
Pavel Durov wants a law to make Apple allow iPhone users install other app store - vvpvijay
https://androidrookies.com/telegram-developer-wants-a-law-to-make-apple-allow-iphone-users-to-install-apps-from-other-app-stores/
======
skrowl
They have anti-trust lawsuits pending in multiple countries that will also
force this once they resolve. It's obviously monopoly bundling. Literally
every other modern OS allows you to install apps from multiple sources,
including Android.

~~~
alexslobodnik
1\. Secure

2\. Open

3\. Customer friendly

Pick two.

~~~
MattGaiser
At least for me as a consumer, Apple’s behaviour is a feature I pay extra for,
not a bug.

~~~
krzyk
You pay extra for not being able to install apps outside of Apple Store?

Or more specifically, you pay extra so others couldn't do it on their phones
(because you as I understand wouldn't, but you don't want others to be able
to)?

~~~
bitcurious
I’m having a hard time phrasing this, but I also fall in the camp that views
it as positive.

The gist is this: there is no app maker that can say “screw that” to Apple’s
privacy/security rules and bypass them. As such I will never be in a position
to choose between my privacy and using the app. By Apple’s removing the
possibility of that choice, I get both.

------
HunterWare
There are already several different alternatives to iOS that a customer can
get if they want a different app store. What he is really saying is that as a
vendor he wants to force me as a customer to deal with a looser security model
so that he can more easily sell to me. If I wanted that I would have chosen a
different phone. But on the flip side, it’s helpful that now I know I never
want a product of theirs... choice. =)

~~~
tw04
So Microsoft should be able to kill off Steam/etc. and then and force all
publishers to post to the Microsoft Store?

After all, you're free to install MacOS or BeOS if you don't like it.

That's ignoring the fact that forcing Apple to allow other App stores in NO
WAY makes you less secure. Just because you CAN use another app store doesn't
mean you HAVE TO.

~~~
HunterWare
That’s a bit extreme... Microsoft also shouldn’t start killing people, but
that’s aside from the point. Let’s unpack some of the differences between
Apple here and the MS example:

Apple always had this model. From the start... So people who bought into the
ecosystem did it fully able to understand the system. This isn’t some creepy
unexpected recent change... if someone doesn’t like this system then they
should (past/present/future) put on their person pants and buy a different
phone. I use Linux and Mac specifically because I didn’t like the way
Microsoft was doing things. I didn’t start a movement to somehow legislate
handcuffs to force Microsoft to address my whims, I just voted with my time,
attention, and wallet.

And yes, do think others are free to chose too and should own their choices.
If Apple stops providing me the best avenue to the things I want then I will
switch. But right now I want ease of use, and the most confidence that things
will just work and work well. I want this in the hardware, the OS, and the
apps... and I think Apple provides that best. If my needs change, or their
ability to meet those needs changes, then I will move to the place that does
it best then...

Regarding the “don’t HAVE to use it” argument... I humbly suggest it’s
irrelevant. They don’t have a monopoly so we don’t have a public overriding
interest in messing with them. I’m saying that I don’t give a hoot about them
having a side store: I want to quickly and confidently find the best apps to
fill the needs I have. I will pay for the ability to do it as time has value.
After that need is met, not much else has value and so I’m (personally) happy
in the store. I’ll also suggest that Apple’s success says that a healthy
number of people agree. This leads me to think that all the people who want to
better sell crap to me that I don’t want are showing a bit of a case of “sour
grapes”.

~~~
tw04
So your reasoning is: there's a duopoly, not a monopoly, so each of the
players should be able to act like a monopoly?

That's maybe the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. And saying "well
they've always done this bad thing so there's no reason they should stop" is
ridiculous on its face. There are countless examples in history of a company
taking an action that was permitted when they were a minor player that is
banned as they grow.

The fact that the US government has become criminally complicit in their
refusal to enforce the Sherman act doesn't suddenly make the behavior they're
ignoring OK.

This is literally textbook violation: Every person who shall monopolize, or
attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or
persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several
States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony

You don't have to strictly have a monopoly to break the law.

~~~
HunterWare
Every one talks about MONOpoly, not DUOpoly, for a reason. But lets back up
and just use the more generally used “anti-trust”. The law (in the US) is
basically if you either a) collude with competitors to price-fix or restrict
trade, or b) own so much of the market that your price is price fixing and
there is no/little unrestricted trade, then you a violating anti-trust law.
There is a similar intent in other places and the bar is placed higher or
lower.

If you have the choice to buy phones which use one of several app stores, then
you have choice in app stores. You also can’t install a Corvette engine in a
Toyota Corolla but I don’t see everyone screaming about that. If you want a
Corvette engine I do know the car you can chose in order to get it.

And yes, two non-colluding choices is choice. People aren’t suggesting that
Apple and Google are all buddy buddy so there is choice. I suggest we all make
one we are happy with and move on. =)

~~~
atishay811
For the Corolla vs Corvette example, Toyota allows you to open the hood and
take the toyota engine out. The screws are all standards and tools are
available to get parts you need to take the engine out. If you had the tools
to fit the Corvette engine in place, you are allowed to do it. You could build
your own custom engine as well and put it there. We can put a lot of after
market stuff in our cars, replace tires, wheels or even engine if we want to.
WE own the car fully.

With the App Store case, they don't allow you to open the hood, unscrew and
take out the apple app store and put an alternate app store. While
Jailbreaking is legal, you need to use a hack to open up your iPhone and Apple
actively plugs those holes in the next versions.

------
hiccuphippo
Related, in Europe they are making laws to make app stores give reasonable
explication 30 days prior to removing games from the store and to add more
transparency to rankings:
[https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2020-07-13-european-u...](https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2020-07-13-european-
union-sets-limits-on-platform-madness)

------
harrisonjackson
With enterprise ios app development, there is already a mechanism built into
the apple dev ecosystem to develop and distribute apps that can be installed
from any website on any number of devices after the device owner grants
permission.

Currently the TOS to join the enterprise development program are extremely
restrictive but these could be updated to allow a better (IMO) distribution
model.

I don't want to see a 3rd party app store gain popularity on iOS but would
love for the current TOS for enterprise program to be expanded. This should
also open in-app purchases to happen without Apple being involved. I'd love to
drop support for apple/google in-app purchases and just use stripe for our
website and inside our apps. One set of billing models and webhooks to worry
about.

------
gumby
But the majority mobile OS, Android, allows this already, and always has.
There is only one player that controls its own app store, Apple, with about
20% of the market (Less in 20q1 but that’s a special case).

Seems like phone buyers are voting with their feet so why would such a law be
required?

Mkt share numbers from [https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-
smartphone-share...](https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartphone-
share/) or [https://www.statista.com/statistics/216459/global-market-
sha...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/216459/global-market-share-of-
apple-iphone/)

------
elcomet
Yes. Apple should not be in position to destroy a business, by removing their
app from the app store whenever they want.

~~~
ryanlol
Should [insert retail business here] be in a position to destroy a business by
removing a product from their shelves whenever they want?

Why is software special?

~~~
GlitchMr
If a retail store removes a product from their shelves, you still have
alternatives - selling your product in other stores, providing mail order, and
so on.

With Apple App Store, there is no alternative. Your iOS application cannot be
distributed without Apple's approval.

~~~
elcomet
One retail stores doesn't have about 50% of market (I don't know the real
numbers) like Apple does.

Also, the app you built was specifically for apple. You cannot sell it
anywhere else.

~~~
ryanlol
> One retail stores doesn't have about 50% of market (I don't know the real
> numbers) like Apple does

iOS market share is less than 15%

> Also, the app you built was specifically for apple. You cannot sell it
> anywhere else.

Sounds like the app developer is taking a deliberate risk while doing so. Why
do they need to be protected?

~~~
elcomet
> iOS market share is less than 15%

iOS has 25% share worldwide. And in the USA, where most customers will be for
most startups, it has 58% market share.

------
Batman8675309
Doesn't exactly come as news that Apple has Ios in an iron grip. They might
not have a monopoly, but they certainly have a level of control that Android
doesn't.

~~~
coldtea
> _Apple has Ios in an iron grip_

iOS is their own product. Every company has its own products on an "iron
grip", as well as controlling who gets to partner with them (and e.g. sell
something on their platform).

~~~
mD5pPxMcS6fVWKE
Windows is Microsoft own product. Anyone can run anything on it without
anyone's permission.

~~~
coldtea
That's because Microsoft allows it, and (b) Microsoft has a monopoly on their
market (not on the "Windows market", but like 98% on the whole Home/Enterprise
PC space) and abused it so they were forced to open up.

If Microsoft had just a small share of the Home/Enterprise market with
Windows, they'd could close it in any way they want, same way the game
companies do for their consoles or Apple for iOS.

~~~
mD5pPxMcS6fVWKE
I think the answer is much simpler: at the time Windows was created, no one in
their most sadistic totalitarian dream could have imagined such evil as an app
store.

------
pankajdoharey
I personally think this would lead to piracy of App Store apps. Restrictive
App ecosystem protects consumers from installing apps that maybe steal their
financial information but also protect developers from getting their apps
pirated like the Android ecosystem. There is a reason why the app payouts on
iOS are so high even though android has a much larger market share of mobile
devices. I dont want to see sites like _apk4free_ on iOS ecosystem.

~~~
solarkraft
I personally think that this is mostly unrelated, since very few people
sideload on Android (also due to a less restrictive Play Store policy) and
Apples curated store would remain a trusted source.

~~~
pankajdoharey
If side loading isn't the issue here then what is? Also why are there more
than 300 Android App stores worldwide just for side loading apps
[https://www.wandera.com/third-party-app-
stores/](https://www.wandera.com/third-party-app-stores/) There must be a
significant market. It seems Android App side loading is a $17.5 Billion Leak
which means a number of people do download apps from these apps stores.
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2018/02/02/app-
pub...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2018/02/02/app-publishers-
lost-17-5b-to-piracy-in-the-last-5-years-says-tapcore/#426e83c67413)

~~~
adminu
From the Forbes article you cited:

"While most people get apps from official sources such as Google Play or the
App Store, there are hundreds of third-party app stores around the planet,
especially in China, where Google Play cannot operate. As a result, Android,
in particular, has many third-party app stores."

I think, your argument does not hold when put in the correct context.

Also, it is 17.5$ Billion within 5 years, to put a time frame on it.

------
beamatronic
Apple could do the following: When rejecting apps, still put them in the App
Store, but with a Rejected label. And under Settings, add a toggle “Allow
installation of Rejected apps”. Then make it so you can find them in the App
Store only if this toggle is enabled, and you search by the app’s exact name.
Finally, force the user to acknowledge “Yes I’m sure.... Yes I’m really REALLY
sure”.

~~~
skinnymuch
It is too frequent that I know an app’s name that is either generic or not
popular. Sometimes it takes a while to find the app. Apple hasn’t fixed search
in over a decade. I can’t see them fixing it any time soon, unfortunately.

------
DeonPenny
Even if you could do this I doubt it would change. They could do so many
engineering things to prevent it.

They could change the CPU architecture and prevent you from uploading to any
other services or using dev tools. They could do what google did and make
certain apps rely on a services app that is managed by the store as a
dependency.

Theres to many options when the people building the product are opposed to the
idea.

~~~
benologist
There are entities big enough to challenge Apple if they were forced to
accommodate alternative app stores but obstructed them in practice, like GOG,
Steam, Google, Microsoft etc.

------
a2tech
Why would anyone do that? I mean what kind of customers are going to install a
2nd app store then buy apps through it? Those app stores are going to be full
of shady marginal apps. Without a leavening of 'good' 'trust worthy' apps,
what credit card processor is going to handle their transactions?

~~~
rgovostes
Simple. As soon as a competing store is available that takes a 20% cut (or has
less onerous rules about in-app purchases, etc.), developers will move to that
store to make more money. Users will follow.

~~~
jedieaston
I feel like you could just as easily say "Simple. As soon as Google changes
their cut to 20% for Android-exclusive apps, developers will move to that
store to make more money. Users will follow". They won't. Users won't leave
the walled garden, just as people on Android didn't leave it for Fortnite (the
most popular game in the world at the time). The App Store comes with the
phone and is safe, has customer support and nearly no malware. Any other App
Store would require multiple extra steps to install, along with a bunch of
"please don't" prompts that Apple would build in to make sure that the user
knows what's happening (just like what happens on macOS with unsigned
software). It would end up being too confusing for the masses, and they'd just
find an alternative that was willing to sit in the App Store (or the
nightmare, not use the app at all and go unhappy).

Amazon already tried this exact thing on Android, where the barriers are a lot
lower. They've never had success with their app store outside of their first-
party devices. Why? Because it's too dang hard, and I'm willing to pay an
extra buck for Minecraft if I don't have to track it down in another app and
worry about malware coming through the wall.

I'm all for a switch to install unsigned software, but only for development
stuff. The App Store serves as a good barrier for 99% of users who just need
to turn on their phone and use the darn app. The other 1% just need Apple to
put a hidden switch to disable the protections ala csrutil in macOS and we'll
be fine.

------
piffey
Why couldn't Apple do this but place requirements on the additional app
stores. They must conform to Apple mandated code signing, follow APIs it
designs for app installation and permissions management, must provide an email
obfuscation layer for accounts and payments, and all binaries must run through
an approved AV before installation. Would check most of the boxes for
remaining Apple-ish. No reason allowing a second App Store means letting all
hell break loose on the system.

Personally don't see the need for an additional App Store outside of
surveillance. Would rather see legislation on protecting developers and
consumers instead of thinking letting random, untrusted code be installed by a
3rd party on a device always on your person would be good for anyone.

~~~
guessbest
I think Apple loses money on the app store policing app privacy and content
even with a 30% cut. If they had to do it for 3rd parties app stores without
the financial benefit, I wonder what impact that would have to app turnaround
time (back up to 2 weeks+). Eventually, a third party app store may end up
with iOS anti-virus and malware software like on Android as well as much of
the malware just getting through. I suspect counterfeiting will go up as well
like on Android.

~~~
rgovostes
The App Store generated $15bn in profit last year for Apple. Fortnite alone
made them more than $300k per day. They definitely aren't losing money on it.

~~~
guessbest
I haven't kept track of the profits of the Apple App Store, but I was
remembering when it made them $3bn in one year and with the overhead after
keeping 1/3 of that on their %30, they called the App Store a loss center that
helped them sell iPhones and iPads. I think this reluctance to run the App
Store carries over to macOS, which is why I assume they are merging it. The
macOS App Store doesn't sell macs so they are likely going to remove it like
they did with Ping and iTunes.

If the app store generated $54.2bn in revenue in 2019, then Apple only keeps
about $16.25bn assuming a 30% cut. I can see why they would want to expand
that in to the macOS now, but I don't think they are willing to part with that
to a third party like Google or Amazon, as they could dominate them on their
own platform.

------
bryanmgreen
Not a fan of this idea, but I would support “marketplaces” which could be like
public playlists on Spotify for companies or influencers who want to share
what apps they use.

Could bake in referral code tracking to apps so developers know who is sending
them business.

------
bcardarella
With this type of pressure along with the anti-trust pressure I would think
Apple would prioritize PWA experiences on iOS as their relief valve on the App
Store monopoly.

~~~
dreen
They have recently announced they wouldn't support many of the APIs
needed/useful for PWAs

edit: I was a wrong in thinking they severely limited PWAs, they still allow
Service Workers although with a 7-Day Cap on All Script-Writeable Storage. Not
as bad as I thought.

~~~
dreen
Why downvote? I would be happy to be wrong

~~~
pwinnski
I didn't downvote, but probably because of "needed/useful for PWAs," which
seems to be incorrect.

------
mtunad
The success of Progressive Web Apps is what we need rather than a new
application store. App stores will eventually try to monopolize and kill the
business when they want.

------
anaxag0ras
> Speaking at the panel discussion with Russian Prime Minister Mikhail
> Mishustin and representatives of the IT industry in Innopolis

Wait, wasn't Durov in bad terms with the Russian government and exiled?

~~~
mD5pPxMcS6fVWKE
Apparently they made a truce, Russia stopped blocking Telegram recently.

------
dane-pgp
I wonder how quickly Apple would start to restrict APIs so that certain apps
can't even be written, making it moot whether the app is available from other
app stores or not.

Presumably there are APIs that Safari has access to that other browsers
written as apps wouldn't be able to access. This approach could be extended so
that streaming audio APIs could only access certain approved domains (which
doesn't include any of Spotify's).

~~~
heavyset_go
> _I wonder how quickly Apple would start to restrict APIs so that certain
> apps can 't even be written, making it moot whether the app is available
> from other app stores or not._

There's precedent against this in _US v. Microsoft Corp_.

------
awinter-py
yes and more generally, we should tightly regulate when hardware vendors are
allowed to exclusively bundle their own software

permitting hardware sellers to control what you install on it isn't just an
apple issue -- see also john deere, nest, sonos. The right to repair movement
includes a surprising number of farmers.

------
ajharrison
No thank you.

------
Mindwipe
Durov is correct, but this is a terribly written article.

