Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing

Just imagine the confusion at Red Cross as they're inundated with hundreds of thousands of paperclips.

My point on e-ink was to show that Amazon has not invested in the Kindle product line.

Kindle readers can't support any modern interaction. And that part of the reason the interface speed is bad is because Amazon has neglected to invest whatsoever in the technology.

But to focus on the Kindle Fire app and its comparison, if you look at the most negative recent reviews, they generally focus on device incompatibility.

If you look at the App Store reviews for the kindle reader, they do not focus on that. They focus on other common issues between the platforms.

Device compatibility and support is a real value that Amazon Kindle users on iOS get.

2. More importantly, if your question is why does <INSERT LITERALLY ANY TECHNOLoGY> ever need updates? Answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_entropy

Is that a good example? I think that's how it works. Egress out to cloudflare is billed at the full rate last I checked. GCP gives you a discount, but not AWS.

Simple example is the sidebar [1]

Before it became the commonly used it is not in early OSX i twas third party libraries that would allow you do use these views. A lot of what is now macOS HIG was first made popular by third party developers (for free) then integrated into the OS X and then third party developers would migrate to the officially supported version.

To pretend Apple created all of this in a vaccum is a convenient lie people tell themselves.

https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline...

I dont think it is over-dramatic. It is little exaggerated to make the point, but not over-dramatic for sure. The Smartphone impact to our society will be if not already unprecedented. We will ( unfortunately ) "live" on our Smartphone.

For those who have been looking forward to Smartphone since ( Apple ) Newton era, which is now coming close to 30 years, this has been long time coming. But now we are actually here, it is kind of scary the direction we are heading.

During the pandemic, when fitness classes shifted to virtual video sessions, Apple demanded a 30% cut because what was once an offline “delivery of the goods” became online and iPhone -facilitated. What’s so dystopian about this example is that a virtual gym session is not too different from any kind of remote work.

Under the “value is delivered over an iDevice” philosophy, Apple’s tax can take a bite from nearly any plate in the economy.

Whether or not it makes business sense to restrict the use of Apple ID elsewhere is a matter properly left to the app developer and not Apple.

I should have added - this is based on my own interpretation of the App Store guidelines. If I'm wrong, I'd like someone to point it out, since I don't want to be spreading misinformation.

You want to use a Visa, you find a Sam’s Club. Don’t like state of iOS, travel to territory of Android.

In my order of preference I like: - your way -Apple’s way (although seems to be the way other app stores do it too) -current US way

It's OK to have a monopoly, it's not ok to abuse it under U.S. law.

Apple has actually loosened restrictions over time as the platform gained marketshare/size. And when Apple created the App Store they more than doubled how much developers took home from gross revenue (70-80% of revenue went to distributors/retail prior to the App Store).

The only anti-competitive area I'm concerned about is Spotify/streaming services. I think Apple is being overzealous here.

Everything else appears to be a game/software distribution norm.

Epic pays 30% on Android, Nintendo, Xbox, and Playstation markets.

Steam needs 15% and GOG needs 22% of gross revenue from games to break even operationally.

Stripe charges about 3% of gross revenue for transaction services.

The 30% doesn't seem that high when you consider those factors:

15% just to keep the lights on (Steam break-even royalty rate). 3% for transactions at minimum (e.g. Stripe fee) Ongoing R&D costs of maintaining iOS/iPhones (more technically and cost intensive than Xbox and Playstation combined).

The kit for iOS development is remarkably cheap too, $99/yr developer account (mostly a gatekeeping path to keep malware out), and $700 for an M1 Mac Mini (If you don't want to just use a VM from AWS for < $100 yr).

I think they can do better for small-time app developers (the 15% fee has helped), but I still feel like these people should STFU and look up how expensive Gaming Console, Embedded SoC, and IoT dev kits are in comparison (And god, don't look at the agreements we sign on embedded hardware dev kits). I wish I only had to spend $99 a year, and be able to use $100 used cell phones to test my software on.

Side-loading, right to repair are not similarly protected. Although maybe they will be passed one day.

So if Apple had illegal discriminations, I think that would greatly decrease their support on this issue. Definitely from me.

Let’s not pretend Apple doesn’t also benefit from having apps in its store and on its phone.

Because nobody sane wants them to? Like, to me, I can jump into most any IDE I’ve ever used without too much trouble, but Xcode is impenetrable.

It’s like Apple tried to throw up an artificial wall by making all Xcode paradigms different from anything else.

Being able to use a different app store (which may or may not be as "curated" as Apple's own store) or to simply download the app from the devs website and install it doesn't seem to be a problem for Android users. Or for Windows, Linux and even macOS (eg: is it that bad being able to install Steam?)

The thing is, most people will use the store that comes with the phone. I have F-Droid installed for some open source apps, but my parents have no idea of what that is. They use Google's Play Store, like most users... if Facebook wants them to use their apps, that's where their app needs to be.

BTW, Have you seen the app store catalog for macOS on apple silicon? Still very sparse.

Trusting one company to provide the whole stack is not necessarily practical, even for the average user.

The store owners pay rent, they are not obliged to give a 30% commission on purchases to the company who owns the shopping centre and they are not forced to use the shopping centres chosen payment service to make sure they collect on commissions.

Less freedom is not a good thing. Nothing is being taken away from you when you provide other options, quite the opposite.

Microsoft became rather antitrust shy at some point. Not sure if that's the case anymore but I think it affected many of the decisions.

In any case and as much as I like my own clueless grandma, I don't think my Android phone should only allow me to use the play store or that windows/macos/linux should stop me from installing Steam just because she's clueless about tech.

With just a tiny bit of imagination I'm sure we can come up with something which will work. Here's an idea: Let Apple sell Apple-locked and unlocked iPhones. It can work just like carrier locking. Buy one unlocked, maybe pay a little extra, and you can have 3rd party app stores.

That took me a minute to come up with. I am absolutely positive that there are many other degrees of options between full-control by Apple and full-control by End-user.

I get it though... people who like Apple aren't very appreciative of having options.

If Apple allowed other stores, before a user can install an app from non-Apple store, iOS can show a message saying the app is not from Apple's holy store and that it is users responsibility to make sure the app is trustworthy? This won't be pretty, but at least it is a compromise.

They want their 30% cut and they want to tightly control everything. That is the only true, logical reason. Everything else is a flimsy excuse

"It'll end up similarly to macOS AppStore. Developers will avoid it, so user will be forced to use other stores to make his phone useful."

So, kinda like on Androi... No, wait. It wont. Other stores will be in the margins likd on Android.

Third party developers want to get their apps onto the iPhone, because the platform has a lot of users, and there's a lot of money to be made. However, they will be forced to play by Apple's rules, which (according to the argument) is good for the customer, as the custodian of the platform has a vested interest in keeping them happy.

Now, if 3rd party stores were allowed, Apple's bargaining power which allowed them to force 3rd parties to respect the user's interest would go away, allowing developers to deliver a worse (eg privacy-violating) product.

Users who do not like this deal are free to go with an Android device instead of an iPhone. The popularity of the latter might suggest that quite a few people are reasonably happy with the status quo.

Another maybe-more-realistic version of this would be if some business software used their power over line workers to install things (since end-users are not really the customers in corporate software sales). Microsoft sets up their own store as the only source of Office Redux, and millions of iOS users are forced into this store via their employers. Same process as above: beachhead, gamble, dilution of Apple’s store.

It’s not hard to see how the process could snowball, though it’s certainly not guaranteed as there must be the right combination of events.

You've never heard any stories like "I put FireFox/Chrome on my parent's desktop and next time I went back they were using IE and said they didn't notice"? Or same with apps installed from an App store between real and imitation?

> "Apple can even put up loads of warnings and dark UI stuff when installing an alternate app Store to dissuade the "noob" users."

Why would they need to do that if "no one" is gonna mistake them?

The problem is that security and privacy benefits are somewhat intangible and hidden, so they are not enough to convince people to weight them heavily - this is the same reason why people download random software off the net and why the web is such a mess of trackers.

Apple’s approach tries to remove the need for users to think about the issue at all. Of course, it has downsides as well, but don’t underestimate what the ecosystem would be giving up once the door is opened to multiple stores.

Allowing third-party app stores effectively means providing a vector to bypass the official app-review process, which is the cornerstone on which the permissioning system rests. If you allow third-party app stores, then any sufficiently-popular app can create their own "app store" and demand that you give it full permissions, which they will turn around and use to scrape data. It will become a race to the bottom, permissioning systems cannot stand if the app-review process does not exist, and the app-review cannot exist if third-party stores exist as a mechanism to let anyone publish anything.

Facebook has already gotten their hands slapped for exploiting sideloading to mine user data, and if they could spread it to the general user-base then they will do so immediately.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...

So your question about "how can an alternative app store affect the Apple app store" is a red herring, and not at all what OP said - what OP said was "allowing third-party app stores will degrade the experience of iOS users" and that is absolutely true, Facebook has already tried to do this before and this will allow them to take another turn at the ring.

Given we have seen real malware like Xcodeghost that has successfully breached apples own App Store review process, he clearly has a point. Removing all binaries compiled with Xcodeghost to protect consumers would have been harder with multiple stores hosting binaries for sale vs one, and is indeed an example of one benefit of the single storefront. Incidentally, the internal emails from Apple regarding handling the Xcodeghost problem have arguably been some of the most interesting documents we’ve seen in this trial.

There are trade offs here, and while one option may appear to be fairer it is not going to be a free lunch. There’s always issues with software analogies if you dig too deeply too!

They already did - they choose iOS over Android / other possibilities.

I think they consider the massive success of the iPhone and App Store proof of that.

Given the fast pace that technology moves at, and the comparatively-slow pace at which government / legislation works, this may not be the best move in terms of keeping progress going. Especially since governments are notoriously bad at understanding tech.

My second question would be, are focus groups equipped to make a decision for potentially billions of users (given the sheer volume, and that focus groups are cherry-picked)?

Now imagine there’s a very popular restaurant, but it uses an inspector you don’t know if you trust. But you want to eat the food because all your friends are already there… so you’ll go.

This is exactly what would happen— various companies once they reach a certain size will just want to have their own store because either it makes them more money or they have less restrictions. Just look at Facebook and the new 14.5 privacy features that are cutting into their ability to collect data. If you let FB the chance to pull out, they’d do it in a heartbeat knowing they could easily force everyone to install their App Store… which would have 0 privacy restrictions and far less oversight (just look at the Cambridge Analytica scandal for how FB might run an App Store).

Given Apple mostly makes money selling hardware, they’re the best incentivized to protect its user base.

Disclaimer: I work for Apple but all views my own.

Imagine if there were 10 inspection groups, but sometimes they get bought by corrupt investors who let standards slide while pocketing the extra profit, and consumers constantly have to stay on top of which food inspection groups are the current OK ones and which aren't, and restaurants can't afford to get inspected by all 10 so they only do 2 but then people who only trust another 2 won't go there at all even though the food's fine, meanwhile the most trustworthy group jacks up prices for restaurants like crazy because restaurants know they have no choice...

It would be a nightmare. There's a reason that literally no country does this, that food safety is virtually universally considered to be a basic function of modern government.

Second, I shouldn't have to remind you how well competing regulators worked for the financial sector

Basically, I think something needs doing, but this ain't it. Maybe Apple need their cut cut. They make enough damn money. You could take their cut down to 5% and they'd still be raking it in by the truckload

The issue is compounded by imagining that the food safety board ran its own restaurant. It then closes down the cafe next door for unhygenic practices. Looks pretty bad right? That's the situation Apple will be in every time it has to make a call on something like this.

It derrives profit from iphones being relatively secure, which in practise means making it difficult for average users to install stupid things like malware.

Just because corporate overlords have a profit motive, doesn't mean it can't overlap with more alturustic motives. Being an evil villian typically pays well in the short term but not the long term (plenty of exceptions)

Sure sometimes apps get promotion and featured by the store but for the vast majority of apps, any downloads they get have about as much to do with Apple as the results of your web searches do.

iOS Safari already lags behind in features. Apple would just make it even worse if it started to cost them significant amount of money to have a truly great web browser.

A 1% "Apple Platform Safety Fee" on Robinhood wouldn't surprise me....

Would they? Don't they literally already do this too?

Isn't Apple Card https://www.apple.com/apple-card/ them literally skimming off the top of every financial transaction, despite them doing nothing but provide a branded whitelabeled Goldman Sachs Mastercard? (admittedly, a very pretty fancy card)

I don't think the general population will ever be terribly up in arms with Apple's behaviour anymore, so long as Apple keeps forcing other businesses to hide Apple's taxes/fees/cuts for them.

Developers need to ally with each other, then they can force Apple’s hands.

What’s funny is that developers are practically in the best job to do that. Their jobs allow them tons of time to communicate with each other, they’re highly educated and able to communicate, and they have the know how to operate the mechanisms allowing them to communicate (forums, email, chat groups).

So what is stopping developers? I can only assume they’re not yet being taken advantage of by Apple sufficiently to warrant the efforts of banding together.

An IPhone is pretty useful right out of the box. Not to mention that most of the apps that people actually use could be web pages. And if they really wanted to, apple could always dip into their cash reserves and start making more of their own apps.

It was good enough for the first year before the App Store existed, and it sold well enough to prove it.

Even now, it's plenty capable right out of the box without installing anything.

A device in 2007 that had first-party apps for email, web browsing, YouTube, weather, calendar, clock, address book, phone, calculator and music player, that also synced with your main personal computer was perfectly fine for many people.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18996377

The closest analogy to Apple is the game console industry. Even then it's a different scale.

IMO, the App Store situation is an entirely new class of problem unlikely to be solved in this case. It doesn't easily fall under existing monopoly regulation, and does have some advantages for consumers along with disadvantages. Unfortunately, I think Apple is being short sighted here. By not addressing the most egregious issues (30% for example), they are setting themselves up to be regulated which will probably end up being worse for everyone. A sledgehammer will end being used where a scalpel was needed.

It’s a complex problem because applications like BonziBuddy mean you can’t actually trust users to detect issues. That’s not to say Apple ensures quality, just that minimum standards have actual value.

On the other hand it’s reasonable for large companies to disagree with subsidizing lone developers. As such a substantial fee to submit apps would likely be required.

Here, for one: https://www.pandasecurity.com/en/mediacenter/mobile-security....

And in the general open web, for another, where online fraud is a multi-billion business...

There are huge numbers of dark pattern companies who thrive on the ability to thwart subscription cancellation and the Apple method can at least be googled.

I have not seen any platform which has resolved the fake review problem through incentives and many that are far worse.

However, historically, this was almost always because the monopoly did something like change the rules to benefit themselves after they became a monopoly. From the law's perspective, Apple didn't do anything like that. Apple didn't raise the commission to, say, 50%. Apple hasn't changed the rules since, like, 2009 before they had the theoretical "monopoly" status. This makes proving an illegal monopoly case against Apple (because monopolies are not intrinsically illegal) more difficult.

Console games sold in stores pay a licensing fee to the console maker, so the maker still gets their 30%.

> I can choose which console I buy to consume these games on.

Not really? You can't play the new Demons' Souls on an Xbox, no matter how much you want to. You also can't get Gamepass on a PS. Console sales are driven by exclusives.

"General-purpose" is an artificial distinction. The idea of "general-purpose" devices do not exist in any legal sense.

>Game consoles are specific-purpose computing devices: they play video games with a secondary use of running other entertainment apps (netflix).

This is a circular argument. Game consoles are "specific-purpose" because they've been made to be "specific-purpose". The Xbox could be a perfectly adequate gaming PC had Microsoft not decided to artificially lock it down. There's no technical reasons why I shouldn't be able to plug an Xbox into a monitor and get real productivity done on the same machine I play games (like any gaming PC).

An even better distinction: the Nintendo Switch. The Switch could easily function as a tablet PC had Nintendo not locked down the system.

>There is an entire universe of apps that don't make sense on an Xbox. Why would your bank create an Xbox app, or why would Adobe port over a version of Photoshop for the Xbox? They wouldn't. And that's the difference between the two.

And why is this where the line is drawn? I wouldn't put Xcode on my iPhone. Nor would I put Blender or Final Cut Pro. You certainly wouldn't run a web server on an iPhone. These are all things "general-purpose" computers are capable of. You've just drawn the line where it happens to be convenient for this argument.

Edit: We should also consider the dangers of this argument too. If we codified what a "general-purpose" device is, the response from manufacturers would be to simply restrict the capabilities of their devices to not be "general-purpose". If banking apps and Photoshop are what makes a computer "general-purpose", then we'll see banking apps and Photoshop banned from platforms.

Now one could argue the intent is they not be general purpose devices, but so could the intent of anyone not wanting competing stores. I'm not sure the intent of how manufacturers want users to use it factors in as such.

One argument that comes up often related to this set is consoles are sold at a loss (and iPhones are not) on the assumption profitability (not increased profits) will be made through purchases on the platform. This is more of an bona fide difference between phones and consoles but has it's own debate as well (which I'm not going to get into here as this is already veering pretty far off the article topic).

From the law's perspective, the iPhone is on the same legal grounds as a PlayStation or Nintendo Switch. Frankly, I don't think the law should try to separate devices. Either this lock-in is legally permitted, for any manufacturer, or it's not permitted and all manufacturers must be open.

It's a suit of convenience for everyone involved, nobody is making a principled stand for user freedoms here, they just want to pry open Apple's bank vault, and they don't care if user privacy (permissioning/app review, etc) gets shredded in the process.

That the software freedom argument just happens to resonate with a lot of people who will sympathetically argue along with Microsoft and others as they continue to deny user freedoms is merely a bonus.

Think it through: free apps would not be able to afford the rent, so they would need a discount.

Then in the limit all apps would become free, so as to get the discount.

But some apps would be making a killing with external payment methods, while other apps would be making nothing.

Meantime Apple would also be making nothing.

I would think Apple has thought about this.

https://developer.apple.com/programs/how-it-works/

immoral? Its subjective. I disagree and apple likely don't think its immoral

illegal? isn't that what the trial is for ? to decide whether this is illegal.

- AWS charge you on bandwidth used, Apple don't charge developers for the number of downloads

- AWS charge you on compute time, Apple don't charge you for ongoing use of their services beyond one initial charge for app submission

- AWS charge you for storage, Apple don't charge you for storing your app

I'm not a fan of Apple's App Store terms any more than the next person, but the GP's comparison to eBay is a hell of a lot more apt than your comparison with AWS.

That’s the real magic of AWS and is the reason S3 was the mother service. Pre-AWS, colo at scale meant circuits and high friction networking. With the modern cloud providers, there’s less friction, but a tollbooth.

For example, I can pay $0.99 to buy a game using Square or Apple, but Apple takes a 30% cut and will give me a full refund if I don't like the game. I chose Apple every time, but not because it's "better", it's just better for me and I'm not the one paying for it.

Apple “puts up or shuts up” with the phone itself. Thats the product and the consumer choice they focus on.

So I think we can agree that a realistic number for Apple is definitely above 3% for the service they provide.

We can argue about 30%, and that’s a good discussion, but 3% is no way comparable.

To “play” on Xbox or PlayStation, they take a 30% cut.

Steam also takes a 30% cut.

It’s pretty standard, certainly not “exploitative” (at least not on apples part, if not others), though obviously as a game developer I’d prefer it be much less.

Of course, as we all know, rent in a retail mall often includes a percentage cut of monthly revenue, so we would be right back where we started.