Right now, ~100% of the software available for iOS has to follow Apple's rules, offer a consistent and safe payment method, and install through the App Store.
I assume you think that would change, else why have other app stores. That's what I don't want. I want as close to 100% of the software for iOS as possible to have to follow the rules. That's part of why I chose iOS.
> Right now, ~100% of the software available for iOS has to follow Apple's rules, offer a consistent and safe payment method, and install through the App Store.
The same would still be true of all the apps in the App Store. There would just be other stores. You wouldn't have to use them. Other people could.
The issue here is that many people want the hardware or the OS without the App Store. If you give it to them, "people who only use the Apple App Store" will be a smaller number of people and Apple will have less leverage.
That's the point of prohibiting anti-competitive practices. Apple does a lot of things with that leverage that are bad. Like prohibiting apps that compete with theirs (e.g. browser engines), and imposing political censorship in authoritarian countries, and extracting 30% from captive developers.
You presumably want Apple to have the leverage because then they can use it against e.g. Facebook. If everybody on iOS thinks like you then you win -- everybody only uses the App Store even though other stores are available and Apple still has all the same leverage.
But if most of the people disagree with you, right now you're holding them hostage. Forcing them to use only the App Store even though they don't want to, so that the world's largest corporation can have more leverage.
I'd care about this a lot less if the government first outlawed most personal data collection & hoarding (by tech companies and others) before we go destroying the libertarian solution to this (outsource regulation to a company, which is what I'm choosing to do, given the alternatives)
It's not really destroying it. You can still refuse to install any apps not approved by Apple, even if other people do.
It might even be a good test. If Facebook decides they can't be in Apple's store even though the app is free and there is no government pressure for Apple to block it, you might take pause to ask why and decide that you don't want that app.
I already don't use Facebook, but I take your more general point. The main thing I don't want is to feel network-effect pressure from some huge non-Apple platform to install from sources with worse privacy and security guarantees. iOS is so big that effectively no mass-market mobile software can afford to ignore it, and Apple's rules force them to play (somewhat) nice when they show up.
Let's say I did like Facebook, or at least tolerated it because all my family was on it, and chose to use it only on iOS specifically because it was relatively secure and limited their snooping somewhat. Your scenario is a strictly worse situation for me. I was using it and was OK with the situation, now I have to either risk more snooping or drop it. That's not better.
> The main thing I don't want is to feel network-effect pressure from some huge non-Apple platform to install from sources with worse privacy and security guarantees.
What you mean is that you do want app developers to feel network-effect pressure from the huge Apple platform which has those privacy and security requirements. Which you still have as long as a large number of people feel the same and refuse to install apps outside of Apple's store.
It may even benefit you for Apple to have less, but still some, leverage. For example, a third party store might start offering a BitTorrent client for iOS, which Apple only prohibits for bad reasons that don't help you. Then the availability of the apps in another store might convince Apple to allow well-behaved BitTorrent clients in their store to prevent you from switching (since their reasons for prohibiting it are bad). Then you get a selection of vetted clients when you currently have none.
Likewise, if there were other stores then there would be no reason for them to continue their otherwise-useless prohibition on emulators or virtualization.
Meanwhile you could still install all of your apps from their store and they would plausibly still have enough leverage to keep them well-behaved, just not enough to prohibit well-behaved things that you actually want if it's easier to get them some other way.
> Let's say I did like Facebook, or at least tolerated it because all my family was on it, and chose to use it only on iOS specifically because it was relatively secure and limited their snooping somewhat. Your scenario is a strictly worse situation for me. I was using it and was OK with the situation, now I have to either risk more snooping or drop it. That's not better.
What we're after here is a situation where the combination (you, Apple) has enough leverage to cause Facebook to provide an app that isn't ruinously bad on privacy. It's not clear that we're there even now -- Facebook has a huge network effect and basically the only reason Facebook is an app and not a web page is so it can suck up more of your personal information -- but suppose we were. Apple's leverage relative to Facebook is doing you some good.
The answer is then to make sure your leverage against Facebook is sufficient to keep them honest. This could imply some antitrust action against Facebook, e.g. so that you can use an app not written by Facebook to contact your family who uses Facebook, and then choose one willing to meet Apple's standards even if Facebook itself won't. So it's still possible to solve problems like this, to the extent that they exist, through other means.
I just know that these things won't happen right now:
1) Job interview? The big corporate sales prospect I'm courting? "Company policy is that we do all our calls through [some corporate communication tool]. It's on [store that popped up to cater to enterprises, so they could ship more spyware to their employees]" So I cancel the calls, or install that store and their probably-spying app.
2) That chat app or social network your entire family & friend group is on? Crippled or absent on the App Store, full version only on an alternative store.
For #1: "So use a different phone for all business interactions" OK, but right now I don't need to. That is a solution, but right now it's not one I need, and I don't want to need it.
Maybe those wouldn't happen. Right now, they can't. I chose my mobile devices in part for that feature.
> ~100% of the software available for iOS has to follow Apple's rules, offer a consistent and safe payment method, and install through the App Store.
Scams are rampant in the App Store. Give an unlocked iPhone to a 5 year old and they'll spend $1000 before you know it. This is not something worth defending.
Pointing out one bad thing doesn't change a bunch of other good things, nor does adding more app stores seem like a useful solution to the problem raised.
Really it's that adding more app stores doesn't remove those things either.
Even with things going through apple, you don't have a safe and consistent payments scheme.
With more app stores, you can still get every app that's available on the Apple app store, just as you can now. You may not have access to every app, but you don't today either
Sorry, but why exactly do you want other users to be deprived of software choice on iOS? Like how is that enhancing your experience?
I get that people want to use Apple only software, in which case I'd understand why they don't want other software on the Apple Store, but how the hell is your experience worse if there is another store available on the phone? Just never use it?
It's like as if Microsoft locked down Windows and the only option you have available is to install things through the Windows Store and someone goes "yeah that's why I use windows man, I don't want anyone to be able to install Steam". Has anyone ever argued this? how did it become a thing
Apple can no longer force vendors who want access to iOS to play by the rules that I want them to be forced to play by, is the main risk of adding more stores. I bought iOS devices in part for the effects of that leverage—I chose that. It's also a choice.
Sure, but can you take a short pause and parse what you say:
"I personally love it how Apple is taking my freedom, I love it so much that I want to force Apple rules on everyone else."
The fact you like current Apple rules and you got scared by some FUD should not make you entitled to ask other to stop fighting for more freedom(my family have Android phones and they did not installed any other store, side loaded apps or got hacked). Apple could give the iPhone locked and give you a code on a paper you can use to unlock, you can FUD your parents to never use the code, you can burn the code, you can also not side load applications. You could also demand dear Apple to implement some safe sandboxing/jail where you can be safe to run anything, I heard they have enough money so maybe they could pay better those security engineers that keep finding bugs in their shit.
You're missing the core value. It's not hacks, it's policy.
Apple leverages their power against app devs and for their customers.
- IAP, Apple ID, No Tracking, Notification Control, etc.
In a world where Apple doesn't have leverage via the store they can't enforce these things. App devs would ship outside of the store and include whatever crap they wanted. This is a worse experience and there is no 'choice' available for the users to pick a better one.
Apple is effectively acting as a legislator here, improving the quality of apps via their leverage in the interest of their users. It's a standard I'm willing to pay extra for and enforces good standards around privacy. The government law makers are largely owned by regulatory capture and lack of technical ability - why would we destroy the ability for one company that actually has incentives aligned with their users to enforce standards?
If Apple loses that leverage we lose that high quality option - you can't have it both ways because the leverage is what allows the incentive control.
People that don't care about it should use Android.
This argument is FUD. Until Epyc games had the courage to complain I could have asked you to name an example and you would not find anything that is not on Google Play with exception of maybe Free Software.
If this is not FUD do you have a source that shows that thousands of poor grandmas that have Android were forced to side load Farmville and if this happened what was the damage (except that some bilionaires made a few less millions)
>In hostile countries the google play store is usually not present at all
Isn't this a good thing? In countries like China you could force Apple to spy and censor users where Android users can side load applications from trusted sources.
>If Google tried to enforce more policy app devs would use other stores/side load.
What kind of policies ? Any example of such policies? GUI/UX stuff or you mean policies where you can't link to a donate page because Apple wants that sweet tax, I think you are not ready to admit that you are spreading FUD, reality does not match and you are still building a fantasy.
Phones in China are owned at the network and software level - you can’t safely side load anything. I’m not sure Apple is safe here either, but I’d guess the security is better? Just guessing though based on reading what security people have blogged about the platforms.
For the policies - things like requiring better ID auth or blocking tracking or requiring IAP. I agree that the tax is bad and stated so elsewhere.
> “ I think you are not ready to admit that you are spreading FUD, reality does not match and you are still building a fantasy.”
This kind of rhetoric when you disagree with someone isn’t helpful and doesn’t change minds.
Sorry but not sure how I can make my point more clear.
You created an hypothetical situation like "If Apple devices were not locked then for sure all the developers will remove their apps from the store and offer them from their own webpage to get around the big tax" my argument is that Android exist and this does not happen, so you should stop inventing hypotheticals and look at the reality,
Then you invented other hypothetical, something about developers will lower the bar of quality because the only reason all those popular apps in the store are of quality is because Apples high standards. This is also something that you imagine, most rejections I read about were about Apples greed and other such stupidity.
Maybe you are not spreading FUD because you are really scared, then it means the FUD worked on you, I am sorry , hopefully the reality I shown will calm you down a bit, my family are running Android phones and they did no sideload any application, there is an exception of a Huawei phone I got where they were forced not to put Google Play on it, I had some issues getting Youtube to work but except that app it works OK for my son.
I understand that's what you want, I want to know why you want that. Apple being able to exercise market power is bad for you, it means that Apple can command higher prices that are being passed on to you. It's like saying you only want Walmart in your neighborhood, because that means Walmart can coerce its vendors. The only one who benefits from this is the platform owner. Competition is good (for you, the consumer, even if you only shop at one store!.
That's the thing: Apple's exercising market power does bring all sorts of benefits to users. Obvious examples include the new privacy rules they're imposing, in-app purchases allowing any subscriptions to be cancelled with zero hassle. If Apple allowed other app stores, Facebook would almost certainly move to one that let them produce a far more invasive app. And the vast majority of the users will just download Facebook from the new store, because most people (myself included, tbh) value convenience over any absolutist stances about the software they use—see the past several decades of the free software movement.
The net result: Apple losing their monopoly means a huge influx of user-hostile behavior in apps.
Now, you're not wrong either—Apple does, in some cases, abuse their monopoly, and probably takes more of a cut than is fair from IAPs. (Although, quite frankly, I'd be shocked if the money from cheaper IAPs went to reducing prices and not increasing profits.) So yes, Apple's behavior here is harmful in some ways, but it does good in others. Like pretty much everything in this world, it ain't black and white.
Yeah, I suppose that is what I am arguing. Apple is absolutely an abusive monopoly, but tackling them alone without simultaneously handling Facebook and co would result in a net loss for the average consumer.
Absent government regulation? Yes, exactly. If Mecha-Godzilla shows up I'm very, very happy to have Godzilla around to fuck them up, even if Godzilla is a dangerous monster and it would be better to have no monsters.
Since don’t-have-monsters isn’t an option—yes? Especially since most of the ones being “murdered” by Apple aren’t the vulnerable, in any kind of relevant sense, but software developers and publishes. People who just use the devices knew what they were getting and paid extra for it.
So only install apps from the Apple App Store then. How do other app stores where developers aren't forced to play by those Apple rules affect you then?
But these evil dangerous apps wouldn't have been allowed by Apple in the first place, so they'd never have been on their app store to begin with.
Or, IOW: You can't do that after Apple bans them from their store either. Apps getting banned from there so you can't download them is a thing that actually exists in the here and now.
That's nice and all, but the rest of us would like to be able to use our hardware, that we paid for up front, for whatever we need. Unfortunately iOS boots with an encrypted bootloader, so you can't replace it, and once booted, only supports this lovely walled garden of cat-meme consumption.
We can both have our cake and eat it too, we just need either an unlocked bootloader, or the ability to sideload apps over an ADB-like usb interface. People who don't want that functionality will never know it's there and there won't be any decrease in security.
Unlocked boot loader would be fine. Sideloading's fine as long as the UI's bad enough that normal people can't, say, click a link on a website and keep clicking "OK" until the app's installed on their phone, and it also can't (somehow? Not sure how this restriction would be enforced) be scripted into a desktop-based store (as ADB could be, and likely would have been if alternative stores couldn't just be installed directly on Android devices).
Essentially as long as nothing threatens Apple's ability to tell other companies, including other tech giants, to play ball or pound sand, I'm fine with it.
> Essentially as long as nothing threatens Apple's ability to tell other companies, including other tech giants, to play ball or pound sand, I'm fine with it.
Is your premise is that the vast majority of iOS users want the Apple control of apps exactly as it is today?
If that premise is true, then having additional app stores available will not change your experience at all. The vast majority, as you assert, of iOS users will want no part in the alternative app stores, thus the Apple app store retains dominance and Apple doesn't need to change their behavior at all. So nothing changes for you. And the few oddballs who want to run non-Apple-approved software, still can, but they'll be a fringe.
But if you're worried that there will be a mass exodus to the non-Apple app store, (if that was allowed) then I'm hearing that there is in fact large percentages of unhappy users, which is itself proof that removing control from Apple is required.
What doesn't make sense it simultaneously assert that nearly all iOS users are happy with the Apple iron fist but large percentage of them are itching to break away from it the second they could. One or the other can be true, not both.
I have several in fact, including the PinePhone which I quite like but isn't really ready for daily use. The issue is Apple is developing a monopoly on high end hardware and there are fewer reasonable options by the day.
I'm always confused by this one. Every hardware company has a monopoly on their stuff. Sony with their PlayStation is a prime example of this. I've never seen anyone says they want to run their own game on it.
Well, other than the homebrew folks and those inclined to sail the high seas, very true. I don't get how this is suddenly an issue just because the device is portable - where is the outrage that developers can't distribute whatever they like on the Nintendo Switch outside of Nintendo's system (which also takes a 30% cut)?
You could very easily not install any other store or use any other payment system if you don't want them. You can keep your device 100 % Apple approved even if there exist alternatives. Why take that choice away from others?
> You could very easily not install any other store
But in practice, there are apps we need to use—people who we mostly communicate with over Facebook, movies we want to want that are only on Netflix, etc. In the status quo, we can use those apps, and they're beholden to Apple's guidelines, hopefully reducing the privacy, etc abuses. I can use Facebook and still have some amount of privacy.
In the world where alternate stores exist, I have to choose between using Facebook or having some amount of privacy. Sure, I could not use Facebook, but I'm a real human living in the real world, and that means I miss out on social opportunities that I would rather not miss out on. I—and the vast majority of iOS users, who aren't particularly interested in 3rd party stores—lose a less-terrible Facebook app.
(Not that I'm too happy with Apple here either. Some of Apple's policies are bizarre and abusive, and there are apps I'd like to run that aren't allowed. But I'm not entirely sure it's worth the tradeoff.)
It could fragment the Apple software ecosystem. Since a non-fragmented ecosystem is what I want, I don't like that. Add more stores and my choice to buy into a unified platform is at risk.
Why is fragmentation a problem? There's already fragmentation of the smartphone software ecosystem. How is an app that ships on iOS but not the apple store any different to you than an app that doesn't ship on iOS at all? Either way if you choose to only buy apps through apple you can't get it.
Fragmentation means that many apps I want would no longer be available through a vendor that I trust. No, that trust isn't blind or absolute. Yes, I recognise that Apple's review process is patchy at best—but most developers also fear getting on the wrong side of them and THAT alone has been pretty damn effective at keeping most apps under control.
I'm not convinced this is as big a problem as you think it is. If I chose iOS over Android specifically for privacy reasons I'd be interested in knowing what companies avoid the app store to bypass their privacy restrictions. Do you really want to use a product from a company that would do that as soon as they have the chance or would you rather label them as untrustworthy and find an alternative?
Some apps that would choose to be in the App Store if they had to, would instead use an alternative store. Some apps that wouldn't otherwise exist on iOS, would exist on alternative stores. I'd rather sacrifice that second category to ensure that the first category has to be released on the App Store. If I change my mind, I'll get an Android device. I knew what I was getting into when I bought Apple.
Your choice to buy into a unified platform does not require it to be Apple's unified platform. You can probably find a windows phone and opt into that unified platform.
What you don't get regardless is an apple that "throws its weight around" to force competitors and the like to do what apple wants. That's abuse and bad for everyone. That you happen to like it doesn't make it legal
What if they change their mind about the rules and their vision becomes inconsistent with what you want? You'll have no recourse and vendor lock-in will prevent you from switching platforms
It will be inconvenient and even impossible to migrate some things (for example contacts, iMessage history, app data). Espcially consider how difficult it would be for a novice user to migrate. And what are those other choices? Presumably you are not considering Android devices.
Of course not. But the limited selection of alternatives certainly adds to the pain of switching platforms. Therefore it's not so simple to "just buy another phone".
That's not the accusation. The accusation is that disallowing sideloading and forcing all customers to observe a single philosophy is especially big of a risk to the user considering that there's little competition. The fix isn't for Apple to create better competition, it's to allow sideloading. I am not saying it's their "fault" for having a lack of competition, that is just a reality of the market they are in.
the rules a company has undemocratically decided that affect millions of users.
One day an app you like, or your life may even depend on, suddenly disappears because of some arbitrary, pointless rule is brought by that company, whose decisions are, I repeat, outside of democratic control.
Would you be willing to pay a premium for that? What if Apple allowed other stores and simultaneously allowed apps to sell things for more on their store than they charge on other stores? Then an app maker could release on both and charge more to account for Apple's cut and any extra expenses they have releasing on their store.
Could you explain what you mean about customers paying a premium today? I don't think any apps that are on iOS and other platforms charge more for iOS. I also don't believe an iPhone costs more than a similarly high end Android phone. Where's the premium?
Some definitely do charge more for e.g. subscriptions on iOS than they do if you go through their website. They can't advertise the website option in their app, but it can exist.
Last time I made that mistake the site's subscription management interface was rather... uh, minimum viable product. Switching to paying the Apple premium was well worth it.
Thanks for that info. I wasn't aware that apps were allowed to charge more for subscriptions via iOS. I thought their only options in this regard was to not offer in app subscriptions at all.
Those very few ultra-premium models are exceptions which prove the rule; a few ultra-expensive, ultra-premium halo products for price-insensitive customers. Android phones are almost always superior value for money.
I assume you think that would change, else why have other app stores. That's what I don't want. I want as close to 100% of the software for iOS as possible to have to follow the rules. That's part of why I chose iOS.