4 ms·

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

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.
BillinghamJ 6y ago
To be honest, I think Windows would be in a _much_ better state from a user perspective if it had been like the iOS ecosystem for the last decade. If you just want to use the damn thing and not spend time pissing about with sorting out the constant problems, incompatibilities, each app doing whatever it pleases, Windows is a nightmare right now > Ask yourself: in this world, would you happily use Windows as a developer? Would you welcome these restrictions as a consumer? Without a doubt, on both points
- NicoJuicy 6y ago
  I have been a windows user for 25 years. And saying incompatibilities on Windows obviously means you know nothing about Windows. Even vb6 applications still run on the platform and that's 30 years old! Note: I also use Ubuntu desktop and Ubuntu server ;)
  - benologist 6y ago
    You can also easily run a VM with any version of Windows going back decades, something Apple has also arbitrarily stifled.
- simion314 6y ago
  I don't believe you, you would prefer IE6 like stagnation because you don't want some people have a choice to side load application, because in your opinion your preferences should be forced on all, the things you don't need and use should be removed.
t-writescode 6y ago
But we're not in that world, because the biggest reason for there to be a problem in that world is Microsoft's market share. Apple doesn't have anywhere near the market share in the phone world that Microsoft has or had in the PC world. There really is another option: Android; and, if you don't trust the standard Android or Google, I hear there's alternatives you can put on your phone for the more privacy conscious. You really can vote with your wallet, still. I don't think that's the case for a product that doesn't even control 50% of the marketshare of devices in its main space.
surfpel 6y ago
I'd argue that the reason Apple devices are so popular is because of the restrictions that ensure quality. Would your app have any potential to make money on the App Store if there wasn't a huge customer base? > No more downloadable exes or installers So it's harder for a user to get a virus or some malicious App? Great. If Apple allows a service, it means they back it in a sense and people trust Apple. Would you really back a bunch of different stores with content you can't verify? > Microsoft can delete all programs from your PC remotely if they feel like it And lose their customer base? Sure? That's so unrealistic. > You have to pay Microsoft every year for the privilege of developing on their platform Grocery chains charge for shelf space. Also the fee is $99. There's also some fee waivers available. > If you charge for your app, Microsoft takes 30% of your revenue So you don't want to pay to be on the store and you don't want to pay to make money off their platform. They're just supposed to maintain a curated and near seamless platform for free? Are you suggesting users just pay more? Also, I'm seeing 30% thrown around a lot. It's 30% for a year and 15% after that, let's be clear about that. > Your app may be rejected or removed from the store at any time If theres a random app on my phone discovered to be malicious, PLEASE delete it. > Apple makes crazy amounts of money off the backs of developers Ok then how much money would YOU be ok with them making? What's the cutoff? Would you be ok with your app being capped in how much money it could make? I don't think so. > ..being paid for their devices and software by consumers Consumers pay directly for devices, not software. The only software they indirectly pay for is the 30%/15% fee that devs have to take into consideration. Let's stop pretending that 95% of users have any degree of technical literacy and that there's no value in what an App Store provides. I'm glad my non-technical friends and family don't have to worry about viruses or phishing as much after switching to Apple. If you really don't like these things as a user, then jailbreak or use Android or the Ubuntu phone or something. There's alternatives. Also, if using iOS/OSX was like using Windows, I wouldn't use it.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  so if we had it your way, Chrome would not exist and we'd still have IE6 or whatever
- modo_mario 6y ago
  Somehow google manages to have a store without fully locking your out of alternatives. Their position certainly makes it so they can and do behave as a monopsony in ways but certainly not to the same extent as apple. > If theres a random app on my phone discovered to be malicious, PLEASE delete it. Yet they also do it if the app competes with them or their functionality. Both google and Microsoft have gone to court for way less. >Grocery chains charge for shelf space. Grocery chains buy the product for resale. A notable difference. Grocery stores also have plenty of competition that can offer the same product. Consumers aren't locked into choosing one grocery store to buy from after purchasing a membership or some shit. Grocery stores aren't one of 2 viable options and generally can't dictate pricing of the seller and their cut. Grocery stores don't often pull anticompetitive shit like this: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-six-high-tech-companies-stop-entering-anticompetitive-employee https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-s... >Ok then how much money would YOU be ok with them making? What's the cutoff? Would you be ok with your app being capped in how much money it could make? I don't think so. Perhaps they could make money of value of the service they provide that being the hosting of apps and curating a nice app-store rather than you know being a monopsony.
jarjoura 6y ago
But these complaints aren't related to the EU anti-trust investigation. The EU case is very narrowly looking at Apple competing with 3rd party music and book stores by enforcing the 30% subscription fee even as it promotes its own internal offering. Your complaints could very well apply to things like Sony's Playstation and Microsoft's Xbox systems. They have operated under these constraints since the 90s.
- gondo 6y ago
  Step by step

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.

BillinghamJ 6y ago

To be honest, I think Windows would be in a _much_ better state from a user perspective if it had been like the iOS ecosystem for the last decade. If you just want to use the damn thing and not spend time pissing about with sorting out the constant problems, incompatibilities, each app doing whatever it pleases, Windows is a nightmare right now > Ask yourself: in this world, would you happily use Windows as a developer? Would you welcome these restrictions as a consumer? Without a doubt, on both points

NicoJuicy 6y ago
I have been a windows user for 25 years. And saying incompatibilities on Windows obviously means you know nothing about Windows. Even vb6 applications still run on the platform and that's 30 years old! Note: I also use Ubuntu desktop and Ubuntu server ;)
- benologist 6y ago
  You can also easily run a VM with any version of Windows going back decades, something Apple has also arbitrarily stifled.
simion314 6y ago
I don't believe you, you would prefer IE6 like stagnation because you don't want some people have a choice to side load application, because in your opinion your preferences should be forced on all, the things you don't need and use should be removed.

t-writescode 6y ago

But we're not in that world, because the biggest reason for there to be a problem in that world is Microsoft's market share. Apple doesn't have anywhere near the market share in the phone world that Microsoft has or had in the PC world. There really is another option: Android; and, if you don't trust the standard Android or Google, I hear there's alternatives you can put on your phone for the more privacy conscious. You really can vote with your wallet, still. I don't think that's the case for a product that doesn't even control 50% of the marketshare of devices in its main space.

surfpel 6y ago

I'd argue that the reason Apple devices are so popular is because of the restrictions that ensure quality. Would your app have any potential to make money on the App Store if there wasn't a huge customer base? > No more downloadable exes or installers So it's harder for a user to get a virus or some malicious App? Great. If Apple allows a service, it means they back it in a sense and people trust Apple. Would you really back a bunch of different stores with content you can't verify? > Microsoft can delete all programs from your PC remotely if they feel like it And lose their customer base? Sure? That's so unrealistic. > You have to pay Microsoft every year for the privilege of developing on their platform Grocery chains charge for shelf space. Also the fee is $99. There's also some fee waivers available. > If you charge for your app, Microsoft takes 30% of your revenue So you don't want to pay to be on the store and you don't want to pay to make money off their platform. They're just supposed to maintain a curated and near seamless platform for free? Are you suggesting users just pay more? Also, I'm seeing 30% thrown around a lot. It's 30% for a year and 15% after that, let's be clear about that. > Your app may be rejected or removed from the store at any time If theres a random app on my phone discovered to be malicious, PLEASE delete it. > Apple makes crazy amounts of money off the backs of developers Ok then how much money would YOU be ok with them making? What's the cutoff? Would you be ok with your app being capped in how much money it could make? I don't think so. > ..being paid for their devices and software by consumers Consumers pay directly for devices, not software. The only software they indirectly pay for is the 30%/15% fee that devs have to take into consideration. Let's stop pretending that 95% of users have any degree of technical literacy and that there's no value in what an App Store provides. I'm glad my non-technical friends and family don't have to worry about viruses or phishing as much after switching to Apple. If you really don't like these things as a user, then jailbreak or use Android or the Ubuntu phone or something. There's alternatives. Also, if using iOS/OSX was like using Windows, I wouldn't use it.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
so if we had it your way, Chrome would not exist and we'd still have IE6 or whatever
modo_mario 6y ago
Somehow google manages to have a store without fully locking your out of alternatives. Their position certainly makes it so they can and do behave as a monopsony in ways but certainly not to the same extent as apple. > If theres a random app on my phone discovered to be malicious, PLEASE delete it. Yet they also do it if the app competes with them or their functionality. Both google and Microsoft have gone to court for way less. >Grocery chains charge for shelf space. Grocery chains buy the product for resale. A notable difference. Grocery stores also have plenty of competition that can offer the same product. Consumers aren't locked into choosing one grocery store to buy from after purchasing a membership or some shit. Grocery stores aren't one of 2 viable options and generally can't dictate pricing of the seller and their cut. Grocery stores don't often pull anticompetitive shit like this: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-six-high-tech-companies-stop-entering-anticompetitive-employee https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-s... >Ok then how much money would YOU be ok with them making? What's the cutoff? Would you be ok with your app being capped in how much money it could make? I don't think so. Perhaps they could make money of value of the service they provide that being the hosting of apps and curating a nice app-store rather than you know being a monopsony.

jarjoura 6y ago

But these complaints aren't related to the EU anti-trust investigation. The EU case is very narrowly looking at Apple competing with 3rd party music and book stores by enforcing the 30% subscription fee even as it promotes its own internal offering. Your complaints could very well apply to things like Sony's Playstation and Microsoft's Xbox systems. They have operated under these constraints since the 90s.

gondo 6y ago
Step by step