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.
That will be the legal argument in court: is Apple's iOS like a specifically grocery chain that controls 20% of stores, and customers can easily go to another? That will be Apple's position.
It seems clear that it's not, since I can easily bounce from store to store, and it's much more complicated (though by no means impossible) to switch mobile platforms.
The other position also seems extreme: defining the scope of the market as "iOS users" would result in forcing Apple to make room in their store for everyone and everything, as if it weren't possible to seek alternatives at all.
It's not an easy issue, but both starting positions seem extreme.
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.
android allows is but its hidden away behind a setting and discouraged. in practice it is almost the same system, very few people have a big enough product that they can make money sideloading it. fortnite may be the only example
Even Fortnite gave up on distributing it independently and came back to the Play Store. That shows you how unfair those practices are, even the most well-known game in the world could not make it.
I'm sure the failure of distributing Fortnite independently will be a strong example against Google when the anti-trust lawsuit will inevitably come.
>“After 18 months of operating Fortnite on Android outside of the Google Play Store, we’ve come to a basic realization,” reads Epic’s statement. “Google puts software downloadable outside of Google Play at a disadvantage, through technical and business measures such as scary, repetitive security pop-ups for downloaded and updated software, restrictive manufacturer and carrier agreements and dealings, Google public relations characterizing third party software sources as malware, and new efforts such as Google Play Protect to outright block software obtained outside the Google Play store.”
as an expat you need this all the time, to have specific apps for two locations, including government apps, commute apps, even retail bonus apps, they all have those idiotic geographical limitations, and are often not to be found on common APK sites.
So you need a friend with the "right" location setting to extract and send you the APK.
Troublesome, but at least with Android its possible to do so.
Aurora Store is a FOSS Google Play app store client that can spoof the device model, language, and location. It does not a require Google Play Services or a Google account, and it might work for your use case.
Apple is certainly engaging in anti-competitive activity, along with Google, as it is viewed through the lens of US antitrust legislation and case law. Your personal definition of monopoly is irrelevant here.
>Apple is certainly engaging in anti-competitive activity, along with Google, as it is viewed through the lens of US antitrust legislation and case law. Your
Not in anything that has to do with its app stores...
There's no "anti-trust" for your own marketplace within your own devices.
The very "trust" in anti-trust is about companies in the "top-level" marketplace (the general market/economy). Not about what they can build for their own platforms, in the same way it's ok for Disneyland to give you Disney money...
So, you think that I can't use iPhone as a hammer, because I can do that with a Samsung? :)
Sorry, few countries agree with the claim I made - by investigating the lack of ability to have different app stores on iPhone, usually rights of the users triumph rights of the producer (at least in Europe, US is a different beast).
>Apple just produces them, users should have ability to use the devices as they see fit.
They have the ability to buy the device they see fit (Apple, Google, Samsung, whatever) -- they don't have the right to dictate other terms to individual brands.
The ability to dictate to the maker of the device how it shall be and who it should do business with and allow on its platform is not part of anti-trust law...
I don't think your first statement is actually true. Historically, the US has found that companies that act in a way to favor themselves over competitors is a problem. Microsoft bundling its own web browser at the expense of Netscape, to name one semi-relevant example.
So Spotify claims that Apple favors Apple Music over Spotify in an anti-competitive way, and that they control 100% of "the iOS market," making such favor relevant.
Apple's argument will be basically the one you make: "our playground, our rules," and that they have made APIs available for Spotify to do all of the things Apple Music does. Which is true, but only very, very, very recently. Apple hopes that will reduce Spotify's argument to a monetary squabble over the 30/15% share. And that might work.
But it's not nothing, and it's entirely possible for a company to exercise in anti-competitive behavior in their own marketplace, running afoul of anti-trust laws.
Apple's behavior is superfluous to marketplaces and your security. That's why they can promise security on macOS even though Steam is allowing users to buy and install games outside of the Mac app store. They even allow random unsigned software to be downloaded and installed without thwarting their security.
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)?
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.
Arguing that the safety of the Apple App store is equivalent to that of the Google Play Store, or any of the other Android markets (which are far worse), is pretty nonsensical.
Chromebooks are a great example of secure + customer friendly by default, with an option to go into very open mode.
(activate developer mode by proving physical control — in the past it was a screw, now it's sitting through a few minutes of pressing the power button when asked; from dev mode you can go further and flash custom CPU and EC firmware)
Android does allow sideloading but I think there's an argument that competition is harmed due to Google's Play Store having special package-installation permissions that none of the others can get.
This results in competing app stores being required to obtain consent for every single app installation and update while the Play Store can do whatever it likes without any user interaction.
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).
> 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.
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. =)
To me it looks like financial interest packaged in vague claim of freedom, too. Yes, 30% is ridiculous, that's what you could really call an Apple tax, but arguments such as "Russian startups fail to make money by paying 30% to Apple" are equally ridiculous. It's just about his game platform, and the money it would have made.
It’s not cheap, but on the other hand you get a lot. They handle the billing, credit card fees, returns, reviews, the site, bandwidth, updates, uptime (reliability ain’t cheap), security, and 10 other things I’m not thinking of. Oh, and the full updated toolchain and dev environments... Let’s also recognize that effectively the devs are paying some for the platform, just like the users are when they buy the phones. We all are paying in because it’s better (for us), otherwise go elsewhere... I would.
You as a dev just create a simple parked webpage for your app and you are done. So many barriers to entry are just dissolved. At no upfront cost to the developer. That’s huge.
I think the many many business that prefer to be on this environment, and always have, speaks to the value of that 30%.
Maybe 30% is a little high, it’s really hard and subjective to say. But it’s not crazy... there is a lot of value provided for that 30%.
> They handle the billing, credit card fees, returns, reviews, the site, bandwidth, updates, uptime (reliability ain’t cheap), security, and 10 other things I’m not thinking of
Bandcamp does all of this and more, including selling physical merchandise, and only takes 15% of the sale price for digital goods, and 10% for physical merchandise.
> Oh, and the full updated toolchain and dev environments..
Developers have privilege of paying Apple $99 each year to develop and release iOS and macOS software.
1) One certainly can do this cheaper. But I’m going to hazard a guess (sight unseen) that bandcamp doesn’t provide as much for that 15%. The original point wasn’t “can you do it cheaper”, it was “do you get a desirable amount of value for the 30%”. I’m a consultant, and there are cheaper options than me. I feel I provide good value for the money, and I guess the fact that I have customers says the market agrees, but that doesn’t mean that some less expensive competitor isn’t a perfectly fine option. It means that the market says I am worth X so I can charge X... Nothing more.
2) The $99 argument is interesting. From my persepective: Enterprise tools cost a lot and 99$ yearly is insanely reasonable. I’d guess that it basically just covers the cost to them of supporting the devs and maintaining the interface to the dev side of security infrastructure. What I can say with some confidence is that it can’t cover even a fraction of the cost of creating and maintaining Xcode. I think the $99 is a way to recover some cost, and create a barrier to entry that makes sure that people who join are at least a tiny bit somewhat serious.
Sure, they provide all that, but it can be done for less than $15B. Apple has around 150,000 employees. That's $100k per employee, assuming all work on the iOS and iPad app stores, which is obviously not the case.
If it only were that simple. I wouldn't fully buy into the idea that security concerns are the only reason why Apple boots an app from its store. Retention of their own monopoly on certain spaces is just as plausible a reason. There are enough apps on the store that track the living shit out of their users or engage in other dark monetization patterns.
I would never suggest altruism as a defining motivation of a multinational corporation. grin What I’m suggesting as an owner of both since they were created is that iOS apps and devices have just been better curated
I chose iOS because the experience has been near uniformly better on iOS (in my opinion, for me) since inception. The motivations aside, their profit margins aside, and other externalities aside... The apps work better and are better on average and overall. This can only be consistently explained by the curation (directly, or indirectly with follow-on effects) because the other things are effectively equal. You can get a great piece of Samsung hardware, Android is a perfectly fine system sitting on a very robust OS (Linux), and the tooling is fine on both platforms... This leaves the curation: of both the apps in the app stores, and of the systems that are built in it’s name. I guess you could also make the case that Apple just made a better framework, but that’s easily addressable (if so, git gud google) and probably not really true.
The apps are just better curated, not perfect but better. And better is, well... better. Can you find a great Android app? sure. When you average across the store, however, the it will be lower. I don’t want or need even more worse choices. I want access to a couple good ones, to easily choose one, and then to move on.
The devices are (on average and almost across the board) also filled with less cruft. I remember picking up a top tier Android phone from Sprint several years back that had the newest processor, faster than any iPhone at that exact time. But the stuff that Sprint and HTC put on it slowed it to a crawl. The experience was just “less than”. Again, I want the most certainty that the device will just work and work well.
Competition is great, vital even. I sincerely hope all the different options keep the market on it’s toes for a long time. But legislating handcuffs seem counterproductive here. We don’t have a monopoly by any reasonable definition of the word. And without that this kind of idea is just overreach. I would be like me forcing your company to let me use their building just because it’s a lovely building. If your building is the ONLY building, then it’s in the public’s interest to enforce open access. But it’s not, so this is just me taking your nice private building (that people chose to pay to be in because it’s nice) and making it a public place so I can do whatever the heck I like because I want to.
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.
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”.
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.
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. =)
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.
You are proving my point. I actually CAN install a Corvette engine in a Toyota Corolla (and it's been done), in fact I can install literally any engine I want. TOYOTA won't do it FOR me, but they'll let me do whatever I want because it's my car. I don't know why people such as yourself defend manufacturers from restricting what you can do with a device bought and paid for. It's not theirs, it's yours.
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?
I would. I have a couple apps on my phone that are no longer in the app store due to policy changes at Apple. One is an old version of AdGuard which was essentially an on-device pihole. The other was an internet radio tuner which was pulled for reasons unknown.
Until recently you couldn't purchase books in the Kindle app. I'd have happily downloaded a non-broken version from Amazon.
There are many examples of apps with strong safeguards that aren't allowed in the apple app store.
Could be those unfortunate users who reside in one of the “forbidden” countries or regions. Of course, those countries are unlikely to be able to force Apple into opening up their platform.
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.
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.
Marketplaces aren't that easy. Supply (developers) wants to be where there is demand. Demand (consumers) is wherever it is and sometimes follows (some) of the supply.
In our case, the demand being consumers, they are friction-averse and if you don't have a rock solid and unique value proposition, they tend to stay wherever they are.
I'd like an iOS web browser that wasn't just a wrapper around Safari, so it could do a better job of ad blocking - and I'd install a Firefox App Store if that was the only way to get it.
It's not just the issue of actual "alternative app stores". The issue that Telegram is running into here is that what Apple considers an "app store" is very broad, and when Telegram added games, Apple said "nope, can't do that, that would be an app store and that's illegal".
Facebook is running into the same issue trying to launch their Facebook Gaming app on iOS. Apple keeps rejecting them because it's an app store, according to their policies.
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.
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.
Most of them involve access to peripherals (USB, Serial, HID, NFC, Bluetooth, MIDI), sensors (magnetometer, proximity, ambient light), and device state (battery status, memory pressure, network information).
Several of these are not even available to native applications on iOS.
Yes there are categories of apps that require a few of these, but certainly the majority do not require any.
The funny thing is that in iPhone OS 1, Apple only supported web apps, which could be (and still can be) saved to the home screen. The App Store didn't exist. The full desktop class web browser was a major feature of the iPhone. That was clearly the company's vision for the platform.
Developers clamored for a native API, which they got the next year.
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”.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Privacy saves Apple money and causes customer retention. It is not a monopoly tactic, so Apple will increase their userbase's privacy as much as possible. I imagine they will become the inverse Google in that regard.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
126 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 166 ms ] threadWhy is software special?
With Apple App Store, there is no alternative. Your iOS application cannot be distributed without Apple's approval.
It seems clear that it's not, since I can easily bounce from store to store, and it's much more complicated (though by no means impossible) to switch mobile platforms.
The other position also seems extreme: defining the scope of the market as "iOS users" would result in forcing Apple to make room in their store for everyone and everything, as if it weren't possible to seek alternatives at all.
It's not an easy issue, but both starting positions seem extreme.
There is google play store, huawei app gallery, amazon app store and so on.
Also, the app you built was specifically for apple. You cannot sell it anywhere else.
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?
iOS has 25% share worldwide. And in the USA, where most customers will be for most startups, it has 58% market share.
If they take your product off the shelf, that’s entirely up to them.
If Walmart was your only market where you bothered to put your product on their shelves, then that’s your fault.
I'm sure the failure of distributing Fortnite independently will be a strong example against Google when the anti-trust lawsuit will inevitably come.
>“After 18 months of operating Fortnite on Android outside of the Google Play Store, we’ve come to a basic realization,” reads Epic’s statement. “Google puts software downloadable outside of Google Play at a disadvantage, through technical and business measures such as scary, repetitive security pop-ups for downloaded and updated software, restrictive manufacturer and carrier agreements and dealings, Google public relations characterizing third party software sources as malware, and new efforts such as Google Play Protect to outright block software obtained outside the Google Play store.”
https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/21/21229943/epic-games-fortn...
The hard part is the baked in dependency on Google Play services in most apps.
https://gitlab.com/AuroraOSS/AuroraStore
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.aurora.store/
But there’s obviously no monopoly here.
As you said yourself:
> Literally every other modern OS allows you to install apps from multiple sources, including Android.
Nobody is forced to choose iOS.
Not in anything that has to do with its app stores...
Think "anti-trust" rather than "monopoly," if that helps.
The very "trust" in anti-trust is about companies in the "top-level" marketplace (the general market/economy). Not about what they can build for their own platforms, in the same way it's ok for Disneyland to give you Disney money...
Nope, it is not Apples device, it is a device of the user. Apple just produces them, users should have ability to use the devices as they see fit.
Sorry, few countries agree with the claim I made - by investigating the lack of ability to have different app stores on iPhone, usually rights of the users triumph rights of the producer (at least in Europe, US is a different beast).
They have the ability to buy the device they see fit (Apple, Google, Samsung, whatever) -- they don't have the right to dictate other terms to individual brands.
The ability to dictate to the maker of the device how it shall be and who it should do business with and allow on its platform is not part of anti-trust law...
So Spotify claims that Apple favors Apple Music over Spotify in an anti-competitive way, and that they control 100% of "the iOS market," making such favor relevant.
Apple's argument will be basically the one you make: "our playground, our rules," and that they have made APIs available for Spotify to do all of the things Apple Music does. Which is true, but only very, very, very recently. Apple hopes that will reduce Spotify's argument to a monetary squabble over the 30/15% share. And that might work.
But it's not nothing, and it's entirely possible for a company to exercise in anti-competitive behavior in their own marketplace, running afoul of anti-trust laws.
There certainly is in European law.
Oh, I didn't know one can install other OS on iPhones.
Same reasoning could be applied years ago: Nobody forces users to use Windows.
Why does this matter? By choosing an iPhone you choose iOS.
2. Open
3. Customer friendly
Pick two.
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)?
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.
So, with Apple, pick none I guess?
(activate developer mode by proving physical control — in the past it was a screw, now it's sitting through a few minutes of pressing the power button when asked; from dev mode you can go further and flash custom CPU and EC firmware)
This results in competing app stores being required to obtain consent for every single app installation and update while the Play Store can do whatever it likes without any user interaction.
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).
There's precedent against this in US v. Microsoft Corp.
You as a dev just create a simple parked webpage for your app and you are done. So many barriers to entry are just dissolved. At no upfront cost to the developer. That’s huge.
I think the many many business that prefer to be on this environment, and always have, speaks to the value of that 30%.
Maybe 30% is a little high, it’s really hard and subjective to say. But it’s not crazy... there is a lot of value provided for that 30%.
Bandcamp does all of this and more, including selling physical merchandise, and only takes 15% of the sale price for digital goods, and 10% for physical merchandise.
> Oh, and the full updated toolchain and dev environments..
Developers have privilege of paying Apple $99 each year to develop and release iOS and macOS software.
1) One certainly can do this cheaper. But I’m going to hazard a guess (sight unseen) that bandcamp doesn’t provide as much for that 15%. The original point wasn’t “can you do it cheaper”, it was “do you get a desirable amount of value for the 30%”. I’m a consultant, and there are cheaper options than me. I feel I provide good value for the money, and I guess the fact that I have customers says the market agrees, but that doesn’t mean that some less expensive competitor isn’t a perfectly fine option. It means that the market says I am worth X so I can charge X... Nothing more.
2) The $99 argument is interesting. From my persepective: Enterprise tools cost a lot and 99$ yearly is insanely reasonable. I’d guess that it basically just covers the cost to them of supporting the devs and maintaining the interface to the dev side of security infrastructure. What I can say with some confidence is that it can’t cover even a fraction of the cost of creating and maintaining Xcode. I think the $99 is a way to recover some cost, and create a barrier to entry that makes sure that people who join are at least a tiny bit somewhat serious.
(oh, and I love your username... awesomeness)
I chose iOS because the experience has been near uniformly better on iOS (in my opinion, for me) since inception. The motivations aside, their profit margins aside, and other externalities aside... The apps work better and are better on average and overall. This can only be consistently explained by the curation (directly, or indirectly with follow-on effects) because the other things are effectively equal. You can get a great piece of Samsung hardware, Android is a perfectly fine system sitting on a very robust OS (Linux), and the tooling is fine on both platforms... This leaves the curation: of both the apps in the app stores, and of the systems that are built in it’s name. I guess you could also make the case that Apple just made a better framework, but that’s easily addressable (if so, git gud google) and probably not really true.
The apps are just better curated, not perfect but better. And better is, well... better. Can you find a great Android app? sure. When you average across the store, however, the it will be lower. I don’t want or need even more worse choices. I want access to a couple good ones, to easily choose one, and then to move on.
The devices are (on average and almost across the board) also filled with less cruft. I remember picking up a top tier Android phone from Sprint several years back that had the newest processor, faster than any iPhone at that exact time. But the stuff that Sprint and HTC put on it slowed it to a crawl. The experience was just “less than”. Again, I want the most certainty that the device will just work and work well.
Competition is great, vital even. I sincerely hope all the different options keep the market on it’s toes for a long time. But legislating handcuffs seem counterproductive here. We don’t have a monopoly by any reasonable definition of the word. And without that this kind of idea is just overreach. I would be like me forcing your company to let me use their building just because it’s a lovely building. If your building is the ONLY building, then it’s in the public’s interest to enforce open access. But it’s not, so this is just me taking your nice private building (that people chose to pay to be in because it’s nice) and making it a public place so I can do whatever the heck I like because I want to.
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.
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”.
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.
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. =)
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.
You say people don't talk about duopolies, but they certainly talk about oligopolies.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a30777891/ls1-v8-sw...
Don't you see a slight power asymmetry here?
You can always have self control and not install apps from outside the AppStore :)
In my case I've had to sideload Netflix because it won't run on a device with an unlocked bootloader (annoying).
This would actually make me far more interested in running iOS.
Until recently you couldn't purchase books in the Kindle app. I'd have happily downloaded a non-broken version from Amazon.
There are many examples of apps with strong safeguards that aren't allowed in the apple app store.
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.
In our case, the demand being consumers, they are friction-averse and if you don't have a rock solid and unique value proposition, they tend to stay wherever they are.
Facebook is running into the same issue trying to launch their Facebook Gaming app on iOS. Apple keeps rejecting them because it's an app store, according to their policies.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/technology/apple-ios-face...
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.
Most of them involve access to peripherals (USB, Serial, HID, NFC, Bluetooth, MIDI), sensors (magnetometer, proximity, ambient light), and device state (battery status, memory pressure, network information).
Several of these are not even available to native applications on iOS.
Yes there are categories of apps that require a few of these, but certainly the majority do not require any.
Developers clamored for a native API, which they got the next year.
Seeing how catastrophically bad search is on the App Store, this wouldn't work most of the time. Apple would have to make search usable first.
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).
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.
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.
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.
They wouldn't get the 30% cut.
If the app store generated $54.2bn in revenue in 2019, then Apple only keeps about $16.25bn assuming a 30% cut. I can see why they would want to expand that in to the macOS now, but I don't think they are willing to part with that to a third party like Google or Amazon, as they could dominate them on their own platform.
Quick search will show articles. Some might point straight to their earnings.
Currently the TOS to join the enterprise development program are extremely restrictive but these could be updated to allow a better (IMO) distribution model.
I don't want to see a 3rd party app store gain popularity on iOS but would love for the current TOS for enterprise program to be expanded. This should also open in-app purchases to happen without Apple being involved. I'd love to drop support for apple/google in-app purchases and just use stripe for our website and inside our apps. One set of billing models and webhooks to worry about.
Could bake in referral code tracking to apps so developers know who is sending them business.
permitting hardware sellers to control what you install on it isn't just an apple issue -- see also john deere, nest, sonos. The right to repair movement includes a surprising number of farmers.
"While most people get apps from official sources such as Google Play or the App Store, there are hundreds of third-party app stores around the planet, especially in China, where Google Play cannot operate. As a result, Android, in particular, has many third-party app stores."
I think, your argument does not hold when put in the correct context.
Also, it is 17.5$ Billion within 5 years, to put a time frame on it.
Wait, wasn't Durov in bad terms with the Russian government and exiled?
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... or https://www.statista.com/statistics/216459/global-market-sha...