13 ms·

It's baffling to me. I can buy a USD1k+ device and still not be able to install on it the apps I want because the manufacturer doesn't want me to, and this is l

• scarface74 6y ago
  You paid $1000 knowing that you couldn’t install arbitrary software. You had a choice. You could have bought an Android like 85% of the world.
  • actuator 6y ago
    So, if Apple had 85% market share this would have been not fine then? At what marketshare do we decide it is fine for them to not do this? We can always ask the user to look for an alternative. Honestly, this whole think has stunk for a long time. iOS is a platform and it is dominant. It severely reeks of monopolistic behaviour when they use their leverage on one platform to gain advantage in a new one. Apple Music doesn't have to pay the 30% tax while also getting free product placement from Apple as compared to something like Spotify.
    • scarface74 6y ago
      Yes. Users have choices. You don’t have to have the nanny state to protect you from buying devices that don’t meet your needs. Apple Music doesn't have to pay the 30% tax while also getting free product placement from Apple as compared to something like Spotify. Spotify hasn’t allowed in app payments for years and don’t pay the 30% “tax” either. Are you also against every grocery store having store brands and “slotting fees”?
      • actuator 6y ago
        Well, Spotify doesn't allow it to so that it doesn't have to pay the tax. Everyone wants to make the signup flow as easy as they can, do you think they would not want to increase their userbase. If we didn't have nanny state to protect us probably Microsoft's dominance would have went unchallenged and you won't have the plethora of different services that we see.
        • scarface74 6y ago
          Right because after the ruling , Microsoft became a shell of its former self, lost its position as one of the five most valuable companies in the US and lost its dominance in the desktop operating system and office productivity market.....
          • actuator 6y ago
            It just becomes speculative now but many would argue that did help the other big companies in that group you talked about to grow. https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2018/9/6/17827042/antitrust-1990s-microsoft-google-aol-monopoly-lawsuits-history https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2018/9/6/17827042/anti...
            • scarface74 6y ago
              Google was dominant way before Chrome existed. Apple never did gain significant market share on the desktop and became profitable first with music and then mobile - MS tried to compete in both. Facebook success had nothing to do with the anti trust trial and neither did Amazon.
          • paulryanrogers 6y ago
            A similar ruling did work to increase browser diversity in Europe with the ballot. I wouldn't argue that the US's wrist slap is evidence that anti-trust is worthless. Consider if Standard Oil, company towns, or child labor were still common in the US. Without regulation it's possible we'd still live in that nightmare once called 'normal'.
    • Despegar 6y ago
      There's no requirement in law that all technology businesses need to hew to any particular philosophy or ideology of computing; no one has to be "open". This has always chafed a lot of tech people because Apple is successful while being "closed". The only thing that would change this is if Apple was found to be "dominant" or have "monopoly power" in a "relevant market" as held by a court.
      • actuator 6y ago
        But aren't they a dominant power already. Android can have 80% market share but the app store revenue reality is 2:1 in the favour of iOS.[1] Isn't it anti competitive for a new service like a movie streaming app to be at a competitive disadvantage financially than if Apple decides to launch their own. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/4/21121558/google-80-billion-android-developers-apple-155 https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/4/21121558/google-80-billion...
        • scarface74 6y ago
          That argument is going to be a winning one. Apple achieved market dominance by charging three times as much for the same product - those bastards. It’s not Apple’s fault that the entire Android ecosystem is a commoditized race to the bottom.
          • actuator 6y ago
            I didn't quote the revenue of iPhones, I quoted the revenue of app developers from the respective stores being 2:1 in favour of iOS.
            • scarface74 6y ago
              So now that evil monopolist not only convinced people to pay three times as much now they convinced those poor more affluent consumers to give developers twice as much. Cry me a river....
        • Despegar 6y ago
    • matwood 6y ago
      Actually yes. Instead of thinking that you're buying an iPhone, you're buying an ecosystem that includes the app store, iMessage, iCloud, etc... If you don't like that option, there is Android. Consumers go in knowing that is the ecosystem they are buying into. Developers also go in knowing the same. Neither are forced, and have other options that are relatively comparable.
      • actuator 6y ago
        Well, Apple also benefited from those apps being there, it is not like only the app developers benefited. The biggest complaint against Windows Phone used to be the app ecosystem and eventually that's what killed it as well. Phone market being essentially a duopoly, I don't want a independent service developer to be financially disadvantaged to compete and eventually the platforms owning all the big money making services.
  • wayneftw 6y ago
    50% in the USA. And next to nobody releases apps for Android only precisely because of that number. The problem has way more to do with how this affects developers then how it affects consumers. The amount of control that Apple has over the US market is the reason why they should be targeted by an anti-trust investigation here.
    • nojito 6y ago
      Good luck proving antitrust with such a small marketshare. You also fail to share that iOS developers are paid much much more when compared to android and they only have to target fewer devices and versions which makes developing much much easier than the fragmented cluster in android.
    • scarface74 6y ago
      Google Play also has a 30% fee. The only prominent app that I am aware of that tried to get around the fee is Fortnite by releasing outside of the store. Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony also get a cut of every game sold - even physical games. US monopoly law has never been about producers. It’s been about consumers. Are consumers really better off with the insecure by design desktop operating systems? How much malware, ransomware, and viruses have there been on Windows? I’m not excusing Macs. The only thing that makes them safer is few people bother about writing malware for them.
      • notatoad 6y ago
        What google play does not have is a ToS that requires you to use the Google Play billing and forbids you from talking about other ways to pay for the app. (Google play does have a lot of restrictions around this, but it's not quite as draconian as apple's. what basecamp is doing here would be allowed on the play store)
        • scarface74 6y ago
          So Google Play should be bringing in a lot more money if Apple’s policy is hurting developers. Obviously, it’s not.
  • whatever1 6y ago
    Microsoft was fined for just shipping an OS with a default browser. You were still allowed to install any browser you wanted. If Microsoft was found guilty, I don’t see why Apple is innocent.
    • scarface74 6y ago
      Microsoft also had 95% market share and was fined for not allowing third party OEMs to ship alternate browsers and even charging them for PCs shipped without their operating system.
    • hn_check 6y ago
      The was quite literally no alternative to Microsoft in many scenarios, and windows enjoyed a >95% marketshare. You simply couldn't run a business if you weren't running Windows. iOS has <15% marketshare, and millions of people transition back and forth across platforms regularly. I was on Android, now I'm on iOS, and tomorrow I could be on Android if there was a compelling case. Apple is abusive, and needs to be reigned in, but comparing iOS to the late-90s Windows situation betrays a misunderstanding of the situation in the 90s.
      • zakki 6y ago
        I don’t think it is fair to count iOS market share by comparing it to all androids devices. Should be between iOS and total android flagship devices. Also, last I read 2-3 years ago, Apple profit crushed all android makers profit. Maybe we should use this for market share?
        • scarface74 6y ago
          So now we are going to make a carve out for “all devices over $x”. Users have a choice between Androids “open ecosystem” and Apple’s “walled garden”. The consumers made a choice to spend more on Apple’s devices using their own free will. Do we really need the government to tell them that they made the wrong choice?
          • 6y ago
  • deeblering4 6y ago
    Or a $399 iPhone SE
  • harpratap 6y ago
    That number is old and outdated. iOS is 26% right now - https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide
  • dilap 6y ago
    Sure, I had a choice, but I would have a better choice if we legally compelled Apple to open its platform.
    • scarface74 6y ago
      Why don’t we just have the government come out with “Five Year Plans”?
      • realusername 6y ago
        It's just basic consumer laws like any others, no need to bring out the red scare.
        • scarface74 6y ago
          Why not just keep it simple. Why not have a government run cell phone company that meets the need of the people?
          • realusername 6y ago
            Or why even have regulations anyway? Why not allowing cars to be sold without seatbelts or products without warranties? I think you can find the answer yourself.
            • scarface74 6y ago
              Yes because car safety is comparable to a few geeks whining about Apple’s “walled garden” when their are literally hundreds of phones running Android.
              • realusername 6y ago
                That's just missing completely the point, user rights needs to be there whether you care about them personally or not, like any other right.
• threeseed 6y ago
  Your outrage would've made a bit more sense a decade ago when the App Store first came out. But since then it's now the standard for platforms to restrict what apps can be installed. For example you can't install any apps you want on a Tesla, Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo, Samsung TV, Sony Camera.
  • syshum 6y ago
    The fact the problem is getting worse is cause for concern not dismissal of the argument Do you find this trend acceptable and desirable
    • threeseed 6y ago
      I would love to be able to build and install any apps I want on my Playstation. But then I remember that I live in the real world where piracy exists and companies aren't charities.
      • henriquez 6y ago
        Okay but this is missing the point. The issue with the Hey app is that Apple is inconsistently applying their rules, allowing big players like Netflix and Spotify to not use Apple subscriptions, but trying to force a smaller developer to give up a third of their revenue for following the exact same model. This seems like an unfair and deceptive business practice on Apple’s part and good fodder for a lawsuit.
      • liability 6y ago
        I don't think a charity would be selling a thousand dollar phone, so you're right, Apple is not a charity.
    • lostgame 6y ago
      But Apple did not start this trend. On consoles for decades I could only install approved software. That never made the consoles any less useful. In fact, it gave a guarantee of quality - even literally in the form of the ‘Nintendo Seal of Quality’, that determined what I was buying at the very least wouldn’t mess up my console. Similarly, unlike the Play Store; I can feel confident downloading virtually anything from the App Store. Sure, there has been some crap ware, and apps basically designed to exploit money from you via IAP, but I have never hit or seen actual malware like I have on Android. So, I find this desirable, yes. I am lucky enough to have a developer license for iOS and can literally install whatever I want. I use the Provenance emulator to emulate Sega games virtually every day. I could never get that from the App Store. Yes, I had to pay a $99USD privilege for that. I’m okay with that. It costs wayyyy more to get a license and devkit to develop on a console. I would never want my actual primary mobile phone to ever be vulnerable to malware I could easily download, I will more than happily pay for the privilege, and I am statistically not alone when I see it as a feature, not a bug.
• andrewzah 6y ago
  You knew that when you purchased an iphone. I know this and I simply don't care as an end user. All I want in a phone is something that I never have to fiddle with or configure, and it will just work. I've been happy with the 4s, 6, and X I've had over the years. Very minimal complaints, since nothing is ever perfect.
  • realusername 6y ago
    The point of having user rights is that it's there even if you don't need them personally, it's not only about yourself but all the ecosystem around it, and that's why these companies must be forced to respect user rights.
• Artlav 6y ago
  Even more baffling is that i can't just install a program i wrote myself on a device i own without having to get it signed and have that signature renewed once a week. Like, what's the point of having a non-programmable computer?
  • threeseed 6y ago
    What's the point of having a non-programmable dishwasher ? And the answer is because people don't think of phones, dishwashers, TVs, cars, gaming consoles etc as computers even though by any technical definition they are.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • chooseaname 6y ago
      iPhones are designed to run apps. They are general purpose computers even if their name says otherwise. Comparing them to dishwashers is ... well you can't.
    • dahfizz 6y ago
      You're being dishonest. A phone is not a dishwasher, a phone is a phone. We have examples of modern phones and computers that allow users to install their own programs. It's only Apple that refuses to treat its customer's with respect.
      • vosper 6y ago
        > You're being dishonest. I don't think it's fair to say that the user you replied to is lying intentionally. There's nothing in what they said to suggest that. You may not agree with them, that doesn't make them a liar.
        • dahfizz 6y ago
          Maybe "intellectually dishonest" would be a better term. I do think they are being intentionally misleading by putting iPhones in the same category as washing machines, while conveniently forgetting that Android and Windows exists.
• subsubzero 6y ago
  I agree on your outrage, hopefully lawsuits are formed as Apple does not want to seem to budge. When the iphone first came out back in 2007/08 jailbreaking was pretty popular to get unlicensed apps on the phone, but try to update iOS when a security fix etc came out and watch the whole phone go back to factory defaults. I gave up years ago on installing anything not on the app store.
• WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
  Yeah, on the flip side my $200 Moto G7 just got Android 10.0 which was unexpected...
• SergeAx 6y ago
  Every time I see a new device on the display stand, I am saying to myself: the device's owner is the one who has a root access to it. This is never the case with iOS devices.
• carreau 6y ago
  Correct you can't install app on the apple screen stand Pro, it is only a block of aluminum. [Yes USD 1k+ civilized country count taxes]
• dsjoerg 6y ago
  People should be free to buy and sell whatever kind of phone they want!
• userbinator 6y ago
  AFAIK jailbreaking is also legal, but Apple certainly tries very hard to keep you under its control. I was never much into Apple stuff, but helped friends and family with jailbreaking their iProducts over the first few years, but they also eventually got tired of the patronising attitude and are now using (rooted) Androids. They all bought Apple because of the alluring marketing and fashion-oriented design, and I bet that's why we continue to see such popularity with Apple products; the majority of people just don't look beyond the pretty face and fashion statement.
  • aledalgrande 6y ago
    You are voiding your warranty if you jailbreak. edit: seems what I read in the Apple forums was wrong
    • Valkhyr 6y ago
      That is a common misconception, but is actually not true. Source: I used to work at the Genius Bar, with a stint in APAC AppleCare Retail Service Operations, and have confirmed this very question on one occasion with superiors in the US AppleCare operations team (= the people who come up with all standard operating procedures observed by the Genius teams around the world). That said, what is true (and may be misrepresented both by overzealous employees (one reason I went to some lengths to confirm it) and/or misunderstood by customers) is: - Apple Retail may (and often will) ask customers to restore their phone to a non-jailbroken state on their own (as opposed to doing it in store, for them) if they came to the Genius Bar for issues that have a potential root cause in software, and refuse service until the phone is reverted to a non-jailbroken state. - as with any intentional physical damage to the device, in the event that a software modification resulted in damage to the device that cannot be undone by restoring to stock iOS, Apple may choose to either charge you out of warranty repair/replacement pricing OR even refuse service. I am not aware of any jailbreak tweaks that would cause irrevertible damage, but I never dug deep into all the possible tweaks, have not jailbroken a device in years and am generally out of touch with the iOS ecosystem these days. Caveat: I switched jobs 3.5 years ago, so this stance may have changed. I consider it unlikely given my experience, but I am happy to hear evidence to the contrary :-)
• karl11 6y ago
  They aren’t being consistent. Basecamp is monetized identically and is in the App Store. So is Fastmail. So is Slack. Etc.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• shoulderfake 6y ago
  This is why I never buy iPhones, been with android since dumping iphone 4
• aabbcc1241 6y ago
  You would jailbreak your phone
• zaroth 6y ago
  > There's essentially no way for me to install an app on my iPhone if Apple doesn't want me to, even though I paid over $1000 for it. For $99 per year you can install whatever you want on your iPhone. Cydia Impactor makes it extremely easy to do, and even provides workarounds for not paying the $99 if you don’t mind doing a little more work. This is also used as the basis for a thriving black market in hacked apps unfortunately (but not exactly surprising).
  • pritambaral 6y ago
    > For $99 per year you can install whatever you want on your iPhone. Does it not get automatically removed after 7 days?
    • zaroth 6y ago
      That’s if you are using a free developer account. The $99 account gives you a provisioning profile valid for a year.
• wetpaws 6y ago
  You've supported this practice in a first place by buying Apple device.
• chrischen 6y ago
  This is most likely the pressure Apple is facing on services revenue as their hardware sales decline. The UX on the services side of Apple is extremely poor right now. It's incredibly difficult to see and manage your ongoing subscriptions, hard to cancel, and notoriously easy to accidentally subscribe to things (back when fingerprint authorization first came out—slightly better nowadays).
• kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
  You are absolutely right. Unfortunately people only find this outrageous if Google or Microsoft do it. They are ok with Apple playing the role of a self-appointed benevolent dictator.
• millimeterman 6y ago
  > I can buy a USD1k+ device and still not be able to install on it the apps I want because the manufacturer doesn't want me to Yes. Good. Sure it might benefit you and me, but Apple is designing their devices for normal people. Normal people don't care and likely benefit from the quality control of everything going through the curated App Store. I agree that this kind of behavior sucks for you and me but we are a tiny niche audience. It's unreasonable to expect our needs to be catered to over the majority.
  • pritambaral 6y ago
    > ... likely benefit from the quality control of everything going through the curated App Store. You might be right in other cases, but in the context of TFA Apple's curation is not being beneficial to anyone but Apple.
• afiori 6y ago
  They could literally sell broken phones for 20k$ and it would be legal (if properly marketed)