5 ms·

But there are other Smartphone platforms with their own store, correct? I don’t know why people feel it’s their undeniable right to be able to provide an app t

by ecf 6y ago

But there are other Smartphone platforms with their own store, correct? I don’t know why people feel it’s their undeniable right to be able to provide an app to iOS users.

meheleventyone 6y ago
Isn’t it the other way around that iOS users should be able to shop in competing stores for their apps? It’s just very few users have any real ability to affect that sort of change.
- almost_usual 6y ago
  I wouldn’t be opposed to this but Apple could make a case that using a competing app store voids warranty or care because they can no longer guarantee the software is ‘safe’ for iOS.
  - damnyou 6y ago
    Yes, which is why they should be mandated by law to include them anyway. Maybe that will force them to figure out a better security strategy.
    - almost_usual 6y ago
      I don’t think our current law makers are technically competent enough to understand this.
  - meheleventyone 6y ago
    In a theoretical anti-trust investigation wouldn’t that been seen as extremely anti-competitive?
  - detaro 6y ago
    To a degree they could (although it'd be quite embarrassing for Apple to claim that their OS can't prevent apps from damaging phones), it could be somewhat similar to how Android manufacturers sometimes handle custom ROMs by having the unlock set a permanent flag somewhere. Doesn't necessarily give them an out of legally required warranties.
  - paulgb 6y ago
    General computing platforms, in which you can run arbitrary unsigned code without violating the warranty, exist. In fact, Apple has a major business in manufacturing them (MacBook, etc.)
    - almost_usual 6y ago
      This could fly for iPad, the iPhone they can make a case it jeopardizes the reliability in contacting emergency services. Overall this will go over most law makers heads because they are technically incompetent.
HumblyTossed 6y ago
It should be an undeniable right that I can use other app stores with my iOS device.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
daveidol 6y ago
It's not an "undeniable right" but it's also not like there are a lot of other options. You can say "just move to another platform" or "then make your own platform" but you also have to be a realist. This is why antitrust laws exist - sometimes the market realities make this nearly impossible.
- baddox 6y ago
  It’s no more realistic to say “if you don’t like the licensing terms of your game engine then just rewrite your game.”
  - detaro 6y ago
    End-customers are not locked into a specific game engine in any way, whereas mobile ecosystems have lock-in through devices and already-bought apps. That's a major difference for a software maker.
  - josephcsible 6y ago
    It's a LOT more realistic to rewrite your game than it is to tell all of your iOS customers that they have to jailbreak or switch platforms.
- giarc 6y ago
  But where is the line of lots of options vs not a lot of options? iOS isn't even the most popular mobile operating system.
  - d0m 6y ago
    For some market it is. Our users were 80%+ on ios
    - jasonv 6y ago
      Seems to me the biggest hurdle to moving/finding customers via the Google/Android platform is that they won't spend money over there. The feature/capability parity between the platforms means they are, in fact, both capable of serving these markets. But people want to vote with their dollars in the iOS ecosystem, and now the players want to change that ecosystem. I'm not entirely convinced that this is Apple's problem, in as much as it is Google's fault for not fostering a properly competitive revenue delivery platform, even though it has the maturity and standing to do so.
debacle 6y ago
> I don’t know why people feel it’s their undeniable right to be able to provide an app to iOS users. Rephrased: > I don't know why people feel it's their undeniable right to install the apps they want on iOS.
damnyou 6y ago
iOS is the market leader by profit share and by amount of money spent on app stores, as Apple fans like to talk about all the time. In a sane world, being a market leader would mean that shareholder and corporate interests are kept in check by society.
bohemian99 6y ago
It's about monopolization. Should a company be able to vertically integrate and install a toll booth to profit off of all developers on their platform? Or does that hurt consumers more than it would hurt businesses to separate that power?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Ericson2314 6y ago
It's not perfect but what else can we do? - Yes, every shmuck who buys only iOS cause Apple is the status symbol undermines everyone's ability to choose. But we'd need a consumer union to go after these monopoly-aiders as scabs. Ha ha ha not going to happen. - All the other hardware manufactures are so shitty and quality control and integration that they are also responsible. Do we wait for Moon's party to break up Samsung so Apple gets more competition? Tell Taiwan to break up TMSC or do more direct-to-consumer? Fundamentally we have the perfect storm of outsourcing and low quality, precarious Americans looking for status, and nationally-tinged monpolies. The idea solutions are just out of reach in the short term, so I support putting iOS on a stupid pedestal to break up Apple's exclusionary vertical integration.
kllrnohj 6y ago
Google Search should be free to only show location results from Google Maps, and ban Yelp, etc.. entirely from Google Search. After all, there's other search engines, right? There is a history here where using your market position in one area to force your product in another as being illegal (see the recent EU fine against Google for "abusing their Android monopoly" for example: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_4581 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_... ). Apple seems to be crossing that line rather brazenly.
bachmeier 6y ago
> I don’t know why people feel it’s their undeniable right to be able to provide an app to iOS users. If Apple is using its market power to increase profit at the expense of reducing selection and/or increasing prices for consumers, then that's a very serious problem. It's exactly the reason antitrust laws exist.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> But there are other Smartphone platforms with their own store, correct? But are they competing or parallel markets? Does Apple changing pricing or terms on the App Store drive business to other app stores, as replacements, or do software vendors choose which app stores to distribute with based on whether each provides a benefit worth the price, but not whether it is a better deal than some other store? I think that under market/pricing power tests, Apple’s software distribution business in the App Store is not that unlikely to be a monopoly. Now, establishing consumer harms from the way the leverage that monopoly to extract rents and dictate terms to software vendors might be less straightforward than it would be for a B2C monopoly, and in the US, at least, consumer harm is the key adverse impact from monopoly abuse that justifies legal consequences.
dathinab 6y ago
Because for many applications it's not viable to not provide service for iOs users, which is sad but true. Consider you not being able to: - buy train tickets under iOs - check-in into a hotel under iOs - do video conferences - chat with your friend - cross play with your friends - open your apartment doors - check your health data - do online banking - securely check your email - do Ueber, Rbnb, etc. - buy at Amazone - etc. Sure many (but not all) things might be doable over web interface but this crates often much more frictions and due to constraints put onto web interfaces and PWS also has often much worse UX, not providing service for millions of iOs users is often deadly and providing competitively shitty service isn't anygood either, even worse if you have to compete with Apple itself which gives there apps unfair advantages beyond not needing to pay the 30% cut. Let's be honest any marked which covers millions of people should be handled as a standalone marked even if you could argue it's just part of a bigger marked by any government or you fail your people (and the free marked idea IMHO, but reasoning about this is tricky as it involves considering how the marked dynamics have fundamentally changed and how thinks which would have worked in benefit for the population don't work anymore in the current times and therefore how the marked (laws) has to adapt to it).

by ecf 6y ago

But there are other Smartphone platforms with their own store, correct? I don’t know why people feel it’s their undeniable right to be able to provide an app to iOS users.

meheleventyone 6y ago

Isn’t it the other way around that iOS users should be able to shop in competing stores for their apps? It’s just very few users have any real ability to affect that sort of change.

almost_usual 6y ago
I wouldn’t be opposed to this but Apple could make a case that using a competing app store voids warranty or care because they can no longer guarantee the software is ‘safe’ for iOS.
- damnyou 6y ago
  Yes, which is why they should be mandated by law to include them anyway. Maybe that will force them to figure out a better security strategy.
  - almost_usual 6y ago
    I don’t think our current law makers are technically competent enough to understand this.
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  In a theoretical anti-trust investigation wouldn’t that been seen as extremely anti-competitive?
- detaro 6y ago
  To a degree they could (although it'd be quite embarrassing for Apple to claim that their OS can't prevent apps from damaging phones), it could be somewhat similar to how Android manufacturers sometimes handle custom ROMs by having the unlock set a permanent flag somewhere. Doesn't necessarily give them an out of legally required warranties.
- paulgb 6y ago
  General computing platforms, in which you can run arbitrary unsigned code without violating the warranty, exist. In fact, Apple has a major business in manufacturing them (MacBook, etc.)
  - almost_usual 6y ago
    This could fly for iPad, the iPhone they can make a case it jeopardizes the reliability in contacting emergency services. Overall this will go over most law makers heads because they are technically incompetent.

HumblyTossed 6y ago

It should be an undeniable right that I can use other app stores with my iOS device.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

daveidol 6y ago

It's not an "undeniable right" but it's also not like there are a lot of other options. You can say "just move to another platform" or "then make your own platform" but you also have to be a realist. This is why antitrust laws exist - sometimes the market realities make this nearly impossible.

baddox 6y ago
It’s no more realistic to say “if you don’t like the licensing terms of your game engine then just rewrite your game.”
- detaro 6y ago
  End-customers are not locked into a specific game engine in any way, whereas mobile ecosystems have lock-in through devices and already-bought apps. That's a major difference for a software maker.
- josephcsible 6y ago
  It's a LOT more realistic to rewrite your game than it is to tell all of your iOS customers that they have to jailbreak or switch platforms.
giarc 6y ago
But where is the line of lots of options vs not a lot of options? iOS isn't even the most popular mobile operating system.
- d0m 6y ago
  For some market it is. Our users were 80%+ on ios
  - jasonv 6y ago
    Seems to me the biggest hurdle to moving/finding customers via the Google/Android platform is that they won't spend money over there. The feature/capability parity between the platforms means they are, in fact, both capable of serving these markets. But people want to vote with their dollars in the iOS ecosystem, and now the players want to change that ecosystem. I'm not entirely convinced that this is Apple's problem, in as much as it is Google's fault for not fostering a properly competitive revenue delivery platform, even though it has the maturity and standing to do so.

debacle 6y ago

> I don’t know why people feel it’s their undeniable right to be able to provide an app to iOS users. Rephrased: > I don't know why people feel it's their undeniable right to install the apps they want on iOS.

damnyou 6y ago

iOS is the market leader by profit share and by amount of money spent on app stores, as Apple fans like to talk about all the time. In a sane world, being a market leader would mean that shareholder and corporate interests are kept in check by society.

bohemian99 6y ago

It's about monopolization. Should a company be able to vertically integrate and install a toll booth to profit off of all developers on their platform? Or does that hurt consumers more than it would hurt businesses to separate that power?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Ericson2314 6y ago

It's not perfect but what else can we do? - Yes, every shmuck who buys only iOS cause Apple is the status symbol undermines everyone's ability to choose. But we'd need a consumer union to go after these monopoly-aiders as scabs. Ha ha ha not going to happen. - All the other hardware manufactures are so shitty and quality control and integration that they are also responsible. Do we wait for Moon's party to break up Samsung so Apple gets more competition? Tell Taiwan to break up TMSC or do more direct-to-consumer? Fundamentally we have the perfect storm of outsourcing and low quality, precarious Americans looking for status, and nationally-tinged monpolies. The idea solutions are just out of reach in the short term, so I support putting iOS on a stupid pedestal to break up Apple's exclusionary vertical integration.

kllrnohj 6y ago

Google Search should be free to only show location results from Google Maps, and ban Yelp, etc.. entirely from Google Search. After all, there's other search engines, right? There is a history here where using your market position in one area to force your product in another as being illegal (see the recent EU fine against Google for "abusing their Android monopoly" for example: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_4581 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_... ). Apple seems to be crossing that line rather brazenly.

bachmeier 6y ago

> I don’t know why people feel it’s their undeniable right to be able to provide an app to iOS users. If Apple is using its market power to increase profit at the expense of reducing selection and/or increasing prices for consumers, then that's a very serious problem. It's exactly the reason antitrust laws exist.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> But there are other Smartphone platforms with their own store, correct? But are they competing or parallel markets? Does Apple changing pricing or terms on the App Store drive business to other app stores, as replacements, or do software vendors choose which app stores to distribute with based on whether each provides a benefit worth the price, but not whether it is a better deal than some other store? I think that under market/pricing power tests, Apple’s software distribution business in the App Store is not that unlikely to be a monopoly. Now, establishing consumer harms from the way the leverage that monopoly to extract rents and dictate terms to software vendors might be less straightforward than it would be for a B2C monopoly, and in the US, at least, consumer harm is the key adverse impact from monopoly abuse that justifies legal consequences.

dathinab 6y ago

Because for many applications it's not viable to not provide service for iOs users, which is sad but true. Consider you not being able to: - buy train tickets under iOs - check-in into a hotel under iOs - do video conferences - chat with your friend - cross play with your friends - open your apartment doors - check your health data - do online banking - securely check your email - do Ueber, Rbnb, etc. - buy at Amazone - etc. Sure many (but not all) things might be doable over web interface but this crates often much more frictions and due to constraints put onto web interfaces and PWS also has often much worse UX, not providing service for millions of iOs users is often deadly and providing competitively shitty service isn't anygood either, even worse if you have to compete with Apple itself which gives there apps unfair advantages beyond not needing to pay the 30% cut. Let's be honest any marked which covers millions of people should be handled as a standalone marked even if you could argue it's just part of a bigger marked by any government or you fail your people (and the free marked idea IMHO, but reasoning about this is tricky as it involves considering how the marked dynamics have fundamentally changed and how thinks which would have worked in benefit for the population don't work anymore in the current times and therefore how the marked (laws) has to adapt to it).