App Store Arguments
stratechery.com
stratechery.com
As a user, no way I would just toss aside years of app purchases and past experiences on one platform to suddenly decide to switch. Sure, some people do but generally they don’t. Switching cost applies to lots of things, not just phones, yet the inability of app stores to transfer proof of purchase makes this cost higher than it would normally be.
As a developer, like it or not you will depend on some (usually large) percentage of APIs available only on your first chosen platform. Probably even the programming language! And for the most unfortunate of businesses, a ton of this effort will be spent up front before even knowing if some new idea for an app will be denied entry to the App Store due to some unwritten rule (or worse, denied a few years in as the rules shift). If you reach the conclusion that you picked the wrong first platform, most developers are not “free” to “just” pick another phone/platform and make it all work out before going broke.
And I did so, quite willingly as I place my trust in Apple and how they control and guard the quality and safety of the software that I can put on my iPhone.
Now I can understand the sentiment of "free choice". But we're not talking about public utilities here. These are all commercial products provided to us by private companies. The choice we have is to not accept the offer as a whole. The market has spoken however and it seems we - the general public - are ok with how Apple runs their company.
User installable 3rd party mobile app stores cannot implement automatic upgrades, background installation of apps, or batch installs of apps like the Play Store can. These limitations are designed by Google and are implemented in Android.
If the user tries to install an app on their own, they're shown scary warnings and must adjust arcane settings, but if they use Google's Play Store, no scary warnings are shown and no settings need to be adjusted. They're told they're "protected" by Play Protect, but aren't shown scary warnings about the fact that the Play Store is the main distribution method for malware on Android[1] when they go to install apps with it.
The Play Store isn't alone in being a vector for malware, as Apple's App Store is responsible for nearly half of a billion malware installs of just XcodeGhost alone[2].
Like Apple, Google also mandates that apps distributed via the Play Store must use Google's payment system[3], and give Google a 15% to 30% cut of revenue:
> Developers charging for apps and downloads from Google Play must use Google Play's billing system as the method of payment.
[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/play-store-identified-as-main-...
[2] https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7bbmz/the-fortnite-trial-is...
[3] https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
Case study: Facebook. Hates Apple for the App Tracking Transparency prompt. Hates that they get substantially less revenue from iPhone users, according to leaked slides, due to restrictions on what APIs they can use to fingerprint and track users. Hates having a Privacy Label in the App Store. Solution? Force users to sideload. They'll most likely do it because they want Facebook, Facebook doesn't need to follow Apple's rules anymore, problem solved.
In that case, it is less that Apple is afraid of giving users the choice, as much as that large apps that people use will force users to make the choice for them.
And for that reason, while some users would legitimately want their iPhones to be able to install apps from anywhere, most users hitting the "Allow Sideloading" button would have essentially been forced into doing so, without actually wanting it.
If sideloading was enabled, Facebook could claim use of those entitlements. iOS could potentially show a prompt forcing users to OK their use, but Facebook would obviously hope most people just tap the button without thinking.
> Apple is afraid of giving users the choice, as much as that large apps that people use will force users to make the choice for them.
That assumes that users have no choice but keep using the side loaded software. But that's not true. People could just stop using Facebook entirely.
I guess the majority wouldn't, but the choice is there at least.
In regards to privacy, I agree with Apple's stance. But what about other areas? I don't want one single company dictating what I can or can't use on my device.
If people are still using Facebook, today, knowing all that has happened, the odds are most people will continue using it though one can dream. I would honestly expect 90%+ of Facebook users to sideload if Facebook required it.
"But what about other areas? I don't want one single company dictating what I can or can't use on my device."
If you told this to an Apple Engineer, he'd look at you in the eye and tell you that the iPhone isn't for you and to buy an Android. You have that choice. The iPhone doesn't fit your use case and Apple isn't interested in making it fit your use case.
Easy solution for Apple then: stop selling things labelled as "pro". I was already burned when I bought the 16 inch Macbook Pro, which was a shockingly incapable and undocumented device. Lenovo provides better documentation on their entry level laptops than Apple provides for their Pros, despite the order of magnitude difference in price between both devices. So to the "Apple Engineer" out there, I'd encourage you give people the choice anyways.
In other words, North Korea doesn't justify their atrocities by telling the rest of the world that their culture "isn't for them". Apple is no less accountable for their own product line, particularly when they're some of the most profitable electronic hardware being manufactured right now.
As for the term "pro" - nobody agrees what "pro" means. An art designer might do professional work on a MacBook Air, even though you wouldn't call that a "pro" machine. Although you might not like the terminology, you should have been able to research and know what you were getting, and it still absolutely does not bear the comparison to North Korea. First world problems compared to third world tyranny.
That’s, a bit of a stretch.
Easy solution for you: Accept that its not for you, even if you think you're "pro". Its just a word for marketing. You're the one with a problem in search of solution, apple is not.
Why sideload when you can simply open it up in any mobile browser?
See top comment
Your vision: I can choose not to use Facebook on my iOS devices, or else use it but let FB have access to and/or do a bunch of stuff I don't want them to.
How's the latter something I'd prefer to the former? All it gives me is a worse version of the same to choices from the first one.
Because of that, there are less reasons to sideload away from the Play Store (from a company's perspective) as there are on iOS.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/28/google-to-enforce-30percent-...
Starting from September 30, that's no longer the case.
The point is more that if the App Store is to be the only App Store on iOS, and Apple wants to maintain its rules on privacy and other systems and not become Android, sideloading logically cannot be permitted.
And yet there is no precedent for this happening, because this didn't happen on Android, Windows or macOS. The Play Store shows the same scary privacy warnings the App Store does for Facebook, and there still isn't a Facebook app store that some people like to fearmonger about.
Afterall, it was released in 2018.
But at the risk of pointing out the obvious: on Windows and macOS, there is no Facebook app at all. There’s a website, because somehow websites have become the standard for desktop applications, even as they’re simultaneously seen as unacceptable on mobile. And Facebook has full control over their website.
Of companies that do make native desktop apps, the big ones almost all eschew the Mac App Store.
This is a little like exclusives at physical stores but customers have a much less involved relationship in that case.
When spying on users and hoarding the resulting data is illegal, and anti-fraud laws and truth-in-advertising laws and laws mandating a standard interface for subscription management exist or are much better-enforced, then, sure, let's grab the torches and pitchforks and burn down the App Store. Meanwhile, I'm paying Apple to be my private regulation agency, backed by their sheer size (as a company, and of their market) to prevent companies and developers from simply refusing to do business with them (and so, not forcing, but strongly encouraging them to provide me with regulation-compliant products and services).
Google allows sideloading on Android. Neither Facebook nor any other similarly-popular app that I can think of forces users to sideload there. Why would it be different on iOS?
Facebook hasn't taken out any full page ads in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and probably others about Google Android not allowing them to track you without asking first. Clearly the circumstances are different.
With that said, I find the argument weak - it’s hard for me to believe that sideloading will be a big share of the market, as it hasn’t caught on in areas where a google is restrictive (e.g. adult content).
This would also mean that Facebook would start sideloading and attempt to circumvent any of the tracking/privacy enhancements they've built in to iOS.
I know how unpopular this is but I will say it anyway, I can't stand it and I am willing to sacrifice a few karma points to convey the message.
I have distaste against the claim that Apple is not allowing people do something on their device because this is technically false. What Apple is not allowing is using its App distribution platform outside of their store rules.
What Apple is not helping with is side loading. They don't have a say on what you install on your phone but they have a say on what you can distribute on their App Store. That's why it's the developers that are suing, not the users.
However hard it is, you have all the rights to run whatever you like on your device you purchased. The "Apple doesn't allow you to install apps, you don't own the device" is a fallacy.
You can pay for the convenience(get a developer account, use the Apple toolchain to install your apps) or hack your device and run whatever you want on it and both are completely O.K.
At the time of purchase you don't sign anything preventing you from doing it, consumer devices are not like those developer devices that apple sells or send upon limited use or NDA agreements. You are free to do whatever you like to your device. Install a Chromium engine or blend it for YouTube views, it's up to you. You are only limited with your local laws, so dispose it's battery responsibly and that's it.
This is patently false. Many entitlements are locked behind explicit, human approval from the Apple Developer Program; examples include NFC with payment-related Application IDs and Multicast Networking. You actually have to submit a request that basically goes 'Please can I write software for this device?' to use that hardware on the device (see https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=0oi77447). You emphatically are NOT able to run 'whatever you like'.
However Apple can lock their software. The software is licensed, you don't buy that but licence it like Photoshop. Adobe also doesn't provide you with an easy way to do your taxes on Photoshop but I'm yet hear to claim that Adobe is preventing us from doing our taxes.(I couldn't think out of my head a major software that's not on subscription model, hmm)
Remove it and install something like Android on it, it is hard but it has been done before.
I simply don't see how Apple is obligated to make it easy or create tools for doing it. It's not promised upon purchase or on any advertisement materials.
It's not different than complaining that Apple does not let you use your phone as pocket heater through heating the Qi coil.
They used to, more or less, either using a development/test certificate or an enterprise certificate. I believe Apple cracked down after this was taken advantage of at scale by Facebook and Google, as well as developers of other apps which would typically be banned from the App store.
https://www.macrumors.com/2019/02/13/apple-enterprise-progra...
I wonder how long until Apple finds the people who made the "you wouldn't steal a car" advertisement for the MPAA and gets them to make "you wouldn't offer your own payment method for digital goods".
Does Amazon build separate warehouses for third-party goods? All you're saying is that software is a good business, which everyone already knows.
>And, for what it’s worth, continue controlling games: I do think the App Store is a safer model, particularly for kids, and the fact of the matter is that consoles have the same rules.
Move Games away from App Store to Game Store. Keep those 30% cut. This way Apple have just protected ~90% of their App Store revenue. Like Ben have said, this is similar to console.
>Let developers own their apps, including telling users about their websites, and let creatives build relationships with their fans instead of intermediating everything.
Not just "creatives", but business to built relationship with their customers. Most people will still definitely sign up through Apple ID simply due to protection and simplicity. Collect flat 10% commission on digital goods with no exemption.
And App Store should approve apps as long as they are legal, fit the quality of apps in both UI and security requirement. Not because of its political speeches.
Finally Subscription Scams. Something needs to be done. I have a few solutions in my head but all of them have major drawbacks.
Not aware of apple banning anything due to politics (beyond international politics like china).
If you're discussing parler they claim its due to not being moderated (or adequately). This seems like a somewhat reasonable requirement.
Does anyone know if there's a strategic legal reason Apple hasn't done this (beyond the small developer program)? Like, imagine tomorrow they give ground. What op-eds would I read in the WSJ about how they've exposed themselves x, y, z problems?
I mean this in the legal sense, not the obvious, usual slippery slope.
One thing that really struck me in this article was Phil Schiller's email about sort of capping the rule after Apple takes in $1B in profit. I thought that was a very sweet and kind thing to suggest. Maybe the number is wrong, maybe the motivation is wrong, but I do like the spirit of this.
Basically, "fair" is hard to define. As stated in the article, literally everyone has good points. In cases like this, when fair in some kind of algebraic sense is impossible, maybe the easiest and best way to approach it is to say "fair is when everyone is more or less ok". Maybe that's the case now, maybe that's the sentiment that Phil was putting fourth. I wonder what that version of "fair" would like like today? Or maybe that's exactly what the small developer program is. Like, you don't have to pay that much unless you're making $1M or more. I know I would be very happy as a developer to have an app like this, and anything beyond that I'd probably be totally sucked into a money crazed world anyway, and probably miserable.
A way to maybe rationalize it (not saying it is acceptable, but just the reasoning) is that we don't scrap our antivirus software because it failed to block EVERY SINGLE virus... we keep it because we know it blocks a vast majority of the problems that might affect the computer.
For the point around purchases, Apple owning the App Store wholesale has led to helpful regulation of how in-app purchases work, how subscriptions can be used, how refunding policy on app purchases works. All this would likely get worse if every company pushed their app as an exclusive through their own third-party app store...
Apple weeds out a huge number of scams from the app stores. Their ability to do so is enormous.
Removing Apple from the equation would massively increase the number of scams.
So when is Epic going to sue the federal and state tax organizations? They're taking in some case up to 50% (VAT + corporate tax)
Still, I totally agree with this:
> What I wish would happen — and yes, I know this is naive and stupid and probably fruitless — is that Apple would just give the slightest bit of ground.
They could have bought a lot of good will if they just changed their fee model slightly for subscription and purchasing apps. It is totally reasonable to require that app subscriptions are done in store, but for services like Spotify, Kindle, etc, there should be options to buy in app. Apple could even require that they process transactions, but just not take a cut.
App store-based subcriptions add a lot of value, enough to justify a small premium. As a consumer, I like having one place to go to cancel my subscriptions. I don’t have to worry about being tricked into an auto-renewal. I don’t see a problem getting rid of anti-steering if the fee is reduced; my time is valuable enough that I’m not going to jump through hoops to save 10%, and I suspect that is true for much of Apple’s customers (I’m told day after day that iPhones are just for rich, elitist people, despite TCO often being lower than Android).
my partner used to work as an apple care agent and tons of people would call in saying apple apps took their money (but they were actually just random 3rd parties from app store). Apple is able to give them their money back.
These callers can't distinguish between apple and a third party app. Sometimes even from big names like uber or facebook. Apple is doing what they can to uphold their reputation (and yes, profit).
Apple needs to do that work to create UI/UX that can server all the users, maybe even offer customization and options for competent adults.
Using this kind of "think of grandma" reasoning will just lead you in removing every feature, like remove the "delete file" option from the Macs because grandma deleted something( the correct solution is to maybe pout a good confirmation box or some undo deletion/backups not screwing 99% for the 1% though let's be honest this is all about money)