4 ms·

In general I am against legislation like this. There are plenty of areas for remediation for a rejected app. You can offer on competing platforms (Android), or

In general I am against legislation like this. There are plenty of areas for remediation for a rejected app. You can offer on competing platforms (Android), or offer a web-app which is usable on an iPhone. Or you can follow the rules of the app store. Those are 3 perfectly viable options. We have a tendency to view anything that goes against "us" as unfair. I don't see anything that Apple is doing that is anti-competitive, and don't see why legislation is necessary.

jedberg 6y ago
A standard legal test is: "are the alternatives equivalent". The three options you provide are not at all equivalent. That makes it anti-competitive. Android isn't the same as Apple. They also have their own rules. A web app doesn't have the same level of access as a native app. The rules of the app store are unfair and aren't applied equally to everyone.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  > A standard legal test is: "are the alternatives equivalent". The three options you provide are not at all equivalent. That makes it anti-competitive. The test is rather, are the alternatives viable. And that they are. You also have to prove that Apple is being anti-competitive - which is not true. Apple is applying their rules as equally as possible - just because it's imperfect enforcement, doesn't make it anti-competitive - it's unfair to punish when the scope of the problem means there will be apps that slip through wrongly. Example: There are multiple email apps on the app store, and Apple isn't removing Hey because they also have a $99 email app. That would be anti-competitive. That's not what's happening here. > Android isn't the same as Apple. They also have their own rules. Android you can use third party app stores and sideload without any rules at all, and it's a bigger market. Sounds like a viable alternative. > A web app doesn't have the same level of access as a native app. Gmail has a website and an app. Both do the same thing - email. It's a viable alternative. > The rules of the app store are unfair and aren't applied equally to everyone. Imperfect enforcement is not the same as they aren't applied equally. It seems to me that they are - Apple is looking for offenders, finding them, and removing them. Seems pretty equal to me.
  - jedberg 6y ago
    > Android you can use third party app stores and sideload without any rules at all, and it's a bigger market. Sounds like a viable alternative. Telling someone that Android is a viable alternative to iPhone is the same as saying Marvel and DC comics are equivalent. They offer similar services, but do it in very different ways, and people have strong preferences one way or another. > Gmail has a website and an app. Both do the same thing - email. It's a viable alternative. This is actually a perfect example to prove my case. Things the gmail web app can't do on iPhone: Use your phone's contacts, notifications, photo previews on send, use native gestures, and lastly, the native app is significantly faster and more responsive.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Yes they do it in different ways and users have a choice.
      - jedberg 6y ago
        Users have a platform choice but they have no choice in where to get software for their hardware.
        scarface74 6y ago
        Then they make a choice to buy the more open platform if that’s more important to them. I can’t whine because I can’t get software from XBox Live for my PS4
        jedberg 6y ago
        You should whine because you can't get my PS4 software on your PS4. Even if you wanted to get my software, there is no way for you to do that without Sony's approval. So if Xbox suddenly became an open platform, you'd be ok with me telling you "well if you want my software you just have to buy an Xbox and get all new software for it and learn an all new system, but they're totally the same thing so it's fine".

jedberg 6y ago

A standard legal test is: "are the alternatives equivalent". The three options you provide are not at all equivalent. That makes it anti-competitive. Android isn't the same as Apple. They also have their own rules. A web app doesn't have the same level of access as a native app. The rules of the app store are unfair and aren't applied equally to everyone.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
> A standard legal test is: "are the alternatives equivalent". The three options you provide are not at all equivalent. That makes it anti-competitive. The test is rather, are the alternatives viable. And that they are. You also have to prove that Apple is being anti-competitive - which is not true. Apple is applying their rules as equally as possible - just because it's imperfect enforcement, doesn't make it anti-competitive - it's unfair to punish when the scope of the problem means there will be apps that slip through wrongly. Example: There are multiple email apps on the app store, and Apple isn't removing Hey because they also have a $99 email app. That would be anti-competitive. That's not what's happening here. > Android isn't the same as Apple. They also have their own rules. Android you can use third party app stores and sideload without any rules at all, and it's a bigger market. Sounds like a viable alternative. > A web app doesn't have the same level of access as a native app. Gmail has a website and an app. Both do the same thing - email. It's a viable alternative. > The rules of the app store are unfair and aren't applied equally to everyone. Imperfect enforcement is not the same as they aren't applied equally. It seems to me that they are - Apple is looking for offenders, finding them, and removing them. Seems pretty equal to me.
- jedberg 6y ago
  > Android you can use third party app stores and sideload without any rules at all, and it's a bigger market. Sounds like a viable alternative. Telling someone that Android is a viable alternative to iPhone is the same as saying Marvel and DC comics are equivalent. They offer similar services, but do it in very different ways, and people have strong preferences one way or another. > Gmail has a website and an app. Both do the same thing - email. It's a viable alternative. This is actually a perfect example to prove my case. Things the gmail web app can't do on iPhone: Use your phone's contacts, notifications, photo previews on send, use native gestures, and lastly, the native app is significantly faster and more responsive.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Yes they do it in different ways and users have a choice.
    - jedberg 6y ago
      Users have a platform choice but they have no choice in where to get software for their hardware.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        Then they make a choice to buy the more open platform if that’s more important to them. I can’t whine because I can’t get software from XBox Live for my PS4
        jedberg 6y ago
        You should whine because you can't get my PS4 software on your PS4. Even if you wanted to get my software, there is no way for you to do that without Sony's approval. So if Xbox suddenly became an open platform, you'd be ok with me telling you "well if you want my software you just have to buy an Xbox and get all new software for it and learn an all new system, but they're totally the same thing so it's fine".