12 ms·

Apple and Google not only created the device and funded the R & D for the features, but also created the APIs, the tools, the infrastructure, and attracted the

Apple and Google not only created the device and funded the R & D for the features, but also created the APIs, the tools, the infrastructure, and attracted the (hundreds of millions of) users. The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable. Want to bypass that cut? Build a web app and make it play well on mobile. I can understand the argument that they should accept the 30% cut to be listed in and downloadable from the App Store. However, an iOS device is also the property of its owner and the owner should be allowed (morally) to install software outside the app store. Even if that comes with potential security problems. Android already permits this. A world where you can only install software accepted by a gatekeeper is a world that is similar to one where you can only read books that are accepted by a gatekeeper.

gst 8y ago
> However, an iOS device is also the property of its owner and the owner should be allowed (morally) to install software outside the app store. Even if that comes with potential security problems. Android already permits this. The owner has the choice between iOS and Android. Why should Apple change their policies (and lose revenue) if the majority of users appear to be sufficiently happy with those restrictions (otherwise they wouldn't buy iOS devices)?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- danieldk 8y ago
  I won't deny that there are many many users that do not care. However, I disagree that there is a real choice in the current duopoly. Android allows you to install applications outside the app store. However, you trade this possibility for continuous data harvesting by Google and only a limited window of updates. So, the choice is largely: some freedom ^ (privacy | long-term updates) Freedom, privacy, and long-term updates are all important to me, so there is no real choice.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Just because you aren't having all your desires perfectly catered to does not mean that there is not real choice. It means that, like everything else in life, you have to make tradeoffs.
    - xeromal 8y ago
      Exactly. That's what grownups do.
      - michaelmrose 8y ago
        Since we the users are 99.999999% of the populace why do we have to make trade offs in user freedom? You say grownups I hear that some are too weak willed to stand up for their rights.
    - binomialxenon 8y ago
      I really think we should ask more of technology rather than to just accept Locked-Thing vs Spy-Thing. It's practically an imposed dichotomy, and people deserve better.
      - sidr 8y ago
        Other models of monetization are simply not sufficient. If you disagree, please feel free to write your own mobile OS (you can even start by just forking Android).
        binomialxenon 8y ago
        I think (end-user computing) corporations have just become selfish. Even pre-iPhone, phones such as Windows Mobile, Palm Pilot, Symbian, and J2ME all allowed sideloading and didn't mine the users' data (as far as I know). On the desktop, Windows and OS X were both profitable and successful without locking out third-party software or mining all the user's data. Money can still be made through app stores (exclusivity is not needed - I'm sure the Play Store is still hugely profitable despite sideloading), from hardware sales, from subscription services, from licensing software to OEMs, and more. What we're seeing is that companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft are not content to make a lot of money while still keeping some respect for the user. They realize that even more money can be made screwing over the user. This really causes harm to society, as a lot of people realize they're being screwed but feel like they have no choice or agency in the matter. In my opinion, this is a good example of why capitalism and the free market are not ultimate goods in themselves but are rather a means to an end, and can certainly be used for evil purposes.
- chc 8y ago
  Because morality does not revolve around the question "Will a megacorp lose some revenue?" There are many things companies and individuals could do that would make them money which they are nonetheless constrained from doing because those things are wrong. Also, the idea that users understand these issues and are passing judgment on them when they buy an iPhone doesn't seem realistic for the majority of iPhone owners. If you walked around polling iPhone users about this issue anywhere besides Silicon Valley, the most common answer would probably be "What?" And that's ignoring the fact that someone might object to this but still buy an iPhone for unrelated reasons. So even if their dollars could act as moral validation, I don't think it's reasonable to say they do in practice.
- gowld 8y ago
  Because of antitrust concerns. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/antitrust.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/antitrust.asp
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    iOS still has less than 50% of the market, however.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  Competitive markets ultimately benefit all users even if users aren't smart enough to promote their existence by voting with their wallets. Kind of like having fire exits benefits users even if people don't pick retailers based on their existence.
ballenf 8y ago
If the whole model depends on getting the cost of the device plus a cut of everything I spend going forward, it's more like I'm renting the device than owning. It would be users demanding this, not devs, if the cost were more like a sales tax instead of VAT (added after instead of before total).
- TheCoelacanth 8y ago
  Except you're not renting. They use the word sell, so you are buying. If you want to lease something to people, you need to call it leasing and have an explicit lease agreement. You can't sell something to someone and still keep control of it.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Apple very explicitly sells the same experience as Nintendo aka ‘Just Works.’ Many people even some software developers like me love ‘Just Works’ and the only way to get that is via gatekeepers. Either software like Chrome or Safari which restricts what developers can do, or people. And frankly people plus transaction fees cost enough that the App Store is not very profitable for them. PS: I have owned an iPhone for 10+ years and never bought anything from the App Store. Downloaded plenty of things, but someone else was paying for it.
stcredzero 8y ago
However, an iOS device is also the property of its owner and the owner should be allowed (morally) to install software outside the app store. Even if that comes with potential security problems. This is supportable by well known technologies. The user could opt-in to various app-signature blacklists and whitelists. App stores and hardware vendors could publish their official app blacklists and whitelists, and even require their use for warranty purposes. On the other hand, the user could also opt-out.
- coralreef 8y ago
  So how does one install an app not from the iOS app store?
bepotts 8y ago
Only on the internet does the notion of a "gatekeeper" leading to some authoritarian universe make sense. In the real word, it isn't immoral to sell devices that don't run non-trusted binaries. If Tim Cook and Sundar Pichai could speak to every user and tell them "the reason our platform's default behavior is to not run non-trusted apps is because we don't want your device to get viruses or perform non-trusted functionality", and you told those users that it's "immoral for these companies to make those decisions for you", nine times out of ten those users would choose to have all developers go through Apple and Google instead.
- TheCoelacanth 8y ago
  It's reasonable as a default choice. It's not reasonable as the only choice.
  - yongjik 8y ago
    On the flip side, Apple standing its ground and forcing poor companies to get their apps approved by Apple played a big role in South Korea's mobile banking experience not being a total shitfest filled with five Windows-only security plugins (per bank) that will fight with the user and each other. Sure, in an alternative universe, you can always say no to the whole nation's banking industry and refuse to do mobile banking. Just like you can say no and not buy an iPhone in our world. Disclaimer: Never had an iPhone. This comment is based on what I have heard.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      Very interesting, do you have any cites for that? S. Korea has always been dominated by Android phones (and specifically Samsung, the home brand), so it's amazing that Apple gets the credit for the mobile banking experience. What's even more amazing is that iPhones weren't even sold in Korea until 2010, long after most Korean banks had released mobile apps, so Apple must have somehow manipulated time and space to change Korean mobile banking...
      - 8y ago
aiyodev 8y ago
> the owner should be allowed (morally) to install software outside the app store The inability to do this is a feature. I don’t want my phone to run random garbage like Android does. The curated app store is the main reason I keep buying iPhones.
- freedomben 8y ago
  You realize you don't have to allow this on your Android phone right? Are you worried that you aren't responsible enough to leave unknown sources disabled (as it is from the factory)? Trying to understand how you view being forced to comply, a feature over the option to leave it on or turn it off.
  - aiyodev 8y ago
    So many things. Software from unknown sources can have malicious code. But, even if it doesn’t, it can update itself with malware later. The lack of curation leaves the Android ecosystem with millions of garbage apps riddled with bugs and malware. The easiest way to sift through all the crap is to only install apps that have iOS versions. I trust myself to not enable unknown sources. I trust myself to only install reliable appe as I did for years before switching to the iPhone (owned the G1). But I do not trust children. I do not trust family members and friends. And I don’t have the patience to fix their crappy android phones after they install garbage from the Google Play store. Also, I would rather use a device that is supported with security updates for years instead of months.
tommymachine 8y ago
The Fahrenheit 451 analogy sort of falls apart though when they give open access to the internet via Safari. What Apple does with the App Store is maintain a safe & friendly environment for users, where they can trust they won't run into things like viruses or pornography. This creates a healthy market for developers who don't necessarily have the notoriety of a Netflix / Spotify / Amazon to push their product, and instead rely at least somewhat on organic App Store searches to be discovered. So if these larger companies want to bypass that sales funnel, and they can afford to do so, it's not a huge deal. They're still providing value to the platform in making iOS a better experience. The 30% cut is something along the lines of "Hey, we spend a lot of time maintaining this market place so that users will trust the download button, and we're giving you this opportunity to benefit from that by paying us a cut so you too can benefit from being found organically via our curated market place." From the standpoint of a fledgling app company, I'd rather pay them to maintain that sales funnel for me. Whereas a Netflix / Amazon already has the brand strength to where they don't need it, so the 30% is very expensive for them (because they can generate plenty of sales on their own, and aren't reliant on organic searches for users to discover their product). On Google Play, the market is very different and since it's not curated, there is so much more fluff to sift through for users, and it makes it much harder for a brand to gain notoriety through Google Play alone -- hence why so many new app products start on iOS and then grow into Android. The sales funnel created by any non-curated market place will never be as strong as a curated one (assuming the curation is carried out in the interest of promoting welfare of the customers/users on the platform, their privacy, safety, satisfaction, etc.).
- aetherson 8y ago
  Your parent is arguing not that it's wrong to charge a 30% cut to list in the app store, but that it's wrong of Apple to prevent loading apps from any source besides the app store.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    Essentially its probably difficult to charge 30% in a market where people have reasonably easy access to multiple markets in the same way its hard to charge $20 per gallon of milk in markets where people can drive to other grocery stores its a monopoly rent.
butterfi 8y ago
We already have gatekeepers for books. The publisher who decides what to publish, the book store owner who decides what to stock, and the librarian who selects what book stays or goes. Gatekeeping doesn't seem like much of an argument.
- renjimen 8y ago
  There are thankfully many publishers and booksellers, each with their own ideas of how to do business. If you buy an iPhone you only have one place to "shop"
  - mcphage 8y ago
    > There are thankfully many publishers and booksellers, each with their own ideas of how to do business. There are also thankfully many phone manufacturers, each with their own ideas of how to do business.
    - renjimen 8y ago
      But only really two phone operating systems to choose from and many reasons why you are stuck with an iPhone (I have one for work, many friends have one so they can use iMessage, group think, etc.). I think the book analogy is a poor one, sorry!

gst 8y ago

> However, an iOS device is also the property of its owner and the owner should be allowed (morally) to install software outside the app store. Even if that comes with potential security problems. Android already permits this. The owner has the choice between iOS and Android. Why should Apple change their policies (and lose revenue) if the majority of users appear to be sufficiently happy with those restrictions (otherwise they wouldn't buy iOS devices)?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
danieldk 8y ago
I won't deny that there are many many users that do not care. However, I disagree that there is a real choice in the current duopoly. Android allows you to install applications outside the app store. However, you trade this possibility for continuous data harvesting by Google and only a limited window of updates. So, the choice is largely: some freedom ^ (privacy | long-term updates) Freedom, privacy, and long-term updates are all important to me, so there is no real choice.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Just because you aren't having all your desires perfectly catered to does not mean that there is not real choice. It means that, like everything else in life, you have to make tradeoffs.
  - xeromal 8y ago
    Exactly. That's what grownups do.
    - michaelmrose 8y ago
      Since we the users are 99.999999% of the populace why do we have to make trade offs in user freedom? You say grownups I hear that some are too weak willed to stand up for their rights.
  - binomialxenon 8y ago
    I really think we should ask more of technology rather than to just accept Locked-Thing vs Spy-Thing. It's practically an imposed dichotomy, and people deserve better.
    - sidr 8y ago
      Other models of monetization are simply not sufficient. If you disagree, please feel free to write your own mobile OS (you can even start by just forking Android).
      - binomialxenon 8y ago
        I think (end-user computing) corporations have just become selfish. Even pre-iPhone, phones such as Windows Mobile, Palm Pilot, Symbian, and J2ME all allowed sideloading and didn't mine the users' data (as far as I know). On the desktop, Windows and OS X were both profitable and successful without locking out third-party software or mining all the user's data. Money can still be made through app stores (exclusivity is not needed - I'm sure the Play Store is still hugely profitable despite sideloading), from hardware sales, from subscription services, from licensing software to OEMs, and more. What we're seeing is that companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft are not content to make a lot of money while still keeping some respect for the user. They realize that even more money can be made screwing over the user. This really causes harm to society, as a lot of people realize they're being screwed but feel like they have no choice or agency in the matter. In my opinion, this is a good example of why capitalism and the free market are not ultimate goods in themselves but are rather a means to an end, and can certainly be used for evil purposes.
chc 8y ago
Because morality does not revolve around the question "Will a megacorp lose some revenue?" There are many things companies and individuals could do that would make them money which they are nonetheless constrained from doing because those things are wrong. Also, the idea that users understand these issues and are passing judgment on them when they buy an iPhone doesn't seem realistic for the majority of iPhone owners. If you walked around polling iPhone users about this issue anywhere besides Silicon Valley, the most common answer would probably be "What?" And that's ignoring the fact that someone might object to this but still buy an iPhone for unrelated reasons. So even if their dollars could act as moral validation, I don't think it's reasonable to say they do in practice.
gowld 8y ago
Because of antitrust concerns. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/antitrust.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/antitrust.asp
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  iOS still has less than 50% of the market, however.
michaelmrose 8y ago
Competitive markets ultimately benefit all users even if users aren't smart enough to promote their existence by voting with their wallets. Kind of like having fire exits benefits users even if people don't pick retailers based on their existence.

ballenf 8y ago

If the whole model depends on getting the cost of the device plus a cut of everything I spend going forward, it's more like I'm renting the device than owning. It would be users demanding this, not devs, if the cost were more like a sales tax instead of VAT (added after instead of before total).

TheCoelacanth 8y ago
Except you're not renting. They use the word sell, so you are buying. If you want to lease something to people, you need to call it leasing and have an explicit lease agreement. You can't sell something to someone and still keep control of it.
- Retric 8y ago
  Apple very explicitly sells the same experience as Nintendo aka ‘Just Works.’ Many people even some software developers like me love ‘Just Works’ and the only way to get that is via gatekeepers. Either software like Chrome or Safari which restricts what developers can do, or people. And frankly people plus transaction fees cost enough that the App Store is not very profitable for them. PS: I have owned an iPhone for 10+ years and never bought anything from the App Store. Downloaded plenty of things, but someone else was paying for it.

stcredzero 8y ago

However, an iOS device is also the property of its owner and the owner should be allowed (morally) to install software outside the app store. Even if that comes with potential security problems. This is supportable by well known technologies. The user could opt-in to various app-signature blacklists and whitelists. App stores and hardware vendors could publish their official app blacklists and whitelists, and even require their use for warranty purposes. On the other hand, the user could also opt-out.

coralreef 8y ago
So how does one install an app not from the iOS app store?

bepotts 8y ago

Only on the internet does the notion of a "gatekeeper" leading to some authoritarian universe make sense. In the real word, it isn't immoral to sell devices that don't run non-trusted binaries. If Tim Cook and Sundar Pichai could speak to every user and tell them "the reason our platform's default behavior is to not run non-trusted apps is because we don't want your device to get viruses or perform non-trusted functionality", and you told those users that it's "immoral for these companies to make those decisions for you", nine times out of ten those users would choose to have all developers go through Apple and Google instead.

TheCoelacanth 8y ago
It's reasonable as a default choice. It's not reasonable as the only choice.
- yongjik 8y ago
  On the flip side, Apple standing its ground and forcing poor companies to get their apps approved by Apple played a big role in South Korea's mobile banking experience not being a total shitfest filled with five Windows-only security plugins (per bank) that will fight with the user and each other. Sure, in an alternative universe, you can always say no to the whole nation's banking industry and refuse to do mobile banking. Just like you can say no and not buy an iPhone in our world. Disclaimer: Never had an iPhone. This comment is based on what I have heard.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    Very interesting, do you have any cites for that? S. Korea has always been dominated by Android phones (and specifically Samsung, the home brand), so it's amazing that Apple gets the credit for the mobile banking experience. What's even more amazing is that iPhones weren't even sold in Korea until 2010, long after most Korean banks had released mobile apps, so Apple must have somehow manipulated time and space to change Korean mobile banking...
    - 8y ago

aiyodev 8y ago

> the owner should be allowed (morally) to install software outside the app store The inability to do this is a feature. I don’t want my phone to run random garbage like Android does. The curated app store is the main reason I keep buying iPhones.

freedomben 8y ago
You realize you don't have to allow this on your Android phone right? Are you worried that you aren't responsible enough to leave unknown sources disabled (as it is from the factory)? Trying to understand how you view being forced to comply, a feature over the option to leave it on or turn it off.
- aiyodev 8y ago
  So many things. Software from unknown sources can have malicious code. But, even if it doesn’t, it can update itself with malware later. The lack of curation leaves the Android ecosystem with millions of garbage apps riddled with bugs and malware. The easiest way to sift through all the crap is to only install apps that have iOS versions. I trust myself to not enable unknown sources. I trust myself to only install reliable appe as I did for years before switching to the iPhone (owned the G1). But I do not trust children. I do not trust family members and friends. And I don’t have the patience to fix their crappy android phones after they install garbage from the Google Play store. Also, I would rather use a device that is supported with security updates for years instead of months.

tommymachine 8y ago

The Fahrenheit 451 analogy sort of falls apart though when they give open access to the internet via Safari. What Apple does with the App Store is maintain a safe & friendly environment for users, where they can trust they won't run into things like viruses or pornography. This creates a healthy market for developers who don't necessarily have the notoriety of a Netflix / Spotify / Amazon to push their product, and instead rely at least somewhat on organic App Store searches to be discovered. So if these larger companies want to bypass that sales funnel, and they can afford to do so, it's not a huge deal. They're still providing value to the platform in making iOS a better experience. The 30% cut is something along the lines of "Hey, we spend a lot of time maintaining this market place so that users will trust the download button, and we're giving you this opportunity to benefit from that by paying us a cut so you too can benefit from being found organically via our curated market place." From the standpoint of a fledgling app company, I'd rather pay them to maintain that sales funnel for me. Whereas a Netflix / Amazon already has the brand strength to where they don't need it, so the 30% is very expensive for them (because they can generate plenty of sales on their own, and aren't reliant on organic searches for users to discover their product). On Google Play, the market is very different and since it's not curated, there is so much more fluff to sift through for users, and it makes it much harder for a brand to gain notoriety through Google Play alone -- hence why so many new app products start on iOS and then grow into Android. The sales funnel created by any non-curated market place will never be as strong as a curated one (assuming the curation is carried out in the interest of promoting welfare of the customers/users on the platform, their privacy, safety, satisfaction, etc.).

aetherson 8y ago
Your parent is arguing not that it's wrong to charge a 30% cut to list in the app store, but that it's wrong of Apple to prevent loading apps from any source besides the app store.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  Essentially its probably difficult to charge 30% in a market where people have reasonably easy access to multiple markets in the same way its hard to charge $20 per gallon of milk in markets where people can drive to other grocery stores its a monopoly rent.

butterfi 8y ago

We already have gatekeepers for books. The publisher who decides what to publish, the book store owner who decides what to stock, and the librarian who selects what book stays or goes. Gatekeeping doesn't seem like much of an argument.

renjimen 8y ago
There are thankfully many publishers and booksellers, each with their own ideas of how to do business. If you buy an iPhone you only have one place to "shop"
- mcphage 8y ago
  > There are thankfully many publishers and booksellers, each with their own ideas of how to do business. There are also thankfully many phone manufacturers, each with their own ideas of how to do business.
  - renjimen 8y ago
    But only really two phone operating systems to choose from and many reasons why you are stuck with an iPhone (I have one for work, many friends have one so they can use iMessage, group think, etc.). I think the book analogy is a poor one, sorry!