17 ms·

I know I'm probably in the minority, but I really like things as they are and I'm just not interested in change here. The iOS and App Store ecosystem work extre

I know I'm probably in the minority, but I really like things as they are and I'm just not interested in change here. The iOS and App Store ecosystem work extremely well for me, including changes like forcing developers to allow users to sign in with Apple anonymously versus email, Google, or Facebook. I understand Spotify's complaint about competing with Apple Music, and that does have merit, but at the same time I kind of just don't really care. Spotify is also in the process of ruining podcasts by making them exclusive to their platform, so no real love lost here for me. W.r.t Apple Pay and NFC - for the love of god don't fuck with this. It's a perfect implementation as it currently is.

leokennis 6y ago
I agree with your sentiment. All major companies are assholes, but most of them in different areas. Likewise they are also angels in others. Don't complain Apple is an asshole in category A, when you yourself are an asshole in category B.
- jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
  So nobody can complain about Apple just because another company does "asshole" things too? Sorry but I don't think that is a good idea for customers.
  - leokennis 6y ago
    No, we end users and the general public can complain all we want (and preferably also vote with our wallets). But asshole companies complaining that other companies are assholes is very hypocritical IMHO.
    - arkades 6y ago
      It doesn't matter if they're hypocrites. At all. It matters that we create reasonable and sane policies and enforce them evenly and fairly across all market participants. We don't apply them selectively based on whether the company is "a nice guy." None of them are nice guys. They're not people, and folks need to stop anthropomorphizing them.
sigwinch28 6y ago
The ecosystems may currently work really well for you, the consumer, but that doesn't mean they work really well for the developers and businesses who supply the apps and services to you, the consumer, via Apple's services. An anticompetitive market may, in the long term, serve as the demise of the platform you currently really like as it is. Spotify (or especially smaller players) may be forced to abandon the App Store or might stay in it but go bankrupt, increase prices, or somehow degrade or modify their offering to keep afloat if they are so dependent on App Store customers. As for Apple Pay: yeah, I hope it stays the same. I hate 99% of banking apps and the less I have to interact with them the better. I'm already annoyed by iOS apps for loyalty card schemes which absolutely refuse to implement Wallet support for fixed barcodes present in their apps, presumably either due to incompetence or some tracking purpose.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  It’s for tracking purposes. Which is why I like Apple’s forced restrictions and “monopoly” of software on its devices.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > Which is why I like Apple’s forced restrictions and “monopoly” of software on its devices. A "monopoly" is not actually required for this. They can have their store and impose their restrictions even if there are competing stores. If users actually prefer those restrictions, they can still choose to buy apps only from that store, or only from stores that impose restrictions they like. That doesn't require the store to be tied to the hardware or to have a monopoly. But notice that users have no reason to prefer a store that takes a 30% cut or prohibits apps that compete with Apple's or rejects apps based on opaque and arbitrary reasoning or political pressure. So the store could still do all the things you want, but the competitive pressure would keep it from doing the things that only Apple wants, because then another store could impose the restrictions you want but not the bad ones.
SyneRyder 6y ago
Not sure why you were downvoted - while I personally don't agree, I can see that some would enjoy the very curated and controlled nature of Apple products. (I used to be an iPhone & Mac user for over a decade). The only thing I could nitpick, Apple are also buying podcasts and making them exclusively available to the Podcasts app, so they're also chasing the Spotify business model: https://www.macrumors.com/2020/05/21/apple-exclusive-original-podcast-content/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/05/21/apple-exclusive-origina...
- ericmay 6y ago
  Thanks for pointing that out - I wasn't aware. I don't agree with the practice by either company, but it has been obvious to me from the start that this was going to happen in the podcasting industry. It was just a matter of time. Thanks for the article. I recommend that others read it as well.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    It’s happening in all industries. Monthly recurring revenue > revenue from one time sale. Aka rent seeking.
tosers4 6y ago
> W.r.t Apple Pay and NFC - for the love of god don't fuck with this. It's a perfect implementation as it currently is. Yet it is not working with every bank out there. We already had a solution that let us pay using QR Codes, send money to contacts, and pay online stuff, and was integrated with every single bank operating in this beautiful country since 2014. I'm talking about MB Way.
adventured 6y ago
> I really like things as they are and I'm just not interested in change here. The kind of change the EU is primarily pursuing is of the monetary sort. They're looking to use fines against the US tech giants as a golden pot to raid to fill their $81 billion post Brexit budget hole. [1] This will continue for many years. The EU will attempt to extract tens of billions of dollars in fines from US companies, as much as they can by any means they can for as long as they can. The proper US response is to begin targeting prominent EU companies to damage financially. The US economy will recover much faster than the EU economy - as with the great recession - and that should be used to maximum advantage. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-budget/eu-leaders-to-clash-over-money-as-brexit-blows-hole-in-budget-idUSKBN20D2V0 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-budget/eu-leaders-to-c...
- rutthenut 6y ago
  You may want see what the actual complaints point to. Not this. The same issues affect US software providers too, btw
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Version 1: this means what it says and EU has an anti-monopoly committee that's not asleep at the wheel. Versions 2: evil EU is trying to 'extort' the poor tax-dodging multinationals.
the_duke 6y ago
Imagine an alternate reality where Windows is like the iOS ecosystem. * No more downloadable exes or installers, or stores like Steam. The only way to install software is via the Windows App Store. If something is not on there for whatever reason: though luck. * Microsoft can delete all programs from your PC remotely if they feel like it. * You have to pay Microsoft every year for the privilege of developing on their platform. * If you charge for your app, Microsoft takes 30% of your revenue. You don't have any other option, except to only provide your app on Linux, losing a large market. * If you want to support payments inside your application, you have to use the Microsoft Pay service, which also takes a hefty cut, or you have to inconvenience users with side channels like ordering via a website. Which might still get you banned. * Your app may be rejected or removed from the store at any time. Maybe because you broke some arbitrary rules, because it is politically inconvenient, or because you compete too closely with Microsoft software. Oh, and Microsoft also may mandate to see your source. * The only way to use private/internal apps is to pay Microsoft for the privilege of using their distribution mechanism. Ask yourself: in this world, would you happily use Windows as a developer? Would you welcome these restrictions as a consumer? This is increasingly important as phones and tablets become the primary device for many. I appreciate that a curated ecosystem has many advantages for users, but most of the above concerns are orthogonal to a well-maintained app store. Apple makes crazy amounts of money off the backs of developers - on top of being paid for their devices and software by consumers. They are highly incentivized to keep it that way. (Android has some similar issues, and shows that even with a somewhat more open system there is still plenty of monopolistic potential, but that's a longer topic)
- PeterStuer 6y ago
  Microsoft has been trying to move in that direction for years for its B2C segment. The 'mobile' world was 'nudged' on Windows users in a disastrous way with Windows 8.0. App stores for windows and other Microsoft 'platforms' (Outlook, SharePoint, ...) were introduced. The importance of extended validation code signing became more prominent, and an "S" mode was introduced for Windows 10 that lets the system restrict to running App store only applications.
- newbie578 6y ago
  Well put! You absolutely nailed it in each point, and when you look at it that way, the current problem is easily explained. Apple's (and Google Play's) operations are predatory and they need to change. Period.
wayneftw 6y ago
> The iOS and App Store ecosystem work extremely well for me... If Apple were forced to allow NFC access, third party stores and real side-loading, then nothing would change for you. You could continue to use their app store [0] and their payment app just like you are doing now. Choice isn't bad for anyone. > I'm just not interested in change here. You didn't say why or what change specifically would have a negative effect on your usage. [0] I prefer to use "app store" and not "App Store" since it's a generic term.
- snalty 6y ago
  >If Apple were forced to allow NFC access, third party stores and real side-loading, then nothing would change for you. You could continue to use their app store [0] and their payment app just like you are doing now. Not necessarily, if banks pull out of Apple Pay you might end up having to open each banking app every time you want to use that card, rather than having easy access to all your cards in one app (Apple Pay).
  - vertex-four 6y ago
    If you have no ability to choose banks that support the tooling you want to use with them, that's a problem with the banks, not Apple. Also: Android has their Card Emulation API that allows banks (and other developers) to implement their own apps that do what Google Pay does, and yet banks broadly support Google Pay, suggesting that's maybe not as much of an issue as you'd think.
    - ephimetheus 6y ago
      Do they show up in a unified list of cards?
      - vertex-four 6y ago
        Google Pay's interface is indeed a unified list of cards.
    - snalty 6y ago
m12k 6y ago
The app store ecosystem only works for me because I stopped being interested in new apps as a consumer, and as a dev I long ago gave up on making mobile apps with any hopes of making money on them. The lack of viruses due to the locked down nature of iOS is a blessing, but app store discoverability is terrible and the only apps with any chance of 'making it' have marketing budgets in the millions, or happen to have connections on the inside at the App Store. It's shovelware or big budget games, with very little room in the middle for 'normal' devs. Anyways, none of that excuses how Apple is forcing developers to pay them 30%. It's particularly egregious in a case like Spotify, where that 30% directly limits Spotify's ability to match Apple Music on price. But it's unacceptable even outside of that. Apple 1) Demands 30% of payment made with their in-app-payment system 2) Disallows alternative payment methods presented in-app and 3) Disallows sideloading, so there's no alternative for companies who can't compete under the terms of 1) and 2). At least one of those 3 need to change, and I hope the EU will manage to force that to happen.
grezql 6y ago
it screws devs like me. Creators like me pay 30% gov tax, then 30% fee to apple and in the end we sit with 40% revenue. Then comes apple with their new "search ads",if you dont give them more of your 40% revenue, they will rank your app so far down that you will have to send AppStore URLs to ur friends just so they can find the app. How about fixing the appstore instead? there are apps that do not even function anymore ranking far higher. Not to mention, if you app does well keep an eye on the next iOS, it may just steal your idea and integrate it with the OS to kill your business over night. Absolute scumbags, 1.5$ trillion and its still not enough. Atleast if we had Windows Phone or some other alternatives for high-end consumers we could have some competition. But its just abuse of monopoly as it is.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Nitpicking, but you pay taxes on the 70% you receive from Apple, not on the list price of your app, so you should end up with 49% of list price after the Apple tax and the government tax.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  There are too many applications. If Apple opened the floodgates, your app would be worth even less, and have to dig through countless loads of shovelware to be visible. There is no fair ranking system, and expecting it is just unrealistic.
polotics 6y ago
A perfect implementation that no payment service provider may compete against Apple pay, this ensuring the whole ecosystem can keep on gouging vendors with high fees? Seriously?
arkades 6y ago
> I understand Spotify's complaint about competing with Apple Music, and that does have merit, but at the same time I kind of just don't really care. Spotify is also in the process of ruining podcasts by making them exclusive to their platform, so no real love lost here for me Spotify isn't a person. I don't care about their feelings or their hypocrisy. It's a matter of policy, which ought to be applied evenly and fairly. Monopoly behavior is harmful, and should be curbed when reasonable - whether it's being done /by/ someone we (dis)like or /to/ someone we (dis)like.
swiley 6y ago
The way the App Store is set up is literally why there aren’t popular self bistable chat applications. It’s not just you, they’ve distorted the evolution of the internet and likely contributed to the current fake news issues we have.
kwhitefoot 6y ago
No one will be forcing you to install Spotify or a banking app.
dariosalvi78 6y ago
I'll give you an example: I have developed a free app for medical use. The app was requested by doctors, I didn't just make it up. When I submitted it, it was first denied because, according to the reviewer, it was "too simple". I appealed, and finally the app got accepted. Happy ending, all good. But that made me think also: what if they decided it was not worth publishing? I mean, there was not very much I could do to make it "less simple" really. I would have given up. But why should patients be denied of a useful service because one company has complete control of what goes and what does not go onto their phones? See it like you want to see it, but it's unacceptable.
m463 6y ago
I would like to be able to run my own software on an iphone without having to ask permission from apple. Really, it is unconscionable.
fsociety 6y ago
I’m not so sure this is the same thing as when the App Store was first created. What is happening today with the application store is more about making money and less about making a great product. Re: Spotify vs. Apple Music, do understand that if Apple decided to pull Spotify from the App Store because it’s a direct competitor to Apple Music that would be devastating to Spotify. There should be laws against anti-competitive behaviors when you run a platform that hosts other people’s businesses. Otherwise that is way too much power for one corporation to wield.

leokennis 6y ago

I agree with your sentiment. All major companies are assholes, but most of them in different areas. Likewise they are also angels in others. Don't complain Apple is an asshole in category A, when you yourself are an asshole in category B.

jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
So nobody can complain about Apple just because another company does "asshole" things too? Sorry but I don't think that is a good idea for customers.
- leokennis 6y ago
  No, we end users and the general public can complain all we want (and preferably also vote with our wallets). But asshole companies complaining that other companies are assholes is very hypocritical IMHO.
  - arkades 6y ago
    It doesn't matter if they're hypocrites. At all. It matters that we create reasonable and sane policies and enforce them evenly and fairly across all market participants. We don't apply them selectively based on whether the company is "a nice guy." None of them are nice guys. They're not people, and folks need to stop anthropomorphizing them.

sigwinch28 6y ago

The ecosystems may currently work really well for you, the consumer, but that doesn't mean they work really well for the developers and businesses who supply the apps and services to you, the consumer, via Apple's services. An anticompetitive market may, in the long term, serve as the demise of the platform you currently really like as it is. Spotify (or especially smaller players) may be forced to abandon the App Store or might stay in it but go bankrupt, increase prices, or somehow degrade or modify their offering to keep afloat if they are so dependent on App Store customers. As for Apple Pay: yeah, I hope it stays the same. I hate 99% of banking apps and the less I have to interact with them the better. I'm already annoyed by iOS apps for loyalty card schemes which absolutely refuse to implement Wallet support for fixed barcodes present in their apps, presumably either due to incompetence or some tracking purpose.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
It’s for tracking purposes. Which is why I like Apple’s forced restrictions and “monopoly” of software on its devices.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > Which is why I like Apple’s forced restrictions and “monopoly” of software on its devices. A "monopoly" is not actually required for this. They can have their store and impose their restrictions even if there are competing stores. If users actually prefer those restrictions, they can still choose to buy apps only from that store, or only from stores that impose restrictions they like. That doesn't require the store to be tied to the hardware or to have a monopoly. But notice that users have no reason to prefer a store that takes a 30% cut or prohibits apps that compete with Apple's or rejects apps based on opaque and arbitrary reasoning or political pressure. So the store could still do all the things you want, but the competitive pressure would keep it from doing the things that only Apple wants, because then another store could impose the restrictions you want but not the bad ones.

SyneRyder 6y ago

Not sure why you were downvoted - while I personally don't agree, I can see that some would enjoy the very curated and controlled nature of Apple products. (I used to be an iPhone & Mac user for over a decade). The only thing I could nitpick, Apple are also buying podcasts and making them exclusively available to the Podcasts app, so they're also chasing the Spotify business model: https://www.macrumors.com/2020/05/21/apple-exclusive-original-podcast-content/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/05/21/apple-exclusive-origina...

ericmay 6y ago
Thanks for pointing that out - I wasn't aware. I don't agree with the practice by either company, but it has been obvious to me from the start that this was going to happen in the podcasting industry. It was just a matter of time. Thanks for the article. I recommend that others read it as well.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  It’s happening in all industries. Monthly recurring revenue > revenue from one time sale. Aka rent seeking.

tosers4 6y ago

> W.r.t Apple Pay and NFC - for the love of god don't fuck with this. It's a perfect implementation as it currently is. Yet it is not working with every bank out there. We already had a solution that let us pay using QR Codes, send money to contacts, and pay online stuff, and was integrated with every single bank operating in this beautiful country since 2014. I'm talking about MB Way.

adventured 6y ago

> I really like things as they are and I'm just not interested in change here. The kind of change the EU is primarily pursuing is of the monetary sort. They're looking to use fines against the US tech giants as a golden pot to raid to fill their $81 billion post Brexit budget hole. [1] This will continue for many years. The EU will attempt to extract tens of billions of dollars in fines from US companies, as much as they can by any means they can for as long as they can. The proper US response is to begin targeting prominent EU companies to damage financially. The US economy will recover much faster than the EU economy - as with the great recession - and that should be used to maximum advantage. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-budget/eu-leaders-to-clash-over-money-as-brexit-blows-hole-in-budget-idUSKBN20D2V0 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-budget/eu-leaders-to-c...

rutthenut 6y ago
You may want see what the actual complaints point to. Not this. The same issues affect US software providers too, btw
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
Version 1: this means what it says and EU has an anti-monopoly committee that's not asleep at the wheel. Versions 2: evil EU is trying to 'extort' the poor tax-dodging multinationals.

the_duke 6y ago

Imagine an alternate reality where Windows is like the iOS ecosystem. * No more downloadable exes or installers, or stores like Steam. The only way to install software is via the Windows App Store. If something is not on there for whatever reason: though luck. * Microsoft can delete all programs from your PC remotely if they feel like it. * You have to pay Microsoft every year for the privilege of developing on their platform. * If you charge for your app, Microsoft takes 30% of your revenue. You don't have any other option, except to only provide your app on Linux, losing a large market. * If you want to support payments inside your application, you have to use the Microsoft Pay service, which also takes a hefty cut, or you have to inconvenience users with side channels like ordering via a website. Which might still get you banned. * Your app may be rejected or removed from the store at any time. Maybe because you broke some arbitrary rules, because it is politically inconvenient, or because you compete too closely with Microsoft software. Oh, and Microsoft also may mandate to see your source. * The only way to use private/internal apps is to pay Microsoft for the privilege of using their distribution mechanism. Ask yourself: in this world, would you happily use Windows as a developer? Would you welcome these restrictions as a consumer? This is increasingly important as phones and tablets become the primary device for many. I appreciate that a curated ecosystem has many advantages for users, but most of the above concerns are orthogonal to a well-maintained app store. Apple makes crazy amounts of money off the backs of developers - on top of being paid for their devices and software by consumers. They are highly incentivized to keep it that way. (Android has some similar issues, and shows that even with a somewhat more open system there is still plenty of monopolistic potential, but that's a longer topic)

PeterStuer 6y ago
Microsoft has been trying to move in that direction for years for its B2C segment. The 'mobile' world was 'nudged' on Windows users in a disastrous way with Windows 8.0. App stores for windows and other Microsoft 'platforms' (Outlook, SharePoint, ...) were introduced. The importance of extended validation code signing became more prominent, and an "S" mode was introduced for Windows 10 that lets the system restrict to running App store only applications.
newbie578 6y ago
Well put! You absolutely nailed it in each point, and when you look at it that way, the current problem is easily explained. Apple's (and Google Play's) operations are predatory and they need to change. Period.

wayneftw 6y ago

> The iOS and App Store ecosystem work extremely well for me... If Apple were forced to allow NFC access, third party stores and real side-loading, then nothing would change for you. You could continue to use their app store [0] and their payment app just like you are doing now. Choice isn't bad for anyone. > I'm just not interested in change here. You didn't say why or what change specifically would have a negative effect on your usage. [0] I prefer to use "app store" and not "App Store" since it's a generic term.

snalty 6y ago
>If Apple were forced to allow NFC access, third party stores and real side-loading, then nothing would change for you. You could continue to use their app store [0] and their payment app just like you are doing now. Not necessarily, if banks pull out of Apple Pay you might end up having to open each banking app every time you want to use that card, rather than having easy access to all your cards in one app (Apple Pay).
- vertex-four 6y ago
  If you have no ability to choose banks that support the tooling you want to use with them, that's a problem with the banks, not Apple. Also: Android has their Card Emulation API that allows banks (and other developers) to implement their own apps that do what Google Pay does, and yet banks broadly support Google Pay, suggesting that's maybe not as much of an issue as you'd think.
  - ephimetheus 6y ago
    Do they show up in a unified list of cards?
    - vertex-four 6y ago
      Google Pay's interface is indeed a unified list of cards.
  - snalty 6y ago

m12k 6y ago

The app store ecosystem only works for me because I stopped being interested in new apps as a consumer, and as a dev I long ago gave up on making mobile apps with any hopes of making money on them. The lack of viruses due to the locked down nature of iOS is a blessing, but app store discoverability is terrible and the only apps with any chance of 'making it' have marketing budgets in the millions, or happen to have connections on the inside at the App Store. It's shovelware or big budget games, with very little room in the middle for 'normal' devs. Anyways, none of that excuses how Apple is forcing developers to pay them 30%. It's particularly egregious in a case like Spotify, where that 30% directly limits Spotify's ability to match Apple Music on price. But it's unacceptable even outside of that. Apple 1) Demands 30% of payment made with their in-app-payment system 2) Disallows alternative payment methods presented in-app and 3) Disallows sideloading, so there's no alternative for companies who can't compete under the terms of 1) and 2). At least one of those 3 need to change, and I hope the EU will manage to force that to happen.

grezql 6y ago

it screws devs like me. Creators like me pay 30% gov tax, then 30% fee to apple and in the end we sit with 40% revenue. Then comes apple with their new "search ads",if you dont give them more of your 40% revenue, they will rank your app so far down that you will have to send AppStore URLs to ur friends just so they can find the app. How about fixing the appstore instead? there are apps that do not even function anymore ranking far higher. Not to mention, if you app does well keep an eye on the next iOS, it may just steal your idea and integrate it with the OS to kill your business over night. Absolute scumbags, 1.5$ trillion and its still not enough. Atleast if we had Windows Phone or some other alternatives for high-end consumers we could have some competition. But its just abuse of monopoly as it is.

gamblor956 6y ago
Nitpicking, but you pay taxes on the 70% you receive from Apple, not on the list price of your app, so you should end up with 49% of list price after the Apple tax and the government tax.
ntsplnkv2 6y ago
There are too many applications. If Apple opened the floodgates, your app would be worth even less, and have to dig through countless loads of shovelware to be visible. There is no fair ranking system, and expecting it is just unrealistic.

polotics 6y ago

A perfect implementation that no payment service provider may compete against Apple pay, this ensuring the whole ecosystem can keep on gouging vendors with high fees? Seriously?

arkades 6y ago

> I understand Spotify's complaint about competing with Apple Music, and that does have merit, but at the same time I kind of just don't really care. Spotify is also in the process of ruining podcasts by making them exclusive to their platform, so no real love lost here for me Spotify isn't a person. I don't care about their feelings or their hypocrisy. It's a matter of policy, which ought to be applied evenly and fairly. Monopoly behavior is harmful, and should be curbed when reasonable - whether it's being done /by/ someone we (dis)like or /to/ someone we (dis)like.

swiley 6y ago

The way the App Store is set up is literally why there aren’t popular self bistable chat applications. It’s not just you, they’ve distorted the evolution of the internet and likely contributed to the current fake news issues we have.

kwhitefoot 6y ago

No one will be forcing you to install Spotify or a banking app.

dariosalvi78 6y ago

I'll give you an example: I have developed a free app for medical use. The app was requested by doctors, I didn't just make it up. When I submitted it, it was first denied because, according to the reviewer, it was "too simple". I appealed, and finally the app got accepted. Happy ending, all good. But that made me think also: what if they decided it was not worth publishing? I mean, there was not very much I could do to make it "less simple" really. I would have given up. But why should patients be denied of a useful service because one company has complete control of what goes and what does not go onto their phones? See it like you want to see it, but it's unacceptable.

m463 6y ago

I would like to be able to run my own software on an iphone without having to ask permission from apple. Really, it is unconscionable.

fsociety 6y ago

I’m not so sure this is the same thing as when the App Store was first created. What is happening today with the application store is more about making money and less about making a great product. Re: Spotify vs. Apple Music, do understand that if Apple decided to pull Spotify from the App Store because it’s a direct competitor to Apple Music that would be devastating to Spotify. There should be laws against anti-competitive behaviors when you run a platform that hosts other people’s businesses. Otherwise that is way too much power for one corporation to wield.