Hacker News Reader

Comment by spogbiper | Hacker News Reader

if all you want is for your apps to come from Apple's store and your payments to go through Apple's system, you would simply continue to use only those options and allowing other people to have other options would not impact you.

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

View on HN

Except, what happens when apps get removed from the iOS App Store and moved to another store for distribution? If people want to continue or need to use those apps then they would have to use these other app stores.

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.

A) this has not happened on Android, where 3rd party stores and side loading have always been possible

B) if people truly value the Apple lock down system, they will not use applications that don't comply with the lock down system

Just fwiw, my understanding is that this has already happened on both Android and iOS (via TestFlight): https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/

That's not Facebook moving to an alternative store, that's Facebook the company introducing another application outside of the store.

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

Here's what they just got caught doing on Android - "secretly communicating with Meta’s apps on Android devices"

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/protect-yourself-metas...

If you can only attract good apps by making yourself the only option then your platform is bad. If Apple can't compete in the market they are doing a bad job.

Developers are not forced into using Apple's distribution and payment systems because there are a multitude of other competing devices (with a higher market share mind you) they can and do develop for.

If users and developers prefer other systems they can simply use those.

Apple is not forced into doing business in Europe, because there are a multitude of other anticompetitive tolerant regions (much larger than Europe mind you) they can do business in.

If Apple prefers anticompetitive practices, it can simply only do business in those regions.

I'm curious what becomes the breaking point for them to pull out of a region. Obviously it's about profit but at what point (if any) does it make profitable sense for them to leave?

Leaving a region means they would give up market share, investments and a lot of staff. This is huge. It's not just about quarterly profit, even if it might sometimes feel like it is.

Presumably, before they take such a drastic measure, they would first spend massive amounts on lobbying, which would most likely succeed.

A point we're still lightyears away from. The lengths they go to in order to operate in China are magnitudes greater than to operate in the EU, yet EU makes them $10+ billion more profit than China.

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.

Why are you assuming that not only this kind of blackmail is even going to work, but that the EU isn't just going to kick out ALL of US infocoms instead ? (Because of this or because of other issues related to Trump or even Bush (Patriot Act).)

rofl, people would never accept not having their locked down iphones or facebook.

this would be a very losing battle for politicians

You don't have a good feel for the anti-American-corporation sentiment here.

Politicians in fact pay lip-service to "data sovereignty", for the points it gets them.

yeah, true, because then people think the government is solving it for them without them doing ANYTHING. Take their facebook/whatsapp away, and you'll see consequences. hell, we have several people on HN that claims its simply not possible with live without whatsapp. Take their whatsapp away and they may aswell go lie down in a ditch and die.

When there is no more profit and only loss, I reckon. Shareholders would not be happy if they pulled out of a region because they can only make $1 over $10. If that $1 is profit, they'll want it.

Never. The Apple bet, the North Star, is that personal computing is both the present and the future. The minute an exception gets carved out, like “personal computing but not in Europe” then Apple enters a death spiral. They’ll deal with each blow that comes their way because it will come for everyone else in the market too, but they’ll still be in the lead.

Except that developers are forced to use Apple's distribution and payment systems to reach users with a native experience on Apple devices. This ability to limit or control competition within a market is called market capture, a key consideration of antitrust.

It's not a market, it's a product within a market.

This argument doesn't make sense. Many developers are de facto forced to distribute their apps on iOS. There are only two mobile platforms globally. Deciding not to support one of them would be economically (and in some cases functionally) unviable for a very large number of apps.

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.

> multitude of other competing devices

You mean, the Google system that collects 20 times more telemetry than the iPhones? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261

If it was actually stifling competition we would see many more good apps for Android that don’t exist for iOS. That’s not the case. If anything most companies I know develop first for iOS and then for Android if they have sufficient resources. Why? Because accessing Apple’s user base, even with the Apple Tax, is more lucrative than developing for Android.

The point is that more, different, better and cheaper options might exist. The fact that people are still willing to trade in a large captured market does not mean that competition is not greatly distorted in favor of the market's owner.

> The point is that more, different, better and cheaper options might exist.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com