Dear Apple: Here’s How to Stop the Antitrust Investigations(astropad.com)
astropad.com
Dear Apple: Here’s How to Stop the Antitrust Investigations
https://astropad.com/dear-apple/
21 comments
Before anyone goes applauding Apple’s monopoly here, they should consider the developer experience as well.
There is absolutely no innovation from Apple’s side. The API’s are horrible and can barely do rudamentary things like server side cancelling of subscriptions. Sometimes they change logic in their webhooks without warning, and there is absolutely no support to speak of. We can’t even trigger refunds on the users behalf! We have to make due with really bad revenue reports, and App Store connect is incredibly slow to work with.
Market forces should push Apple to improve, but thanks to their power over their own market they don’t. In the end it will hurt users too.
There is absolutely no innovation from Apple’s side. The API’s are horrible and can barely do rudamentary things like server side cancelling of subscriptions. Sometimes they change logic in their webhooks without warning, and there is absolutely no support to speak of. We can’t even trigger refunds on the users behalf! We have to make due with really bad revenue reports, and App Store connect is incredibly slow to work with.
Market forces should push Apple to improve, but thanks to their power over their own market they don’t. In the end it will hurt users too.
> why anyone should use the AppStore as a distribution channel to a huge market and completely circumvent Apple's cut
There's no other option. It's not possible to sideload apps. Developers are obliged to use appstore.
Regarding payments, the developers are not only obliged to have a way to pay with Apple (would be okay), they are obliged to not have another way.
Your argument is "I like pepsi, therefore I'm fine with the fact that no one can buy coca-cola".
There's no other option. It's not possible to sideload apps. Developers are obliged to use appstore.
Regarding payments, the developers are not only obliged to have a way to pay with Apple (would be okay), they are obliged to not have another way.
Your argument is "I like pepsi, therefore I'm fine with the fact that no one can buy coca-cola".
And yours is like “I don’t like Pepsi but this restaurant I like only serves Pepsi, so I want the government to force them to serve Coca-Cola, instead of just going to another restaurant.”
No its more like, “I don’t like Pepsi but all the restaurants in town only serves Pepsi, so I want the government to force them to serve Coca-Cola, because I can't just go to another restaurant.”
What is the “town” supposed to be here? People? People with smartphones? Nah, can’t be those, because you’re ignoring Android and the open web as alternatives to Apple. So I assume you mean “people with iPhones”.
I always find it amusing when the boundaries for monopoly are drawn around the set of the customers of a company. By that logic, every company is a monopoly! United Airlines has a monopoly on every customers that flies in one of their airplanes. How dare they only offer a certain brand of snack! They’re extorting their customers who have no choice!
I always find it amusing when the boundaries for monopoly are drawn around the set of the customers of a company. By that logic, every company is a monopoly! United Airlines has a monopoly on every customers that flies in one of their airplanes. How dare they only offer a certain brand of snack! They’re extorting their customers who have no choice!
Teens in the US are a market unto themselves.
The iPhone has somewhere between 80-90% market share with them.
Even outside of teens, they're at close to 50% and you don't need a strict majority in order to have control over the market. That's why, legally, you don't need a strict majority to be considered a monopoly.
Next.
The iPhone has somewhere between 80-90% market share with them.
Even outside of teens, they're at close to 50% and you don't need a strict majority in order to have control over the market. That's why, legally, you don't need a strict majority to be considered a monopoly.
Next.
None of that is how anti-trust works.
Yes, it is.
You can read about it here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power#Measurement
You can read about it here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power#Measurement
U.S. courts almost never consider a firm to possess market power if it has a market share of less than 50 percent.
And as much as you might wish it to be so, anti-trust courts are not going to take seriously an argument that Apple is a monopoly because you find a demographic (teens) that they have a larger market share in. Again, you can easily slice and dice markets by customer demographics to make any company a monopoly.
Next.
And as much as you might wish it to be so, anti-trust courts are not going to take seriously an argument that Apple is a monopoly because you find a demographic (teens) that they have a larger market share in. Again, you can easily slice and dice markets by customer demographics to make any company a monopoly.
Next.
Incorrect. They’ve already lost a preliminary antitrust suit.
They can absolutely be sued for this. Look it up.
Here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/politics/supreme-court...
They can absolutely be sued for this. Look it up.
Here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/politics/supreme-court...
Apple Inc. v. Pepper did not cover what you think it did. The Supreme Court ruled that consumers had standing to sue for antitrust violations with regard to how Apple regulates the App Store because they pay fees for apps in that store.
It has nothing to do with your bizarre argument that because Apple has greater than 50% market share in the demographic of "teens", they're a monopoly and the government must step in. Does that also apply for a company who has a monopoly on "27-year-old web designers in Brooklyn who own a dog"?
I'm done with this conversation. You clearly have an axe to grind against Apple, and it's leading you to avoid arguing in good faith.
It has nothing to do with your bizarre argument that because Apple has greater than 50% market share in the demographic of "teens", they're a monopoly and the government must step in. Does that also apply for a company who has a monopoly on "27-year-old web designers in Brooklyn who own a dog"?
I'm done with this conversation. You clearly have an axe to grind against Apple, and it's leading you to avoid arguing in good faith.
> The Supreme Court ruled that consumers had standing to sue for antitrust violations...
Thank you for acknowledging the exact point that I just made?
> It has nothing to do with your bizarre argument ...
I didn't say that it was because of my argument. My demographic argument was simply a point of interest. And actually, you can disregard it and still know that Apple is the largest single manufacturer of smartphones in the US and they’ll soon surpass the 50% mark based on their trajectory and the new $399 iPhone. Samsung is a distant second.
How bizarre is that??
> I'm done with this conversation. You clearly have an axe to grind against Apple...
Pffft. Okay. Why shouldn't I have an axe to grind? And while we're at it - you're clearly apologizing for Apple where they deserve none. Defending a company that is basically the fucking China of tech with their Great Wall of bullshit isn't a real good look. You're going to be on the wrong side of history when this bears out.
But please, do stop arguing because nothing you say will make what Apple is doing right. Even if the law were on their side, which it's not, we'd have reason enough here to make new laws that target these essential devices with new regulations. So, change your attitude, get on the correct side and stop defending your favorite corporation.
Thank you for acknowledging the exact point that I just made?
> It has nothing to do with your bizarre argument ...
I didn't say that it was because of my argument. My demographic argument was simply a point of interest. And actually, you can disregard it and still know that Apple is the largest single manufacturer of smartphones in the US and they’ll soon surpass the 50% mark based on their trajectory and the new $399 iPhone. Samsung is a distant second.
How bizarre is that??
> I'm done with this conversation. You clearly have an axe to grind against Apple...
Pffft. Okay. Why shouldn't I have an axe to grind? And while we're at it - you're clearly apologizing for Apple where they deserve none. Defending a company that is basically the fucking China of tech with their Great Wall of bullshit isn't a real good look. You're going to be on the wrong side of history when this bears out.
But please, do stop arguing because nothing you say will make what Apple is doing right. Even if the law were on their side, which it's not, we'd have reason enough here to make new laws that target these essential devices with new regulations. So, change your attitude, get on the correct side and stop defending your favorite corporation.
In a big city you have 1000s of restaurants and surely you can find coke in some of them, without any regulation.
OTOH how many viable mobile platforms do you have? Whopping two (on the world scale). And one of them is not playing fairly. (Edit: And the other is not playing fairly either in some other aspects.)
OTOH how many viable mobile platforms do you have? Whopping two (on the world scale). And one of them is not playing fairly. (Edit: And the other is not playing fairly either in some other aspects.)
[deleted]
Your analogy is wrong.
This is a corrected version.
I like pepsi (Visa Credit card), others like other drinks, such as coca-cola (Amex Credit card), or Sprite (Mastercard Debit card), or Fanta (Prepaid card), etc.
I want to walk into a shop which allows me to drink any of the above legitimate drinks, but nothing dodgy, such as that toxic brew which someone has prepared in their dirty garage which makes people throw up (e.g. Bitcoin). So instead of having to verify each drink myself I want to go to a shop where this has been done for me by a gatekeeper. If that gatekeeper forces all payment options through their own gate (Apple Pay) in order to make sure that there is no funny business going on, then I am 100% supportive of it. You can still have you coca cola if you want and I my pepsi. Just don't ask me to drink something which looks like pepsi but could be some other dog shit (allow other payment gateways which are not apple pay and all sorts of dodge shit can happen then).
This is a corrected version.
I like pepsi (Visa Credit card), others like other drinks, such as coca-cola (Amex Credit card), or Sprite (Mastercard Debit card), or Fanta (Prepaid card), etc.
I want to walk into a shop which allows me to drink any of the above legitimate drinks, but nothing dodgy, such as that toxic brew which someone has prepared in their dirty garage which makes people throw up (e.g. Bitcoin). So instead of having to verify each drink myself I want to go to a shop where this has been done for me by a gatekeeper. If that gatekeeper forces all payment options through their own gate (Apple Pay) in order to make sure that there is no funny business going on, then I am 100% supportive of it. You can still have you coca cola if you want and I my pepsi. Just don't ask me to drink something which looks like pepsi but could be some other dog shit (allow other payment gateways which are not apple pay and all sorts of dodge shit can happen then).
Make a web app?
That's what I do to avoid giving Apple money.
That's what I do to avoid giving Apple money.
Apple deliberately hinders Progressive Web Applications on iOS Safari, effectively stifling innovation. Look at how many requests are there on WebKit to implement many of the features/API's required.
They don't even allow competing browser engines. Chrome, Firefox etc on iOS are just wrappers around Safari.
They don't even allow competing browser engines. Chrome, Firefox etc on iOS are just wrappers around Safari.
This is where I think they might be legally vulnerable, if anywhere. Especially since Jobs initially answers the shocked reaction of 30% by "it's no big deal everybody is going to make web apps anyway."
As a consumer I mostly agree BUT no one forces me to pay for anything, so I avoid dodgy sites.
As a developer of an app that is in IAP hell right now I disagree. I don't care for the app store, nor does it provide me with any benefit. All I want is for my existing customers, for who I spent MY marketing money to acquire, to be able to install my app on a device THEY paid money for.
As a developer of an app that is in IAP hell right now I disagree. I don't care for the app store, nor does it provide me with any benefit. All I want is for my existing customers, for who I spent MY marketing money to acquire, to be able to install my app on a device THEY paid money for.
> I don't care for the app store, nor does it provide me with any benefit.
I'm guessing it does provide you with some benefit or else you wouldn't be in it.
I'm guessing it does provide you with some benefit or else you wouldn't be in it.
Well, I mean, you could consider having a presence on iOS a "benefit"? You either go through the app store or you don't have an iOS app — there isn't a third option.
I am in the app store because my customers demanded an app. If I had a way to deliver one similar to android I would stay tf away.
As a consumer in China you can't use an app that doesn't conform to the rules set by CCP.
Sideloading is a must. And push notifications must work for sideloaded apps, too. If apple doesn't provide that, devices should have ways to install alternative push providers. All that keeps that from happening is the extreme closeness of iOS
Sideloading is a must. And push notifications must work for sideloaded apps, too. If apple doesn't provide that, devices should have ways to install alternative push providers. All that keeps that from happening is the extreme closeness of iOS
13 years of the iPhone being the most popular consumer product in the history of the universe would seem to suggest that sideloading is not "a must"; indeed, some might say it suggests the opposite: that sideloading is in fact a huge plus and part of why the ecosystem is succeeding so well and users' security and stability of their devices is so superior to competing products.
Fine. Installing custom software is not an economic "must", but is a moral "must". If I have bought a device, then it is mine to run whatever software I want on it, and the manufacturer of the device has no moral claim over it.
If you agree to not side-load software via some EULA, does that change the moral calculus for you?
To me it's just a monopoly abusing its position.
But Apple is not a monopoly.
Yeah right. Just today's search in DDG news for 'apple monopoly':
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=apple+monopoly&atb=v194-1&iar=news...
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=apple+monopoly&atb=v194-1&iar=news...
I’d be fine with a solution like:
* Apps have to support Apple IAP, but can also offer other payment methods directly in the app (similar to their policy on Sign In with Apple and other login systems)
* You're allowed to charge different amounts for the different payment systems, and present them directly in the app.
So in your VPN example, if Apples one click payment flow (and their cancellation/return policies) is worth a 25% higher price for you, you're free to pay it.
* Apps have to support Apple IAP, but can also offer other payment methods directly in the app (similar to their policy on Sign In with Apple and other login systems)
* You're allowed to charge different amounts for the different payment systems, and present them directly in the app.
So in your VPN example, if Apples one click payment flow (and their cancellation/return policies) is worth a 25% higher price for you, you're free to pay it.
Do you think your desire for convenience should outweigh the benefits to users/devs who want freedom of choice?
Yes, if their convenience comes at a cost to my convenience. I pay a premium for my iPhone and various other Apple devices.
The fact that there is only one AppStore, controlled by a single party is a feature for me that I am happy to pay for.
If there's is more than one party which can install apps on my device, I have to worry about which party to trust etc. The same applies to payments.
The fact that there is only one AppStore, controlled by a single party is a feature for me that I am happy to pay for.
If there's is more than one party which can install apps on my device, I have to worry about which party to trust etc. The same applies to payments.
If you trust the AppStore, just use that.
If other people want to use other sources, that shouldn't affect you.
If other people want to use other sources, that shouldn't affect you.
It certainly affects you if:
(1) Apple, seeing drastically reduced app revenue, stops investing as much in the app store, dev tools, etc. Or increases their hardware prices;
(2) third party stores pay for exclusive apps;
(3) malware is installed by people with your contact info and communications;
(4) even if no intent to use, the malware risk is there and you're a few drunk clicks from losing your bank account.
(1) Apple, seeing drastically reduced app revenue, stops investing as much in the app store, dev tools, etc. Or increases their hardware prices;
(2) third party stores pay for exclusive apps;
(3) malware is installed by people with your contact info and communications;
(4) even if no intent to use, the malware risk is there and you're a few drunk clicks from losing your bank account.
#1 Apple makes enough money. If they don't want to support their app store, than that is choice they're making.
#2 Frankly this is much like the situation we're in now. Only that we there are no other options. This eventuality is surely less bad than the current actuality.
#3 Malware is already installed by people you are in contact with. And nothing prevents a 3rd party store from having equally rigorous testing as Apple.
#4 You're a few drunk swipes away from emptying your credit card today.
#2 Frankly this is much like the situation we're in now. Only that we there are no other options. This eventuality is surely less bad than the current actuality.
#3 Malware is already installed by people you are in contact with. And nothing prevents a 3rd party store from having equally rigorous testing as Apple.
#4 You're a few drunk swipes away from emptying your credit card today.
Sure, I can understand those arguments in favour of having a 3rd party store, but that's not what the parent is arguing, nor what you said in your original post. All of these do affect the user. You think it would be a better ecosystem, but some users would not agree it's a strictly better approach. I for one don't.
I'm not saying I agree with Apple's approach, but it does affect you.
Just by having alternative sources, developers might choose to only be available on those sources, whether it's for a better revenue cut or because of their principles.
See for example what's going on with exclusives for Epic store and Steam. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a different question.
Just by having alternative sources, developers might choose to only be available on those sources, whether it's for a better revenue cut or because of their principles.
See for example what's going on with exclusives for Epic store and Steam. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a different question.
The issue at hand here is even for a company that has an app in the App Store that exposes no way to buy a subscription in the app at all, Apple will force you to put in the Apple IAP option, of which they will take a 30% cut.
And yet, they make exceptions for big and powerful companies like Netflix or Google.
And yet, they make exceptions for big and powerful companies like Netflix or Google.
Source? I’ve been an iOS dev since 2010 and I haven’t seen this happen. I’m not saying it hasn’t, especially in isolated incidents, but I’d like to see some examples.
That is literally the issue that Hey is having right now. They have provided no means of subscribing inside the app, but now Apple is telling them that they'll remove the app from the App Store if they don't add Apple IAP. Meanwhile, Basecamp has operated the same way for years. The rationale Apple gave was that Basecamp is primarily a business app, but if that is the case, how does Gmail get away with the same thing?
Meanwhile Netflix, Gmail, Uber, and a couple of other big apps don't use the Apple IAP system.
Meanwhile Netflix, Gmail, Uber, and a couple of other big apps don't use the Apple IAP system.
This sounds exactly like the isolated example i was talking about. Apple is clearly in the wrong here, and this will get resolved. There are tens of thousands of apps out there that don’t offer IAP that you need a subscription purchased elsewhere to use.
Again, Apple is in the wrong here, but this is not a good example of a widespread pattern imo. Not something worth an antitrust case over.
Again, Apple is in the wrong here, but this is not a good example of a widespread pattern imo. Not something worth an antitrust case over.
If a developer does not want their product sold to customers of Walmart because Walmart takes % percentage and has a certain set of rules, then the developer can go away and not sell to Walmarts customers. Same analogy works with Xbox/PlayStation customer base.
The problem is that Google and Apple are a duopoly and as such both have outsized market power. And with that outsized power, Apple has regularly abused app businesses trying to make money in the App Store.
From blocking apps that replicate core functionality to the whole IAP shakedown Apple has used their market power in capricious and self-serving ways that have gotten other companies in anti-trust hot water in the past.
Having a curated market is fine, but when you use that market curation to undercut sellers in that market to your own benefit you start getting into trouble. Then, when that market controls the lion's share of revenue in that type of market, regulators will eventually start firing up lawsuits.
From blocking apps that replicate core functionality to the whole IAP shakedown Apple has used their market power in capricious and self-serving ways that have gotten other companies in anti-trust hot water in the past.
Having a curated market is fine, but when you use that market curation to undercut sellers in that market to your own benefit you start getting into trouble. Then, when that market controls the lion's share of revenue in that type of market, regulators will eventually start firing up lawsuits.
Walmart is one of thousands of stores where you can purchase goods. XBox/Playstations are a niche recreational device for gaming, not an essential device used by everyone to procure goods and services and conduct business.
An iPhone is now an essential device used by everyone?
It's a wonder I am still surviving.
It's a wonder I am still surviving.
Smartphones are now pretty essential. You can't even enter stores in my country without scanning a QR code for COVID tracking
Parent didn't say "smartphone," they said "iPhone." You can use an Android phone and sideload and use whatever payment method you want.
>Smartphones are now pretty essential.
If you didn't notice, you switched the conversation from "Apple iPhone" to "smartphone".
In any case, I didn't get an iPhone until 2012 and for the entire 7+ years of ownership, I have never installed a single app on it. I just use the plain vanilla functionality. An Apple product like the iPhone and the Apple curated App Store is not essential to life.
About 90% of my friends & family use Android (the more popular smartphones) because they cost less than Apple.
EDIT to downvoters:
- gp comment (rahkiin) of Walmart-restrictions analogy is about Apple (not "smartphones" in general)
- followup comment (jfk13) is also about Apple iPhone and not smartphones
- pentae's comment that switches the subject from "iPhone" to "smartphones" ... to try an win an argument just confuses the thread
If you didn't notice, you switched the conversation from "Apple iPhone" to "smartphone".
In any case, I didn't get an iPhone until 2012 and for the entire 7+ years of ownership, I have never installed a single app on it. I just use the plain vanilla functionality. An Apple product like the iPhone and the Apple curated App Store is not essential to life.
About 90% of my friends & family use Android (the more popular smartphones) because they cost less than Apple.
EDIT to downvoters:
- gp comment (rahkiin) of Walmart-restrictions analogy is about Apple (not "smartphones" in general)
- followup comment (jfk13) is also about Apple iPhone and not smartphones
- pentae's comment that switches the subject from "iPhone" to "smartphones" ... to try an win an argument just confuses the thread
You are just being pedantic now. It was pretty clear what he/she meant. Smartphones are a necessity now.
>You are just being pedantic now. It was pretty clear what he/she meant. Smartphones are a necessity now.
It's not pedantic in this case because the raison d'etre of this thread is Apple's restrictions (including sideloading).
With that specific context, an "Apple iPhone" is not equivalent to "smartphone" and pentae's comment that mixes up the 2 is muddying up the discussion. The ability for 3rd party devs to sideload apps on my Apple iPhone is not essential to life.
It's not pedantic in this case because the raison d'etre of this thread is Apple's restrictions (including sideloading).
With that specific context, an "Apple iPhone" is not equivalent to "smartphone" and pentae's comment that mixes up the 2 is muddying up the discussion. The ability for 3rd party devs to sideload apps on my Apple iPhone is not essential to life.
It is essential to liberty, which is why the Library of Congress has made exemptions to DMCA for jailbreaking. It’s not a question of life, but of the quality thereof. People fully control devices they own.
Automobiles have plenty of restrictions on how they can be built, marketed and sold even though no single brand is essential to every single person.
If enough people want changes around how smartphones and smartphone platforms operate, we'll get new legislation for it, if it doesn't already exist.
If enough people want changes around how smartphones and smartphone platforms operate, we'll get new legislation for it, if it doesn't already exist.
So could you tell us how an iPhone is not a smartphone?
Yes, the iPhone _is_ a "smartphone" but that's not the point for this particular thread. Yes, sometimes we do treat "Apple_iPhone"==synonym=="smartphone" for simplified discussion but sometimes we do not. This thread is one of those cases where we do not.
To recap the context ...
- thread article title: "Dear _Apple_: Here’s How to Stop the Antitrust..."
The title is "Dear Apple", not "Dear all _smartphone_ manufacturers". The reason for this thread's existence is making a distinction between Apple vs smartphones. From the very beginning, our comments and replies have to continue that distinction for this particular thread.
- gp comment (rahkiin) continued that distinction of iPhone-vs-smartphones with the Walmart-restrictions analogy. I.e. "Walmart"="Apple" and presumably "Target/Amazon/GooglePixel/etc"="other non-Apple smartphones"
- followup comment (jfk13) continued that distinction of iPhone-vs-smartphones
- your reply (pentae) comment that switches the subject from "iPhone" to "smartphones" ... is a non-sequitur. It looks like you're trying to win an argument instead of replying to their specific point about Apple restrictions and developers having the ability to choose a different marketplace (e.g. the Android marketplace). The thread+rahkiin+jfk13 were talking about Apple iPhone and not all smartphones in general. You don't have to agree with rahkiin+jfk13 but your comment's switch to generalized "smartphone" isn't engaging with what they actually wrote.
To recap the context ...
- thread article title: "Dear _Apple_: Here’s How to Stop the Antitrust..."
The title is "Dear Apple", not "Dear all _smartphone_ manufacturers". The reason for this thread's existence is making a distinction between Apple vs smartphones. From the very beginning, our comments and replies have to continue that distinction for this particular thread.
- gp comment (rahkiin) continued that distinction of iPhone-vs-smartphones with the Walmart-restrictions analogy. I.e. "Walmart"="Apple" and presumably "Target/Amazon/GooglePixel/etc"="other non-Apple smartphones"
- followup comment (jfk13) continued that distinction of iPhone-vs-smartphones
- your reply (pentae) comment that switches the subject from "iPhone" to "smartphones" ... is a non-sequitur. It looks like you're trying to win an argument instead of replying to their specific point about Apple restrictions and developers having the ability to choose a different marketplace (e.g. the Android marketplace). The thread+rahkiin+jfk13 were talking about Apple iPhone and not all smartphones in general. You don't have to agree with rahkiin+jfk13 but your comment's switch to generalized "smartphone" isn't engaging with what they actually wrote.
Not OP, but I share the desire for convenience.
This convenience is only available to me because there is a large customer base which companies can't access any other way.
They have varying reasons for wanting an iphone, each of which alone would not (I think) form a big enough pool to persuade companies to listen. Or the privacy conscious are tempted to make an exception when (like OP) they badly need something to work right now... or just don't have time to vet every company... and divided we fall.
And I'm happy to pay for this. I probably spent double what I would have paid for an android phone. I have not spent close to that much again on apps. But the difference between $5 and $10 inside the app store is (for me) much smaller than the hurdle of having to go to some other dodgy payment gateway & give them my card.
This convenience is only available to me because there is a large customer base which companies can't access any other way.
They have varying reasons for wanting an iphone, each of which alone would not (I think) form a big enough pool to persuade companies to listen. Or the privacy conscious are tempted to make an exception when (like OP) they badly need something to work right now... or just don't have time to vet every company... and divided we fall.
And I'm happy to pay for this. I probably spent double what I would have paid for an android phone. I have not spent close to that much again on apps. But the difference between $5 and $10 inside the app store is (for me) much smaller than the hurdle of having to go to some other dodgy payment gateway & give them my card.
And if side loading was possible, what makes you think that your App Store experience would suffer?
It wouldn't, but eventually somehow is going to find a way to sneakily install apps on my grandma's phone that are no good. I like the current experience because it keeps the really bad stuff out.
I guess my claim is that, if side-loading were common, then lots of apps which now play by the rules would (eventually) be replaced by ones that don't.
There are lots of iphone apps from companies I would never trust to install a real app on my computer. I'm glad they exist, and are so firmly kept under control. (And I'm sure their makers grumble about this.)
I also buy lots of things from companies I would never trust with my credit card details.
There are lots of iphone apps from companies I would never trust to install a real app on my computer. I'm glad they exist, and are so firmly kept under control. (And I'm sure their makers grumble about this.)
I also buy lots of things from companies I would never trust with my credit card details.
No one would take away your right not to trust such companies your card details. Unfortunately, you are OK with the fact that some people can't exercise their will to trust said companies and use their software, even if they badly need it.
Different rules lead to different ecosystems. My claim here is that, under anything-goes rules, some options I like having would probably go away.
And while I understand the temptation to complain about a 30% cut, it's not so obvious to me that sellers would make more money under anything-goes rules, in a lower-trust ecosystem.
And while I understand the temptation to complain about a 30% cut, it's not so obvious to me that sellers would make more money under anything-goes rules, in a lower-trust ecosystem.
My problem with Apple and iOS is not a 30% cut at all. It's the push notifications policy and monopoly on app distribution. I want apps that run in the background. I want apps that have reliable and fast push notifications without those recently imposed restrictions on the only type of notifications that worked well in iOS 13 [1] (VoIP ones), etc.
It's my device! If i want to run some app in the background, I'm OK if it uses battery faster. If Apple wants to show how they care for the battery life of my device, they should show me the warning and stats, which app costs me what, not cut off my ability to run the app in the background at all.
[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2019/08/06/ios-13-voip-background-...
It's my device! If i want to run some app in the background, I'm OK if it uses battery faster. If Apple wants to show how they care for the battery life of my device, they should show me the warning and stats, which app costs me what, not cut off my ability to run the app in the background at all.
[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2019/08/06/ios-13-voip-background-...
I guess I'm happy they established a strong norm early on that apps don't get to run in the background. This was a big change from PC apps. But I agree they could now offer a bit more flexibility. (And demand that, if I refuse permission, all other functionality must still work. As they do for many features.)
Oh boy. Back in the 90s multitasking in Windows and OS/2 was such a HUGE life-improving step forward from a single-task DOS that I'm SHOCKED that anyone would be so happy to put their old shackles on again. First iPhones couldn't even play music in the background, can you imagine?
But there was also the need to re-install the OS because everything you added somehow got its fingers into everything else until it was impossibly slow. Even if you were unusually cautious about how many toolbars to install.
Phone apps were a new art form, quite unlike 90s programs. Both had serious resource constraints, but trying out a badly written iphone app couldn't result in being unable to make a phone call that afternoon.
Phone apps were a new art form, quite unlike 90s programs. Both had serious resource constraints, but trying out a badly written iphone app couldn't result in being unable to make a phone call that afternoon.
>From a developer perspective I don't see why anyone should use the AppStore as a distribution channel to a huge market and completely circumvent Apple's cut when clearly they are offering a lot of value by making this possible in the first place?
Would it be fair if Google would take a cut for any payments you do from Chrome? Also by this logic I assume you think is fair that next OSX version will lockdown and you will have to pay Apple for the privilege of running the applications you want and that Apple also approved that are safe for you and are also contain Apple approved content.
Apple could make you pay to host free applications on their store, so you pay the costs for hosting the content. For paid apps Apple can take a small cut on top of the hosting if they promote the applications. Apple should not get involved if I buy a XBOX game using an XBOX app and get a giant cut from that and they should not block legal content
Would it be fair if Google would take a cut for any payments you do from Chrome? Also by this logic I assume you think is fair that next OSX version will lockdown and you will have to pay Apple for the privilege of running the applications you want and that Apple also approved that are safe for you and are also contain Apple approved content.
Apple could make you pay to host free applications on their store, so you pay the costs for hosting the content. For paid apps Apple can take a small cut on top of the hosting if they promote the applications. Apple should not get involved if I buy a XBOX game using an XBOX app and get a giant cut from that and they should not block legal content
>I don't see why anyone should use the AppStore as a distribution channel to a huge market and completely circumvent Apple's cut
Alright then allow easy installation of other App-stores and distribution channels
If the Apple Store brings that much value, outside of their mandated use, then the other app stores will fail anyway so...
>my VPN I can either buy a license by going to their website and go through a 5 minute checkout process or I can do a 5 second checkout via the iOS app. The first one goes 100% to the VPN developers, the second also means that a cut goes to Apple. Sounds fair to me,
Alright then allow developers to add a Convenience Fee / Apple Tax line item to the billing, specifically calling out the fee for purchasing in-app. If the value is there you should have no problems paying a 30% higher price for the items to save that 4 min 95 secs correct?
That sounds fair to me
>Without Apple Pay I would have not bought that license and they would have not lost 30% of the sale, but effectively 100%.
No, that is not he proper way to look at it. I dont know about a VPN service but for many business a 30% chop at the revenue likely means they are losing money. So losing the sale completely would be better than selling an item at cost
However what is likely happening is they are increasing the price for all consumers so they can still make a profit on Apple Customers. This likely loses them customers in other market segments.
Alright then allow easy installation of other App-stores and distribution channels
If the Apple Store brings that much value, outside of their mandated use, then the other app stores will fail anyway so...
>my VPN I can either buy a license by going to their website and go through a 5 minute checkout process or I can do a 5 second checkout via the iOS app. The first one goes 100% to the VPN developers, the second also means that a cut goes to Apple. Sounds fair to me,
Alright then allow developers to add a Convenience Fee / Apple Tax line item to the billing, specifically calling out the fee for purchasing in-app. If the value is there you should have no problems paying a 30% higher price for the items to save that 4 min 95 secs correct?
That sounds fair to me
>Without Apple Pay I would have not bought that license and they would have not lost 30% of the sale, but effectively 100%.
No, that is not he proper way to look at it. I dont know about a VPN service but for many business a 30% chop at the revenue likely means they are losing money. So losing the sale completely would be better than selling an item at cost
However what is likely happening is they are increasing the price for all consumers so they can still make a profit on Apple Customers. This likely loses them customers in other market segments.
> Alright then allow easy installation of other App-stores and distibution channels
> If the Apple Store brings that much value, outside of their mandated use, then the other app stores will fail anyway so...
No, this only benefits dodgy bullshit developers doing bullshit things. The fact that there is only one, very well guarded and fenced AppStore IS a great feature for consumers. As a father I'd buy my kids an iPhone and not an Android, because I know that only way they will be able to get an app on their phone is through a store which has consumers, consumer ethics and protection at the forefront of their mind, not the desire to please developers trying to constantly push the border and slowly do more dodgy shit and trick a minor into some bullshit which they can't tell the difference from the good stuff.
EDIT:
There is a huge market of consumers who value their own protection and the protection of their families A LOT more than IAP margins for developers. If you want to sell your stuff to that consumer group then you have to play by their rules, can't demand them to lower their standards so you can get it your way.
> If the Apple Store brings that much value, outside of their mandated use, then the other app stores will fail anyway so...
No, this only benefits dodgy bullshit developers doing bullshit things. The fact that there is only one, very well guarded and fenced AppStore IS a great feature for consumers. As a father I'd buy my kids an iPhone and not an Android, because I know that only way they will be able to get an app on their phone is through a store which has consumers, consumer ethics and protection at the forefront of their mind, not the desire to please developers trying to constantly push the border and slowly do more dodgy shit and trick a minor into some bullshit which they can't tell the difference from the good stuff.
EDIT:
There is a huge market of consumers who value their own protection and the protection of their families A LOT more than IAP margins for developers. If you want to sell your stuff to that consumer group then you have to play by their rules, can't demand them to lower their standards so you can get it your way.
>>very well guarded and fenced AppStore IS a great feature for consumers.
it is always amusing when people attempt to paint anti-consumer features as pro consumer...
>>As a father I'd
Really, you are going for "think of the children" defense of anti-consumer policy. Classic
For decades electronics have had all manner of Child protection features, it is trivial to prevent the installation of apps, or even other apps stores from unapproved users, and a child should not have the authority to install any apps, form the Apple store or not
In enterprise system administration we have been doing this on computers for decades preventing unauthorized applications or users from installing things
That is a solved problem and in no way is a locked down controlled by apple ecosystem required to archive parental controls on the device
Edit:
>There is a huge market of consumers who value their own protection and the protection of their families A LOT more than IAP margins for developers
I am sure they do, I am sure they do not care about the devs at all, that is clear from your position.
If the consumer cares about this soo much then it should not be a problem for them to bear the cost of this not the devs, if the value of the Apple store is the Security and Privacy of the store then the consumer not the dev should pay for that. A 30% fee added to the price of the app charged to the CUSTOMER then should be the fair payment method, not extorting 30% of revenue from the dev
I have a feeling that both you and apple know that most consumers would not put the value of that service at 30% though this is why they extort the devs not the customer
it is always amusing when people attempt to paint anti-consumer features as pro consumer...
>>As a father I'd
Really, you are going for "think of the children" defense of anti-consumer policy. Classic
For decades electronics have had all manner of Child protection features, it is trivial to prevent the installation of apps, or even other apps stores from unapproved users, and a child should not have the authority to install any apps, form the Apple store or not
In enterprise system administration we have been doing this on computers for decades preventing unauthorized applications or users from installing things
That is a solved problem and in no way is a locked down controlled by apple ecosystem required to archive parental controls on the device
Edit:
>There is a huge market of consumers who value their own protection and the protection of their families A LOT more than IAP margins for developers
I am sure they do, I am sure they do not care about the devs at all, that is clear from your position.
If the consumer cares about this soo much then it should not be a problem for them to bear the cost of this not the devs, if the value of the Apple store is the Security and Privacy of the store then the consumer not the dev should pay for that. A 30% fee added to the price of the app charged to the CUSTOMER then should be the fair payment method, not extorting 30% of revenue from the dev
I have a feeling that both you and apple know that most consumers would not put the value of that service at 30% though this is why they extort the devs not the customer
Apple has a bad track record with parental control and other "be safe online" apps, crippling them in the name of privacy. I'd never recommend an iPhone for a child.
Yes shame on Apple for being concerned about parental apps that were capturing children's browser and usage data and sending it to remote servers.
Because companies can always be trusted to never monetize data.
Because companies can always be trusted to never monetize data.
There's a lot of "bad" that can occur on smartphones beyond companies selling user data. While that should be a concern, I'd guess other things are more important to most parents.
What exactly is bad about Apple’s track record “in the name of privacy”? If anything, we need Android to take privacy more seriously and not leave it be the privilege of some power users who can keep tweaking things.
> why anyone should use the AppStore as a distribution channel to a huge market and completely circumvent Apple's cut
If noone would develop great apps for the iPhone, Apple could not sell the iPhone. It's a symbiotic relationship.
Even if you disregard that: It's a duopoly situation, and Apple is exploiting that.
If noone would develop great apps for the iPhone, Apple could not sell the iPhone. It's a symbiotic relationship.
Even if you disregard that: It's a duopoly situation, and Apple is exploiting that.
> From a developer perspective I don't see why anyone should use the AppStore as a distribution channel to a huge market and completely circumvent Apple's cut when clearly they are offering a lot of value by making this possible in the first place?
It's entirely reasonable for apple to get some cut for validating and distributing the app. But a flat 30% (eventually dropping to 15% per customer) doesn't seem right for something charging a significant amount of money.
If the 30% fee applied to the first 10-20 dollars, and they only charged for payment processing after that, they'd still make plenty of money both up front and recurring. (I'm imagining something like "5% flat" or "cost they pay plus 1.5%" for the payment processing fee.)
It's entirely reasonable for apple to get some cut for validating and distributing the app. But a flat 30% (eventually dropping to 15% per customer) doesn't seem right for something charging a significant amount of money.
If the 30% fee applied to the first 10-20 dollars, and they only charged for payment processing after that, they'd still make plenty of money both up front and recurring. (I'm imagining something like "5% flat" or "cost they pay plus 1.5%" for the payment processing fee.)
so for a subscription based app, I have to partner with Apple (30% of income is partnering) for the privilege of allowing me to offer my customers a native app? I do the marketing, content creation, app development and customer support and every year I pay the ̶𝚖̶𝚘̶𝚋̶ their cut so they won't burn down my store?
Once you’re in Apples ecosystem, some of the marketing, app development, and customer support is now handled by Apple. I also don’t see why you have earned access to Apple customers, anymore than you should have access to Alibaba or Walmart customers.
The argument should be why Apple customers should vote with their wallets to tell Apple to move one way or another.
The argument should be why Apple customers should vote with their wallets to tell Apple to move one way or another.
no marketing unless you mean spending more on app store seo or whatever it is called
no app development unless you mean the non existent support and the willy-nilly api changes
no customer support unless you mean refunding subscription when the dev is not at fault.
I don't want access to apple's customers! I want my customers to be able to load my app on their devices.
IF Microsoft pulled such a move people would lose their minds
no app development unless you mean the non existent support and the willy-nilly api changes
no customer support unless you mean refunding subscription when the dev is not at fault.
I don't want access to apple's customers! I want my customers to be able to load my app on their devices.
IF Microsoft pulled such a move people would lose their minds
That is the opposite of what I said!
If it was unclear, I didn't mean the first 10-20 dollars per payment, I meant the first 10-20 dollars ever.
If it was unclear, I didn't mean the first 10-20 dollars per payment, I meant the first 10-20 dollars ever.
makes more sense now :)
I wrote to US Justice Department back in ~2013 to complain that I could not find the protocol documents to connect to my iPhone over USB. Specifically I was not willing to accept iTunes terms of service and wanted a workaround. Microsoft was required by consent decree to document all wire protocols, so I wanted to begin the process for Apple to so the same.
I got a personalized response from the Justice Department. The response said since the iPhone had closed protocols from the beginning, before it was dominant, there is nothing they could do to force opening up. While I didn’t like the outcome, I did understand it, and I was pleasantly surprised to get an actual response.
I suspect there is a similar argument for the App Store model. Apple never allowed side-loading apps. We may need new legislation to change this if we want.
I got a personalized response from the Justice Department. The response said since the iPhone had closed protocols from the beginning, before it was dominant, there is nothing they could do to force opening up. While I didn’t like the outcome, I did understand it, and I was pleasantly surprised to get an actual response.
I suspect there is a similar argument for the App Store model. Apple never allowed side-loading apps. We may need new legislation to change this if we want.
I respect you so much for writing to them. I feel like in the USA people really write to the authorities and congressmen and the like while in eastern Europe people never do such things because I guess we think the system is so broken there is not fixing it from within. Since EU things really changed from the government side but the culture remains the same and we are not using the tools at our disposal
But Microsoft was subject to those consent decrees because it had monopoly power in the market, which Apple manifestly does not have.
The iPhone isn't dominant. It's what, 20% of the phone market? When MSFT was subject to those decrees, it effectively controlled all PC hardware. The Mac was on the ropes, and no other challenger was viable. They owned computing; it was their way or the highway.
Apple doesn't have anywhere NEAR that power.
The iPhone isn't dominant. It's what, 20% of the phone market? When MSFT was subject to those decrees, it effectively controlled all PC hardware. The Mac was on the ropes, and no other challenger was viable. They owned computing; it was their way or the highway.
Apple doesn't have anywhere NEAR that power.
> I suspect there is a similar argument for the App Store model. Apple never allowed side-loading apps.
Apple did allow developers to link directly to the product website to make purchases:
http://mossblog.allthingsd.com/20090303/first-impressions-of...
https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-det...
Apple did allow developers to link directly to the product website to make purchases:
http://mossblog.allthingsd.com/20090303/first-impressions-of...
https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-det...
As a consumer of Apple products I am not too keen on any of these suggestions. I agree that developers for Apple's platforms would like these and perhaps there is some trickle-down effect for consumers.
> 1: Enable users to set default app preferences.
Fine, but really Maps and Email is pretty much the only one I care about. This is the best suggestion of the bunch.
> 2: Open up alternate payment mechanisms… without the Apple tax.
Nah. Last thing I want is to have to fill out my credit card information in every app and worry about what's going to happen with it. Apple Pay and IAP work perfectly adequately from the consumer standpoint.
> 3: Allow sideloading of iOS apps.
I don't think we have a problem with lack of iOS apps. In fact I wish App Store Review was stricter and took more issue with quality and dodgy business practices (i.e. excessive and addictive use of IAP).
> 4: Give third-party developers equal access to APIs.
What this is asking for is for Apple to effectively release features later or not at all. Or have some even more draconian App Store rules. I don't want every random app having full hardware access to spy on me as it pleases.
> 5: Stop sherlocking third-party developers.
Right, so Apple is not supposed to give me free access to nice features so I can continue to pay money to someone else. Right.
> 1: Enable users to set default app preferences.
Fine, but really Maps and Email is pretty much the only one I care about. This is the best suggestion of the bunch.
> 2: Open up alternate payment mechanisms… without the Apple tax.
Nah. Last thing I want is to have to fill out my credit card information in every app and worry about what's going to happen with it. Apple Pay and IAP work perfectly adequately from the consumer standpoint.
> 3: Allow sideloading of iOS apps.
I don't think we have a problem with lack of iOS apps. In fact I wish App Store Review was stricter and took more issue with quality and dodgy business practices (i.e. excessive and addictive use of IAP).
> 4: Give third-party developers equal access to APIs.
What this is asking for is for Apple to effectively release features later or not at all. Or have some even more draconian App Store rules. I don't want every random app having full hardware access to spy on me as it pleases.
> 5: Stop sherlocking third-party developers.
Right, so Apple is not supposed to give me free access to nice features so I can continue to pay money to someone else. Right.
> 1: Enable users to set default app preferences.
Fine, but really Maps and Email is pretty much the only one I care about. This is the best suggestion of the bunch.
That is what you care about, others might care about other default apps. That's why it should be freely configurable.
> 3: Allow sideloading of iOS apps.
I don't think we have a problem with lack of iOS apps. In fact I wish App Store Review was stricter and took more issue with quality and dodgy business practices (i.e. excessive and addictive use of IAP).
Of course there is a scarcity of iOS apps. Specifically, a scarcity of good quality apps which introduce new capabilities. There is no scarcity of candy crush clones etc. But the way Apple handles the App Store, drives developers into developing me-too clones with in-app purchases.
> 4: Give third-party developers equal access to APIs.
What this is asking for is for Apple to effectively release features later or not at all. Or have some even more draconian App Store rules. I don't want every random app having full hardware access to spy on me as it pleases.
There might be a few APIs, where limiting public access is justified. In most cases, we are talking about access to useful and uncritical APIs. The more Apple limits access to these APIs, the more harm they do to the App eco system.
Fine, but really Maps and Email is pretty much the only one I care about. This is the best suggestion of the bunch.
That is what you care about, others might care about other default apps. That's why it should be freely configurable.
> 3: Allow sideloading of iOS apps.
I don't think we have a problem with lack of iOS apps. In fact I wish App Store Review was stricter and took more issue with quality and dodgy business practices (i.e. excessive and addictive use of IAP).
Of course there is a scarcity of iOS apps. Specifically, a scarcity of good quality apps which introduce new capabilities. There is no scarcity of candy crush clones etc. But the way Apple handles the App Store, drives developers into developing me-too clones with in-app purchases.
> 4: Give third-party developers equal access to APIs.
What this is asking for is for Apple to effectively release features later or not at all. Or have some even more draconian App Store rules. I don't want every random app having full hardware access to spy on me as it pleases.
There might be a few APIs, where limiting public access is justified. In most cases, we are talking about access to useful and uncritical APIs. The more Apple limits access to these APIs, the more harm they do to the App eco system.
>That's why it should be freely configurable.
This seems really, really entitled to me. There already IS a platform you can use that you can fiddle and tweak to your heart's content in Android. Apple's iOS is different, and runs on maybe 1/4 of the phones that Android does.
One feature of the Apple ecosystem is this walled garden effect. By what logic do you seek to compel this non-monopoly to make changes to their business model?
This seems really, really entitled to me. There already IS a platform you can use that you can fiddle and tweak to your heart's content in Android. Apple's iOS is different, and runs on maybe 1/4 of the phones that Android does.
One feature of the Apple ecosystem is this walled garden effect. By what logic do you seek to compel this non-monopoly to make changes to their business model?
I don't know whether this fallacy has already a name, but it should. Just because I think something could be improved about iOS, doesn't mean I didn't choose the platform I am using with care. Nor do I think that the business model of Apple is in danger, just because I can make a setting in which app to open a certain URL for example.
Actually, as I am still a great fan of Apple, I think some of the suggestions have the potential to improve the business model of Apple.
Actually, as I am still a great fan of Apple, I think some of the suggestions have the potential to improve the business model of Apple.
I guess what I mean is that arguing that Apple should be forced to do this is entitled.
You can want it all you want. That's not entitled to me. I do not think they will do it, because I do not think it will improve their business model, but as long as you're not arguing that they should be compelled to do it I have no issue.
You can want it all you want. That's not entitled to me. I do not think they will do it, because I do not think it will improve their business model, but as long as you're not arguing that they should be compelled to do it I have no issue.
> Nah. Last thing I want is to have to fill out my credit card information in every app and worry about what's going to happen with it. Apple Pay and IAP work perfectly adequately from the consumer standpoint.
I think the thing Astropad is missing is that the App Store is not there to just facilitate payment processing. As the name App Store describes, it is a store. Store's often have markup's of 30% or greater. That's how they make money. I guess you could argue that they have a monopoly of app stores on iOS but I'm not sure that matters.
> Right, so Apple is not supposed to give me free access to nice features so I can continue to pay money to someone else. Right.
I don't even think that is the argument. Their argument is that Apple should had tried to buy them because they came to market first. I think third-party developers should always be wary of what Apple is planning and have a plan to compete should Apple or whoever decide to expand their core functionality that mimics what they are doing.
I think the thing Astropad is missing is that the App Store is not there to just facilitate payment processing. As the name App Store describes, it is a store. Store's often have markup's of 30% or greater. That's how they make money. I guess you could argue that they have a monopoly of app stores on iOS but I'm not sure that matters.
> Right, so Apple is not supposed to give me free access to nice features so I can continue to pay money to someone else. Right.
I don't even think that is the argument. Their argument is that Apple should had tried to buy them because they came to market first. I think third-party developers should always be wary of what Apple is planning and have a plan to compete should Apple or whoever decide to expand their core functionality that mimics what they are doing.
> Store's often have markup's of 30% or greater
As someone who’s worked on products sold via Amazon, Walmart, Target, Apple Retail, Microsoft Retail, Sharper Image, and many more, all I can say is developers have it great with Apple.
1) if you think Apple’s review process is arbitrary and constrictive, try getting into retail!
2) if you think 30% cut is bad, try getting into retail! Want to sell for a lower price on your website? Nope!
3) want to set the price for your product? With Amazon you might not even get that, they can arbitrarily decide to raise or lower your price with little to no warning.
4) think it’s bad that you can get yanked out of the App Store suddenly, try retail! Same happens there, and worse.
Please don’t dismiss this as a “what about” reply, I’m trying to instead show this is a much bigger societal problem than just one vendor and one marketplace. Sure, we need to start somewhere, but is Apple really the one that should be targeted first?
As someone who’s worked on products sold via Amazon, Walmart, Target, Apple Retail, Microsoft Retail, Sharper Image, and many more, all I can say is developers have it great with Apple.
1) if you think Apple’s review process is arbitrary and constrictive, try getting into retail!
2) if you think 30% cut is bad, try getting into retail! Want to sell for a lower price on your website? Nope!
3) want to set the price for your product? With Amazon you might not even get that, they can arbitrarily decide to raise or lower your price with little to no warning.
4) think it’s bad that you can get yanked out of the App Store suddenly, try retail! Same happens there, and worse.
Please don’t dismiss this as a “what about” reply, I’m trying to instead show this is a much bigger societal problem than just one vendor and one marketplace. Sure, we need to start somewhere, but is Apple really the one that should be targeted first?
> Fine, but really Maps and Email is pretty much the only one I care about. This is the best suggestion of the bunch.
I think this is already possible to a certain extent by using URL protocol handlers (like mailto, rss+feed, magnet, etc), however Apple doesn't provide a centralised control panel to choose which app. It would be cool to see Apple add that to the operating system. Ironically they would have to Sherlock RCDefaultApp. :)
I think this is already possible to a certain extent by using URL protocol handlers (like mailto, rss+feed, magnet, etc), however Apple doesn't provide a centralised control panel to choose which app. It would be cool to see Apple add that to the operating system. Ironically they would have to Sherlock RCDefaultApp. :)
>> 1: Enable users to set default app preferences.
> Fine, but really Maps and Email is pretty much the only one I care about. This is the best suggestion of the bunch.
At a minimum, Apple should provide a way to set defaults for the apps it bundles with iOS where there are some third party alternatives (even if they happen to be more like skins as in the case of browsers) — that would be browser, Mail, Maps, Podcasts, Calculator, Camera, Photos, iMovie, Calendar, News, Books, Documents, Spreadsheets, Presentations and more (why not change the default app that makes and receives “calls”?). It can prioritize among these and open them up in phases, but there is someone in the world for whom the defaults are annoying.
> Fine, but really Maps and Email is pretty much the only one I care about. This is the best suggestion of the bunch.
At a minimum, Apple should provide a way to set defaults for the apps it bundles with iOS where there are some third party alternatives (even if they happen to be more like skins as in the case of browsers) — that would be browser, Mail, Maps, Podcasts, Calculator, Camera, Photos, iMovie, Calendar, News, Books, Documents, Spreadsheets, Presentations and more (why not change the default app that makes and receives “calls”?). It can prioritize among these and open them up in phases, but there is someone in the world for whom the defaults are annoying.
You do have a valid point for some of those apps (Browser, Mail, Maps, Calendar and even "Call"), but for others (Podcasts, Calculator, Camera, Photos, iMovie, News, Books, Documents, Spreadsheets, Presentations) wouldn't just installing a new app suffice? Or are there some privileges that those apps have? (I personally don't think they should)
Asking because some of those Apple apps don't even come installed by default (office apps), and most can be deleted from the phone.
Asking because some of those Apple apps don't even come installed by default (office apps), and most can be deleted from the phone.
GP here.
There are a few kinds of launch mechanisms in play here.
It should be possible to open things that are based on links or files in a particular app as a default. This is a good model because there’s already a Files app that allows a desktop file storage/manipulation method (same with files received over email or opened from a browser).
Then you also have apps that are launched directly (without a file or URL as trigger). Couple of examples: you can swipe left on the lock screen to access the Apple camera app (or press the camera icon on the bottom right). Why shouldn’t this be as seamless to launch a better third party camera app (of which there are many)? As for calculator, the one launched from Control Center is always the Apple Calculator app. It’s not possible to launch another one as easily without adding it into the widgets area in the search screen (which may already be crowded). These two examples don’t require special hardware enablement (like the Apple Pay trigger required), and can improve the lives of many users.
There are a few kinds of launch mechanisms in play here.
It should be possible to open things that are based on links or files in a particular app as a default. This is a good model because there’s already a Files app that allows a desktop file storage/manipulation method (same with files received over email or opened from a browser).
Then you also have apps that are launched directly (without a file or URL as trigger). Couple of examples: you can swipe left on the lock screen to access the Apple camera app (or press the camera icon on the bottom right). Why shouldn’t this be as seamless to launch a better third party camera app (of which there are many)? As for calculator, the one launched from Control Center is always the Apple Calculator app. It’s not possible to launch another one as easily without adding it into the widgets area in the search screen (which may already be crowded). These two examples don’t require special hardware enablement (like the Apple Pay trigger required), and can improve the lives of many users.
Ah, yes. Makes a lot of sense to be able to launch a custom calculator or camera app from the control center (or left swipe).
Another option would be allowing apps to add themselves (or custom actions) to the control center.
Another option would be allowing apps to add themselves (or custom actions) to the control center.
This is an... odd comment.
The article is written by a company who Apple almost put out of business (as they have many others), not by acquihire, or take over but essentially by adopting Microsoft's old 'embrace, extend, extinguish' policy. Copying a feature wholesale they could well afford to purchase should they wish to emulate it. It might be legal, but it's certainly unethical and as the article argues terrible for the apple ecosystem.
Moreover, you're individual preferences 'maps and email is pretty much the only one (SIC) I care about', are not the issue at hand. I call this fallacy 'I don't want it, so you can't have it'. If you're happy with Apples increasingly walled garden of apps, great. No one is suggesting you change. Many many other people however would like to avail of the choices offered by other music services, other payment services etc. Often because Apple's offerings are unavailable or severely limited in their regions.
Again - if you're happy with the Appple store, great. But, on a serious note, who cares? This article isn't about your preferences, but those of other people. Giving them more freedom doesn't detract from how you choose to use your device one iota.
Ditto API's - they exist specifically so that apps don't need to have full hardware access. With apple controlling the underlying hardware API's can and are limited to prevent 'spying'. Not that that's prevented companies like Facebook from doing it anyway. What we're talking about here is leveling the playing field, in other words limiting Apples monopolistic control over their devices to the benefit of consumers.
The article is written by a company who Apple almost put out of business (as they have many others), not by acquihire, or take over but essentially by adopting Microsoft's old 'embrace, extend, extinguish' policy. Copying a feature wholesale they could well afford to purchase should they wish to emulate it. It might be legal, but it's certainly unethical and as the article argues terrible for the apple ecosystem.
Moreover, you're individual preferences 'maps and email is pretty much the only one (SIC) I care about', are not the issue at hand. I call this fallacy 'I don't want it, so you can't have it'. If you're happy with Apples increasingly walled garden of apps, great. No one is suggesting you change. Many many other people however would like to avail of the choices offered by other music services, other payment services etc. Often because Apple's offerings are unavailable or severely limited in their regions.
Again - if you're happy with the Appple store, great. But, on a serious note, who cares? This article isn't about your preferences, but those of other people. Giving them more freedom doesn't detract from how you choose to use your device one iota.
Ditto API's - they exist specifically so that apps don't need to have full hardware access. With apple controlling the underlying hardware API's can and are limited to prevent 'spying'. Not that that's prevented companies like Facebook from doing it anyway. What we're talking about here is leveling the playing field, in other words limiting Apples monopolistic control over their devices to the benefit of consumers.
> Last thing I want is to have to fill out my credit card information in every app and worry about what's going to happen with it. Apple Pay and IAP work perfectly adequately from the consumer standpoint.
Why should the consumer not be able to choose other payment services such as Paypal, Google Pay or Amazon Pay as a middleman?
Why should the consumer not be able to choose other payment services such as Paypal, Google Pay or Amazon Pay as a middleman?
I believe the original argument is about developer choice rather than consumer choice. (I'm not saying developer choice is not important, btw)
And as a consumer I can already use PayPal, mobile phone or bank for AppStore payments in my area. Would be nice to see many more services there, for sure.
Ironically, devs bypassing Apple would probably limit my choice: for instance, I can't pay my Netflix with Paypal, use my phone or bank IBAN. Just credit card (this is probably different in other countries however).
And as a consumer I can already use PayPal, mobile phone or bank for AppStore payments in my area. Would be nice to see many more services there, for sure.
Ironically, devs bypassing Apple would probably limit my choice: for instance, I can't pay my Netflix with Paypal, use my phone or bank IBAN. Just credit card (this is probably different in other countries however).
> [alternate payment mechanisms] ...fill out my credit card information in every app
Why is that the only alternative? How about
Why is that the only alternative? How about
app1 \ / payment service1
app2 - OS payment service framework - payment service2
app3 / \ payment service3
But it works exactly like that.
I get the feeling people are bashing Apple don't have any idea how things work. Also, nobody is ever complaining about Google's 30%.
As a consumer/business, I get the added benefit of 1 party and tax ruling. And it's easy to cancel my subscriptions
As a developer, I get the benefit of not having to deal with all the different taxlaws. I don't have to deal with fraud. And the checkout process is way easier, so higher conversion.
I get the feeling people are bashing Apple don't have any idea how things work. Also, nobody is ever complaining about Google's 30%.
As a consumer/business, I get the added benefit of 1 party and tax ruling. And it's easy to cancel my subscriptions
As a developer, I get the benefit of not having to deal with all the different taxlaws. I don't have to deal with fraud. And the checkout process is way easier, so higher conversion.
In a way this is how it works. This OS Payment service framework is the App Store. You have an account there and you have your creditcard (payment server1) or PayPal (service2) or iban (service3) there.
They take 30% for both handling these payments (paying PayPal, MasterCard, etc), and storing your app. And also showing your app in the catalogus of the store.
[deleted]
And ditch the Apple tax, right? So Apple will end up will all of the headaches of the integration with none of the benefits. And if some "payment service" stops working, guess whose fault it would be.
What about the fact that we buy their 1k phones or 3k laptops? Does that not count for anything? Apparently not, it's not enough anymore. Large companies like apple want a piece of every pie. If this trend continues you will soon be able to enlist your whole life into the Apple or Amazon ecosystem, they will provide everything you need, and will just take all your productive output. Don't worry, you will have entertainment, food, accommodation... everything you need. And if you don't like it, you can switch feudal lords of course. It's a free market after all.
Congress: "Does Apple restrict, in any way, the ability of competing web browsers to deploy their own web browsing engines when running on Apple’s operating system?"
Apple: "The purpose of this rule is to protect user privacy and security."
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU05/20190716/109793/HHRG... via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21587191
Upd: Giving the freedom to users is not the goal of Apple. Quite the opposite.
Apple: "The purpose of this rule is to protect user privacy and security."
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU05/20190716/109793/HHRG... via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21587191
Upd: Giving the freedom to users is not the goal of Apple. Quite the opposite.
Alternate Apple: "Yes, so what?"
Creating an obligation on companies to support competitors products on their own products, and dictating the commercial and technical terms of how they must implement that access seems a pretty extreme step.
Many vendors sell devices that allow limited customisation via apps. Cars allow some software client options and not others. Games consoles allow some software such as games and entertainment apps and not others. Feature phones had limited curated app download options in their 'stores' long before the iPhone. If we can require Apple to accept apps we dictate onto their store using their infrastructure on terms they don't get to determine, why can't we also require Nintendo to accept non-game apps or even a third party browser on the Switch? Why can't Spotify, or hundreds of streaming media or podcast companies require car companies to provide access to them to install their client app on car infotainment systems?
Where does this principle of imposing design features and commercial obligations, and technical implementation details on companies to benefit their competitors end?
Creating an obligation on companies to support competitors products on their own products, and dictating the commercial and technical terms of how they must implement that access seems a pretty extreme step.
Many vendors sell devices that allow limited customisation via apps. Cars allow some software client options and not others. Games consoles allow some software such as games and entertainment apps and not others. Feature phones had limited curated app download options in their 'stores' long before the iPhone. If we can require Apple to accept apps we dictate onto their store using their infrastructure on terms they don't get to determine, why can't we also require Nintendo to accept non-game apps or even a third party browser on the Switch? Why can't Spotify, or hundreds of streaming media or podcast companies require car companies to provide access to them to install their client app on car infotainment systems?
Where does this principle of imposing design features and commercial obligations, and technical implementation details on companies to benefit their competitors end?
I think you should re-read everything about the Microsoft antitrust cases and apply that to Apple. It's pretty obvious to me what accounts to antitrust here and it's been very obvious for years.
I think you should ask yourself really deeply "if this was the case on OSX would I be ok with it?" And use that lens.
I think you should ask yourself really deeply "if this was the case on OSX would I be ok with it?" And use that lens.
I thought the browser finding against Microsoft was misconceived. The decision that including a browser in the operating system was anti-competitive bundling seems, from a modern perspective, utterly absurd.
>It's pretty obvious to me what accounts to antitrust here and it's been very obvious for years.
It's not obvious to me.
>I think you should ask yourself really deeply "if this was the case on OSX would I be ok with it?" And use that lens.
OSX is marketed as an OS that can run whatever software you like, and on which you can develop whatever software you like. Sure if they changed that I wouldn't be happy about it and I would move to another desktop OS. I would complain about it and fight it, but I wouldn't claim that Apple didn't have the right to do it. I don't have the right to dictate to Apple what products they design. OSX is a different tool for a different purpose. Not all tools, or even all screwdrivers have to be multi-bit screwdriver sets.
>It's pretty obvious to me what accounts to antitrust here and it's been very obvious for years.
It's not obvious to me.
>I think you should ask yourself really deeply "if this was the case on OSX would I be ok with it?" And use that lens.
OSX is marketed as an OS that can run whatever software you like, and on which you can develop whatever software you like. Sure if they changed that I wouldn't be happy about it and I would move to another desktop OS. I would complain about it and fight it, but I wouldn't claim that Apple didn't have the right to do it. I don't have the right to dictate to Apple what products they design. OSX is a different tool for a different purpose. Not all tools, or even all screwdrivers have to be multi-bit screwdriver sets.
It's not the same case.
The allegation back then was that Microsoft was abusing monopoly power on Intel PCs in order to achieve victory in the browser wars. Also, an Intel executive even testified that the intent of Microsoft was indeed to kill Netscape.
Neither of those things have happened here: Apple doesn't have monopoly power on cell phones, nor has achieved victory in a new browser wars due to bundling Safari.
Whether new browsers (or browser engines, to be more precise) can be installed in iOS or not is a different matter altogether. Remember that back in the day it was possible to install Netscape on Windows, and Microsoft still got fire for it.
The allegation back then was that Microsoft was abusing monopoly power on Intel PCs in order to achieve victory in the browser wars. Also, an Intel executive even testified that the intent of Microsoft was indeed to kill Netscape.
Neither of those things have happened here: Apple doesn't have monopoly power on cell phones, nor has achieved victory in a new browser wars due to bundling Safari.
Whether new browsers (or browser engines, to be more precise) can be installed in iOS or not is a different matter altogether. Remember that back in the day it was possible to install Netscape on Windows, and Microsoft still got fire for it.
I really don't think you understand the material, enormous difference in positions here between MSFT during the antitrust/consent decree period, and Apple now.
Microsoft controlled personal computing, full stop. The Mac was a rounding error in sales and desktops. They had a monopoly on an entire market, and as such were justifiably limited in their actions by the decrees and whatnot.
iOS is a minority player. It's not even clear that they'd be a "monopoly" at 60% of the market, because Android provides such a strong alternative.
Seeking to compel Apple to follow the rules set out for Microsoft at their most predatory is utter lunacy, and suggests a deep misunderstanding of the legal definition of "monopoly."
Microsoft controlled personal computing, full stop. The Mac was a rounding error in sales and desktops. They had a monopoly on an entire market, and as such were justifiably limited in their actions by the decrees and whatnot.
iOS is a minority player. It's not even clear that they'd be a "monopoly" at 60% of the market, because Android provides such a strong alternative.
Seeking to compel Apple to follow the rules set out for Microsoft at their most predatory is utter lunacy, and suggests a deep misunderstanding of the legal definition of "monopoly."
A browser engine is a very security relevant part. Especially considering the ability to execute generated code, if you consider a JIT for Javascript code. This means, allowing arbitrary engines can have a significant security impact. As much as I resent most restrictions set up by Apple, this has at least some justification.
However, it should be possibly to set up a proper sandbox for a browser app, so that security issues are contained to it and consequentially, it should be possible to run other browser engines on your devide.
However, it should be possibly to set up a proper sandbox for a browser app, so that security issues are contained to it and consequentially, it should be possible to run other browser engines on your devide.
> A browser engine is a very security relevant part. Especially considering the ability to execute generated code, if you consider a JIT for Javascript code. This means, allowing arbitrary engines can have a significant security impact. As much as I resent most restrictions set up by Apple, this has at least some justification.
That argument would work a little bit better if Apple wasn't shipping their products with the most outdated browser engine of all the current browser market in the first place...
That argument would work a little bit better if Apple wasn't shipping their products with the most outdated browser engine of all the current browser market in the first place...
It's also the browser that by far uses the least memory, battery life etc.
Apple has made it quite clear that they are more deliberate when adding new features than Google or Microsoft.
Apple has made it quite clear that they are more deliberate when adding new features than Google or Microsoft.
I do agree with that, you can say it uses less memory and less battery but you really can't call it more secure in any way.
And it also takes ages to implement new and more efficient standards. As of 2020, Safari is literally the only web browser with a significant market share that doesn't support webp images and opus audio.
I seem to recall that one of their competitors got into very hot water about 20 years ago for almost the same reason, but I can't remember more details. \s
Allow a browser engine to be used if it meets strong privacy restrictions.
I disagree with a lot of this list, it this particular item I think deserves so,e attention.
> #4: Give third-party developers equal access to APIs.
AirPods are great. Maybe a little… too great. It is actually impossible for a competitor to make a pair of earbuds that matches with the iPhone as easily as AirPods because that API is private. This strikes me as unfair and anticompetitive; no matter how much better a particular pair of earbuds might be, they cannot work as well as AirPods because Apple doesn’t want them to.
There’s a similar thing happening with the Apple Watch. Google Maps has abilities that Apple Maps doesn’t have, but Apple won’t let you use drop-in replacements for mapping. So instead of a safe bike ride, I’m heading the wrong direction on one-way streets or on freeways thanks to Apple Maps. This just sucks.
Some commenters here say “I don’t want third parties to have access to private information.” There’s a line somewhere, I don’t think anyone sane would demand access to _all_ APIs. But there are some clear examples where the platform maker is giving unfair advantage to their own accessories and services, this is dipping into antitrust territory.
> #4: Give third-party developers equal access to APIs.
AirPods are great. Maybe a little… too great. It is actually impossible for a competitor to make a pair of earbuds that matches with the iPhone as easily as AirPods because that API is private. This strikes me as unfair and anticompetitive; no matter how much better a particular pair of earbuds might be, they cannot work as well as AirPods because Apple doesn’t want them to.
There’s a similar thing happening with the Apple Watch. Google Maps has abilities that Apple Maps doesn’t have, but Apple won’t let you use drop-in replacements for mapping. So instead of a safe bike ride, I’m heading the wrong direction on one-way streets or on freeways thanks to Apple Maps. This just sucks.
Some commenters here say “I don’t want third parties to have access to private information.” There’s a line somewhere, I don’t think anyone sane would demand access to _all_ APIs. But there are some clear examples where the platform maker is giving unfair advantage to their own accessories and services, this is dipping into antitrust territory.
One could argue, that you can create an experience as good as AirPods or even exceeding it. All you need to do is to develop a 'protocol' better than the horrible Bluetooth, make it an industry standard and convince companies to adopt it.
The only reason why Apple had to (and could at the same time) work on that aspect of headphones is because Bluetooth sucks and Apple is in a business of taking things that are widely used and suck, making them suck much less and selling them for a premium price.
The only reason why Apple had to (and could at the same time) work on that aspect of headphones is because Bluetooth sucks and Apple is in a business of taking things that are widely used and suck, making them suck much less and selling them for a premium price.
Right, that’s sort of the “well if you don’t like Apple, you can always use Android” argument.
The problem with that is, let’s say there’s one thing on the Google-controlled platform you don’t like (let’s say privacy, to over-simplify)… “well if you don’t like Android, you can always use iOS”
Platform makers have a level of power over consumer choice that monopoly law isn’t equipped to address.
The problem with that is, let’s say there’s one thing on the Google-controlled platform you don’t like (let’s say privacy, to over-simplify)… “well if you don’t like Android, you can always use iOS”
Platform makers have a level of power over consumer choice that monopoly law isn’t equipped to address.
Mind, I've said nothing about operating systems or platforms nor have I said about abandoning them if you don't like one thing about them. I have said, that if you don't like something and if you do come up with a better standard/protocol and convince companies to use it, it will show up on all of them (just like Bluetooth is on macOS, BSD, Linux, Windows, iOS, Android, etc.).
Until better solutions are available all companies are free to and most likely will try to find better solutions themselves and to do it in a way that will give them an edge over competition. Some more than others, and Apple here is known for being in exactly that type of business.
Until better solutions are available all companies are free to and most likely will try to find better solutions themselves and to do it in a way that will give them an edge over competition. Some more than others, and Apple here is known for being in exactly that type of business.
This coming from a company whose primary product has a rent seeking subscription model, seems a bit like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. When Apple released Sidecar, it was a net positive for all the consumers who didn't want to pay a monthly subscription fee for a simple feature like using your iPad as a secondary display for their Mac.
There are a few holdouts from the days when you could pay for software up-front and then pay for major updates if you wished to. Products from Serif (makers of Affinity Photo) come to mind. I wish more software products went back to this simpler and IMHO, better revenue model.
There are a few holdouts from the days when you could pay for software up-front and then pay for major updates if you wished to. Products from Serif (makers of Affinity Photo) come to mind. I wish more software products went back to this simpler and IMHO, better revenue model.
The model you like also vanished because of Apple: first, they sold their own apps like Keynote for <$10, creating a really low price anchor, second – they don't support free trials, creating pressure for free versions of apps, and third and most importantly they don't support upgrade pricing, which pushes everyone to subscription pricing.
The trouble is that as a tech company - first you want to build a moat around your success and barriers to competitors usurping your hard-won position/user-base.
IF you do this very well you become a "tech giant" - then you want to continue building that moat/pulling away from your competitors BUT now you have to look like you aren't anti-competitive.
So i guess it's useful to think about: what does Apple want to do vs what does apple want to look like its doing? Wherever the internal/external impetus of an organisation are at odds - progress will be painful/prolonged. Then again if you ran Apple would you be quick about ceding the moat?
IF you do this very well you become a "tech giant" - then you want to continue building that moat/pulling away from your competitors BUT now you have to look like you aren't anti-competitive.
So i guess it's useful to think about: what does Apple want to do vs what does apple want to look like its doing? Wherever the internal/external impetus of an organisation are at odds - progress will be painful/prolonged. Then again if you ran Apple would you be quick about ceding the moat?
> Then again if you ran Apple would you be quick about ceding the moat?
I'd hope I'd be smart enough to see how completely corrosive it's been to Apple. It's made their software development process fat and lazy, and propped up bad products that should have been dropped or fixed. Apple's software reputation was invincible ten years ago, and now it's shipping Mac apps that can't even full screen video properly. I think, in the long run, that will cost the company far more than it gains from it's behaviour.
I'd hope I'd be smart enough to see how completely corrosive it's been to Apple. It's made their software development process fat and lazy, and propped up bad products that should have been dropped or fixed. Apple's software reputation was invincible ten years ago, and now it's shipping Mac apps that can't even full screen video properly. I think, in the long run, that will cost the company far more than it gains from it's behaviour.
As someone who bought and paid for their products (including two hardware dongles), I’m glad Apple developed Sidecar. It’s faster, more stable, and generally works better for my use case. If their product was better, I’d definitely still use it, as I sank a lot of money into it, but it’s not to me. If a customer pays around a hundred dollars (I think that’s right, need to check) for your product and then decides to use a free alternative, what’s that say about your product?
Not to be callus, but “when your entire business is adding a feature to a platform that can be added easily by the platform provider, you have no real business” is a saying that’s been around for a long time for a reason.
Not to be callus, but “when your entire business is adding a feature to a platform that can be added easily by the platform provider, you have no real business” is a saying that’s been around for a long time for a reason.
Just to add to this, it was always an extremely obvious use case to use any external device with a nice display as, well, a display, perhaps for another device.
Pretending that you're Edison when all you did was to enable an already-obvious use case, and then whining when someone else also enables that use case, kinda strains credulity. Accusing Apple of doing something untoward, or even surprising, here, is just silly.
Pretending that you're Edison when all you did was to enable an already-obvious use case, and then whining when someone else also enables that use case, kinda strains credulity. Accusing Apple of doing something untoward, or even surprising, here, is just silly.
> Pretending that you're Edison when all you did was to enable an already-obvious use case
Not sure if you were aware, but your analogy is more fitting than it seems on a quick read. Sir Joseph Swan was an early inventor of the lightbulb (he, like Edison wasn’t the first, but his was earlier than Edison). Swan had moderate success with his lightbulb, but Edison’s proved to be superior in the market and ultimately won.
In that analogy, I think Luna is Sir Joseph Swan and Apple is Edison.
Not sure if you were aware, but your analogy is more fitting than it seems on a quick read. Sir Joseph Swan was an early inventor of the lightbulb (he, like Edison wasn’t the first, but his was earlier than Edison). Swan had moderate success with his lightbulb, but Edison’s proved to be superior in the market and ultimately won.
In that analogy, I think Luna is Sir Joseph Swan and Apple is Edison.
I think Apple hasn't made payment on the App Stores nearly flexible enough. For instance, why should there be one and only one payment method supported?
I run a small business, and I have to keep a running total of App Store purchases I made for business purposes and write a monthly reimbursement check to myself. This is ridiculous for accounting purposes.
It should be easier to have an Apple ID for business and a separate personal ID.
There should also be an option to choose another payment method whenever you make a purchase.
I run a small business, and I have to keep a running total of App Store purchases I made for business purposes and write a monthly reimbursement check to myself. This is ridiculous for accounting purposes.
It should be easier to have an Apple ID for business and a separate personal ID.
There should also be an option to choose another payment method whenever you make a purchase.
A great article with some very good points. 1) should be kind of obvious and easy to do, but especially 3) and 4) are extremely important in my eyes.
The biggest restriction on iOS (and on iPadOS, but for simplicity, I will only use the term "iOS") is the requirement to go through the App Store approval process. The justification is the promise of security and curation of app quality. First of all, those are two separate things and shouldn't mixed up. Second, in my eyes, Apple fails at both of them.
Of course, I don't know how many truly horrible apps (from a security point of view) are rejected by the process, but there are enough examples, where dubious apps made it past the review process. But the elephant in the room - no its actually a diploducus - is the so-called curation. On the one side, there are tons of very useful apps which cannot be submitted, just think of Termux, by the app store rules. On the other side, Apple does have zero restraint approving all those games which only are a vehicle of selling in-app purchases. Furthermore, they sell the prices for amounts which should be considered fraudulent. If you buy a AAA-title for your computer or console, at most you pay $50-$100. How can it be allowed that even the most basic games sell in-app purchases which can amount to several hundred dollars or even more without any limit? That is plain immoral in my eyes.
But Apple allows this. Worse even, they seem to quite support this, as the whole App Store design has driven most other game styles from the platform. On the other side, a lot of useful apps get disallowed from the App Store just for certain "rules".
Another bad example is the App Store search. When searching for an app, you get paid for app placements in the search result before the results which best matched your search. Germany released a covid-19 tracing app yesterday, but a simple search yielded my everything but that app. Only when searching for the exact app name, I got to it. This is bad with general legit apps, a disaster in this specific case.
In consequence, I do think Apple should urgently overthink their App Store approach. Otherwise, legislators should enforce an opening of the platform.
Towards using private APIs: while it totally makes sense to develop APIs by co-developing them with the apps which use them as a test case for the APIs, in general, they should be opened up to all apps. Not doing so is not only unfair competition, but dumb in the long term, as it encourages the existence of semi-maintained APIs for internal applications. And harms the quality of third party apps.
The biggest restriction on iOS (and on iPadOS, but for simplicity, I will only use the term "iOS") is the requirement to go through the App Store approval process. The justification is the promise of security and curation of app quality. First of all, those are two separate things and shouldn't mixed up. Second, in my eyes, Apple fails at both of them.
Of course, I don't know how many truly horrible apps (from a security point of view) are rejected by the process, but there are enough examples, where dubious apps made it past the review process. But the elephant in the room - no its actually a diploducus - is the so-called curation. On the one side, there are tons of very useful apps which cannot be submitted, just think of Termux, by the app store rules. On the other side, Apple does have zero restraint approving all those games which only are a vehicle of selling in-app purchases. Furthermore, they sell the prices for amounts which should be considered fraudulent. If you buy a AAA-title for your computer or console, at most you pay $50-$100. How can it be allowed that even the most basic games sell in-app purchases which can amount to several hundred dollars or even more without any limit? That is plain immoral in my eyes.
But Apple allows this. Worse even, they seem to quite support this, as the whole App Store design has driven most other game styles from the platform. On the other side, a lot of useful apps get disallowed from the App Store just for certain "rules".
Another bad example is the App Store search. When searching for an app, you get paid for app placements in the search result before the results which best matched your search. Germany released a covid-19 tracing app yesterday, but a simple search yielded my everything but that app. Only when searching for the exact app name, I got to it. This is bad with general legit apps, a disaster in this specific case.
In consequence, I do think Apple should urgently overthink their App Store approach. Otherwise, legislators should enforce an opening of the platform.
Towards using private APIs: while it totally makes sense to develop APIs by co-developing them with the apps which use them as a test case for the APIs, in general, they should be opened up to all apps. Not doing so is not only unfair competition, but dumb in the long term, as it encourages the existence of semi-maintained APIs for internal applications. And harms the quality of third party apps.
Termius is in the app store? https://termius.com/ios
Sorry, my mistake, I of course meant Termux. But I keep mixing them up :). Thanks for pointing that out, have corrected it.
There's only smartphone platforms, apple and android.neither is perfect. Google drops apps and services
it it does not have millions of users or it does not make a profit eg Google reader
I use android I can sideload apps on my phone.
Google does not seem to copy popular apps like apple does
Apple is unlikely to provide an option to pay via PayPal or
some credit card unless its forced to by Congress, like the EU forced Microsoft to provide a browser ballot
Eg choose Firefox , chrome etc instead of Internet explorer years ago before Windows 10 was released
Companys realise more and more
products will be bought online using apps, if you can get
people used to using apple pay or Google payment services
you have an almost unlimited
source of income.
Even if apple is forced to allow apps to be paid with
Other finance options like mastercard will they be easy to use will they have access to the api that apple uses for contact less payment
We have seen before in tech the public tends to use the most easy to use app or services, it's easy to just put in your credit card into
the apple app once and just buy any app or service with a few clicks without thinking about it
The law is slow to catch up with tech. 10 tears ago people did not expect consumers to be
Able to buy products and services using a smartphone
app. Apple was the first company to offer an easy to use app to buy music or TV shows on a mobile device.
The first music apps on phones
were limited and hard to use
> #4: Give third-party developers equal access to APIs.
I used to work for a company that produced an app server. They sold the app server as well as applications that ran on the app server. Other companies also sold competing applications that ran on the app server.
One of the things I had to do was write a tool that scanned our applications for API usage to ensure none of them were using APIs internal to the app server. It would have been anti-competitive to create APIs that only our own apps were allowed to use.
It has always surprised me that Apple has gotten away with this for so long. I'm not sure if the company I worked for was concerned about being sued by the government or by other companies, but I don't think they would have worked so hard to stamp out private API usage if there weren't some risk of litigation.
I used to work for a company that produced an app server. They sold the app server as well as applications that ran on the app server. Other companies also sold competing applications that ran on the app server.
One of the things I had to do was write a tool that scanned our applications for API usage to ensure none of them were using APIs internal to the app server. It would have been anti-competitive to create APIs that only our own apps were allowed to use.
It has always surprised me that Apple has gotten away with this for so long. I'm not sure if the company I worked for was concerned about being sued by the government or by other companies, but I don't think they would have worked so hard to stamp out private API usage if there weren't some risk of litigation.
Apple doesn't and won't care as long as its customers don't care. One can already see from some comments here that Apple is infallible and ever correct to some - and this is more of a technical crowd. Imagine what it's like for those who have a slight to little understanding of the issue at hand.
Unless a strong competitor comes along that does things differently and better (especially in marketing) Apple can continue delivering mediocre products and being an ass to devs. Unless it directly affects the majority in a tangible fashion, it won't care.
Unless a strong competitor comes along that does things differently and better (especially in marketing) Apple can continue delivering mediocre products and being an ass to devs. Unless it directly affects the majority in a tangible fashion, it won't care.
I think sideloading of apps on iOS would end up being a disaster for third-party developers and the platform. Some of the most pervasive hacks on the Android platform begin with a sideloaded app.
Exactly, and giving third party developers access to private (privileged) APIs would just increase risk of malware on the platform.
Astropad undermines their own argument by pointing out that Apple forced them to change their business plan by adding features to their product they otherwise wouldn’t have.
One of my first jobs was at a coffee shop, owned by a guy who once tried to expand his coffee shop to other locations, only to see Starbucks snatch those locations from his fingertips at the last second by walking in and offering the landlord a lot more money. He never did expand, and actually he just went out of business in part due to this government mandated economic shutdown, but he was old enough to retire so I wouldn’t cry for him, he’s got his wife and health and plenty of time to enjoy his retirement. I digress. The guy who owned the coffee shop knew the real estate fellow at Starbucks who would walk in and offer these last minute deals. He would always tell him, “it’s just business.”
Apart from walking in and taking the prime pickings of the potential retail spots to open a coffee shop, Starbucks had another much more well known practice of opening up shop across the street or right next door to other coffee shops. Now what would happen really depended on what how the coffee was like at the indie.
Starbucks would actually drive up interest in the area for coffee, so if your small indie coffee shop served good coffee, then Starbucks opening up next door might be the best thing to ever happen to you. Sales would go up, more people in the neighborhood would start drinking coffee increasing your possible pool of customers.
If your coffee sucked though, then you were probably going out of business. Your customers would try the Starbucks coffee, find it was better than you served and the writing would be on the wall. People would still come by and try your coffee, but if it wasn’t as good, they wouldn’t be back.
Software isn’t special. You can break your back putting your all into a product that people love and get a lot of value out of, but you’re not entitled to success just because you worked hard, and you aren’t entitled to go without competition, even from the platform vendor. When you find yourself at odds with the platform vendor, then you go multi-platform, you change, you adapt.
I bought my phone and iPad knowing their limitations, and I was okay with them. Every one of those developers I see in the App Store chose to be there, and if they weren’t there, somebody else would be. The App Store created the opportunity for small indies like Marco Arment to build sustainable businesses on, and for services like Spotify to reach a larger audience, and for services like Uber and Lyft and AirBnB to get their start. Facebook and Google changed strategies and went mobile first more than a decade ago when it became clear how big of a deal it would be, and Facebook paid $1B for Instagram, what was then a small startup of about 30 employees that got their start making an iPhone app.
Not every business is successful though, and going through Apple is part of the cost of doing business because it’s their storefront on their platform, a software platform where the included list of features can expand or shrink on a dime. App Store developers are in the same boat as YouTubers where their stream of revenue depends on a platform that changed over time, and YouTubers figured it out a while ago that to stay in business, they have to have a revenue stream other than YouTube and toe the policies.
If your business plan relies on the government coming in and busting your platform vendors chops, then you don’t have a very good business plan.
Life is tough, and so is business.
One of my first jobs was at a coffee shop, owned by a guy who once tried to expand his coffee shop to other locations, only to see Starbucks snatch those locations from his fingertips at the last second by walking in and offering the landlord a lot more money. He never did expand, and actually he just went out of business in part due to this government mandated economic shutdown, but he was old enough to retire so I wouldn’t cry for him, he’s got his wife and health and plenty of time to enjoy his retirement. I digress. The guy who owned the coffee shop knew the real estate fellow at Starbucks who would walk in and offer these last minute deals. He would always tell him, “it’s just business.”
Apart from walking in and taking the prime pickings of the potential retail spots to open a coffee shop, Starbucks had another much more well known practice of opening up shop across the street or right next door to other coffee shops. Now what would happen really depended on what how the coffee was like at the indie.
Starbucks would actually drive up interest in the area for coffee, so if your small indie coffee shop served good coffee, then Starbucks opening up next door might be the best thing to ever happen to you. Sales would go up, more people in the neighborhood would start drinking coffee increasing your possible pool of customers.
If your coffee sucked though, then you were probably going out of business. Your customers would try the Starbucks coffee, find it was better than you served and the writing would be on the wall. People would still come by and try your coffee, but if it wasn’t as good, they wouldn’t be back.
Software isn’t special. You can break your back putting your all into a product that people love and get a lot of value out of, but you’re not entitled to success just because you worked hard, and you aren’t entitled to go without competition, even from the platform vendor. When you find yourself at odds with the platform vendor, then you go multi-platform, you change, you adapt.
I bought my phone and iPad knowing their limitations, and I was okay with them. Every one of those developers I see in the App Store chose to be there, and if they weren’t there, somebody else would be. The App Store created the opportunity for small indies like Marco Arment to build sustainable businesses on, and for services like Spotify to reach a larger audience, and for services like Uber and Lyft and AirBnB to get their start. Facebook and Google changed strategies and went mobile first more than a decade ago when it became clear how big of a deal it would be, and Facebook paid $1B for Instagram, what was then a small startup of about 30 employees that got their start making an iPhone app.
Not every business is successful though, and going through Apple is part of the cost of doing business because it’s their storefront on their platform, a software platform where the included list of features can expand or shrink on a dime. App Store developers are in the same boat as YouTubers where their stream of revenue depends on a platform that changed over time, and YouTubers figured it out a while ago that to stay in business, they have to have a revenue stream other than YouTube and toe the policies.
If your business plan relies on the government coming in and busting your platform vendors chops, then you don’t have a very good business plan.
Life is tough, and so is business.
Agree with your assumptions and conclusions. Especially impact of Starbucks on indies. Just adding some color.
Insiders regard McDonalds as a real estate company, not a burger franchiser.
Similarly, back in the day, Starbucks' real estate group was their secret sauce, IMHO. They knew exactly how much revenue a store would generate. So while they likely paid more than that indie owner, they most definitely did not over pay. I assume they've only become more sophisticated since.
Source: Worked in Store Planning, wrote some tools to help the architects draft designs based on budgets provided by real estate group.
Insiders regard McDonalds as a real estate company, not a burger franchiser.
Similarly, back in the day, Starbucks' real estate group was their secret sauce, IMHO. They knew exactly how much revenue a store would generate. So while they likely paid more than that indie owner, they most definitely did not over pay. I assume they've only become more sophisticated since.
Source: Worked in Store Planning, wrote some tools to help the architects draft designs based on budgets provided by real estate group.
That is interesting. Thanks for the added color, my former boss was under the impression that they were overpaying given the numbers they were quoting, but well, he didn’t have perfect info either.
This strikes me as a bunch of wishful thinking that Apple shouldn't do.
Apple ought not be subject to ANY antitrust action because the only monopoly it has is a monopoly on its own phones and tablets. If that's a monopoly, then so is every other walled garden. Android's market share dwarfs iOS worldwide. It's bizarre to go after this minority player with these laws.
Apple ought not be subject to ANY antitrust action because the only monopoly it has is a monopoly on its own phones and tablets. If that's a monopoly, then so is every other walled garden. Android's market share dwarfs iOS worldwide. It's bizarre to go after this minority player with these laws.
Not commenting on the merit or otherwise of the specific suggestions, because the only part that really matters is this:
"71% budget increase in the Department of Justice’s antitrust division to investigate big tech monopolies.
It’s in Apple’s best interest to be proactive and tackle the antitrust problem itself rather than waiting for the government to step in. "
That is: Tim Cook and the Apple board have to weigh up the risks. How likely is it that the justice department will actually come after them in a meaningful way? Can they head that off? Lobbying will be a much more attractive option, commercially and strategically. They will do the least they possibly can to head off any imposed change to the status quo.
That the DoJ actually went after Microsoft was very much the exception rather than the rule. Apple will likely learn from that: it's unlikely but not impossible. An enforced breakup would be catastrophic for Apple (even if - possibly - good for the market). Tim Cook certainly wouldn't survive that. OTOH, loosening any of the current constraints will hurt Apple's services play.
So this is 100% about risk management for Apple. Neither the welfare of its contributing app developer community, nor "fair" market competition, are remotely first order determinants of outcome.
--
EDIT: fixed typo
"71% budget increase in the Department of Justice’s antitrust division to investigate big tech monopolies.
It’s in Apple’s best interest to be proactive and tackle the antitrust problem itself rather than waiting for the government to step in. "
That is: Tim Cook and the Apple board have to weigh up the risks. How likely is it that the justice department will actually come after them in a meaningful way? Can they head that off? Lobbying will be a much more attractive option, commercially and strategically. They will do the least they possibly can to head off any imposed change to the status quo.
That the DoJ actually went after Microsoft was very much the exception rather than the rule. Apple will likely learn from that: it's unlikely but not impossible. An enforced breakup would be catastrophic for Apple (even if - possibly - good for the market). Tim Cook certainly wouldn't survive that. OTOH, loosening any of the current constraints will hurt Apple's services play.
So this is 100% about risk management for Apple. Neither the welfare of its contributing app developer community, nor "fair" market competition, are remotely first order determinants of outcome.
--
EDIT: fixed typo
#6 allow third party browser engines in iOS
Organizations can be really stupid. There is some test about delayed gratification. If you wait you get two candies, if not you only get one. Apple is currently a one candy company. You see this in how it deals with the Mac and in the policies about IOS Apps.
Please note this is not to say the people at Apple are stupid, but rather there is a very, very low level of organizational intelligence at work here. Very. Low. Sadly.
The article is great, well worth the read and written with great clarity!
Please note this is not to say the people at Apple are stupid, but rather there is a very, very low level of organizational intelligence at work here. Very. Low. Sadly.
The article is great, well worth the read and written with great clarity!
"dear paesant, thanks for your concern, but we are going to stop the investigation the traditional way, using our millions from anticompetitive customers practices"
- apple
- apple
And we will bribe the officials. Lobby I mean, lobby.
First sensible post on this topic. All others talk about the content like the premise rings true, but Apple will never do stuff like that, same as how the current tech giants don't have a place in this world post capitalism.
well it's "hacker news" so people around here will keep spinning around technological solutions patting the back of each other and wondering why is apple so shortsighted while they're so smart and all-seeing
Lots of wishful thinking. If these were allowed none of them would have the effect author claims they would. See Android.
1. There are already alternative mail clients. Does author think that not allowing any of them being default tehy do not compete on quality? This is the only one I see as the reasonable one, albeit not for the reasons claimed in the article.
2. Uhm, Apple Pay is as frictionless as it can get. I have no desire to keept entering my credit card details into every app which thnks they have a better payment processor.
3. Apple does not "arbitrarily" reject apps. And it's restrictions that bring innovation, not the other way around. Author wants sideload apps, but somehow Apple would still be responsible for the security. Let's see how that works for Android.
4. Just no. I do not want John Doe's app accessing my text messages.
5. Well you wanted the competition in #1, so how about that.
1. There are already alternative mail clients. Does author think that not allowing any of them being default tehy do not compete on quality? This is the only one I see as the reasonable one, albeit not for the reasons claimed in the article.
2. Uhm, Apple Pay is as frictionless as it can get. I have no desire to keept entering my credit card details into every app which thnks they have a better payment processor.
3. Apple does not "arbitrarily" reject apps. And it's restrictions that bring innovation, not the other way around. Author wants sideload apps, but somehow Apple would still be responsible for the security. Let's see how that works for Android.
4. Just no. I do not want John Doe's app accessing my text messages.
5. Well you wanted the competition in #1, so how about that.
I agree that Apple provides a great experience, and I am an Apple user for most of my computing needs; but Apple's approach uses the user experience stick to squeeze out monopolistic benefits out of their platform when it suits them, and when it doesn't, they ignore user expereince.
1. This is a clear one, and Apple chooses to ruin user experience here. I only use Apple Mail because it's the default app.
2. Me neither. Why don't they do something for payments that is similar to how they treat password managers. A standardised way to treat payment data.
3. Apple does arbitrarily reject apps. They just signed a special deal with Amazon that bypasses the app store rules, for gods sake.
4. I agree, and Apple has come out with good ways of allowing apps to special APIs.
5. Well, what competition is it when someone has to pay 30% from their revenue?
1. This is a clear one, and Apple chooses to ruin user experience here. I only use Apple Mail because it's the default app.
2. Me neither. Why don't they do something for payments that is similar to how they treat password managers. A standardised way to treat payment data.
3. Apple does arbitrarily reject apps. They just signed a special deal with Amazon that bypasses the app store rules, for gods sake.
4. I agree, and Apple has come out with good ways of allowing apps to special APIs.
5. Well, what competition is it when someone has to pay 30% from their revenue?
I've been using iPhones for 11 years now and I have never used Apple Mail app. Currently I am using Outlook which is very good on iOS.
I don't agree with this, as a developer and a consumer. As a consumer it is extremely nice that I don't have to deal with all sorts of exotic and different payment gateways. Some accept Amex, some don't. Some try to store my card without my consent, some don't. Some make it really obvious that not being charged during a trial period some don't. Some payment gateways are buggy, slow and frustrating and some are really good. As a consumer I bloody hate that and I love iOS and Apple for the fact that I can securely put payment methods behind Apple Pay and then know that I can do any in-app purchases via an already established and well working gateway. No faffing about with some other shite.
From a developer perspective I don't see why anyone should use the AppStore as a distribution channel to a huge market and completely circumvent Apple's cut when clearly they are offering a lot of value by making this possible in the first place?
For example, my VPN I can either buy a license by going to their website and go through a 5 minute checkout process or I can do a 5 second checkout via the iOS app. The first one goes 100% to the VPN developers, the second also means that a cut goes to Apple. Sounds fair to me, because I literally purchased a VPN in a moment where I didn't have the time of going to a website. I was abroad, I was on a mobile and I had limited time to get quickly a subscription so I could use the VPN and I would have not bought it if it wasn't for the ease and speed which the app allowed me to do. This was only the case because Apple does such a diligent job in keeping it so sleek. Without Apple Pay I would have not bought that license and they would have not lost 30% of the sale, but effectively 100%.