While Facebook doesn't like this it does make sense. Apple is pushing their own gaming platform so allowing a direct competitor onto their platform isn't a violation of rules. To argue otherwise would be to say that Burger King should have the right to sell burgers on property owned by McDonalds. Facebook is free to go make their own mobile gaming platform OR to partner with Google and build a campaign similar to Visa's ad campaign talking about all the things you can buy with Visa but not with American Express. It should be entertaining to watch!
Isn’t the point of the application store to allow people to install their own platforms? It sounds like you are arguing that Apple shouldn’t allow apps which compete with their own offerings.
If we want openness then we need to say exactly what it means.
Does it mean all platforms that allow software installation must not prevent arbitrary code from being installed?
Does it mean all hardware must permit alternative operating systems to be installed. This is my preferred option because it would open the door for a genuinely open platform to be developed by the community rather than maintaining the power of the giant corporations.
I would assume because Facebook was rejected by Apple, not Google.
But it's also not even at the same scale, as far as I understand Google Android limits background activity of side loaded apps. Android is open source and so handset makes can code exceptions in such as Samsung and the Samsung store, Amazon and the Amazon store or Huawei and the Huawei store. If you wanted to replace the preloaded Android with a custom ROM for your own store, you can (based on bootloader locking).
People should be allowed to install other installation platforms. This needs to be made into the law. Consoles are a different thing, in their case, they must be made to allow cross play/communication between other consoles if the game developer wishes to integrate the functionality. If consoles turn into a general purpose compute thing, then they must be made mandatory like that too.
Remove the network effects that ruin innovation and keep society behind. Compete on merit.
If Apple is so sure that they are providing consumers with the best experience, why do they not allow competitors and make it fair? Make it mandatory that a developer has to support Apple payment method, fine, but don't add anti competitive clauses like you shouldn't tell the consumer that you can get the app 30% if you pay with PayPal/Stripe etc instead of paying with Apple. Then look at what the consumer picks. Is Apple's quality assurance really worth that much? Give free markets a chance, and we'll find out. 10 years are enough to make a profit, innovate and open up.
Stop using network effects/lock in as your moat, use your innovation to stay ahead.
Another good option would be to force vendors to allow consumer to install any operating system they chose, so people could install Android or Facebook os on Apple hardware. Essentially boot camp for iPhone.
This would be great for software freedom since it would have to apply across the board to Android vendors too.
Forcing Apple to make their operating system work the way you want them to is like forced speech or forced labor, and is taking away a choice consumers clearly want. It also simply doesn’t open the door for real innovation in the space.
If we are going to solve this problem, let’s do it for real.
It’s also worth pointing out that if you force Apple to allow alternate stores, those stores will be owned by Google and Amazon. They will not compete on ‘innovation’. They will compete on advertising reach.
Let’s be real. If you are advocating for alternate stores to be forced on iOS, you simply arguing for Amazon and Google and Facebook‘s competitive interests while doing nothing to constrain their various anticompetitive tendencies.
Forcing Apple to make their operating system work the way you want them to is like forced speech or forced labor,
Legally, it's nothing even remotely like forced speech or forced labor. It's simply the application of neutral laws intended to foster commercial activity by prohibiting anticompetitive activity, such as that engaged in by Apple in running its app store.
Except that they are not neutral laws, and the application of them would force Apple to write and maintain code.
I actually am in favor of truly neutral laws, such as a law outlawing the locking of hardware to a particular OS. Laws that could be applied universally.
The Epic store came late into the game, so in order to get developers on-board they take a fee of 12 percent.
And in order to get customers they offer free games.
If Apple allows third-party platforms, they should still have some level of control I think. So for example, to maintain iOS' advantage of practically zero piracy, they should be able to lock out an "app store" that distributes cracked apps. Similarly, an app store that does shady things like install coin miners and spyware in the background should be able to be barred from operation.
Forcing them to open the platform is just a way to damage Apple and give Google a competitive advantage.
It has nothing to do with the 30%, which for some reason nobody complains about on the Play store, and also for some reason Google doesn’t compete by reducing.
First of all, it could be argued that it would actually be beneficial for Apple to give up on their 30% because it would make iOS much harder to dethrone, which in the long run is much more valuable than cash.
Secondly, nobody complains on the 30% Play store tax because you can easily dodge it, see for instance... Apple Music.
We need both competition, and the ability to install platforms where we delegate trust to the platform owner.
Forcing platforms to allow other platforms on top means we can no longer delegate trust.
We might be able to solve this by preventing hardware to be locked to a specific OS. That way we can enable platform completion without removing the ability to delegate trust.
Google doesn't block ads for competing products though. Nor does it prevent competing products from being listed in its search engine. That's the analogy here - no one is saying Apple's app store shouldn't be allowed to have _any_ standards, just that their rules shouldn't be anticompetitive.
FYI, Chinese app Wechat has been doing the same thing and more (with bless from Apple apparently) for over two years now. You can literally download micro-apps or micro-games inside Wechat without any review from Apple whatsoever.
34 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 69.3 ms ] threadOn the one hand it seems crazy that Basecamp’s business model should be significantly impeded by Apple’s rules.
On the other hand, we need some way to prevent people from just installing their own platforms.
Given their track record, I don’t expect a gaming platform from Facebook to be benign.
But let’s assume it is.
If Facebook can install its own gaming App Store, so can anyone else.
And that opens the door to all manner of bad actors who distribute gaming platforms aimed at addicting kids, extracting personal information, etc.
They therefore should be allowed to prevent stores which seek to circumvent that curation.
Many customers want a closed, managed platform.
For those who want an open platform, one is available in the form of Android.
Let’s stop trying to take that choice away.
If we want openness then we need to say exactly what it means.
Does it mean all platforms that allow software installation must not prevent arbitrary code from being installed?
Does it mean all hardware must permit alternative operating systems to be installed. This is my preferred option because it would open the door for a genuinely open platform to be developed by the community rather than maintaining the power of the giant corporations.
But it's also not even at the same scale, as far as I understand Google Android limits background activity of side loaded apps. Android is open source and so handset makes can code exceptions in such as Samsung and the Samsung store, Amazon and the Amazon store or Huawei and the Huawei store. If you wanted to replace the preloaded Android with a custom ROM for your own store, you can (based on bootloader locking).
Apple says fuck you.
If it’s so easy to make a better store, you’d think someone would have made it for Android.
Check out the Pinephone.
Remove the network effects that ruin innovation and keep society behind. Compete on merit.
If Apple is so sure that they are providing consumers with the best experience, why do they not allow competitors and make it fair? Make it mandatory that a developer has to support Apple payment method, fine, but don't add anti competitive clauses like you shouldn't tell the consumer that you can get the app 30% if you pay with PayPal/Stripe etc instead of paying with Apple. Then look at what the consumer picks. Is Apple's quality assurance really worth that much? Give free markets a chance, and we'll find out. 10 years are enough to make a profit, innovate and open up.
Stop using network effects/lock in as your moat, use your innovation to stay ahead.
Another good option would be to force vendors to allow consumer to install any operating system they chose, so people could install Android or Facebook os on Apple hardware. Essentially boot camp for iPhone.
This would be great for software freedom since it would have to apply across the board to Android vendors too.
Forcing Apple to make their operating system work the way you want them to is like forced speech or forced labor, and is taking away a choice consumers clearly want. It also simply doesn’t open the door for real innovation in the space.
If we are going to solve this problem, let’s do it for real.
It’s also worth pointing out that if you force Apple to allow alternate stores, those stores will be owned by Google and Amazon. They will not compete on ‘innovation’. They will compete on advertising reach.
Let’s be real. If you are advocating for alternate stores to be forced on iOS, you simply arguing for Amazon and Google and Facebook‘s competitive interests while doing nothing to constrain their various anticompetitive tendencies.
Legally, it's nothing even remotely like forced speech or forced labor. It's simply the application of neutral laws intended to foster commercial activity by prohibiting anticompetitive activity, such as that engaged in by Apple in running its app store.
I actually am in favor of truly neutral laws, such as a law outlawing the locking of hardware to a particular OS. Laws that could be applied universally.
and Valve, and Epic, and itch.io, and...
Remember they are going to compete for customers first and developers second. Developers will have to go to where the customers are.
This is not going to be better for developers.
Looks like everybody (except Steam) wins.
Amazon did the same thing with their Android store.
Developers lose.
Which is exactly what happened.
There is no need to force Apple to build what you want when we have alternatives.
It has nothing to do with the 30%, which for some reason nobody complains about on the Play store, and also for some reason Google doesn’t compete by reducing.
Secondly, nobody complains on the 30% Play store tax because you can easily dodge it, see for instance... Apple Music.
And of course a lot of people are not complaining about the commission on subscriptions, but the commission on purchases.
Is this inherently true? Isn't it just another form of market competition?
Forcing platforms to allow other platforms on top means we can no longer delegate trust.
We might be able to solve this by preventing hardware to be locked to a specific OS. That way we can enable platform completion without removing the ability to delegate trust.
Nope https://apps.apple.com/us/app/fortnite/id1261357853
If you don’t play by their rules they won’t publish your ads.