That's a fair consideration, and I don't have an immediate answer to that. Except to say that Apple could have gotten behind the opening up of iOS themselves, retaining some measure of control and protecting their users:
> Really, Apple could have headed off regulators at the pass if they had embraced the (semi-)opening of their platform themselves. Allow third party app stores but on their own terms, providing SDKs and APIs for creating your own iOS App Store with security checks baked in and mandating privacy protections built in. Sort of like a software services equivalent to Apple Authorized Service Providers and Apple Authorized Resellers.
They would have then controlled this debate, and there would have been less room for the Epics of the world to complain about the platform being locked down. Not to mention users would benefit from greater choice. Imagine boutique third party app stores springing up devoted to specific interests and niches such as F-Droid, or promising better curation or quality.
Companies who refuse to use the AppStoreKit that Apple so beneficently provided would then be seen as malefactors seeking to subject their users to lack of privacy and security, rather than Apple trying to uphold their 30% cut and restrictive behavior.
Instead, Apple tried to control everything and not only did they expose themselves to regulation like this, they deal with customers annoyed at scammy apps on their own App Store, and third party devs crying foul at inconsistent policing.
I mean, I think there's still time for them to try something like this. Embrace alternative app stores and building the infrastructure to enable them, rather than just throwing open the doors and letting the wolves swarm "because the EU made us do it." In fact I can see this scenario happening because the motivation would be to prove openness is inherently dangerous.
I actually don’t have a problem so much with this solution. It ensures that apps are still adhering to the same standards on privacy and security and that’s what I care about.
One thing that is missing is the requirement for each app to use in app purchases and how easy it is to cancel subscriptions. If you give a suggestion on this one (give that the above I’m very okay with) in the spirit of the above one - I’d most likely switch camps
> Really, Apple could have headed off regulators at the pass if they had embraced the (semi-)opening of their platform themselves. Allow third party app stores but on their own terms, providing SDKs and APIs for creating your own iOS App Store with security checks baked in and mandating privacy protections built in. Sort of like a software services equivalent to Apple Authorized Service Providers and Apple Authorized Resellers.
They would have then controlled this debate, and there would have been less room for the Epics of the world to complain about the platform being locked down. Not to mention users would benefit from greater choice. Imagine boutique third party app stores springing up devoted to specific interests and niches such as F-Droid, or promising better curation or quality.
Companies who refuse to use the AppStoreKit that Apple so beneficently provided would then be seen as malefactors seeking to subject their users to lack of privacy and security, rather than Apple trying to uphold their 30% cut and restrictive behavior.
Instead, Apple tried to control everything and not only did they expose themselves to regulation like this, they deal with customers annoyed at scammy apps on their own App Store, and third party devs crying foul at inconsistent policing.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32170848
I mean, I think there's still time for them to try something like this. Embrace alternative app stores and building the infrastructure to enable them, rather than just throwing open the doors and letting the wolves swarm "because the EU made us do it." In fact I can see this scenario happening because the motivation would be to prove openness is inherently dangerous.