Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers
proton.me
proton.me
Huh. I’ve never seen it framed this way and it might be the most compelling argument I’ve heard to date. It’s not simply a debate about whether a company should be allowed to be vertically integrated in isolation, but whether that vertical integration allows them to exert unfair distorting pressure on the free markets we are trying to protect.
No. Unlike Google, Meta, and Amazon, Apple is not a gatekeeper to the Internet. They are the gatekeeper to one thing: their own app store. It's tiresome to hear the same anti-"big-tech" hysteria aimed at Apple. They aren't a monopoly, period.
But back to this: "The App Store policies hurt privacy"
No, they don't. The plaintiff bases this admittedly novel whine on the fact that Google and its ilk make money on things other than their software. So by that logic, every company that doesn't conduct business through its app hurts every company that does. Give us a break.
They also control the OS and don't allow side-loading or other app stores (without putting absurd obstacles in the way) So in the end they completely control the devices they sell.
So while I'm not against the general outcry and need for change, it is not just apple. The problem is way way bigger, and it should not be put onto one of the players in my opinion. Create regulation/platform that sets the limits, then put ALL players into the process not just one
They are "forced" if they:
1) want to be cool
or 2) don't want to be uncool
or 3) don't want to spend effort on a technical decision they think doesn't matter to them
Meanwhile, a game system with no games is not functional at all.
Might want to reconsider your argument here.
The first iPhone technically wasn't a smartphone (unlike its competitors at the time) because it did not have a way to install third-party programs. This situation only lasted a year though.
It did have a pre-installed Google Maps app, very much not a toy...
And don't game consoles typically come out bundled with some first party games too ?
What a laughably wrong assertion. The iPhone handled all kinds of PIM data and synced with computers. There was no requirement (or even expectation) that a "smart" phone had third-party applications.
If you serve web pages, you likely serve many of your users on their Apple devices. And you can’t support features of the web for those users if Apple doesn’t want them to have those features, and prohibits browsers with other engines that do support them on their App Store, and prohibits other sources of web browsers.
That’s called “gatekeeping”.
And no, it isn't. Not supporting certain browser features does not direct traffic or even deny access. So you obviously don't know what gatekeeping is.
Your argument, or attempt to make an argument, somehow neglects this obvious Apple created and enforced barrier.
Then you might not be aware that Apple does not support everything other browsers support. Or takes longer to support some things.
The internet has two ends (at least), media source and media user. Both ends require compatible software for any connection to work or work fully.
B) Of course I omit other irrelevant issues. No need for argumentative non-points.
A suggestion that would help me understand you better:
Instead of simply dismissing points out of hand, respond with reasoned thoughts.
Maybe you have a sensible viewpoint?
I have no issue learning from you.
If you can communicate how Apple blocking alternate browser engines doesn’t actually block other browser’s additional web functionality, please explain your work around.
I would appreciate any solution you have. So would many others.
—-
Apple also prohibits (via there App Store) non-browser apps based on how they use the Internet. So that’s additional gate keeping of Internet functionalit.
—-
Read Apple’s App Store guidelines for developers. Apple is up front and clear about all these restrictions and prohibitions.
I am lost as to what you are trying to claim they allow, that they openly document they don’t allow.
—-
Perhaps you have confused internet functionality with Internet addresses.
Indeed, Apple doesn’t block IPs.
But some kind of software at both ends is still required to communicate across the Internet. And blocking specific kinds of Internet functionality at one end, effectively blocks it from both ends, on their locked down devices.
You can use WebKit to visit any site you want; whether it supports every technical feature you might encounter on a site is irrelevant. I'm not arguing that it's a good engine or even competitive. I don't question your objections to missing functionality, and probably agree with all of them. But that is not gatekeeping. That's like saying black-&-white TVs were "gatekeeping" by not showing color, or some Bluetooth speakers are "gatekeeping" by not being stereo.
Anyway, the point is moot because Apple has to allow other browser engines now. If you think it through, this will simply allow Chrome to completely dominate the Web and take us backward to the bad old days of "this site works best on..."
WHEEEE!
Sad to see supposedly technically-knowledgeable people cheerleading for regression.
Maybe the answer from Apple should be to improve Safari instead of restricting competition.
FYI:
...fewer sites...
...if Safari were...
Then Safari also is the last non-evergreen browser so it's the slowest to update compared to all the other browsers. If you have a bug, there's a good chance you'll have it for years
But "non-evergreen" doesn't mean anything.
Call it with another word if you want but Safari is on a league of its own.
No.
And the browser-engine ban is being lifted; something that sounded good at first, until you realize that Chrome is already a cancer on the Web that is only held back to the dominance of Safari on mobile. Cheerleading for a total takeover by Chrome isn't smart if you think it through.
Which is also the only allowed way to run software on 58% of US smartphones?
> Unlike Google, Meta, and Amazon
I could agree with Google, but how are Meta and Amazon gatekeepers of the internet? Especially _more than Apple_
Think it through: Amazon dominates shopping-search results. It easily swamps any other shopping portal or indie vendor. So it is a de facto gatekeeper to a huge portion of online shopping. You're citing Apple's alleged 58% of phone-platform share as making it a gatekeeper to the Internet? Amazon is actually an Internet-based entity with huge dominance in its field.
Meanwhile Meta (Facebook) IS the Internet for a large (less tech-savvy) portion of the public. Akin to when AOL slapped Internet access onto its platform.
Apple controls its app store. Is it douchey as hell to developers? Yep. Has it antagonized governments and flouted legal rulings? Yep. Has it lied about App Store search? Yep.
But it is not an Internet gatekeeper or a monopoly.
So, since UDP is allowed, I'm curious as to what non-HTTP traffic Apple bans apps from using.
I hope the DOJ adds this to the list of Apple's transgressions, along with green bubbles making Android kiddies feel bad.
Controlling what kind of software, including _web browsers_, runs on the main device for the majority of the US population, does not make it a gatekeeper? That doesn't make any sense to me. Want to go to Amazon? You need an app or a browser to access it, both of these are controlled by Apple on its devices. Meta/Facebook? Same.
Does WebKit direct you to certain sites or block sites based on their content? Does it capture your search terms and curate the results? Does it aggregate content? Does it funnel your viewing to certain sites preferentially? No.
You keep attempting to assert that the viewing tool curates what you view with it. WebKit doesn't. Even if you raise technical points (doesn't support Web MIDI or something), those still don't prevent you from visiting any site you want. Even if a site were totally broken for technical reasons, it doesn't amount to deliberate curation by Apple.
Come on.
1. The size of Apple/Alphabet/Samsung makes it difficult to enter the market (see: factories having ridiculous MOQs for small-batch phone manufacturing), pushing everyone else out.
2. The size of the smartphone market makes it impossible to not have to deal with one of the above companies for certification, market penetrance or such. This makes them kingmakers. If a company somehow manages to become Facebook, Netflix, or Amazon, then the phone companies slide them a secret deal under the table. Everyone else gets a market-limiting set of terms that makes sure "tech" stays one of the "top" industries.
Combined, with no entry allowed, and with forces exerted outwards, we see broad social structures orienting /around/ how we use our phones, rather than the other way around, and that includes ad-monetized-absolutely-everything.
Phones and social media, today, are where TVs and broadcasts were in the 1950s/60s. Ubiquity and centralizing forces. If someone told us in the 1950s a TV manufacturer was exerting pressure on our forms of information distribution and was choosing which voices get a seat at the table, we'd rightly call that archaic and wonder why people would accept a technology provider as a market-shaping force. But today we accept it nonetheless. I refuse to believe the argument that the world's largest company can't figure out how to build a secure pipeline without making plenty of my decisions on my behalf...
> factories having ridiculous MOQs for small-batch phone manufacturing
Ironically in the contract manufacturing area the market is actually efficient. Small batches just cost more as an intrinsic fact about manufacturing. I guarantee you could get a quote for any quantity of manufacturing above 1, you just wouldn't like it.
I argue, default compulsory license fees should be a feature of copyright and patent. A 'reasonable' cap to the maximum it costs to reuse an existing device / idea. (Also that it should be a LOT tougher to patent things, maybe 1 patentable thing per expert examiner's work week, which would be the cost of filing for a patent. That only individuals should be able to own a patent. That companies could create 'prior art' with academic detail releases.)
However if you happened to like E.G. Apple's screen, or camera, or another component that was better than what else could be selected it could be part of a design which competed on other merits. E.G. maybe the touch digitizer is just that much better, so it might make sense on some models of Android or some Libre phone more closely based on Linux or BSD. Or some company that makes an iPhone like device but to GOV spec standards for a given country. (In my mind, I'm thinking US Gov, but IP laws tend to be International too, so maybe Germany wants it's own secure phone.)
Not especially a matter of patent, just good old fashioned contract exclusivity.
New Android startups appear now and then. The sort of thing that's achievable with a few tens of millions of dollars of funding. But Android as a whole represents a huge pile of work .. sitting on top of Google Play Services and the App Store, as we can see by the relative non-success of Amazon Fire.
(I was actually involved in the development of a phone-like handset device that was built around phone SOMs from Sierra Wireless. The first minimum order for assembly was ten units, scaling to a thousand after alpha test.)
Not only that it is "naturally prone" to it (with thinks like bulk efficiencies) but also that it is economically prone to it. A free market with no monopolies drives profit towards zero. No company wants this so the logical response is to become a monopoly (or as close as possible) by putting up barriers to entry and competition.
A smartphone from Google or Apple is also pretty much required for certain government apps, banking/financial services, and so forth. I wouldn't call it a stretch to say that in the future it would be mandatory to have these duopoly controlled devices on your person at all times, like how you need to carry an ID card.
Many of those apps don't work on rooted phones or custom ROMs without workarounds and doing so is a TOS violation in many cases as well. Also imagine what it would be like if your Google or Apple account got banned by accident with no human support to sort it out.
Non-technical people have absolutely no hope.
Honestly I wish there was a legal requirement for those services to provide full access via a relatively open platform (like a web site), not a mobile app.
Entire country was stuck on IE6 for far too long.
The UK e-visa system worries me for similar reasons: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/online-immigration-status-evisa
Whether Apple should be regulated into reducing the fees they charge for access to their hardware and software ecosystem (the ecosystem they unarguably did a pretty stellar job at) is a debatable matter of its own, but it doesn’t strike me as addressing the issue of ad-supported business and how it messes with the way the market is supposed to work.
It is true that platform fee means this distorted business model is unfairly favoured. However, this is just an extension of the business based on ad/data mining (especially social media) being generally unfair in so many ways, and even with zero platform fees that business won’t stop being unfair and won’t be seriously challenged. To reiterate, no one can honestly compete with free; fee reduction merely tweaks the formula from “free vs. $X” to “free vs. slightly less than $X”.
Furthermore, there is the obvious issue that even if an app or service is paid, it can still be additionally monetising user data. Reducing fees will only favour this doubly shady business.
Perhaps what could actually move the needle a bit and make this model less attractive is if walled gardens somehow found a way charge a big fat fee off the ad/data mining revenue, in conjunction with appropriately reducing fees for regular sales of B2C apps and services. Could this be technically possible without walled gardens additionally owning ad exchanges (which might be a can of worms that shouldn’t be opened)?
Have you ever been shown a mobile ad, and thought to yourself, “this is a good thing, this is an honest description of a product that I am eager to spend money on?” No, on the contrary, they’re the subject of universal ridicule… and yet they persist. Why? How? Who is paying for them? How are they generating revenue? How can that be worth anything? Where is the value coming from?
So even though I delete apps that force you to sit through ads, and I refuse to be led by ads towards spending money - even though I am in effect ‘voting’ by doing so - it doesn’t seem to have any impact. The ads keep happening anyway, I can only assume because they do actually work on other less canny consumers.
Is the problem really an inability to vote with our wallets? Or is the problem a complete lack of media/marketing literacy, that leads the credulous to engage with ad slop, against their own best interests?
For social it’s key to communicate with others, so as long as you use it you kind of have to be where everybody is, and everybody is where the free stuff is. If you can’t easily leave and continue communicating, because the platform attracts advertisers by the number of figurative eyeballs so it’s not in their interest to let yours go, then you can’t vote with your wallet unless you make yourself an outcast, which humans—extremely social beings—tend to find extremely stressful, which makes it is not really in their best interest no matter their media and marketing literacy.
On the other hand, even if you do make this difficult near-suicide move and leave, you have hardly anywhere to go: because of this phenomenon, any honest competition where you can pay for better service that works in your interest and has actual customer support (remember when that was a thing?) has no chance. All viable competition remains mostly free to use—we have been conditioned that it’s got to be free, but of course if neither users nor advertisers are paying then no one can really demand things that we take for granted from commercial services (like uptime, availability, well-supported convenient clients and so on), and the amount of resources that goes into development and support of these services is much smaller and much less coordinated.
With non-social ad-supported products it’s not as bad, at least in terms of lock-in. I personally would prefer a paid app from a somewhat reputable developer than risk installing a tracking machine from a shady SDK. However, still, most people default to free, and if platform fee is reduced and that honest app costs slightly less but is still not free, will it make any perceptible difference? I doubt it (maybe you’re right, most people lack media/marketing literacy, they can see that with free their economic utility per dollar approaches infinity and are unaware or not concerned about the intangible damage, including to the ecosystem of developers who try to make an honest living) and so I think ad/data mining based model should be fought on another level.
I used to think that a good alternative could be making it mandatory to provide feature-complete API for interoperation. Third-party cross-platform clients would remove lock-in and make ads unprofitable, demoting Big Social from platforms to pipes, like mobile providers, and force them to charge for service. It would no longer be in their interest to serve aggravating content to keep us glued to screens if we can just switch to a more mental health friendly competitor, and besides it would lower their server load.
However, I am not sure anymore whether it would do much to other shady practices like all sorts of data mining and sale, including the new practice of using private data for training commercial ML models.
The problem is companies/marketers who won't take no for an answer... And unfortunately, short of reverse monetization, (marketers must pay individuals for our eyeballs, which has its own logistical problems), there isn't a way to really prevent the pathological impression pipeline that advertising has gravitated toward. In the U.S. unfortunately, there is zero we can do to corral mercantile speech short of collectively coordinated action by the populace since we've written the capability out of our governmental edifice.
Microsoft fell foul of this in the early 2000s. It wasn't their monopoly on desktop PC OSs that lost them an anti-trust case. It was the fact they used their monopoly on Windows to push users into adopting IE. They abused their monopoly position. That's the problem.
Consumers who spent hundreds of dollars in Appstore purchases and have 10+ years of photos, movies and data tied to Apple won't just suddenly leave all that and move to Android and start their digital life from scratch.
And the young consumers just starting their digital lives, are jumping in the ecosystem their friends and family already use (iMessage lock-in). It's basically not even your choice at that point, it's more that you're forced to.
We had PWA even before we had locked in app-stores but then Apple saw the dollar signs of locking people and app devs in their graded and gave up on PWA and doubled down on draconian lock-in.
If it's necessary to put a qualifier on the word "monopoly", it's a great indication that it's not a monopoly.
Schiller argued that App Store should be free after a billion dollars was earned from it. Apple execs pretend they don't even know how much money App Store makes or loses.
And App Store is already monetized: Apple's hardware pays for everything, and more.
They already do this right now anyway, with App Store ads. Apple doesn't care about privacy. It cares about money, and it makes money any way it can. Unlike pretty much every other phone or tablet, iOS devices don't let you install apps without telling Apple. That privacy violation exists because it makes Apple money.
It's similar to the notion that killing third party cookies is basically a gift to Facebook and Google.
And lets be honest here, Apple themselves are not subject to ATT and (potentially coincidentally) have a rather large ads business. Many moons ago Apple suddenly started becoming the number 1 provider of installs on Apple as they claimed credit for the click to install which is also bonkers.
One can agree that targeted advertising is bad but also note that Apple made these "privacy focused" decisions for commercial rather than idealistic reasons.
If you want that, you can purchase any number of Android devices.
Shouting "monopoly" from the rooftops is not enough to affect real change. If I wish not to pay property taxes, my options include moving to another state, but courts do not recognize a general right to challenge tax liability on the grounds of personal preference or disagreement with taxation. Perhaps it's worth sparing a thought as to why, and who ultimately empowered that stance.
Plus, this is often the “if I can’t have it no one can” line of thought, sometimes from companies engaging in anticompetitive practices themselves (like Epic Games).
Edit:
WAI stands for working as intended
iPhones are a premium product and they don't have a natural right to 30% of transactions going through it if the participants don't want Apple to know about it.
> It’s the “if I can’t have it no one can” line of thought
That describes what you and _benton are advocating. "If I can't have the phone be the way I want, no one can".
As others have repeatedly said, you can still opt to not use any other kind of app from outside the AppStore.
But as I asked on another thread, as a thought experiment: What about we meet in the middle and governments force Apple to only "open" 50% of the phones, for the same price. Would that satisfy you?
> third parties wish to intervene on a transaction between me and Apple so they can illegitimately get a piece of the pie.
It's actually Apple that wants to intervene in transactions where I don't want them to be a part of. I don't want to pay 10 euros and give 3 to them.
I don't particularly like my iPhone, in fact I see as a worse device in many ways to my old Android phone, but the interoperability with my Mac makes the trade-off worth it. So ironically, the only reason I want it is because of even _more_ anticompetitive practices.
And yes, the day the Mac is as closed off as the iPhone, there will be zero Apple devices in this house.
Anyways- jail breaking requires being or remaining on certain iOS versions on certain specific hardware models. You can’t “just jailbreak” your apple device that you daily drive/use regularly. If you’re not on an old version on the right hardware already, you’re fucked. And waiting for a new jailbreak exploit is a (anecdotally, for me at least) nondeterministic amount of time on the order of O(years), with a significant probability that it will not be relevant for whatever device you’re waiting on.
If you don't want to buy on Walmart and their custom payment system, then just go to a competitor.
With that said: this is an unrealistic scenario. Walmart doesn't pay the famous 30% to ApplePay, only a regular CC-like fee (probably less). Also, physically they can just accept contact payments where they don't interact with Apple but it still works with the iPhone wallet. Online, they can just use credit cards instead of ApplePay, which iPhones have autofill for, and probably not lose much.
There’s also situations where you don’t have a choice. In many parts of the US the only reasonably accessible store (and sometimes grocery store) is a Walmart.
There is a real solution to this, where we codify our social limits through legislation and open standards to prevent these horrible "leopards ate my face" scenarios that everyone seems to hate so much. Or we could keep trusting Apple, and see how many F1 advertisements that nets us in the long-run.
The ones that get into office are most often out of touch and in someone’s pocket because they grandstand on polarizing topics that information-deficient and single-issue voters flock to. I try to vote for candidates who I think will do good that way, and it makes some impact on the micro scale, but on the national scale it’s like trying to drain the Pacific Ocean with a thimble.
Are you now going to argue that Tim Cook is a really nice guy who practices genuinely principled leadership? I hope not, he's only there to convert your loyalty to something more liquid and fungible.
The point of this is so that there is the possibility of escaping that walled garden, arguably welcoming more users into the ecosystem.
Nothing would change for you. Just like android users can keep using all things Google, they have the possibility of installing apps from other sources.
Recent versions of iOS have specific anti-jailbreak mechanisms (anti-downgrade mechanisms, ephemeral root filesystems) which don't provide general security, so they're sort of cheating. These mechanisms just mean it's harder to use the vulnerabilities for good, without significantly stymieing evil. (And they aren't wholly effective, seeing as 16.6.1 contains all of them, and it's still got a semi-untethered jailbreak.)
If apple is incompetent and makes it less secure, I'm sure they'll fix it.
Are you saying that Qubes OS is less secure than iOS?
If my apps are changing, yes it is changing for me.
Right now I can manage all of my app subscriptions from the Subscriptions screen in the Settings app of my devices. If they open up to other payment methods, my subscriptions are no longer centralized, I have to give my credit card information to more parties of variable trustworthiness, I have to worry about subscription renewal policies for every individual app, I have to figure out different methods of cancelling which could be a more difficult process than hitting "cancel" and trusting Apple will stop the payments, etc.
but we cannot have these until the lock in is removed
Whenever I want a subscription I want inside an app, I actually take the effort to go to their website and buy it from them directly, because it's cheaper (not that they're allowed to tell me this in their app though).
When I want to stop paying for the subscription, I cancel it and I'm done. At least in the EU, this is always an easy thing to do.
We need to craft legislation saying software vendors have to support some kind of standardized payment system with easy cancellation built in to it rather than relying on Apples good will.
I often find it strange that a country that is so advanced in many ways is so backwards when it comes to banking.
So, you see, it doesn’t matter whether Apple has the walled garden or the third-party devs have the walled garden. Either way, users will be forced to accept someone’s distribution policy. But the difference really lies in the trust on Apple and its security and privacy practices, which is a choice that will be robbed from people buying iPhones to use apps exactly for this purpose.
Would they? I imagine they would distribute via all available, at different price points. At least that's what I would do. Why would I want to forgo access to customers who prefer every last detail to be handled via Apple's infrastructure?
That said, if there were actually a dichotomy between "force developers to distribute via my preferred means" and "permit developers to choose whether or not to use my platform of choice" the former seems obviously immoral and the latter obviously the correct course of action. Why should you get to dictate how developers must do things? That's simply valuing your own preference over everyone else's (both developers and users) right to choose.
There are many other possible scenarios: devs forcing users to authenticate with unsecure methods, gather and unsecurely store credit card information, gather passwords, upload contacts, read SMSes, etc. The value that a third-party dev can derive from private user info is far greater than alternately offering a different version of the app that will pass App Store reviews.
If the goal is to make Apple open up their platform in a way that doesn't take away choices from users, we need a set of rules to guarantee that. Otherwise I agree with rTX5CMRXIfFG. Facebook and Google would find ways to gradually make the App Store more and more unattractive until that choice no longer exists. There would be billions of dollars worth of incentives.
In EU the only legal way to do tracking is opt in, so this is a matter of law enforcement and not a long term competitive advantage.
The weakness of regulation is a problem of American users, which they can solve by voting for politicians who support better consumer protection. Of course they may choose otherwise and choose instead a quasi-monopoly of more expensive walled gardens. After all, America is democracy, isn’t it? :)
EU newspapers routinely make users choose between accepting tracking and buying a subscription. Apple does not allow that.
Anyway, what the EU does is sort of beside the point as the App Store issue is global and lawsuit that Proton joined was filed in California.
what you actually want is to force all developers to use Apple's distribution and payment systems, so that you can have every app and service from any provider delivered via your chosen mechanisms. that takes away freedom from developers and users who prefer other systems. it eliminates the market for anyone to make or use something better than your chosen options
If users and developers prefer other systems they can simply use those.
If Apple prefers anticompetitive practices, it can simply only do business in those regions.
Presumably, before they take such a drastic measure, they would first spend massive amounts on lobbying, which would most likely succeed.
What would actually happen is that the US would start seriously threatening (blackmailing) the EU to a degree where it's forced to relent long before Apple would pull out.
Apple's estimated operating profit from the EU is around $40 billion dollars. If the US government wouldn't get involved, they could force Tim Apple himself to live on top of the Alps and he'd happily do it rather than lose that $40 billion, or shareholders would vote him out ASAP.
this would be a very losing battle for politicians
Politicians in fact pay lip-service to "data sovereignty", for the points it gets them.
You mean, the Google system that collects 20 times more telemetry than the iPhones? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261
However, the counter argument that opening iOS to other stores and payment methods would not affect users who prefer the App Store is not necessarily true either. If developers can choose not to distribute via Apple's store to avoid restrictions that are unfavourable to their business model then users would no longer be able to buy those apps in the App Store.
This is the dilemma that needs to be solved.
One solution could be to adopt a rule similar to the one for social logins. If an app supports any social logins at all then it must also support Sign in with Apple. Unfortunately, adopting a similar rule for the App Store is a lot more complex.
If an app rejected by Apple is then not allowed to be installed via an alternative app store either, Apple would once again be able to veto apps for whatever reason they want. And if developers were free to set a any price they want for each store, they could effectively make the App Store unviable.
I still feel that there is a set of rules that could make this work. The complexity is unfortunate though.
They can, on Android, which worldwide is about 75% of the market.
> competition is not greatly distorted in favor of the market's owner
If Apple were primarily engaged in making its own apps that compete with apps in its marketplace, then yes, that is distorting the competition (and one could argue that it does this with certain apps like Mail). But the fact that it takes a cut from anyone who wants access to its user base, doesn't stifle competition per se.
This is primarily about access. If I want to set up a popup store inside a fancy country club to access a captive market, I'm going to pay a lot more in fees to the country club than I would if I put it up in some random strip mall. This is no different.
What if those apps moved to other stores so they can skirt Apple's review and other consumer-friendly restrictions? How is that better for consumers that use Facebook, Insta, etc... for them to have apps with less review and less scrutinized for their behavior? Some of Apples policies have been good for consumers of apps.
Just witness how Fb, etc... already try and skirt those rules that are in place to protect users from tracking and other abuses. Seems pretty logical to assume they would all jump ship to another store to not be under Apple's review process if they could.
I don't doubt for one minute that Fb, etc.. would not jump to another store with less restrictions, and either pull their existing apps or leave them severely restricted in the Apple App Store as an "incentive" to download from the other store.
B) if people truly value the Apple lock down system, they will not use applications that don't comply with the lock down system
Also worth noting that they got called out and ultimately shut down for being shady. Even though they were operating outside of Apples locked down environment. It's almost like we don't need Apple to protect us, and in fact we can protect ourselves
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/protect-yourself-metas...
Not very. Plenty of people, including on HN, agree with you.
> but I actually use my iPhone because it's locked down with a curated app marketplace and secure payment system.
Except it’s not. That argument would be much stronger if the App Store weren’t full of scammy predatory apps which regularly top the top grossing charts.
> I don't want alternative payment methods or app stores.
And I don’t want everything to be a subscription, yet here we are. Just like I have to avoid the majority of apps today, you’ll avoid other App Stores if that is what you want.
You’re at a significant advantage because ignoring other stores is much easier, and opening up the iPhone to third-party stores has an effect on the policies of the main App Store. This is plainly demonstrated by the acceptance of the emulator from the creator of an alternative store. So even by not using those third-party ones, you’re benefiting.
> They're essentially trying to make it impossible to purchase a product I want, which is more monopolistic than the current status quo.
That doesn’t make sense. There’s no monopoly on a product which doesn’t exist.
> iPhones do not have any sort of monopoly on phones.
You don’t have to be a monopoly to be harmful to consumers. Companies have realised that long ago and it’s time consumers do too.
Not just that - they also actively interfere with search results for essential apps people need. Looking up government or banking apps in the iOS app store will always surface either dodgy insurance sellers or dodgy banks that aren't the one you want to use before the actual app you want to download.
The App Store's curation is absolutely horrendous - these are also bought/sponsored placements, meaning Apple is actively profiting off of people being led to these sorts of misleading apps.
I could hardly believe you only pay through Apple for everything, I mean everything, as THE trustful, others are not trusted, not using other safe payment methods for some products due to security concerns. Not only Apple is secure in this regard.
As there are opt ins on iPhone for so many highly unsecure matters, you could share the most sensitive data with the individual apps with a flick if you wish (sharing personal and very sensitive data, sometimes personal data of others without their consent, like contacts) it is very hard to understand why this particular opt in is ringing your alarm bells of security irrevocably lost and get locked out completely ("impossible to purchase product") that hard....
You can have your choice of not choosing still, while Apple's product design would otherwise remain intact in its current form. Your arguments are very inconsistent.
We once had a Zulip update rejected by Apple because we had a link to our GitHub project with the source code for the app in the app itself. And it turns out, if you then click around GitHub, you can find a "Pricing" page that doesn't pay Apple's tax.
Details are here for anyone curious: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28175759
We can play technical gymnastics around this but this just sucks!
I had made a post recently which didn't see any traction https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44398136 maybe it can be a pointer
Ouch. Those are some fighting words.
Just dominant by some significant measure, in some significant dimension, enough for many people to complain. And for a judge to review the practices and find the company is leveraging that dominance to maintain dominance or hold dominance over adjacent markets in a way that is blocking competition.
Apple is using their control of their phone hardware and OS to preclude any alternate source of apps or app stores, in order to charge a large vig on every app and in app purchase. And block competitive, tech like alternate web browser engines, and any app they don’t like.
They are big enough to warp the whole market for mobile apps and browsers. A large percentage of apps become much less viable if they don’t supportiOS. So “choose another phone” isn’t a viable solution to the harm.
Nothing stops Apple from having an App Store. Using it to enforce security rules. Nothing stops users from using it exclusively (EDIT: Don’t download from other sources, or if you do, click “no” when you get asked if you want to install apps from other sources. This is trivial for Apple to do.)
The problem is the app market is massive, highly dependent on having iOS versions to compete in the overall mobile device space, and Apple is both blocking alternative app sources and taxing all those apps, and completely prohibiting some apps, while prohibiting any other options.
Enforcing rules against anti-competitive behavior isn’t a zero cost practice. it is reasonable for some people to prefer the status quo.
But it’s better than allowing anti-competitive behavior, which would encourage more such behavior because not having competition is incredibly profitable. And the harms of letting anti-competitive behavior go unchecked tend to be significant but only obvious in hindsight, or never. That’s part of the problem. Without healthy competition lots of significant but non-obvious progress gets snuffed out before it has a chance.
Either you nip it in the bud, or end up dealing with much worse abuses.
Patreon was told to change its whole billing model until a court found in their favor: https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1878206.html That's the kind of thing I think we'd both find unacceptable.
But I'd still be ok with "one store, resonable rules, respect user privacy".
Meanwhile on google's lawn, there's hundreds of things like this: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.falnesc.to... a torch app that contains ads and shares your location with selected third parties. At least they don't require permission to read your contacts. (You can buy an ad-free "secure" version for $0.99, or you can just ... turn on your phone's LED for free because that's provided by the OS.)
Technically firefox extensions are "one app store" too - you can't sideload unless you install from the dev/nightly channel and fiddle with the settings. But at least it's a not-for-profit store. Chrome and even Edge allow you to sideload.
Further, how much do you think should this be (20%? 10%? 5%?) and if zero, why?
Finally, do you believe Apple should be compensated for the services and marketplace that they are offering, if so, what other strategies do you recommend that they deploy to make everyone happy?
1. https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external...
The link you provided is only for "Referral fee", not whatever fee charges to fulfill the order (ie. warehousing and shipping), which is separate: https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external...
Because it doesn't have to compete with third-party distributors like MacOS? The App Store on MacOS is almost entirely empty, every real developer abandoned it years ago. It's almost impossible to buy professional Mac software on the App Store, because real developers like Avid or Adobe or Affinity don't think Apple's deal is fair either.
> Finally, do you believe Apple should be compensated for the services and marketplace that they are offering
They already are, through their developer fees. If Apple can't compensate themselves without forcing people to use their services, then they need to redesign their business model.
Installing software is not a service, arguably Apple has no right to demand compensation for it in the first place.
Who are the third party distributors for the playstation or xbox?
>They already are, through their developer fees.
It's $100/developer. Considering Microsoft used to charge thousands for Visual Studio, it doesn't seem too unreasonable to claim that $100/year is too low.
>If Apple can't compensate themselves without forcing people to use their services, then they need to redesign their business model.
What's wrong with royalty fee based business models?
>Installing software is not a service, arguably Apple has no right to demand compensation for it in the first place.
Right, which is why Apple characterizes the fee as "core technology fee", ie. for access to its tools and SDKs, not for access to the store.
Plenty. The retail Xbox has supported sideloading for almost a decade now: https://www.howtogeek.com/703443/how-to-put-your-xbox-series...
Nintendo Switch has fully distributed homebrew stores too.
> It's $100/developer.
They can charge more if they don't think they're milking developers enough. They only have, what, a few million of them worldwide.
> What's wrong with royalty fee based business models?
Nothing, if they are forced to compete with other royalty-based services that set a fair baseline price. Otherwise everything is wrong with it. MacOS did this right, although admittedly the App Store didn't quite survive the gauntlet of competition.
Imagine if your favorite band could only make money by signing to a single record label. Do you think their talent would be valued fairly? Do you think they would be respected for who they are, or do you think their likeness would be molested in whichever way was the most profitable for the label?
If that counts as "sideloading", you might as well count the free 7 day signing option that iOS offers (used by alt store) "sideloading".
>Nintendo Switch has fully distributed homebrew stores too.
Officially?
>Nothing, if they are forced to compete with other royalty-based services that set a fair baseline price.
See my previous comments. Apple's claim is that the fee isn't for distribution, it's for access to the SDKs. It's unclear how "if they are forced to compete with other royalty-based services that set a fair baseline price" would work in this case. Epic offers Unreal Engine for free, with the expectation that they'll recoup the money via royalties. That sounds like a lot like Apple's SDKs.
>Imagine if your favorite band could only make money by signing to a single record label.
That's what happens for most bands though? There's typically a exclusivity period, and some artists might stick with a given label their entire lives.
This is a whataboutism. People can discuss Apple's anti-competitive business policies separately from Sony's and Microsoft's. (Does it matter that Playstation and Xbox ecosystems are potentially similarly anti-competitive? That just means the circumstances around their policies should also be scrutinized for the same reasons.)
> it doesn't seem too unreasonable to claim that $100/year is too low
It doesn't seem too unreasonable to tell them tough shit. They can improve their business model themselves; that's their responsibility. It is also their responsibility to avoid anti-competitive business practices.
> What's wrong with royalty fee based business models?
This is a disingenuous question in reply to the pull quote you included from the parent comment. They wrote "without forcing people to use their services". That is the primary anti-competitive thing that people complain about with Apple.
Nintendo for example has NDA where you cannot even share online how much they take.
Also it's not a tax, though arguably it can be termed an "economic rent" (a technical term) that can be considered excessive, but I'm not sure about that.
Same reason any company can't set whatever they want. Vast majority of companies aren't deemed monopolies so this doesn't apply to them but this restriction holds over them once they grow to a certain size nonetheless. Even the most ardent capitalists/free market advocates agree that monopolies have to be regulated by the government.
The real questions are what makes company a monopoly. You can always argue you aren't a monopoly but it's what convinces people that makes most sense and many people are beginning to be convinced that Apple/Google etc are monopolies in certain markets.
It sounds like you are implying that a monopoly classification would somehow be relevant to fee/pricing strategy?
The reality is that every company that has a hardware/software ecosystem has some form of AppStore. Sony, Nintendo, Valve, etc. Should we consider them all to be monopolies of their store? For fun, let's say they all are.
In order for that monopoly classification to have some impact, it would have to be used in an anti competitive way.
Let's say Nintendo wants 20%, Valve wants 30%, and Sony wants 40% of an apps sales price. You adjust your price for each platform, the software costs more on Steam Deck and PlayStation. Are Valve and Sony using their stores in an anti competitive way by charging more than Nintendo? I don't see how. It is not anti competitive for Sony to charge developers more.
An example of something anti competitive would be Sony telling you that you can only put things up in their shop if it's exclusive to Sony.
Exactly this. There's no competition, because Apple blocks iPhone owners from installing apps through any method other than their App Store (in the US, where this lawsuit is being filed). It's a programmatically-enforced monopoly.
Frankly I'd much rather change that situation than quibble about exactly how much Apple is allowed to charge for their services. Let them charge whatever they want in a free market where they have to compete on a level playing field with everyone else. If developers don't like it, they can use a competing app store to sell their software to iPhone users.
And regulating Apple is quite different from regulating someperson. If you made a Linux phone in your basement, nobody would tell you what kind of charger you should use. But companies that claim ownership of a substantial economy and can dictate the rights and culture and economic output for a large section of society do need to have more checks on their power than just, "Well if I'm so wrong, then why do I have so much money? Maybe you should make your own phone that won't work well with anyone else's and see if you can sell it."
App fees have basically been the same amount for all time. Literally every single developer looked at the numbers and decided to go into business.
Few things are more enraging than people being left out of chats with friends and family because they didn't bend over for Apple. Even worse being a teenager and having to endure social shaming for it. It wasn't until the EU signaled it was going to bring down then axe that Apple capitulated to RCS.
- Yes, I know you are part of the domestic US long tail that use signal/telegram with all your friends.
- Yes, I know no one outside the US uses iMessage.
ETA: A note because people are pretty incredulous about "most evil". Tech companies do a lot of evil stuff, no doubt.
But there is something special about putting social connection behind an expensive hardware purchase and walled garden lock in. Every other messaging app I know of is open to anyone on most platforms for little or no cost. Apple on the other hand purposely leveraged social connections in your life to force you into their garden and keep you there. Lets not pretend that Apple couldn't open up iMessage or even charge a nominal fee for outsiders. Instead you get an iphone and just seemlessly slide into iMessage. So seemless that most users don't even know that it is a separate service than sms/mms/rcs. Apple muddies that too.
But they would never do that, because using people's closest social connections to force them into the ecosystem and lock them there is just too juicy. "Oh you don't want an iPhone anymore? Well looks like you have to leave your social circles main discussion hub to do so..."
It's just evil on another level.
Don't you think this is _maybe_ an overstatement? I was annoyed about this for years but reading your take is borderline satirical.
> For example, when a user purchases an iPhone, the user is steered to use Apple’s default email product, Apple Mail. It is only through a complex labyrinth of settings that a user can change her default email application away from the Apple “Mail” application towards an alternative like Gmail (Google) or Proton Mail.
> At least for mail a user can in theory modify the default setting. On the calendar front the situation is even worse. A user’s default calendar is Apple Calendar, and the default cannot be modified
That's pretty evil & predatory to me. The fact that it is by design (someone decided it needed to this awful) is why Apple is being evil here. And this is just one example.
There's more
> For example, Apple banned apps from its App Store that supported Google Voice because Apple sought to advantage its own services over Google’s
That's not what the parent is asking. The OP said it was the most evil ever done.
Big Tech does predatory and evil stuff all the time. That's not what's being claimed. The OP is claiming that this specific thing is the worst, the singular event that is above and beyond all others.
EDIT: Actually, there already is a “Default Apps” section right at the top of the page of Settings > Apps. Yeah, if that’s a “labyrinth” then the assumed level of user intelligence is quite low.
Go try to sign into your open-standards-abiding calendar and notes accounts in the Calendar and Contacts bundled with nearly every Android phone on the planet and see how well that goes.
Compared to Android?
Yes.
I have no idea why iPhone users put up with this shit.
It's about 5 years old by now. Not having looked for something in a couple of years and being bummed out by that doesn't make Apple the bad guy.
You have been told that every new OS update brings new features and abilities, and Apple publishes an iPhone User Guide for learning about iOS features like how to change the default mail app (https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/change-the-default-ap...). It's on you to look.
I suppose it could be possible for apps to prompt the user to change the default, but I’m honestly pretty sick of that behavior on desktop (e.g. I have several browsers installed for various reasons and they nearly all bug me about being default) and would rather not see it copied to mobile OSes too (I don’t believe Android allows apps to show such a prompt either).
Easy if you know where to look. If you end up in the wrong sub menu you might simply search the web for instructions.
Apple provides web pages where they explain how to use the iphone. There is a section called "mail" under "apps" that shows up in the search results. It really wants me to read the help in dutch, the "apps > mail" section has 14 pages that don't talk about changing the default app, in stead they explain how to use the various features of their own mail app (that is also configured by default)
I don't get why the help pages need a different menu structure.
One has to go to "personalize your iphone" which has 18 pages, changing default apps is towards the end.
Searching the Dutch help website for "mail" I get only 3 unhelpful search results. If i change it to US English it immediately redirects to Dutch again. lol?
Using the "English" for Latin America and the Caribbean works. There I get 5 pages worth of results. Changing the default app is on page 3.
Not impossible but it is not a simple prompt on launch of the app "Banana mail is not currently your default email client. Do you want to set Banana mail as your default app for sending email?"
I'm quite dense of course, if they are going to be like that I will NEVER create an email client for this platform.
The web and their TOS is full of good reasons to never create an app for iphone.
In a laps of sanity I created a pwa one time. I've explained to exactly one user how to add the option to add a web app to the home screen to the menu so that they can add a web app to the home screen. It was a really hard sell and it took a long time.
I of course had to laugh at myself for acting against my better judgement.
Imagine someone made a web app email client and tried to compete with the build in client. Then in the middle of the struggle apple jokes about discontinuing PWA.
Seems a pretty level playing field?
Actually, at the very top of the home page of the settings app is a search bar. If you type in anything reasonable (default, email, mail) then one of the first 2-3 results will be “default apps” or “default email”.
This is what happens when you install Gmail, for example. You're both under and over-thinking this.
I use both iOS and Android.
> It is only through a complex labyrinth of settings
I have no love for the way iOS settings are done, but calling the setting for this in particular a complex labyrinth is some pretty blatant editorializing.
> A user’s default calendar is Apple Calendar, and the default cannot be modified
I don't think this is a true statement? My default calendar is a Google calendar. Actually switching to instead use my Apple iCloud calendar has been something of a chore.
In the difficulty of non-iMessage compatibility, I have had people close to me say "Why don't you just get an iPhone?" with an incredulous tone.
Perhaps tech companies have had more evil things happen on their platforms, that for whatever reason they were slow to react to.
But
"Why don't you just get an iPhone" was a precisely and meticulously engineered line, pure social manipulation, that was intentionally orchestrated to be delivered to me through the mouths of the people I trust most in my life turned unknowing pawns.
That is why I consider it the most evil. Apple is by design purposely exploiting a core human function, close social circle communication, to trap people in their garden.
I went all in; for years I paid 100% to replace phones of friends or lovers who were still sending archaic SMS.
It’s the implicit camraderie between the speaker and listener in “A computer for the rest of us…”
Today, I don’t even have iMessage enabled on my disposable carrier number. It’s off off.
It's interesting how this seems like an incredibly American problem. In Europe everyone either uses WhatsApp or Signal and iMessage is hardly ever used.
Specific example: When on dating apps you see "green bubbles" as a red flag/un-dateable trait, it has done considerable harm.
Yes, people in the EU use WhatsApp, by Meta & Zuckerberg, and from what I've seen, often act as if that is some sort of mark of superiority.
Feels like you weren't able to have a proper discussion with those people. In many EU countries, using SMS made/makes no sense because SMS was/is super expensive as compared to WhatsApp. And using iMessage makes no sense because most people don't have an iPhone. From their point of view, it actually makes no sense.
Now if you tell them "well, where I come from everybody has an iPhone" or "SMS have always been free", probably they won't say "still, I'm better than you for no apparent reason".
I don't think that it is actually seen as a mark of superiority anywhere in the EU to use WhatsApp. Unlike apparently in some places it is seen as a mark of superiority to have an iPhone vs an Android phone.
If you go in a EU country where SMS were not prohibitively expensive in the beginning of WhatsApp (e.g. France), you'll see that WhatsApp has been less successful (at least in the beginning). WhatsApp was a killer app because it was free SMS, really.
Since when can WhatsApp interact with SMS users? They're so evil and predatory that they have entirely walled themselves off from that method of communication entirely.
They had a yearly subscription fee, but most people never got the request to pay it.
Nobody cared that it was incompatible with SMS, because everybody hated SMS because of the insane prices. In 2009 I got an iPhone 3G with an unlimited data plan, but I was still paying something like 0.20 or 0.25 Euro per SMS.
Well, you could argue that it's morally superior to be reachable by everyone, regardless of what brand of phone they use.
The ability to install a 3rd party messaging app also shows some technical skill.
Is that really the worst thing you've seen big-tech do? That's very fortunate.
What about Blackberry Messenger which was the mobile instant-messaging golden standard for years and BB exclusive for as long as it mattered in the market? Was that too long ago to remember?
Apple refusing RCS integration is a very clear example of hurting everyone in pursuit of profit
it's likely not the most evil, but I do think it qualifies as evil. it stands out by being inarguably willful, and having a very broad impact
I find harming hundreds of millions (probably billions) of friendships to be quite evil
Apple didn't integrate with RCS because RCS was a fragmented pile of garbage. It still is, but it's I suppose less fragmented now.
None of that "harmed" friendships, certainly not any real ones.
I know many MANY people who have lost chats with their loved ones (especially deceased ones) because there is no way to export and save their conversations.
I think this should be as easy as saving photos, which apple makes (somewhat) easier to export.
Back to email, it is pretty horrible to set up my local email server on an apple device. You have to go through these dialogs, apple servers have to be contacted (for "redirection"), and I usually barely get it working.
You can't comment like this on Hacker News, no matter how right you are or think you are. It's not what HN is for and it destroys what it is for.
I think you might be living in a bubble, if this is the "most evil" thing you have heard of a big tech company doing. Go read up on IBM's history, especially in the 30s and 40s. Or a more contemporary example, read up on Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Or Amazon's mistreatment of workers in both corporate and warehouse settings. Or Meta scraping data off your devices without permission to train AI.
And, though I know some folks here disagree, plenty of people around the world believe what's happening in Gaza is a genocide, and Big Tech has materially contributed to making it happen. Or, if you want another example of human cost, talk about how resources for electronics are mined, or how electronics are manufactured.
Saying, "the most evil thing big tech has ever done is make some chat bubbles blue" puts a whole lot of human lives below the color of some chat bubbles.
You can think Apple did a really bad thing by doing that, that's fine. No complaints. But to call it the most evil thing ever done erases an incalculable amount of human suffering.
I wouldn't count the IBM thing because I don't see it as part of the vernacular "big tech" of today; however I do think it's the most evil so far in this thread.
The others? They are mostly aggressive competition, especially the MS stuff, and altogether I don't see them as more evil than Apple's exclusionary UX. What's at the bottom of it for me is that it harms users directly, e.g. what others said about kids getting shamed for having a non-Apple phone. The one thing not mentioned yet that would qualify for me would be Meta's product altogether with its impact on teenagers; and various gambling simulators like Roblox.
Nobody at Roblox is saying "We want to have children do nothing else except play Roblox from dawn to dusk, we lobby against schooling and extra-curiculars to increase Roblox time"
Apple however very intentionally made messaging people not on iPhones painful, and purposely made it out like androids were inferior. They purposely make it so you lose your group chats if you leave iPhone.
Thats why it's the most evil. It's a planned system to use peoples social connections as pawns to rope people into Apples ecosystem. This isn't hypothetical, or "C'mon of course they are saying that!". There are court documents that show it.
I can assure you, with all my money bet on it, that no one in a roblox exec meeting ever said "We need to focus on lobbying schools to shorten the school day in key markets." No one at roblox is fantasizing about roblox replacing -all- (I mean this literally, not just entertainment time) facets of a child's life with roblox.
Whereas apple explicitly had their goal "Get kids using iphones, don't port imessage to android, families will be forced to buy iphones and stay on iphones to maintain familial communication."
That is evil.
First of all, when Apple created iMessage, there was no possible way for them to predict that friend groups would use it as a reason to treat members of their groups poorly due to using Android phones.
Second of all, Apple did not deliberately make interacting with non-iMessage users in group chats "look like trash" in order to exclude them. Apple went out of its way to make it possible for iMessage to interoperate with the ubiquitous (in the US) SMS, with reduced features because SMS did not support the better features. If, instead, Apple had just made iMessage not interoperate with SMS at all, you'd be screaming about that instead.
Third of all, if people are leaving others out of chats, that's not Apple's fault. That's something for those families and friend groups to work out amongst themselves. "Hey, guys, I don't have an iPhone, and don't really have the money to get one, so maybe we could use GroupMe/GChat/WhatsApp/Signal/IRC/email/smoke signals/meeting in person/any of the myriad other ways of communicating instead?" A) "Oh, sure, that shouldn't be a problem!" (everything is solved) B) "What? No, we're not going to change anything just because it makes it impossible to actually include you in stuff. That's a you problem!" (turns out, the problem is your friends are assholes)
Apple cannot by any reasonable standard be held to blame for the way bullying, status-seeking teenagers treat each other.
If some teenagers see green bubbles as some sort of challenge to their identities, it's probably a useful life lesson.
The problem is not that iMessage exists, it's that it operates in opaque and unpredictable ways, mixing SMS and iMessage (and now RCS) communication in a way where even more tech-savvy users do not understand how it works (first-hand experience - had to explain to someone why their images are super compressed when they send them to me, but OK when they send them to their friend with an iPhone).
And now it's the same with RCS (Android-iOS). I send person A an image, the conversation switches to RCS. They use the "automatic reply" when I call them, conversation switches back to SMS. With person B, the switching between RCS and SMS is even more unpredictable.
That sounds like a terrible user experience ?
>“iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove [an] obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones,” was Federighi’s concern according to the Epic filing.
Among other statements. Apple was very aware of the social effects of iMessage, and leveraged it to force people into getting iphones.
Tech companies have done lots of evil shit. But never, not once, has one ever crossed the line into turning my friends and family against me (however slightly) because I didn't want to lock myself in Apple's cage, however comfortable it is.
Yeah, you can call my friends and family shitty, but the reality is that the are regular non-tech people, explaining the situation to them is impossible, and iMessage Just Works(TM).
But your position that it is somehow uniquely evil just reads as a coping mechanism—a way of not having to blame your friends and family for being shitty for you.
I know plenty of "regular, non-tech people" who understand perfectly well that a) different computer systems do not work properly together, and b) if you choosing to use a particular computer system excludes someone because they do not have access to it, that's rude, discriminatory, and generally shitty behavior.
SMS not having the same features as iMessage is a technical issue, sure.
Apple not providing iMessage on Android was a business decision, no question.
But people being exclusionary and obnoxious to each other over group chats is a social issue, and should be treated as such, and not blamed on either the technical or business side of things.
Just think about your logic.
However making an argument that some key aspects of the iPhome were not designed for viral growth is disrespectful to Steve Jobs who, like many of that time, was very familiar with engineering platform growth - probably more and better than most.
"Communicate outside the home" is a pretty vast difference
> It's even generally using all the same network protocols.
This whole thread was about proprietary iMessage
It's genuinely baffling to me that people actually see things this way. When there is a social reason to be outside the house, I take that as a reason not to be staring at a glowing rectangle.
It's a bit silly to abandon all contact with the world just because you have to wait for the doctor, go grocery shopping, sit in the train, etc.
What is silly about going to do an errand without distractions? It's more efficient in my experience. I wont look up stuff in the store or answer texts that in reality can totally wait. I've yet to have something happen where not having my phone lead to me missing some big emergency or event.
Going out into the world is in fact the opposite of abandoning all contact, it's directly interfacing. According to your comment, you equated your world with access to your phone.
> What is silly about going to do an errand without distractions? It's more efficient in my experience. I wont look up stuff in the store or answer texts that in reality can totally wait. I've yet to have something happen where not having my phone lead to me missing some big emergency or event. > Going out into the world is in fact the opposite of abandoning all contact, it's directly interfacing. According to your comment, you equated your world with access to your phone.
I have a hard time believing this isn't a disingenuous take just for the sake of arguing. "Hey honey, while you're at the grocery store, could you pick up some milk?" "Hey, I'm finishing up at the doctor, any chance you want to meet for lunch?"
Are we really saying we can't understand the difference between a computer and a cellphone? Are we really unable to imagine any reason why communicating outside the home can be a useful ability? That the ability to do something doesn't mean it is the only way to do something, nor does it mean it has to be done that way at all times in all situations?
On the contrary, I find it liberating, and I hate the idea of people trying to compel me to maintain contact through those situations.
Are you saying Google should freely give away their products?
take a moment to think why amazon has no google services on their table and/or an amazon branded basic android smartphone, it would be super easy for them to do it (leave aside firephone .. for reasons).
How is this not monopoly abuse? if Lina Khan had any balls this is what she would have gone after.
edit: chatgpt explanation: https://chatgpt.com/share/686350ce-47dc-8008-8c30-14c6298d75...
To clarify what exactly that agreement does: it prohibits companies from developing competitors. It is nakedly anti-competitive, and no, business deals are not supposed to be that - there's a large body of law, sadly rarely enforced, saying so. Not every business practice is legal just because the directly involved parties agreed.
Apple didn't make SMS bad, it just was. Apple has since implemented RCS and it hasn't changed how I communicate with people from my iPhone at all.
Google should probably take most of the blame for repeatedly fumbling messaging on non-Apple platforms for the past 2 decades. Every time they had something that was getting any amount of traction it got quickly replaced with some stupid new, worse messaging app so a PO could get a promotion.
And you know, maybe they have a point. I especially think about Microsoft and MSN Messenger/Skype. How do you fumble away not one but two dominant messaging apps?
Why didn’t Google deliver an alternative to iMessage? Did they choose not to? Is it actually hard? Are they just too incompetent at making software that isn’t for running infrastructure?
Regardless of the merits of Apple's actions as regards technical interoperability I feel compelled to point out that this in particular is a cultural problem, not technical malfeasance. RCS users still appear as green bubbles and even if the lack of functionality has been remedied the stigma has not. People at my lunch table 20 years ago were drawing artificial distinctions between "MP3s" (portable DAPs) and iPods because the latter were expensive luxury products and the former were not. The same thing is at work here because owning an iPhone is a proxy for one's socioeconomic stratum. I own an iPhone and as soon as an Android user appears in an iMessage group chat some joker immediately makes a green bubble quip - no degraded picture message required.
People that define themselves by conspicuous consumption don't care about interoperability. They care about brand recognition.
So pick your poison, either you exclude them because of in-group signalling/conspicious consumption or exclude them because you want non-potato resolution, with Android users getting the blame for Apple's UX. Either way Tim Cook says the solution is to buy an iPhone.
What a ridiculous statement. Even with your edit it's still an utterly stupid conclusion to come to.
Off the top of my head I can think of way worse things tech companies have done. Cambridge Analytica scandal, Gmail scanning, the Google Shopping lawsuit, Amazon's product clone hijack, Facebooks mood manipulation experiment, Ring doorbell viewing, Uber spying, to name just a few FAR worse things tech companies have done.
Instead of shaming Apple (which won't be very effective IMO), we should aim to improve education. Teach users how SMS/MMS/iMessage work. Tell them that they can install universal messaging apps and so on.
If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built?
If my pitch is premium, high-speed hardware and intuitive software so user-friendly that a monkey can use it, the trade-off is that you agree to my Terms of Service. There are other options out there.
Apple isn't dominant in the market worldwide (Android is), and they are competing against Android. Apple often implements things Android did first. That's how competition works.
Apple's global marketshare is 30% or just under.
Apple isn't building features to compete with Samsung only in the US. It's a global dynamic. Local competition is restricted to tiny subsets of features.
And it's only 57-42 for Apple in the US anyways. If it were 90-10 then sure. But 57-42 is what you get with strong competition. Having a majority doesn't mean there's a lack of competition. It just means one company is currently ahead, as one of them usually will be when there are two main players.
But I don't see much that's local about Apple vs. Samsung. It's the same phones for sale in the US or in Thailand. Literally as one-size-fits-all global as you can get.
They actually aren't. US iPhones no longer have SIM card slots. Most international phones don't support the same radio bands that US carriers use. This used to be a bigger issue with CDMA, but still an issue with the many 4G/5G bands and VoLTE. That'll be most Xiaomi and Oppo phones in the US. And there's Huawei phones that are banned and not allowed on US carriers; so it makes zero sense to include them into any marketshare calculations for a US consumer.
So even an iPhone 16 Pro has different models: A3293 (International) A3083 (USA) A3292 (Middle East, Canada, Mexico) and A3294 (China, Hong Kong). The A3293 and the A3294 do not support T-mobile's 5G band 71. This isn't uncommon, and Samsung will do similar international vs US models. Samsung is even worse sometimes, having completely different CPUs between regions.
And of course there's software differences too. Chinese iPhones can disable internet permissions for individual apps but not anyone else for some reason. Google Pixel's Gemini isn't available in EU countries. Apple Intelligence did similarly at launch.
While local marketshare isn't the perfect indicator, it's definitely better than using global marketshare.
Anybody (possibly except Epic Games) can develop and publish on the App Store. There's a cost associated with it, which in Apples case is 30% (or whatever you negotiate apparently). If you play by the rules, you can keep doing that as long as you like.
If you rent a shop in a shopping mall, there will be costs associated with that as well, and it's almost guaranteed to be more than 30%.
That is essentially what Apple is providing for those 30%, they provide a shopping mall where you can expose your goods, and people can pay for them. They handle the pesky stuff like refunds, (international) taxes, compliance with various government requirements, EU rules, and everything else. They even handle potential lawsuits for you (provided your app wasn't the one breaking laws).
They also vet (mostly automated) apps to ensure they're not using private APIs. That is for your protection. It's not an evil scheme by Apple to keep competitors out, it's for protecting the end user from bad actors like Meta scooping up all your personal data for "backup purposes" via some internal API.
Here in Europe we've had "alternative app stores" for a year or so, and despite living in a country where ~70% of the population uses iPhones, I don't know a single person that has ever used an alternative App Store, just like I don't actually know anybody that has downloaded an alternative keyboard despite those being available for a decade or more.
There is really very little you cannot do on the App Store in terms of features, so for many end users it is not a problem.
You may not like the price associated with it, which is what most of these complaints are about, the fact that Apple scoops up 30% of recurring subscriptions created through the App Store as well. People tend to forget that running your own infrastructure is also not free, especially when you need to handle refunds, legal matters and international compliance.
And that's the core of the problem, most of these companies complaining wants to use Apples built in App Store tools, but they want to direct them to their own App Store for free, ditching the complicated stuff of dealing with users on Apple. They're more than happy with Apple to handle payments and refunds if they do it for free.
Sideloading is usually a very bad idea in this day and age. In northern europe at least, your phone is quickly becoming your most trusted device in matters concerning anything state or municipality, and here we have a national ID app on our phones, along with social security, healthcare, drivers license, micro payments, taxes, childcare, hell, there's even video conferencing with your GP, in an app that has access to your medical records, including bloodwork and various scans. There's literally no way in hell I'm trading the perfectly walled garden for the Wild West outside.
Anecdotally, where I live, most companies don't allow Android phones as company phones as they're considered insecure, and instead mandate iPhones. The more regulated the industry (medical, banking, power, etc), the more certain it is that you'll be getting an iPhone.
I wrote a comment about that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44426128#44427725
> You may not like the price associated with it, which is what most of these complaints are about, the fact that Apple scoops up 30% of recurring subscriptions created through the App Store as well. People tend to forget that running your own infrastructure is also not free, especially when you need to handle refunds, legal matters and international compliance.
Simply having a link in my app to a page where someone pays through Stripe instead of through Apple Payments, costs nothing to Apple and creates no obligation for Apple to do anything.
> Sideloading is usually a very bad idea in this day and age.
Then don't do it. Who exactly is forcing you to?
The problem is, when the option exists it opens up an attack vector that I need to defend against, as it will surely be exploited by malware at some point, downloading an app when you visit some scam site, and boom you're now infected.
> Simply having a link in my app to a page where someone pays through Stripe instead of through Apple Payments,
But it hardly stifles competition, except alternative payment methods ?
> costs nothing to Apple and creates no obligation for Apple to do anything.
The problem is, when stuff breaks, people will contact Apple support. Yes, one call is negligible, but Apple has 2.2 billion users, and it all adds up.
Provided you provide your app for free and charge subscriptions, that also has a cost to apple, as they're providing downloads for your app (again, potentially 2.2. billion of them), as well as any legal troubles (app contents excluded).
I guess Apple could enforce a alternate subscription model where they require you to charge for your app and they take their 30% cut off of that, and lets you use whatever payment provider you like for recurring payments.
It would of course either cut into sales, as people aren't as likely to buy an app and then subscribe to it, though something with "first month free" could probably lure some people in. Alternatively a developer would have to develop a free app, and if people want to have the full experience they'd have to purchase the full version.
Except, developers don't want that. They want to be able to give away their app and sell subscriptions, and they expect Apple to foot the bill for the infrastructure required to provide downloads.
This makes no sense. There is no "boom". You can't accidentally do it. There are a series of very deliberate steps, with numerous warning signs. Even on Android I have to specifically enable an option to even be able to install apps from alternate sources, and it is a separate permission per source, and this option can be locked down on a managed device (e.g. a work phone).
By your logic, there should be no web browsers on iOS, since someone might visit a scam website and give away all their money.
> They want to be able to give away their app and sell subscriptions, and they expect Apple to foot the bill for the infrastructure required to provide downloads.
Nobody expects that. What the EU wants is, simply let another app store compete. That new app store will host the downloads.
You keep shedding tears for the costs to Apple's infrastructure, yet as I keep repeating - what many developers really want is to NOT use Apple's infrastructure. NOT use Apple's payment processor. If the problem is that we're being a burden to Apple, well then I'm in full agreement with you, let's stop doing that!
In any case, generally the threat against most people is fraud, not some technical minutiae.
This is completely fabricated. I've been using Android for more than 15 years, and this has never happened, ever. Nothing even close to it. To be clear, you're advocating to take away people's freedom to install software of their choosing in order to mitigate a hypothetical security problem. It's not a good trade.
As per Apple, they rejected 2 million app submissions in 2024 [^2]
So from a birds eye perspective there doesn't appear to be much difference, with iOS even taking the lead, but the key difference is that Kaspersky is not Google, and can only detect malicious software after it has been published. Apple has rejected app submissions over privacy issues, meaning those 2 million apps never made it to the public.
According to Zimperium Global Mobile Threat report [^3], 25% of Android devices have sideloaded apps, and 20% are malware infected (correlatoin is not causation, yet). Zimperium telemetry also reveals that 38% of detected malware attacks could be tracked to sideloaded apps [^4].
So no, it is certainly not some fabricated threat, but a very realistic and probably threat scenario. I'm also not trying to take away anybodys freedom, you're free to install whatever you want, but you don't need root access to do it. Very few use cases on a phone requires the user to have root access.
[^1] : https://securelist.com/mobile-threat-report-2024/115494/
[^2] : https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/05/the-app-store-prevent...
[^3] : https://lp.zimperium.com/hubfs/Reports/2025%20Global%20Mobil...
[^4] : https://zimperium.com/blog/the-hidden-risks-of-sideloading-a...
There is nothing wrong with sideloading applications. Protection against malicious applications is taken care of by the OS through sandboxing and a granular permission model. Malware scanning and app signing also have no dependency on the App Store.
Really all you are missing out on is the App Store review process, which is not worth much from a security perspective anyways.
You've been tricked into thinking that you're not qualified to select software to run on devices you purchase. I wouldn't hand over control of your digital life to Apple so readily.
Competitive markets have enough similar suppliers that they are forced to adapt to customers instead of the other way around.
This happens to be incompatible with capitalism due to phenomena like the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and fascism (as well as other corporativist ideologies). Capitalism survives and reproduces through monopolies and oligopolies, i.e. undemocratic forms of rent seeking and price cartels.
That's the catch-22, said ecosystem is what they want to use because it's considered "secure", but it's only considered secure because it's closed.
It's the same with all the other stuff like frequent locations, photos, etc. It's a walled garden yes, but one that protects your data from bad actors (like Meta heisting whatever they can get their grubby little hands on), and the price is that you can't let others into your garden, or it's no longer walled.
Also, facebook can already be a "bad actor" right now, they just have to pay apple their 30%.
There are two scenarios to this (probably more)
1) A developer wants to use a 3rd party app store to distribute their apps, using 3rd party payment solutions. This is fine, it puts no load on Apple. That's what we've had in EU for a year or more, and truth be told, nobody uses 3rd party app stores. It's a desire that exists because vendors don't want to pay Apple 30%, users have no desire for it.
2) Which leads to the second scenario, where developers will want to publish their apps on the App Store, because that's where the users are, but still use 3rd party payment solutions, meaning Apple essentially hosts their apps for free.
Even after a year in EU, there are literally no users (and not many 3rd party app stores): AltStore has about 1.5 million users, Epic Games Store has about 29 million users across iOS and Android, so best case they're all iOS users, or worst case it's less than half. There are 450 million people living in the EU.
The Apple App Store is overwhelmingly dominant in EU, despite there being a free choice. So, which scenario do you think is most likely ? 1 or 2 ? The store where nobody shops, or the store where the users are, and developers wants to live rent free ?
> Also, facebook can already be a "bad actor" right now
Facebook, and later Meta has been involved in several "controversies" over the past decade or so, too many to be an accident.
In 2015-2018, people discovered that the Facebook app on Android had been collecting call logs and SMS metadata, presumably to help you connect with people you know, but it was being done without your consent.
in 2016-2020, there were rumors that Facebook listened on conversations using the iOS and Android microphones for use with targeted ads. Nothing was proved, but it was verified in 2019 that Facebook kept the camera active on iOS while you browsed the feed.
The Onavo VPN 2013-2019 (later Facebook Research) app collected various stuff like App usage stats, Web browsing, private messages and network activity on both iOS and Android, until the App was removed from Play Store and App Store in 2019.
Facebook also tracks your location, despite you disallowing this, by using background access, Photo EXIF data, and WiFi//bluetooth beacon.
All of the above were default on, without any informed consent, and the behavior of Meta (and others) are a large part of why both iOS and Android have severely hardened their cross application data access.
In their own machines they can do whatever they want.
Once they sell it to you, not anymore.
I think people are conflating ease of modification from legally being able to do so. If it's legal, then Apple retains no control over the device.
The bar isnt whether it is legal or not. You know that no company can create laws, and either you're saying it out of ignorance, or willful ignorance.
When Walmart drives away mom and pop shops, and dominate a certain town and then hikes the prices for groceries, you cant say "but it isnt illegal to go buy groceries from elsewhere, what did we - Walmart - do wrong?"
Say it with me - monopoly rules are about consumer choice.
> I think it's perfectly fine to prevent you from having this
Yes I can, legally and morally.
How is the data checkout working on iOS to migrate to Android?
You can always just build your own phone network if you don't like it!
You are on the wrong side of history.
Like think about this logically? Should a grocery store be forced to sell my products without receiving any of the profit? Can I force a cafe to let me serve customers on their premises without giving anything in return?
Apple has no right to piggybacking off of another company's business. Therefore the 30% must go.
Compare Apple with Steam (who also provide the infrastructure, marketplace and platform). Steam don't force developers to use their services. They're still successful, but you can get almost every game on Steam from somewhere else. This is what I'd ideally like Apple to do. It wouldn't make any difference to me, as I haven't owned or developed for Apple devices in many decades, but it would make a huge difference to many developers, and many device owners. I doubt it will actually make that much difference to Apple's profits, but it would make a difference to the rapidly declining good will they have in the developer community, and increasingly in their customers.
Should the construction company that built the grocery store be able to take a cut off grocery profits and have a say in what the store is selling?
What Apple is taking away is practical control for owners of a class of device that has become essential to my practical participation in society.
I actually desire my country to intervene and change laws forcing Apple give me that control.
"Vote with your wallet" is a BS argument in such a duopoly, because people care about other stuff.
In my opinion it is perfectly fine for society to order a company to hypothetically limit you on this minor thing (and let's be frank: this is super minor), because opening up iOS would benefit companies, countries, economies and other users of phones.
Especially in the light of the only real complaint being that "there is a possibility of loss of security".
Apple have over a billion iPhones out there I believe, and your phrasing of "it's all of us vs just you" is really inappropriate - both from an argumentation perspective and probably a fact perspective too.
And the fact that people have iPhones doesn't invalidate my assertion, also it doesn't affect my right to an opinion.
No-one's saying you don't have a right to an opinion. Everyone has that right. It's bad faith to try and misrepresent what the person you're talking to is saying.
> No-one's saying you don't have a right to an opinion
Someone said to me “Who are you to claim that my consumer desires are irrelevant?” so you’re wrong.
Why would you make up something like this? What's the benefit to you?
It's legitimately easier to just buy a UMPC with an LTE card and use VOIP than do that. That's how bad the situation is at this point.
I say this as someone who gets paid to work on open source and used PostMarketOS on my primary cell phone for years. Even technical people really only have two options right now.
And of course, recommendations for LTE modules would be appreciated. Ideally built in, but external modules are also good, all they really need is linux support.
What about we meet in the middle and governments force Apple to only open 50% of the phones, for the same price. Would that satisfy you?
And I 100% guarantee that the piece of this 30% pie is way bigger than the effort it would require them to divert their development like you're suggesting.
EDIT: Oh, and I also bet their lawyer bill for fighting this is bigger than that too. :)
And if the argument has become about security, as others have said, Jailbreak has repeatedly relied on security issues, so the security problems have always been there.
But making the argument that Apple is the only company to solve secure payments on the internet is silly.
On one side it's called jailbreaking, on the other it's called rooting. It's really the same thing you're fighting against.
I'm sick of people writing off entire classes of problems because "well, it's not illegal". The law doesn't matter until you're actually in court. What matters is practicalities. There are many rights that are impractical to use and there are many laws that are unenforced. Some problems could be solved by law, others probably not. The law is a solution, not a problem. Focus on problems, not solutions.
If they wanted that right they shouldn't have sold the computer.
I believe that's why they're calling it "a phone", or "a tablet". The computer they actually sell has plenty of shells available, and lets you tinker with whatever you like.
A phone is not simply a computer, it's a regulated piece of hardware that must comply with local laws and regulations regarding radio transmissions and other stuff. You can't just peek and poke around anywhere you like in the system.
Besides that, it must be able to talk to carefully tuned 3G/4G/5G cell towers, which sounds easy in theory, but it's not. When I made mobile phones 20 years ago, we had people driving around all countries where we sold it, with a test setup where the phone connected to every cell tower it could "see", and recorded logs and GPS coordinates, and that work (and that of countless others) is partially what became the beginning of A-GPS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_GNSS), which allows you to triangulate your phones location purely from the cell towers it can see.
Of course that's not how it works today, as most carriers these days register their cell towers in a central database with GPS coordinates, so A-GPS these days is simply a database dump (and a whole lot of math).
As a "fun" anecdote, when I wrote software for mobile phones, it was the only place I've ever worked that had a bug category for "potential harm to user". I'm certain companies working in Medicare and other critical industries also has that, but it was the first and only time I ever saw it.
No. They're computers with a modem peripheral. This is like saying once you plugged your e machine into the phone line it could interfere with 911 calls so they need to be regulated by the FCC. We settled that one over 50 years ago.
Besides the FDA (and similar international counterparts), you're also using your phone for a bunch of other stuff that you probably don't want anyone having root access to. Wallets are one, banking apps, medical data and devices, password managers, and more.
If you have root access, that means that the apps can also get it, after all the app providing root access is itself an app.
Yes I have my bitcoin-qt wallet, Etrade, my ssh keys, and my password manager on a machine I also have root on. I don't run non-free code on it (and I'm very picky about the open source code I do run.) Also just because I have root access doesn't mean I'm running all my apps as root. That's in insane statement to make. I run administrative tools as root and that's it.
The same thing is happening on your phone, you're just not allowed access to those tools, instead various other companies are and when they do things you don't like your options are: throw out your device and data, or bend over and take it.
Again at the end of the day a computer is a computer regardless of you being administratively locked out of yours.
Do you think the same about printer ink?
Regardless, we need to look at the law - and interoperability has a long history of legal support. Patents protect the product itself, but allow interoperable products. Trade secrets product the product from theft but not reverse engineering.
Even the DMCA has explicit carve-outs for interoperability, though that doesn't stop copyright-abusers from trying to wield it (and sometimes winning due to the money game).
Yes, except when they use that control to stifle competition. Competition is good, so we want to promote it.
That is sort of the basis for all anti trust law, to my layman’s understanding at least.
Was that not the sort of rationale Microsoft used to defend its IE shenanigans back in the day?
It was considered to be a violation of antitrust laws then. I don't think Apple would be off the hook now. Especially considering how much more ubiquitous smartphones are in comparison to web browsers back then.
It's whether you are engaging in anticompetitive behavior or not.
In antitrust terms, it is a form of Vendor Lock-In[0], and could be seen as a form of Tying[1]:
> Tying is often used when the supplier makes one product that is critical to many customers. By threatening to withhold that key product unless others are also purchased, the supplier can increase sales of less necessary products.
As an example, Apple was sued successfully in the early 200s for selling music in a format that could only be played on iPods. iTunes is a platform Apple controls and invented, yet still it was deemed illegal for them to unfairly lock in customers and prevent them from using competing portable music players.
But there is a customer experience reason. As an iOS user, I very much appreciate that I can ask Apple to cancel some bullshit subscription that used to otherwise try to lock me in behind a labyrinth of added friction and timewasting.
Not every problem is technological.
if apple was saying you had to support their payment processor alongside others (so you could opt into paying +27% and getting easy cancellations), that would be one thing, but they don't allow you to have any other options available in the app, which i think is where the anticompetitive complaints start to feel more valid.
This makes sense because companies are used to making 70%, so obviously when given the choice to make 30% more overnight they will simply lower prices to avoid having to deal with all that extra revenue
Which means that if you remove 30% of revenue as a cost, one of two things happens. Either the price comes down because the suppliers who lower their price get more business, or the customers aren't very price sensitive in which case developers who use the additional money to improve their apps get more of the market and then users get better apps.
Either of those is better for the customer than having the money go into a megacorp's money bin and have them use it for competition-reducing M&A or unrelated empire-building projects or just have them add it to their cash mountain and have the customer paying that money in exchange for nothing.
That is bad enough. But here comes the infuriating part. Many app devs don't want their customers to pay extra. But Apple forbids them from providing an alternative payment interface or even informing the customers that such an option exists. And the icing on the cake is that Apple used to forbid the app developers from even providing an alternative, until the courts forced their hand. Is this an anticompetitive practice or just plain extortion?
But if you ask Apple or their fanbase, they would say that it takes resources to review and host the apps. But that rings hollow when you consider all the other ways in which Apple wrings both app developers and customers dry. Then perhaps allow the users to sideload the apps? Oh no! That will break Apple's perfect safety record. How about just making it slightly hard instead? No! The user must be protected at all costs, including by holding them hostage! At this point, I'm convinced that either Apple is astroturfing, or the fans suffer from an extreme form of Stockholm syndrome, or both.
I would love to live in the world you're living in where companies have 70% margin on $5 apps and $10/month subscriptions. And where they ever had those margins.
Also, as a customer, presumably you could choose to use apple's store.
In order for this argument to be true, Apple would need to have market power.
Having market power is the thing that makes tying etc. an antitrust violation.
Because it can be used for more than allowing people to cancel subscriptions. Like charging a 30% margin in a market where it's normally 3%, or excluding apps that compete with Apple software or services, or requiring customers to use a specific combination of hardware, operating system, app store and services, even if the customer only wants one of those things and binding them together then eliminates competition from any company that can't supply all of them. Which are exactly the sort of things that antitrust rules are meant to prevent.
When I hear about a 3% fee, I think of the interchange fees for a credit card. That doesn’t have the same overhead as hosting the software, handling the updates, managing the front end, reviews, etc. I can only assume that 2-3% of the 30% are going to Visa, as I’m sure Apple is paying interchange fees to process the payments.
30% probably still creates a very healthy margin, which could be trimmed (and has been for companies making less than $1m). But it is right in line with the rest of the industry, at least for the other big players.
Having the ability to move out acts as a great check against unreasonable rent-seeking.
You are free to install any game you want through any other different service on the same OS where Steam runs.
Steam doesn't say "oh, for every transaction you make in those other stores on the same OS we'll take the 30% commission anyway"
The outrage against Apple in this regard has never felt consistently applied based.
I'll say the same thing, another way: Apple is the only smartphone manufacturer that forces you to install apps through their services only.
To bring the analogy in line with the App Store, imagine if: (1) Steam was operated by Microsoft, (2) Microsoft only allowed installation of games on Windows through Steam, and (3) Microsoft disallowed installation of alternate OSes on Microsoft PCs.
Valve also makes the Steam Deck. In that case they do own the platform, but if the user wants they can install whatever OS they want… but as designed, and used by most consumers, it’s Valve hardware, running SteamOS from Valve, where people can run games they buy from Steam, Vavle’s game marketplace… where Valve takes 30% of the sales.
The only difference between the Steam Deck and an iPad is that the user can wipe SteamOS off it and use it as a generic system, likely killing most of the reason why they bought the hardware in the first place.
So if the issue is how open the platform is, that seems like an issue for the free market. A lot of people buy Apple stuff because it’s a closed platform that spends a lot of time dialing in the user experience, which is something that often seems lacking on more open platforms, because there are an infinite number of edge cases to cover. If customers want the closed platform, forcing it open end up reducing customer choice, as the closed, tightly knit, ecosystem option no longer exists.
Apple’s business model has also historically been about selling hardware to run their software. “People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.” Forcing them into a Microsoft-style business model is a fundamental change to their core business. There should be room in the market for different ideas. Microsoft, Apple, and Google all have very different business models which serve different types of customers. This is a good thing. I wish there was room for more business models to let the little guy move up, but forcing Apple to be Microsoft, Google, or whomever else doesn’t seem like a win, and it has little to do with the 30% App Store fee.
No, the issue is that they have both a 30% cut of every software sale and a closed platform. Steam has a 30% cut, but not a closed platform, hence the bad analogy.
Not sure why you're bringing the Steam Deck into this discussion. Is the only way to play Steam games via Deck? No, so it's completely irrelevant.
Apple has more open platforms as well, macOS.
Paying through Apple is also not the only way to pay for Proton. I'm a Proton subscriber, and have an iPhone. I paid for Proton through their website and Apple didn't see a dime, but I still use Proton Mail on my iPhone.
Apple sells a device (iPhone) whose OS it controls (iOS) that is so ubiquitous to the point where most businesses cannot afford to not have a presence on this OS/platform.
But in order to have a presence, businesses must list their app on the App Store. There is no other natively supported mechanism available to allow your users to interact with your business. And absolutely no sideloading is allowed. Apple charges businesses a 30% tax to use the App Store.
The cherry on top is that you as a business are also completely disallowed from accepting payment that doesn’t adhere to this tax. Not just that, but even indirectly linking to such payment mechanisms from within your app is disallowed.
Not going to engage any further here because I have made my points.
Not only that, because there are other ways to install an app than Steam, the 30% paid to Steam is paying for promotion within their system. Which is valuable because not all apps are available there, so paying for it makes you more likely to be noticed over someone who distributes for the same platform using an external means.
If an app store is the only way to install apps on a platform then everybody is paying the fee and therefore nobody is getting promoted over anybody else in exchange for it.
It is one thing to say "listen, people are using our product even though there's another choice" but it is another to say "if we give them a choice, nobody will use us"
Anyhow I do see your point that narrowing user options can lead to better UX - if you actually like all the tradeoffs they make. The problem is if you don't, your SoL. And in this case the trade-off is Apple taking a giant extra cut so... I think it's reasonable that folks don't like that trade-off.
That said, their argument that the payment policies disproportionately impact apps trying to create sustainable business models that don’t monetize user data is a compelling one that I very much sympathize with.
I’m a Proton subscriber, but I went through their website, just because I tend to do that for any service that isn’t exclusive to Apple or the App Store. The same is true for Kagi, another privacy focused service I subscribe to. I never thought about it, but maybe that’s my way of avoiding lock-in. If I ever leave iOS at some point, I don’t want to have to cancel and resubscribe to something that could cause a service interruption. I also want to make sure that the subscription is everywhere, not just on my Apple devices, and it’s tied to the email I choose.
Also, thinking that all businesses will lock one in using friction and timewasting is not a rational argument. There are a lot of honest businesses there forced to pay the Apple Mafia's tax.
But for every one of those, there are many who might want to transact with the business directly.
FWIW, I trust Spotify equally as Apple - so if I get a Spotify subscription, I'm more than happy to get a 30% discount and deal with Spotify directly. Heck, I can do that on my MacOS (another fine product the Cupertino company makes) but when it comes to iOS - OMG, virus, malware, user privacy!!
This way, I know if I'm dealing with something on my phone, I have a trusted channel for commerce. I am sophisticated enough that I can probably ascertain what alternative payment schemes are reasonable and which are scams, but Apple's imposed payment monoculture means unsophisticated users are protected as well.
A more permissive payment setup would necessarily mean more scammy apps, or maybe just vendors with gross, dark patterns designed to obfuscate cancellation without quite being fraud. No thanks.
People say this stuff, but recently I re-examined my subscription to a multi-platform VPN service through the App store and found that they priced it cheaper than getting the same package through their website or through their windows client.
No idea why.
I would presume an outlier as it seems to make poor business sense.
Edit: Not sure if up to date but for example: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/App-Store-Pricing-Update...
They charge $19.39 for the same subscription if you buy it direct. By the logic of Apple taking a 30% cut thereby pushing up the price of doing business, you'd think they could charge $12.59 to direct customers and take the same profit out.
(This is month by month subscriptions to NordVPN)
If customers want to pay more for Apple to facilitate, there isn’t an incentive to not keep apps in the App Store too. If a company has other reasons not to be in Apple’s store, why should they be required to?
> That’s an unsupportable claim.
It's supported well enough in my view by a long history of sleaze that apparently people have forgotten.
Or Apple could do one of those virtual credit card things. Or do they already? So you could use an Apple virtual credit card with any processor.
But then the 30% extra fee would be visible to the user. Apple's whole schtick is making things way more expensive and hiding the competition pricing from the user. If "$10 with Stripe" was placed side by side with "$13 with Apple Pay", Apple would immediately lose all of their payment customers and about $2,000,000,000 in revenue, which is a lot. They can only prevent this by preventing "$10 with Stripe" from being there at all. (And if they did it with virtual credit cards, they'd have to tell users there's a 30% fee on each transaction)
In reality, everyone other than Apple has created as much friction as possible in the cancellation process. With Apple, I simply subscribe and then immediately go and unsubscribe.
The problem is they don't allow apps to come from anywhere else, this is the core of the issue and what everything eventually comes down to.
Make it possible for users to control their own app installation sources on the hardware they own, show them what is happening when they do so, that they are replacing Apple as the source of trust with the developers of the app marketplace or app they are installing, but only do it once, it can't become a nag.
If they do that, then whenever anyone complains about App Store rules Apple can just tell them to do everything themselves instead, no APNS, no convenient installation from a pre-installed App Store, no seal of approval from a partner the user trusts, no free hosting, no infrastructure for app updates, etc.
You can get your clothes from Target or Saks Fifth Avenue. For most folks, Target is fine, but there are people that insist on paying $30 for every pair of skivvies. I think that they should have that choice. If they can afford it, then let them eat cake (for the record, I tend to be a Costco type of guy, but have not regretted occasionally getting something from Saks).
Selfishly, I would like them to allow sideloads, because the App Store approval process has slowed to a crawl, lately, as well as APNS calls. I’m certain that’s because of thousands of AI-generated submissions. I think many of those submitters would much rather avoid the hoops they need to jump through, for the store.
But I doubt that Apple sees things that way. The secondary app stores are likely to make a lot of money, which they would miss.
The more damaging thing, however, is that Apple’s brand image could get corroded, and there’s a very good chance that they could be strongarmed into supporting side-loaded crapplets. I’m a bit cynical on this, myself. I feel that Apple has been doing a great job of damaging their own brand, in the past few years. I feel as if the quality of their internal engineering has declined precipitously.
Agreed. The quality of Apples own software has declined, as has the outcome of app reviews, there's never been as much crap on the App Store as there is today.
And obviously Apple wants to "have their cake and eat it too", who doesn't? I'm just saying that this is the reason why they're being dragged to court now, because they aren't "playing fair" when they're acting as both store operator and store participant in multiple segments, and are acting as gatekeepers of software for literally hundreds of millions if not billions of devices now (congrats to them).
And you will get 20 times telemetry as a bonus: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261
It's one thing to design and built an iKettle in such a way that every aspect from the water filter to the power cord is well thought out but propitiatory. It's another to refuse to plug in to another "inferior" socket because that cuts into your cut of propitiatory cable sales.
If their stuff is so superior, then people will see that and prefer it. They wouldn't need to make it impossible or deliberately painful to use competitors services.
If anything, it's the opposite - the bigger Apple is, the worse is the damage they cause.
This isn't about the a consumer's right to buy a different phone. It's about a business's right to do business with customers without Apple in the middle. And it's specifically about Apple's monopoly power over those businesses. No government is going to accept that some company, Apple, gets that kind of control.
Not op, but the various "must use our genuine brand printer cartridges!" schemes that printer manufacturers have used over the past, oh, 2 decades might have something to do with it?
edit to clarify: I mean the cartridges with their own chips that HP et al. tried to make happen a while back
For the ink, I just buy it elsewhere online.
Well, yes.
Toyota Motor Corp., Volkswagen Group (multiple brands), Hyundai Motor Group, GM and Stellantis N.V. are the top 5 largest automakers in the world whose annual output is comparable with that of largest smartphone makers, including Apple (with the adjustment of the scale).
None of the automakers allow anyone outside the vertical(s) they have built to gain a foothold in the verticals. This includes: replacement parts, mandated regular service at an official, brand-certified dealership as the condition of the warranty (for new vehicles), software updates only from the vehicle manufacturer, probably something else. No outsiders are allowed under any circumstances – if one misses a regular service at an official dealership before the warranty period has lapsed, the warranty is automatically voided. Some even extend to chipped/cracked windshields that, if replaced, will void the vehicle warranty, even though there is nothing special about a windshield today.
Vehicle manufacturers are by all definitions stagegate keepers, and they impose expensive services upon their product users without giving them an alternative.
Why are governments allowing this to happen?[0]
[0] I know that it is because of safety regulations as the manufacturer will claim that they can only guarantee the safety of its own vehicle if it has original parts, but let's pretend for a moment that it is not an issue.
Even a cursory glance at the world around you quickly proves that what you wrote it just utter crock.
One can't install a Ford made shock absorber on a Honda Civic and vice versa. The time of interchangeable spare parts came to an end some time in 1980-90's where the car manufacturers started actively embracing the vertical integration. If somebody makes compatible, third party parts, it is mostly for a small selection of performance and sports cars and is not mainstream. I just replaced the chipped and cracked windshield last week, and I had to wait for 2 months for the replacement to arrive because only the original glass existed out there, with no cheap Chinese alternatives being available – they don't exist, either.
And I had a continuous problem with spare parts for my previous 20 years old car that was more than 10 years out of production, and the car manufacturer stopping making them after 10 years. Lucky for me it was just zero problems, but lately wear and tear turned every other annual safety inspection into a 1-2 week long wait with the mechanic trying to hunt something down. The last time they just gave up and fudged it.
My new car comes with a non-negotiable condition of first five years of regular service getting done at an authorised dealership as a condition of the car warranty. If I were to do it elsewhere, the warranty would lapse automatically. After the end of the warranty, I can take my car wherever I want.
No, you can't install your own or 3rd party software in a modern car, either. This is well known and is indisputable.
So all of that rings true.
Anyhow, I can't stoop that low to converse with a random lout online hurling insults left and right. Enjoy it elsewhere, bye.
Steam is not even controlling PCs as their fief so they cannot do this even if they would want to do it.
I figured it was likely unenforceable if a studio simply released a "steam edition" or whatever artificial version differentiation, but at the same time they can always refuse to do business with you for any reason (or no reason even). So at that point the clause feels like them making a blatant threat.
For just selling the game elsewhere, there is no such clause, and there are games that e.g. are cheaper on Epic and explicitly say that's because Epic takes lower fees. But there are also devs claiming that Valve pressured them in private to not do that, and that's what the lawsuit is about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v_European_Com...
BTW, I wonder have they paid that €860 million in the end - and how can I check this.
> Other companies make stores that deliver application and developers don't get to tell them what to do.
AFAIK Microsoft users can install software not using Microsoft store, however it is called.
sorry for forgetting, I have never used or seen Xbox
Once a company becomes massive enough and displays properties of a monopoly, the rules of free commerce change
(that being said, I agree that Apple largely provides users with a high-quality product)
That’s really the crux of the issue. If I must abide by arbitrary rules to use the package at its full functionality, then I didn’t gain ownership of it, did I?
I don't like this hypothetical (or maybe real) argument from Apple, but can't answer it either.
Update; well, here's the answer to that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44427725
But those types of contracts also have obligations on the seller, which is why Apple and similar companies don't want to have to treat their equipment that way and would rather call it "selling" with an asterisk.
It doesn't matter if your gym includes a clause in their contract stating that they are not liable, even through their neglect. If they cause harm through neglect then they are liable.
My stance and others that align with me are that ownership in trade is an inalienable right and their statement should be challenged.
Why do we oppress any freedom? When doing so protects the society we are trying to build.
Apple can. They can retain ownership of "their" devices. Instead of selling electronics, they can rent iPhones and iPads to users and thereby retain all control over how/when/if they are used. But good luck pitching that to consumers.
I think general purpose computing devices should be open.
This is a moralistic argument, putting legal and business reasons to the side.
Go ahead and lock down specific purpose computing devices, like ATMs, fridge, mouse firmware.
The practice of setting up fiefdoms to become the landlord is an abhorrent practice.
There are at least a few grey areas of such a carve-out that I'd like to ask about, but I wonder if it's even necessary. What if there simply weren't any exceptions?
The ATM would still be locked down - the owner would possess the keys. Business as usual.
The fridge and mouse either wouldn't be locked down or the keys might be physically present somewhere on them. Probably either neutral or a win for the consumer depending on the specific circumstances.
Something like a fridge should either be running a proper OS (and thus fully under the control of the user) or else shouldn't be connected to the network in the first place. Unpatchable proprietary network connected black boxes expected to have a service life of well over a decade are a recipe for disaster after all.
You're asking a rhetorical question without providing any argument for why the answer should be yes, which makes it pretty easy to just answer the question with the word no.
> Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built?
The premise of this question is that they have the right to interfere with how other people choose to interact with each other.
Meanwhile the premise of the government-granted copyright monopoly they've used to build their lock-in system is that you build something and in exchange you can charge money for it. Leveraging that into control over markets external to the one you developed is a thing that should be expressly prohibited.
Does the manufacturer of your refrigerator have the right to control what food you're allowed to put into it? If not, why do you have different standards for computing devices? Why did it ever become okay for Apple to decide what you do with your device after they've sold it to you?
I suppose you have the legal right to do whatever you're able to up until people notice the problems you're causing and pass laws against it (or enforce existing ones, as is being attempted here).
Why should it be legally permissible to "sell" general purpose computing devices that are locked by the manufacturer or vendor? How does such behavior benefit society? Aren't locked down, effectively unauditable devices anathema to a free and open society? Isn't the current situation evidence enough that their existence is damaging to the concept of a free market?
So then we get to like, why do we have laws, what's the goal? And this is where you get down to brass tacks. Almost everyone will agree on three basis vectors in principle:
- aggregate prosperity - broad prosperity and security from want - individual liberty
You've got to grind through a bunch of thought on a spectrum ranging from Das Capital to Atlas Shrugged to make it really tight, but it sort of simplifies down to: pick two. Put differently, for a given raw capability and Gini-like target, you get to allocate so much liberty to which people: if you don't impose punitive taxes on wealth, it centralizes and calcifies into fungibility. Rich people buy laws. This is a super linear process.
So then it becomes about:
- would I want to be rich if it was part of a system that engineers avoidable want
- if yes, could I realistically make it into the rich group
For me the answer to one is no, and so I think we should re-impose the punitive taxes and regulations that break the backs of rich people and megacorps.
But on HN a common if not typical answer to #1 is yes, and so my appeal is: be realistic, you already missed.
And if you pick wrong, you get nothing.
>Rich people buy laws.
A totalitarian government does not need to buy laws. Imposing punitive taxes on wealth - it's like express line to what you want to avoid with it.
Breaking the backs of rich people and megacorporations or not, is not a choice about your chances of being wealthy, it is a choice about will you die from starvation or not.
People choose not to break the backs of megacorporations because they don't want to starve to death in totalitarian regimes, not because they hope to get a corporation of their own some day.
Real wages and purchasing power at the median are so strongly correlated with 90℅ income tax at the top that the causality digression is a waste of time we don't have. Unchecked executive power via a lockstep legislative apparatus and meek courts is not some unprecedented thing, its a totally predictable response to privatizing the commons and selling it off to oligarchs.
It was a fucking disaster in Russia in 1992 and its shaping up no better here now.
Conficistory taxes at the top work, they keep real assets broadly distributed throughout society which gives everyone a stake in democratic institutions which creates stability and growth. That's recent, robustly researched history.
Because not doing so harms the market and society (the article details how). Governments do not exist solely to enforce contracts and property rights. Ideals (e.g. "a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow") are valuable guides, and worth bearing even significant costs to keep, but they are not to be followed blindly, at any cost.
> There are other options out there.
Law and politics (should) step in when "voting with your feet/wallet" fails. You also ignore Apple's middle-man role - consumers can choose (among the very few) different options, but companies serving Apple's captured market cannot.
And it's a shame
>Law and politics (should) step in when "voting with your feet/wallet" fails.
No, they shouldn't. Such stepping in is always vulnerable for abuse and always leads to results worse than original failing
But seriously though: why do people argue that „investing money“ leads to „I can do whatever the hell I want to my client base“? Even if this argument were to hold for all future customers, companies change their TOS all the time. Can I ask for all my money that I paid them back, to exit their ecosystem?..
I don't own any Apple product, but I do admire occasionally how Apple tries to uphold the quality and security of their ecosystem, even as I principally disagree with the walled garden approach. I certainly hope Apple aspires to keep the quality of their hardware and software high. They should however never control user data or choice of third party services.
These two things are often at odds with each other. If people bought into the Apple ecosystem because of the walled garden, the regulators want to rip down those walls and turn it into a fundamentally different product. Bad 3rd party experiences can break the illusion of the perfect walled garden, which is why Apple has many of its rules. Though, I’d say that illusion has already been broken for many, due to a bunch of apps with timed ad pop-ups and other such nonsense. I won’t allow any of that on my phone, but most people do.
I’ve read articles from developers that say they offer options on iOS to go ad-free, while similar options don’t exist on Android for the same app, since not enough people do it and they can make more on ads (I believe I read this from the Angry Birds devs years ago). I would find this unacceptable as a user. I don’t think this is a rule from Apple, but rather differences in the types of users that gravitate to the various platforms; or maybe it’s simply comfort and trust in Apple to process all the payments. I think it should be a rule that any app with ads has the ability to remove them for a price. For smaller apps, I would have a lot less comfort doing this if it didn’t go through Apple (or some similarly large company). I would be very sad if the monkey paw from this lawsuit was that I end up with apps full of ads that I can’t remove, or don’t feel safe removing. This would fly in the face of Proton’s goals as well.
There is also the registration side of things. Today, I can get an app without an account for it, buy it, delete it, and if I re-download it, I can restore that purchase. Going through the developer means yet another account to manage, track, and entrusting another 3rd party.
I paid $30 a couple weeks ago for lifetime access to the “pro” version of an app I’ve been using. I don’t think I would have done that if I would have had to make an account and all that. It would be too much friction and I don’t know enough about the dev. So the dev got $21-25 from me, instead of the alternative, which would have been 0. And that’s what starts the downward spiral toward ads everywhere, which degrades the whole experience.
But in this case, I still think Apple has a point. It is not a lawsuit so that consumers can truly own their device, it is not about opening bootloaders and things like that. It is just about not paying the 30% tax to Apple. And while not an Apple fan myself, I understand the appeal of Apple controlling the ecosystem, and paying 30% more for it is not a big deal. By simply buying an Apple device, you show that you are ready to pay a premium for this, so paying a premium for software too seems fitting.
Proton has a point regarding ads though, but it can be seen the other way: maybe Apple should control the ad delivery service too and take its cut too. If Apple does it right, it could actually be a good thing for privacy.
I repeat that it is not what I want, I like being able to do what I want with my hardware, but I see the value in what Apple offers. In this case, let the courts decide.
People get hung up on absolute 100% pure monopolies and how nothing meets that criterion. Monopoly power is a much better way of looking at things. Controlling 100% of a market with insurmountable barrier to entry of course grants a heaping pile of monopoly power, but any company that can influence the market price has some. Generally the higher the market share, the more monopoly power. UK monopoly regulation starts taking a closer look at companies once they have 25% market share.
They invite others to sell on that market, but made themselves gatekeeper and simultaneously a player there, controlling the rules of that market in its favor.
Market forces are unable to flow freely, to the point that it affects the "parent" market (in which the iPhone/iPad competes with others) as well as other markets (where other Hardware and Services are sold).
Their closed market reached a significant size now, so it should be reasonable to step in and ensure fair competition also there.
But thanks to those layers of abstraction, billions of dollar in lobbying and marketing, there is always room to argue that ensuring that free market is unjust, hinders innovation, restricts Apple from competing, etc.
Of course not. Companies exist only because it is useful to have that sort of legal entity. They should be regulated to ensure that they remain more useful than harmful to society.
Thomas Edison and Company invented a patent system that separated their inventions from being able to be accessed by indie movie makers, and indie producers. Their lawyers would effectively shut down any such movements. This caused them to go all the way to Los Angeles because it was the furthest from New York and they built a movie studio on poverty row that later became the capital of Hollywood movie making.
Once Hollywood became financially strong enough, the lawyers were sent over to shut it down, but the court sided with Hollywood and killed all of the patents because the courts thought that they had abused the pattern system to only benefit a few, what I would like to call the cartel.
The cartel were chosen movie makers, and producers, who had access to the movie making stuff and cameras and equipment by which they would share a percentage of the revenue of the movie production and the theater income with Thomas Edison and Company. Effectively they had what Apple has currently.
For companies, there are civil outcomes. This may be undesirable if you have a large financial interest in the company, but it's a tradeoff for the same legislative body allowing you to create a shield from personal liability and taxation.
If you are able to create an ecosystem on your own, do what you like with it.
"The Sherman Act broadly prohibits 1) anticompetitive agreements and 2) unilateral conduct that monopolizes or attempts to monopolize the relevant market. " source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
Because once I buy your phone/tablet/whatever, it stops being yours and starts being mine, so I should be in charge of what software it can run from then on.
Lets be honest here - Netflix, Spotify et al are perfectly capable of running their on subscription business. They dont NEED Apple's crappy payment provider, and yet are forced to use it.
As a user you should be enraged, but here we are.
It's not a question of what you like, it's a question of antitrust laws. You can disagree with them of course, but it is their right to sue Apple if they think Apple is breaking laws.
I think I haven't asked them but I was just trying to do it and I am so frustrated the best I have got is that there is a way to get a curl command with proper cookies etc. to get text written in the comments section but that text is (rightfully) encrypted and I don't know how to decrypt it... I am not sure.
A really dead simple api or library would be.. wonderful. I wish proton could also go like cloudflare except way way more private and could have some proton s3 or proton workers or something tbh.
REQUESTED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
To remedy Apple’s unlawful unreasonable restraints of trade, monopolization, attemptedmonopolization, and unfair competition, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter injunctive relief,including but not limited to the following:
(a) Enjoin Apple from conditioning any payment, revenue share, or access toany Apple product or service on an agreement by an app developer to launch an app first orexclusively on the Apple App Store;
(b) Enjoin Apple from conditioning any payment, revenue share, or access toany Apple product or service on an agreement by an app developer not to launch a version of theapp with enhanced or differentiated features on a third-party iOS app distribution platform orstore;
(c) Enjoin Apple from conditioning any payment, revenue share, or access toany Apple product or service on an agreement with an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)or carrier not to preinstall an iOS app distribution platform or store other than the Apple AppStore;
(d) Require Apple to provide rival iOS app stores with access to the App Storecatalog to ensure interoperability and to facilitate consumer choice;
(e) Require Apple to permit the distribution of rival iOS app stores through theApple App Store on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms;
(f) Enjoin Apple from requiring developers to use Apple’s IAP system as acondition of offering subscriptions, digital goods, or other IAPs;
(g) Require that third-party application developers be given functionality andaccess to iOS application programming interfaces on terms no worse than the terms Apple allowsfor its first-party applications;
(h) Require Apple to allow developers to fully disable Apple’s IAP system;
...
among other things
Let carriers pre-load apps and app stores on Apple's products? That's insane.
> (d) Require Apple to provide rival iOS app stores with access to the App Storecatalog to ensure interoperability and to facilitate consumer choice;
Wait, what? They want access to Apple's App Store catalog? Also never going to happen.
> (g) Require that third-party application developers be given functionality and access to iOS application programming interfaces on terms no worse than the terms Apple allows for its first-party applications;
As sympathetic as I am to this notion, I'm not sure how it's reasonably achievable. Putting aside the burden of every SPI having to be supported, documented, public API, it would also mean opening up all security-sensitive SPI to the world.
>Apple’s App Store policies disproportionately favor the surveillance capitalism business model employed by companies like Meta and Google and therefore entrench an online business model that routinely violates consumers’ personal privacy.
Spot on.
Their point is that they, as a separate company, can choose to object and attempt to offer products to help people evade authoritarianism and that Apple shouldn't be able to interfere with that in the US market in ways that they do. Obviously in the market of the authoritarian regime they can interfere, but that has no bearing to a US court.
https://res.cloudinary.com/dbulfrlrz/images/v1751299117/wp-p...
I never really understood the monopolistic argument against Apple. In the first place, there are very clear legal criteria that define what a monopoly is and what anti-competitive behaviors are, and it’s not even the case that majority of the world runs on iOS. It is actually Android that is the most popular OS globally by a wide margin, though the split is somewhat equal in the US.
But the core of my contention is that: if you make the platform that others run on and which creates entirely new economies and allows businesses to thrive, don’t you get to define the constraints that you want since it’s _your_ platform? What’s effectively happening here is that companies are using the courts to force the design of OSes in a certain way: That only open OSes can ever be made, not closed ones.
Note that the businesses who are lobbying against Apple are operating on the very same capitalist, profit-optimizing interests that drove Apple to choose a walled-garden approach. They are not doing this to make the world a better place, and the vast majority of smartphone users do not even care about this “issue”.
This question has already been asked to the United States Court of Appeals, and the answer was "no"[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
Huh, the __user__ paid for the product, so they own it. After the user handed over their money, Apple has nothing to say about who I do business with on that product, or what the conditions are.
You can say "platform" as much as you like, but that's just Apple's way of forcing their way into the argument.
Someone has to make the platform. If they want recognition for that or compensation, maybe they should apply for government funding. Don't bother the consumer with it.
And if you don't like a government regulating a market, then you haven't seen a company regulate one.
Probably you meant it differently, but guaranties and warranties exist exactly due to this. Users have right to expect their device performs as advertised and in a reasonable manner.
How do you feel about user rights (of wheelchair users) dictating how a product hardware (such as public property and public and private spaces and structures open to the general public) should be manufactured (to include wheelchair ramps and and other amenities such as elevators and accessible restrooms)?
But this is already the case. You own the device, you can do whatever you want with it (legally ofc). If I buy a fridge without a freezer, the fact that I can't freeze food with it doesn't mean I don't own the fridge.
Furthermore I don't appreciate other companies using the legal system to profit by forcing Apple to design their products in a specific way.
Please don't sneer or mock like this on HN. It's not what HN is for and it destroys what it is for. Please read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them in future.
Otherwise you don't own the product.
This basic premise doesn't hold for Apple products.
And by the way, I think consumer rights are more important than rights of companies to do whatever they want.
Except I can't activate the fucking thing. It demands a SIM card. Trying to activate or reset it on PC just has iTunes spit out a generic failure message. Apparently it can't contact some activation server.
I have a perfectly usable iPhone. Apple decided on its own that it's a brick now. It's irrevocably tied to the vendor.
Every time you make those comparisons it becomes much clearer just how much of an overreach and danger to market capitalism Apples behaviour is.
> Note that the businesses who are lobbying against Apple are operating on the very same capitalist, profit-optimizing interests that drove Apple to choose a walled-garden approach. They are not doing this to make the world a better place, and the vast majority of smartphone users do not even care about this “issue”.
They’re all blatantly self-interested, but Spotify is perhaps the biggest hypocrite among them. They’re continuously bolstering their dominance in the streaming music space at the cost of both users and artists, and when Apple gives them features they’ve asked for they refuse to use them because that’d weaken their case. They only care because if it weren’t for Apple Music they’d for all practical purposes have a monopoly.
And while Facebook and Google would still be hoarding data, there are a huge amount of games and apps I'd rather pay 5 for that are now ad-fueled invasive crapps and "pay to remove ads" costs 15 instead of 5.
When a significant percentage of the population uses your products and services, expect regulators to prevent you from abusing that significant group.
The capitalism idea that "markets solve all issues" only works when it's regulated so market players play on even-ish odds and the players don't have control of the market. (And even then it doesn't seem to work for public utilities really).
The naive idea that "Apple makes the product let them decide" would fly well for a device with millions of units, but billions is 1000x more and it comes with responsibility, sometimes the responsibility comes late because regulators are slow bureaucrats.
"With power comes responsibility" used to be a thing, now it's "With power responsibility might knock on your doorstep eventually if you abuse it to an extreme level like imposing a third of all REVENUE transacted through their forced store"
The thing with this 30% tax the private company Apple imposes on a majority of US adults is reasonable?
When you're "competing" with the government (30% tax sounds pretty government like to a Swede, we have 25% VAT) the government will get involved because you're operating a "shadow government" eventually (you set all the rules and set the tax rate, you're now a government).
Supporting Apple here is unreasonable, sure they should be able to take a margin on the app store, but not allowing other stores OR allowing external payment methods to be advertised is definitely predatory behavior and the government already has a monopoly on that.
And the "core fee" response was entirely unreasonable, it is unreasonably expensive. If Apple were operating like Sony on the Playstation where the console is a loss leader for much of it's lifetime then you ofc deserve a cut from developers since you enable them to build profitable games for your platform which markets the game for you and stuff. But Apple makes a profit of iPhones, they make a profit on iCloud, they make profit on App Store... They make a profit everywhere. It's predatory and I don't know how to agree with them here.
Apple is held accountable by people choosing not to use their device. If iPhone is too expensive for the value it provides people won't use them.
>The thing with this 30% tax the private company Apple imposes on a majority of US adults is reasonable?
By this logic grocery stores have been applying a 30+% tax to all of America since the country was founded.
>but not allowing other stores OR allowing external payment methods to be advertised is definitely predatory behavior
Again comparing to a grocery store I think it is fair for them to prohibit unauthorized sellers to sell within their premises. This is a standard because it can undermine the business model of the business.
>But Apple makes a profit of iPhones, they make a profit on iCloud, they make profit on App Store... They make a profit everywhere.
And that's why Apple is worth 3 trillion and Sony isn't. Apple has created a successful business with large profit margins that people are willing to pay. It's not predatory if people are willing to pay for it.
And in the end that affects the end users because more things become useless adfilled crap because it's more profitable, and everything is more expensive.
I don't even get how you're comparing grocery stores (which do NOT have a 30% profit, maybe 4-6) to Apple passively making 30% off anyone who wants access to "modern day people". Grocery stores don't scale like virtual markets, when you buy something you cost the store money, when i buy whatever through App Store it costs Apple virtually nothing and they make 30% because they like it.
Obviously regulators seem to agree with me and at the end of the day they make the rules, and I agree with the regulators in this case and I don't think many people think what Apple is doing is good and appreciate it. People are forced into the iOS ecosystem because that's what everyone uses in some profitable parts of the world too.
Developers don't have a right to access other business's customers. If you want to sell jewelry you don't have a right to have your jewelry put into a nation wide jewelry store chain to be able to access most Americans. Customer relationships are a vary valuable asset of a business.
>passively making 30%
It's only passive if you ignore the billions of dollars they dumped into building the ecosystem and growing a customer base that they can monetize to developers.
Do you also prefer lightning over USB-C?
If the iPhone's App Store has competition, equivalent to how MacOS already works in America, then Apple has to choose between maintenance or abandonment. In the status quo, Apple is enabled to neglect their platform and users while almost singularly harming developers.
I did not read this claim. I read the claim that Apple's approach unevenly benefits companies that engage in surveillance capitalism. No one's ad revenue, for instance, must pay a 30% cut of their revenue.
You are making an argument (and then arguing against it) that Proton did not make, as far as I can read.
> if you make the platform that others run on and which creates entirely new economies and allows businesses to thrive, don’t you get to define the constraints that you want since it’s _your_ platform?
I don't think you do. We constrain what companies are permitted to do all the time. Apple must abide by regulatory constraints first, and then they can add the additional constraints they like.
A simple test -- could Apple say, "Everyone is allowed to use Messages, except Hindus"? It's their platform, don't you get to define the constraints because it's your platform? No, we've collectively decided that kicking some people out based on certain characteristics is generally bad.
Intuitively, this feels right to me, but I think that in this case my intuition fails, because I think of this "right" from the perspective of a person. "They made that thing, it's theirs, they have the right to decide what to do with it."
I don't think the same right applies to a company, though. Especially one so big that it has a significant impact on society, and so big that it's entirely driven by the incentives of capitalism (and not, for example, by a founder's ideals).
In this context I see companies as amoral automata whose only goal is maximizing profits, regardless of the wider consequences of their actions. This seems to produce very good results for the societies in which these companies operate, but it also comes with some side effects. By putting constraints on what companies can do, we can reap most of the benefits and avoid most of the side effects.
</couch-economist>
Not if you effectively have a monopoly. If there were plenty of (relevant) other app stores, Apple wouldn't be able to tax 30% on every app. The only reason they can is that developers don't have a choice: there are far too many Apple users to ignore, and the only way to sell them an app is through the Apple Store.
The few engineers that Safari has are top-top notch, but they wouldnt let them grow the teams and would much rather drag their feet.
Every colleague in my company only targets and tests against Chrome because they honestly considers _everything_ and anything Chrome does as the standard.
As a FF user it hurts me because even if Apple and Mozilla has implemented some feature according to spec these people ignore that in favour of the Chrome way of doing things.
Calling Safari the new ie6 is ignorant of reality.
That said, I do not think this is the way to fight them. Just do not make apps for iPhone, or pass the 30% Apple tax to the Apple fanboys. They enjoy being submissive to walled garden overlords and paying for the privilege, so give them what they want.
These are perfectly valid options. Create value for more open ecosystems if you want to hurt the closed ones.
People pay extra to be in walled gardens, presumably because they think it will make them cool. If they -like- pointlessly spending money, let them.
No one needs an iPhone, and there is no monopoly. Just educate consumers on alternatives.
Challenging one of the most powerful corporations in history, god I feel so much safer already. Sounds like PR campaign speak. I trust Proton as much as I trust Microsoft.
"We don’t question Apple’s right to act on behalf of authoritarians for the sake of profit, but Apple’s monopoly over iOS app distribution means it can enforce this perverse policy on all app developers, forcing them to also be complicit"
I'm not smart enough to get into the politics of other parts of the world, but just because the EU found something illegal doesn't mean its the basis of a good lawsuit under the US rules. Will be interesting to see how this unfolds.
- You agree to the letter of the ToS when you click "I Agree" when you set up the iPhone,
- You also already agree to the spirit of the App Store when you buy it. After all, it's not some big secret
- You can get by with webapps for the most part anyway
- You can buy an Android, a flip phone, or pull a power move and have no phone
Buying an iPhone and then demanding that it has to work differently is acting in bad faith IMO.
Buying something used to mean something. If you're still beholden by company rules of a product you _bought_, you have been leasing/renting it.
If I buy a house from a builder, and it came with a requirement that you can only use Amazon Ring cameras, or builder-approved groceries - you'd be pretty pissed.
But you're right, maybe we should invent a new word for a purchase that is encumbered by legal agreements or subscriptions.
Furthermore, in the US (and some other countries), you don’t _actually_ own a house or it’s land. you own the rights to that house (a deed) as long as you continue paying your property taxes. see what happens when you stop paying uncle sam… it’s kind of like a subscription lol.
As a developer, there is no choice. Apple should not be able to abuse their dominant position.
These companies have been dominating the landscape for decades now, most likely for longer than most app developers have been app developers. As a developer, there's definitely a choice: don't make an iPhone app; don't make an app at all. Make something else.
If you say you want access to the walled garden because that's where the people are, then consider that they are in there because they like the walls. From this point of view, you don't have a right to demand that the walled garden have free entrance.
there are other points of view, including one that monopolies should be illegal
I disagree there. Most people I know who have an iPhone didn't choose Apple because they like walls. There are many other reasons to choose Apple other than "I like getting screwed by TooBigTech".
I reject that argument.
For start ToS may have unenforceable claims (if someone puts that I agree to give all things I own to them into ToS it has zero effect).
Also, at this point I dispute that ToS clickery should be treated as agreeing to them. "I have read and agree with ToS" is a blatant lie in at least in the first half.
Sure it's their car and they can do whatever they want with it, but consumers are losing choices - which is what anti-monopoly rules are for. Say, Michelin or Pirelli tires are strictly better but Tesla doing this harms consumer choice and that's why it is bad.
Imagine if this were extended to Tesla branded chargers. Or Tesla branded paint. It's your damn car so you should be allowed to do whatever you want with it.
But if someone then bought a Tesla the day after, they'd have far less right to be outraged.
And if the new tires & paint were integral to fundamental value-add of the car (the analogy breaks down here), then there's just zero grounds for it.
if tesla mandated tesla-only tires since day one (2012?), and they claimed it’s a perk/feature of the car, AND i bought the car anyway. Did i as a consumer not sign up for that?? There is more than 1 car manufacture after all.
None of the ios consumers are hoodwinked and apple offers free returns within 2 week in the US. The locked-down app store has been apples way since (almost) day one. Consumers voted with their wallets to not buy an android phone. I think that’s the difference?
IF android didn’t exist it wound be a different story, and it would also be a missing opportunity in the phone market.
Microsoft was hit with monopoly on browser even though you can install anything or go buy a Mac.
But when you control a huge portion of the PC market, and you put it in by default, you are cascading your monopolistic benefits down to installed software.
Apple does not have complete domination of smartphone across all demographics, but they do have domination in many segments.
For example, it is estimated that around 88% of teenagers have iPhones. Apple makes it very hard to leave their ecosystem because of iMessage, Facetime, and ALL of your digital purchases being tied to their ecosystem. So, what happens when all those teens grow up? Do we really think they will leave Apple ecosystem?
What cascades from that is a long term digital domination strategy, and when you have that only one digital store option, now you have a monopoly argument.
Apple has about half the phone OS market, with Android the other half.
[1] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide
Now why would Apple do this? Because they have hobbled Safari so that it does not have modern web APIs which would allow web developers to create web-apps that use APIs that are only allowed on App-store apps on IOS devices.
This forces developers to either make an app for the App-store, or don't have any IOS users.
This is one of many reasons Apple is being sued by the DOJ - because they won't allow any other browser engines on IOS, at least not in the US, the EU slapped them on the wrist and now it's allowed there.
Safari is the current worst web browser in terms of features and bugs, and Apple wants to keep it this way for no better reason but greed. They want to push people to make App-store apps, which they can extract 30% revenue from.
That is anti-competitive, and monopolistic behavior.
By this logic, there is also no requirement for one to eat and breathe, anyone can simply stop. The problem is the consequences.
Building an iOS app is requirement if you want to provide lots of services and compete on lots of market. The mobile phone OS landscape has become a duopoly, and society is free to impose certain obligations on those companies.
Either this is bad faith, or you are uninformed.
> that's the cost of doing business.
All the question is there. Is that the cost of doing business, or is Apple abusing their dominant position?
Because you've redefined the market.
Which part of this article quote don't you understand?
> but Apple’s monopoly over iOS app distribution means