24 ms·

Dear Apple: Here’s How to Stop the Antitrust Investigations

144 points by mpweiher 6y ago

fsflover 6y ago
Congress: "Does Apple restrict, in any way, the ability of competing web browsers to deploy their own web browsing engines when running on Apple’s operating system?" Apple: "The purpose of this rule is to protect user privacy and security." https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU05/20190716/109793/HHRG-116-JU05-20190716-SD036.pdf https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU05/20190716/109793/HHRG... via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21587191 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21587191 Upd: Giving the freedom to users is not the goal of Apple. Quite the opposite.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  Allow a browser engine to be used if it meets strong privacy restrictions.
- _ph_ 6y ago
  A browser engine is a very security relevant part. Especially considering the ability to execute generated code, if you consider a JIT for Javascript code. This means, allowing arbitrary engines can have a significant security impact. As much as I resent most restrictions set up by Apple, this has at least some justification. However, it should be possibly to set up a proper sandbox for a browser app, so that security issues are contained to it and consequentially, it should be possible to run other browser engines on your devide.
  - realusername 6y ago
    > A browser engine is a very security relevant part. Especially considering the ability to execute generated code, if you consider a JIT for Javascript code. This means, allowing arbitrary engines can have a significant security impact. As much as I resent most restrictions set up by Apple, this has at least some justification. That argument would work a little bit better if Apple wasn't shipping their products with the most outdated browser engine of all the current browser market in the first place...
    - threeseed 6y ago
      It's also the browser that by far uses the least memory, battery life etc. Apple has made it quite clear that they are more deliberate when adding new features than Google or Microsoft.
      - realusername 6y ago
        I do agree with that, you can say it uses less memory and less battery but you really can't call it more secure in any way.
      - grishka 6y ago
        And it also takes ages to implement new and more efficient standards. As of 2020, Safari is literally the only web browser with a significant market share that doesn't support webp images and opus audio.
- simonh 6y ago
  Alternate Apple: "Yes, so what?" Creating an obligation on companies to support competitors products on their own products, and dictating the commercial and technical terms of how they must implement that access seems a pretty extreme step. Many vendors sell devices that allow limited customisation via apps. Cars allow some software client options and not others. Games consoles allow some software such as games and entertainment apps and not others. Feature phones had limited curated app download options in their 'stores' long before the iPhone. If we can require Apple to accept apps we dictate onto their store using their infrastructure on terms they don't get to determine, why can't we also require Nintendo to accept non-game apps or even a third party browser on the Switch? Why can't Spotify, or hundreds of streaming media or podcast companies require car companies to provide access to them to install their client app on car infotainment systems? Where does this principle of imposing design features and commercial obligations, and technical implementation details on companies to benefit their competitors end?
  - virtue3 6y ago
    I think you should re-read everything about the Microsoft antitrust cases and apply that to Apple. It's pretty obvious to me what accounts to antitrust here and it's been very obvious for years. I think you should ask yourself really deeply "if this was the case on OSX would I be ok with it?" And use that lens.
    - ratww 6y ago
      It's not the same case. The allegation back then was that Microsoft was abusing monopoly power on Intel PCs in order to achieve victory in the browser wars. Also, an Intel executive even testified that the intent of Microsoft was indeed to kill Netscape. Neither of those things have happened here: Apple doesn't have monopoly power on cell phones, nor has achieved victory in a new browser wars due to bundling Safari. Whether new browsers (or browser engines, to be more precise) can be installed in iOS or not is a different matter altogether. Remember that back in the day it was possible to install Netscape on Windows, and Microsoft still got fire for it.
    - simonh 6y ago
- theandrewbailey 6y ago
  I seem to recall that one of their competitors got into very hot water about 20 years ago for almost the same reason, but I can't remember more details. \s
LoSboccacc 6y ago
"dear paesant, thanks for your concern, but we are going to stop the investigation the traditional way, using our millions from anticompetitive customers practices" - apple
- rydre 6y ago
  And we will bribe the officials. Lobby I mean, lobby.
- ThaJay 6y ago
  First sensible post on this topic. All others talk about the content like the premise rings true, but Apple will never do stuff like that, same as how the current tech giants don't have a place in this world post capitalism.
  - LoSboccacc 6y ago
    well it's "hacker news" so people around here will keep spinning around technological solutions patting the back of each other and wondering why is apple so shortsighted while they're so smart and all-seeing
gampleman 6y ago
As a consumer of Apple products I am not too keen on any of these suggestions. I agree that developers for Apple's platforms would like these and perhaps there is some trickle-down effect for consumers. > 1: Enable users to set default app preferences. Fine, but really Maps and Email is pretty much the only one I care about. This is the best suggestion of the bunch. > 2: Open up alternate payment mechanisms… without the Apple tax. Nah. Last thing I want is to have to fill out my credit card information in every app and worry about what's going to happen with it. Apple Pay and IAP work perfectly adequately from the consumer standpoint. > 3: Allow sideloading of iOS apps. I don't think we have a problem with lack of iOS apps. In fact I wish App Store Review was stricter and took more issue with quality and dodgy business practices (i.e. excessive and addictive use of IAP). > 4: Give third-party developers equal access to APIs. What this is asking for is for Apple to effectively release features later or not at all. Or have some even more draconian App Store rules. I don't want every random app having full hardware access to spy on me as it pleases. > 5: Stop sherlocking third-party developers. Right, so Apple is not supposed to give me free access to nice features so I can continue to pay money to someone else. Right.
- mpweiher 6y ago
  > [alternate payment mechanisms] ...fill out my credit card information in every app Why is that the only alternative? How about app1 \ / payment service1 app2 - OS payment service framework - payment service2 app3 / \ payment service3 This is how OSes should and used to work. To define the interfaces and provide frameworks for services to integrate.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - rimliu 6y ago
    And ditch the Apple tax, right? So Apple will end up will all of the headaches of the integration with none of the benefits. And if some "payment service" stops working, guess whose fault it would be.
seven4 6y ago
The trouble is that as a tech company - first you want to build a moat around your success and barriers to competitors usurping your hard-won position/user-base. IF you do this very well you become a "tech giant" - then you want to continue building that moat/pulling away from your competitors BUT now you have to look like you aren't anti-competitive. So i guess it's useful to think about: what does Apple want to do vs what does apple want to look like its doing? Wherever the internal/external impetus of an organisation are at odds - progress will be painful/prolonged. Then again if you ran Apple would you be quick about ceding the moat?
- Mindwipe 6y ago
  > Then again if you ran Apple would you be quick about ceding the moat? I'd hope I'd be smart enough to see how completely corrosive it's been to Apple. It's made their software development process fat and lazy, and propped up bad products that should have been dropped or fixed. Apple's software reputation was invincible ten years ago, and now it's shipping Mac apps that can't even full screen video properly. I think, in the long run, that will cost the company far more than it gains from it's behaviour.
dustinmoris 6y ago
> Open up alternate payment mechanisms… without the Apple tax I don't agree with this, as a developer and a consumer. As a consumer it is extremely nice that I don't have to deal with all sorts of exotic and different payment gateways. Some accept Amex, some don't. Some try to store my card without my consent, some don't. Some make it really obvious that not being charged during a trial period some don't. Some payment gateways are buggy, slow and frustrating and some are really good. As a consumer I bloody hate that and I love iOS and Apple for the fact that I can securely put payment methods behind Apple Pay and then know that I can do any in-app purchases via an already established and well working gateway. No faffing about with some other shite. From a developer perspective I don't see why anyone should use the AppStore as a distribution channel to a huge market and completely circumvent Apple's cut when clearly they are offering a lot of value by making this possible in the first place? For example, my VPN I can either buy a license by going to their website and go through a 5 minute checkout process or I can do a 5 second checkout via the iOS app. The first one goes 100% to the VPN developers, the second also means that a cut goes to Apple. Sounds fair to me, because I literally purchased a VPN in a moment where I didn't have the time of going to a website. I was abroad, I was on a mobile and I had limited time to get quickly a subscription so I could use the VPN and I would have not bought it if it wasn't for the ease and speed which the app allowed me to do. This was only the case because Apple does such a diligent job in keeping it so sleek. Without Apple Pay I would have not bought that license and they would have not lost 30% of the sale, but effectively 100%.
- pentae 6y ago
  Do you think your desire for convenience should outweigh the benefits to users/devs who want freedom of choice?
  - rahkiin 6y ago
    If a developer does not want their product sold to customers of Walmart because Walmart takes % percentage and has a certain set of rules, then the developer can go away and not sell to Walmarts customers. Same analogy works with Xbox/PlayStation customer base.
rimliu 6y ago
Lots of wishful thinking. If these were allowed none of them would have the effect author claims they would. See Android. 1. There are already alternative mail clients. Does author think that not allowing any of them being default tehy do not compete on quality? This is the only one I see as the reasonable one, albeit not for the reasons claimed in the article. 2. Uhm, Apple Pay is as frictionless as it can get. I have no desire to keept entering my credit card details into every app which thnks they have a better payment processor. 3. Apple does not "arbitrarily" reject apps. And it's restrictions that bring innovation, not the other way around. Author wants sideload apps, but somehow Apple would still be responsible for the security. Let's see how that works for Android. 4. Just no. I do not want John Doe's app accessing my text messages. 5. Well you wanted the competition in #1, so how about that.
- lifty 6y ago
  I agree that Apple provides a great experience, and I am an Apple user for most of my computing needs; but Apple's approach uses the user experience stick to squeeze out monopolistic benefits out of their platform when it suits them, and when it doesn't, they ignore user expereince. 1. This is a clear one, and Apple chooses to ruin user experience here. I only use Apple Mail because it's the default app. 2. Me neither. Why don't they do something for payments that is similar to how they treat password managers. A standardised way to treat payment data. 3. Apple does arbitrarily reject apps. They just signed a special deal with Amazon that bypasses the app store rules, for gods sake. 4. I agree, and Apple has come out with good ways of allowing apps to special APIs. 5. Well, what competition is it when someone has to pay 30% from their revenue?
  - rimliu 6y ago
    I've been using iPhones for 11 years now and I have never used Apple Mail app. Currently I am using Outlook which is very good on iOS.
woadwarrior01 6y ago
This coming from a company whose primary product has a rent seeking subscription model, seems a bit like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. When Apple released Sidecar, it was a net positive for all the consumers who didn't want to pay a monthly subscription fee for a simple feature like using your iPad as a secondary display for their Mac. There are a few holdouts from the days when you could pay for software up-front and then pay for major updates if you wished to. Products from Serif (makers of Affinity Photo) come to mind. I wish more software products went back to this simpler and IMHO, better revenue model.
- bonaldi 6y ago
  The model you like also vanished because of Apple: first, they sold their own apps like Keynote for <$10, creating a really low price anchor, second – they don't support free trials, creating pressure for free versions of apps, and third and most importantly they don't support upgrade pricing, which pushes everyone to subscription pricing.
Eric_WVGG 6y ago
I disagree with a lot of this list, it this particular item I think deserves so,e attention. > #4: Give third-party developers equal access to APIs. AirPods are great. Maybe a little… too great. It is actually impossible for a competitor to make a pair of earbuds that matches with the iPhone as easily as AirPods because that API is private. This strikes me as unfair and anticompetitive; no matter how much better a particular pair of earbuds might be, they cannot work as well as AirPods because Apple doesn’t want them to. There’s a similar thing happening with the Apple Watch. Google Maps has abilities that Apple Maps doesn’t have, but Apple won’t let you use drop-in replacements for mapping. So instead of a safe bike ride, I’m heading the wrong direction on one-way streets or on freeways thanks to Apple Maps. This just sucks. Some commenters here say “I don’t want third parties to have access to private information.” There’s a line somewhere, I don’t think anyone sane would demand access to _all_ APIs. But there are some clear examples where the platform maker is giving unfair advantage to their own accessories and services, this is dipping into antitrust territory.
- tachion 6y ago
  One could argue, that you can create an experience as good as AirPods or even exceeding it. All you need to do is to develop a 'protocol' better than the horrible Bluetooth, make it an industry standard and convince companies to adopt it. The only reason why Apple had to (and could at the same time) work on that aspect of headphones is because Bluetooth sucks and Apple is in a business of taking things that are widely used and suck, making them suck much less and selling them for a premium price.
  - Eric_WVGG 6y ago
    Right, that’s sort of the “well if you don’t like Apple, you can always use Android” argument. The problem with that is, let’s say there’s one thing on the Google-controlled platform you don’t like (let’s say privacy, to over-simplify)… “well if you don’t like Android, you can always use iOS” Platform makers have a level of power over consumer choice that monopoly law isn’t equipped to address.
    - 6y ago
SllX 6y ago
Astropad undermines their own argument by pointing out that Apple forced them to change their business plan by adding features to their product they otherwise wouldn’t have. One of my first jobs was at a coffee shop, owned by a guy who once tried to expand his coffee shop to other locations, only to see Starbucks snatch those locations from his fingertips at the last second by walking in and offering the landlord a lot more money. He never did expand, and actually he just went out of business in part due to this government mandated economic shutdown, but he was old enough to retire so I wouldn’t cry for him, he’s got his wife and health and plenty of time to enjoy his retirement. I digress. The guy who owned the coffee shop knew the real estate fellow at Starbucks who would walk in and offer these last minute deals. He would always tell him, “it’s just business.” Apart from walking in and taking the prime pickings of the potential retail spots to open a coffee shop, Starbucks had another much more well known practice of opening up shop across the street or right next door to other coffee shops. Now what would happen really depended on what how the coffee was like at the indie. Starbucks would actually drive up interest in the area for coffee, so if your small indie coffee shop served good coffee, then Starbucks opening up next door might be the best thing to ever happen to you. Sales would go up, more people in the neighborhood would start drinking coffee increasing your possible pool of customers. If your coffee sucked though, then you were probably going out of business. Your customers would try the Starbucks coffee, find it was better than you served and the writing would be on the wall. People would still come by and try your coffee, but if it wasn’t as good, they wouldn’t be back. Software isn’t special. You can break your back putting your all into a product that people love and get a lot of value out of, but you’re not entitled to success just because you worked hard, and you aren’t entitled to go without competition, even from the platform vendor. When you find yourself at odds with the platform vendor, then you go multi-platform, you change, you adapt. I bought my phone and iPad knowing their limitations, and I was okay with them. Every one of those developers I see in the App Store chose to be there, and if they weren’t there, somebody else would be. The App Store created the opportunity for small indies like Marco Arment to build sustainable businesses on, and for services like Spotify to reach a larger audience, and for services like Uber and Lyft and AirBnB to get their start. Facebook and Google changed strategies and went mobile first more than a decade ago when it became clear how big of a deal it would be, and Facebook paid $1B for Instagram, what was then a small startup of about 30 employees that got their start making an iPhone app. Not every business is successful though, and going through Apple is part of the cost of doing business because it’s their storefront on their platform, a software platform where the included list of features can expand or shrink on a dime. App Store developers are in the same boat as YouTubers where their stream of revenue depends on a platform that changed over time, and YouTubers figured it out a while ago that to stay in business, they have to have a revenue stream other than YouTube and toe the policies. If your business plan relies on the government coming in and busting your platform vendors chops, then you don’t have a very good business plan. Life is tough, and so is business.
_ph_ 6y ago
A great article with some very good points. 1) should be kind of obvious and easy to do, but especially 3) and 4) are extremely important in my eyes. The biggest restriction on iOS (and on iPadOS, but for simplicity, I will only use the term "iOS") is the requirement to go through the App Store approval process. The justification is the promise of security and curation of app quality. First of all, those are two separate things and shouldn't mixed up. Second, in my eyes, Apple fails at both of them. Of course, I don't know how many truly horrible apps (from a security point of view) are rejected by the process, but there are enough examples, where dubious apps made it past the review process. But the elephant in the room - no its actually a diploducus - is the so-called curation. On the one side, there are tons of very useful apps which cannot be submitted, just think of Termux, by the app store rules. On the other side, Apple does have zero restraint approving all those games which only are a vehicle of selling in-app purchases. Furthermore, they sell the prices for amounts which should be considered fraudulent. If you buy a AAA-title for your computer or console, at most you pay $50-$100. How can it be allowed that even the most basic games sell in-app purchases which can amount to several hundred dollars or even more without any limit? That is plain immoral in my eyes. But Apple allows this. Worse even, they seem to quite support this, as the whole App Store design has driven most other game styles from the platform. On the other side, a lot of useful apps get disallowed from the App Store just for certain "rules". Another bad example is the App Store search. When searching for an app, you get paid for app placements in the search result before the results which best matched your search. Germany released a covid-19 tracing app yesterday, but a simple search yielded my everything but that app. Only when searching for the exact app name, I got to it. This is bad with general legit apps, a disaster in this specific case. In consequence, I do think Apple should urgently overthink their App Store approach. Otherwise, legislators should enforce an opening of the platform. Towards using private APIs: while it totally makes sense to develop APIs by co-developing them with the apps which use them as a test case for the APIs, in general, they should be opened up to all apps. Not doing so is not only unfair competition, but dumb in the long term, as it encourages the existence of semi-maintained APIs for internal applications. And harms the quality of third party apps.
- photonios 6y ago
  Termius is in the app store? https://termius.com/ios https://termius.com/ios
throwawayftc7 6y ago
I wrote to US Justice Department back in ~2013 to complain that I could not find the protocol documents to connect to my iPhone over USB. Specifically I was not willing to accept iTunes terms of service and wanted a workaround. Microsoft was required by consent decree to document all wire protocols, so I wanted to begin the process for Apple to so the same. I got a personalized response from the Justice Department. The response said since the iPhone had closed protocols from the beginning, before it was dominant, there is nothing they could do to force opening up. While I didn’t like the outcome, I did understand it, and I was pleasantly surprised to get an actual response. I suspect there is a similar argument for the App Store model. Apple never allowed side-loading apps. We may need new legislation to change this if we want.
- kungato 6y ago
  I respect you so much for writing to them. I feel like in the USA people really write to the authorities and congressmen and the like while in eastern Europe people never do such things because I guess we think the system is so broken there is not fixing it from within. Since EU things really changed from the government side but the culture remains the same and we are not using the tools at our disposal
- canuckintime 6y ago
  > I suspect there is a similar argument for the App Store model. Apple never allowed side-loading apps. Apple did allow developers to link directly to the product website to make purchases: http://mossblog.allthingsd.com/20090303/first-impressions-of-kindle-on-iphone/ http://mossblog.allthingsd.com/20090303/first-impressions-of... https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-details/amazon-launches-optimized-kindle-store-seamlessly-integrated https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-det...
- ubermonkey 6y ago
  But Microsoft was subject to those consent decrees because it had monopoly power in the market, which Apple manifestly does not have. The iPhone isn't dominant. It's what, 20% of the phone market? When MSFT was subject to those decrees, it effectively controlled all PC hardware. The Mac was on the ropes, and no other challenger was viable. They owned computing; it was their way or the highway. Apple doesn't have anywhere NEAR that power.
talkingtab 6y ago
Organizations can be really stupid. There is some test about delayed gratification. If you wait you get two candies, if not you only get one. Apple is currently a one candy company. You see this in how it deals with the Mac and in the policies about IOS Apps. Please note this is not to say the people at Apple are stupid, but rather there is a very, very low level of organizational intelligence at work here. Very. Low. Sadly. The article is great, well worth the read and written with great clarity!
jsjohnst 6y ago
As someone who bought and paid for their products (including two hardware dongles), I’m glad Apple developed Sidecar. It’s faster, more stable, and generally works better for my use case. If their product was better, I’d definitely still use it, as I sank a lot of money into it, but it’s not to me. If a customer pays around a hundred dollars (I think that’s right, need to check) for your product and then decides to use a free alternative, what’s that say about your product? Not to be callus, but “when your entire business is adding a feature to a platform that can be added easily by the platform provider, you have no real business” is a saying that’s been around for a long time for a reason.
- Bud 6y ago
  Just to add to this, it was always an extremely obvious use case to use any external device with a nice display as, well, a display, perhaps for another device. Pretending that you're Edison when all you did was to enable an already-obvious use case, and then whining when someone else also enables that use case, kinda strains credulity. Accusing Apple of doing something untoward, or even surprising, here, is just silly.
  - jsjohnst 6y ago
    > Pretending that you're Edison when all you did was to enable an already-obvious use case Not sure if you were aware, but your analogy is more fitting than it seems on a quick read. Sir Joseph Swan was an early inventor of the lightbulb (he, like Edison wasn’t the first, but his was earlier than Edison). Swan had moderate success with his lightbulb, but Edison’s proved to be superior in the market and ultimately won. In that analogy, I think Luna is Sir Joseph Swan and Apple is Edison.
patwolf 6y ago
> #4: Give third-party developers equal access to APIs. I used to work for a company that produced an app server. They sold the app server as well as applications that ran on the app server. Other companies also sold competing applications that ran on the app server. One of the things I had to do was write a tool that scanned our applications for API usage to ensure none of them were using APIs internal to the app server. It would have been anti-competitive to create APIs that only our own apps were allowed to use. It has always surprised me that Apple has gotten away with this for so long. I'm not sure if the company I worked for was concerned about being sued by the government or by other companies, but I don't think they would have worked so hard to stamp out private API usage if there weren't some risk of litigation.
spinningslate 6y ago
Not commenting on the merit or otherwise of the specific suggestions, because the only part that really matters is this: "71% budget increase in the Department of Justice’s antitrust division to investigate big tech monopolies. It’s in Apple’s best interest to be proactive and tackle the antitrust problem itself rather than waiting for the government to step in. " That is: Tim Cook and the Apple board have to weigh up the risks. How likely is it that the justice department will actually come after them in a meaningful way? Can they head that off? Lobbying will be a much more attractive option, commercially and strategically. They will do the least they possibly can to head off any imposed change to the status quo. That the DoJ actually went after Microsoft was very much the exception rather than the rule. Apple will likely learn from that: it's unlikely but not impossible. An enforced breakup would be catastrophic for Apple (even if - possibly - good for the market). Tim Cook certainly wouldn't survive that. OTOH, loosening any of the current constraints will hurt Apple's services play. So this is 100% about risk management for Apple. Neither the welfare of its contributing app developer community, nor "fair" market competition, are remotely first order determinants of outcome. -- EDIT: fixed typo
dave_aiello 6y ago
I think sideloading of apps on iOS would end up being a disaster for third-party developers and the platform. Some of the most pervasive hacks on the Android platform begin with a sideloaded app.
- HiddenCanary 6y ago
  Exactly, and giving third party developers access to private (privileged) APIs would just increase risk of malware on the platform.
dave_aiello 6y ago
I think Apple hasn't made payment on the App Stores nearly flexible enough. For instance, why should there be one and only one payment method supported? I run a small business, and I have to keep a running total of App Store purchases I made for business purposes and write a monthly reimbursement check to myself. This is ridiculous for accounting purposes. It should be easier to have an Apple ID for business and a separate personal ID. There should also be an option to choose another payment method whenever you make a purchase.
pier25 6y ago
#6 allow third party browser engines in iOS
ubermonkey 6y ago
This strikes me as a bunch of wishful thinking that Apple shouldn't do. Apple ought not be subject to ANY antitrust action because the only monopoly it has is a monopoly on its own phones and tablets. If that's a monopoly, then so is every other walled garden. Android's market share dwarfs iOS worldwide. It's bizarre to go after this minority player with these laws.
riclad 6y ago
There's only smartphone platforms, apple and android.neither is perfect. Google drops apps and services it it does not have millions of users or it does not make a profit eg Google reader I use android I can sideload apps on my phone. Google does not seem to copy popular apps like apple does Apple is unlikely to provide an option to pay via PayPal or some credit card unless its forced to by Congress, like the EU forced Microsoft to provide a browser ballot Eg choose Firefox , chrome etc instead of Internet explorer years ago before Windows 10 was released Companys realise more and more products will be bought online using apps, if you can get people used to using apple pay or Google payment services you have an almost unlimited source of income. Even if apple is forced to allow apps to be paid with Other finance options like mastercard will they be easy to use will they have access to the api that apple uses for contact less payment We have seen before in tech the public tends to use the most easy to use app or services, it's easy to just put in your credit card into the apple app once and just buy any app or service with a few clicks without thinking about it The law is slow to catch up with tech. 10 tears ago people did not expect consumers to be Able to buy products and services using a smartphone app. Apple was the first company to offer an easy to use app to buy music or TV shows on a mobile device. The first music apps on phones were limited and hard to use
LockAndLol 6y ago
Apple doesn't and won't care as long as its customers don't care. One can already see from some comments here that Apple is infallible and ever correct to some - and this is more of a technical crowd. Imagine what it's like for those who have a slight to little understanding of the issue at hand. Unless a strong competitor comes along that does things differently and better (especially in marketing) Apple can continue delivering mediocre products and being an ass to devs. Unless it directly affects the majority in a tangible fashion, it won't care.

144 points by mpweiher 6y ago

Congress: "Does Apple restrict, in any way, the ability of competing web browsers to deploy their own web browsing engines when running on Apple’s operating system?" Apple: "The purpose of this rule is to protect user privacy and security." https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU05/20190716/109793/HHRG-116-JU05-20190716-SD036.pdf https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU05/20190716/109793/HHRG... via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21587191 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21587191 Upd: Giving the freedom to users is not the goal of Apple. Quite the opposite.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago
Allow a browser engine to be used if it meets strong privacy restrictions.
_ph_ 6y ago
A browser engine is a very security relevant part. Especially considering the ability to execute generated code, if you consider a JIT for Javascript code. This means, allowing arbitrary engines can have a significant security impact. As much as I resent most restrictions set up by Apple, this has at least some justification. However, it should be possibly to set up a proper sandbox for a browser app, so that security issues are contained to it and consequentially, it should be possible to run other browser engines on your devide.
- realusername 6y ago
  > A browser engine is a very security relevant part. Especially considering the ability to execute generated code, if you consider a JIT for Javascript code. This means, allowing arbitrary engines can have a significant security impact. As much as I resent most restrictions set up by Apple, this has at least some justification. That argument would work a little bit better if Apple wasn't shipping their products with the most outdated browser engine of all the current browser market in the first place...
  - threeseed 6y ago
    It's also the browser that by far uses the least memory, battery life etc. Apple has made it quite clear that they are more deliberate when adding new features than Google or Microsoft.
    - realusername 6y ago
      I do agree with that, you can say it uses less memory and less battery but you really can't call it more secure in any way.
    - grishka 6y ago
      And it also takes ages to implement new and more efficient standards. As of 2020, Safari is literally the only web browser with a significant market share that doesn't support webp images and opus audio.
simonh 6y ago
Alternate Apple: "Yes, so what?" Creating an obligation on companies to support competitors products on their own products, and dictating the commercial and technical terms of how they must implement that access seems a pretty extreme step. Many vendors sell devices that allow limited customisation via apps. Cars allow some software client options and not others. Games consoles allow some software such as games and entertainment apps and not others. Feature phones had limited curated app download options in their 'stores' long before the iPhone. If we can require Apple to accept apps we dictate onto their store using their infrastructure on terms they don't get to determine, why can't we also require Nintendo to accept non-game apps or even a third party browser on the Switch? Why can't Spotify, or hundreds of streaming media or podcast companies require car companies to provide access to them to install their client app on car infotainment systems? Where does this principle of imposing design features and commercial obligations, and technical implementation details on companies to benefit their competitors end?
- virtue3 6y ago
  I think you should re-read everything about the Microsoft antitrust cases and apply that to Apple. It's pretty obvious to me what accounts to antitrust here and it's been very obvious for years. I think you should ask yourself really deeply "if this was the case on OSX would I be ok with it?" And use that lens.
  - ratww 6y ago
    It's not the same case. The allegation back then was that Microsoft was abusing monopoly power on Intel PCs in order to achieve victory in the browser wars. Also, an Intel executive even testified that the intent of Microsoft was indeed to kill Netscape. Neither of those things have happened here: Apple doesn't have monopoly power on cell phones, nor has achieved victory in a new browser wars due to bundling Safari. Whether new browsers (or browser engines, to be more precise) can be installed in iOS or not is a different matter altogether. Remember that back in the day it was possible to install Netscape on Windows, and Microsoft still got fire for it.
  - simonh 6y ago
theandrewbailey 6y ago
I seem to recall that one of their competitors got into very hot water about 20 years ago for almost the same reason, but I can't remember more details. \s

LoSboccacc 6y ago

"dear paesant, thanks for your concern, but we are going to stop the investigation the traditional way, using our millions from anticompetitive customers practices" - apple

rydre 6y ago
And we will bribe the officials. Lobby I mean, lobby.
ThaJay 6y ago
First sensible post on this topic. All others talk about the content like the premise rings true, but Apple will never do stuff like that, same as how the current tech giants don't have a place in this world post capitalism.
- LoSboccacc 6y ago
  well it's "hacker news" so people around here will keep spinning around technological solutions patting the back of each other and wondering why is apple so shortsighted while they're so smart and all-seeing

gampleman 6y ago

As a consumer of Apple products I am not too keen on any of these suggestions. I agree that developers for Apple's platforms would like these and perhaps there is some trickle-down effect for consumers. > 1: Enable users to set default app preferences. Fine, but really Maps and Email is pretty much the only one I care about. This is the best suggestion of the bunch. > 2: Open up alternate payment mechanisms… without the Apple tax. Nah. Last thing I want is to have to fill out my credit card information in every app and worry about what's going to happen with it. Apple Pay and IAP work perfectly adequately from the consumer standpoint. > 3: Allow sideloading of iOS apps. I don't think we have a problem with lack of iOS apps. In fact I wish App Store Review was stricter and took more issue with quality and dodgy business practices (i.e. excessive and addictive use of IAP). > 4: Give third-party developers equal access to APIs. What this is asking for is for Apple to effectively release features later or not at all. Or have some even more draconian App Store rules. I don't want every random app having full hardware access to spy on me as it pleases. > 5: Stop sherlocking third-party developers. Right, so Apple is not supposed to give me free access to nice features so I can continue to pay money to someone else. Right.

mpweiher 6y ago
> [alternate payment mechanisms] ...fill out my credit card information in every app Why is that the only alternative? How about app1 \ / payment service1 app2 - OS payment service framework - payment service2 app3 / \ payment service3 This is how OSes should and used to work. To define the interfaces and provide frameworks for services to integrate.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- rimliu 6y ago
  And ditch the Apple tax, right? So Apple will end up will all of the headaches of the integration with none of the benefits. And if some "payment service" stops working, guess whose fault it would be.

seven4 6y ago

The trouble is that as a tech company - first you want to build a moat around your success and barriers to competitors usurping your hard-won position/user-base. IF you do this very well you become a "tech giant" - then you want to continue building that moat/pulling away from your competitors BUT now you have to look like you aren't anti-competitive. So i guess it's useful to think about: what does Apple want to do vs what does apple want to look like its doing? Wherever the internal/external impetus of an organisation are at odds - progress will be painful/prolonged. Then again if you ran Apple would you be quick about ceding the moat?

Mindwipe 6y ago
> Then again if you ran Apple would you be quick about ceding the moat? I'd hope I'd be smart enough to see how completely corrosive it's been to Apple. It's made their software development process fat and lazy, and propped up bad products that should have been dropped or fixed. Apple's software reputation was invincible ten years ago, and now it's shipping Mac apps that can't even full screen video properly. I think, in the long run, that will cost the company far more than it gains from it's behaviour.

dustinmoris 6y ago

> Open up alternate payment mechanisms… without the Apple tax I don't agree with this, as a developer and a consumer. As a consumer it is extremely nice that I don't have to deal with all sorts of exotic and different payment gateways. Some accept Amex, some don't. Some try to store my card without my consent, some don't. Some make it really obvious that not being charged during a trial period some don't. Some payment gateways are buggy, slow and frustrating and some are really good. As a consumer I bloody hate that and I love iOS and Apple for the fact that I can securely put payment methods behind Apple Pay and then know that I can do any in-app purchases via an already established and well working gateway. No faffing about with some other shite. From a developer perspective I don't see why anyone should use the AppStore as a distribution channel to a huge market and completely circumvent Apple's cut when clearly they are offering a lot of value by making this possible in the first place? For example, my VPN I can either buy a license by going to their website and go through a 5 minute checkout process or I can do a 5 second checkout via the iOS app. The first one goes 100% to the VPN developers, the second also means that a cut goes to Apple. Sounds fair to me, because I literally purchased a VPN in a moment where I didn't have the time of going to a website. I was abroad, I was on a mobile and I had limited time to get quickly a subscription so I could use the VPN and I would have not bought it if it wasn't for the ease and speed which the app allowed me to do. This was only the case because Apple does such a diligent job in keeping it so sleek. Without Apple Pay I would have not bought that license and they would have not lost 30% of the sale, but effectively 100%.

pentae 6y ago
Do you think your desire for convenience should outweigh the benefits to users/devs who want freedom of choice?
- rahkiin 6y ago
  If a developer does not want their product sold to customers of Walmart because Walmart takes % percentage and has a certain set of rules, then the developer can go away and not sell to Walmarts customers. Same analogy works with Xbox/PlayStation customer base.

rimliu 6y ago

Lots of wishful thinking. If these were allowed none of them would have the effect author claims they would. See Android. 1. There are already alternative mail clients. Does author think that not allowing any of them being default tehy do not compete on quality? This is the only one I see as the reasonable one, albeit not for the reasons claimed in the article. 2. Uhm, Apple Pay is as frictionless as it can get. I have no desire to keept entering my credit card details into every app which thnks they have a better payment processor. 3. Apple does not "arbitrarily" reject apps. And it's restrictions that bring innovation, not the other way around. Author wants sideload apps, but somehow Apple would still be responsible for the security. Let's see how that works for Android. 4. Just no. I do not want John Doe's app accessing my text messages. 5. Well you wanted the competition in #1, so how about that.

lifty 6y ago
I agree that Apple provides a great experience, and I am an Apple user for most of my computing needs; but Apple's approach uses the user experience stick to squeeze out monopolistic benefits out of their platform when it suits them, and when it doesn't, they ignore user expereince. 1. This is a clear one, and Apple chooses to ruin user experience here. I only use Apple Mail because it's the default app. 2. Me neither. Why don't they do something for payments that is similar to how they treat password managers. A standardised way to treat payment data. 3. Apple does arbitrarily reject apps. They just signed a special deal with Amazon that bypasses the app store rules, for gods sake. 4. I agree, and Apple has come out with good ways of allowing apps to special APIs. 5. Well, what competition is it when someone has to pay 30% from their revenue?
- rimliu 6y ago
  I've been using iPhones for 11 years now and I have never used Apple Mail app. Currently I am using Outlook which is very good on iOS.

woadwarrior01 6y ago

This coming from a company whose primary product has a rent seeking subscription model, seems a bit like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. When Apple released Sidecar, it was a net positive for all the consumers who didn't want to pay a monthly subscription fee for a simple feature like using your iPad as a secondary display for their Mac. There are a few holdouts from the days when you could pay for software up-front and then pay for major updates if you wished to. Products from Serif (makers of Affinity Photo) come to mind. I wish more software products went back to this simpler and IMHO, better revenue model.

bonaldi 6y ago
The model you like also vanished because of Apple: first, they sold their own apps like Keynote for <$10, creating a really low price anchor, second – they don't support free trials, creating pressure for free versions of apps, and third and most importantly they don't support upgrade pricing, which pushes everyone to subscription pricing.

Eric_WVGG 6y ago

I disagree with a lot of this list, it this particular item I think deserves so,e attention. > #4: Give third-party developers equal access to APIs. AirPods are great. Maybe a little… too great. It is actually impossible for a competitor to make a pair of earbuds that matches with the iPhone as easily as AirPods because that API is private. This strikes me as unfair and anticompetitive; no matter how much better a particular pair of earbuds might be, they cannot work as well as AirPods because Apple doesn’t want them to. There’s a similar thing happening with the Apple Watch. Google Maps has abilities that Apple Maps doesn’t have, but Apple won’t let you use drop-in replacements for mapping. So instead of a safe bike ride, I’m heading the wrong direction on one-way streets or on freeways thanks to Apple Maps. This just sucks. Some commenters here say “I don’t want third parties to have access to private information.” There’s a line somewhere, I don’t think anyone sane would demand access to _all_ APIs. But there are some clear examples where the platform maker is giving unfair advantage to their own accessories and services, this is dipping into antitrust territory.

tachion 6y ago
One could argue, that you can create an experience as good as AirPods or even exceeding it. All you need to do is to develop a 'protocol' better than the horrible Bluetooth, make it an industry standard and convince companies to adopt it. The only reason why Apple had to (and could at the same time) work on that aspect of headphones is because Bluetooth sucks and Apple is in a business of taking things that are widely used and suck, making them suck much less and selling them for a premium price.
- Eric_WVGG 6y ago
  Right, that’s sort of the “well if you don’t like Apple, you can always use Android” argument. The problem with that is, let’s say there’s one thing on the Google-controlled platform you don’t like (let’s say privacy, to over-simplify)… “well if you don’t like Android, you can always use iOS” Platform makers have a level of power over consumer choice that monopoly law isn’t equipped to address.
  - 6y ago

SllX 6y ago

Astropad undermines their own argument by pointing out that Apple forced them to change their business plan by adding features to their product they otherwise wouldn’t have. One of my first jobs was at a coffee shop, owned by a guy who once tried to expand his coffee shop to other locations, only to see Starbucks snatch those locations from his fingertips at the last second by walking in and offering the landlord a lot more money. He never did expand, and actually he just went out of business in part due to this government mandated economic shutdown, but he was old enough to retire so I wouldn’t cry for him, he’s got his wife and health and plenty of time to enjoy his retirement. I digress. The guy who owned the coffee shop knew the real estate fellow at Starbucks who would walk in and offer these last minute deals. He would always tell him, “it’s just business.” Apart from walking in and taking the prime pickings of the potential retail spots to open a coffee shop, Starbucks had another much more well known practice of opening up shop across the street or right next door to other coffee shops. Now what would happen really depended on what how the coffee was like at the indie. Starbucks would actually drive up interest in the area for coffee, so if your small indie coffee shop served good coffee, then Starbucks opening up next door might be the best thing to ever happen to you. Sales would go up, more people in the neighborhood would start drinking coffee increasing your possible pool of customers. If your coffee sucked though, then you were probably going out of business. Your customers would try the Starbucks coffee, find it was better than you served and the writing would be on the wall. People would still come by and try your coffee, but if it wasn’t as good, they wouldn’t be back. Software isn’t special. You can break your back putting your all into a product that people love and get a lot of value out of, but you’re not entitled to success just because you worked hard, and you aren’t entitled to go without competition, even from the platform vendor. When you find yourself at odds with the platform vendor, then you go multi-platform, you change, you adapt. I bought my phone and iPad knowing their limitations, and I was okay with them. Every one of those developers I see in the App Store chose to be there, and if they weren’t there, somebody else would be. The App Store created the opportunity for small indies like Marco Arment to build sustainable businesses on, and for services like Spotify to reach a larger audience, and for services like Uber and Lyft and AirBnB to get their start. Facebook and Google changed strategies and went mobile first more than a decade ago when it became clear how big of a deal it would be, and Facebook paid $1B for Instagram, what was then a small startup of about 30 employees that got their start making an iPhone app. Not every business is successful though, and going through Apple is part of the cost of doing business because it’s their storefront on their platform, a software platform where the included list of features can expand or shrink on a dime. App Store developers are in the same boat as YouTubers where their stream of revenue depends on a platform that changed over time, and YouTubers figured it out a while ago that to stay in business, they have to have a revenue stream other than YouTube and toe the policies. If your business plan relies on the government coming in and busting your platform vendors chops, then you don’t have a very good business plan. Life is tough, and so is business.

_ph_ 6y ago

A great article with some very good points. 1) should be kind of obvious and easy to do, but especially 3) and 4) are extremely important in my eyes. The biggest restriction on iOS (and on iPadOS, but for simplicity, I will only use the term "iOS") is the requirement to go through the App Store approval process. The justification is the promise of security and curation of app quality. First of all, those are two separate things and shouldn't mixed up. Second, in my eyes, Apple fails at both of them. Of course, I don't know how many truly horrible apps (from a security point of view) are rejected by the process, but there are enough examples, where dubious apps made it past the review process. But the elephant in the room - no its actually a diploducus - is the so-called curation. On the one side, there are tons of very useful apps which cannot be submitted, just think of Termux, by the app store rules. On the other side, Apple does have zero restraint approving all those games which only are a vehicle of selling in-app purchases. Furthermore, they sell the prices for amounts which should be considered fraudulent. If you buy a AAA-title for your computer or console, at most you pay $50-$100. How can it be allowed that even the most basic games sell in-app purchases which can amount to several hundred dollars or even more without any limit? That is plain immoral in my eyes. But Apple allows this. Worse even, they seem to quite support this, as the whole App Store design has driven most other game styles from the platform. On the other side, a lot of useful apps get disallowed from the App Store just for certain "rules". Another bad example is the App Store search. When searching for an app, you get paid for app placements in the search result before the results which best matched your search. Germany released a covid-19 tracing app yesterday, but a simple search yielded my everything but that app. Only when searching for the exact app name, I got to it. This is bad with general legit apps, a disaster in this specific case. In consequence, I do think Apple should urgently overthink their App Store approach. Otherwise, legislators should enforce an opening of the platform. Towards using private APIs: while it totally makes sense to develop APIs by co-developing them with the apps which use them as a test case for the APIs, in general, they should be opened up to all apps. Not doing so is not only unfair competition, but dumb in the long term, as it encourages the existence of semi-maintained APIs for internal applications. And harms the quality of third party apps.

photonios 6y ago
Termius is in the app store? https://termius.com/ios https://termius.com/ios

throwawayftc7 6y ago

I wrote to US Justice Department back in ~2013 to complain that I could not find the protocol documents to connect to my iPhone over USB. Specifically I was not willing to accept iTunes terms of service and wanted a workaround. Microsoft was required by consent decree to document all wire protocols, so I wanted to begin the process for Apple to so the same. I got a personalized response from the Justice Department. The response said since the iPhone had closed protocols from the beginning, before it was dominant, there is nothing they could do to force opening up. While I didn’t like the outcome, I did understand it, and I was pleasantly surprised to get an actual response. I suspect there is a similar argument for the App Store model. Apple never allowed side-loading apps. We may need new legislation to change this if we want.

kungato 6y ago
I respect you so much for writing to them. I feel like in the USA people really write to the authorities and congressmen and the like while in eastern Europe people never do such things because I guess we think the system is so broken there is not fixing it from within. Since EU things really changed from the government side but the culture remains the same and we are not using the tools at our disposal
canuckintime 6y ago
> I suspect there is a similar argument for the App Store model. Apple never allowed side-loading apps. Apple did allow developers to link directly to the product website to make purchases: http://mossblog.allthingsd.com/20090303/first-impressions-of-kindle-on-iphone/ http://mossblog.allthingsd.com/20090303/first-impressions-of... https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-details/amazon-launches-optimized-kindle-store-seamlessly-integrated https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-det...
ubermonkey 6y ago
But Microsoft was subject to those consent decrees because it had monopoly power in the market, which Apple manifestly does not have. The iPhone isn't dominant. It's what, 20% of the phone market? When MSFT was subject to those decrees, it effectively controlled all PC hardware. The Mac was on the ropes, and no other challenger was viable. They owned computing; it was their way or the highway. Apple doesn't have anywhere NEAR that power.

talkingtab 6y ago

Organizations can be really stupid. There is some test about delayed gratification. If you wait you get two candies, if not you only get one. Apple is currently a one candy company. You see this in how it deals with the Mac and in the policies about IOS Apps. Please note this is not to say the people at Apple are stupid, but rather there is a very, very low level of organizational intelligence at work here. Very. Low. Sadly. The article is great, well worth the read and written with great clarity!

jsjohnst 6y ago

As someone who bought and paid for their products (including two hardware dongles), I’m glad Apple developed Sidecar. It’s faster, more stable, and generally works better for my use case. If their product was better, I’d definitely still use it, as I sank a lot of money into it, but it’s not to me. If a customer pays around a hundred dollars (I think that’s right, need to check) for your product and then decides to use a free alternative, what’s that say about your product? Not to be callus, but “when your entire business is adding a feature to a platform that can be added easily by the platform provider, you have no real business” is a saying that’s been around for a long time for a reason.

Bud 6y ago
Just to add to this, it was always an extremely obvious use case to use any external device with a nice display as, well, a display, perhaps for another device. Pretending that you're Edison when all you did was to enable an already-obvious use case, and then whining when someone else also enables that use case, kinda strains credulity. Accusing Apple of doing something untoward, or even surprising, here, is just silly.
- jsjohnst 6y ago
  > Pretending that you're Edison when all you did was to enable an already-obvious use case Not sure if you were aware, but your analogy is more fitting than it seems on a quick read. Sir Joseph Swan was an early inventor of the lightbulb (he, like Edison wasn’t the first, but his was earlier than Edison). Swan had moderate success with his lightbulb, but Edison’s proved to be superior in the market and ultimately won. In that analogy, I think Luna is Sir Joseph Swan and Apple is Edison.

patwolf 6y ago

> #4: Give third-party developers equal access to APIs. I used to work for a company that produced an app server. They sold the app server as well as applications that ran on the app server. Other companies also sold competing applications that ran on the app server. One of the things I had to do was write a tool that scanned our applications for API usage to ensure none of them were using APIs internal to the app server. It would have been anti-competitive to create APIs that only our own apps were allowed to use. It has always surprised me that Apple has gotten away with this for so long. I'm not sure if the company I worked for was concerned about being sued by the government or by other companies, but I don't think they would have worked so hard to stamp out private API usage if there weren't some risk of litigation.

spinningslate 6y ago

Not commenting on the merit or otherwise of the specific suggestions, because the only part that really matters is this: "71% budget increase in the Department of Justice’s antitrust division to investigate big tech monopolies. It’s in Apple’s best interest to be proactive and tackle the antitrust problem itself rather than waiting for the government to step in. " That is: Tim Cook and the Apple board have to weigh up the risks. How likely is it that the justice department will actually come after them in a meaningful way? Can they head that off? Lobbying will be a much more attractive option, commercially and strategically. They will do the least they possibly can to head off any imposed change to the status quo. That the DoJ actually went after Microsoft was very much the exception rather than the rule. Apple will likely learn from that: it's unlikely but not impossible. An enforced breakup would be catastrophic for Apple (even if - possibly - good for the market). Tim Cook certainly wouldn't survive that. OTOH, loosening any of the current constraints will hurt Apple's services play. So this is 100% about risk management for Apple. Neither the welfare of its contributing app developer community, nor "fair" market competition, are remotely first order determinants of outcome. -- EDIT: fixed typo

dave_aiello 6y ago

I think sideloading of apps on iOS would end up being a disaster for third-party developers and the platform. Some of the most pervasive hacks on the Android platform begin with a sideloaded app.

HiddenCanary 6y ago
Exactly, and giving third party developers access to private (privileged) APIs would just increase risk of malware on the platform.

dave_aiello 6y ago

I think Apple hasn't made payment on the App Stores nearly flexible enough. For instance, why should there be one and only one payment method supported? I run a small business, and I have to keep a running total of App Store purchases I made for business purposes and write a monthly reimbursement check to myself. This is ridiculous for accounting purposes. It should be easier to have an Apple ID for business and a separate personal ID. There should also be an option to choose another payment method whenever you make a purchase.

pier25 6y ago

#6 allow third party browser engines in iOS

ubermonkey 6y ago

This strikes me as a bunch of wishful thinking that Apple shouldn't do. Apple ought not be subject to ANY antitrust action because the only monopoly it has is a monopoly on its own phones and tablets. If that's a monopoly, then so is every other walled garden. Android's market share dwarfs iOS worldwide. It's bizarre to go after this minority player with these laws.

riclad 6y ago

There's only smartphone platforms, apple and android.neither is perfect. Google drops apps and services it it does not have millions of users or it does not make a profit eg Google reader I use android I can sideload apps on my phone. Google does not seem to copy popular apps like apple does Apple is unlikely to provide an option to pay via PayPal or some credit card unless its forced to by Congress, like the EU forced Microsoft to provide a browser ballot Eg choose Firefox , chrome etc instead of Internet explorer years ago before Windows 10 was released Companys realise more and more products will be bought online using apps, if you can get people used to using apple pay or Google payment services you have an almost unlimited source of income. Even if apple is forced to allow apps to be paid with Other finance options like mastercard will they be easy to use will they have access to the api that apple uses for contact less payment We have seen before in tech the public tends to use the most easy to use app or services, it's easy to just put in your credit card into the apple app once and just buy any app or service with a few clicks without thinking about it The law is slow to catch up with tech. 10 tears ago people did not expect consumers to be Able to buy products and services using a smartphone app. Apple was the first company to offer an easy to use app to buy music or TV shows on a mobile device. The first music apps on phones were limited and hard to use

LockAndLol 6y ago

Apple doesn't and won't care as long as its customers don't care. One can already see from some comments here that Apple is infallible and ever correct to some - and this is more of a technical crowd. Imagine what it's like for those who have a slight to little understanding of the issue at hand. Unless a strong competitor comes along that does things differently and better (especially in marketing) Apple can continue delivering mediocre products and being an ass to devs. Unless it directly affects the majority in a tangible fashion, it won't care.