without having to jump through arcane hoops first, people would be rightfully pointing out how user and developer hostile it is.
> They killed the industry.
Not only that, they helped usher in the race to the bottom when it comes to the app distribution market. Now everyone expects to spend a dollar or two for an app if they're spending anything at all. They also killed the paid update/upgrade model for apps.
I maintain a handful of open source apps for macOS, and have for years. If I don't pay the $100 Apple tax, macOS will treat those apps as if they're radioactive, and it will trick users into believing the apps are either broken or malicious.
In order to run them, users must know how to change arcane settings and do a magic ritual with the UI, otherwise they just won't open.
If the tables were turned and it was Linux that wouldn't run apps that were not signed and approved by Red Hat without having to jump through arcane hoops first, people would be rightfully pointing out how user and developer hostile it is.
> They killed the industry.
Not only that, they helped usher in the race to the bottom when it comes to the app distribution market. Now everyone expects to spend a dollar or two for an app if they're spending anything at all. They also killed the paid update/upgrade model for apps.
Absolutely this. Apple's holier-than-thou approach to every settlement they reach is starting to blow back in their face, as the rest of our economy starts to realize how parasitic and destructive this tax-collection model is. Now that Apple can effectively set their own margins, they have no incentive to treat their users or developers fairly, and recently have started to bring the hammer down. I had a few friends who also maintained open source apps for iOS, and they constantly lamented how impossible it was to get Apple to review their accusation that their open-source manual app was malware.
Windows is getting close to macOS in that regard. Specifically, both browser and OS are arbitrarily marking installers as malware, scaring users. Even digital signatures don't help.
The only reliable workaround is publishing through Windows store.
The only reliable workaround is publishing through Windows store.
Yep, been bitten by that myself.
Nowadays normal (OV) codesign signatures still trigger warnings for users on startup. Only a much more expensive EV codesign certificate guarantees a silent install.
The OV codesign certificate can become accepted by Smartscreen, but it can take a very long time with many downloads (in my case it took over 5 months, with thousands of downloads)
Nowadays normal (OV) codesign signatures still trigger warnings for users on startup. Only a much more expensive EV codesign certificate guarantees a silent install.
The OV codesign certificate can become accepted by Smartscreen, but it can take a very long time with many downloads (in my case it took over 5 months, with thousands of downloads)
Can you provide an example?
I never had an issue with installing (mostly signed) Windows software.
I never had an issue with installing (mostly signed) Windows software.
[deleted]
> If I don't pay the $100 Apple tax
Please. If you can’t make enough in an entire damn year to cover that $100, you need to look at what you’re doing.
Hell I’ve seen obscure open source projects get more than $100 in donations every single month.
If people see any value in your work, then that $100 is not a barrier at all.
Please. If you can’t make enough in an entire damn year to cover that $100, you need to look at what you’re doing.
Hell I’ve seen obscure open source projects get more than $100 in donations every single month.
If people see any value in your work, then that $100 is not a barrier at all.
Not every OSS developer does, or wants to, request donations for their software.
You make a good point for commercial products. But what about open source or closed source softwares that the developer wants to distribute for free?
I'm not begging for donations, nor am I dealing with the tax implications of taking donations, sorry.
I made these apps before macOS enforced the $100 Apple tax on all apps. I would not have created them today if it meant jumping through the hoops that Apple imposes in 2021.
It actually costs me money to maintain these apps, because the time I take to maintain them could be time I bill to a client.
I made these apps before macOS enforced the $100 Apple tax on all apps. I would not have created them today if it meant jumping through the hoops that Apple imposes in 2021.
It actually costs me money to maintain these apps, because the time I take to maintain them could be time I bill to a client.
> I'm not begging for donations
No, you’re begging for free access to millions of users to do whatever you want with them. Which Android/Windows/Linux will happily give you.
No, you’re begging for free access to millions of users to do whatever you want with them. Which Android/Windows/Linux will happily give you.
What about OSS devs who don't make money from their apps?
There are not very many OSS apps on the iOS app store, probably caused by the difficulty in getting an app published.
There are not very many OSS apps on the iOS app store, probably caused by the difficulty in getting an app published.
> There are not very many OSS apps on the iOS app store, probably caused by the difficulty in getting an app published.
It's also because OSS apps on iOS often need to be dual-licensed, especially if they're *GPL licensed. That's because the App Store imposes additional restrictions on the software it distributes, and the GNU licenses mandate that *GPL software cannot be distributed with additional restrictive terms.
For Apple to distribute *GPL software via the App Store, it would mean violating those licenses.
Take a look at the iOS VLC situation. It had to be taken down and re-released under a dual license because of this problem.
It's also because OSS apps on iOS often need to be dual-licensed, especially if they're *GPL licensed. That's because the App Store imposes additional restrictions on the software it distributes, and the GNU licenses mandate that *GPL software cannot be distributed with additional restrictive terms.
For Apple to distribute *GPL software via the App Store, it would mean violating those licenses.
Take a look at the iOS VLC situation. It had to be taken down and re-released under a dual license because of this problem.
Sure, because open-source devs really want to ask for donations just to turn around and hand them directly to Apple. Must feel great.
I can't say it was the right choice but when Apple announced their dev tools, demands, and "App Store" I read it over and decided I rather not get involved with that.
I focused on web apps that can run on most any platform and while it's true they still have hamstrings I've not been feeding that voracious Mac beast and dealing with the frustrations of getting bit when I do.
That's not to say it hasn't affected me. It's affected all of us.
I focused on web apps that can run on most any platform and while it's true they still have hamstrings I've not been feeding that voracious Mac beast and dealing with the frustrations of getting bit when I do.
That's not to say it hasn't affected me. It's affected all of us.
Yet given all this, for a substantial cohort of customers, the Apple brand is still bought as a badge of "coolness".
I really don’t know how long I’m willing to buy this argument that Apple is a “luxury” brand or that Apple or its customers are disproportionately concerned about coolness or fashion. All the competing flagship smartphones have similar products at similar prices, including all the branded accessories, as well as extremely similar marketing and advertising. And at least in the United States, Apple has nearly a 50% market share, which makes it really hard to buy the narrative that people are only interested in Apple products because of Apple’s marketing and their desire to fit in or look cool.
I can't tell you how many comments I've gotten (in jest I know) about how their text bubbles to me are now green.
> Apple has nearly a 50% market share
What market are you talking about? I haven't heard the 50% market share number in the US. - iOS is 59.71% of smartphones in the US - macOS is 27.16% of Desktop PCs in the US
https://www.mobileapps.com/blog/android-vs-ios-market-share#... https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/united-st...
What market are you talking about? I haven't heard the 50% market share number in the US. - iOS is 59.71% of smartphones in the US - macOS is 27.16% of Desktop PCs in the US
https://www.mobileapps.com/blog/android-vs-ios-market-share#... https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/united-st...
I’m talking about smartphone market share. Most sources show around 40-50% market share in the US for Apple, sometimes spiking higher in quarters with popular iPhone releases.
The Apple brand is still where things mostly "just work". Sure, it's significantly declined in the last few years, but it's still ahead of Linux, and while Windows was great during the Windows 7 era and Microsoft definitely has the resources to compete, it seems like they're intentionally degrading the experience with Windows 10.
Why do you say they’re degrading the experience?
The other day I had a windows upgrade and suddenly had weather on my desktop. I thought it was some malware I’d downloaded. Nope, new windows feature with a confusing way to disable it so I had to Google it.
My next laptop will definitely be a MacBook.
My next laptop will definitely be a MacBook.
[deleted]
I had that weather widget show up a few days ago as well. Beyond being unwanted it is also incompetent at the basics. I have my Windows regional settings correctly configured and yet this weather widget still showed me temperature in Fahrenheit.
To each their own, but I find it hilarious that the weather widget is the straw that broke the camel’s back for you not wanting Windows anymore. There are so many better reasons to move away from Windows.
Well me selling off my $1200 video card (my midlife crisis gamer “Ferrari”) and quitting video canes completely has a lot to do with it too. I just don’t have a compelling reason to stay. My work laptops have always been MacBook Pros, they’re nice, and funnily enough my favorite feature is things like iTerm that just doesn’t something as good on Linux.
Good luck with that. I hated Windows, then Linux, got a Mac, hated that as well, now I'm back and I hate all major operating systems. I'm back on Windows, at least I can run any application I want without Microsoft's approval.
Desktop computing is all going to shit really quickly, and we're powerless to stop it. Linux is our only chance but it's still a rag tag of unpaid volunteers with no real goal or vision, except for its kernel.
Desktop computing is all going to shit really quickly, and we're powerless to stop it. Linux is our only chance but it's still a rag tag of unpaid volunteers with no real goal or vision, except for its kernel.
I only just now realized that weather icon isn’t malware. Thanks for letting me know.
Slightly off topic, but I do love the translucent terminal on the Mac. It is very cool
Pretty sure gnome-terminal and terminator both have this.
As far as I know pretty much every Linux terminal emulator has an opacity setting so long as you have a compositor installed
Quite a number of terminal emulators have this feature. Alacritty and xfce4 terminal as well.
And konsole
(And pretty much every Linux terminal)
(And pretty much every Linux terminal)
And powershell (if I understand what is being described).
That would be Windows Terminal, the application inside of which PowerShell and other shells run.
It's a performance hog that provides little value.
I spend more for mac apps every year than the year before. And I do out it outside of the app store (mostly). Obviously HN crowd isn't representative of the general populace but this is my limited anecdotal experience.
I am developer of mac app which rely on system events. From mojave each time I request for permission user see popup this app wants to control etc etc. I got it but every time? It killed lots of apps.
>>It killed lots of apps.
how?
how?
People see that, don't understand the popup, get scared and stop using the app.
Do you think that all apps should have access to system events without asking permission? I sympathise with the frustration, and I agree that Apple could’ve done more to help less tech savvy users navigate the challenge of increased security. But every operating system is a series of trade-offs between developer convenience and having the system defend the user’s interests.
But if I was in your position, my response would be to do the best job I can to educate my users about this and hold their hand through the process as much as possible. If your competitors face the same challenges, doing this well could be a real competitive advantage.
But if I was in your position, my response would be to do the best job I can to educate my users about this and hold their hand through the process as much as possible. If your competitors face the same challenges, doing this well could be a real competitive advantage.
It should have all that, when you install the app. And you should probably be able to see what apps are using what permissions when. Both of which you can do already.
A prompt at every instance is just fear mongering.
A prompt at every instance is just fear mongering.
[deleted]
They also don't pay the same taxes as small businesses. The market is completely rigged. Apple should be split and fined.
Apple is the largest taxpayer in the US. (and incorporated in California instead of Delaware, which presumably means higher fees)
Apple is incorporated in CA, they're incorporated in DE, they're incorporated in Ireland, they've got corporations all over the place.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/business/how-delaware-thr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_v_Commission
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/business/how-delaware-thr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_v_Commission
Rather weak tax evasion argument when Ireland doesn’t want the taxes and the shell company employs 10ks of people and runs a factory.
> incorporated in California instead of Delaware
This was my main point. They're incorporated in Delaware as well as incorporated in California. That way, they can look all hoity toity when it comes to paying their CA taxes while still enjoying the DE tax status many other corporations enjoy. On top of that, their tax attorneys also are some of the best at using the Double Irish method for avoiding global taxes.
Pointing to Apple as an example as a company that pays their share of taxes is missing the forest for the trees. Sure they pay a lot in taxes in CA (they're a MASSIVE employer in CA, they do a ton in sales, they own a lot of property, etc.) they're also pretty much doing as much as they possibly can to avoid paying taxes.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to apply a moral stance to this either way in this comment. Its just disengenious to try and paint them as a company that willingly pays their CA taxes while they're also the leading example of the Double Irish tax structure.
This was my main point. They're incorporated in Delaware as well as incorporated in California. That way, they can look all hoity toity when it comes to paying their CA taxes while still enjoying the DE tax status many other corporations enjoy. On top of that, their tax attorneys also are some of the best at using the Double Irish method for avoiding global taxes.
Pointing to Apple as an example as a company that pays their share of taxes is missing the forest for the trees. Sure they pay a lot in taxes in CA (they're a MASSIVE employer in CA, they do a ton in sales, they own a lot of property, etc.) they're also pretty much doing as much as they possibly can to avoid paying taxes.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to apply a moral stance to this either way in this comment. Its just disengenious to try and paint them as a company that willingly pays their CA taxes while they're also the leading example of the Double Irish tax structure.
Larger != pays the same tax in terms of %.
If the market is rigged, blame the market.
I don’t like many of the accounting tricks Apple pulls either, but as long as Apple’s competitors are pulling the same tricks, singling out Apple doesn’t solve the problem. Yes Apple are a huge company, but they are utterly minuscule relative to the overall economy.
I don’t like many of the accounting tricks Apple pulls either, but as long as Apple’s competitors are pulling the same tricks, singling out Apple doesn’t solve the problem. Yes Apple are a huge company, but they are utterly minuscule relative to the overall economy.
I'm not sure if Apple are utterly miniscule + they only have to lobby for a very select few.
Apple is, I think, the biggest company in the world. But they’re still minuscule compared to the market as a whole.
Interesting take. I felt developers, by racing to the bottom on price, killed themselves.
When a neighbor I did not even really know (and this was perhaps close to 10 years ago) told me she never buys apps anymore, she only downloads the free ones, I knew the jig was up.
When a neighbor I did not even really know (and this was perhaps close to 10 years ago) told me she never buys apps anymore, she only downloads the free ones, I knew the jig was up.
Note that Apple and Google are also behind this partly, as they also own advertising networks and thus support and promote adware apps on their platform. Most adware apps are free because they are ad supported.
No.
I’m a small developer and Apple made my life easier than Microsoft or Google ever did.
I’m a small developer and Apple made my life easier than Microsoft or Google ever did.
> They killed the industry.
A bit dramatic for an industry that is very much alive. — at best they damaged it.
A bit dramatic for an industry that is very much alive. — at best they damaged it.
> Mac software and app industry has died
And yet for me there are far more apps than there has ever been.
> steal ideas of developers
Nobody owns an idea.
> They killed the industry.
This notion that Apple killed the mobile apps industry which it arguably started is ridiculous.
We have companies like Instagram, Snap, WhatsApp, Niantic etc who built billion dollar businesses on the back of the iOS platform. And a wide array of small developers e.g. Calm who are likely to be the next billion dollar company. Not to mention all the indie developers who are thriving.
Those of us who run startups know how difficult it is to build a robust channel to market. And Apple gives you one on a silver platter for far less than what other ad platforms charge.
And yet for me there are far more apps than there has ever been.
> steal ideas of developers
Nobody owns an idea.
> They killed the industry.
This notion that Apple killed the mobile apps industry which it arguably started is ridiculous.
We have companies like Instagram, Snap, WhatsApp, Niantic etc who built billion dollar businesses on the back of the iOS platform. And a wide array of small developers e.g. Calm who are likely to be the next billion dollar company. Not to mention all the indie developers who are thriving.
Those of us who run startups know how difficult it is to build a robust channel to market. And Apple gives you one on a silver platter for far less than what other ad platforms charge.
You can still kill something that you start.
I think what they’re saying it’s now a lot harder for indie developers. Sure if you’re Instagram or FB you’re OK (though even those companies take issue with the 30%)
They just haven’t looked after smaller developers. The introduction of paid search ads was just so hostile to anyone without a massive budget - or rather anyone without a high lifetime value per user, making initial outlay on acquisition make sense. All it does is incentivise this dumb model of free apps with endless sneaky bullshit in—app purchases.
Or, worse, the new subscription-everything. I don’t want to pay a monthly subscription for a god damn gif editing app! I just want to buy it and that be that. But this is now rife.
The $1 / $2 app model was pretty good by comparison IMHO
I think what they’re saying it’s now a lot harder for indie developers. Sure if you’re Instagram or FB you’re OK (though even those companies take issue with the 30%)
They just haven’t looked after smaller developers. The introduction of paid search ads was just so hostile to anyone without a massive budget - or rather anyone without a high lifetime value per user, making initial outlay on acquisition make sense. All it does is incentivise this dumb model of free apps with endless sneaky bullshit in—app purchases.
Or, worse, the new subscription-everything. I don’t want to pay a monthly subscription for a god damn gif editing app! I just want to buy it and that be that. But this is now rife.
The $1 / $2 app model was pretty good by comparison IMHO
> mobile apps industry which it arguably started
Just a friendly reminder that Japanese carriers had a $1B mobile app/content economy going before the Apple app store launched.
Just a friendly reminder that Japanese carriers had a $1B mobile app/content economy going before the Apple app store launched.
You still need a $100 a year developer subscription to develop your app though, right?
You need a subscription to distribute your app via the AppStore, not to develop it or to use the app you wrote personally.
If you don't pay the rent-seeking Apple tax, there are severe restrictions for iOS:
• You can only install on a very limited number of devices, and the HW IDs are kept by Apple, so installing from a different Mac won't help. It's tied to your developer ID, indefinitely. They don't mention that in the “On-device testing” bullet point.
• Your app install will only work for a week. After that, you have to reinstall because some certificate timed out.
Nota bene, this is for local installs, no AppStore involved. Yet they bully you into paying rent just so you can run your own app on your own devices.
• You can only install on a very limited number of devices, and the HW IDs are kept by Apple, so installing from a different Mac won't help. It's tied to your developer ID, indefinitely. They don't mention that in the “On-device testing” bullet point.
• Your app install will only work for a week. After that, you have to reinstall because some certificate timed out.
Nota bene, this is for local installs, no AppStore involved. Yet they bully you into paying rent just so you can run your own app on your own devices.
No, you can develop your app for free. Here are details from Apple's own site about the free vs. paid memberships.
https://developer.apple.com/support/compare-memberships/
https://developer.apple.com/support/compare-memberships/
You only need it for iOS/ iPadOS/ watchOS development.
You can make a macOS app without a developer license, and just distribute it yourself (outside the Mac App Store). But the iOS app store is the only way users can get iOS apps, so you need to be on the apple developer program
You can make a macOS app without a developer license, and just distribute it yourself (outside the Mac App Store). But the iOS app store is the only way users can get iOS apps, so you need to be on the apple developer program
Notarizing the app with require you to pay.
Yes true, but that's not required. You can still distribute apps, and your users can just "right click" and click "open", though this might be a little secret, since most people think they need to go into system preferences.
Nobody goes to that bar anymore because it’s always far too busy!
These are exactly the kinds of issues antitrust legislation needs to be updated to handle.
I have no issue with a company running a store and selling its own products within, but it has to provide a level playing field.
It's good they fixed it -- that the VP in question didn't know it had been done and then nixed it -- but this shouldn't even be legal in the first place.
I have no issue with a company running a store and selling its own products within, but it has to provide a level playing field.
It's good they fixed it -- that the VP in question didn't know it had been done and then nixed it -- but this shouldn't even be legal in the first place.
Speaking of anti-trust, surely Apple must be getting close to (or beyond) what Microsoft were? Total control over their users, hidden APIs, apparently biased store, rentseeking etc.
My £0.02 is that if they aren't already over the line the line should be nudged against their favour.
My £0.02 is that if they aren't already over the line the line should be nudged against their favour.
They're nothing like Microsoft was; Windows was something like 97% of all PCs. I'm not aware of Apple having more than 50% of any market. You can't abuse a monopoly that you don't have. (Of course, collusion/duopoly and saying that they dominate some smaller market, say paid mobile apps, are valid arguments, but nothing like as cut-and-dry as peak MS).
Anti-trust is more than just being a monopoly. You can have a 1% market share and still be caught up in an anti-trust case.
They have more than 50% of the US smartphone market.
>They're nothing like Microsoft was
Anti-Trust is about Power. Not market share.
I dont know how others that were there in the 90s thick about it. But I do think Apple today is way more powerful than Microsoft in the 90s. Your PC in the 90s were not the access point of anything in the society other than some games or spreadsheets. Not to mention most of the population dont even have a PC. PC in terms of reach to population is basically a niche.
These days it is hard to argue that. Excluding child and grannies US literally has 100% smartphone ownership. And smartphone ( or more like a pocket personal computer ) is our access point for a lot of thing in our society, and increasingly for almost everything. And it has to go through App Store where Apple is the judge, jury and executioner.
Anti-Trust is about Power. Not market share.
I dont know how others that were there in the 90s thick about it. But I do think Apple today is way more powerful than Microsoft in the 90s. Your PC in the 90s were not the access point of anything in the society other than some games or spreadsheets. Not to mention most of the population dont even have a PC. PC in terms of reach to population is basically a niche.
These days it is hard to argue that. Excluding child and grannies US literally has 100% smartphone ownership. And smartphone ( or more like a pocket personal computer ) is our access point for a lot of thing in our society, and increasingly for almost everything. And it has to go through App Store where Apple is the judge, jury and executioner.
Would that extend to grocery stores, where would you force walmart to put their own brands?
I can go across the street to a dozen different stores. If I travel a little further, I can go to even more stores.
No matter where I go, with Apple and Google, I'm have to use their payment systems and give each of them a 30% cut of my apps' revenue. They both have a duopoly in the mobile operating systems market and the mobile app distribution market, and Apple has the majority of the market share in both markets in the US.
No matter where I go, with Apple and Google, I'm have to use their payment systems and give each of them a 30% cut of my apps' revenue. They both have a duopoly in the mobile operating systems market and the mobile app distribution market, and Apple has the majority of the market share in both markets in the US.
The difference is that Walmart didn't build the street or the city and doesn't have a right to take a cut of sales on other people's property. A more apt comparison would be the third-party hotels that, if they want to use some of Disney's 25,000 acres in Florida[0], literally have to lease the land from Disney and Disney can impose terms like a cut of sales (or a forced Disney merchandise store within the hotel). iOS is like the consumer choosing to live exclusively within the confines of Disney's property (with the difference being that, once you 'leave' iOS, you can't bring stuff back into the city - honestly this is the digital equivalent of what Walt Disney wanted with E.P.C.O.T.[1]).
0: https://dpep.disney.io/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/fact_sheet...
1: https://youtu.be/tKYEXjMlKKQ
0: https://dpep.disney.io/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/fact_sheet...
1: https://youtu.be/tKYEXjMlKKQ
You actually OWN your device and should have the right to do what you please with it. This analogy is poor.
There are tons of resorts and hotels completely unrelated to Disney that exist right at the gates of Disnyworld that offer shuttles. There are even more resorts in Kissimmee that are just a short drive away. As someone who has been to Disneyworld over a dozen times and never once stayed in a Disney resort, there are a ton of places to stay and still visit Disneyworld.
Most of those resorts lease the land from Disney, https://www.wdwradio.com/2005/02/wdw-history-101-how-to-buy-...
https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2019/12/30/disn...
https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2019/12/30/disn...
As a person who has been involved in real estate around that area I'm fully cognizant that many of the resorts that appear to be outside the gates of Disneyworld are technically on Disney real estate. When looking at maps its pretty easy to see what is and is not Disney property, as soon after you leave Disney property there's tons of chain shops and other stuff right outside the gates. I've still never stayed on a resort or hotel on Disney lands and its disingenuous (I'd say a lie) to say most hotels in Kissimmee that offer shuttle service to Disneyworld are leasing land from Disney. You do realize Disney doesn't own the entire state of Florida quite yet, right?
Thank You. It is tiring those analogy continues to be made when they are over simplify to the point of being wrong. Despite giving them an explanation how the world actually works.
I don't see any uneven playing field when it comes to grocery stores.
The national brands and store brands are always next to each other on the same shelf. So there isn't any problem that needs solving. Also brands already pay for promotional positioning (like the ends of aisles), and when the store puts its own brands in those spots it loses out on those payments, and so is effectively paying equally.
So the field doesn't need any evening out there.
If grocery stores ever started putting the name-brand stuff in a back room that took twice as long to get to, then it might become an issue, but as of right now it's just not.
The national brands and store brands are always next to each other on the same shelf. So there isn't any problem that needs solving. Also brands already pay for promotional positioning (like the ends of aisles), and when the store puts its own brands in those spots it loses out on those payments, and so is effectively paying equally.
So the field doesn't need any evening out there.
If grocery stores ever started putting the name-brand stuff in a back room that took twice as long to get to, then it might become an issue, but as of right now it's just not.
The brand names pay for their spot, so its moot. There is no meritocracy in grocery store product placement. For the most part the grocery store doesn't have a formula to decide where to put most things based on sales data. If you sell a cereal or soda or fancy mustard and you want premium shelf height, just pay extra for it. The store basically rents the shelf space out.
This is absolutely true in the USA. Frito Lay has done this for years, paying supermarkets for more and more shelf space, while the smaller, regional competitors were left with less and less room to sell.
This happened to my father in the 1980s when he owned a distributorship for a regional potato chip company here in the Midwest United States.
This happened to my father in the 1980s when he owned a distributorship for a regional potato chip company here in the Midwest United States.
You don’t see the brands they don’t carry at all. Only the brands they carry get displayed and they often make more money on the name brands anyway.
I've heard from a friend (in Australia) if you don't frequently buy placement you get bumped, and buying placement can be a losing proposition. They raise the price to squeeze all margin so it's just on the edge of making it affordable. You have to say yes to losing money during the promotion ("you'll make it up with brand awareness!") to claw it back by staying on the shelves in between. Otherwise another brand, or sometimes a house brand, takes your place.
Does shelf height play that big of a roll in sales?
Oh absolutely, especially because Australian grocery stores tend to be denser and stock less products. Especially the new "Metro" style of stores.
In these formats, you pay for placement or they don't stock you.
In these formats, you pay for placement or they don't stock you.
It's not just height, it's the positioning at the end of aisles too, and the large 'sales' stickers to draw attention. IIRC they would request an all-or-nothing for your product line, so if it was something like dog food or sauces where you might have multiple variations you had to pay the fee per SKU to be featured, you didn't get to pick and choose. They decided.
Similarly at least one large pharmacy chain supposedly made a significant chunk of profit from charging for catalogue placement.
I don't know about shelf height specifically though, I do know this is an important factor in sales but not sure if there is ongoing 'rent' to pay. There would be a lot of indirect negotiation around wholesale rates that would influence these decisions too.
Similarly at least one large pharmacy chain supposedly made a significant chunk of profit from charging for catalogue placement.
I don't know about shelf height specifically though, I do know this is an important factor in sales but not sure if there is ongoing 'rent' to pay. There would be a lot of indirect negotiation around wholesale rates that would influence these decisions too.
Shelf height really does matter, check the items that are at “eye” height the next time you’re in the store.
And sometimes it goes so far as to distinguish between the average male eye height and he average female when arranging products.
And sometimes it goes so far as to distinguish between the average male eye height and he average female when arranging products.
> Would that extend to grocery stores, where would you force walmart to put their own brands?
It's not a fair comparison if you're at a physical store since things are too different for an analogy. However, if I'm searching on their website and type in a specific brand so I can find which aisle it's in I would expect to get the brand I searched for, not a Great Value knockoff.
It's not a fair comparison if you're at a physical store since things are too different for an analogy. However, if I'm searching on their website and type in a specific brand so I can find which aisle it's in I would expect to get the brand I searched for, not a Great Value knockoff.
I mean that is basically how I find the store brand all the time. Look for the brand name thing I know by heart because the logo has been seared into my brain since birth and then go from there.
It costs me less money travel-wise to go to a non-Walmart grocery store. Within the same cost comparison of traveling, I've got about four different brands of groceries all within a similar price range.
If I had an iPhone, it would be a several hundred dollar proposal (at least!) to shop at a competing store.
If I had an iPhone, it would be a several hundred dollar proposal (at least!) to shop at a competing store.
You mean the grocery stores that have many competitors who also sell groceries? How would you extend that analogy to the iOS App Store, which has no competitors whatsoever who sell iOS apps?
The Web is a great competitor for the most part.
>You mean the grocery stores that have many competitors who also sell groceries?
google?
>How would you extend that analogy to the iOS App Store, which has no competitors whatsoever who sell iOS apps?
By that logic costco has no competitors whatsoever that sell kirkland signature products.
google?
>How would you extend that analogy to the iOS App Store, which has no competitors whatsoever who sell iOS apps?
By that logic costco has no competitors whatsoever that sell kirkland signature products.
> google?
> By that logic costco has no competitors whatsoever that sell kirkland signature products.
No, that logic does not compare at all. Google's groceries aren't fungible when compared to Apple's, and vice versa.
If you have been eating Apple's groceries but want to switch to Google's, you have to get your teeth, tongue, throat, and stomach replaced with Google-compatible versions. Plus all of the things you are currently storing in your fridge and freezer at home needs to be thrown out because they will no longer fit in the new Google-compatible fridge/freezer you have to buy. Oh, and for the things that need to be cooked, you'll also need to buy a new Google-compatible stove and oven.
> By that logic costco has no competitors whatsoever that sell kirkland signature products.
No, that logic does not compare at all. Google's groceries aren't fungible when compared to Apple's, and vice versa.
If you have been eating Apple's groceries but want to switch to Google's, you have to get your teeth, tongue, throat, and stomach replaced with Google-compatible versions. Plus all of the things you are currently storing in your fridge and freezer at home needs to be thrown out because they will no longer fit in the new Google-compatible fridge/freezer you have to buy. Oh, and for the things that need to be cooked, you'll also need to buy a new Google-compatible stove and oven.
I think if we took the reverse analogy, this would be like a situation where depending on the model of car you owned you could only shop at a specific grocery store.
Bought a Honda? Only Kroger for you. Ford? You get Albertsons.
There's a sizable purchase with phones and computers that creates a cost to switching stores. There's no cost to me to go to Kroger one week and Albertsons the next.
Something like Amazon is more comparable to grocery stores, but I think there's a "trust" cost that makes them not directly comparable.
Bought a Honda? Only Kroger for you. Ford? You get Albertsons.
There's a sizable purchase with phones and computers that creates a cost to switching stores. There's no cost to me to go to Kroger one week and Albertsons the next.
Something like Amazon is more comparable to grocery stores, but I think there's a "trust" cost that makes them not directly comparable.
But if you have an android phone you can buy apps where ever you choose, even from the developer directly. There are alternative app stores. The market has a low barrier to entry.
Apple only has control over consumers who chose for them to have that control. If you are selling an app to an iPhone user, you are selling to someone who only wants your app if Apple blesses it. If you are an Apple user that doesn't want that, then why did you by an Apple? Free yourself and buy a real computer or phone next time.
Apple only has control over consumers who chose for them to have that control. If you are selling an app to an iPhone user, you are selling to someone who only wants your app if Apple blesses it. If you are an Apple user that doesn't want that, then why did you by an Apple? Free yourself and buy a real computer or phone next time.
Agreed, but regular users might be put off by the scary warning you have to click through on Android to allow an install outside the Play Store. And there is no way to have non-Play apps auto-update. Even alternative stores like F-Droid are not allowed to do this; they have to put up a notification that updates are available, and for each app you have to manually confirm that you want to install the update.
Is this a better situation than on iOS? Yes, of course, definitely. But it's still not a level playing field.
> Apple only has control over consumers who chose for them to have that control. If you are selling an app to an iPhone user, you are selling to someone who only wants your app if Apple blesses it. If you are an Apple user that doesn't want that, then why did you by an Apple? Free yourself and buy a real computer or phone next time.
I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. People who are in the Apple ecosystem and not Android (and vice versa) have many different reasons for doing so, whether it's because iPhones are seen as a status symbol, or they believe that iOS is more privacy-protecting than Android, or they are in the Apple ecosystem for their desktop experience, and don't want to have to deal with frustrating interop issues. And a host of other reasons.
So sure, a person who buys an iPhone is choosing the restrictions imposed on them, but it's not because they necessarily actively like or want that. They just believe it's something that they will have to give up and deal with if they want the other things.
So no, no one held a gun to their heads and made them buy iPhones, but it's not just a binary decision on a single dimension as to whether or not you buy iPhone or Android.
Is this a better situation than on iOS? Yes, of course, definitely. But it's still not a level playing field.
> Apple only has control over consumers who chose for them to have that control. If you are selling an app to an iPhone user, you are selling to someone who only wants your app if Apple blesses it. If you are an Apple user that doesn't want that, then why did you by an Apple? Free yourself and buy a real computer or phone next time.
I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. People who are in the Apple ecosystem and not Android (and vice versa) have many different reasons for doing so, whether it's because iPhones are seen as a status symbol, or they believe that iOS is more privacy-protecting than Android, or they are in the Apple ecosystem for their desktop experience, and don't want to have to deal with frustrating interop issues. And a host of other reasons.
So sure, a person who buys an iPhone is choosing the restrictions imposed on them, but it's not because they necessarily actively like or want that. They just believe it's something that they will have to give up and deal with if they want the other things.
So no, no one held a gun to their heads and made them buy iPhones, but it's not just a binary decision on a single dimension as to whether or not you buy iPhone or Android.
Some manufacturer will try to do that once self-driving cars become a reality.
"I can take you to Wal-Mart... that's a sponsored destination. But Target will require a $2.00 fee, or you'll have to self-drive. Note: Your insurance rate will also increase."
"I can take you to Wal-Mart... that's a sponsored destination. But Target will require a $2.00 fee, or you'll have to self-drive. Note: Your insurance rate will also increase."
Note that the infotainment systems in cars are way more closed than an iOS device.
We need to re-evaluate what "rights" mean in a digital age. Apple should not have a monopoly on digital stores on iOS. "Apple made it so they can do anything they want. Take it or leave it" - is not an acceptable position (in my opinion).
>By that logic costco has no competitors whatsoever that sell kirkland signature products.
Can you explain how you came to that conclusion and what 'that logic' is?
>By that logic costco has no competitors whatsoever that sell kirkland signature products.
Can you explain how you came to that conclusion and what 'that logic' is?
>Can you explain how you came to that conclusion and what 'that logic' is?
Because the parent poster was applying arbitrary restriction on it (apps, but only ios) to make a point. I replied with the equivalent example for costco (grocery store products, but only kirkland signature).
Because the parent poster was applying arbitrary restriction on it (apps, but only ios) to make a point. I replied with the equivalent example for costco (grocery store products, but only kirkland signature).
Because you have both Costco AND Walmart Stores selling their own brand within the same state which allows heavy Store competition within the State along with dozen of others Stores?
The iOS state has 65% of users and 75% of App spending and it has one Store.
You can perfectly have your own retail brand when there are plenty of competition within the market. If you argue there is still another state with diverse choices, you are either hit with a Duopoly argument, or a monopolistic power argument where iOS have too much power within market economy.
People have been using these over simplify analogy with Xbox and Retail and there are not even the same.
Either way, there should be no denying there is something wrong with the way things are currently being handled.
The iOS state has 65% of users and 75% of App spending and it has one Store.
You can perfectly have your own retail brand when there are plenty of competition within the market. If you argue there is still another state with diverse choices, you are either hit with a Duopoly argument, or a monopolistic power argument where iOS have too much power within market economy.
People have been using these over simplify analogy with Xbox and Retail and there are not even the same.
Either way, there should be no denying there is something wrong with the way things are currently being handled.
> The iOS state has 65% of users
65% may be the shares in devices sold in Q4 2020, in the US.
From what I’ve gathered, actual devices market share, in the US, is closer to (and less than) 50%.
Doesn’t invalidate your points though.
65% may be the shares in devices sold in Q4 2020, in the US.
From what I’ve gathered, actual devices market share, in the US, is closer to (and less than) 50%.
Doesn’t invalidate your points though.
> From what I’ve gathered, actual devices market share, in the US, is closer to (and less than) 50%.
iOS has 60% of the market in the US[1].
[1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/ios-more-popular-in-japan-and-us-...
iOS has 60% of the market in the US[1].
[1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/ios-more-popular-in-japan-and-us-...
Made me realise how much it depends on who you ask
Here, 50% [1] There, 59% [2]
Intriguing that there isn’t any reliable statistics on the topic
[1] https://www.emarketer.com/content/iphones-gaining-us-market-...
[2] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta...
Here, 50% [1] There, 59% [2]
Intriguing that there isn’t any reliable statistics on the topic
[1] https://www.emarketer.com/content/iphones-gaining-us-market-...
[2] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta...
Honestly, if I were to make a platform and someone else were to come by and somehow force my hand regarding what should be allowed on it and how they should be ranked in it, I’d just shut it all down, even the company if need be, give their money back to whatever investors there may be, and walk away. Let them have fun building it themselves if they want it to run any other way.
But that’s just me, and it probably speaks volumes about some of my flaws.
But that’s just me, and it probably speaks volumes about some of my flaws.
I mean, sure, that's fine. Most laws around what things people and corporations are and aren't allowed to do are trade offs. You can build a company and make lots of money, but you have to obey a set of restrictions. If you're not ok with those restrictions, then you don't build a company. That's fine. There are certainly other people who will accept somewhat lower profits (due to these restrictions) in exchange for having the opportunity to make money at all.
The pretty well-known examples of these sorts of restrictions are things like minimum wage laws, child labor laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc. Antitrust law is on there too, and in my opinion it should be expanded to cover some of the stuff we're talking about here. You seem to not agree, and that's fine. But personally I think we should be doing more to protect customers, even from things they may not realize are hurting them. Right now the only serious choices for a smartphone are iPhone or Android, and while they both have a lot of good things going for them, they also both have significant negatives. I don't want the future to be a techno-dystopia where there is only one "choice", and the manufacturer dictates how we use our devices. It really feels like that's where things are going, though, unless we start requiring platforms be more open. Customers won't demand it, because most of them don't understand the issues around it, so it's likely the only solution is legislation.
The pretty well-known examples of these sorts of restrictions are things like minimum wage laws, child labor laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc. Antitrust law is on there too, and in my opinion it should be expanded to cover some of the stuff we're talking about here. You seem to not agree, and that's fine. But personally I think we should be doing more to protect customers, even from things they may not realize are hurting them. Right now the only serious choices for a smartphone are iPhone or Android, and while they both have a lot of good things going for them, they also both have significant negatives. I don't want the future to be a techno-dystopia where there is only one "choice", and the manufacturer dictates how we use our devices. It really feels like that's where things are going, though, unless we start requiring platforms be more open. Customers won't demand it, because most of them don't understand the issues around it, so it's likely the only solution is legislation.
Totally and wholeheartedly agree.
As a member of a society there are ground rules you are obliged to abide by in order to participate. The upshot is Apple makes 10s of billions per year while abiding by those standards.
It's a pretty fantastic deal if you can get it and I don't think if regulations on manipulation of the app market is tightened up it would be an undue burden.
You seem to be imagining that a trillion dollar business is just a really big version of a small business so you imagine storming off in a fit of pique but it's really not a bigger version it's a different animal because it's wealth gives it so much power it is in need of greater restraint internal or external and it's massive payroll and base gives it greater obligation to it's customers and staff.
Anyone who would do such a thing would just find themselves looking for a new job after the stockholders fired them.
It's a pretty fantastic deal if you can get it and I don't think if regulations on manipulation of the app market is tightened up it would be an undue burden.
You seem to be imagining that a trillion dollar business is just a really big version of a small business so you imagine storming off in a fit of pique but it's really not a bigger version it's a different animal because it's wealth gives it so much power it is in need of greater restraint internal or external and it's massive payroll and base gives it greater obligation to it's customers and staff.
Anyone who would do such a thing would just find themselves looking for a new job after the stockholders fired them.
> You seem to be imagining that a trillion dollar business is just a really big version of a small business
You are extrapolating. Of course I’m aware shareholders would just fire me.
However, adding tens of caveats to what was merely a statement of my visceral and spontaneous reaction to being put in such a situation was, and is, kind of moot.
You are extrapolating. Of course I’m aware shareholders would just fire me.
However, adding tens of caveats to what was merely a statement of my visceral and spontaneous reaction to being put in such a situation was, and is, kind of moot.
Honestly, if I were to make an petroleum refining company and someone else were to come by and somehow force my hand regarding what should be allowed to be dumped into the river or not I'd just shut it down, even the company if need be, give their money back to whatever investors there may be, and walk away. Let them have fun building it themselves if they want to run any other way.
/s
/s
Yes. And what is the issue with that? As long as you don’t actually dump into the river what you were forbidden to? Unlike quite a few companies all over the world.
As long as you're not in an absolutely massive market position, this kind of forcing won't happen to you.
If you are in such a position, you can sell it for billions of dollars.
If you are in such a position, you can sell it for billions of dollars.
You are right in that lawmakers and judges won’t.
However, it can happen with both investors or managers instead. Or clients, when you’re a freelancer.
And I thought of the selling option, but it would just mean that someone else would bend what you built to that third party’s will.
It’s vain, and probably egotistical, I know.
However, it can happen with both investors or managers instead. Or clients, when you’re a freelancer.
And I thought of the selling option, but it would just mean that someone else would bend what you built to that third party’s will.
It’s vain, and probably egotistical, I know.
> Honestly, if I were to make a platform and someone else were to come by and somehow force my hand regarding what should be allowed on it
It's not just "a platform" Apple's Market cap is 10% of the US GDP. What they do has real consequences for the world.
It's not just "a platform" Apple's Market cap is 10% of the US GDP. What they do has real consequences for the world.
A grocery store has limited storage space, a limited amount of advertising space, limited staff, etc, etc. The amount of upkeep is also very different compared to a digital store.
I think its not really an apt point for comparison.
I think its not really an apt point for comparison.
So you would be fine if a separate "Apple Apps Inc" was required by law to exist, and it had created the Files app instead, and it had the same dropbox integration and it was therefore in the accurate metadata, and it surfaced higher than the dropbox app anyway?
Congratulations, we did it guys.
Congratulations, we did it guys.
Makes no sense. The whole point is they manually boosted Files to make it surface higher. If it surfaces higher under a level playing field, that is fine.
>selling its own products
The Files app is bundled with the OS, but not installed by default. It's not exactly "sold" as it's free and isn't ad supported either.
It's hard to find a profit motive here.
Google, on the other hand, has long allowed you to bid on your competitor's product name so you will show up ahead of them in the search results.
They also have a history of scraping other people's content and then more highly rating that scraped content on their own sites in their search engine.
It's easy to find a profit motive there.
The Files app is bundled with the OS, but not installed by default. It's not exactly "sold" as it's free and isn't ad supported either.
It's hard to find a profit motive here.
Google, on the other hand, has long allowed you to bid on your competitor's product name so you will show up ahead of them in the search results.
They also have a history of scraping other people's content and then more highly rating that scraped content on their own sites in their search engine.
It's easy to find a profit motive there.
The profit motive is keeping users in their ecosystem
> It's hard to find a profit motive here.
Promoting the use of iCloud - when your space runs out, you will consider paying for it.
Promoting the use of iCloud - when your space runs out, you will consider paying for it.
>Promoting the use of iCloud
The Files app transfers files back and forth between SMB shares, local flash drives, and any of the major cloud services.
iCloud is not required at all.
Try again.
The Files app transfers files back and forth between SMB shares, local flash drives, and any of the major cloud services.
iCloud is not required at all.
Try again.
If you are ignorant about it, iCloud support is integrated into the Files App and is the most promoted on its support documents too - https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203052 and https://support.apple.com/en-in/HT206481 ... If you use DropBox app, you are obviously going to prefer DropBox cloud service over iCloud - that not only means a potential loss of revenue in the future but also the fact that they aren't tied into Apple ecosystem and can abandon it. Additionally, anyone not using the Files app also denies Apple the means to collect file metadata which are valuable to profile you.
> If you are ignorant about it
I'm apparently not the person who is ignorant of the fact that iCloud is not required in any way to use Files.
Any SMB share, Flash drive, or major cloud service will work with it just fine.
If you are trying to come up with a profit motive as large as Google, where they sell search results on other people's product names, you aren't making a compelling case.
I'm apparently not the person who is ignorant of the fact that iCloud is not required in any way to use Files.
Any SMB share, Flash drive, or major cloud service will work with it just fine.
If you are trying to come up with a profit motive as large as Google, where they sell search results on other people's product names, you aren't making a compelling case.
Why is this a competition? They can both be wrong.
I tend to think of Files as less like Dropbox and more like the macOS Finder.
You can actually browse Dropbox in Files, much as you can in the Finder, although there are some limitations.
https://help.dropbox.com/installs-integrations/mobile/ios-fi...
You can actually browse Dropbox in Files, much as you can in the Finder, although there are some limitations.
https://help.dropbox.com/installs-integrations/mobile/ios-fi...
I never had to go to the Mac App Store to download Finder though.
If you did have to download Finder from the Mac App Store, would that turn Finder into a competitor of Dropbox?
Only if it means that Finder doesn’t have any special system access privileges - or that Dropbox can do everything Finder can - so Finder and Dropbox would be on equal-footing.
I'll give my opinion as a consumer.
Sometime in early 2019, I bought an iPad (pre ipad OS). I went to a website and downloaded a journal PDF. I had no idea where the file was physically located. Safari didn't provide an indication, and there didn't appear to be a File Manager of any kind built in. So I had to search online for an app, just to locate a a file I had downloaded through the browser.
I returned the iPad and went back to Android, which has had file explorers built in since forever (both stock Android or OEM skin). "It just works".
Sometime in early 2019, I bought an iPad (pre ipad OS). I went to a website and downloaded a journal PDF. I had no idea where the file was physically located. Safari didn't provide an indication, and there didn't appear to be a File Manager of any kind built in. So I had to search online for an app, just to locate a a file I had downloaded through the browser.
I returned the iPad and went back to Android, which has had file explorers built in since forever (both stock Android or OEM skin). "It just works".
I believe Files was integrated into iOS on release, but even system-integrated apps have entries on the App store to say re-add them after being removed by the user.
[deleted]
Does anyone else just…not care? Files is a system app like Windows Explorer. It’s not meant to “compete” with anything. Does anyone think Control Panel competes with Android’s Settings app?
iCloud Drive is a cloud storage competitor that Files works well with, but Files also supports Dropbox and Google Drive and many other storage competitors (anyone who wants to implement the API gets to be in Files). Also, the argument that Files is somehow replacing Dropbox doesn’t even make sense because you need to have the Dropbox app installed in order to connect Files to Dropbox. It’s not a standalone integration, it depends on third party apps providing the correct extension to work correctly.
It’s surprising, to me at least, that everyone accepted Files coming packaged with every new iPhone and iPad sold, but for some reason its position in the App Store is a controversial topic? How many people even delete Files and search for it again? Not to mention that installing system apps from the App Store doesn’t even install anything, because the app was never removed, just hidden from Springboard.
iCloud Drive is a cloud storage competitor that Files works well with, but Files also supports Dropbox and Google Drive and many other storage competitors (anyone who wants to implement the API gets to be in Files). Also, the argument that Files is somehow replacing Dropbox doesn’t even make sense because you need to have the Dropbox app installed in order to connect Files to Dropbox. It’s not a standalone integration, it depends on third party apps providing the correct extension to work correctly.
It’s surprising, to me at least, that everyone accepted Files coming packaged with every new iPhone and iPad sold, but for some reason its position in the App Store is a controversial topic? How many people even delete Files and search for it again? Not to mention that installing system apps from the App Store doesn’t even install anything, because the app was never removed, just hidden from Springboard.
I care that searching for "Dropbox" doesn't give you "Dropbox" in the first page of results, because of some knob Apple is able to turn any time they want.
When a “page” of search results consists of 1 ad and 1 result, it’s really not very meaningful to talk about “pages”.
"Below the fold" doesn't have meaning? Is that not what he was effectively saying?
“Below the fold“ implies that the result wasn’t on screen. The second search result is always on screen, even if you have a tiny iPhone from six years ago. When you search for “dropbox“ and the second result is the Dropbox app adorned with the Dropbox logo, is anyone ever going to even notice the first result?
The exact quote was "In fact, Dropbox wasn't even visible on the first page".
I don't think you read the article. Apple boosted their generic Files app above Dropbox for the query Dropbox. That is the controversy.
[deleted]
Upvote for you and downvote for OP.
I think there will be more tricks from Apple to handle search result of other apps.
I think there will be more tricks from Apple to handle search result of other apps.
While this is an abuse of their monopoly powers, to me this is less bad than locking out 3rd party app stores. I never heard much complaining about that before Epic did their thing.
The whole point of gaining monopoly status is to be able to use and apply these kinds of manipulations. This doesn't make it right however.
Epic is one of a few large enough to make the necessary waves to have an impact. But behind Epic are thousands of unhappy app developers. Most of which are otherwise ignored. Also, complain too loudly and Apple has plenty of indirect ways to harm you. This is also an outcome of monopoly.
Epic is one of a few large enough to make the necessary waves to have an impact. But behind Epic are thousands of unhappy app developers. Most of which are otherwise ignored. Also, complain too loudly and Apple has plenty of indirect ways to harm you. This is also an outcome of monopoly.
Indirect? They can shut down an app for any reason with no recourse if they wanted.
[deleted]
Yeah but even before reading the article I figured this was an algorithmic mistake, and apparently it is:
"While Apple didn’t challenge the idea that Files was unfairly ranked over Dropbox, the company says the reality was a simple mistake: the Files app had a Dropbox integration, so Apple put “Dropbox” into the app’s metadata, and it was automatically ranked higher for “Dropbox” searches as a result."
"While Apple didn’t challenge the idea that Files was unfairly ranked over Dropbox, the company says the reality was a simple mistake: the Files app had a Dropbox integration, so Apple put “Dropbox” into the app’s metadata, and it was automatically ranked higher for “Dropbox” searches as a result."
The emails themselves say it was a "manual boost" rather than the PR explanation you provided.
I'm a little conflicted who to believe. But it sounds like there are specific keywords an app developer can specify for their apps that signals to the App Store search what to rank for (kind of like having keywords on your website tells Google what your page is about). From my understanding Apple manually put "Dropbox" as one of the keywords and that is what they removed. If other app developers can put in keywords like that (and not just Apple for their own apps) then it doesn't sound too bad... But if it was a separate system that is not accessible to other developers to manipulate then that is less cool.
Apple's explanation makes perfect sense. They didn't manually put "Dropbox" as one of the keyboards, but the integration of Dropbox with Files results in "Dropbox" being automatically added to the metadata of the Files app, and the metadata automatically gets indexed by the search system
That's not manual though, it sounded like somewhere along the way somebody manually added the word Dropbox to the app's keywords
The point is that the manual boost was for the Files app in general, not for the "Dropbox" search query specifically.
If(query=='dropbox')
BoostInternallApp('files')
Not really sure how that can be a "mistake"
Not really sure how that can be a "mistake"
No, it was just BoostInteralApp('files').
Now, since both Dropbox and Files were results for the "dropbox" search term (because the Files app contained "dropbox" in its metadata if Dropbox was installed, and metadata got indexed by the search system), the latter ended up first due to getting boosted.
Now, since both Dropbox and Files were results for the "dropbox" search term (because the Files app contained "dropbox" in its metadata if Dropbox was installed, and metadata got indexed by the search system), the latter ended up first due to getting boosted.
This is not the only case.
For example it was reported that Fortnite wasn't the first result when searching for "Fortnite".
So Apple has no problem giving users poor results in favor of ads. I guess it's only annoying when Google does it right?
Showing File above Dropbox for a "Dropbox" search only adds insult to injury here.
edit: the amount of hand waving Apple gets around these parts is irrational. 2 instant downvotes for stating facts.
For example it was reported that Fortnite wasn't the first result when searching for "Fortnite".
So Apple has no problem giving users poor results in favor of ads. I guess it's only annoying when Google does it right?
Showing File above Dropbox for a "Dropbox" search only adds insult to injury here.
edit: the amount of hand waving Apple gets around these parts is irrational. 2 instant downvotes for stating facts.
It's particularly weird to target Apple in such a nebulous case when Selling ads that show up higher in the search results than the product you searched for is literally Google's business model in their only really profitable segment.
A market place and a search engine with ads are a little different. Apple is the market and also the vendor of the competing product in this case. They used their control of the market to benefit themselves. This type of vertical integration that is used to squash and out compete smaller competitors definitely smells like what anti trust laws were originally put in place to fight. Big tech lawyers should be terrified. The general sentiment of the public is beginning to shift against them and I'm not sure them spending millions more on lobbying will be able to prevent the legislation that will come.
Also, just because Google does shifty things doesn't make it ok for Apple to do shifty things too.
Also, just because Google does shifty things doesn't make it ok for Apple to do shifty things too.
> A market place and a search engine with ads are a little different.
There is a difference here.
Google has a very definite profit motive in selling ads on searches for a given companies product name that ranks higher in their monopoly search engine.
I can't see how ranking Files higher than Dropbox has any such profit motive. It's a free system utility that isn't even ad supported.
There is a difference here.
Google has a very definite profit motive in selling ads on searches for a given companies product name that ranks higher in their monopoly search engine.
I can't see how ranking Files higher than Dropbox has any such profit motive. It's a free system utility that isn't even ad supported.
They are steering users away from non Apple apps. If a user installs Dropbox, it seems more likely that they wouldn't want to install and pay for icloud storage. If Apple wasn't benefiting from surfacing their app in front of a non Apple app, why would someone at Apple go through the trouble of setting it up that way?
They are steering users to install a system utility that integrates with Dropbox (and every other major cloud service).
Apple does not make any profit off of that system utility.
Google, on the other hand, makes the vast majority of their profit from selling ads that do indeed steer users away from the product they searched for.
Apple does not make any profit off of that system utility.
Google, on the other hand, makes the vast majority of their profit from selling ads that do indeed steer users away from the product they searched for.
I'm making an assumption here since it's been a while since I've looked at SEO, but I'd assume that page rank in this case matters. Any friction at all leads to fewer conversions, which means fewer sales for Dropbox. If a less knowledgeable user downloads the Apple app instead of Dropbox in this case, there will be some portion that don't end up installing Dropbox and they may instead find their way to icloud when recommended to install it after installing files. There is no way to tell the actual impact, but I don't see how it could possibly have caused no impact. They control the market, they have a responsibility to maintain a non-amazon like image. Hopefully it was a mistake.
Files is the iOS equivalent of Windows Explorer in Windows. They both allow you to view and transfer files within the filesystem.
Dropbox provides it's functionality by integrating into Files on iOS and Windows Explorer in Windows.
Installing Files does absolutely nothing to disadvantage a Dropbox install, so your entire premise is false.
Dropbox provides it's functionality by integrating into Files on iOS and Windows Explorer in Windows.
Installing Files does absolutely nothing to disadvantage a Dropbox install, so your entire premise is false.
If they are harming you with it, you should sue them then? It isn't Epic's job--nor is it even their right--to sue everyone who does something bad to anyone: they sued someone who did something bad to them.
>Files is a system app like Windows Explorer. It’s not meant to “compete” with anything.
That defence helped Internet Explorer a lot. Nope. At the very least searching for 'dropbox' should return 'dropbox' and not be overriden by Apple.
>but for some reason its position in the App Store is a controversial topic? How many people even delete Files and search for it again?
This makes Apple's defence for manually placing Files at #1 even more nonsensical.
>iCloud Drive is a cloud storage competitor that Files works well with, but Files also supports Dropbox and Google Drive and many other storage competitors...
If all users installed DropBox, iCloud Drive would get $0. If they used Files, some percentage of users would pay for Apple's solution. That the financial benefit doesn't get 100 percent of users does not make it not a financial benefit.
That defence helped Internet Explorer a lot. Nope. At the very least searching for 'dropbox' should return 'dropbox' and not be overriden by Apple.
>but for some reason its position in the App Store is a controversial topic? How many people even delete Files and search for it again?
This makes Apple's defence for manually placing Files at #1 even more nonsensical.
>iCloud Drive is a cloud storage competitor that Files works well with, but Files also supports Dropbox and Google Drive and many other storage competitors...
If all users installed DropBox, iCloud Drive would get $0. If they used Files, some percentage of users would pay for Apple's solution. That the financial benefit doesn't get 100 percent of users does not make it not a financial benefit.
>That defense helped Internet Explorer a lot.
The past tense implies that battle was already won. Afaik, Windows still uses anti-competetive practices to support Edge (not uninstallable, and 'are you sure you want to change your default browser? Check out the New Edge first!'). The same defense still applies if they want it. I don't think it's right to speak about it like it's a thing of the past.
The past tense implies that battle was already won. Afaik, Windows still uses anti-competetive practices to support Edge (not uninstallable, and 'are you sure you want to change your default browser? Check out the New Edge first!'). The same defense still applies if they want it. I don't think it's right to speak about it like it's a thing of the past.
Privatezilla [1] helps with many nuisances. Among others, you can block Edge installation with it.
[1] https://github.com/builtbybel/privatezilla
[1] https://github.com/builtbybel/privatezilla
A filesystem and an internet browser are two very different things! Files = Windows explorer, the filesystem. Which is not internet explorer, the browser.
Dropbox and Files indeed aren’t really competitors. I often use Files to browser my Dropbox files!
Dropbox and Files indeed aren’t really competitors. I often use Files to browser my Dropbox files!
I just uninstalled Dropbox and upgraded my iCloud storage.
I’ll admit it’s an experiment to see if it meets my needs, but for my use case(syncing between my desktop and laptop), they are absolutely direct competitors.
I’ll admit it’s an experiment to see if it meets my needs, but for my use case(syncing between my desktop and laptop), they are absolutely direct competitors.
Yes, iCloud certainly does compete with Dropbox. But Files doesn’t. You didn’t use the Files app to upgrade your iCloud storage, you went to Settings or a web browser.
How do you use iCloud Drive to sync arbitrary files between iOS and macOS? Is there a dedicated iCloud Drive app that competes with the Dropbox app?
I don’t think there is. I think the only first party interface for syncing arbitrary files in iCloud Drive is the Files app.
I don’t think there is. I think the only first party interface for syncing arbitrary files in iCloud Drive is the Files app.
Yeah: this whole argument that Files isn't competing with Dropbox because it has some other functionality Dropbox doesn't have is absurd. One may as well directly copy someone else's product and then add a clock to it and claim "my app doesn't compete with your app because my app also has a clock and I imagine some people are using it just for the clock". If iCloud Drive were integrated with some other even more complex app (as honestly, almost everything people want to do with the Files app they can do with Dropbox: they are direct competitors if you reverse the order of comparison) like Safari or iTunes, then that would make that entire app compete with Dropbox. If iPhoto adds a filter that competes with some standalone photo effects app--maybe Prisma--and then when people search for Prisma they are directed to install iPhoto instead, that isn't somehow "not a problem" because iPhoto has a million more features than Prisma: that would be Apple abusing their App Store monopoly to nudge people to maybe (as nothing is 100%, and it doesn't need to be to be "a problem") use their software instead of Prisma.
My fault, I wasn't clear.
My use case also includes being able to check certain file occasionally on mobile. That requires Files app.
My use case also includes being able to check certain file occasionally on mobile. That requires Files app.
Nit: there was a time when Windows Explorer an IE were integrated enough that you could open http URLs in Windows Explorer.
> If all users installed DropBox, iCloud Drive would get $0.
I pay for both and I doubt I’m the only one.
I pay for both and I doubt I’m the only one.
If you dig down the email chain PDF you get to email from the head of Epic bitching about how a search for “Fortnite” comes up with ads for competitors first. He then goes on to use the ad for Files that showed up at the top of a search for “Dropbox” as another example.
Half the time when I search for any app on the iOS store I get an ad for a knockoff at the top of the search, barely noted as an ad, this is a big problem. Though you get the same shit when you search for anything on Google too. Except a lot of those are ads bought by the very thing you’re searching for, because they have decided giving Google protection money to keep anyone else out of that spot is worth it.
Half the time when I search for any app on the iOS store I get an ad for a knockoff at the top of the search, barely noted as an ad, this is a big problem. Though you get the same shit when you search for anything on Google too. Except a lot of those are ads bought by the very thing you’re searching for, because they have decided giving Google protection money to keep anyone else out of that spot is worth it.
[deleted]
> barely noted as an ad
I don’t know what version you use but in iOS 14 the ad is clearly mentioned and the ad element have a distinct light blue background and all the other elements have w white color !
I don’t know what version you use but in iOS 14 the ad is clearly mentioned and the ad element have a distinct light blue background and all the other elements have w white color !
Oh, I guess that’s improved then. Yay! I’ve basically quit updating anything lately, iOS and MacOS do everything I need and new versions just break shit and push developers towards replacing what used to work with slow, underfeatured Electron crap.
Still a goddamn pain in the ass. No I don’t want Obvious Ripoff or Close Competitor, I want Actual Thing That I Typed In.
Still a goddamn pain in the ass. No I don’t want Obvious Ripoff or Close Competitor, I want Actual Thing That I Typed In.
If I search for something and its found, I expect it to be the first result. Not an ad for its competitor. I hate the manipulation of rankings that interfere in this way.
Huh? But that’s the whole business model of search ads. If you manipulate the organic results then shame on your whole family but sticking ads at the top is to me pretty benign as long as they’re clearly labeled — and on the App Store and Google Search they are.
If I search for something and it exists, I expect to see it. If necessary put the ad after the result I expect to see. Even with them labelled as ads. That is a better approach.
The "its just how it is" kind of narrative isn’t great either. I'd never want to hear that from anyone implying they are innovators or creative types. Especially when the "how it is" aspect is something created as a matter of deliberate choice and not some natural law.
The "its just how it is" kind of narrative isn’t great either. I'd never want to hear that from anyone implying they are innovators or creative types. Especially when the "how it is" aspect is something created as a matter of deliberate choice and not some natural law.
> > the Files app had a Dropbox integration, so Apple put “Dropbox” into the app’s metadata, and it was automatically ranked higher for “Dropbox” searches as a result.
I can smell the bullshit from here and I don't live in the US. Lol.
I can smell the bullshit from here and I don't live in the US. Lol.
I'm glad you quoted this because it's actually plausible.
It's a given that Files is downloaded much more often than Dropbox: it's integrated with the rest of the iOS ecosystem and iCloud, I'm confident there are many more iPhone users with the Files app than with the Dropbox app.
If they added a "Dropbox" metadata, that would organically return it on a search for "Dropbox", and being popular (and well rated presumably?) might float it up above the actual app named Dropbox.
Although it bugs me in general that an App Store search for an exact name doesn't always put the app with that exact name first, app search has worked that way for awhile, and it isn't implausible to me that this specific thing happened as described.
It's a given that Files is downloaded much more often than Dropbox: it's integrated with the rest of the iOS ecosystem and iCloud, I'm confident there are many more iPhone users with the Files app than with the Dropbox app.
If they added a "Dropbox" metadata, that would organically return it on a search for "Dropbox", and being popular (and well rated presumably?) might float it up above the actual app named Dropbox.
Although it bugs me in general that an App Store search for an exact name doesn't always put the app with that exact name first, app search has worked that way for awhile, and it isn't implausible to me that this specific thing happened as described.
Apple’s statement is pretty clearly corporate BS because the internal email makes it clear the primary reason for the biased search results was the “manual boost”
> “We are removing the manual boost and the search results should be more relevant now,” wrote Apple app search lead Debankur Naskar
> “We are removing the manual boost and the search results should be more relevant now,” wrote Apple app search lead Debankur Naskar
> It's a given that Files is downloaded much more often than Dropbox
I doubt it, given that it ships with iOS.
I doubt it, given that it ships with iOS.
> “We are removing the manual boost and the search results should be more relevant now,” wrote Apple app search lead Debankur Naskar, after the company was confronted by Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney over Apple’s Files app showing up first when searching for Dropbox. “Dropbox wasn’t even visible on the first page [of search results],” Sweeney wrote.
See the following image for the full email chain, by the way:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20805886-epic-v-appl...
Forwarded message from Tim Sweeney (not part of future conversations):
- In fact, Dropbox wasn't even visible on the first page. Google bought the top search result, and Apple put its Files app ahead of Dropbox in line. For the search: "Dropbox".
Matt Fischer (VP App Store):
- Also, who green lit putting the Files app above Dropbox in organic search results? I didn't know we did that, and I don't think we should.
Debankur Naskar (App Store Search and Recommendations product management):
- I think the Files app was manually boosted on the top for the query "Dropbox" during last WWDC. We are removing the manual boost and the search results should be more relevant now (change will take effect in a couple of hours). Also, FYI, the quality of some of the keywords in our 1st party apps are not very relevant and hence search results are getting impacted. We are auditing those and will clean them up.
Matt Fischer:
- Debankur - I wasn't aware that we were boosting the Files app and would like to know how that happened and who requested it. In the future, I want any similar requests to come to me for review/approval.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20805886-epic-v-appl...
Forwarded message from Tim Sweeney (not part of future conversations):
- In fact, Dropbox wasn't even visible on the first page. Google bought the top search result, and Apple put its Files app ahead of Dropbox in line. For the search: "Dropbox".
Matt Fischer (VP App Store):
- Also, who green lit putting the Files app above Dropbox in organic search results? I didn't know we did that, and I don't think we should.
Debankur Naskar (App Store Search and Recommendations product management):
- I think the Files app was manually boosted on the top for the query "Dropbox" during last WWDC. We are removing the manual boost and the search results should be more relevant now (change will take effect in a couple of hours). Also, FYI, the quality of some of the keywords in our 1st party apps are not very relevant and hence search results are getting impacted. We are auditing those and will clean them up.
Matt Fischer:
- Debankur - I wasn't aware that we were boosting the Files app and would like to know how that happened and who requested it. In the future, I want any similar requests to come to me for review/approval.
> While Apple didn’t challenge the idea that Files was unfairly ranked over Dropbox, the company says the
reality was a simple mistake: the Files app had a Dropbox integration, so Apple put “Dropbox” into the
app’s metadata, and it was automatically ranked higher for “Dropbox” searches as a result.
This seems to be the key argument, I've not seen this addressed anywhere. The Files app doesn't compete with Dropbox, if anything it promotes an interface to Dropbox.
This seems to be the key argument, I've not seen this addressed anywhere. The Files app doesn't compete with Dropbox, if anything it promotes an interface to Dropbox.
Even so, why would their ranking favor a metadata match (whose app name doesn't match) over an exact app name match?
In IT, there are edge cases, QA misses, design mistakes and ofc the almighty programming bug.
Pick.
Pick.
Possibly. Could be negligence if they're not already testing for such cases.
Or could be they boosted their own app intentionally.
Or could be they boosted their own app intentionally.
I’m curious, what hypothetical scenario do you imagine where Apple got any real world benefit from having files appear above Dropbox when searching for “dropbox”?
Setting aside whether Files is a competitor (which I’m honestly not sure it is) I would imagine that at least 99% of the time, a person searching for a specific product by name isn’t in a mind space to be conquered by a competitor.
Setting aside whether Files is a competitor (which I’m honestly not sure it is) I would imagine that at least 99% of the time, a person searching for a specific product by name isn’t in a mind space to be conquered by a competitor.
You asked for a hypothetical scenario so I'll give you one. User starts using Files instead of Dropbox to view their file that are stored in the cloud on Dropbox.
Apple wants to drive up iCloud usage so they add a one time prompt into their Files app asking if users want to upgrade their iCloud storage. It's not a massive deal on it's own but this would take users away from Dropbox and Dropbox has no recourse to convince the user otherwise because users are accessing Dropbox through Files (since that's the #1 ranked app they downloaded instead of Dropbox).
Apple wants to drive up iCloud usage so they add a one time prompt into their Files app asking if users want to upgrade their iCloud storage. It's not a massive deal on it's own but this would take users away from Dropbox and Dropbox has no recourse to convince the user otherwise because users are accessing Dropbox through Files (since that's the #1 ranked app they downloaded instead of Dropbox).
Because you're thinking of Dropbox as the company and product rather than just a word, if someone searches "games" they should be shown results for games instead of an app or apps literally named "games", so it's important to rank metadata highly even if above actual app names.
But Dropbox is also a trademarked name. And 'games' is a more general term, such as for a whole category.
Iirc Apple was using Drop Box before Dropbox existed, as a place for other users on the network to drop files onto your hard drive.
That sounds like a significantly different meaning to me. If they were still using that branding in a significant way, and treating an app that does that as a match, that would be more understandable. But that's not what the files app is.
I’m not trying to defend Apple, just adding context around the discussion of “Dropbox” as trademarked term vs in general usage, even by Apple.
This is an issue which is part of the problem.
Whether it's cool or not, Product placement is very common practice in retail. Also Spotify has similar tools to promote music.
The problem always comes back to the main issue, You got a platform where you have only one monopolistic way of use.
While people can complaint about Google. you're allowed to install you apps. only if you'd like to use Google's services (location, In-App-Purchase, etc) you need to use the Google Play.
With Apple not only I need to pay 99$ just to put an app with one year certificate (signed by Apple) on my device. (including the use of some basic OS APIs, aka "entitlements" not allowed without paid account).
Whether it's cool or not, Product placement is very common practice in retail. Also Spotify has similar tools to promote music.
The problem always comes back to the main issue, You got a platform where you have only one monopolistic way of use.
While people can complaint about Google. you're allowed to install you apps. only if you'd like to use Google's services (location, In-App-Purchase, etc) you need to use the Google Play.
With Apple not only I need to pay 99$ just to put an app with one year certificate (signed by Apple) on my device. (including the use of some basic OS APIs, aka "entitlements" not allowed without paid account).
just slightly off-topic. i have not been able to find a way to give ratings or review iOS stock apps on the app store.
am i missing something or we just can't rate the stock iOS apps?
am i missing something or we just can't rate the stock iOS apps?
Platform owner gives its own content preferential treatment?? Incredible
Just another reason we need decentralization.
Shocker
I own one of everything, and yet I still haven't found what I want. Every day I'm reminded of my lack of options.
This should scare Apple and Google.
This should scare Apple and Google.
Does Google do the same?
From my experience, Google products almost rank top in the search results without Google in the keywords.
Search "News", "Drive", "Calendar", et al.
In Google chrome, all bookmarks are under auto-completed keywords in the address bar.
From my experience, Google products almost rank top in the search results without Google in the keywords.
Search "News", "Drive", "Calendar", et al.
In Google chrome, all bookmarks are under auto-completed keywords in the address bar.
No.
If you Google "Dropbox" it doesn't return Google Drive as the top result.
And if you Google "Firefox" it doesn't return Chrome at the top.
Now it might sometimes show ads for competitors, but the actual organic search results show what you're actually looking for.
If you Google "Dropbox" it doesn't return Google Drive as the top result.
And if you Google "Firefox" it doesn't return Chrome at the top.
Now it might sometimes show ads for competitors, but the actual organic search results show what you're actually looking for.
Developers of ios (and soon macOS) platform have no one to blame but themselves for situations like this.
Alarm bells should have been raised among us developers when Apple suddenly asked everyone to shell out $99 for the "privilege" of making an app available on the "App Store", and treated it as something normal. And later, more so, when Apple demanded a percentage cut too on every sale you make from your app.
It is like everyone chose to forget that it is we developers who bring additional value to any platform we support, and we readily allowed ourselves to be treated like fools by Apple (and others). (I guess this is what hapens when we forget our history in this industry - the Windows mobile platform died because it didn't find acceptance among developers. Mobile platforms like Sailfish OS / Tizen OS / webOS today all struggle because they can't attract developers to their platform. And yet, we now allow the dominating platforms to exploit and treat us with disdain - aren't we truly idiots?)
We should never have condoned this totally unnecessary and greedy "Apple Tax" practice as it harms both us developers and consumers - our customers are forced to pay more, and we lose money too in the process!
We played a huge role in the success of Windows, Android and ios - and now, in their arrogance if they want to change the rules to screw us, all of us really need to organise and fight back. I fear we are at that defining moment now where if we do not do anything, this is going to become an accepted norm and standard practice.
And this is going to be hugely detrimental to us, in the long run, as both developers and consumers.
Alarm bells should have been raised among us developers when Apple suddenly asked everyone to shell out $99 for the "privilege" of making an app available on the "App Store", and treated it as something normal. And later, more so, when Apple demanded a percentage cut too on every sale you make from your app.
It is like everyone chose to forget that it is we developers who bring additional value to any platform we support, and we readily allowed ourselves to be treated like fools by Apple (and others). (I guess this is what hapens when we forget our history in this industry - the Windows mobile platform died because it didn't find acceptance among developers. Mobile platforms like Sailfish OS / Tizen OS / webOS today all struggle because they can't attract developers to their platform. And yet, we now allow the dominating platforms to exploit and treat us with disdain - aren't we truly idiots?)
We should never have condoned this totally unnecessary and greedy "Apple Tax" practice as it harms both us developers and consumers - our customers are forced to pay more, and we lose money too in the process!
I urge all macOS / ios developers to see the warning signs. It is still not too late - please boycott and remove all your apps from the app store and stop paying Apple any money.
We played a huge role in the success of Windows, Android and ios - and now, in their arrogance if they want to change the rules to screw us, all of us really need to organise and fight back. I fear we are at that defining moment now where if we do not do anything, this is going to become an accepted norm and standard practice.
And this is going to be hugely detrimental to us, in the long run, as both developers and consumers.
> Alarm bells should have been raised among us developers when Apple asked everyone to shell out $99 for the "privilege" of making an app available on the "App Store". And later, more so, when Apple demanded a percentage cut too on every sale you make from your app.
I'm 100% against the way the app store works right now, but I don't have a problem with the idea of those two things if they were implemented in a better way.
If you compare $99 to the cost of a code signing certificate it's a good deal. The problem is that BOTH are bad value for developers. The value in signing is identity verification and none of the systems we have are doing a good job of that right now.
IMHO, Apple, Microsoft, and Google are purposely keeping code signing / trust systems awful because it benefits them. Imagine an ecosystem where apps were signed with domain validated certificates, which would be free (or very cheap), instant, and better than what we currently have, and it definitely feels like entrenched interests are working to keep things from improving.
Apple taking a 30% cut would be perfectly fine if there were competing app stores. If they're providing services worth a 30% cut, developers will be willing to pay that.
I thought the app store would fail. My exact sentiment at the time was "there's no way developers are going to be dumb enough to give up control of distribution." Wow, was I ever wrong :-(
I'm 100% against the way the app store works right now, but I don't have a problem with the idea of those two things if they were implemented in a better way.
If you compare $99 to the cost of a code signing certificate it's a good deal. The problem is that BOTH are bad value for developers. The value in signing is identity verification and none of the systems we have are doing a good job of that right now.
IMHO, Apple, Microsoft, and Google are purposely keeping code signing / trust systems awful because it benefits them. Imagine an ecosystem where apps were signed with domain validated certificates, which would be free (or very cheap), instant, and better than what we currently have, and it definitely feels like entrenched interests are working to keep things from improving.
Apple taking a 30% cut would be perfectly fine if there were competing app stores. If they're providing services worth a 30% cut, developers will be willing to pay that.
I thought the app store would fail. My exact sentiment at the time was "there's no way developers are going to be dumb enough to give up control of distribution." Wow, was I ever wrong :-(
> Imagine an ecosystem where apps were signed with domain validated certificates, which would be free (or very cheap), instant, and better than what we currently have, and it definitely feels like entrenched interests are working to keep things from improving.
The goal is to validate and associate a legal entity with a developer account, not a domain name.
In addition to being required to do such things in many jurisdictions for tax reasons, in event of subsequent abuse the stores want to ban an organization - not a $10 domain name.
The goal is to validate and associate a legal entity with a developer account, not a domain name.
In addition to being required to do such things in many jurisdictions for tax reasons, in event of subsequent abuse the stores want to ban an organization - not a $10 domain name.
I know this is old, but...
> The goal is to validate and associate a legal entity with a developer account, not a domain name.
I'm saying that goal has failed. Setting up a company has a low, fixed cost for bad actors and there's plenty of malware signed by EV code signing certificates.
> not a $10 domain name
IMO domain names are worth a lot more than $10 once you start building a brand on them. For example, cars.com values their domain at $800 million dollars [1]. Obviously they couldn't sell it for that, but that's what they consider the brand value to be.
I can start a "legal entity" for much, much less than the value I attribute to my domain. For small developers and good actors, I think being able to build identity around a domain based brand would be useful.
Or, if it's _really_ about accountability, all code signing certificates should be issued to individuals who have validated their identity through a notary. And not using the terrible system the current CAs are using where some poor bastard in a developing country is expected to verify identity documents from a bajillion different legal jurisdictions.
I guess I just hate the high pricing and terrible, terrible product that code signing certificates have become.
1. https://domaingang.com/domain-news/cars-com-domain-was-value...
> The goal is to validate and associate a legal entity with a developer account, not a domain name.
I'm saying that goal has failed. Setting up a company has a low, fixed cost for bad actors and there's plenty of malware signed by EV code signing certificates.
> not a $10 domain name
IMO domain names are worth a lot more than $10 once you start building a brand on them. For example, cars.com values their domain at $800 million dollars [1]. Obviously they couldn't sell it for that, but that's what they consider the brand value to be.
I can start a "legal entity" for much, much less than the value I attribute to my domain. For small developers and good actors, I think being able to build identity around a domain based brand would be useful.
Or, if it's _really_ about accountability, all code signing certificates should be issued to individuals who have validated their identity through a notary. And not using the terrible system the current CAs are using where some poor bastard in a developing country is expected to verify identity documents from a bajillion different legal jurisdictions.
I guess I just hate the high pricing and terrible, terrible product that code signing certificates have become.
1. https://domaingang.com/domain-news/cars-com-domain-was-value...
in event of subsequent abuse the stores want to ban an organization
Apple markets to non developers, by advertising to the masses, it forces us to join to partake with the masses.
I've been lucky enough to avoid the walled prison but a fortune 500 company cannot.
We can only educate the masses that better products exist or the psychology tricks Apple uses in their marketing.
I've been lucky enough to avoid the walled prison but a fortune 500 company cannot.
We can only educate the masses that better products exist or the psychology tricks Apple uses in their marketing.
> My exact sentiment at the time was "there's no way developers are going to be dumb enough to give up control of distribution." Wow, was I ever wrong :-(
You were only one word off the truth if s/developers/consumers.
You were only one word off the truth if s/developers/consumers.
Yes, artificial monopoly is the major issue here.
With respect to the "$99" annual fee, the issue is that it isn't a good deal at all when a developer wants to offer the software for free - most open source developers don't even collect any donation, and it is doubtful if many of them can even raise $99 every year.
This is where regulation is definitely needed - big tech should not be able to force us to pay and use only their signing infrastructure, and government law should require any CA to stringently implement KYC (know your customer) norms, like banks do, before issuing certificates to any Tom, Dick or Harry.
I would preferably like to see the end of such "App Store" nonsense, but would gladly compromise and accept it if there is no monopoly (with the caveat that side loading / direct installation of apps should not be restricted - nobody should be forced to use an "App Store" if they don't want to).
(App Store is so successful on ios only because side loading / direct installation is restricted on it).
With respect to the "$99" annual fee, the issue is that it isn't a good deal at all when a developer wants to offer the software for free - most open source developers don't even collect any donation, and it is doubtful if many of them can even raise $99 every year.
This is where regulation is definitely needed - big tech should not be able to force us to pay and use only their signing infrastructure, and government law should require any CA to stringently implement KYC (know your customer) norms, like banks do, before issuing certificates to any Tom, Dick or Harry.
I would preferably like to see the end of such "App Store" nonsense, but would gladly compromise and accept it if there is no monopoly (with the caveat that side loading / direct installation of apps should not be restricted - nobody should be forced to use an "App Store" if they don't want to).
(App Store is so successful on ios only because side loading / direct installation is restricted on it).
Even they show now popup and permission on mac. It made lots of app and developers living miserable. They are showing popups for permission every where.
Thats why there is no income now for indie developers in appstore
Thats why there is no income now for indie developers in appstore
> Alarm bells should have been raised among us developers when Apple suddenly asked everyone to shell out $99 for the "privilege" of making an app available on the "App Store", and treated it as something normal. And later, more so, when Apple demanded a percentage cut too on every sale you make from your app.
I'm not sure where the "suddenly" comes from. It's not as if there was a time before the fee where developers could ship apps for iOS. There's been a developer program as long as there has been an App Store. For that matter, there was a much more expensive developer programs for the Mac before iOS was even a thing. I remember paying somewhere between $1500 and $3000 when we were writing Mac software in the early aughts.
I'm not sure where the "suddenly" comes from. It's not as if there was a time before the fee where developers could ship apps for iOS. There's been a developer program as long as there has been an App Store. For that matter, there was a much more expensive developer programs for the Mac before iOS was even a thing. I remember paying somewhere between $1500 and $3000 when we were writing Mac software in the early aughts.
The "suddenly" is in the context of this new practice of charging all developers (big or small) annual fees and demanding a recurring cut of their profit. Before this unnatural practice became prevalent, any computer user and / or Linux / Windows / Mac / Android developer could create and distribute software on the respective platforms for free without any such financial consideration.
My point is let's not normalise this practice in any manner - in the past too we used to pay huge fees for developer tools, but today the computing environment is totally different and that's why even the tech giants are adopting and pushing for free open source developer tools or providing their developer tools for free. Let's not regress to something worse.
My point is let's not normalise this practice in any manner - in the past too we used to pay huge fees for developer tools, but today the computing environment is totally different and that's why even the tech giants are adopting and pushing for free open source developer tools or providing their developer tools for free. Let's not regress to something worse.
> Before this unnatural practice became prevalent
We’re talking about computer hardware and software. Complaining that it is “unnatural” makes no sense.
> any computer user and / or Linux / Windows / Mac / Android developer could create and distribute software on the respective platforms for free without any such financial consideration.
This isn’t true. The first Android device was launched to the public after the App Store was open for business. And you are ignoring all the platforms where this was a common practice beforehand, like consoles. Apple weren’t the first to charge for access to a platform, this was already a common practice. Nintendo have been doing it since the mid 80s, for instance.
We’re talking about computer hardware and software. Complaining that it is “unnatural” makes no sense.
> any computer user and / or Linux / Windows / Mac / Android developer could create and distribute software on the respective platforms for free without any such financial consideration.
This isn’t true. The first Android device was launched to the public after the App Store was open for business. And you are ignoring all the platforms where this was a common practice beforehand, like consoles. Apple weren’t the first to charge for access to a platform, this was already a common practice. Nintendo have been doing it since the mid 80s, for instance.
The consoles are niche entertainment devices. They also have many alternatives: multiple stores on PCs, and several newer cloud-based products. For this reason I'm OK with the stores in xbox/playstation/nintendo.
With smartphones it's different. Phones are not niche devices, they are ubiquitous and have killed whole industries like consumer photo/video equipment and portable audio.
From consumer point of view, no reasonable alternatives have left. It's for this reason I'm not OK with Apple and Google abusing their monopoly.
With smartphones it's different. Phones are not niche devices, they are ubiquitous and have killed whole industries like consumer photo/video equipment and portable audio.
From consumer point of view, no reasonable alternatives have left. It's for this reason I'm not OK with Apple and Google abusing their monopoly.
> The consoles are niche entertainment devices.
They sell by the tens of millions. They are in no way “niche”.
> Phones are not niche devices, they are ubiquitous and have killed whole industries like consumer photo/video equipment and portable audio.
It wasn’t common for things like cameras to have open development platforms either.
They sell by the tens of millions. They are in no way “niche”.
> Phones are not niche devices, they are ubiquitous and have killed whole industries like consumer photo/video equipment and portable audio.
It wasn’t common for things like cameras to have open development platforms either.
> They sell by the tens of millions
There’re billions of active Android devices. That’s 2 orders of magnitude difference. Compared to these volumes, consoles are niche devices.
And don’t forget about alternatives. If you wanna play videogames you don’t have to buy a console, you can get a PC and buy Windows games from gog, steam, epic or origin. And in some cases like take-two directly from developer. And recently there were multiple attempts to make cloud gaming work, pretty sure some day someone will do that successfully.
Because customers have so many alternatives, xbox and playstation are not a monopoly despite MS/Sony are selling devices locked to their respective stores.
For smartphones, customers only have 2 alternatives. It’s for this reason apple and google are a monopoly, and we should treat them this way i.e. regulate the hell out of them.
> It wasn’t common for things like cameras to have open development platforms either.
I don’t think many people care about open platforms. They care about choice. Back in the days, if you didn’t like e.g. Sony pushing their overprices memory sticks, you could buy a camera that’s not Sony, there were many other good vendors on the market. Nowadays, the cameras are either prosumer and professional (i.e. expensive), or non-existent because smartphones killed them. And while there’re many companies making smartphones, all these smartphones are controlled by just two.
There’re billions of active Android devices. That’s 2 orders of magnitude difference. Compared to these volumes, consoles are niche devices.
And don’t forget about alternatives. If you wanna play videogames you don’t have to buy a console, you can get a PC and buy Windows games from gog, steam, epic or origin. And in some cases like take-two directly from developer. And recently there were multiple attempts to make cloud gaming work, pretty sure some day someone will do that successfully.
Because customers have so many alternatives, xbox and playstation are not a monopoly despite MS/Sony are selling devices locked to their respective stores.
For smartphones, customers only have 2 alternatives. It’s for this reason apple and google are a monopoly, and we should treat them this way i.e. regulate the hell out of them.
> It wasn’t common for things like cameras to have open development platforms either.
I don’t think many people care about open platforms. They care about choice. Back in the days, if you didn’t like e.g. Sony pushing their overprices memory sticks, you could buy a camera that’s not Sony, there were many other good vendors on the market. Nowadays, the cameras are either prosumer and professional (i.e. expensive), or non-existent because smartphones killed them. And while there’re many companies making smartphones, all these smartphones are controlled by just two.
> Compared to these volumes, consoles are niche devices.
“Niche” doesn’t mean “this other thing sold more”.
> A traditional game console is in 51 percent of U.S. households.
— https://venturebeat.com/2015/04/14/155-million-americans-pla...
Consoles are in no way “niche devices”. You’re only saying that they are because it’s convenient for the point you are making. If we can’t agree on a basic fact like this, there’s no discussion to be had here.
“Niche” doesn’t mean “this other thing sold more”.
> A traditional game console is in 51 percent of U.S. households.
— https://venturebeat.com/2015/04/14/155-million-americans-pla...
Consoles are in no way “niche devices”. You’re only saying that they are because it’s convenient for the point you are making. If we can’t agree on a basic fact like this, there’s no discussion to be had here.
I don’t think you answered the ops question. Was there ever a time that you could develop software for Mac or particularly iOS and distribute it without paying the developer license fee?
To be fair - the Unix market is different than iOS apps. And on Windows, anyone could run whatever program… which caused a lot of problems and financial loss. And just because Windows or Unix used those models, why are they the one and only acceptable model?
To be fair - the Unix market is different than iOS apps. And on Windows, anyone could run whatever program… which caused a lot of problems and financial loss. And just because Windows or Unix used those models, why are they the one and only acceptable model?
Was there ever a time that you could develop software for Mac or particularly iOS and distribute it without paying the developer license fee?
And just because Windows or Unix used those models, why are they the one and only acceptable model?
> that's the point it started going downhill for us developers on the macOS and iOS platform
The only developers on the iPhoneOS platform at that point worked for Apple, or jailbroke and used reverse engineered APIs, or built web applications.
You seem to be implying that there was some happy era of open native iPhone application development before Apple ruined it all with the App Store, but that’s simply not true.
The only developers on the iPhoneOS platform at that point worked for Apple, or jailbroke and used reverse engineered APIs, or built web applications.
You seem to be implying that there was some happy era of open native iPhone application development before Apple ruined it all with the App Store, but that’s simply not true.
You are just just talking in circles to confuse the issue -
The major point is that just because Apple is now able to abuse their control over the ios platform (and now mac too), developers (and consumers) should not be willing to submit to such exploitation.
A smart phone is a general purpose computer, with built-in telephony. We use it like any other computer to do multiple tasks. Developers and consumers have always been free to develop or install on computers in the last few decades before Apple, after its popularity with the ios platform, decided to abuse its control and removed this option after finding a business model to further exploit developers and its consumers.
To be clear - just because some exploitive business practice has gained ground, doesn't mean we developers and consumers have to continue to accept it as some kind of new normal practice. If you don't think the current practice is abusive and exploitive to developers and consumers, then please present your argument for the same as that is what we are discussing here.
The major point is that just because Apple is now able to abuse their control over the ios platform (and now mac too), developers (and consumers) should not be willing to submit to such exploitation.
A smart phone is a general purpose computer, with built-in telephony. We use it like any other computer to do multiple tasks. Developers and consumers have always been free to develop or install on computers in the last few decades before Apple, after its popularity with the ios platform, decided to abuse its control and removed this option after finding a business model to further exploit developers and its consumers.
To be clear - just because some exploitive business practice has gained ground, doesn't mean we developers and consumers have to continue to accept it as some kind of new normal practice. If you don't think the current practice is abusive and exploitive to developers and consumers, then please present your argument for the same as that is what we are discussing here.
I’m not talking in circles, I’m directly contradicting one very simple thing you are saying. Throughout this thread you are talking as if gatekeeping access to a platform is something novel that Apple brought into the world with the App Store, before which all development – including iOS and Android development – were open. That is simply wrong.
iPhone development was never open; Apple did not “remove this option”. No Android phone was available to the public before the App Store launched. Apple were by no means the first to act as gatekeepers for a platform; this is something that has been commonplace for decades. This is not a business practice that has “gained ground”; it is something that has been with us for a very long time before the App Store existed. The App Store is a continuation of a theme that has existed and thrived for decades.
If you want to argue that it’s no good – that’s fine, make that argument. But don’t rest it on a foundation of “everything was open and good before Apple created the App Store” because it’s simply factually untrue.
iPhone development was never open; Apple did not “remove this option”. No Android phone was available to the public before the App Store launched. Apple were by no means the first to act as gatekeepers for a platform; this is something that has been commonplace for decades. This is not a business practice that has “gained ground”; it is something that has been with us for a very long time before the App Store existed. The App Store is a continuation of a theme that has existed and thrived for decades.
If you want to argue that it’s no good – that’s fine, make that argument. But don’t rest it on a foundation of “everything was open and good before Apple created the App Store” because it’s simply factually untrue.
> it started going downhill for us developers on the macOS and ios platform;
You didn’t answer the question. Was there a time you could develop and distribute on iOS without paying the license fee?
> If you are fine with a corporate abusing their control over their platform to exploit money from you, both as a developer and a consumer, then we don't really have anything else to discuss because of our differing economic / political belief on this subject.
This is a logical fallacy — begging the question — when you state a position as an absolute truth.
No one is “fine” with a corporation “abusing their control”. But your argument is based on the premise that charging for an SDK or charging a license fee to build and distribute on iOS or Mac is itself an abusive practice.
The counter argument is that it isn’t. Because anyone could develop and distribute software for Windows or Unix doesn’t mean that that is the only model and anything else is abuse, which you’re claiming as an absolute truth.
You didn’t answer the question. Was there a time you could develop and distribute on iOS without paying the license fee?
> If you are fine with a corporate abusing their control over their platform to exploit money from you, both as a developer and a consumer, then we don't really have anything else to discuss because of our differing economic / political belief on this subject.
This is a logical fallacy — begging the question — when you state a position as an absolute truth.
No one is “fine” with a corporation “abusing their control”. But your argument is based on the premise that charging for an SDK or charging a license fee to build and distribute on iOS or Mac is itself an abusive practice.
The counter argument is that it isn’t. Because anyone could develop and distribute software for Windows or Unix doesn’t mean that that is the only model and anything else is abuse, which you’re claiming as an absolute truth.
> Alarm bells should have been raised among us developers when Apple suddenly asked everyone to shell out $99 for the "privilege" of making an app available on the "App Store", and treated it as something normal.
Somebody has absolutely no idea how high developer fees on proprietary platforms used to be.
>Double Fine's Tim Schaefer pegged the cost of submitting an Xbox 360 patch at $40,000 in an interview with Hookshot Inc. earlier this year
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/07/microsoft-comes-under...
Somebody has absolutely no idea how high developer fees on proprietary platforms used to be.
>Double Fine's Tim Schaefer pegged the cost of submitting an Xbox 360 patch at $40,000 in an interview with Hookshot Inc. earlier this year
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/07/microsoft-comes-under...
Yeah, people seem to forget that when Apple announced the mobile app store with a $99 fee and 30% cut, developers were applauding. It was a radical change from the existing mobile development model and stores, and made it possible for many more developers.
The problem is that Apple never updated with the times. If they had simply done what one of the emails from the trial said (scale the fee back once the store was making 1B), then much of this could have been avoided.
The problem is that Apple never updated with the times. If they had simply done what one of the emails from the trial said (scale the fee back once the store was making 1B), then much of this could have been avoided.
> Somebody has absolutely no idea how high developer fees on proprietary platforms used to be.
Right. Even in the mass-market area, I remember when Microsoft used to charge seven or eight hundred bucks for Visual Studio.
Right. Even in the mass-market area, I remember when Microsoft used to charge seven or eight hundred bucks for Visual Studio.
Sure, in the past the computing era was different and tech corporates could get away with charging a lot for their development tools. But even then, you did not have to depend solely on them and there was a healthy competition in this vertical - Borland easily comes to mind. During the Java boom, their JBuilder used to be a top selling product till Eclipse came out. Open source and internet changed the game. Today Visual Studio also has a free version and even Apple is forced to offer their development tools for free because otherwise developers will prefer the free opensource options, than pay the exorbitant price they used to demand.
Weren't XBox development kits up around ten thousand dollars back in the days before the App Store changed the rules?
True. I don't have an idea of how high developer fees have been on proprietary, and restricted use platforms before. I have generally avoided them and grew up on mostly open platforms (Unix / Linux / Windows) before becoming a web application developer and moving on to mobile apps. My main point is that the computing environment is very different today and we should a fight such regressive practices - just because they have been doing something in the past, and can do it now at a larger scale too, doesn't mean we have to accept it and normalise it. Right?
The best solution here is to have a competing App Store on iOS with their own rules. The new store will have a more realistic fixed fee for hosting apps, and devs will be able to cut prices. That should incentivize consumers to install the new app store.
Lots of people raised voices but you need to understand they are small and no one wants to fight app while making leaving
Who do you think could organize a guild of the app developers?
- To begin with existing open source foundations and activists. The Free Software Foundation easily comes to mind.
- In a democracy, political parties - they already are behind most unions and merchant / business associations and even major non-profits.
I'm sure nobody here will believe me, but somewhere around Oct-Dec of last year Apple literally replaced my Google translate app with their own translate app. Like it was literally in the same spot as my Google Translate app had been. I thought it was weird, but at first just chalked it up to Google changing the design. Only after I realized image translating was gone did I investigate more and realize it wasn't Google Translate after all.
> we do not advantage our apps over those of any developer or competitor
Apple employee Debankur Naskar:
> I think the Files app was manually boosted ... during last WWDC. We are removing the manual boost
So which of these is true? Or is PR technically correct because they do not currently "advantage" their apps?