On the other hand, Apple is acting as a platform owner and demanding that they continue to act as the sole store curator on their platform.
I do not see the hypocrisy.
>On the one hand, Apple is acting as a store curator and demanding that its customers be made aware of tracking software.
This sounds like marketing. Apple is limiting what apps their customers have access to. I wonder if you would make the same argument if Apple starts blocking websites?
Your desire to specifically use FaceTime does not make it a monopoly.
The USA simply isn't a leading innovator in this regard.
Hell, even the different cellular carriers fail this definition because you can't use a Verizon sim card to access AT&T.
The Verizon/AT&T comparison is interesting; because it wasn't so long ago that phones were locked to carriers.
Regulation could and should pry open the private networks of large software companies to facilitate healthy competition.
I’d argue not, as long as users can still achieve the same goal in a different way, and it doesn’t worsen their quality of life.
For instance, in this context, the OP’s mother can still do a phone call, or agree to use a different software - which, by the way, is probably free.
/shudder
What's the difference?
[1] https://www.cryptophone.de . And no, of course not.
But that's talking about Facetime as if it's a product. It's not - it's a feature of iOS, iPadOS and MacOS. Effectively, Facetime isn't free - it's a unlimited use service that is paid for with your initial purchase of your Mac or iOS device and includes a perpetual, transferable license.
I.e. no further innovation is possible?
It is completely voluntary.
You'll find many required open standards in civic engineering and aerospace engineering, and really, any engineering where engineers carry liability. They adapt and change in response to deficiencies discovered.
Anti-competitive behavior that harms consumers is the problem (and question). Whether Apple is a monopoly or not is really besides the point.
There is no competition in hardware for their operating system because of them locking it down.
There is no competition in operating systems for their hardware because of them locking it down.
There is no competition in application delivery for their systems because of locking it down.
There is no competition in some applications and/or functionality (webview/safari) for their systems because of them locking it down.
Each of these rely on and in turn reinforce the others. Taken together they all Apple to control absolutely all competition to do with their devices. Some aspects of this are fairly normalized and we're used to, but others less so (the complete hardware/OS lockdown, which in turn feeds into problems with repair). Whether some aspects seem normal or not, they all deserve a look with fresh eyes, as the world and how we use devices like this is changing, and old models of thinking may or may not work best for us. The bottom line is whether consumers are harmed by their actions or not, and that's what we should use to measure this, not whether it seems okay, or matches our way of thinking about what a company should be able to control.
At the base level, I think a useful question to ask is "why is the store cut for managing and distributing apps 30%, and why hasn't it changed with the emergence of other stores?" One answer might be that it really takes about 30% of revenues to provide store functionality. Common public sources seem to indicate this is not the case. Another answer might be that for some reason, the market is resistant to change. I think this is because one large market member, Apple, is insulated from competition to a large degree, and didn't feel any pressure to change. Other market members match this number because the market is distorted by Apple's resistance to change. I think the fact that as soon as congress started making noises about investigating app market pricing Apple was able to immediately drop their cut for certain store items significantly points towards them knowing this, and wanting to get ahead of the problem so the status quo isn't changed too much to their detriment.
The only claim one could make is “hey, 30% seems a bit high to do business there”. Yet Apple can claim that you pay a premium to get access to millions of consumers which they’ve cultivated a strong relationship with. Running an App Store isn’t hard. Running a successful App Store is very hard. This is why Epic doesn’t want to do it themselves, but rather sue it out of Apple.
What? You can put a BMW engine in another car, you can put another engine in a BMW. BMW does not make it so that you can't use other engines or parts. This is nothing like BMW. I don't know about Tesla, but I suspect it's more a matter of others not making engines that fit the spec than it being explicitly designed to not allow other engines, but I really don't know enough about them to so.
> Running an App Store isn’t hard. Running a successful App Store is very hard.
The running of it is always easy. Getting to the point it's successful is hard, because it requires many other things to go right.
> This is why Epic doesn’t want to do it themselves, but rather sue it out of Apple.
What are you talking about? Epic is specifically bringing suit so they can run their own app store. Not only that, but they already run their own app store. Epic already has the infrastructure and inventory to be a credible alternative for games, because they have hundreds of games they already deliver on Windows, at a smaller cut than Apple charges in their app store.
This isn't about Epic wanting to cash in on Apple's app store it's about them outgrowing it and wanting to open their own store when Apple won't let them (they might also be fine with a lower cut from Apple, but they would rather run their own store. They're keen to spend those Fortnite billions to expand as quickly as possible. They already opened their alternative to Steam on Windows, they would be happy to be the alternative to the App Store on iPhones for games).
This is nothing about Epic “outgrowing” Apple App Store. They had quite a bit of growth, but compared to Apple or even more directly to Steam they are still small.
This is mostly about trying to get Apple to give them access to their platform for free or close to free. Nothing prevents them to build their market with Apple’s cut in place.
You can't install Mercedes OS (I don't expect the iPhone to run windows it Microsoft doesn't want to port it), but you can customize the OS, as outlines here.[1] They call it a jailbreak, but given that it looks to just be replacing data files, I'm not sure someone couldn't opt to write their own portion of the system software entirely.
> Car manufacturers have their own part standards and their own tools specifically designed to be incompatible with each other and needing special tools that are only available to the manufacturers and certified service partners.
I see a clear difference between not making it easy (using your own standards to make it hard for others) and making it impossible or as close as they can through cryptopgraphy and signed software and not allowing the consumer to get access to those keys for their own devices. In some cases, it may be illegal because of DMCA encryption bypass laws.
There's a difference between custom screw heads, which you can buy parts for but are not commonly available and using a combination of technology and law to make it impossible.
> This is nothing about Epic “outgrowing” Apple App Store. They had quite a bit of growth, but compared to Apple or even more directly to Steam they are still small.
No, not small. Smaller than Apple, but possibly bigger than Steam. On a similar level at least. Epic reported revenues of $4.2 billionin 2019, and was projected to reach revenue of 5 billion in 2020.[2] There's not a lot of good data I can find about Valve's actual revenue, other than estimates from some data that it was ~4.3 billion in 2017 (explained in the Wikipedia article for them), which is then repeated as fact in a few other places.
Keep in mind, they created and control Fortnite, which is still extremely popular.
> This is mostly about trying to get Apple to give them access to their platform for free or close to free. Nothing prevents them to build their market with Apple’s cut in place.
Well, Apple is preventing them, if they want to offer it to iPhone customers. These are people that bought hardware, own that hardware, and then are told they are not allowed to control what runs on that hardware. I am opposed to this on a consumer rights level, because I don't believe I should be locked out of hardware I purchased. I am also opposed to this on a economic level, where it's adding arbitrary barriers to competition, distorting the market. For multiple reasons, I think allowing practices like this to continue are bad for our society and economy, and I think it needs to change.
Even if I thought Apple had stumbled into this and didn't intend to prevent competition, I think it's problematic enough that it should be specifically legislated to require some third party access, if certain criteria are met. The alternative is to move farther along the path we already have. A decade ago open APIs and cross platform access was the norm. You could us a single application to access almost every single chat platform. Them Apple made iMessage and it was platform specific. Then Google shut down the XMPP gateway for their chat protocol, and made it private. We've somehow gone from a situation where everyone knew you had to interoperate with other companies and protocols to survive, to everyone shutting all the others out and trying to grab as much of the market for themselves, make it too costly and hard to move away, and trap their customers. Are we really better off?
The biggest, most structurally resilient and important products we all use were developed in an age where interoperability was important and needed. HTTP, SMTP, POP and IMAP, IRC. Large companies have been trying to tear those down ever since, because it's less profitable. Now you have to log into Facebook or Instagram to see what most people would post to a blog previously. It's easier, and there's a lot of searchability enhancements, but would it really have been impossible for us to get close to that without the lock-in?
To me, this is all very clear. We're in a new age of large companies using their resources to limit competition and hurt consumers. That they are able to do so without being a monopoly is beside the point. That they are hurting consumers by doing so is. My only hope is that some changes are made before it's too late to turn back, if it isn't already. If it doesn't change, what's debatable as problematic now like this will look downright appetizing in comparison.
1: https://www.drivingline.com/articles/jailbreak-how-to-unlock...
2: https://venturebeat.com/2020/08/06/epic-games-unveils-1-78-b...
I don't understand this position at all. Google is by far and away the market leader. Their ecosystem is free and you can do just about anything in it. Their Play store's standards are utterly bare bones. The devices are cheaper. If what you want is an open source (ish) platform that you can hack on, modify, install software yourself, whatever, all of that is available to you, at a lower price, over there. This feels to be the ultimate first world problem, to pay a handsome premium for a top-tier device, then to complain about it's shortcomings. So take it back! Nobody made you buy one.
It's not like there aren't Android handsets that do all the stuff iOS ones do, occasionally even better, for similar prices. The main reason I stick to iOS is precisely for the locked down OS, and the curated App Store, so to see so many people complaining that they purchased the device when those things are like, the most obvious part of what comprises an iOS device, then complain about those things, is utter madness to me.
Why the fuck must Apple also do that, with a higher priced device, that everyone claims is inferior to Android handsets with their quad core processors and is "just a fashion item?" Android users seem unhealthily obsessed with turning iOS into Android. Just let us do our own thing over here for fuck's sake.
Yet again and again on here and elsewhere, iOS is constantly positioned as this MONOLITH of anti-consumer anti-developer DOOM, absolutely RUINING the mobile market. Again, FOUR. TEEN. PERCENT.
This fails every commonly held definition of a monopoly. We're not even talking like, cable company monopoly here that's entered into by virtue of buying or renting property in a given space, which at least you have a lot of friction there to claim "I can't reasonably be expected to go elsewhere just to buy from a different cable provider." You literally just buy an Android phone, and you're free of the restrictions imposed by Apple, immediately.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
Here is the government released statement on these types of topics. "Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power"
That is from the US government. For any other further comments you have on the topic of anti-trust law, or market power, please read this government statement first and see how it applies to your statement.
> Entering into the restrictions of an iPhone is 100% voluntary.
If a company has significant market power, then anti-trust law can apply.
> This fails every commonly held definition of a monopoly
Anti trust law does not require a literal monopoly. So I am not sure why you are bringing that up. Anti-trust law only requires significant market power. And Apple has 50% of the US smartphone market, which is within the realm of what courts have considered to be significant market power.
> You literally just buy an Android phone, and you're free of the restrictions imposed by Apple, immediately.
Apple still has 50% of the US market. That can be significant market power, as the courts have ruled in the past.
But every iOS post I read is along the lines of make it like android, and I have the same prevailing thought. Why?? I would not own a MacOS machine, I wouldn't like it. But I don't feel the need to get on every Mac discussion complaining it should be more like Linux. The fact the differences exist is a good thing.
My phone, ultimately, is communications and quick research. I need it to make calls, send messages, send emails, and use the browser. And off-duty, I use the camera to capture memories. I got the big one because I wanted the bigger screen (though ultimately I miss the smaller size one I had before, so that will likely change whenever I get around to replacing it.)
And I also do projects. I build 3D printers, I play with Pi's, I build PC's. I do all kinds of tinkering shit. I just don't feel the need to do it on my phone, and therefore what are cited as "limitations" of it are just irrelevant to me. It does everything I need it to do, and more.
Android and iOS in my mind aren't really even in competition. They're two very similar products that should appeal to two entirely different userbases. They're pickups and sportscars, both great for what they do, but utlimately trying to have a pickup that's also a sportscar just means it's probably going to be lousy at both.
Having the ability to install apps not available on the app store does not make your entire phone something you 'have to fiddle with'. If you want to live in the walled garden, you of course can do so, just as many people do on Android.
>But I don't feel the need to get on every Mac discussion complaining it should be more like Linux.
This is an interesting take, seeing how a big reason Macs are so popular amongst developers is the similarity to Linux (which the vast majority of us are going to be deploying to).
I mean, that’s effectively where this whole argument leads. You could imagine a scenario where using external software could damage things like your battery, so now the user is on their own.
I don’t think that’s a tenable option either.
This is effectively what Google does with Chromebooks and developer mode. But if you’ve enabled developer mode, can’t you go back? But when you get into trouble, you can revert back to the base install (and lose all other data). Again, that’s not a good option either as people would complain about that too.
Why is it a bad thing for you that other’s get to use their phones have they see it fit after paying for it quite a bit, while the whole thing won’t case any difference to you?
There are good reasons to disallow any third party applications on some platforms like cars, but apple allows it and they only have a quick look at applications. The real security is in their sandbox/API.
A program that phones home often with tracking data, thus keeping a data connection open and the processor from sleeping would absolutely have an impact on battery life and longevity. This would be code that Apple would normally block at the AppStore level.
And we saw how mad people were when Apple slowed down processing speeds to extend battery life. Can you imagine the outrage if Apple suddenly said that your battery is no longer under warranty because you installed the Facebook app directly from Facebook?
I've had both device types through the years. I've had to support both device types in different form factors. As a developer I love Android. I've learned to code some Java and lightweight game development for Android due to that openness of the platform. But the pros of the walled garden concept do not shine through on Android as they do with Apple due to the lack of how tightly integrated and compatible the hardware & software are from being developed together and approved by a sole source.
As a purchaser of an Apple product, I feel fairly confident that I am Apple's customer. With Android, the customer is the manufacturer\carrier combo that runs my phone, and I am their customer. That distinction carries an important difference and it shows through the development tracts of both companies and how they deal with issues.
Let's be honest here. If this goes through to force Apple to allow competitors to their app store, that decision will go further than developer sideloading (which is already possible). It will not happen in a vacuum and as soon as the courts hand down such a decision the carriers will be next in line to shovel as much horse manure down the line as possible.
I've never purchased an Apple phone with pre-loaded software as part of a deal with a carrier, aka Bloatware. I have from Android manufacturers on several occasions. Lower standards of entry from 3rd party sources often mean lower standards for bugs, resource usage, and privacy concerns. Higher risk of malware. Lower chance of software to OS compatibility. Apple phones with whole disk encryption made the news when the feds couldn't break it as easily as Android devices.
>Macs are so popular amongst developers is the similarity to Linux
Then I rescind the poor choice of analogy and go straight to fundamentals. These two different tools are purpose built for different things from different principles and that is ok. Homogenizing the mobile space in a way that would detract from those differences would be a net negative in my opinion.
If I was told this plainly and openly up front then I wouldn't buy the car to begin with -IF- that is what I value in that specific vehicle. My car? Not a chance, I like my sports car and working on it is part of the fun I get from it. My wife's people carrier? If those repairs are close in line with other repair shops even after the 30% AND they'll come pick it up or tow it so I don't even have to mess with it? Absolutely, where do I sign up? Different tools have different uses and value propositions.
I am fully in agreement with your position, but it is really funny that you mention this specific detail, as it hits much closer to reality than most people realize.
Mostly because as a part of the anti-trust settlement that MSFT had to enter back in the day, they were forced to allow laptop manufacturers to preload bloatware on windows laptops. And I would definitely hate to see that on iPhones, as that was one of the major reasons I ended up switching from Androids (yes, I know, you can root your Android device, install custom Android distro, and get rid of the carrier bloatware, but not having to deal with all of that is precisely why I switched).
AAPL can relatively (compared to MSFT back in the day) easily decide to be the sole retailer of their own hardware and software stack, and cease to sell their phones through carriers.
AAPL already offers direct financing solutions, and trade in solutions, through their own retail channels. SIM-only plans tend to be cheaper as the carriers can no longer hide behind hardware costs to obfuscate their plans.
Who loses in this equation? AAPL might, through reduced sales. The carriers might, through reduced margins. Is either of those things bad to the consumer?
Doesn't AAPL already sell carrier plans as part of their iPhone retail experience?
When did MSFT sell hardware as part of their software licensing retail experience in the 90s?
There's no reason to expect it will be exactly like a PC, which is coming from a completely open past to a future which allows more locking down. The iPhone is locked down now, it's a bit ridiculous to assume they would immediately go straight to allowing anything and everything to be installed without any hoops jumped through.
Even Android requires you to allow unsafe sources to isntall third party packages. Why would anyone expect the iPhone to go farther than this when they're fighting tooth and nail to not even do this much?
I'm also considering the transition in the Steam marketplace as a recent example. Their opening from curation started with Greenlight, a fast track program with some but minimal curation. There were a few turds but by and large the games that came through were of some general quality. Enter phase 2, Early Access. The minimal barriers were removed except "will it run", adult content allowed, and a smaller hosting fee used. And in came the parade of low effort hot garbage. Recommendations in their platform are hard to come by now. Random impulse buy while scrolling rarely happens for me now as discovery of actual good games for me is much lower and I feel like the platform as a whole has suffered for it. I could see a similar trajectory for the app store albeit with my value of the services being placed in different categories.
I would think anything that required Apple to open up the OS would apply equally as well to carriers. Who cares if the carriers put crap on your phone if you can easily wipe what they provide with a clean copy? It's slightly more complicated than Windows in that the carrier is also providing drivers, but not entirely without precedent (much of Dell system innards are their own design, and they re-brand or develop their own drivers for chipsets to better suit their systems). That would be another differentiator to open the market though. IF X provider is hostile to replacing their OS and makes the experience suck, the market can deal with that. At least it's a small chunk of the stack, and not everything from the base hardware to web services all locking you in to one choice.
As for Early Access and opening up Steam, i've actually not found it to be a problem. Some of my favorite games and experiences started out as (and in some cases still are) Early Access. And even the ones that started strong and went to shit, I count 6-12 months of a fun game as well worth the $20-$30 an Early Access game generally costs.
I've also found the Steam ratings, and the reviews people put in that generate it to be extremely useful and accurate. You just have to zero in on the reviews that relate it to existing experiences that you're familiar with so you get a good idea of what it is like. Worst case you find some streamer on Twitch or YouTube to watch for a bit to get a feel for it.
If Facebook had a worthy competitor for example, surely you'll agree Facebook would be a considerably different product now. You might say that doesn't help my case, because it would actually be a better product, but it's not an inevitable outcome in every comparable scenario.
No, I don't think I would. The vast majority of people are not going to leave facebook as long as they can't take their social contacts with them, and Facebook knows this. They'll let you have your pictures and videos, but the graph? No way, and they know most people won't leave entirely because recreating all those links is a large undertaking for most people. Even young people that originally shun Facebook as their parent's social network eventually join because the network effect is too large to ignore.
The fact that Facebook very quickly buys anything that looks like it might have a draw that could possibly affect this in any way doesn't help it. Neither does that they blatantly lied to congress about things they would/wouldn't do with some of these acquisitions when asked about it.
Now that I've had an iPhone for a couple years, I can't think of single time where the app store 'curation' has benefited me. I'm not even sure what that means. I've released apps on both Google Play and iOS, and sure, it's a little more difficult to get an iOS app passed by Apple. But what does that really get us in the end? Maybe a little more protection from malicious actors, but not much more in my opinion.
I really think the idea that the iOS app store 'curation' is a feature that we benefit from as users is a myth Apple has made us all believe. It's mostly marketing speak & a 'placebo' effect for the end user, and a huge headache for the app developers. As a developer, app reviews take no less than a day or two to clear. And you have to sit there and hope they don't send it back rejected for some vague reason, or some random contractor in China doesn't reject it because they typed in the demo account password wrong (Yes, we had this happen at my job multiple times, and it wasted many days of our time).
I think app store 'curation' and the 'walled garden' get conflated sometimes. In the walled garden, where they have full control over the hardware & the OS, they have chosen to not allow any other method of distributing apps except through them. The idea that this is somehow making my life better I will never get. Either way, that in and of itself doesn't really bother me. What does bother me is that they think they are entitled to 3/10ths of every apps business in the walled garden. There is no way that makes sense.
They charge a yearly fee for developer accounts. I think this yearly fee system is how it should be handled. If their argument is that they are providing the servers and infrastructure and manpower to provide the app store service, then they could make more tiers. For bigger customers like Epic who use more of those resources they could charge more to cover the cost. But there is no way I'll ever be convinced that a 30% fee on every transaction across the board is fair or equitable.
My first one. HTC when 4G first got hot. It was a horrible shitshow and soured my taste ever since. I can see that was a combo of manufacturer, Sprint as my carrier, and early Android OS but that spoke a lot to my understanding of the ecosystem and how incentives were set up. My follow up experience with phones for my kids or staff has been better but I've never gave them the chance for daily driver again. It's a system I tinker with but not depend on. I understand that's anecdotal and YMMV, but then again I'm not looking for validation of my opinion. Is what it is, just stating what colored my purchasing decision.
30% is crazy. I've said the same about Steam for years and you'll get no arguments from me there. Does it makes sense from the standpoint of the developer? Not at all but my opinion there doesn't matter as I don't develop for iOS nor am I very concerned with 3rd party apps. As a customer, I don't care. The idea of curation may be placebo but even the placebo effect is measurable. It may dissuade malware developers from the platform at first principles. That 30% may serve as a soft barrier to entry from race to the bottom competitors even if that isn't its intended purpose. I can admit Play Store has cleaned up its act a good bit since its inception but first impressions are hard to get around.
End of day the reason for me buying an Apple phone as my daily was for reliability. I can't remember the last time I had to restart or tinker with my iPhone to get it to work, but I can't say the same for my kids various Android phones. It wasn't for the robustness of the platform or marketplace cause I would've just bought an Android. Also see my other argument in this thread about being the actual customer and a few other points. Fair payment doesn't really factor in for me, that is a business decision for someone else to make. For me and the choices that I have in front of me, this seems like the best one for my goals even if those differences are limited in scope. The fact that we can choose between them on these differences is a good thing. To get back to GPs point, if this doesn't work for you then don't buy it and let the free market do its thing.
I always had Samsungs, never remember any issues with them getting hot, maybe that was an HTC problem? I think my first android was a Samsung Galaxy S3. Now that I think about it, I do remember a lot of weird bugs and restarts to fix some issue.
After that I had a Note 4 & 5, and I really have high opinions of those. I kept the 5 for over 3 years I think it roped out at Android v8.x and it was pretty good, but still not as reliable a iOS at the time I’m sure. I recently got one of those cheap Samsung tablets & I must say I’m impressed with Android v10.
I switched to iPhone a couple years ago out of curiosity mostly. It’s fine. Doesn’t blow me away, but you’re right. Super reliable. There are things I miss about my Note, and things it did better, but also things about the iPhone I would miss if I went back. Mostly the seamless and sync between my MacBook Pro/ iMac, and effortless wireless file sharing with airdrop are amazing.
As a dev, I do like to use a Linux box for daily use so I’m with you there :)
If there's a viable third party app store without these restrictions, Facebook will immediately jump on it, and immediately start tracking users with no notifications in probably the most invasive way they can get away with.
The upshot is that thanks to this hidden "enable side loading apps" button if I wanted to use the Facebook app, I would have to use the scummy privacy invading version, and that's most definitely a regression.
Apple is really great at UX, they will find a way to make it hard for the general audience, so that my mother won’t install random malware because for it she would have to go through 3 pages in settings she knows nothing about, and I can run whatever I want on my phone.
Many of us believe they will not find such a way and that in fact no one will and it is impossible. That's the crux of the disagreement here. You believe this is a possible UX to build. I believe it is not possible to build such a UX.
As many folks have noted, Android does have a number of steps required to sideload. They also have a much more serious and active malware problem despite all the extra steps:
https://lifehacker.com/be-careful-about-sideloading-popular-...
>Just let us do our own thing over here for fuck's sake.
No one is forcing you to do anything. There can be 10 app stores and you could still use one the one. Just like many PC gamers have done for decades. I own hundreds of games and I only use GOG and Steam. Pretending you are forced to do anything is disingenuous. People have more right to use their bought hardware than you and Apple have to deny it. It's not a matter of if but when Apple will be forced to allow people to own their owned hardware.
As a developer I'm restricted from accessing that 66%. THAT is why I want an open platform. Access to those consumers.
That has nothing to do with my choice of platform. It has to do with access to a large market which I am being restricted from.
Wait - what App do you want to sell that won’t allow?
Basically, go to the Cydia store and look at any app in there. Why can't the Cydia store be allowed?
As for the Cydia store, that allows apps to to run on jailbroken phones, I.e. with security protections removed.
It should be obvious why users want to buy a platform that is as secure as Apple can make it.
And yes, the Cydia store is for jailbroken phones because that's the only way to load your own software onto your phone, but there are plenty of useful apps on there that aren't security issues and are only there to get around app store restrictions.
Apple doesn't have to restrict which apps I run to keep it secure. They do just fine securing MacOS, which allows one to install whatever they want.
Perhaps it’s simply not true that Apple pulls the plug on apps at any time.
Billions of dollars paid to developers suggest that you are just wrong about that.
I personally have had updates rejected, and then simply resolved the issues and resubmitted.
It’s simply false to say that apps are just pulled at any time.
You have allowed a few voices on hacker news to give you a false impression.
And to make sure it can be used with all existing libraries web sites and all opacs, you can enter any url and an xpath expressions, and then it runs the xpath expressions each day and shows the result as list of books.
And since I wrote it 15 years ago, there were no tech libraries for headless browsers available. So I wrote half of my own browser, and an XPath interpreter. (Modern XPath is actually Turing-complete, and with the EXPath file module, it can read and write to any file)
So, if the store does not allow custom browsers or Python interpreters, those are two reasons it would not allow my app.
Often the ideas about restrictions are simply false beliefs.
The OP said - headless browser, I.e: network and parsing the Dom, but not rendering.
Perfectly allowed. Please stop saying otherwise.
This is a jawbreaker of hyperbole around a chewy gum center of truth.
Although I have been thinking about making a JIT. Building on for x86 is easy enough, but then it is useless for ARM. I would not want to build two JITs. Or four with 32/64-bits.
iTunes library (at least for Books and Music) is DRM-free and has been from an early stage (though _did_ launch with DRM).
I've had great success in migrating my purchased items back and forth from linux with absolutely no issue. However now they're using streaming and I'm unable to easily "own" any music anymore... or at the very least it takes you off of the easy path.
iTunes has been DRM free for more than a decade now.
Thanks for clarifying.
And in the case of both devices (Apple and Android) you can still flash your own "competing" OS on the hardware. It's far easier to do this on an Android device than an Apple one, but the hardware is separate from the software you're running. But there are multiple mobile OSes not named Android or iOS.
What qualifies as a competitor, and what responsibility does Apple or Android have at creating new competitors? What actions are Google or Apple taking to actively stomp out mobile based OSes? Didn't Mozilla give it a shot? Didn't Ubunutu put out a mobile version of their OS? The lack of competitor for OSes seems like an odd argument to make. They exist even if they don't have marketshare, and there is no requisite business structure behind an OS in order for it to be a competing software. There are options. They may not be the single most accessible, and they may not meet your needs, but they exist.
What does this mean? Late 90’s Microsoft had more than 85% of the desktop PC market.
Early 2020’s Microsoft still has more than 85% of the Desktop PC market.
There is simply no comparison.
Apple doesn’t control the market. They don’t have anything like a monopoly.
They do have products that a lot of people think are category leading, but that isn’t the same thing as having ‘control’.
They also make a lot of profit, because people are willing to pay more for those products. But this is true of companies who focus on quality, regardless of scale.
Similarly, Apple and Google have leveraged their duopoly in the mobile operating systems market to prevent competition in the mobile application distribution market
Apple (52.4%) and Google (47%) control 99.4% of the mobile operating system market[1]. That's certainly much more than the 85% of the market that Microsoft had.
> They don’t have anything like a monopoly.
Colloquial definitions of monopoly do not matter when it comes to antitrust laws[2]:
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held...
[2] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
For the most part they aren’t trying.
Building a new mobile platform is expensive - probably billions of dollars of investment - and takes years.
There are actually quite a few companies who could do so if they wanted - e.g. Facebook, and yes, Epic.
But there is no reason to suppose they would be successful in any less time than it took Apple or Google.
There are reasons why people trust Apple’s platform, and integrated payments are one of them.
My point is that Epic actually is a company that has the resources to compete directly if they wanted to.
Apple just isn’t the leader in games, and it would be great if Epic leveraged its position to build a real alternative platform, rather than just attempting to force its way into being a middleman in Apple’s platform.
That isn’t actually going to result in more platform competition.
Apple did nothing to create Fortnite, but they want about a third of the revenue from Fortnite. Epic did not create the iOS platform, and they are not asking for any of Apple's profits from the iOS platform. So your characterization of who's wanting profit without doing the work seems completely backwards to me. Apple's demands here are essentially rent-seeking.
> There are reasons why people trust Apple’s platform, and integrated payments are one of them.
As far as I know, Epic did not prevent people from paying through Apple's integrated payment platform. They simply offered an alternative.
> My point is that Epic actually is a company that has the resources to compete directly if they wanted to.
> Apple just isn’t the leader in games, and it would be great if Epic leveraged its position to build a real alternative platform, rather than just attempting to force its way into being a middleman in Apple’s platform.
Your suggestion is that if somebody wants to sell things to users who happen to be on smartphones without paying into the duopoly's protection racket, they should simply develop their own hardware supply chain and manufacturing capabilities, phone operating system, mapping and GPS software, email software, ditto for every other piece of software that is table stakes for a phone — and do all of this to a level of quality sufficient to compete with companies whose primary businesses are doing these things — and then finally develop whatever it was they wanted to sell in the first place.
This is not a reasonable position, and even if Epic is in a position to do it (which I'm not sure if they are), most companies aren't, and it is not reasonable to demand every company develop its own phone.
It's also bad for users, because then they'd have to buy a phone for every app.
It is much more reasonable to just not allow smartphones to be the 21st century equivalent of a company town where employees are paid in scrip.
Obviously not. It’s not a protection racket.
I’m suggesting that it would be better for consumers if we had more competition at the platform level - then we wouldn’t have a duopoly, and we would have more pressure for the platforms to compete an innovate.
You list a bunch of technologies that have already been developed and can be integrated. I said it would take a billion dollars, so we’re on the same page.
> because then they'd have to buy a phone for every app.
Don’t be silly. Popular apps are available on more than one platform.
Yes, there would be exclusives - games especially, but that is no different to how it is now.
For all your complaining, you seem to be arguing very hard that we should be stuck with the duopoly you claim to dislike.
We deserve better than forcing both users and developers alike to deal with a bunch of additional middlemen within the duopoly.
We are only stuck if nobody thinks it’s worth creating an alternative. The ‘duopoly’ has only existed for around 5 years so far. It’s bizarre to consider regulating such a short lived phenomenon instead of encouraging new entrants, particularly when there are so many deep pocketed companies that want a piece of the market.
We’re not talking about a random video game company. We’re talking about Epic, a multi-billion dollar transnational enterprise that could easily afford to invest the time and money Apple and Google did to build their platforms.
Epic is vastly more profitable now than Apple was when they developed the iPhone. Let’s not deceive anyone that they are some small games company.
If you want to guarantee that we continue with the duopoly, the best way to do that is to take away the incentive for companies that could compete, to actually do so, by giving them a piece of the duopoly’s revenue stream.
What does the Android vs Apple vs Featurephone marketshare look like?
This part is entirely irrelevant in the EU
Apple is not a supplier. They only sell directly to consumers. They don’t even try to make their app store available on competing phones, even if it is technically possible.
Nitpick: Apple Music competing with Spotify is remarkably similar to the Microsoft case. (Epic's case is weaker.)
Apple Music is available in the Google Play Store but I don’t know of any credible accusation that Apple has tried to get Google to kick Spotify out.
You: Microsoft did not get prosecuted for being popular.
How does that response follow at all?
This sounds an awfull lot like the though process of religious zealots and extremists. Ignore the real world, consequences be damned, ideology comes first. There is no way we could make an error of judgement. Thats how you get a famine and 50 million dead in China.
"Apple has the right to create the software ecosystem they want to create."
There is absolutely no such right, neither morally nor legally
What there is none is the "right" for governments to claim ownership to other's work and dictate you must do what your own free will tells you is not on your best interest, that is why they use force.
Your private data is something within your own rights to do as you please with it, which gives you a choice of whether you want to store it on apple's systems or on someone else's systems or on the local systems that you personally own.
Now, what are you even arguing? Once i out data on an apple computer they can do whatever they want? If I but an iPhone is it still not a 'local system I personally own'? Do they have to respect my data, or do they not have to follow the law?
If your sex tapes are included as a part of your "work data", what would you count as your "private data" then?
Not trying to argue anything in particular, I am just genuinely curious at this point.
>Once i out data on an apple computer they can do whatever they want?
Nope, only things you agreed to in Terms of Usage that do not go against the law. Added that detail at the end because yes, I am aware that ToU do not override laws, and just because you put something in there doesn't necessarily mean that it is legal.
>Now, what are you even arguing?
Your earlier comment said "I store my data in apple's systems, is it my right to do with it as I please or theirs?", and that's what I was addressing. You have the right to do as you please with it, which manifests in your ability to NOT use Apple's systems for your data storage, unless you are satisfied with their Terms of Usage. If you decide to use their systems for that, you are agreeing on the ground rules with them which are outlined in ToU.
That is not a right. As I said there is only one right, or only one that matters: the right to your own thoughts, to your mind's work, that is the work I was talking about.
Everything else is not a right, at least not if we are gonna be true to the word. If it's dependent on others is not a right. If it's conditional to other people's whims is not a right. If it needs the entire legal establishment and an army to enforce it is not a right. Rights in the constitution are not "rights" per se but obligations from the government to its citizens, as in you have the right* to procure it from the government, whatever it might be.
If you need to ask for permission is not a right.
What there is none is the "right" for governments to claim ownership to other's work and dictate you must do what your own free will tells you is not on your best interest
The law absolutely dictates the rules, which may or may not contradict your own free-will e.g. paying taxes, abiding by copyright etc.
So say you. I say that consumers have the right to run whatever software they want on the hardware that they have purchased.
Apple can create whatever software platform they want, but it seems pretty bad that they don't allow you to use whatever software platform you want on the hardware that you paid them for.
I am strongly in favor of that. The whole App Store thing is just about some middlemen wanting a cut and has nothing to do with software freedom.
On the other hand bootcamp for iOS - so you could install android, or better yet, a genuinely free OS, would solve the software freedom problem and allow old iOS devices to be repurposed after Apple stops supporting them.
I want to have the freedom to buy and use such a platform, and Apple wants the freedom to sell and maintain such a platform. The entire process falls apart if Apple is forced to allow other App Stores. Why should the court restrict those freedoms and break this consumer benefit?
Why? You have the choice of not using other App Stores. Just like you have the choice to not use Android, so therefore it doesn't effect you.
Sure, it may not be fair to these large corporations, but it's currently a great situation for consumers. Everybody is free to either go more laissez-faire (Android) or more walled garden (iOS). I don't think the courts should ruin that.
Exactly, it is still anti-competitive behavior. Just because consumers like yourself may enjoy it, doesn't make it not anti-competitive.
> For example, Netflix could say "you have to use this other App Store" and many people would convert.
And in the same way that I can choose to not get iOS device, you can always choose to not use Netflix.
Why do you care what my preferences are? If you don't care for the iOS model, you should go buy an Android. Apple doesn't have a monopoly.
I prefer the Apple model because I want these restrictions. I want apps to be blocked from cross-app tracking. I want apps to have to explicitly spell out the type of data they collect from me, and how they use it. I don't care that I can't side load apps.
If you want a spyware phone, go get an Android.
I would be completely happy if IOS by default did not allow all the things it doesn't allow, but you could add a setting to allow 3rd party app stores with a list that apple curated themselves (similar to search engine preferences in a browser).
Apple can make it all scary about how the apps on the 3rd party applications could be doing more nefarious things. I would even be ok with apple having the ability to simply refuse to install specific apps from these 3rd party app stores for things that are egregious violations of ethics.
but I've just read too many stories about Apple rejecting apps over very innocuous things, and apple rejecting smaller apps but allowing the same thing in larger apps (anti-competitive).
It's a legitimate problem.
"I like that TrueCaller on my iOS device works for most features without getting any permission from me, while on Android it refuses to buzz from the splash screen unless you give it every permission - including full contact access and phone.
I like that on iOS a famous payment app from India (PhonePe) works flawlessly with zero permissions but on Android? It needs both location and contacts to even function - neither of these are mandatory for their functioning but still they do and can get away with that.
You know WhatsApp doesn't let you use "Status" feature unless you provide Storage permission to it on Android (I doubt they need it just to shows those images, videos, and texts)."
I think it's important to note that the mere existence of controls, i.e buttons that do a thing, don't actually end up achieving their goal of improving user privacy unless there's also enforcement of usage patterns. You can't get away with stuff like this on iOS, and it's clear by these accounts that the same companies would do the same on iOS if they could.
Can’t this still be true for the App Store though?
No drugs, no porn, nothing offensive. Maybe if Apple stopped being such a moral busy body people this would be less of an issue.
Apple demand Facebook do thing = Good for Apple (bad for FB) yes way
So Apple is allowed to get its own way, 100% of the time, no questions asked, what they want is what they get end of (by virtue of holding all the cards and owning the platform they dictate the rules on)
How about no? You can play by your rules in your sandbox, but Epic has a right to demand it's allowed a sandbox in the same park, maybe Apple will be forced to change its business if everyone starts playing in Epic's sandbox and consumers decide Apple's policies are rubbish?
That's the very definition of "competition" something Apple has avoided for over a decade at this point (as far as iOS inter-competition goes)
Epic demands Apple do a thing = bad for Apple, bad for customers (good for Epic)
> Apple demand Facebook do thing = Good for Apple (bad for FB) yes way
Apple demands Facebook do a thing = Good for Apple, good for customers (bad for Facebook)
As a customer in these equations, I'm siding with Apple.
> That's the very definition of "competition" something Apple has avoided for over a decade at this point
Why do I have to use Epic's game store for Fortnite? Why can't I create my own skins with paint and sell them for whatever I want?
not bad for all customers. I would like to side-load third party apps on my Iphone. Remember when app store banned a hn reader app because it showed Covid-related submissions[1]
How is allowing developers to use alternate payment platforms "bad for customers"? Or, if not on the phone, at least to allow them to add funds to their account from the browser/another platform and use it in their iOS app?
Surely we can just apply the Windows argument of "well they should get antivirus software and stop browsing shady sites" and go about our day having improved the landscape for the tech-literate, while having increased the risk other people take on by using their phone if they don't know the first thing about ensuring the apps they download are safe or privacy-preserving. That's why people buy iPhone - you literally do not have to worry about malicious App Store apps.
Because those "alternate payment platforms" don't prioritise consumer protection.
Deliveroo did an update their software that wiped out my login settings. They didn't support apple login, so I lost access to my account. They won't recover my email because of a special character in it, and so they continued to charge me for their "plus" service every month, and avoided any emails I tried to send asking to stop (asking me to "log in" to change my payment settings!).
Requiring apps use Apple's channel would have protected me from that experience.
Why are we all talking about creating more stores? Shouldn't we opt into creating systems API for stores? That way you could choose store application and have products from all repositories (stores) available in there.
On most Linuxes you add repository and it doesn't matter if you use official package manager, graphical one, or some unofficial bash script. You are able to install same software.
Can you provide some reasoning behind that. What should I like, so I can dislike uPlay in the first place?
This is common in the gaming community. Full disclosure: I used to work in the studio that developed and maintained uplay.
One of the games I worked on was an epic store exclusive (or, wouldn’t launch on steam) and it was met with harsh criticism for that. Many players outright said that they wouldn’t buy the game if it wasn’t on steam.
Judging by PC sales, they held true to their word.
Back, years ago the distribution way were tons of 3.5" diskettes, or better yet - transportable hard disk with a jumper switch to slave mode. A lot has changed since, however subscribing to the model that one company has to govern my entertainment model is beyond silly.
This is something I'm pretty sure Epic would provide with their own app store.
Incidentally, employers already have the ability to distribute custom iOS software for their employees, so your scenario wouldn't happen.
As for social, why isn't this happening on Android if it's so inevitable?
Windows and Mac and Linux environments are not sandboxed like this either. All my data is files in folders, and I can export it as I like to another machine.
If I have a windows computer, and I buy a mac, I can't run all my windows software. The developers of that software may not even make mac equivalents.
The idea that choices need to be ultimately convenient and consequence free is just not realistic. Depreciation, transaction costs, and functional differences between products are a consumer's problem to manage.
I agree with you on media files, but, I also know that there are plenty of workarounds to exporting iTunes specific media formats if you would rather leave iTunes behind.
Exactly the same thing goes for what I do with the devices I buy, and what software I install on them. It's not in Apple's interest that I have a choice of what source of apps I use - but giving me as a consumer that choice would expand the market (e.g. by making it possible to sell an app-based service with a 20% profit margin - currently if you tried to make one, you'd lose 10% on every sale). So yes, consumers currently have a choice of which side of the duopoly they want to live on. I believe more choice would be better, both for consumers and for the ecosystem as a whole.
“Oh, you want Photoshop? Just add the Adobe store (don’t look at permissions, also please give us your debit card number, we promise it’ll be safe)”.
“Oh, you want that nifty game? Just install our store. And also give us your bank account.”
“Yes, Apple is draconian. So to get the Facebook app, you must give us complete access to your phone and all data you send. Sign with your blood here.”
From an opsec perspective, Apple’s store associated with a prepaid debit card is great. They are far from ideal, but they have amongst the best privacy practices in the industry, have great customer support, and their interests align with mine better than those of their competitors.
We know that the second third party stores are allowed, some developer will force them on us.
if they like it, they can keep using it.
EDIT: apparently suggesting people to keep using something they like deserves downvotes :)
We know from past experience that it's commercially viable for platform owners to successfully develop secure operating systems that allow third party developers to develop and distribute apps without an additional tax. We don't have to look very far either. macOS is a great example of where the App Store and third party developers can coexist.
People should be able to choose to buy the app (for 30% more) using the App Store so that it's easy to ask for a refund, receive updates and for Apple to market apps they believe you'd like to use. But at the same time, Apple has no right to force people to overpay for services like Spotify on the App Store. Customers already pay to use a licensed copy of iOS on supported hardware.
Governments have every right to protect the customer from perpetually getting screwed by Apple. At the very least, we shouldn't allow Apple to limit free speech so that developers can't mention a way for their users to save money.
The problem is that Apple built an artificial monopoly in the distribution of apps by making the App Store the only curator of the platform. People who decided to purchase an iPhone with an iOS license should have the right to use the device to it's full extent (along with being able to fix it themselves if something breaks). If you don't feel safe running apps outside of the App Store, you don't need to!
>>People who decided to purchase an iPhone with an iOS license should have the right to use the device to it's full extent
The US Copyright Office has already made it clear that jailbreaking is legal. That does not imply upon Apple an affirmative obligation to fix a jailbroken phone or create a open/fixable hardware and software platform, or make either of the two easy to accomplish. Only a negative obligation to not interfere with those who take such risks at their own expense.
Especially for general computing devices like a phone (unlike gaming consoles and media like your examples). We already know that Apple doesn't need the App Store for iDevices to be a commercial success, just look at the Mac and macOS.
No.
It's like that, except my house is very big and I'm Apple. Everyone, by their choice in accepting my invitation, have chosen to abide by my rules.
All guests are free to leave any time!
Now, what right does a 3rd party (the gov't) have to come in and crash my party and force me to change some of my rules? Consenting adults chose to be here!
There would first need to be consensus as to what constitutes an artificial monopoly. So far the term has been used so nebulously as to encompass any choice or decision made with a tradeoff or constraint that somehow paid off for at least one but few, if any, others. In other words, "They cheated by holding onto a winning strategy / lottery ticket."
>>General computing devices like a phone (unlike gaming consoles and media like your examples).
I fail to see the distinction. The Nintendo Switch is powered by the same SoC that runs on the Android-powered Nvidia Shield. Just recently, the Switch has been jailbroken to run full Android 10. The PS4, PS5, XB1, XBSX all run on x86-64 AMD chips (the former two on an in-house OpenBSD distro and the latter two on a full Windows 10 kernel). Even older consoles like the PS2 and N64 can run Linux (the former as an official feature and the latter as a recent homebrew development). In short, anything in console space has been a general computer for the last 20 years if not earlier. Constraints are imposed onto the hardware and software of these products as a natural consequence of certain physical limitations or by intentional design of their respective companies. Apple's products are, in general, no different.
>> We already know Apple doesn't need the App Store for iDevices to be a commercial success.
What Apple needs to be a commercial success or not is a choice for Apple to make for itself. Apple chose a particular domain to succeed in and succeeded beyond almost every expectation. Absent fraud, it shouldn't be stopped from monetizing it's winnings any way it chooses just because you think the company has "over-succeeded". That on it's own doesn't make the App Store an "artificial monopoly" any more than it makes Usain Bolt "too good" to be allowed to compete in any more races. All of which leads me to question how exactly you are defining "artificial monopoly". What counts and what doesn't?
You need to watch Epic Games vs. Apple hearing from September 2020. This argument was already rejected by judge. She stated closed platforms (walled gardens) were before Apple's fore decades and are legal types of business. She also told about Nintendo/PlayStation/Xbox same closed stores.