Apple makes its case against iPhone app sideloading
fastcompany.com
fastcompany.com
I wish businesses would start considering the corrosive effect this kind of "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is peace" newspeak has on society. Hearing corporate spokesperson after corporate spokesperson (or their toadies in the press) parrot this kind of junk generates untold cynicism. How are we supposed to believe corporations are an important part of a just human society when they have whole departments scheming on how to bamboozle us with this kind of brainwashing? And what does it do to the people who start out earnestly believing in a company's mission, who start internalizing that they need to say whatever they have to to protect the company?
It would be way more straightforward to say "we have a lot of non-technical users [referred to as 'your 15-year-old nephew or 75-year-old father' in the article] and they're at risk from exploits via sideloaded apps".
Or I mean, it's probably even more straightforward to say "we make lots of money on the App Store; why would we enable competitors when we don't have to?"
People are just so tired of everything coming down to "freedom" and "fairness"; this stuff has just lost all meaning. Let's take this seriously and start working against it.
It's a shame because I thought it was a nice solution for sideloading emulators and the like - just compile them yourself!
Enterprise certs were also misused by Facebook, etc..
Coming back to my point, Apple still allows side-loading (however limited) while claiming they don't. Claiming otherwise is misspeaking at best, and obfuscation or even deceit at worst. Apple is free to do what it wants with regards to allowing side-loading, but misrepresenting their offerings to the general public should result in the company being taken to task for their statements.
But, does that exist at scale anywhere? It might be that this is a false option. If that's the case, and our options really are walled garden vs. balkanization, walled garden doesn't look too bad.
Or I could also reframe it as the reason the open standards choose your own experience option doesn't exist is that there's no financial incentive to build it, and capitalism has failed us yet again.
Tim Cook claims sideloading apps would destroy security and privacy of iOS - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27565002 - June 2021 (35 comments)
Apple CEO Tim Cook: Sideloading Apps Would 'Destroy the Security' of the iPhone - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27535691 - June 2021 (1 comment)
Tim Cook: Sideloading is “not in the best interests of the user” - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27535605 - June 2021 (44 comments)
Apple is blocking Apple Silicon Mac users from sideloading iPhone apps - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25807114 - Jan 2021 (36 comments)
Apple begins blocking M1 Mac users from side loading iOS applications - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25796271 - Jan 2021 (9 comments)
I’m sympathetic to the “I love my walled garden” crowd. There are good points being made on both sides.
The funny thing is that I never hear the pro-Apple side suggesting (or being agreeable to) lowering App Store fees as an acceptable compromise. Or suggesting the Apple should do the right thing and properly support PWAs.
Apple is redirecting the argument towards privacy/security and we are giving them a pass on the core issue.
Can the HN crowd not agree (in principle) that a compromise is possible? Why does the pro-Apple side never seem to be willing to budge on anything? Allowing PWAs? Nope. Other browser engines? Nope. Lower fees? No way.
It’s infuriating.
Note: I use Apple products almost exclusively and love them. I just don’t think Apple is entitled to take 30% from me for every thing I do on the $1200 phone I already bought.
I can envision a possible Nash equilibrium arising if, ceteris paribus, the fee was capped at the actual cost for running the App Store.
Interestingly, 30% seems to be a common business threshold for acceptable profit margin in other industries, as well.
The truth is, if those numbers were known, the level of outrage would skyrocket.
>an updated Sarbanes-Oxley that requires publicly traded companies to issue reporting at that level of granularity could be an interesting approach to economic reform.
I generally agree, that would be interesting.
I think it is smarter for them to operate in the same legal construct as everyone else: only admit what you are legally required to admit.
Apple understands that they cannot win the PR war in being open and honest with its customers and partners.
Who knows though, maybe this was disclosed in court and/or to legislatures. It will be interesting to see if it comes out.
Or, since it is currently unknown, they could be operating at a loss.
Not likely, I know.
However, it does appear that the market competition of Apple’s small business fee reduction is driving down the fees at other ecosystems.
One could infer that an overall market adjustment of the profit margin has already occurred.
Note to ‘freedom’ activists. Don’t tell me what I want. Leave iOS the way I want it. If you want a system that works they way Android does, use Android and leave me alone.
Why would that be different with apple?
The same goes for a ton of other apps, they’d all swing over up a ‘Freedom Store’ on iOS. They don’t need up do that on Android because Google.
> I don’t want Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc to be able to do an end run around App Store controls.
Alternative stores is a subset of this core issue: sideloading apps to circumvent the gatekeeping process that Apple created for the users benefit.
More stores might be more choice for you, but it would take away the benefits to me of apps having to go through Apple App Store review to get on my phone.
Finally, the thing is users don’t always want all these choices. Really. That’s why the Play Store dominates on Android. Consolidation and simplicity benefits users. I know that creates monopoly issues and Apple should be held accountable, but the concerns of users like me need to be addressed. A Freedom Store with loose controls on iOS, but with Google apps, Facebook, Spotify, Fortnite, probably all the MS apps as well, all as exclusives would coerce users into using two different stores and cripple privacy accountability for iOS users like me.
Fair enough, can you give us a few of those benefits so we can have a discussion? AFAIK, Apple's privacy controls are built into the OS, so you'd still have those.
From a user experience perspective, Apple’s ethos is that of a consistent, clean look and feel for everything in the ecosystem.
Additionally, from the user experience perspective, Apple’s ethos is for custom development to maintain adherence to the stated user experience goals of Apple’s own in-house development.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#des...
And yet:
users don’t always want all these choices. Really. That’s why the Play Store dominates on Android.
I just hear this claim touted a lot around HN. I'm trying to determine if it's FUD by examining the evidence. Do you have any examples that fit this criteria? That is, can you name any modestly popular apps that moved from the App Store on Android to a sideload-only model?
The iOS built in controls would still be the same.
There just isn't a compelling case for a major app to go sideload-only. This entire line of reasoning smells like FUD.
Personally, I would prefer just one App Store with Apple compromising in other ways. Lower fees, consistent application of the rules, and proper support for PWA's. How do you feel about that?
I wouldn’t worry about Facebook and Google. Ad vendors will want their wares on as many platforms as possible.
It’s the rent-seekers who want to milk their IP for every last cent that are most likely to go down the ‘freedom store route’. Disney. Sony. And basically every large game company.
This is the central conflict here, because only one of two things can be true. Either:
A) iOS is so big that companies can't afford not to target it, and that they're forced to follow Apple's rules, even if they don't like those rules.
or
B) the smartphone market is open, and companies can just decide not to target iOS, in which case there really isn't a way to force Facebook to give you a privacy-respecting app.
If B is true, then having 3rd-party app stores on the iPhone would change almost nothing. If A is true, then it would change everything.
----
Often, the pro/anti-Apple arguments boil down to one side saying, "just develop for Android if you don't want Apple's restrictions", and the other side saying, "just don't install a 3rd-party app store if you don't want one."
But both of those responses miss the point. The point is that Apple users want a monopoly. They want to be part of a restricted platform that is so big that Facebook and Google and Microsoft can't afford not to develop for it. Meanwhile, people like me want Apple's walled garden to be small enough that it can be ignored.
In that debate, it doesn't matter where you draw the lines around Apple's walled garden. "No one is forcing you to use iOS" and "no one is forcing you to install an app store" are basically the exact same argument; the only difference is whether they define Apple's walled garden as encompassing the hardware or the software. But the reason why Facebook can't abandon iOS is the same reason why Apple can be considered anti-competitive. It doesn't matter whether Apple's walled-garden is a device or a store, the question is whether or not companies are forced to enter it in order to remain competitive on the market.
On some level, we all know this -- that's why on the anti-Apple side we recognize that "just go to Android" isn't really a good argument. But that's also why the pro-Apple side doesn't accept "just use the official app store" as a solution to their problems. Because what they want is the complete opposite of what software-freedom advocates want. They want developers to be forced to target the walled garden. That's the conflict.
I have a locked down Linux box that only pulls software from a few sources. The difference between my Linux box and an iPhone is not the security, or the privacy, or anything like that -- the difference between my Linux box and an iPhone is that companies like Facebook do not feel obligated to write software for my Linux box.
----
And honestly, I don't know that there's a way around that conflict. Either you economically force Facebook to target iOS's walled garden, or you don't. The best middle ground I can think of is something like the Web, an aggressively sandboxed runtime that companies are economically forced to target the same way that they are forced to target iOS, but that is not controlled by a single corporation and that approaches security in a more equitable way. But even on the web, this conflict still exists a little bit. The web being an Open platform means that outside of the platform-level restrictions, I still can't force companies to build their websites/service exactly the way I want them to. At best I can use the Web platform itself to circumvent their services, block ads, etc...
> If you want a system that works they way Android does, use Android and leave me alone.
So what all of this boils down to is: I strongly suspect that if Android development was as economically viable as iOS development, and if it was genuinely possible for large companies to just stop supporting iOS and to "leave iOS users alone", that iOS users would be very unhappy with that outcome. You don't really want to be left alone, you want Facebook, Google, etc to be forced to build apps for you inside of your walled garden.
Apple saved us not just from crappy phones, they didn’t just invent the modern smartphone and make this whole app industry happen, they also saved us from carriers owning phone platforms. If phones had stayed on their old trajectory, we’d be arguing about whether carriers should still be dictating which apps went on their networks and instead of Apple gate keeping it would be AT&T and such. I will be forever grateful to them for killing that future.
I do accept that this puts Apple in a powerful position that could be abused. In fact I think there is a case that some of their policies are over-reach. This is a legitimate area for scrutiny and maybe even legislation. However I think those areas are relatively marginal and legislation must be done in the interests of users, and the freedom maximalist position does not properly take into account the vital interest of many, quite possibly most users on iOS.
Apple has much less of a right to make demands of others there than it does on the hardware and software platform that they built, themselves.
Similarly, since you are attempting to speak on my behalf, as an Apple consumer, I feel the need to correct you: I do not want Facebook to build an iOS app. They can keep that crap to themselves.
So are you OK with Facebook moving their app to a 3rd-party app store?
The downside of having sideloading on an iPhone is purely that companies would not be forced to target Apple's app store and that they might not release their apps on the official store. There's some very minor other concerns, but that's the big one. If you're OK with abandoning apps like Facebook and Fortnite, then you should be fine with sideloading being allowed.
> can be met through more traditional means such as the world-wide web.
iOS is lagging on the web right now, but I agree that putting more attention on Safari and making the web more capable would go a long way towards eliminating my concerns.
Note that there is some irony in me championing the web, because the web works the same way. It's a platform that guarantees certain user freedoms and sandboxing, but that is so big that companies can't ignore it. And I'm very happy with that "monopoly". The only real difference is that the web's restrictions are more reasonable to me, that the web doesn't moderate content itself, that it's less controlled by a single company, it has more stakeholders and more input, and that it approaches security through different mechanisms that I think are superior to iOS's.
But it's still a platform that I want companies to be forced to target, so I get where iOS users are coming from on this. I just disagree with the platform they want to win.
I am not ok with using legal force to induce Apple to allow a third party App Store, no.
In the court of law, it might be able to be argued that there is no actual harm being caused by Apple having sole proprietorship over their custom development guidelines.
I don’t follow that line of reasoning.
Why should I be fine with increasing the security attack surface for my phone because I am fine with Facebook or Fortnite being ejected from the App Store if they ever violated App Store rules?
Because you don't have to. The only reason why you would need to increase your attack surface is if you wanted to turn sideloading on for your phone, and the only reason you need to do that is if there are apps outside of the App Store that you aren't willing to ignore.
If Facebook leaves the iOS app store and moves to a 3rd-party, and if you're willing to ignore Facebook, then you leave 3rd-party stores disabled and continue using your iPhone the same way you're using it today.
The only reason this would matter is if there were apps outside of the App Store that you want/need.
Seems to be that the tables need to be turned: if there are apps that I can’t ignore, then they need to be required to be available on a common, accessible platform like the web, and not locked to any proprietary platform whatsoever.
Currently iOS is lagging on this front, and their lack of support for multiple browser engines is a problem, but honestly -- given the choice between sideloading on iOS or Apple devoting the resources into making their browser engine more capable, supporting things like push notifications, Bluetooth/NFC... I think I'd rather the Web just win.
I'm not opposed to native, I write native software occasionally, and there are some very real problems with the web. But in terms of sandboxing, privacy, the controls baked into browsers are imo just a lot better than most native platforms, including iOS. So in the absence of a better alternative, I'm inclined to say that yeah, more apps should be moved out of the app store and onto the Web. I think a lot of it is just a matter of getting the Web to parity with the capabilities that native platforms provide.
The big issues off the top of my head:
- the lack of background scheduling/tasks. It's tough to make a website play a song in the background (even Android would occasionally just shut down the app last time I checked), or to do things like set alarms/notifications.
- installation UX.
- the lack of good, reliable offline storage. A major weakness of the web is that it is inherently tied very heavily to serverside code. This encourages every website to have user accounts, your data needs to be stored on some server someplace. It's a major step backwards. So we want to get filesystem support, and we want to get that in a form that the user can easily inspect and modify and copy files into an out of. And obviously we want that to be heavily sandboxed from the rest of the filesystem. We also want to lean more heavily into offline access for websites, and we want better user controls about managing what websites are cached, not just a button buried in browser settings. We want users to be able to do things like control when an offline website updates, or even whether it's allowed to connect to the Internet at all.
- the lack of just general integration with things like intents, subscriptions, etc... Apple users want to be able to continue to use the same tools to manage things like subscriptions, parental restrictions, so it would be good to allow them to continue to do that with web apps.
- the lack of just general access to phone features like NFC/Bluetooth.
There's probably one or two other things I'm missing. I think iOS is supporting WASM now, so dealing with Javascript should become less of a problem for people in the future. Timer accuracy is still a problem as far as I know, which makes developing games pretty annoying, but not unsolveable.
So did Apple. But a massive amount of developers wanted native apps - a lot of them here. Don't forget that, at the time, Apple wasn't the behemoth it is today - far from it. I'm guessing it was an either/or descision at the time.
That's what's so frustrating. It's very obviously a conscious decision to let it languish in order to push people towards native (and Apple's 30% cut).
Yeah I know, its a moral argument not a business one. But, Apple does market itself as a highly moral, socially conscious, and highly progressive company.
Maybe one day they will do the right thing. A guy can dream.
A good use case for something like Tim Berners-Lee’s Solid idea: https://solidproject.org/
You are free to choose from a non-proprietary platform or proprietary platform.
Unfortunately, there are currently no successful, widely adopted, non-proprietary phone hardware ecosystems.
Can you address the third option and forth option? (C) That Apple lowers its fees to a more reasonable level. Or (D) That they allow third party payment processors (but not third party stores)?
I'm a very happy Apple user. I just have a problem with them taking a 30% cut on everything I do, even after I've already paid $1200 for a phone. I just don't think 30% fairly represents the value they are providing for the "service" of vetting the store. I am willing to pay for that service. Just like I pay for Apple Music, iCloud storage and Apple Arcade.
The whole "third party store" thing is a distraction IMHO. Solve the Apple 30% tax issue and the case for it is pretty much lost. Even better: also require Apple to properly implement PWA's so users can (sort-of) sideload non App Store Apps (as you touched on).
To me, both of those fall under A. They're adjustments to Apple's existing moderation policy, they are not changes to how much control Apple has (Well, maybe D is a little, but not much). I would sum up both of those ideas as "the smartphone market remains closed, but Apple gets nicer about it."
I do think there's a segment of users who are basically happy with companies being forced into Apple's policies, they just want Apple's policies to be a bit better than they are today. Or they think it's fine for Apple to exert control, just not in a couple of specific anti-competitive ways.
> properly implement PWA's so users can (sort-of) sideload non App Store Apps
Yeah, the web is interesting. This would be Apple giving up control over their platform, but they would be giving up control to another platform that also has very good sandboxing. I would love to be targeting phones with progressive web apps now. It sort of works today, but there are problems.
I also really don't like how little control over data people have on the web. The only really safe way to store data in a webapp is to store it serverside, which imo is bad for users and for developers. There are efforts going on to make this better, but I don't know if Apple will be interested in implementing them, and it's a tricky problem in general to solve securely, so I don't think any of the browser manufactures are eager to rush it and introduce security holes into browsers.
Are you willing to compromise on anything else in the equation so that the "other side" gets something?
How about significantly lower App Store fees? What do you think about allowing PWA's and alternative browser engines? What about game streaming?
If your "opposition" is willing to admit that your position is understandable, would you be willing to do the same?
Edit: Allow a mechanism for chargeable updates.
Should Apple block the websites of those companies and only allow you to use the apps that they've approved?
Don’t tell me what I want. Leave iOS the way I want it. If you want a system that works they way Android does, use Android and leave me alone.
You're welcome to hand control of your computing environment to a megacorporation. I'm going to continue to point out that that's a very bad idea for freedom and innovation.
As evidenced by the fact that on sideload-enabled Android, Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc. have done an end run around Play Store controls.
/s
It’d be like government restricting the right of OpenBSD to remove sudo.
Is this stance by Apple really the best for them? I'm an Android user only because of Apple's draconian closed garden. Surely there are lots of Android users that would happily buy from the AppStore by default and enjoy likely privacy benefits if they felt they had more freedom of choice while using their device.
Has Apple made the conscious decision to forego a massive market of users because the AppStore really rakes in that much cash?
Basically, how do they know this position is better - even from a shareholder perspective? They must have proof - and that's sad because there are many users who would love their core product that will not own one.
Because tech cannot compete with lifestyle, Apple is in a different business. Clearly, it's a profitable one. Changing to an open model or competing on raw hardware or software is never going to be their thing.
BTW, this is not to denigrate their hardware in any way as much of it is great. But, especially in recent years, the company has compromised the usefulness of its hardware through its walled garden approach to software.
I would really have to drink the cool-aid to work at Apple on their tech. I'm so annoyed by how Macs so commonly negotiate a low quality external display signal, e.g. YPbPr. It would suck to be told to make it do that in a plausibly deniable manner.
Xbox Game Pass is considered the big success of the gaming industry right now and could define the future of how gaming looks (a la Netflix). It makes tons of money for them.
All of this inside their walled garden and not in any way open.
So walled gardens are not necessarily bad. I pay for Game Pass and I think it's a great deal.
Other brands sell products, just products. Apple sells a lifestyle, on top of great products. Many of their products are leading technologically their specific category (e.g., Watch, iPad). Others are amazing products, sure pricier at times, but great nonetheless (e.g., iPhones, computers).
So yes, Apple definitely sells a lifestyle and coolness but that's also backed up by real tech.
Like a Surface Pro thoroughly beats an iPad on hard technical grounds.
I suspect that Apple does in fact make enough for this to be a no-brainer at the moment. It will take a shift in general public sentiment (and to some extent behaviour) to tip the balance. They wouldn't wait until it's strictly financially better because trust is hard to regain after losing it.
I don’t want the ‘freedom’ of everything working like Android.
That is wishful thinking. There are plenty of examples of giant corporations existing even when their customers dislike them or their products. I'm confident you could think of a few.
No, it’s pretty basic capitalist market economic theory. The invisible hand of the market doesn’t work at an acceptable pace for some issues, but the theory is likely sound on the evolutionary scale of time.
Opinions lead to hypothesis which lead to theories which lead to laws.
https://www.theacsi.org/acsi-benchmarks/benchmarks-by-brand/...
https://www.consumerreports.org/smartphones/android-or-iphon...
Also, the 2021 data being referenced is comparing phone hardware, not ecosystems.
>Also, the 2021 data being referenced is comparing phone hardware, not ecosystems.
I didn't see that mentioned anywhere so I'm going to ask for a citation. It appears to me that the study asked for an overall impression.
> The American Customer Satisfaction Index independently measures customer satisfaction with top-selling smartphone brands available to U.S. consumers.
Smartphone brands is what I’m referring to as “comparing phone hardware”.
That article doesn’t asses satisfaction with the two successful proprietary ecosystems, directly.
By measurement artifact, I mean that the appearance of consistency could actually be artificial statistical noise hiding a confounding variable.
ie, did they actually ask questions that compare satisfaction with App Store vs Play Store or only ask for satisfaction with Galaxy verse Pixel verse iPhone, etc.
Why would a question about satisfaction with your smartphone exclude the entire operating system? I mean, maybe that's what they did(?). But there is no evidence for that. At all.
I'm not even going to respond to the wild speculation (again, without evidence) that the results are flawed by a "measurement artifact".
Indeed, scientific reasoning does tend to bend the mind.
> Why …
What is at issue is the scientific validity of drawing conclusions about satisfaction with an ecosystem from data about satisfaction with phone models.
> I’m not even going to respond…
But you did respond with wild accusations, in violation of HN site guidelines.
Since you didn’t take the charitable effort to Google “measurement artifact”, here you go, allow me to provide a Wikipedia article on artifacts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artifact_(error)
> an artifact is a spurious finding, such as one based on either a faulty choice of variables or an over-extension of the computed relationship. Such an artifact may be called a statistical artifact.
I know exactly what was meant, the problem is you've provided absolutely no evidence that it is a measurement artifact(!). You simply stated "it might be". What kind of "scientific reasoning" is that exactly? Please tell.
The onus is on you to provide evidence to back up your claims, or admit that you flippantly dismissed study results simply because they run counter to your point.
That is what is at issue. I made a point and provided supporting evidence. You have not. I made no "accusations" other than that.
Seems fine to me.
I’d honestly switch to a flip phone and remove myself from the app market entirely, if it came down to a law preventing walled gardens.
One example: DJI's app for their drones. They are forced to follow Apple's rules on iOS, but don't offer the same app on Google's play store. I trust the iOS version much more for that reason alone.
But as long as they take 30% from developers on the platform and expanding the scope who needs to pay, they fully deserve monopoly investigations and eventually fines for their greed.
Customers are demanding a feature from the manufacturer - there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. More people should be doing this. Also using words like "desperately" is needlessly polarizing.
Zero, judging by Android.
"If you want to criticize a religion, write a book. If you want to describe sex, write a book or a song."
This is the same company that has more recently described Itch.io as offensive and indecent. This is the same company that has gone out of its way to basically block game streaming entirely from its platform. It's the same company holding back web apps/experiences.
So I get the security angle here, I really do, but forgive me if I'm suspicious whether security is the primary reason why Apple is locking down their store. On my side of things as a game developer, I think Apple is a large part of why gaming on mobile phones looks the way it does today. They made one model economically viable, and they aggressively chased off anyone who was treating games like a serious medium, and they still have those attitudes towards gaming as an art form today.
So for them to act like this is just a debate about malware is really disingenuous. It's also a debate about the cultural control that Apple exerts, and their ability to basically shut down and manipulate markets by deciding what software innovations, game genres, and content in general are allowed run on their phones.
A lot of us don't want Apple to have the control it has, not because we don't care about malware, but because we fundamentally don't trust Apple to be a responsible moderator/gatekeeper to the mobile market. The company has the criticism it has about moderation because they've burned a lot of bridges with developer communities over the years. If Apple really was just caring about privacy/security, this debate wouldn't be as fierce as it is. I actually really like the direction iOS is going on privacy. The problem is that on multiple other moderation fronts, their developer policies are anti-competitive or puritan/regressive.
Lower fee plan from Apple that allows external payments, no enterprise support, no App Store promotion, limited iOS API access (nothing sensitive), etc.
Higher fee plan to give developers access to more sensitive APIs and Apple payments, etc.
Mark the latter apps as “supported by Apple” or something in the store. I know it doesn’t solve everything but it’s better than the current state of things.
Does the average user really do this? In my experience they just allow everything, because every permissions pop-up is just a delay to whatever they're trying to do.
I routinely limit location on apps - as well as address book, microphone and camera.
Have you any comment on the actual article or the arguments contained within?
Apple is very good at spinning their walled garden as a user benefit. In some cases, it is. Here, it isn't.
I consider the lack of sideloading to be an advantage of iOS and I pay a premium for it.
Genuinely curious as I have no idea: Has this happened on Android? What are some examples?
I'm not convinced either way about sideloading - I just hear this claim touted a lot around HN. I'm trying to determine if it's FUD by examining the evidence.
Do you have any examples that fit this criteria?
Also, I want to hear from Android enthusiasts. I've never owned an Android phone and wouldn't know a notable/popular app on the platform unless it was also popular on iOS. I doubt there are any apps that are in the Apple App Store but are sideload-only on Android. That just doesn't make sense.
Now, do you have any examples of notable Apps abandoning the Play Store and going sideload-only, or not?
If you don't want to debate, that's fine too.
I'll take your excuses to mean you can't do the former, but refuse to do the latter. That's fine. But please know that HN readers can see right through what you're doing. It never, ever, wins arguments around here.
Yes, I'm serious. And will provide proof of donation.
It blows my mind that there are people who defend these kind of statements.
There’s a reason for this that I’ve been thinking about and it all comes down to Pushing Power. Android , on its own, doesn’t have a lot of “pushing” power because it’s not monotheistic. It requires all the players in the game to play nice in order to make something the norm. If Samsung or Google does something in their own, it doesn’t have the pushing power to turn the industry (only really Androids). Google could have that pushing power, but their reputation of killing and rebranding services hurt them. There aren’t assurances that they won’t kill something so there’s no backing of it. And this affects everything down to the developers of the platform.
How can one push anything on such a platform ? The Google play store will probably have the average consumer’s wants and there’s too much friction of installing another store for one thing. This lack of Pushability works since Android likes to churn out razor-edge and innovation features, even if these features don’t talk to each-other like iOS users often expect, and it doesn’t matter if these features are 100% baked.
But iPhones is a different story. It’s probably one of the most powerful pushing platform there is. Think about it. Apple was able to remove the headphone Jack and sell the solution. Neither Google nor Samsung has the pushing power to do that since their customers can just get a similar experience elsewhere. They need Apple to do the “crazy” thing first and just follow suit down the line once Apple has successfully done it. Because in the end , no matter what Apple does, there is no where else we can ever get the parity with the seamlessness that is the iPhone. And as a result it has pushing power.
And this extends to its Apps to. I bet Android Tablets are great (I actually own one my self but never use it). But I’m also willing to bet an artist is going to Choose the iPad every single time because in the end Android does not have Procreate nor an App that can approach the experience of procreate. Procreate, by being an Apple exclusive app , has Pushing power and if it were to move to an alternative store , users will follow. Mobile Gaming is probably the most popular gaming platform there is (crazy right) and I’m willing to bet a tenth of what whales put down that they would download a third party store if a game like Genshin Impact were to move and I’m willing to pay another tenth that they would absolutely become and Epic Games Store exclusive if they we’re offered.
Every one’s thinking that this will lead to more competition and better things for the consumer but that’s not how it’s going to go down. Here’s what’s going to happen:
If Sideloading and third party stores are permitted Epic will immediately start securing exclusive third party apps—not just games but apps to promote their store. They will pay the exact same book they play on Desktops because it’s the smartest play there is. Eventually they will get the app (I predict Spotify) that will make everyone have to download their store in order to use. They of course will also do this on Android as well but will be more successful this time since their success on iOS will go mainstream and affect android as it always does (think removing the charging brick). Other companies (I predict Google and Nintendo) will do this also and find success and the mobile device app Ecosystem will become exactly like the browser app Ecosystem (minus PWA probably).
TL;DR: Android is not a good indicator of what would happen if iPhones did what it does because it never is nor was. iPhones has always been the “pusher” of the mobile device industry, not in that it releases cutting-edge features first, but that it pushes what features are the norm. What happens on iPhones have a far greater impact on Android consumers than the vice versa. If you don’t believe so see: Smartphone boom (don’t matter who did it truly first but who did it truly right), removal of headphone Jack, removal of charging brick, faster adoption of NFC in US despite years of Android Phones having them, And Airtags.
I think Apple has to tread carefully if they want to continue imposing their crazy 30% revenue tax on app store sales. No company wants to pay a percentage fee (vs a flat fee) for a digital good that requires very little upkeep. With Steam i think the percentage goes down as the sales go up.
I think it depends on what the hardware and software is. One thing about pushing power is that it diminishes immensely if there are competitive alternatives. You can still have pushing power but probably not enough to push your overall industry. In Google Case while they have pushing power for Android via The Google Play store and playing Anti-trusty with manufacturers , they can’t pivot Android any way they want since if they go too off the rails there’s always Samsung to run to. And the same Vice Vera. The only way that either companies do so is by working together. If they were to remove the HJ at the same time , while not as powerful as Apple’s push, it might have worked. By on their own, they stand to lose. This is why Google’s pushing power is not as strong as Apples despite being the maker of Android. It’s fragmentation does not allow for any one manufacturer to guide the Mobile Industry as a whole, only in certain positions of power.
Mind you , Google has use It’s pushing power to keep its control on Android (hence the reason why Epic is suing them).
> I think Apple has to tread carefully if they want to continue imposing their crazy 30% revenue tax on app store sales. No company wants to pay a percentage fee (vs a flat fee) for a digital good that requires very little upkeep. With Steam i think the percentage goes down as the sales go up.
I don’t think there’s a way for Apple to keep the 30%. It will fall eventually. The question is what will Apple Lose as well. At the end of all this all I see is Various Stores with Timed exclusivity agreements, and the loss of user privacy to third party developers (I will be surprised if any of these Store try to go toe to toe with Apple of Privacy Policy. I’m willing to bet one of their pitches to Devs will be that they will not require privacy nutrition labels and other stuff that mess with user data collection if they can help it. Apple should have allowed Third Party Stores but downloadable via the App Store and with the requirement to adhere to the same privacy requirements and reporting.