
Apple App Store Principles and Practices - tosh
https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/principles-practices/
======
atonse
Their comparison of other apps in the store is quite disingenuous.

Yes, you technically have other music players, but they're not as integrated
into the OS as Apple Music is. We picked Apple Music for this reason, even
though it's a rather bad UI.

Same with Maps. Not that I want to give Google more of my location data but
others that want to use Google Maps as their default maps app, can't right now
without all kinds of third party hacks.

So yes, the competition does exist, but due to deliberate actions BY APPLE to
stifle their APIs to keep them heavily restricted, these apps really aren't
first class citizens on the OS.

I largely favor Apple's approach of minimizing data sharing, but their apps
are often inferior to the third party alternatives. They should use their app
store stick to instead have a MFi-like certification program for data. If you
want to be a first-party app for Maps, Mail, locations, etc, you have to
demonstrate that you won't abuse that data, and have the right infrastructure
to protect it.

Update: Look at web browsing. All those browsers use WKWebKit, so they're all
actually just Safari. And Apple's fine with telling the public that they have
choice here. That's just blatantly false, and I don't see how their legal team
allowed them to make such a statement.

~~~
wlesieutre
Yep, same goes for Mail and Safari.

Sure you can install other browsers. But if you want to have website links
open in Firefox or whatever, that relies on every single app that links come
from implementing their own capability to launch a different browser for links
(most of them never will), and then you have to set the default in each app.

Having done a stint on Android, I miss being able to pick default handlers for
everything.

~~~
Eric_WVGG
and Apple Maps. I was very excited to get turn-by-turn directions while
bicycling via Apple Watch; Apple Maps frequently sends me down freeways if it
thinks I’m driving, or the wrong way on 1-way streets if it thinks I'm
walking.

If the Watch platform was open enough that any Maps app could "snap in," this
situation would be just fine. But as long as Apple apps are first-class
citizens and everyone else has to deal with limited APIs, I'm not inclined to
give Apple the benefit of the doubt on this.

This extends to hardware too, incidentally. It's literally impossible for
competitors to make earbuds or styluses that can compete with the Airpods or
Apple Pencil, because those use private/secret APIs. Not cool.

~~~
threeseed
And yet there are many Maps, Airpods and Apple Pencil competitors.

And in the case of hardware you are basically asking for the iPhone to be made
into an open platform that anyone must be able to integrate with.

Pretty bizarre and definitely something that would have major implications for
the entire industry.

~~~
munk-a
I mean, Apple's advertising is stating that it's an open platform with free
competition, so either their idiots or lying - they can't have it both ways.

~~~
scarface74
I searched the entire article for the word “open”. It appeared 13 times. But:

One of those times was “Open the App”

One was referring to using Safari to get to the “open internet”

The other 11 were invisible labels to open the collapsible divs.

~~~
munk-a
One blurb was...

> Developers also receive free marketing opportunities through our store
> design, including the new Today editorial feature, personalized
> recommendations, search tools, top lists, and social marketing. All this
> helps to support the millions of successful apps on the App Store.

And then...

> A store that welcomes competition.

> We believe competition makes everything better and results in the best apps
> for our customers.

> We also care about quality over quantity, and trust over transactions.
> That’s why, even though other stores have more users and more app downloads,
> the App Store earns more money for developers. Our users trust Apple — and
> that trust is critical to how we operate a fair, competitive store for
> developer app distribution.

~~~
scarface74
Was either blurb incorrect?

------
jedberg
They still didn't address Spotify's main complaint: That Apple Music can
charge less because they don't have to pay a 30% commission to Apple. So they
have an unfair advantage of being able to charge 30% less even if their costs
are identical.

Also Apple's use of private APIs gives them an unfair advantage. So sure,
there are competing apps in each category, but they can't ever be as good as
the Apple app.

~~~
pgm8705
Yes. The fact that I still cannot listen to Spotify directly from my Apple
Watch is so frustrating. I don't want to give in and switch to Apple Music,
but it gets more tempting every day.

~~~
saagarjha
> The fact that I still cannot listen to Spotify directly from my Apple Watch
> is so frustrating.

I don’t see how this is Apple’s fault, though: Spotify should be able to write
an app for watchOS.

~~~
pgm8705
According to Spotify, they were not able to start developing an app until
recently. They've finally released an app, but all it does is control the
music playing from your phone.

Source:
[https://www.timetoplayfair.com/timeline/](https://www.timetoplayfair.com/timeline/)

~~~
threeseed
Overcast managed to do this back in September last year. Hardly recently:

[https://9to5mac.com/2018/09/17/overcast-apple-watch-
redesign...](https://9to5mac.com/2018/09/17/overcast-apple-watch-redesign-
siri-shortcuts/)

~~~
chipotle_coyote
The Overcast app can either control your phone or play podcasts that are
"synced" to it, i.e., loaded onto the phone. At least from my reading of the
WatchKit documentation, audio files playing _from the watch_ must still be
stored locally.

------
ly
> 84% of apps are free, and developers pay nothing to Apple.

That's just false, every developer has to pay 99 USD per year to be able to
publish apps. Even if you only publish free apps.

~~~
throwayEngineer
You also need to buy an Apple computer to use Apple dev tools.

Apple prices out the lower class and third world countries from developing.
They are actively contributing to income disparity.

Edit, anyone want to argue the opposite? The upfront cost to develop for Apple
is terrible for the lowest income developers.

~~~
dlivingston
Absurd. If you wish to be a competitive farmer, you need a tractor. If you
wish to be a competitive auto mechanic, you need a set of expensive tools and
parts. If you want to be a competitive mobile app developer, you need a Mac.
Every trade has a cost-of-entry.

EDIT: further, porting Xcode to another platform would be non-trivial. With
the addition of Marzipan, you can forget about Xcode being on any third-party
platform.

~~~
bitpush
I dont think your analogy holds up. To farm, you can buy any decent tractor.
You can install your own tires, have the freedom to repair how you see fit
etc.

A better analogy is developing Apple Apps is like trying to farm where BigCo
forces you to buy their expensive tractors with no option to use anything
else.

Or to use your mechanic example, imagine BMWs can only be worked if you use
their proprietary tools that nobody can make.

~~~
briandear
And mechanics all over the world must buy BMW tools if they want to work on
BMWs for people that own BMWs. Nobody is preventing anyone from working on
cars, just BMWs. And the reason is that when you get BMW service, you expect
BMW standards. Don’t work on BMWs if you don’t want to pay for the tools.

~~~
freehunter
I actually think this is an important point, as highlighted by someone else
commenting "I've been programming for a decade and only Apple has this
restriction".

No one is forcing developers to make apps for Apple. There are plenty of other
platforms anyone can develop for without paying a fee or buying a Mac.
Developing for Apple products is a business decision, just like choosing to
work on import cars vs domestic cars. Plenty of repair shops only work on
domestic cars because they're easier to repair and cost less. That's a
business decision. Are you losing out on a particular market? Sure. But that's
a business decision. If developing for iPhone will get you more than $XXX,
then it's worth it to buy a cheap Mac and pay the developer fee because it
will increase your profits more than you will spend. If that's not the case,
then just develop for Android which only costs $25.

I don't like paying the $99 fee or having to develop on a Mac just to make
iPhone apps, but if it bothered me _that much_ I would just stop making iPhone
apps. Tim Cook did not come to my house and force me to make an app for him, I
made the decision by myself knowing that the platform had restrictions and
everyone on the platform had to abide by them.

As long as everyone is subject to the same rules, everyone has the same
decision to make. No one is forcing anyone to make that decision.

~~~
bitpush
This "No one is forcing someone to do X" is not how monopoly rules work. By
that logic, no company would ever be a monopoly. You dont like X? Have you
consider _not_ doing it?

Microsoft wasnt forcing anyone to buy PCs. It is for people who choose to do
that ("the market") that the company is unfairly wielding the power.

~~~
freehunter
Is Apple preventing anyone from buying a competing smartphone? Microsoft paid
companies to only sell PCs with Microsoft operating systems, is Apple pushing
Samsung to drop Android and use iOS? Microsoft undercut competitors and used
their marketshare in the OS space to make their products (Internet Explorer)
the dominant product in the space. Is Apple drastically undercutting Android
phones on pricing?

Microsoft forced Windows into being basically the only OS on the market in the
90s, and dropped their prices to 'free' in order to destroy competition. They
didn't force you to buy a PC, but if you wanted a computer, because of
Microsoft's practices, Windows was basically your only option. Conversely, if
you don't like Apple products, you're in luck because smartphones are an
incredibly competitive market and Apple only reaches the very highest end of
that market.

In what way is Apple pushing the market into buying more iPhones and locking
out Android from the market? It doesn't matter how monopoly rules work unless
the company actually has a monopoly.

~~~
anoncake
> Is Apple preventing anyone from buying a competing smartphone?

Apple prevents everyone from using a competing app store. No, the Play Store
does not compete with Apple's store. You cannot substitute either for the
other so they're in different markets.

~~~
freehunter
Xbox prevents everyone from using a competing game store. No the Playstation
does not compete with Xbox's game store.

Walmart prevents everyone from buying products from competing stores. No,
Target does not compete with Walmart, you can't buy Great Value products at
Target so they're in different markets.

Hacker News prevents everyone from using a competing site. No, reddit does not
compete with Hacker News. If I click the "reply" button it only posts to
Hacker News and not reddit so they're in different markets.

I guess by that definition everything is a monopoly. I'm going to sue to get
my Coca Cola bottles filled with Pepsi under federal anti-trust laws.

~~~
anoncake
> Xbox prevents everyone from using a competing game store. No the Playstation
> does not compete with Xbox's game store.

Indeed. You cannot substitute an Xbox game for a Playstation game or vice
versa. Xbox games and Playstation games are different markets.

> I'm going to sue to get my Coca Cola bottles filled with Pepsi under federal
> anti-trust laws.

Having a trademark _technically_ constitutes a monopoly. But there are good
reasons to have trademark law anyway.

> Walmart prevents everyone from buying products from competing stores. No,
> Target does not compete with Walmart, you can't buy Great Value products at
> Target so they're in different markets.

> Hacker News prevents everyone from using a competing site. No, reddit does
> not compete with Hacker News. If I click the "reply" button it only posts to
> Hacker News and not reddit so they're in different markets.

I'll pretend you kept these ridiculous strawmen to yourself. If you have any
actual arguments, I'd love to read them.

------
oflannabhra
Mark Gurman just released a podcast [0] with Phillip Shoemaker, former Apple
head of App Store Review. Here is an article [1] summarizing their
conversation. Some interesting takeaways:

\- Most automation has been removed from the process, since Phil Schiller took
over. Each approval goes through a human (rejections can be automated)

\- Google Voice rejection fiasco [2] probably originated from internal
politicking and fear of competition.

[0] - [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2019-05-28/wwdc-
preview...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2019-05-28/wwdc-preview-with-
apple-s-former-app-approval-chief-podcast)

[1] - [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-28/why-
did-a...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-28/why-did-apple-
reject-my-app-ex-head-of-app-store-review-explains)

[2] -
[https://www.pcworld.com/article/169179/Apple_Rejects_Google_...](https://www.pcworld.com/article/169179/Apple_Rejects_Google_Voice_iPhone_App.html)

~~~
ksec
>\- Most automation has been removed from the process, since Phil Schiller
took over. Each approval goes through a human (rejections can be automated)

Which is the major difference between Apple and Google. Google always tries to
engineer ways to automate things, from Datacenter Energy usage to App Store
Submission. The less person on the Job, including services and customer
support the better. That is why you very rarely see any personal email
response from Google.

Apple on the other hand is always about the human touch and to the point there
is very little automation in the tool chain. Apple Map? We will hire tens of
thousands of people to manually shape those data into 3D Model. App Store, we
will manually approve every single one. Apple News? Human Curation, Apple
Music and Beats 1, we have people doing those as well. But it is also
expensive, and not very scalable.

The two company have the complete opposite mentality to how to solve problems.

~~~
iscrewyou
> Google always tries to engineer ways to automate things

Even their customer support...

------
jchampem
"A store that welcomes competition."

I thought they wouldn't dare listing web browsers in that competition... well
they did.

It's cool after all, average users have no idea about the difference between a
browser and the engine...

~~~
kccqzy
And average users don't care an iota about the differences in render engines.
They see the UI, features like syncing bookmarks and such and think that's the
browser. It's a different perspective.

~~~
the_gipsy
Average users do care that they can't install addons. Adblock for example.

------
intsunny
Its disingenuous they list other browsers, but those browsers are only skins
for Safari.

After years of Android, I genuinely gave Iphone a shot for a few months. But
not having native Firefox + ublock origin was a deal breaker.

~~~
saagarjha
I’m curious why you care about “native Firefox”: does the engine really make
that much of a difference in usability?

~~~
callahad
It makes a huge difference in support for web standards. There are many nice
things that Firefox supports which Webkit does not. It also means that we have
to lobby Apple to support standards, since we're not allowed to compete on
merit (at least for engine-dependant features).

~~~
codezero
What's an example of a standard Firefox supports that Safari/webkit doesn't?

I work with cross-platform client-side JS libraries, though admittedly
sticking to pretty vanilla/backwards compatible functionality, and the main
thing I've seen that's wonky with Safari is the postMessage API. A few years
ago, Firefox finally added the innerText API that many others had already
adopted.

What other examples are there (this isn't a challenge, I am sure there are
issues, just curious for my own knowledge!)

~~~
callahad
I should really write a script to generate this from MDN's browser
compatibility data ([https://github.com/mdn/browser-compat-
data](https://github.com/mdn/browser-compat-data)), but many APIs aimed at
making browsers more competitive with native apps tend to lag behind or not
get implemented at all in Webkit.

We only got working IndexedDB as of Safari 10 and Service Workers in Safari
11, both multiple years after support landed in stable Firefox. There's no
support for WebXR, Web Push, or WebAuthn. Safari still can't display WebP
images, show WebM (VP8/9) movies, or play Opus-formatted sound. Safari doesn't
understand the current version of referrer-policy headers. Safari doesn't
implement the String.prototype.matchAll() method. There's no support for
getDisplayMedia(). Depending on how you count, we've been waiting seven years
for getUserMedia() in Safari, and it's still not fully functional. Safari
can't animate changes to CSS grid template rows/columns, or use overflow-
inline / overflow-block media queries.

...it's a big weird grab bag of features, but a broad surface area
nevertheless. And you have to wonder if some fringe APIs wouldn't be more
popular if we could actually compete on bringing the _full_ Web platform to
iOS devices in a timely manner.

~~~
codezero
Epic. Thanks so much for sharing. I immediately wondered if I could do some
caniuse.com magic to answer my own question.

------
makecheck
OK, clearly these claims of benefits are overstated.

Both the iOS and Mac stores have _obvious_ scam apps, that are ironically easy
to find with Apple’s own search when other things are much harder to find. And
since their search lacks even simple filters, I can’t start building a list of
“never show me This Developer’s Trash again” like I can on Steam for instance.

Recently when Apple sent out a developer survey, I told them to get rid of App
Review. Completely. As a process, it fails. It _clearly_ has shoveled a
disgusting amount of money over to thieves and scam artists. Meanwhile, I’ve
been rejected multiple times for ridiculous reasons that took days to resolve.
Even in 2019, I am utterly shocked if Apple manages to process an update in
under a DAY.

They can pat themselves on the back if they wish but I think they’ve
reinvested none of their 30% back in their stores in years. Their one
“investment” was to make the Mac App Store objectively worse.

------
morpheuskafka
"84% of apps are free, and developers pay nothing to Apple."

Did I miss them making the Developer Program free? Because last time I
checked, that was $99/year and serves no purpose but enabling public
distribution of apps (Xcode itself is free and so is short-term developer
sideloading).

~~~
mthoms
I wouldn't be as bothered by this if they didn't gloat about the _awesome_
developer tools and documentation they _so generously_ provide.

Aren't those resources _exactly_ what we developers are paying for (at least
partially) with our $99?

I've never publicly released anything in their ecosystem but I participate in
the program for hobby/personal development reasons. What am I paying for if
not the docs and tools?

------
tschwimmer
I think the comparisons between the native apps and app store apps are
disingenuous. Native apps are:

1) Preinstalled 2) More deeply integrated with the OS. For example, you
_still_ can't control Spotify with Siri.

You make all the slick websites in the world saying otherwise, but it doesn't
change the fact that you've made the environment for 3rd party apps worse than
your own.

~~~
saagarjha
> you _still_ can't control Spotify with Siri

You can, it’s just that the API is somewhat limited and Spotify refuses to use
it.

~~~
BoorishBears
You can't get the same level of integration Apple Music can despite there
being an internal API that Apple Music is using.

That's the problem.

It doesn't matter that there's an inferior integration available.

------
la_barba
I can't help but read most of this as corporate double-speak. In my mind there
is no principle (other than greed) that justifies grabbing 30% of all sales on
a digital store. Its especially greedy to grab money from future sales via
subscriptions for apps like Spotify. And they also ban Spotify from telling
their users to go to Spotify.com and pay there. I'm hoping Epic succeeds in
pushing Apple and Steam to a less exploitative revenue split.

They advertise the App Store as a feature of the phone they're selling, and
get paid for the feature by customers who buy the phone for the advertised
features. But then they also grab 30% of sales from the developers who ship on
their platform. Feels like double-dipping.

A reasonable option would be to charge fixed fee that allows them to pay for
their review team and other overhead. They can tier this so that complex apps
have to pay more for the effort involved in reviewing their app. And then
charge a fixed cost per download that covers the payment processing, hosting
and delivery costs - which would be a tiny percentage.

~~~
chj
They can charge anything they want as long as third party appstores are
allowed.

~~~
la_barba
Fair point, competition can sometimes provide pushback.

------
busymom0
Why are they listing Instagram and Snapchat as competitors to their native
camera app? Neither of those are camera apps. Also listing competing apps is
kind of pointless when iOS doesn’t offer any way to change the default apps
for any of these features? For example, I would like my own 3rd party Gmail
app to open any taps on any links which are emails. But it doesn’t and there
is no way to change the default. Same for maps. I want google maps app to be
the default but there is no obvious way to do that.

It’s almost as if apple is either skipping over the argument we are making on
purpose or they just don’t understand the argument for allowing alternative
app stores and changing defaults.

~~~
saagarjha
I would say that a significant number of pictures taken on iOS are taken with
those two apps.

------
drew-y
> A store that welcomes competition.

If this were an honest statement they'd allow competing app stores.

------
tosh
Interesting: 100k submissions reviewed per week, most within 24h, 40% get
rejected

~~~
ergothus
I'd love to know how many of those 40k rejections revise and get approved.

Even if we say, 80% of those are scammy ad/malware crap, that leaves 16k. (I'm
using totally guessed numbers, so I'll say that while Sturgeon's law says 90%
will be crap I'm deliberately including the crap that isn't scammy)

If most of those get revised and improved, cool. If not...that's a lot of
frustrated potential developers.

~~~
sweetp
I have an app that's been sitting in review for 9days now... no feedback,
nothing. It's been in the Mac App Store since it opened, but lately Apple has
taken a dislike to my app, and likes to drag its feet with looooong review
times. this has occurred with the last few updates. In the meantime, I have
also released a completely different app, and updated that a couple times.

~~~
saagarjha
> Mac App Store

I don’t have any apps there, but from what I hear the Mac App Store is almost
entirely a different ballgame.

------
Zak
Not mentioned: nonsensical restrictions. For example, apps are not allowed to
use the phone's ambient light sensor. No explanation has been offered.

~~~
saagarjha
Here’s one: it’s a niche sensor that can easily be abused for tracking.

~~~
mthoms
How so? I'm genuinely curious.

~~~
Zak
I've actually seen a demo of that, where a web page (or malicious script)
transmits data in the form of flashes of light by making a large area of the
screen white or dark, then another app reads it using the light sensor.

This only works under _very_ specific environmental conditions and allows the
app to read data from another app or website that's cooperating with it. It's
not an easy attack to pull off for any practical purpose.

------
imran3740
I find it funny that Apple themselves mentions that for "Reader" apps users
can make purchases outside of the iOS environment, but developers are
expressly forbidden from even mentioning this in their app.

------
bredren
Some of this reads like a “the App Store is not a monopoly” explainer.

~~~
zepto
Why would it not be that? It’s clearly been written in response to claims made
by people like Spotify.

~~~
bredren
Who is the intended audience, politicians?

~~~
zepto
I’m guessing the intended audience includes politicians, journalists, and
users, and anyone else who is exposed otherwise only to narratives from people
who are suing them.

------
alienreborn
In the 'Reader' Apps section, Apple says

> Apple receives no commission from supporting, hosting, and distributing
> these apps.

Whats the yearly fees you pay to publish to App Store for?

~~~
george_perez
They said commission. As in, they receive no commission from those apps from
Apple offering support, hosting, and distribution. Which makes absolute sense
because they are Reader apps and have no way to generate money inside the app
to Apple (hence, no commission).

It’s $99.

------
bigdang
I think it’s fine to assume they may be acting genuinely. The alternative
would be to see this as propaganda, and dismiss Apple as nothing more than a
bunch of suits making decisions based on short term gains over long term
health and stability. Because why would any corporation, especially Apple,
attempt to act rationally, right?

I have no horse in this race, but running a company, I know it’s possible to
also have our truth and want to communicate it in a way that’s easy to
understand. I don’t know if Apple is, but not every company has to be this
demonic incarnation-of-evil we want to make them out to be.

~~~
saagarjha
> The alternative would be to see this as propaganda

This is absolutely a response to the anti-competitive claims that they’ve been
hearing.

~~~
bigdang
Right, conversations are usually triggered by back and forth reactions. Is the
act of speaking propaganda? It could be, but usually it's to convey a thought
you already hold.

------
no_wizard
How much is the push against Apple's App Store policies is the result of
Apple's platform having the most lucrative users by a significant margin?

[https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/16/apples-app-store-
revenue-n...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/16/apples-app-store-revenue-
nearly-double-that-of-google-play-in-first-half-of-2018/)

Google has been slowly tightening down its platform too. Not mention, Google's
bread and butter makes them money both directly and indirectly, so the
incentives beyond security to tighten their platform weren't there from day
one. Apple has always made its money based on direct relationships with its
consumers (more or less, I'm simplifying a bit).

Now that both stores have been around for a long enough time, I think its
starting to become clear that Apple has the more _lucrative_ users to sell to,
and I'm sure this plays no small part in the increasing fervor around all
this.

------
jarjoura
This is so freakin' fascinating. The only reason Apple can get away with this
is because they are making devices that large numbers of people actually want
to own. The software has gotten quite stable over the years and I am happy to
use and develop on the platform.

Should developers stop writing software for it, or should the public stop
buying the phones, Apple will relent and open the store and devices up. You
can see a similar thing happening with Microsoft. They've been in the room
screaming, look at me, and people just walked by. So now they're opening
everything up and loosening their grip.

Apple did the same in the late 90s and early 2000s when they were about to
lose their biggest developer, Adobe. Suddenly they got Open Source and created
an open platform much to the surprise of everyone. Originally the BSD/Unix
layer was an optional add on to OS X, and then they hired the creator of
FreeBSD and just started including it by default.

------
busymom0
Another problem I have with Apple’s stance on what’s allowed when it comes to
adult content. For example, I am working on a Reddit content and I am not even
allowed to have a setting in app to switch on NSFW content which is ludicrous
imo. Same with pornographic and adult content, neither of which are allowed.
This puts a pretty major block in the way for certain legal companies from
using their platform. I think Apple should allow adult content apps and simply
filter it out based on the iCloud account which is using the App Store based
on their age. Apple plays the parent but it’s pretty useless considering kids
can simply use a browser to access it. To access Reddit’s adult content, you
just need to hit the “I am over 18” button. So Apple playing the parent is
useless.

------
musicale
I'm puzzled that many "Apple monopoly" advocates don't apply the same
reasoning to Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft, who tightly control licensing for
software on the PS4, Switch, and Xbox and also compete vigorously against
their own developers. (Not to mention other walled-garden platforms like
Xfinity.)

"Oh but you can buy physical media so it's totally different" \- who do you
think licenses those Nintendo Switch cartridges? And what about the Xbox One S
All-Digital edition, which is download only?

If we generally permit platform licensors to construct and control their own
walled gardens, on what basis should we forbid Apple from doing exactly that?
Is it because of their size or income?

------
mymindstorm
> 84% of apps are free, and developers pay nothing to Apple.

Wait, what? I thought you had to pay 100$ a year for the privilege to publish
anything on the app store, even if it's free.

------
return1
Instead of arguing about access to Apple's walled garden, maybe spotify et al
should develop their ecosystems around the proven, open web , and then sue
apple if they 're refusing to support technologies they need. This would be a
bigger win for everyone.

------
suyash
Interesting to see that Apple considers Slack as more of a competition to
Messages app than WhatsApp ?

~~~
saagarjha
I think they just picked four apps in the same category, not necessarily they
ones they thought were the strongest competition.

~~~
suyash
I don't think Apple 'puts out things just coz.' They are very deliberate and
thoughtful behind anything they say and release in public.

------
snickmy
Seriously Apple, you are still charging 99$ a year each developer that wants
to publish on your store.

Is this how you support developers? Is this how you favorite competition? Is
this what you call a developer experience at no additional cost?

~~~
iscrewyou
Charging a $99 fee is something I think is ok. It keeps a lot of bad actors
out of the store. Yes yes, there are bad apps that still end up on app store.
But that fee does help to keep some out because it's not economical.

------
ValleyOfTheMtns
The Apple doth protest too much, methinks

------
throwayEngineer
Reading Apple teaches me a lot about copywriting.

If something is ambiguous, you are allowed to say whatever you want.

That article was beautiful like a Donald Trump speech. Propaganda, but it was
fun and exciting.

~~~
theNJR
I completely agree, and listen to Trump speeches for the same reason. Let’s
dissect their headline a bit.

> Dedicated to the best store experience for everyone.

What a fun happy sentence. What does it mean?

"Dedicated" \- By who, to who? The assumption is Apple is dedicated to the
user, but likely the inverse is the truth, and the goal. Dependence might be a
better word.

"Best" \- By what metric? The reader assumption is 'most user friendly'. The
truth is closer to "spend the most money”.

"Experience" \- Perhaps most overused word in millennial marketing. It makes
you think of a travel adventure, something noble. The truth of this word is
connected to “best”. The experience is one of consumption.

"Everyone" \- Who is "everyone"? The reader assumption is one of inclusion.
The reality, of course, is “those who have a compatible Apple device”.

So, a little truth reframe:

Driving our users to spend more money.

~~~
saagarjha
> a little truth reframe

That is, throwing out the headline and replacing it with your perception of
what Apple is.

~~~
theNJR
Funny thing is I’m a huge Apple fan. I’m interested in modern propaganda and
how it works. Few are as good as Apple.

