Rethinking the App Store
stratechery.com
stratechery.com
Apples curation isn't (as they suggest) preventing malware, theft of information, etc - this if verifiably false given recent history with apps like tiktok stealing clipboard content. The ability to change content of payment screens post-approval (as epic have just done) also means that curation isnt stopping apps from potentially injecting phishing, etc, either. In short, they are just choosing what they like - just as any 3rd party store could do.
The security comes from the sandbox (and surrounding permissions) - not from the curation.
Jobs originally said that the aim of the 30% was to cover costs of running the store. It is evident from the MASSIVE profits that this is no longer the case.
The size of these app marketplaces (I dont just mean apple) make them markets in their own right - its about time they were recognised and treated as such.
HN fetishises root access as if it's some kind of magic panacea, but in reality most users don't care about root access at all - they want apps that work, they have zero interest in tinkering with software for its own sake, and root access will not make apps more reliable or more secure.
The main problems with the App Store are the cost (30% is egregious), the distance between Apple's claims about privacy and simple exploits (see also Zoom and TikTok), the fact that search is user hostile, and the fact that Apple forces its payment system on app developers for no good reason.
Fix all of those and cut the tax to 10% and Apple can continue to have its semi-monopoly.
Apps would be consistently installed to a sandbox identified by their bundle identifier (which is typically domain-based).
This is effectively what already happens on iOS.
App certification/verification would be done using exactly the same certs we use for domains (possibly co-signed by the store as part of their curation/verification/drm process) to ensure the store can only install what the developer provides, and what the store curators permit to be distributed through their store.
I don't think changing 30% to some other arbitrary figure solves anything. For me the biggest problem is Apple deciding what/whose apps ios (and macos, given the recent code signing requirements coming with mac silicon...) users are permitted to use.
Thats FUD. The release notes even address it "This new behavior doesn’t change the long-established policy that our users and developers can run arbitrary code on their Macs, and is designed to simplify the execution policies on Apple silicon Mac computers and enable the system to better detect code modifications."
You CANNOT run an unsigned binary on silicon, but I totally understand your confusion given their statement.
Edit: To clarify further, you cant run an ARM binary - x86 apps going through rosetta (currently) work as they used to (right click and you can open).
I am a proponent for code-signing, I just don't see why I cant use my own cert (such as that issued for a domain name) instead of an apple issued one - if it is solely about preventing code tampering, as they state...
The actual reason behind a central issuance of certs is DRM. If apps NEED to run through this gatekeeper, then the gatekeeper can phone home to get a license for you to run the app (or not). This will enable the revocation of a cert for distribution of malware, but will also enable revocation for other reasons - like a dev breaching the terms of their agreement with apple (whatever those may be).
That is what the issue is. There is literally no benefit in this unless apple can revoke certs, because there is nothing to stop a dev signing a malicious app!
I don’t see what this has to do with elf binaries. I mentioned arm binaries because that is what all upcoming apple “computers” will be.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
If they're not UGC then they're violating rule 1.1 -
> Apps should not include content that is offensive, insensitive, upsetting, intended to disgust, in exceptionally poor taste, or just plain creepy.
HBO certainly are not UGC, yet the HBO app was allowed nudity as a prelude to people having sex many times in Game of Thrones. Rule 1.1.4 -
> Overtly sexual or pornographic material, defined by Webster’s Dictionary as "explicit descriptions or displays of sexual organs or activities intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings
I suppose the key here lies in the last part (emph.), which is why most reader-apps are allowed, including GoT.
Feels like this is (should be?) as much about USER freedom and choice as it is about DEVELOPERS. While cost precipitated the current set of issues, it's really about the role Apple plays in arbitrarily mediating between customer and service.
So basically, you would strike: log-in, payment, content, etc, but keep the other stuff. Doesn't solve all problems but would be incrementally better.
Each "app store" would have it's own ability to set those policies for apps it carries - but (crucially) users would have the OPTION.
For users that don't care - stick with Apple.
> For users that don't care - stick with Apple.
As an Apple user, to me this is the opposite of having "options".
As an individual, I cannot fight any remotely large company let alone FB or Google. If they hold my messaging or email hostage, I would be forced to use their secondary iOS app stores with their custom rules, etc.
As a group, all Apple users, we have a unified choice. It puts the power dynamic back into users hands. Users that don't like the choices of Apple should buy other phones, and if enough people buy other phones the Apple ecosystem will change with the market.
Users that do want to be part of the collective bargaining power of the Apple ecosystem, like me, should have that choice!
One very important question to ask is, why do users spend more money on iOS apps than on Android apps[1]? For 6 years, while I owned an Android I never made a single purchase. My last 4 years on iOS, I buy apps, I start subscriptions, I use Apple Pay, etc. I can tell you it is entirely because of my trust in Apple as a company. A large part of that trust is earned through the regulations they put on developers and their emphasis on my privacy.
I can guarantee you, as soon as Apple is no longer able to earn that trust, the entire ecosystem will be significantly less lucrative for developers and this whole exercise will have been in vain, hurting everyone (users and developers).
But I dont follow... install only their app from that store. Same sandbox, etc applies. Let them require same security.
As to revenue... that might have to so with customer set? If it were only Apple, a lot less people would own smartphones....
If FB has access to execute code on my phone, without any guardrails, what stops them from requiring location or microphone services be on at all times?
As an informed user I can push back, even boycott, until my friend hosts an event and I need to see the invite.
What I really want is a collective bargaining power agency (i.e. kinda like a customers' union) that imposes rules that are in my best interest onto service providers. Frankly, this need exists because the government isn't doing a good enough job of it. I am happy to pay extra to this agency for this increased bargaining power.
It just so happens that Apple has positioned itself in my life as that collective bargaining power agency. Does it make life harder for service providers? Yes. If I was a service provider would I fight this friction? Yes. However, unlike anti-competitive monopoly behavior that hurts customers, the collective bargaining power is used in the benefit of the customer (i.e. me).
By opening the platform to other app stores, developers will benefit due to choice and competition on fees and descoverability, end users will benefit from encouraged innovation, Apple will be forced to compete on convenience or features instead of letting it stagnate while they collect buckets of cash... it would be good for consumers and the ecosystem.
Microsoft got into trouble for bundling a web browser, where they didn’t directly make money, Apple should get into trouble for the App Store, where they do directly make money due to their artificial lack of competition.
But to clarify, Microsoft ultimately won the case on appeal and had the initial ruling against them overturned.[1]
So in the final verdict, MS did not get into trouble for bundling the browser. In 2001, the DOJ settlement didn't force Microsoft to include Netscape Navigator or any other 3rd-party software on their standard desktop.
The developers in 2020 really don't want to hear this but Apple Inc actually has decades of case precedent to support the idea that Apple controls its own hardware with its own exclusive app store. To force Apple to include Epic's app store would require some new legal arguments that today's judge would be sympathetic to. Not saying it's impossible but it's not a slam dunk antitrust case as many on HN believe.
In other words, the status quo established in previous decided cases (including MS winning its antitrust IE case) actually supports the idea that Tesla is not forced to include Apple's Carplay in its cars' infotainment hardware, and Apple in turn is not forced to include a 3rd-party "Tesla app store" so the Tesla can bypass Apple's App Store review policies.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...
I suppose 20+ years has erased a collective memory of the conflicts with IE.
Here is a relevant 1998 excerpt[1] from DOJ's own official website:
>The Department today filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction that would:
>-- Require that if Microsoft insists on including its browser on Windows 98, it must also include Netscape's browser so that consumers will have a real choice. Computer manufacturers would have the option of deleting either browser. If Microsoft does not want to include Netscape, it must unbundle its own browser and let it compete on the merits.
As we now know from the 2001 final settlement, the above scenario didn't happen and Microsoft won that IE battle.
Can one do a mental search & replace with s/Microsoft/Apple/ and s/Netscape/Epic/ such as:
"Require that if Apple insists on including its App Store on iPhones, it must also include Epic App Store so that consumers will have a real choice."
If Epic's lawyers (not even the intimidating government DOJ lawyers this time but just a private video game company's lawyers) want to argue the same idea as forcing Netscape onto IE, what would be the new legal argument this time? The previous one failed.
EDIT to sbuk's reply about context: your excerpt trying to show context is itself also missing context. That part about PC manufacturers licensing was the past actions that got the DOJ up to that point of hauling them into court. My excerpt was about the DOJ's proposed future remedy (e.g. must unbundle IE) to reduce Microsoft's future monopoly power -- and that didn't happen. See the very next bullet point below your "context":
>• Microsoft now intends to tie unlawfully its IE Internet browser software to its new Windows 98 operating system, the successor to Windows 95.
DOJ wanted to stop the future IE bundling to Windows 98. They failed.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/archive/atr/public/press_releases/19...
Not this again!
MS lost the (one of the many) case with the EU regarding Internet Explorer and that's were most of the confusion comes from: what happens in US is hardly relevant for the rest of the World
> In January 2009, the European Commission announced it would investigate the bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows operating systems from Microsoft, saying "Microsoft's tying of Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice."
> In response, Microsoft announced that it would not bundle Internet Explorer with Windows 7 E, the version of Windows 7 to be sold in Europe.
> On 16 December 2009, the European Union agreed to allow competing browsers, with Microsoft providing a "ballot box" screen letting users choose one of twelve popular products listed in random order. The twelve browsers were Avant, Chrome, Firefox, Flock, GreenBrowser, Internet Explorer, K-Meleon, Maxthon, Opera, Safari, Sleipnir, and Slim which are accessible via BrowserChoice.eu. The automatic nature of the BrowserChoice.eu feature was dropped in Windows 7 Service Pack 1 in February 2011 and remained absent for 14 months despite Microsoft reporting that it was still present, subsequently described by Microsoft as a "technical error". As a result, in March 2013 the European Commission fined Microsoft €561 million to deter companies from reneging on settlement promises."
Microsoft unlawfully required PC manufacturers to agree to license and install its browser, Internet Explorer, as a condition of obtaining licenses for the Windows 95 operating system.
This was true for AT&T at one time as well.
I agree with your point, but things change when you get too big. Apple might be at that point, but I don't really know, and IANAL.
To further clarify, the EU antitrust authorities decided not to let off Microsoft with a slap on the wrist for their bundling practices:
This is an oversimplification of the appeal, as while the penalty against Microsoft was overturned, the appeals court did affirm several of the antitrust violations against Microsoft. In particular:
1. The appeals court affirmed that Microsoft's license restrictions preventing OEMs from pre-installing alternate browsers violated the Sherman Act.
2. The appeals court found that Microsoft's technical integration of IE and Windows was not a violation of the Sherman Act because Microsoft offered legitimate justification for why the integration was necessary. (When a defendant offers a legitimate justification the burden of proof shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the anticompetitive effect outweighs the justification. In this case the appeals court found the DOJ failed to do this.)
3. The appeals court affirmed that Microsoft's deals with ISPs to promote IE at the expense of other browsers violated the Sherman Act.
4. The appeals court affirmed that Microsoft's deal with Apple to bundle IE with Mac OS in exchange for the development of the Mac version of Office violated the Sherman Act. (Bill Gates threatened to pull Office for Mac if Mac OS bundled Netscape instead of IE.)
5. The appeals court did not actually address whether tying IE to Windows was an antitrust violation or not. They concluded that it could not be a per se violation, and the issue was remanded back to the district court for further analysis under the rule of reason which would have required additional proceedings, which never happened as Microsoft and the DOJ eventually settled.
6. The appeals court found that the DOJ failed to prove their claim that Microsoft attempted to monopolize the browser market, largely because they failed to provide sufficient evidence that Microsoft had a "dangerous probability" of success.
Finally, the reason the penalty was overturned by the appeals court largely had to do with the district court judge not following the correct legal procedures and failing to reasonably justify why such a large penalty (breaking up the company) was warranted. Plus they were really unhappy with that judge going and talking to the media about the case.
Yes, ultimately Microsoft was not broken up. After Bush was elected, DOJ policy changed and they decided to no longer pursue the breakup. But it's a bit misleading to say they won the appeal. It's more like: they won a couple claims, they lost a bunch of claims, and the overall penalty was deemed too harsh.
(Note: I skipped some details but the full text of the appeal is an interesting read: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=179876183890909...)
---
That all being said, it's worth noting that most of the violations affirmed were related to Microsoft's attempts to unlawfully maintain their operating system monopoly which at the time had over 95% market share, not due to their attempts to dominate the browser market. And it's possible that if they had merely included IE with Windows and not taken extra actions to force other companies (OEMs, ISPs, Apple) to bundle IE over Netscape, they may not have have been found liable at all.
As applied to the current situation with Apple, it's unlikely that Apple will be exposed to the same liability because they simply don't have the level of monopoly power that Microsoft did at the time.
It's hard for me to reconcile this, and I keep seeing that 3rd party app stores would be better for users, but it all seems very handwavy. You would think this would be an easy point to prove as Android has had alternative app stores for years, but there seem to be no winners there. I'm not sure how having to download app specific app stores (i.e. Epic's app store) is better for anyone except for Epic.
Let's start with one point. Third party stores don't have to be popular in order for them to be beneficial, because their existence causes the dominant store to take competitive steps to avoid their attaining popularity.
For example, you can install actual Firefox on Android, from Google Play, instead of it being nothing but a skin over the system browser like it is on iOS. Because if they didn't allow actual Firefox in Google Play, it would still be in F-Droid or similar, and that would make the competing store more popular. Since they don't want that, they allow it in the default store. Then the default store remains dominant, but only because it does beneficial things like that as a result of the competitive pressure. And third party apps can send and receive SMS on Android and various other things that Apple doesn't allow solely because it pushes people to use Apple's apps instead and there is no competitive pressure from other stores pushing Apple to allow those competing apps in their store.
But more than that, the other Android stores are actually useful, they just tend to have a niche. Because people are still going to use the default store unless there is a reason not to, since it's lower friction. But the other stores still get to address the cases that the default store fails at. So the fact that they exist at all is proof that they're doing something useful, since otherwise who would sustain them?
> I'm not sure how having to download app specific app stores (i.e. Epic's app store) is better for anyone except for Epic.
I mean, the fact that they're not paying Apple 30% and then passing most of that savings on to the customer is obviously going to save the customer money.
I see no evidence of Epic passing savings to the consumer in this scenario. Unless by customer you mean stock holder in which case the fight is about which stock holders get paid.
Edit: unless you are referring to a temporary PR sale where they were still paying the 30% cut in many cases.
F-droid maintains a modest but robust marketplace of open source software, some of which include things that are not allowed in either Apple or Google app stores.
3rd party stores also allow numerous country-focused stores which arguably serve their home markets better than Google or Apple are willing to.
It's not a large store, I expect, and I don't often use it install things, but it seems to be an unambiguous example of something that benefits users. I bought things via Humble, and then am able to install them on any android device I ever have (in theory).
If they were to add the ability to actually buy things in the app, it would effectively turn into something with an interface like the Kindle app (which shows me both my library of books, as well as a shopping interface).
If we could install apps from Github it would be better because predatory pricing and invasive data collection has the upper hand on the iOS store. Many common utilities are charging ridiculous amounts of money that they could never charge on Mac or Windows because of high quality, free and open source software on Github.
1. Users to have the ability to choose, on the expensive devices that they own.
2. Competition, which drives the companies to try to improve their offering (for users and developers) in order to stay ahead. Competition is healthy and prevents stagnation.
The winners are the users that can easily side load apps without goingt through the Goggle store
I think the only group that will benefit from 3rd party app stores on iOS is developers. I don’t see end users benefiting at all. The simplicity and convenience in downloading and discovering apps is gone. You said you have trouble discovering apps now with a unified store, so I’m not sure how discovering apps on multiple different app stores will be any easier. Frankly I’m sure it will become much more difficult and complicated for end users. Also I’m not sure how much more convenient Apple can make the App Store for iOS users. Payment information isn’t being shared between multiple parties. Switching payment info doesn’t involve going through each service. Receipts are automatically sent to emails. Automatic app updates. No confusion when it comes to where to download an app.
The App Store consistently brings in more money than the play store each year, despite Apple and iOS having a much smaller market share than Google and Android. I attribute this to Apples guidelines and developer tools, but also because of user confidence in the App Store. More people are willing to scan their face or use Touch ID because how simple and convenient IAP is. That and users are aware their payment info isn’t being sent around to multiple parties. I believe everyone arguing for 3rd party app stores on iOS aren’t thinking as the end user. at all. You said that allowing 3rd party stores will benefit end users with innovation, but innovate what exactly ? How much more innovation does the process of finding and downloading apps need?
>Microsoft got into trouble for bundling a web browser, where they didn’t directly make money, Apple should get into trouble for the App Store, where they do directly make money due to their artificial lack of competition.
Why should they get in trouble? Let’s not forget that Microsoft only developed one part of the final product(the OS). In Apples case they created every part of the product. The hardware , the software and the market on the software. I think they’re well in their rights to decide what and how 3rd party software gets on their OS..
90% of the reason people are even talking about alternative app stores is because this 30% is extortion made possible by excessive monopolistic power provided by tight vertical integration. If it was 10% no one would blink an eye and it would still be massively profitable for Apple. They're just too fucking greedy, and the amount of their apologists here is insane.
The collective hypocrisy of chanting for things like the right to repair while not even recognizing the right to install arbitrary apps on a computing device you paid for in full is just mind boggling.
Americans trust everyone with a fucking gun but oh no, being able to install a non-Apple-approved app or - gasp - use a non-apple payment method - will collapse the whole ecosystem. Haha.
Because multiple competing stores pushes them to compete on something. Apple is super rich, it would be really hard to compete with price alone, so a competing store has incentive to compete on features or other innovations, including novel ways to make discoverability on their stores easier. Maybe it wouldn't happen, but right now, Apple have zero incentive to do anything to improve their App Store.
It shows that there is some convenience from a "single" app store, such that people won't flood away and lead to a race to the bottom in quality. But it also shows that you can maintain that experience while allowing users to install whatever they want.
So Apple is claiming that allowing people to install whatever they want, or having multiple App Stores will lead to crumbling of the convenient and secure ecosystem that they have created. However Android has shown that this is not the case.
Anyway, the argument was that the Apple app store was stifling app development. In your reply you yourself say the apps on the Google store are “Maybe not quite as high” quality.
There are many things that go wrong with the App Store, but you have to realise this is a ludicrous assertion. Pasting from clipboard is an entirely different class than rootkits, backdoors, trojans, and other malware that have a vanishingly small chance to go through the review process itself.
This is defence in depth. The sandbox helps, but it’s not magic. Without review, publishing an app with a sandbox bypass, or simply abusing entitlements, becomes trivial.
I don't think this would be trivial either. Given that iOS security has historically been rather good, I guess an attacker would need a reasonably new exploit or even zero day. Assuming an attacker has access to something like that, I'm 99.8% certain he'd be able to sneak past the review process as well.
As Fortnite has demonstrated, it is perfectly possible to sneak past the review process with something as obvious as a third party payment checkout. If something like that is possible, it'd be definitely possible for something like an exploit.
The review process isn't magic
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/08/fortnites-android-vu...
And at least Epic wasn’t purposefully installing back doors. Unlike Zoom.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/zoom-defends-use-of-local-web-...
Also, I think you may overestimate most attackers. Most of them are so lazy.
I would _love_ a 3rd-party App Store that hosted jailbreak apps/apps that abuse private APIs/etc, so long as it was clear what I was getting.
It's easy to say "well that's just their own fault if they installed something bad," but I don't think Apple really cares to argue with their customers over whose fault something technically was. Apple just wants their customers to have phones that are working well.
A sandbox that can be trivially bypassed is simply broken.
Granted, it's not easy to define what apps should and shouldn't be able to do within the sandbox. Permissions systems are difficult to get right. But whatever the rules are, they must be enforceable.
That's basically what Epic did.
Currently I have trust to Apple, if I am or my kid charged wrong or tricked into some subscription etc, I have proof with experience that Apple will fix it.
Now let’s say if we have many stores, some stores will try to be smart, will make exclusive deals, force people to install their stores to maybe play a one popular game.
As a user I will end up with 10 stores on my phone, each has my billing information, if I have a problem, not I need to go to that store to handle.
Oh than X app will decide to move from store A to store B, then he needs to move all subscribers there, good luck :)
Having 3rd party stores will not prevent you for using the Apple App Store exclusively.
> As a user I will end up with 10 stores on my phone, each has my billing information,
Imagine if there is only 1 store, e.g. Walmart? Only Walmart has your billing information and it's the only store where you can buy things.
> Now let’s say if we have many stores
That would be great. These stores will be competing for customers that would drive prices down.
One store might decline to sell a specific product for many reasons but another store might carry the product.
Imagine that as a manufacturer, you can only sell thru Walmart. Walmart declines to sell your product and you have nowhere else to sell.
This is an interesting question. Let's say Apple will be forced to allow the Epic Games Store on iOS. Would Epic be forced to offer Fornite on the App Store in addition to the Epic Games Store? If not, bluesign's kid might very well force him to use another store.
It will if enough developers flee to whichever store has the cheapest rate and the fewest restrictions. It’s a race to the bottom and the consumer ultimately loses.
There's also the possibility of mobile equivalents to the Adobe CC installer/manager that act as their own "App Store" and aren't subject to any rules at all, which is even worse. After seeing what the likes of Adobe does on desktop PCs, I do not want to see what they do when granted effectively unfettered access to my phone.
Apple should have the ability to "shut off" unscrupulous third-party App Stores just as they do today with unscrupulous developers.
Adobe would find it tough going if they withdrew from Apple's App Store, and I can't imagine keeping 30% minus whatever it costs to provide an alternative would be worth it to the, given how many people would just stop using Adobe apps.
That may or may not be the case, but I expect it'll be more fruitful to address it.
Cydia has existed for ages, and yet Apple's own App Store is still the undisputed market leader.
I'm having trouble envisioning a scenario in which consumers lose here.
This is not the case of Apple even if the OP made clear that Apple is making some business models impractical.
I am thinking Apple is like a union for their users. And they are regulating developers and they have huge negotiating power because they are gateway to user’s phone. I don’t see them as market participant, I more likely see them as market regulator.
But they are. There are competing apps to Apple's own apps on the App Store. Apple Music is an obvious example, but there's also web browsers, email clients, calendar clients, cloud storage, etc. Through their "market regulation" and using privileged APIs, they can artificially hold competitors back from reaching or surpassing parity of said competing apps.
Their "regulation" has forced all web browsers to use Safari on the backend without the benefits of things like content blockers. Their "regulation" has forced all apps to not be able to cut off a trial if they cancel the subscription renewal while hypocritically doing just that for things like Apple Arcade and Apple TV if you cancel the subscription before the trial is over. Their "regulation" has blocked out any competition to Apple Arcade like xCloud or Stadia. Their "regulation" has, until iOS 14 (still in a limited fashion), kept any other app from being a default and if those stock apps are deleted, annoy users to the point of reinstalling them due to popups when tapping an email address, date/time, or street address.
These are all ways that they secure their spot above the competition on their own devices and hold progression back until they're ready to implement competitive features (read: probably when competition starts poaching users from them despite the disadvantages they impose on said competition).
A participant in the market, which they most certainly are, should not be regulating that market and also profiting off of that regulation. This is how a manufacturer of only 3 types of devices is the most valuable company in the world. I can't think of any other company that has an entire market, or at least the size of App Store market, completely enveloped under their reign.
While I'm decidedly not Epic's side on this I think this is a misleading and dangerous argument. In a union, members get to vote to change the rules to benefit the membership. Apple never asked for my input on App Store rules.
[1] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartphone-share...
But they really did.
They asked "Walled garden, restrictive app publishing, no BS", or "Sideload to your heart's content", you choose!
And Apple customers said "Walled garden, please and thank you!"
This is a completely respectable choice -- but of course it is not everyone's choice!
I was unintentionally (and unexpectedly) a unionized employee once. They didn't ask me to ratify their agenda, but they did require me to pay dues!
Unions are broadly democratic institutions. Apple isn't.
So the tradeoff is a fairly large number of previously disallowed apps are now available, if you want. And a small number of previously allowed apps are only available outside of Apple's store.
Of course if this is worth it to you depends on how much you value either side of the equation but at least in the Android case it is a clear win to me.
In response to OP's comment, my first question is "fair to whom". Is it fair that suddenly that the ecosystem we consciously paid for should suddenly be forcefully changed, permanently, because vendors see dollar signs?
Very, very, very few developers are going to avoid Apple's App Store deliberately. It just doesn't make economic sense. Game-streaming services don't have a choice, of course.
Imagine if Microsoft had restricted the ability to install and use third party software on Windows, it would of slowed digital transformation dramatically.
OK, but right now as a user I have a choice: I can choose an ecosystem supported in part by a 30% tax on apps, or I can choose an ecosystem supported mainly by advertising. If Apple is forced to allow other stores, I lose that choice.
Furthermore, a lot of the things Apple forces on apps really are for my benefit: Take the way they banned Facebook for working around their prohibition on running in the background. They can say, "If you want to access this market, you will follow these rules." If Apple is forced to allow other app stores, then not only Epic and Spotify can say, "We only install on this other store that allows us to sell subscriptions without the 30% tax", then Facebook and others will also be able to say, "We only install on this other store that lets us spy on you."
One again: At the moment, as a consumer, I can choose to say, "I prefer Apple to negotiate on my behalf" or, "I'll go with Android, where I can install third-party stores". If Apple is forced to open up, I won't have that choice any more.
I'm not sure that follows. Can you elaborate on why you would "lose that choice"?
Previously those apps were forced to make concessions to be on the iOS store, and I could download "Instagram, the version that makes Apple happy" app.
But now, that version of the app is gone! I google "Why is my Instagram gone" and get an article that says I have to sign up to the "EpicTwitBook" store, and download the "Instagram, the version that makes Advertisers happy" app.
I would prefer the first version but I don't get a choice.
My vision of an alternate app store still involves largely adhering to Apples rules for app approval. Except that an alternate store could have a different commission structure and in-store "experience".
For example, an alternate store could differentiate on search features, curation, free trials, ratings systems, bundles, periodic sales, developer interaction, developer support and (optionally of course) social recommendations. Exclusivity could even be forbidden.
In this scenario, Apple could still set the rules for App approval (with some oversight) and earn a fair commission (%5 to %10?) on transactions. It would still be profitable for Apple but encourage innovation and competition in the actual "stores".
You can however not invest very much on the apple ecosystem and subscribe to most services outside the app store mode, which is what I do myself, but I'm a minority.
But I buy Apple. For myself, my parents, and I recommend to relatives etc. The tight leash is a feature not a limitation. I know if I set up an iPhone or iPad for my mum the apps aren't going to try charging her credit card or installing bloatware and so on.
The tight integration between all the services is a plus as well - something I just don't trust on other devices. Using the parent example again, my mum doesn't need to understand iCloud syncing, she just knows that all her photos are safe on the device and will show up on the computer.
We can go two ways with this:
1. We teach users how to use computers so they don't hurt themselves. Some still will, because they don't get it.
2. We clamp down on all uses of computers so that they're safe for uneducated users to use. Only authorised corporate programmers are allowed to create applications. Users are "safe", but treated badly by their corporate overlords.
I want scenario 1 (with no sandbox and the freedom to install whatever I like). Scenario 2 is where Apple is headed.
I do not get the focus on TikTok. Yes, it read your clipboard content… just like Snapchat, Instagram, Reddit, etc. Most security researchers agree that TikTok is among the more restrained social media apps, when it comes to gathering user data.
This is a bad look for the social media landscape in general, not TikTok specifically.
Surveillance capitalism is an American invention, China just copied that.
Considering how many hate him here and still repeat the official US talking points wrt TikTok, I don’t think you can blame him in that case.
The App Store and iOS lockdown are one of the biggest reasons I'm on Apple devices.
On macOS, I think there should be even more sandboxing and process separation.
30% might be a bit too much for certain types of transactions, but that's not the same reasoning as "allow 3rd party app stores"
I'm surprised people aren't talking about other appstores / platforms. It's just good-old-apple-bashing.
If you personally value security and a smooth user experience over being able to install whatever you want go for it, no one would ever force you to use another app store.
Google implemented several hurdles to drive users away from competitive app stores. They're all but forcing people to use the Play Store.
I agree, and that's very different from forbidding unapproved software. If you support the iOS lockdown, how can you say that Apple shouldn't do the same thing on macOS? For that matter, why shouldn't they be aggressively filtering what web sites Safari can view? By failing to do these things they are continuing to leave users vulnerable to malicious content.
It still seems awkward to say that Apple must allow for competitors, but they're a $2 trillion company now, and I think rules are just weird for companies of that size.
Presumably a store openly promoting pirated apps would be a reason, and a store which has significant malware problems, could both be compelling reasons to permit Apple to do this, but I would go so far as to suggest they should be required to involve the legal system somehow in the process, rather than make a unilateral call.
While this might sound good, this would be impossible to enforce in practice, as everything a company does is revenue-related. Any rules the app store or iOS have are directly related to revenue by definition.
For example, if Apple allowed boundless permissions and tons of buggy apps, their revenue would probably decrease. This issue is harder to regulate than it first seems.
My point was that everything a company does is revenue related, and thus we cannot draw some imaginary line between things that are "more" or "less" revenue related. Restating that we can doesn't move us forward. I would be interested to hear how we can separate some revenue related reasons from others.
Apple only controls 14% of the smartphone market. If Apple is a $2T company, doesn't that mean those 14% of people overall approve of what Apple is doing?
I certainly think some of the restrictions are onerous; but if I had to choose between "Some onerous restrictions on some app developers" and "No way to capture value from applications to support the platform", I'd go with the first one.
Right now, if you don't like what Apple's doing, you can choose not to do with Apple; and if I do, I can choose to go with them. If you get your way & Apple is forced to open up, I'll no longer have that choice.
I can see a world, for example, in which Apple approves a very-limited number of alternate app stores, each of which must still give Apple 30% of what they make from every transaction. So a $1 purchase in Apple's App Store gives them 30 cents, while a $1 purchase in Epic's App Store gives Epic 14 cents, and Apple 6 cents (30% of the 20 cents the ultimate developer doesn't get).
Would that mean Apple would go broke? I don't think so. Would Epic find that it's harder to make things work on 14% than they'd estimated? Could be: they gave up going indie over on Android already. Would I be forced to use the alternate App Store? I suspect only for apps excluded from Apple's App Store, because what developer would want to give up on that revenue?
> Right now, if you don't like what Apple's doing, you can choose not to do with Apple; and if I do, I can choose to go with them
I think the reasoning here misses the point. If Apple were doing something truly dastardly, inarguably evil, would this argument still apply? It's not trivial to switch platforms, though it is possible. And "Apple's way or the highway" shouldn't give them a license to do whatever they want to, no matter what.
I hope that whatever is decided in court, I am able to stick with the Apple experience I know and appreciate. But maybe also I want to use one of the several game-streaming services that Apple will not allow. Must I buy an Android tablet to use Stadia? How much other innovation is currently not happening, or are unavailable to iOS users because of Apple's App Store restrictions?
I think this is key; I would argue that Jobs has a point on curation being important; but also, in the modern world, the app store is arguably "public utility".
Apple can keep their store & their rules, but the law should cap the fees so that they only cover costs of running the store - nothing more. Not unlike how EU has e.g. capped mobile data fees for telcos.
Access to private APIs for example is not preventable at runtime due to the way Objective-C works.
And the ability to change payment screens etc at runtime has always been possible. But Apple simply bans the developer and so instances of this happening in the wild have been basically non-existant.
That's on Apple side to fix this, you can compare that to the browser which has a proper sandbox model without private APIs.
They can class-dump the Mach-O binary, disassemble and inspect the performSelector: calls or even just run the apps in an ARM emulator and watch for alarms whenever the reviewer manually goes through the app.
From experience, it is trivial to bypass review. Trivial.
> They can class-dump the Mach-O binary, disassemble and inspect the performSelector: calls or even just run the apps in an ARM emulator and watch for alarms whenever the reviewer manually goes through the app.
The vast majority of apps don't go through anything close to this. At most, Apple runs a class-dump equivalent on every binary, nothing more–and you can even see it catch legitimate selectors every so often! If you think about it, this isn't surprising, because you need to have a (large) team of actual reverse engineers do this kind of thing or set up a good automated malware analysis platform, both of which Apple is fairly behind at.
One option for them would be to shut down general access to the App Store and only enter into bespoke agreements with individual developers. Make it much more like a console system or feature phone with vendor-provided or bespoke licensed add-on features. I think this is a more likely outcome from trying to ram open access down their throats because it's an 'open platform'. Just close it. That's what Steve Jobs wanted to do in the first place. They'd lose some customers but maybe good enough for 90% of current iPhone users is good enough for Apple, rather than losing control of the design and feature set of their own product.
That's not a problem, it's just life. Pretty much every person and organization has obligations they need to comply with that they may disagree with. For instance, COPPA means Apple (and other internet companies) already need to implement features to keep kids under 13 from creating accounts on their site without parental permission.
> Who gets to decide what APIs and features comply with any such imposed obligation? Who reviews it and certifies compliance? Who decides on how many resources get allocated to it?
Easy: either 1) government authorities or 2) an independent private self-regulatory organization like FINRA.
Not going to happen. Apple will simple close up the App Store into a private premium feature delivery system. Meanwhile the entire rest of the industry will be stuck with a new version of WAP. Thanks guys.
This, but unironically.
It's not hard to think of an example where "legislation that specifies APIs and designs user interfaces" is unambiguously good — say, accessibility requirements for commercial software.
They already do. For instance Microsoft was forced to create BrowserChoice.eu because of an antitrust case. GDPR puts requirements on user interfaces for personal data collection. I'm not aware of similar US examples (except maybe the aforementioned COPPA), but I know US law specifies form designs and font types/sizes for certain content (IIRC, to combat hiding disclosures in illegible type, etc).
This kind of thing typically only happens when private self-interest gets in the way of the public good, which is arguably the case with some of Apple's App Store decisions.
> Not going to happen. Apple will simple close up the App Store into a private premium feature delivery system. Meanwhile the entire rest of the industry will be stuck with a new version of WAP.
Are you serious? Apple's going to comply with whatever regulations they need to, because having an app store is too lucrative for them. They're not going to cut their nose to spite their face.
Steve Jobs no longer works at Apple.
Monopolistic behaviour hurt markets and overall economy more than what a flourishing, unrestricted "business" can capture.
So? Imagine if we handicapped the march of progress so that Blockbuster wouldn't have to go out of business. If Apple can't innovate, then let them die.
(but chances are good that they'll turn out just fine)
Apple knows they can end businesses with the click of a finger. That's what they tried to do by ending the dev license for Unreal Engine. And Apple wants everybody to know that they know. I'm almost certain that the Unreal Dev license revocation is a result of a similar email chain as what happened to Kindle - https://www.macrumors.com/2020/07/31/emails-apple-blocked-ki... - execs just thinking of a way to punish the company.
This, for me, is the biggest monopoly argument. Too much business success is hinged on Apple being happy, and they start to abuse this power more and more by tightening (the interpretation of) App Store rules like requiring in-app purchases etc.
IMO Epic is not the best company to challenge Apple in all this, but in American judicial system Epic may be one of the very few companies that can afford this lawsuit.
I can certainly imagine a lot of companies are tight-lipped about it.
My livelihood depends on an app store and so I'm super cautious about what I say publicly about the company that controls it.
This sort of chilling effect is scary and should rightly be contested.
Epic is criticized for being a huge company themselves and using that as leverage in their legal battle. However, small companies stand absolutely no chance so Epic is the only one that can take this fight.
Epic is the champion of all the smaller businesses with apps on phones. Not because Epic wants them to do well but because Epic wants Epic to do well. They'll just happen to help all of us - consumer and developer - with them.
I'm rooting for them.
Carmack, by comparison, is a saint.
If I invest my own time and capital into developing a product, which can only be sold through a single outlet, and which could be arbitrarily banned at any point in time, that's simply too much risk to bear. Apple, as the arbiter of what is sold through their store, have far too much power. Why would I put full control of my business into their hands? I, for one, wouldn't.
Multiple competing stores are the solution to most of the problems. It would certainly de-risk selling on Apple platforms. And it would allow for proper competition over pricing. Customers could purchase from the store which provided the most value. As would allowing "sideloading" so that users who wish to have proper control over their own property.
The rules are not some crystal clear logical function that you can be sure that you stay inside of. They are vague, selectively enforced and can change any any time. So at the end of the day if Apple decides that they don't like you they pick a vague rule, claim that you violate it and poof! you lost a war you didn't know that you were fighting.
Apple is in fact uniquely positioned to introduce a better sandboxing model. They control most of the stack, crucially the CPU and the build toolchain, not to mention the PL. They could, were they not so reliant on the App Store auditing process, make it less likely for people to develop malware and privacy-invasive software, by building better abstractions around processes and IPC, through eg. virtualization and capabilities [0].
That, of course, would take away the main raison d'être of App Store, which is a significant money-maker for Apple.
[0] https://fuchsia.dev/fuchsia-src/concepts#fuchsia_is_designed...
"Abstractions around processes and IPC" does not reduce the number of malware and privacy invasive apps. And who knows what "virtualization and capabilities" even means in the context of iOS.
It has been limiting and securing access to APIs/data that has been responsible for improving the privacy and security of iOS. For example warning about use of clipboard, per-use permission dialogs for contacts/photos/etc and randomising identifiers.
I'm happy to explain more if you frame your question (for which you seem to already have an answer) less combatively.
All other considerations are secondary at best.
Some business exist with the intention of generating a loss, or some sort of tax avoidance scheme. Legally, I don't mean tax evasion.
As a programmer, I'm as happy as a pig in mud in the low-level innards of my computers and operating systems, and like that I can get at them etc. That's why I have linux on my desktop.
But 'open' systems don't work out well for 'normal' users. Remember the viruses and trojans and instability and all the rest of the Windows days, or Android?
I want my parents and friends and everyone else to use an iphone because its hassle-free and secure.
Do we really want 'unlocked' iphones? Actually, the idea of having to help someone who wants me to 'just look at the iphone and work out what's wrong' scares me.
The era you are referencing was two decades ago and those problems stemmed from development processes that didn't take security into consideration since it was mostly written in pre-internet days and worked well in that environment. Once Microsoft took security seriously things got better. Windows is -still- an open platform where you can run anything you want and you don't see rampant viruses/trojans etc. It works very well now and still has the same openness properties as before.
Android has security issues just like Apple but it's never been a huge problem. The fact that you put Android in that sentence makes me scratch my head a bit. Android is on the same level as iOS on pretty much every metric.
Sandboxing-type security is damn good on mobile OSes.
We tend to associate desktop with the insecure but it's not because of the lack of an app store. It's because desktop OSes do not sandbox, ask user permission, etc. Modern mobile OSes do so it's really night and day.
This takes care of 90% of why mobile OSes are more secure than desktop ones - not app stores.
I'm sure that there are other security concerns. I have security concerns about my house. I wouldn't like a camera in my house going to the police because of it. Some people would. But neither party should be forced into one way or the other. Let's give them a choice.
Let's allow third party app stores.
This actually increases user choices because for any app which has an existence outside the app store, users can now choose to either pay the conventional way or have Apple intermediate. Before users had to accept Microsoft's way or don't use Microsoft Office.
I'm okay with 3rd party app stores, but I wouldn't be okay with losing the option to signup through Apple, which is more what companies care about.
If Apple was really benevolent here, they'd have an open login platform that could be decentralized and implemented by third parties.
That would be a real beneficial choice to the consumer. Of course, that's not what they're doing because their goal is not to promote consumer choice. It's to reinforce their monopoly by requiring deep integration on the part of the app developer.
Everybody else, on the other hand, would not be forced to do the same for the benefit of a big corp.
Sure, I've got relatives who would happily install crap on their devices given the ability, but iPhone's internal sandboxing and containerisation would make it easy for you to completely wipe the apps from third-party stores if someone ever tried to ask you to make a device better for them.
I think, it's a tradeoff, and IMO making people's devices a little bit more trashy in the name of freedom of business and innovation is a worthwile compromise. If only Apple didn't become so greedy and just served their devices owners, we could have had both...
this is not what's going to happen in my opinion because 1. many people don't know they want security 2. many people will be tricked in installing from 3rd party stores
note that I don't have a solution to Apple monopoly, which I think is bad, but I also believe that the app store kept at bay a lot of dangerous software for less tech savvy people.
How long do you think that it will take for scam apps in poorly moderated app stores to appear, which the users are tricked to install for "free v-bucks" or "free $10 store credit"?
The open web also exists and somehow doesn't need full moderation for people to be, one the whole, relatively safe there.
O think, the situation with App Store looks like there are parental controls that are always on, and the parent is Apple. And sure, it can be fine, until the parent becomes abusive or until the child becomes (in this case the user base on the whole) smarter and more prepared for what's out there.
They do block "unidentified" apps by default but you still have the option to run it anyway (after a series of warnings maybe)
But you can still run them
And I think it can be a start
To run those apps, you have to open System Preferences or right-click them (which I don’t remember if it’s still allowed)
The problem for Epic — and, I suppose, for me — is that to this observer it seems exceedingly likely that Apple is going to win this case, last night’s decision notwithstanding. Current Supreme Court jurisprudence is very clear that businesses — including monopolies — have no duty to deal with third parties, and if they do choose to deal with them (or are even compelled to), that they can choose the terms on which to do so. The only exceptions are if the monopoly in question changes the rules in an unprofitable way with the express purpose of driving out a competitor, or if any company — not even a monopoly — changes access to after-market parts and services.
Current US antitrust law does not favor Epic in this matter. Of Epic's ten claims, their strongest claim is probably the one tying in-app payment processing to app distribution services, but even that one is far from a slam dunk. And even if they were to succeed on that particular claim, the likely outcome would be that they would get to keep their payment system in Fortnite, not that they would be able to run their own app store.
I think people need to temper their expectations unless the laws change in the years it takes for this case to make it through the courts. A court ruling that Apple must allow third-party in-app payment systems is a somewhat realistic outcome, whereas a court ruling that Apple must permit third-parties to run their own app stores is probably a non-starter.
I gather judges really don't like to impose technical requirements - especially in a fast-moving industry like this. Ordering Apple to make the extensive changes required to allow for some kind of secure (as opposed to insecure, like Cydia) third-party App Store on iOS would be a massive undertaking that would probably cost the company north of a billion in total, especially regarding testing and security point.
...whereas ordering Apple to simply allow what is already possible (namely: permitting apps to collect payment details themselves through their own processors) is a good path forward. How would Apple respond to that though? In the event that Apple is required to allow third-party payment-processors that skirt the Apple tax, I think it's reasonable for Apple to introduce some kind of "app support fee" (beyond the annual $99/developer fee) - but Apple would be hard-pressed to negotiate a reasonable amount of that per-app. Perhaps $1 per app-download per year? Interesting times...
I'm also interested in potential legislation regarding forcing Apple to permit third-party web-browsers and other banned software categories - Apple's technical arguments may have had some merit back in 2007-2012, but now that my phone has more RAM and processing power than my previous laptop (which still runs the infamously RAM-hungry Chrome 84 fine!) this isn't an argument that holds water. I'd love to be able to run "real" Firefox on iOS, for example (there is an argument about how Apple can only trust their own build of Webkit to have executable memory pages for the JavaScript JIT - that's going to be interesting). We should compare Apple to Microsoft of 1998: Microsoft was convicted of monopoly abuse by simply bundling Internet Explorer with Windows (granted, this includes integrating it into the shell too) - while Apple doesn't just bundle Safari with iOS, they outright ban any kind of proper competition - Microsoft was convicted for far less, so why should Apple be given a free-pass?
It shouldn’t be that hard, maybe a little bit of dev time to write some new warnings for end users about leaving the walled garden and how to revert, but that’s it.
Yes, the court in the Microsoft appeal explicitly said this.
> Microsoft was convicted of monopoly abuse by simply bundling Internet Explorer with Windows
Not quite. As I explain in another comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24289455) Microsoft's problem is that they forced other companies (OEMs, ISPs, and Apple) to bundle IE at the expense of other browsers. Whether the sole act of bundling IE with Windows would have been itself an antitrust violation was not actually addressed by the court. Microsoft also had a much higher market share (95%) than Apple currently does.
Was that separate from the anti-competitive OEM license / "Windows tax" issue around the same time? The one about how OEMs were "forced" to sell machines with Windows licenses and couldn't sell a machine without an OEM license to someone who just wanted a box to run Linux or OS/2 on?
If Spotify could charge +30% for a subscription purchased through the App store, and include a link to their main sign up page where subscriptions are regular price, everyone is happy. No security is changed and developers pass along the price of being in the App store to only those consumers who wish it. Only loser is Apple, who does not get to use their gatekeeper status on iOS to enforce monopoly-style pricing controls across all platforms.
0: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3dznQemACWzb2tbYfd...
Though if you're forced to add in-app purchases and cannot advertise the other method it seems somewhat moot.
It's not the pricing that Apple opposed, its that you could buy it through another method. How can you have the pricing changes you propose if Apple forbids selling interactive content for their platform through any other channel?
The point is that Apple has too much power over the device, in the way that Microsoft has at times had too much power over the desktop. If Apple was forced to let other people offer app stores on Apple devices, everything they do in the app store would be fine. I don't have a problem with Steam or Microsoft App store, because they can co-exist with other app stores. If Apple is the only one you trust, you can only use that one. That is what makes sense to me.
If you can get your customers to buy your stuff on your own with your own marketing not using Apple's devices then you win and get to keep the 30% but if you use your app to sell to a customer then Apple gets a cut.
> Apple forbids selling interactive content for their platform
This isn't entirely true. If you make a game that sells in-game currency then you can get around the 30% by having users buy your currency packs on your website. But you can't use your app to direct them there. And if you're like "that would be a death-knell for any game" then you understand why Apple charges and premium for it.
As a cross-platform developer, the degree to which Apple has scrutinized our app and made sure there's not so much as a hint of the fact that you can buy the product on the web is totally nuts.
Digital stores above a certain size (eg. above $1b in annual global sales) simply need to be regulated by Governments, with a maximum % commission for developers registered in that country. 15% seems reasonable.
The OS does that with its capability based design which of course the desktop OSs have a very hard time migrating to after the fact.
Having other means to install apps doesn’t change that at all.
And what’s more, nothing forces a user to actually go outside the Apple App Store if they want the supposed benefits they provide.
But I agree with your general point, it’s a smokescreen and even with other stores they would still have complete control over the system and security features.
The reality is that developers would have a strong incentive to go to the most permissive App Store, and users will follow. Users will also underestimate or ignore risks. You can dismiss that by saying it’s the user’s responsibility, but I think that’s just an abdication of good systems design.
I’m not saying that Apple has the perfect model - it doesn’t - but the trade-offs are not as simple as we might like.
And linux package managers aren't app stores. They're mostly meant for system libraries and core applications, although some devs do distribute their (free) apps through it. In any case, Linux is a weird one to include in this comparison, and I'm pretty sure Steam is still the number one store for getting games on Linux too.
But whatever, another thing: a big part of the reason that the official app store won on Android is because of the lengths Google goes to to scare users from installing apps from "unknown sources", hiding the option to do so, displaying scary popups, etc. That's one of the reasons Epic is suing Google for.
The option isn't hidden on android at all, it's dead simple. There's a warning dialog, but I can live with that.
* Steam is a very specialized case: Not quite an app store [Apple credits itself with inventing the App Store, despite Steam existing since 2003, so Apple agrees with me on this], but they all but created the Linux game market, and got in before the Windows Store was created. Yea, if you create the market or get in in advance or on stuff the official store doesn't include, you can survive, but the general rule is that the official App Store wins.
People are upset with Google, but it's not so much about the Play Store. And Apple doesn't need to be as lax as Google - If they had let go of the anti-competitive behaviour and had a slightly less explotitive fee structure people could live with the App Store being only store allowed. It's Apple being very greedy that led to the calls to, well, reduce Apple's permissions (I couldn't resist).
I can't. If I'm going to distribute my apps outside of Google Play, I need to tell my potential customers to crawl through their phone's settings page, clicking through various menus, then ignore the scary warnings that strongly imply I'm about to infect them with malware and steal all of their personal data. And I would have to do that in every single language I want to support, and of course would lose sales from people who don't want to bother following these long instructions, especially since they have to close their web browser (and hide the written instructions) to actually do it. And I also have increased support costs because I need to respond to emails from people who couldn't figure out how to do it (in all languages), and I have to constantly worry about being blocked by the "Play Protect" program, which scans apps installed outside of Google Play, sends them to Google's servers, and then decides to block them at Google's discretion. And if I happen to get big enough to where I potentially become a competitive threat to Google, then I have to worry about their "white hat" hit squad finding exploits in my software and sending it to major news outlets to ~~tarnish my reputation~~ I mean protect users.
Or I can avoid all of those Google-created problems by giving Google 30% of my business.
So while technically you could distribute your apps outside of Google Play, it is not practical at all thanks to all of the anti-competitive barriers Google has put up. Anyone who thinks that Android is a healthy environment for competition is being naive, or has no experience with consumer products.
> * Steam is a very specialized case: Not quite an app store [Apple credits itself with inventing the App Store, despite Steam existing since 2003, so Apple agrees with me on this], but they all but created the Linux game market, and got in before the Windows Store was created. Yea, if you create the market or get in in advance or on stuff the official store doesn't include, you can survive, but the general rule is that the official App Store wins.
What do you mean? Steam is 100% an app store. It's a store where they sell applications (although mostly games). Also, Steam was not at all the first game/app store on Windows or Linux. It was simply the best back in the day; so good in fact that it beat straight up piracy. Even today they're pretty great, despite the 30% cut (although that situation is completely different to the one Apple and Google are in)
Steam doesn't do the API review/sandboxing component of App Stores. An installed game technically has access to everything. Even Linux packaging has API review (due to open source) and modern packaging often has integration with AppArmor/SELinux. Steam are essential for Linux gaming, but I wish they improved their deployment to be more secure.
I don't think so. That's mostly FUD in my opinion, since apps installed from Google Play can do the exact same amount of evil stuff as anything downloaded from an external site. Since Android/iOS already have sandboxing and per-app permissions, the only benefit to having a single distributor is the potential of having that application scanned for malware before you downloaded it. The same thing can be accomplished without a separate antivirus app, like you'd see on Windows. In fact, I think Windows Defender is a good model for how Google and Apple could provide the same (purported) security guarantees while still allowing third-party stores. Play Protect (I think) does that already, but it also mainly functions as a wall of scary warnings/deterrent to competition.
> Steam doesn't do the API review/sandboxing component of App Stores. An installed game technically has access to everything. Even Linux packaging has API review (due to open source) and modern packaging often has integration with AppArmor/SELinux. Steam are essential for Linux gaming, but I wish they improved their deployment to be more secure.
True that Steam is kind of questionable when it comes to security, but that's more the fault of the desktop operating systems which don't have sandboxing built-in. I too would like to see increased usage for things like SELinux/AppArmor, but that seems a bit hopeless. Valve can't just ship a kernel module alongside Steam, and I doubt Canonical is going to start shipping SELinux with Ubuntu Desktop (the support forums would explode).
I think Microsoft added sandboxing features to UWP apps, but that's its own can of worms. If you make a UWP app, you need to distribute it through the Microsoft app store, and you need to deal with a lot of the same BS that Apple and Google are being sued for.
Apple should drop or tier their pricing so that a $10 subscription is paying say 5% to them. Developers are happy. Anyone raking it in pays more, a progressive system that ensures small companies can innovate.
Is this bad for Apple? In the long-term, they get more innovation and a better user experience. Financially, they lose some income on a subset of existing transactions and gain income from transactions they wouldn't have processed, as apps switch to native dev, and the market sizes increase as incentives change.
At the most they could lose a few billion in revenue a year (very unlikely) and gain $0. That's the upper bound. But how many more subscriptions would go through the store if apps like Spotify had signup via the app? I'd guess hundreds of millions of dollars at least, could be much larger in the long-term.
Apple are losing the argument, even the best possible cut isn't worth the reputational damage and harm to the user experience, they should restructure the pricing so they save face and potentially benefit, or at least limit the damage.
The writing is on the wall at this stage, and they will act or be forced to act.
Allowing sideloading as Android does would fix all these issues. Sideloading can start with a 3rd party app store, even.
I would love to see Ebay reduce their fees. I feel like there is more of a monopoly there than there is with cell phones/OSs.
1. There are more and more cases like wordpress, Hey and Fortnite, and after a while the PR gets so bad that they have to change something, or it becomes so costly to be in the app store that developers will stop developing for it, making the iphone less valuable to users. Of course this will take years if not decades to happen, it would be a really slow process. Fortnite is a really big deal, because I think it does start to chisel away at the iphone market for 12-18 year olds.
2. Government steps in and forces them to do something. But as Ben said, the legal grounds are very shaky. They don't have a monopoly on the phone market, or apps, or anything. Almost all other app stores have fees around 30%. It's very hard to make a strong case to say they're guilty.
Apps and IAP is now down to 15%. And 10% for Subscription.
That also puts Spotify And Amazon Prime or other Streaming Services to the 10% category.
I honestly dont like the idea of an Open Platform where you can side load Apps. If you want that Android is your choice. Apple tries to built an App Platform on its Appliance or Phone. Android tries to built a Pocket Computer that acts like and look like a Phone. These are two fundamentally different sets of trade offs.
Ex: To install the "Pepsi" app just go to pepsi.com and click the install app button. Then iOS could take over from there.
1. App quality screening
2. App promotion/distribution
3. In app purchasing
Ask any reasonable dev if they are willing to foot a fixed cost to get their app screened, a fixed cost per app download (bandwidth), and variable cost to get their app promoted in the store (not everyone needs this) and they would agree. What pisses people off is Apple’s entitlement to the revenue of a company when there is no value add from Apple after the customer has gotten the app. So Apple is using their monopoly to force #3 on developers at no less than 30% of revenue.
In my experience with the App Store this is not true for the vast majority of apps.
Only a very minor subset of apps actually get promotion on the App Store, everything else is so undiscoverable that searching the store with the app name verbatim isn't guaranteed to show it.
I'm paraphrasing Byrne Hobart here, but if they beefed up their App Store discoverability and had proper search functionality and a self-serve ad engine like Alibaba, their revenue model would reflect demand and then, finally, the Ubers and Facebooks would have to start paying significant amounts for all the free App Store support they've had this entire time.
The fact that digital content services like Spotify are expected to subsidise other companies with different business models like Facebook or Uber is indefensible IMO.
- Ask any reasonable dev if they are willing to foot a fixed cost to get their app screened
I don’t think most devs will support this, considering the constant arguments about IOS development requiring yearly $100 fee.
It certainly doesn’t make them money. It just helps to ensure that the people who do use their developer services are ones more likely to generate the revenue that does make them money.
This is something that Apple’s development community is known for. There’s fewer of them, but they do make money.
I’m not weighing in on the issue on either side. They each have quite valid arguments, and I’ll deal with whatever comes out of the scrum.
The "problem" with forming an opinion about Apple Store rules is that the users are willingly and knowingly putting themselves in the golden cage of apple by buying an iPhone.
Under this view the problem is not with Apple, that created a framework that users want, and communicate accurately to its customers what they get - but rather with the app developers, who wants to reach Apple clients, without accepting the rules of the framework that those clients chose willingly.
You could use the exact same logical framework to argue against labor laws because employees willingly enter into the bargain.
It's easy to see the ends of completely unregulated capitalism with company towns, company scrip, and the oppression that comes with it.
We've had this history - we don't need it again.
I understand, you have a developer company vs Apple.
But what about people buying these computing gadgets? The millions upon millions of them. Shouldn't they have the right to run whatever software they feel like it on this general purpose computing OS without Apple's forced intermediation?
If it's so essential as some people are claiming then they should be happy to argue MacBooks be locked down the same way but I bet they wont.
It just doesn't make sense that we are trying to force Apple to allow us to do things with their products that they do not support.
People use products way beyond their original purpose, and then feel entitled to the manufacturer’s support. Like eating candy for every meal, and then complaining that it’s not good nutrition.
So, given that phones are easily as important as cars, I have confidence that we'll get justice for Apple's anti-consumer behavior too.
Incidentally I'm not so confident in this case; I'd take even odds on Apple winning this one.
See also the "What's a computer" ad for the iPad Pro.
I would be hard pressed to see how iOS or iPadOS are not general computing OS's.
This is vague; I'm no really inclined to work from a strict definition in this case. It seems Platonic and unproductive.
As evidence for the vague distinction, see early quote (in TFA) from Jobs:
>“We define everything that is on the phone,” he said. “You don’t want your phone to be like a PC. The last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then you go to make a call and it doesn’t work anymore. These are more like iPods than they are like computers”…
“These are devices that need to work, and you can’t do that if you load any software on them,” he said. “That doesn’t mean there’s not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn’t mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment.”
Of course many say consumers are entitled to redefine the product and hold their new definition over the manufacturer's head, with courts/other politics as a backup cudgel should consumers' market power not suffice. That's what I argue is distasteful on part of consumers.
I think that trying to come up with perfect changes for Apple's practices is a waste of time. Apple shouldn't be forced to make changes to their store, nor should we bother trying to convince them to do it themselves. Let them do whatever they want, but allow third-party stores. Competitive forces will fix everything in the long-term.
What I'm not sure of is how that would work in practice. Will Apple be forced to release (and maintain) their SDKs and dev tools for free? Will they be forced to make changes to the operating system to allow side-loading? If they are, how long would that take? and wouldn't it be catastrophic from a security point of view, since iOS has never had to worry about the security issues of side-loading.
One is in-app signup. I have no problem with Apple charging a fee for services accessed via the phone when you sign up through the phone. I do think it's user hostile and opaque to not allow apps to refer the customer to a web site to buy a subscription though. Apple should compete on convenience, not awkward asymmetric information restrictions.
The other is the organising principle issue. I agree it makes sense to base the decision to charge on whether the service incurs marginal cost. That seems a fair way to do it, I just don't understand how that could be made into a clearly and unambiguously applicable rule. You may well end up with even more of a fractious grey zone.
Alternative app stores won't break this monopoly. Android for example already have alternatives.. but how many know them and how many use them? The one that's shipped with the OS always wins. Besides, most of them take like 20% tax.. which is still hugely profitable.
That's because the Google and FB monopolies are a much bigger problem. If you don't like Apple then there are plenty of other choices. It's much harder to avoid Google or Facebook.
Avoiding Google is definitely not trivial. I know here in Norway, lots of public schools are giving teachers and pupils Chromebooks, and insisting that homework is done in Google Docs. How would you propose avoiding Google in this setting? You pretty much have to bring a Google device into your home and actively use it if you want to complete your education.
Or just send your kids to a different school, but frankly I’m not familiar with your school system or how much choice you guys have on where to send your kids.
They could price the shirt according to what you buy in the shop, but Apple will surely change its terms & conditions to close such a loop hole.
Using other stores not supported by Apple would have come with a big risk warning anyway. It would then be the user's responsibility.
Treat the App Store like any other modern open market. Apply real world market rules to all these digital markets.
- rule of law. contracts, civil, business, etc.
- fair and impartial judiciary
- right of appeal
- regulations to ensure equal footing of participants
- tort
Etc.
Voila, fixed.
A bit more discipline is needed to rationalize Google, Facebook, and Amazon. Starting with no self-dealing (conflicts of interest). And the social networks need particular mitigations to deweaponize their outrage engine feedback loops.
This is all pretty simple, obvious stuff.
Seriously, am I the only person whose read books like The Mystery of Capital?
Why are so many self-proclaimed capitalists so painfully oblivious to liberal and neoliberal traditions?
I'm personally very happy it works like an Xbox or Switch rather than Android, and that I don't have to figure out which app store a given app came from, deal with different parties if I need to resolve billing issues, etc.
Any comments focusing on the technical issues are missing the point. Of course it can be done. The benefit of the iOS ecosystem is knowing that it won't be done.
Apple's position is that if you are delivering digital goods to be used on their devices, then you must offer an additional way to pay.
From the consumer's perspective my choices have now grown. Where before I could've managed my own relationships with Microsoft and others, now I can have the option for Apple to intermediate. For people with elderly parents and runaway subscriptions, this is crazy valuable.
And while I say customers can manage their own relationships, the truth is that without Apple backing them up, it's companies who will get the better of the relationship by successfully compelling customers to go through their bad payment system, like they already do.
- Either pay X, your purchase is handled through Stripe / Paypal, and your relationship is with the company directly.
- Or pay X + 30%, and your relationship is with Apple
Certainly I can see some advantages to the second option, but how many customers do you think would willingly pay a 30% premium for that given the choice.
At 5-10% (i.e. a few percentage points above established and legit payment processors, but ones that are a little less full-service), I think it becomes a much more reasonable argument.
The main argument against Uber was that drivers can't negotiate on price/pay, but clearly app developers set the price of their apps and IAP.
They prevent it on mobile because they want app store money. Seems like a clear legal case that no one has bothered to fight or enforce.
I own an iPhone because Apple supports them for way longer than any other manufacturer and I care about that specific point. But I’m against some of their current store policies and would prefer more choices (either alternative stores or a way to side load). That doesn’t even mean I would actually use these alternatives, to be fair I don’t know myself, but I think that should be an option. It seems insane that Apple has complete control over the entire system and apps distribution with zero possibilities to compete.
That said, this is about devs, and not about what consumers think. And btw i doubt apple's strongarm of apps is popular among its users. Apple likes to market their "precious app ecosystem", but even an unregulated one isn't bad -- android is doing fine and is more popular.
It has little to do with otherwise non-technical people somehow appreciating the technical nuances of security, curation, walled gardens, sideloading and so on.
From my experience - latest Android on a Pixel phone is as good as the latest iOS experience. Where do you see iOS's being a "far better" experience?
(why is it an accusation btw? if anything it's a good thing)
I could say the same about open source advocates.
So do you think there is no reason besides signaling that people may want a phone that integrates with everything else they have? Or they get a faster phone for $399 than any Android phone at any price? They get 5 years of OS updates directly from Apple instead of hoping you get an update for two years? You have a video chat/messaging platform that has been consistent since 2010-2011 instead of having five released by the vendor?
Does Apple have some type of secret sauce that has allowed it to go its own way for four decades that no one else in the industry was able to successfully pull off? Or is it really just “better marketing”?