Without that clause, your approach wouldn't work, because what incentive would Facebook even have to release it on the Apple App Store and follow Apple's tighter privacy/anti-tracking rules, when they can just release it on the Facebook App Store for iOS (or whatever else they decide to call it or, alternatively, another third-party app store)?
Sure, having third-party app stores helps smaller devs. But it also unchains all the anti-tracking and privacy shackles from the tech giants like FB who don't care which app store they are on (as long as they can set their own rules), because FB/Instagram/etc. users will follow to whatever app store their app is on (no matter how much or how little privacy protection that specific app store is willing to enforce on FB).
If I released an app store that forced you to offer the app for the lowest price it's available elsewhere while charging the dev 1/2 of the profit and inspired users to use it by giving them a rebate equal to 30% of the cost I presume I could get some takers.
After all if it's 10 bucks on the apple store it's 7 on mine.
3rd party stores aren't a check on unreasonable terms if developers are legally forced to do business on the oems terms no matter how unreasonable.
Do not want to respect it but still be on the platform? Please gtfo…
You don't have to install those apps, lol. You can feel free to tell Facebook to GTFO off of the phone that you own, by merely not installing it.
But why should one think, that they should control someone 'elses' phone? If someone else wants to install facebook, on that other app store, let them do it.
You are correct, I can simply not install those apps that I believe violate privacy rules of the platform. However, in this case, I will not be able to sleep worry-free after handing my barely technologically literate parents an iPhone anymore, because they will immediately install all the random crap without any second thoughts about privacy. Switching my mother away from android to an iPhone (and subsequently, from Windows to macOS) has reduced my "home IT troubleshooting" workload to pretty much nil. I don't want to go back to how it was before. That's pretty much why I got my mom an iPhone, so that her device can be fairly secure without tons of guidance and troubleshooting on my end.
The wild west of "I am a responsible person, so I can decide what's good to install and what isn't, because I can evaluate this on my own" isn't the kind of a situation I want to put my parents in. I want them to not worry about it and be able to install whatever apps they can without any major worries about malware or privacy or breaking their device, and that's why I switched them to iOS.
Just provide users with a way of "locking down" their phone to only allow the app store that they choose, with some difficult undo process, if the user chooses that.
So that way, people who want parental/child controls on their phone can have them, and those who disagree, and want to remove those protections, can choose to do so.
As long as the locking down, is a choice that the user can make, and it is not forced on everyone, then we all can get what we want. Well, except Apple I guess.
For people who bought into managed garden the minute it is dismantled you lose "all apps need to stick to do not track me request" you get mish-mash of everything.
This is cost to give others freedom to side load. There is no way to put genie into the bottle if it is out.
Only way I see it would be possible is that Apple could offer fully locked iPhones and multi-store iPhones. Then market could decide what works better.
Developers, especially on HN, cannot accept there is group of customers that just doesn't want to interact them directly.
There is nothing that prevents you from staying in the managed garden. Just use the Apple app store, and don't use other app stores.
> Developers, especially on HN, cannot accept there is group of customers that just doesn't want to interact them directly.
Then don't interact with them. Just use the Apple app store only. Problem solved.
Correct. When this bipartisan bill passes, everyone will be able to install whatever app store that they want on their iPhone, and Apple won't be able to do anything to stop it.
The future is going to be pretty awesome, when the law forces Apple to make it extremely easy for people to use other app stores.
Ok, and when the bill passes it will be their for smartphones as well, and people will be able to install whatever app store on their android or iPhone.
> it sucks
Then don't install the app stores that you don't like, lol. Problem solved. Only use Apple's, if that is what you prefer.
You are free to not use other app stores, correct.
Don't use app stores that you don't like.
Meanwhile Librem 5 and Pinephone can provide freedom today but need cash, userbase and apps.
You can have your phone that only uses the apple app store.
I do not want to deal with apps moving between stores or any other stores at all.
Nothing you wrote addresses that.
All apps? Are you aware that currently nintendo does not publish the Super Mario Switch game, to the iPhone? Super mario is arguable an app.
Your rights are not being violated because someone refuses to publish to your specific app store.
Instead, you can have exactly what you have now. Which is that you can get a phone, and only use the Apple App store.
That way, you don't have to deal with other app stores that you don't like. You can simply only use the apple app store.
> or any other stores at all.
Then don't deal with them! Don't use those other app stores.
You were the one, at the very beginning, who said this "cannot accept there is group of customers that just doesn't want to interact them directly.".
Which doesn't make any sense given your new statements.
It sounds like, actually, customers don't have to interact with these developers directly. No-one will force them to install other app stores.
In reality, this has nothing to do with what you choose to do on your own phone. You are free to use it how you like.
Instead, what you want is to force other people, to do certain things with their own property.
Today all apps on iPhone have go through Apple App store - this is what I paid for. With many stores some apps on iPhone could be only available only on other stores. This demonstrates that I can't have "exactly what you have now".
> Instead, what you want is to force other people, to do certain things with their own property.
App developers and other large companies want to force Apple to do certain things with their software to modify how things work on my hardware. Nobody forces one to buy iPhone.
Support alternatives like Librem or Pinephone - they are right long term direction.
People like yourself who only have the official app store have little issue save maybe with fortnight.
However logically some part of the decreased fees will go to paying the developers which means they have more resources to create the apps users love and some portion will end up in the users pockets.
Very likely not just mine:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2020-10-08/china-...
Your logic doesn’t seem to apply in real world to China or Steam vs Epic vs other stores situation.
So at best you are not convincing.