25 ms·

I fear App Review is getting too powerful (2015) [pdf]

985 points by atarian 6y ago

uxp100 6y ago
What is the context for this being hosted at house.gov? I didn't follow the hearings THAT closely. Was this particular letter discussed?
- nickff 6y ago
  I am not sure, but would guess that someone (a member of the house) put it on the record, so that they could discuss the issues it brings up.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  The hearings the other day were just one part of the subcommittees anti-trust investigation. This constitutes the evidence gathering/discovery part of the investigation.
  - mFixman 6y ago
    How did the House find this email? Did one of the recipients leak if to the committee, or did Apple have to deliver all emails of this type?
- ponker 6y ago
  It's evidence submitted as part of the House hearings from July 29th where the CEOs of Apple/Amazon/Google/Facebook testified.
disillusioned 6y ago
Man, from the title I was really hoping this was an internal Apple doc written to Tim Cook by an Apple higher-up, or that it would maybe include a response from Tim Cook but, nope, it's just a well-written complaint expouding on the chokehold Apple has on their walled garden ecosystem.
- jamestimmins 6y ago
  Saying that would be tantamount to openly admitting they have a monopoly, which, morals aside, any CEO at that level would never even hint at. At most they would change the rules and say something like "we can serve our users better by increasing the openness of our ecosystem".
makecheck 6y ago
I think the worst part of this letter is the date; over 5 years ago and nothing is really different in any of the areas raised. Yet the same execs that were CC’d are in charge. I’m glad they had some great “thoughts” on the matter.
Ansil849 6y ago
> In November last year the App Review team made it clear that our apps were not welcome in the Store anymore as they actively removed our main app from the Store. They pointed to the rule (2.26) created just a couple of years ago about what kind of apps can recommend apps other than its own (by the way I still believe my apps fit the description). We of course have been aware of this rule since it came out, as we already had a healthy business and significant payroll doing app journalism. When we saw some apps get removed, it made us more steadfast in our mission. Because we believed the fact that we were not bothered is because we were doing it the "right 11 way. We were really serving the user and the App Store. Not selling fake "recommendations" as deceptive ads. We literally turned down millions of dollars in revenues, as developers repeatedly asked to pay per install to be featured in our app (outside of tradition advertising). It was hard to turn down the money even though we knew it was not right to users. One thing that made it easier is our belief that playing it straight would keep us in the App Store and in Apple's good graces. The rule exists for precisely the reason this email notes: to prevent the selling of deceptive in-app ads. How are App Review personnel supposed to know if the in-app links to other apps are there to really "serve the user" or as paid advertising? They can't, hence the rule. I don't see this is a problem, I see this as a good thing - I don't want to be exposed to deceptive advertising.
- dessant 6y ago
  You seem to not be interested in living with your right to install any app you want on your device, which is fine. But do you also believe that other people should not have the right to install software that has not been blessed by an authority on their devices? Do you think that general purpose computing devices, which an iPhone is, should no longer have the capability to run software without third-party auditing and approval? You are free to stay in the walled garden if you wish, but I think there is something disturbing about rallying for others to also lose the rights that are not important to you.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    This is a boring, off-topic response. You can litigate the entire concept of app review anywhere, and you can attach a response like this to practically any comment supporting any app review rule. A better response would take direct aim at the guideline this comment is referring to.
floren 6y ago
>I am in no way delusional enough to think we are partners or that Apple needs us in any respect. Of course we are insignificant to the success of Apple. Our departure from the App Store won't make even the tiniest blip. Of course I know that and this is no way meant to try to insinuate otherwise. "Oh Lord, oooh you are so big. So absolutely huge. Gosh, we're all really impressed down here I can tell you. Forgive us, O Lord, for this dreadful toadying and barefaced flattery. But you are so strong and, well, just so super. Fantastic. Amen" Edit: I guess it's sort of about establishing your bona fides before making a complaint, letting them know you don't expect them to immediately do everything you say, but it's so... fawningly written.
- hellofunk 6y ago
  This snarky response undermines the meaningful content found throughout the whole letter.
  - perryizgr8 6y ago
    Meaningful content does not excuse the real cringey shit like quoted above.
    - hellofunk 6y ago
      Are you referring to this as "cringey": ? > I am in no way delusional enough to think we are partners or that Apple needs us in any respect. Of course we are insignificant to the success of Apple. Our departure from the App Store won't make even the tiniest blip. Of course I know that and this is no way meant to try to insinuate otherwise. It seems like a reasonable admission to make. That is, it's not incorrect, what was written there.
hellofunk 6y ago
This is an impressive letter. It makes solid points, and it walks the fine line between emotional and reasonable.
thoughtsimple 6y ago
Since this is a recent release from the house investigation, I'm not sure if it should be marked 2015 or not. But it was sent in 2015. I also wonder if it had any affect. If anyone knows more details, that would be great to hear.
headmelted 6y ago
I mean, there’s a point to be made about how much monopoly power Apple holds, and it’s now clear these questions weren’t asked until now because lawmakers were really sweet on the maker of their shiny iPhone - but this letter ain’t it. The author is grovelling to the point of it being honestly pitiful. The amount of derogatory references to the web and Android also make it really hard for me not to question the motivation behind this letter. It’s transparently from an author who built their entire business on the shoulders of a single third party and is now horrified in realising it’s been taken away. If anything, the lesson to be learned here is that if your business depends exclusively on another company for its survival then it’s not your business. To the authors point - yes, Apple can change it’s policies whenever it likes, and can use those policies to kill other companies it views as competing with it’s own interests. This in itself isn’t news. Dropbox got flat out told by Steve Jobs to sell immediately for whatever he felt generous enough to give them or he’d crush them with a competitor. There was a podcast recently wherein someone who sold to Apple (I’m sorry I can’t remember who it was, will try to dig it out and update) got his deal reduced by 25% or so by Steve Jobs in person - after accepting it and flying out to Cupertino just because Jobs could and he wanted to make a point. This isn’t new information or a new policy, although maybe it’ll be a fairer playing field now that the hornet’s nest has received a good kicking.
- ROARosen 6y ago
  >The amount of derogatory references to the web and Android also make it really hard for me not to question the motivation behind this letter. The way the letter writer feels a need to keep on praising Apple and their vision and how everything]else is not worth anything make me nauseous.
  - rottingfruit 6y ago
    It really makes me wonder about why this letter, out of the presumably many about App Store review, is the one that Tim Cook would read and forward. From where I’m standing it looks like you’d have to come off as an otherwise huge fan to have your criticism taken into account.
paulcole 6y ago
> When I was really upset I picked up an Android phone and after 5 mins I couldn't handle how they completely missed delighting the user over and over again How many times does this guy expect to be delighted in 5 minutes?
- saagarjha 6y ago
  At least a few, presumably?
mhafez17 6y ago
Wow. I am the author of this email. I have no idea how it resurfaced after 5 years, I was only made aware of this when a friend emailed me the HN link. The sad thing is it was not just my company which was targeted, but Apple removed this entire product category. We never knew the real reason why, or if it was bigger than just a random app reviewer trying to apply Apple policy, until May 2019. That's when Bloomberg interviewed Phillip Shoemaker, who ran app reviews from 2009 to 2016 - regarding how Apple systemically removes whole categories of apps. I subsequently spoke to Phillip Shoemaker, who confirmed that Apple executives ordered the elimination of apps that drove downloads to the App Store. He said "Your app drove download volume. Apple doesn’t want any outside sources to drive ratings. So yeah, we got rid of all app recommendation apps." He said he thought it was unfair, but this was something Apple set out to do, and even as Senior Director of App Store (person directly in charge of App Review), he could not stop it. The other thing that was hard to understand, is we used to have a great relationship with Apple. We were not flying under the radar. Since the App Store first launched in 2008, we used to be invited to all Apple events to see the new product launches, we met with the iTunes team to discuss upcoming initiates for the App Store, our apps were featured on the devices inside of many demo units into Apple Stores. It felt like a complete 180, and until this day I never got a formal conversation on what they actually objected to, beyond being pointed to a vague rule which was applied arbitrarily. They became a brick wall in terms of communication, and this is why I resorted to emailing Tim Cook. I assumed nothing would come of it, but it was the last thing I could think of.I never received a response, and never knew if he even got it, so I was shocked to see it again today from his inbox.
- domador 6y ago
  Bummer! So, what platform(s) are you developing for nowadays?
  - mhafez17 6y ago
    No longer in the app recommendation game (too bad that was my passion. The same team who built AppAdvice has now created a B2B company helping businesses annoyomize personal documents: https://redacted.ai https://redacted.ai
MattGaiser 6y ago
How did we get from the attitude that web apps will be everything and native is backward to spending a lot of time concerned with App/Play Store monopolies? I guess my question is, why do native apps suddenly matter so much?
- Miraste 6y ago
  At least on iOS, native apps matter because Apple suffocated web apps by blocking a lot of functionality (APIs, PWA support).
  - inetknght 6y ago
    > Apple suffocated web apps by blocking a lot of functionality (APIs, PWA support) Rightfully so: I, as a user, do not want the web to have anywhere near the functionality that Google grants it; and absolutely not without clear and explicit permission. The unfortunate flip side is that native apps sidestep that whole paradigm anyway.
    - foxrider 6y ago
      So just add a manifest to a web app, like in KaiOS, the third largest phone OS? A permission model isn't hard to implement
- s_dev 6y ago
  >I guess my question is, why do native apps suddenly matter so much? They've always mattered -- native vs web vs hybrid is a war going on much longer than iOS or Android OS. Native apps matter because they have much better access to Apple hardware functionality on the phones like Apple Pay, GPS, Push Notifications, Persitent Storage, Accelerometer, Camera et cetera. A good example is video games -- while WebGL is a thing the simple reality is AAA games need to run natively.
- pjc50 6y ago
  Native apps make money. The web itself makes surprisingly little, unless you get revenue from Google.
domador 6y ago
> It's very weird to be in love with and scared of the same thing: Apple. Sound like an abusive relationship, and like what an abused partner would say to try to rationalize the fact that they're economically dependent on the abuser.
- bredren 6y ago
  I also read "abuse" in this quote.
- SyneRyder 6y ago
  While I try not to use that phrase publicly (because I know it will offend some people who see it as exaggeration), thinking of an Apple developer/customer as being in an abusive relationship is exactly what convinced me to get out & stop using/developing for Apple platforms. It took me a few years to see it, and nudges from friends ("Why do you put up with them treating you like that?") but it was a very useful perspective on Apple for me.
- reportgunner 6y ago
  I think this is called Stockholm syndrome[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
surround 6y ago
Can we get a (2015) tag on the title?
- gpm 6y ago
  The letter is from 2015, the fact that the US house of representatives is looking at the letter appears to be current and the main point of the submission.
- billjings 6y ago
  2015 is not the correct tag; this was publically published recently, I believe this year, as part of House antitrust discovery. So the date of authorship, while usually a good guide, would not be helpful to users looking to filter out reposts and other recycled content.
vmception 6y ago
> I fear App Review is getting too powerful. It's no longer about keeping iDevices safe or protecting the user's best Its amazing that people right here on hackernews, 5 years later, actually think it is about keeping iDevices safe when they see these legislature and regulatory movements against Apple I’m glad to see your email now
- zepto 6y ago
  I actually think it’s about keeping iDevices safe. However I’m also someone who thinks app recommendation apps are a good thing and should be allowed on the store. I think the author of the PDF is not only trying to provide a valuable service, but is also right in pointing out that there are problems. These things are not mutually exclusive.
  - Hamuko 6y ago
    >I actually think it’s about keeping iDevices safe. How are Hey or xCloud about keeping iDevices safe?
    - richardwhiuk 6y ago
      xCloud deliberately avoids the app review process AIUI by allowing it to be an umbrella for any game.
      - Hamuko 6y ago
        Yeah, but the technology used for all of the games is the same isn't it? It's just streaming. And if it's about content, I doube Apple is pre-approving every Netflix show. I bet some of the offerings on Netflix even show female nipples. https://www.businessinsider.com/why-instagram-bans-freethenipple-2015-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/why-instagram-bans-freetheni...
        zepto 6y ago
        Apps and videos pose different security risks, but I assume you know this.
1f60c 6y ago
Who redacted this email? Apple, or the House?
kelnos 6y ago
I wonder which of Cue, Schiller, or Federighi replied, and what their thoughts were.
awinter-py 6y ago
oh man dissing hololens on the last page! AR has come a long way in 5 years
cblconfederate 6y ago
One thing missing from this discussion is: where is academia? The WWW was created inside academia, and it's because of that that it's still open and competitive. The internet itself was created in the military. Where is the equivalent for mobile apps? It's a problematic category that is wholly dominated by 2 actors, one of which isn't even interested in phones. We need a common set of standards for mobile development in order to open up the competition
- spideymans 6y ago
  I suspect you’d quickly find that consumers don’t have much of an appetite for a third set of standards, unless it offers a substantially better UX than existing offerings.
- jldugger 6y ago
  >where is academia? Where is the need? The web was invented to expedite publishing journal articles. Unless you're advocating that academics start publishing apps instead of articles, I don't think we can expect some unrelated non-profit sector to solve society's problems.
- alerighi 6y ago
  Why not use the web as the standard? I mean progressive web apps can do nearly everything that 95% of the apps do, they can present notifications, have a local persistent storage, there are even proposal to let them access bluetooth, USB and other hardware. But of course now Apple is trying to oppose PWA by imposing stupid limitations.
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    they just aren't good enough. even on android, with google supposedly being the patron saint of PWA, native apps just offer a better experience.
    - pier25 6y ago
      OTOH more effort hasn't been put into PWAs (by developers and Google) precisely because these won't work properly in iOS.
kanox 6y ago
Am I the only one that is creeped out that this email is public?
- mhafez17 6y ago
  As the author I was shocked to see it out there, and seeing my emotions out there like that made me feel something, I'm not sure what. But ultimately I am happy that this conversation is finally happening. I have a good feeling things are going to change for the better soon.
  - pier25 6y ago
    > I have a good feeling things are going to change for the better soon. I hope you're right. What do you think will happen? Apple will be forced to allow other app stores on iOS?
- ardy42 6y ago
  Not really. In an open society, courts and government bodies will sometimes have to make private things public if there's a compelling public-interest reason for doing so. That's needed for public oversight, and all that can be asked is that reasonable actions are taken to minimize any private harm. In this case, the email was redacted to hide the identity of its author, so I don't there's any real problem with making it public.
- NorwegianDude 6y ago
  Apple shares your communication with them with the public?!? What happened to privacy?!? Sue them! Do it now! /s
- laurieg 6y ago
  People sometimes give the advice "Never write in an email what you wouldn't want to see on the front page of a newspaper". I guess the hacker news frontpage is close enough.
billjings 6y ago
Can we correct the title? 2015 is not the correct date of public publication; this document was published as part of House antitrust discovery, I believe this year, and was private communication before that. Finding the precise date is beyond my brief Googling efforts, though.
booleandilemma 6y ago
It has a real “serf begging his lord” feel to it.
alirsgp 6y ago
Am I the only one that supports Apple here? As a smaller indie dev they have been great to me. The best developer support I've experienced from a company and I don't mind the 30% cut.
- skizm 6y ago
  I mind it in that I'd like to pay less, but I personally think Apple has every right to control their own ecosystem and charge whatever they want to be listed in their store, on their hardware. I think it is a tough pill to swallow for larger corps who see much less value in Apple's marketing / support.
- smaddock 6y ago
  The email wasn't complaining about Apple's cut of profits, but rather having their app being killed seemingly arbitrarily when Apple decided to kill a category of apps from the store. Folks can have a good experience with the app store, until they don't. There's survivorship bias in creating an app unaffected by the ever changing app review policies. This isn't exclusive to Apple's walled garden either.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  If you're a small indie band, or a large act, Bandcamp only charges 10% - 15% for digital assets purchased on their platform. Surely if fair competition was allowed between app store platforms, other companies could be more efficient with the 30% cut Apple currently takes, and could even take less.
hughw 6y ago
"We believed the web was dead"... well there's your problem.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
FpUser 6y ago
I feel happy that aside of doing couple of small contract things I've never had to deal with App stores and their respective owners. I just can't tolerate that kind of control over my products hence refuse to participate.
egocentric 6y ago
I fully agree with the author, and "App Review is getting too powerful" was an extremely prescient thing to say back then - let alone today. I've had my own share of similar experiences with Apple in the past, one of which was here on HN recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23585682 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23585682 Apple currently has an unreasonable amount of control not only on what apps can be available on their devices, but also on how they look, work, and generate revenue. They allow 3rd-party innovation to occur only down specific paths that they deem beneficial. On top of everything, Apple is also systematically erasing all App Review rejection communications [1] and keeping most of this abuse in the dark, thus buying themselves more time to stay in this dominant position. Something definitely needs to change here, hopefully sooner than later. [1] https://www.change.org/p/apple-let-us-browse-all-our-past-resolution-center-communications https://www.change.org/p/apple-let-us-browse-all-our-past-re...
- mhafez17 6y ago
  Signed the petition! Thanks for helping make change.
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  On top of everything, Apple is also systematically erasing all App Review rejection communications [1] If someone were to sue them for any reason related to rejection of an app submission, they could probably obtain an injunction to bring that bullshit to a screeching halt. Just saying.
- scarface74 6y ago
  I’ll just repost what the top comment said. But I see it as really disingenuous to try to put what you are trying to do, in the same category as Basecamp/Hey, whose side I completely support. Here's the thing: why should anyone trust that you will actually honor this 3-day money back guarantee, or that even if you honor it now that you will continue to honor it in the future? Part of the benefit of the App Store payment system is that it puts the user in control of their trials and subscriptions and lets them easily manage, cancel, and request refunds in a way that is guaranteed. But if your refund form magically disappeared one day, no one would have any recourse against that.
rafaelturk 6y ago
We're in the process to leave the App store ecosystem ourselves by migrating our Apps to a WebApp, responsive, PWA, HTML5. Surprisingly, somehow, it is actually based on Steve's amazing Thoughts on flash Open Letter, that emphasizes HTML5
halfFact 6y ago
Don't all users understand this before giving Apple money? No sympathy here. Make people use web apps instead of feeding the beast.
- NorwegianDude 6y ago
  Good luck with web apps on iOS. Safari is a shitshow with more serious bugs than anything else I know of. You can report bugs, and maybe someone working on WebKit will look at it in 5 years, and maybe it will be fixed in 10 years. And then probably appear again in the next iOS version. Either Apple is incompetent, or they're making/keeping it bad on purpose.
  - halfFact 6y ago
    Can't you install chrome?
    - 654wak654 6y ago
      All browsers on ios use the safari engine. Only thing chrome can do is sync your bookmarks.
      - myko 6y ago
        I think they go a bit more advanced than that - IIRC they use their own networking stack. But yeah the rendering / JS interpreter is all Safari.
    - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
      All browsers on iOS use a Safari webview. iOS does not allow the installation of competing browser engines. So, no. It may be called chrome, it may look like chrome, but it is Safari, with all the limitations that implies (and a few extra limitations as a webview, just for good measure). Apple does this on purpose to push people to use native apps, and then they lock down access to a market of 1 billion people to their whim of the day. Edit: another poster pulled the trigger at the same time as me, will leave my comment for good measure.
gajeam 6y ago
Coincidentally, iOS 13 updated iBeacon in a way that also made it a lot less useful to developers (although there was a clear privacy benefit for users.)
themihai 6y ago
>> We didn't even have a web version of the product because we believed the web was dead Well he deserved what he's got...like all the people pumping up dictators because they are "good" for a short period of time just to find out later they are not so good anymore and they have no way to change that.
greatjack613 6y ago
I honestly feel the best option would be for spotify, netflix, microsoft, facebook, epic, and all other companies who have been burned by apple to pull their apps indefinitely. Sort of like a hunger strike. I am confident apple will cave first.
- greatjack613 6y ago
  Imagine telling someone with an iphone that there is no facebook, whatsapp, spotify, or netflix. I think android would gain a huge boost from this.
- xuki 6y ago
  All at the same time? Yeah. One app at a time? Just a chance for their competitors to gain ground. And I would bet anything all the companies you listed would do the same thing if they were in Apple’s position.
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  I actually don't think it will make a difference. Apple users are used to accepting weird compromises. Iphone 4 was notorious for bad reception during calls. Apple's solution: hold it correctly. People buy apple h/w for the shine, not any specific use, whose absence would make them buy something else. So they will just endure without Fortnite, MS Word, Google Maps, Youtube etc. In fact I'm sure many people will blame Microsoft/Google/Epic and say that Apple is in the clear, just look at this thread.
- jpttsn 6y ago
  Collusion, wouldn’t it be?
salawat 6y ago
The first time I read the guidance documents for branding and submission of apps to the Apple and Google App stores, I had to look around and ask myself why no one else was calling it out as anti-competitive. I know what a free market looks like, I also know when onerous requirements are being place on something just to get in. Both companies have done the same things. When you see as many companies acquired and killed as has gone on in the last 20 years or so it becomes pretty damn obvious what is going on. It's just amazing it has taken this long for traction to develop in that regard.
dataintelli 6y ago
Md
gerash 6y ago
The legislation I'd get behind is to enforce import / export of data across platforms a la. Google takeout but better where you can both export and import with a single click. That is, rather than getting into some abstract arguments on what an App store should or shouldn't do the focus should be on lowering the cost of switching mobile / wearable computing platforms down to a single click of a button. There is no issue with making an ecosystem more appealing by making them well integrated but there has to be an out of some kind for the consumer. All those "Their app store, their rule" arguments don't hold water if you compare it to, say, AT&T holding your phone number hostage and claiming that they're not a monopoly and you can switch to another carrier but need to use a new phone number if you do.
- singron 6y ago
  Isn't that issue orthogonal? I don't think the iPhone has the userbase it does because it takes more than 1 click to switch to android. Many people have expensive devices that they like along with the software they prefer. The fact that android and iOS compete for users is irrelevant to the fact that Apple has a monopoly over access to iOS users and Google has a monopoly over access to Android users. If you want to access people on mobile, you must interact with one or both largely disjoint monopolies.
  - jspaetzel 6y ago
    The difference between Apple and Google in this instance is a matter of transparency and predatory actions.
  - gerash 6y ago
    Monopoly over iOS or Android is a bit murky definition IMO. They are both creations of those companies and it seems fine for them to have a monopoly over them. Ring devices by Amazon or Nest devices by Google can have a monopoly over the devices in their ecosystem but no one cares [yet]. Mobile computing is what Apple and Google have created and of course you need to go through them to access the users there. You have to go through MS and Sony for example to access game console users, duh! The issue is if for example tomorrow a new company builds a nicer hardware and software package there's no easy way for users to migrate. The migration cost is super high. That company can't emulate iOS or Windows to be compatible with the existing apps. I don't think they can do a clean room reimplementation of the OS calls either. The users would need to repurchase all the apps, music, games, movies and other media they've already paid for even though none of those content were created by the platform owners. Imagine running a web server on Azure VMs and try to migrate to AWS to GCP but then realize you need to repurchase all the stock images you used in your website and any other software you run on your servers. I think for popular enough platforms like iOS, Android, Windows, etc. the cost of switching should be regulated. That way the quick feedback loop from consumers will ensure the platforms owners are always kept on their toes to keep all the consumers happy without relying on the moat they've built.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
oltremarino 6y ago
I don't really understand why Apple is allowed to have the amount of power it has today: it provides the hardware, the operating system, the software store (which they make sure is the only way to get software for most users), _and_ gets to decide whether any particular piece of software is allowed on the store? Surely there needs to be some separation of powers? e.g. a third party (could be set up by the government or in some other ways) will review the apps and Apple only maintains the software store without having much power over the contents in the store. It was understandable at the time when everything was uncharted territory so Apple got to do whatever it wanted, but now that smart phones are so tightly integrated into the lives of many people, it seems Apple shouldn't be allowed to hold on to all those power. Is anything being done in that direction that might become effective?
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  > Is anything being done in that direction that might become effective? Stop buying iphones and macs.
  - reportgunner 6y ago
    So much this. Apple customers are funding this behavior.
    - Razengan 6y ago
      Because other companies are worse and do all sorts of other shit.
      - reportgunner 6y ago
        Yes they pay Apple for reinforcing this notion too.
- xuki 6y ago
  Because the gov should not control what a private business could do unless it's against the laws? The debate is whether Apple is a monopoly, until we conclude that Apple should be able to run their store as they see fit. Personally I would say Apple is not a monopoly, but Apple + Google is a duopoly and maybe gov should do something about BOTH of them.
cdata 6y ago
The App Store was always a walled garden with notably tall walls. The power Apple has over who gets into the App Store has been described as the primary virtue and attraction of iOS devices for years. Users love that it is a curated collection with a very high bar for quality, and many are willing to accept the trade-off that not all apps (even technically legitimate ones) will be published there. This is why the web is so important. More to the topic at hand: this is why Apple purposely, broadly second-classing the web on iOS is so important, and needs to stop. On Android, a directory-style app would be trivial to distribute on the web as an installable PWA that eventually becomes indistinguishable from a native app from the user's perspective. It's 2020; this is a sub-basement level of capability that all platforms should include by now. Let's stop pretending that ceding all the publishing power to one company is a trade-off that makes sense in the long-run (this goes for Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and all the rest).
- rimliu 6y ago
  Have you seen the web lately?
  - cdata 6y ago
    If you don't like the web, nobody is forcing you to use it. But, your decision not to use it shouldn't come at the cost of someone else's freedom to distribute legitimate software or creative works to those users who seek it out. Speaking for myself, most of the "apps" I use on my phone and desktop on a daily basis are PWAs, and they are generally indistinguishable from the native apps I use in terms of quality.
    - mytherin 6y ago
      I don't think the above poster was critiquing the quality of the web, but rather stating that the web has the same problem of generally being consolidated into the hands of a few big players (Google/Facebook). If you make a website and Google decides to remove you from their search index for whatever reason, the financial effects on most companies would also be disastrous. Perhaps even comparable to being removed from the App Store.
caro_douglos 6y ago
I'd be curious to see the letters written directly to jeff@amazon by small businesses (3rd party merchants) which were suspended. Would be interesting to see if they: * went out of business * took predatory loans * were given loans directly by Amazon [1]. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200416132704/https://sell.amazon.com/programs/amazon-lending.html https://web.archive.org/web/20200416132704/https://sell.amaz...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
superdeeda 6y ago
Here is the list of more such documents from the hearing: https://judiciary.house.gov/online-platforms-and-market-power/ https://judiciary.house.gov/online-platforms-and-market-powe...

985 points by atarian 6y ago

What is the context for this being hosted at house.gov? I didn't follow the hearings THAT closely. Was this particular letter discussed?

nickff 6y ago
I am not sure, but would guess that someone (a member of the house) put it on the record, so that they could discuss the issues it brings up.
madeofpalk 6y ago
The hearings the other day were just one part of the subcommittees anti-trust investigation. This constitutes the evidence gathering/discovery part of the investigation.
- mFixman 6y ago
  How did the House find this email? Did one of the recipients leak if to the committee, or did Apple have to deliver all emails of this type?
ponker 6y ago
It's evidence submitted as part of the House hearings from July 29th where the CEOs of Apple/Amazon/Google/Facebook testified.

disillusioned 6y ago

Man, from the title I was really hoping this was an internal Apple doc written to Tim Cook by an Apple higher-up, or that it would maybe include a response from Tim Cook but, nope, it's just a well-written complaint expouding on the chokehold Apple has on their walled garden ecosystem.

jamestimmins 6y ago
Saying that would be tantamount to openly admitting they have a monopoly, which, morals aside, any CEO at that level would never even hint at. At most they would change the rules and say something like "we can serve our users better by increasing the openness of our ecosystem".

makecheck 6y ago

I think the worst part of this letter is the date; over 5 years ago and nothing is really different in any of the areas raised. Yet the same execs that were CC’d are in charge. I’m glad they had some great “thoughts” on the matter.

Ansil849 6y ago

> In November last year the App Review team made it clear that our apps were not welcome in the Store anymore as they actively removed our main app from the Store. They pointed to the rule (2.26) created just a couple of years ago about what kind of apps can recommend apps other than its own (by the way I still believe my apps fit the description). We of course have been aware of this rule since it came out, as we already had a healthy business and significant payroll doing app journalism. When we saw some apps get removed, it made us more steadfast in our mission. Because we believed the fact that we were not bothered is because we were doing it the "right 11 way. We were really serving the user and the App Store. Not selling fake "recommendations" as deceptive ads. We literally turned down millions of dollars in revenues, as developers repeatedly asked to pay per install to be featured in our app (outside of tradition advertising). It was hard to turn down the money even though we knew it was not right to users. One thing that made it easier is our belief that playing it straight would keep us in the App Store and in Apple's good graces. The rule exists for precisely the reason this email notes: to prevent the selling of deceptive in-app ads. How are App Review personnel supposed to know if the in-app links to other apps are there to really "serve the user" or as paid advertising? They can't, hence the rule. I don't see this is a problem, I see this as a good thing - I don't want to be exposed to deceptive advertising.

dessant 6y ago
You seem to not be interested in living with your right to install any app you want on your device, which is fine. But do you also believe that other people should not have the right to install software that has not been blessed by an authority on their devices? Do you think that general purpose computing devices, which an iPhone is, should no longer have the capability to run software without third-party auditing and approval? You are free to stay in the walled garden if you wish, but I think there is something disturbing about rallying for others to also lose the rights that are not important to you.
- tptacek 6y ago
  This is a boring, off-topic response. You can litigate the entire concept of app review anywhere, and you can attach a response like this to practically any comment supporting any app review rule. A better response would take direct aim at the guideline this comment is referring to.

floren 6y ago

>I am in no way delusional enough to think we are partners or that Apple needs us in any respect. Of course we are insignificant to the success of Apple. Our departure from the App Store won't make even the tiniest blip. Of course I know that and this is no way meant to try to insinuate otherwise. "Oh Lord, oooh you are so big. So absolutely huge. Gosh, we're all really impressed down here I can tell you. Forgive us, O Lord, for this dreadful toadying and barefaced flattery. But you are so strong and, well, just so super. Fantastic. Amen" Edit: I guess it's sort of about establishing your bona fides before making a complaint, letting them know you don't expect them to immediately do everything you say, but it's so... fawningly written.

hellofunk 6y ago
This snarky response undermines the meaningful content found throughout the whole letter.
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  Meaningful content does not excuse the real cringey shit like quoted above.
  - hellofunk 6y ago
    Are you referring to this as "cringey": ? > I am in no way delusional enough to think we are partners or that Apple needs us in any respect. Of course we are insignificant to the success of Apple. Our departure from the App Store won't make even the tiniest blip. Of course I know that and this is no way meant to try to insinuate otherwise. It seems like a reasonable admission to make. That is, it's not incorrect, what was written there.

hellofunk 6y ago

This is an impressive letter. It makes solid points, and it walks the fine line between emotional and reasonable.

thoughtsimple 6y ago

Since this is a recent release from the house investigation, I'm not sure if it should be marked 2015 or not. But it was sent in 2015. I also wonder if it had any affect. If anyone knows more details, that would be great to hear.

headmelted 6y ago

I mean, there’s a point to be made about how much monopoly power Apple holds, and it’s now clear these questions weren’t asked until now because lawmakers were really sweet on the maker of their shiny iPhone - but this letter ain’t it. The author is grovelling to the point of it being honestly pitiful. The amount of derogatory references to the web and Android also make it really hard for me not to question the motivation behind this letter. It’s transparently from an author who built their entire business on the shoulders of a single third party and is now horrified in realising it’s been taken away. If anything, the lesson to be learned here is that if your business depends exclusively on another company for its survival then it’s not your business. To the authors point - yes, Apple can change it’s policies whenever it likes, and can use those policies to kill other companies it views as competing with it’s own interests. This in itself isn’t news. Dropbox got flat out told by Steve Jobs to sell immediately for whatever he felt generous enough to give them or he’d crush them with a competitor. There was a podcast recently wherein someone who sold to Apple (I’m sorry I can’t remember who it was, will try to dig it out and update) got his deal reduced by 25% or so by Steve Jobs in person - after accepting it and flying out to Cupertino just because Jobs could and he wanted to make a point. This isn’t new information or a new policy, although maybe it’ll be a fairer playing field now that the hornet’s nest has received a good kicking.

ROARosen 6y ago
>The amount of derogatory references to the web and Android also make it really hard for me not to question the motivation behind this letter. The way the letter writer feels a need to keep on praising Apple and their vision and how everything]else is not worth anything make me nauseous.
- rottingfruit 6y ago
  It really makes me wonder about why this letter, out of the presumably many about App Store review, is the one that Tim Cook would read and forward. From where I’m standing it looks like you’d have to come off as an otherwise huge fan to have your criticism taken into account.

paulcole 6y ago

> When I was really upset I picked up an Android phone and after 5 mins I couldn't handle how they completely missed delighting the user over and over again How many times does this guy expect to be delighted in 5 minutes?

saagarjha 6y ago
At least a few, presumably?

mhafez17 6y ago

Wow. I am the author of this email. I have no idea how it resurfaced after 5 years, I was only made aware of this when a friend emailed me the HN link. The sad thing is it was not just my company which was targeted, but Apple removed this entire product category. We never knew the real reason why, or if it was bigger than just a random app reviewer trying to apply Apple policy, until May 2019. That's when Bloomberg interviewed Phillip Shoemaker, who ran app reviews from 2009 to 2016 - regarding how Apple systemically removes whole categories of apps. I subsequently spoke to Phillip Shoemaker, who confirmed that Apple executives ordered the elimination of apps that drove downloads to the App Store. He said "Your app drove download volume. Apple doesn’t want any outside sources to drive ratings. So yeah, we got rid of all app recommendation apps." He said he thought it was unfair, but this was something Apple set out to do, and even as Senior Director of App Store (person directly in charge of App Review), he could not stop it. The other thing that was hard to understand, is we used to have a great relationship with Apple. We were not flying under the radar. Since the App Store first launched in 2008, we used to be invited to all Apple events to see the new product launches, we met with the iTunes team to discuss upcoming initiates for the App Store, our apps were featured on the devices inside of many demo units into Apple Stores. It felt like a complete 180, and until this day I never got a formal conversation on what they actually objected to, beyond being pointed to a vague rule which was applied arbitrarily. They became a brick wall in terms of communication, and this is why I resorted to emailing Tim Cook. I assumed nothing would come of it, but it was the last thing I could think of.I never received a response, and never knew if he even got it, so I was shocked to see it again today from his inbox.

domador 6y ago
Bummer! So, what platform(s) are you developing for nowadays?
- mhafez17 6y ago
  No longer in the app recommendation game (too bad that was my passion. The same team who built AppAdvice has now created a B2B company helping businesses annoyomize personal documents: https://redacted.ai https://redacted.ai

MattGaiser 6y ago

How did we get from the attitude that web apps will be everything and native is backward to spending a lot of time concerned with App/Play Store monopolies? I guess my question is, why do native apps suddenly matter so much?

Miraste 6y ago
At least on iOS, native apps matter because Apple suffocated web apps by blocking a lot of functionality (APIs, PWA support).
- inetknght 6y ago
  > Apple suffocated web apps by blocking a lot of functionality (APIs, PWA support) Rightfully so: I, as a user, do not want the web to have anywhere near the functionality that Google grants it; and absolutely not without clear and explicit permission. The unfortunate flip side is that native apps sidestep that whole paradigm anyway.
  - foxrider 6y ago
    So just add a manifest to a web app, like in KaiOS, the third largest phone OS? A permission model isn't hard to implement
s_dev 6y ago
>I guess my question is, why do native apps suddenly matter so much? They've always mattered -- native vs web vs hybrid is a war going on much longer than iOS or Android OS. Native apps matter because they have much better access to Apple hardware functionality on the phones like Apple Pay, GPS, Push Notifications, Persitent Storage, Accelerometer, Camera et cetera. A good example is video games -- while WebGL is a thing the simple reality is AAA games need to run natively.
pjc50 6y ago
Native apps make money. The web itself makes surprisingly little, unless you get revenue from Google.

domador 6y ago

> It's very weird to be in love with and scared of the same thing: Apple. Sound like an abusive relationship, and like what an abused partner would say to try to rationalize the fact that they're economically dependent on the abuser.

bredren 6y ago
I also read "abuse" in this quote.
SyneRyder 6y ago
While I try not to use that phrase publicly (because I know it will offend some people who see it as exaggeration), thinking of an Apple developer/customer as being in an abusive relationship is exactly what convinced me to get out & stop using/developing for Apple platforms. It took me a few years to see it, and nudges from friends ("Why do you put up with them treating you like that?") but it was a very useful perspective on Apple for me.
reportgunner 6y ago
I think this is called Stockholm syndrome[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

surround 6y ago

Can we get a (2015) tag on the title?

gpm 6y ago
The letter is from 2015, the fact that the US house of representatives is looking at the letter appears to be current and the main point of the submission.
billjings 6y ago
2015 is not the correct tag; this was publically published recently, I believe this year, as part of House antitrust discovery. So the date of authorship, while usually a good guide, would not be helpful to users looking to filter out reposts and other recycled content.

vmception 6y ago

> I fear App Review is getting too powerful. It's no longer about keeping iDevices safe or protecting the user's best Its amazing that people right here on hackernews, 5 years later, actually think it is about keeping iDevices safe when they see these legislature and regulatory movements against Apple I’m glad to see your email now

zepto 6y ago
I actually think it’s about keeping iDevices safe. However I’m also someone who thinks app recommendation apps are a good thing and should be allowed on the store. I think the author of the PDF is not only trying to provide a valuable service, but is also right in pointing out that there are problems. These things are not mutually exclusive.
- Hamuko 6y ago
  >I actually think it’s about keeping iDevices safe. How are Hey or xCloud about keeping iDevices safe?
  - richardwhiuk 6y ago
    xCloud deliberately avoids the app review process AIUI by allowing it to be an umbrella for any game.
    - Hamuko 6y ago
      Yeah, but the technology used for all of the games is the same isn't it? It's just streaming. And if it's about content, I doube Apple is pre-approving every Netflix show. I bet some of the offerings on Netflix even show female nipples. https://www.businessinsider.com/why-instagram-bans-freethenipple-2015-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/why-instagram-bans-freetheni...
      - zepto 6y ago
        Apps and videos pose different security risks, but I assume you know this.

1f60c 6y ago

Who redacted this email? Apple, or the House?

kelnos 6y ago

I wonder which of Cue, Schiller, or Federighi replied, and what their thoughts were.

awinter-py 6y ago

oh man dissing hololens on the last page! AR has come a long way in 5 years

cblconfederate 6y ago

One thing missing from this discussion is: where is academia? The WWW was created inside academia, and it's because of that that it's still open and competitive. The internet itself was created in the military. Where is the equivalent for mobile apps? It's a problematic category that is wholly dominated by 2 actors, one of which isn't even interested in phones. We need a common set of standards for mobile development in order to open up the competition

spideymans 6y ago
I suspect you’d quickly find that consumers don’t have much of an appetite for a third set of standards, unless it offers a substantially better UX than existing offerings.
jldugger 6y ago
>where is academia? Where is the need? The web was invented to expedite publishing journal articles. Unless you're advocating that academics start publishing apps instead of articles, I don't think we can expect some unrelated non-profit sector to solve society's problems.
alerighi 6y ago
Why not use the web as the standard? I mean progressive web apps can do nearly everything that 95% of the apps do, they can present notifications, have a local persistent storage, there are even proposal to let them access bluetooth, USB and other hardware. But of course now Apple is trying to oppose PWA by imposing stupid limitations.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  they just aren't good enough. even on android, with google supposedly being the patron saint of PWA, native apps just offer a better experience.
  - pier25 6y ago
    OTOH more effort hasn't been put into PWAs (by developers and Google) precisely because these won't work properly in iOS.

kanox 6y ago

Am I the only one that is creeped out that this email is public?

mhafez17 6y ago
As the author I was shocked to see it out there, and seeing my emotions out there like that made me feel something, I'm not sure what. But ultimately I am happy that this conversation is finally happening. I have a good feeling things are going to change for the better soon.
- pier25 6y ago
  > I have a good feeling things are going to change for the better soon. I hope you're right. What do you think will happen? Apple will be forced to allow other app stores on iOS?
ardy42 6y ago
Not really. In an open society, courts and government bodies will sometimes have to make private things public if there's a compelling public-interest reason for doing so. That's needed for public oversight, and all that can be asked is that reasonable actions are taken to minimize any private harm. In this case, the email was redacted to hide the identity of its author, so I don't there's any real problem with making it public.
NorwegianDude 6y ago
Apple shares your communication with them with the public?!? What happened to privacy?!? Sue them! Do it now! /s
laurieg 6y ago
People sometimes give the advice "Never write in an email what you wouldn't want to see on the front page of a newspaper". I guess the hacker news frontpage is close enough.

billjings 6y ago

Can we correct the title? 2015 is not the correct date of public publication; this document was published as part of House antitrust discovery, I believe this year, and was private communication before that. Finding the precise date is beyond my brief Googling efforts, though.

booleandilemma 6y ago

It has a real “serf begging his lord” feel to it.

alirsgp 6y ago

Am I the only one that supports Apple here? As a smaller indie dev they have been great to me. The best developer support I've experienced from a company and I don't mind the 30% cut.

skizm 6y ago
I mind it in that I'd like to pay less, but I personally think Apple has every right to control their own ecosystem and charge whatever they want to be listed in their store, on their hardware. I think it is a tough pill to swallow for larger corps who see much less value in Apple's marketing / support.
smaddock 6y ago
The email wasn't complaining about Apple's cut of profits, but rather having their app being killed seemingly arbitrarily when Apple decided to kill a category of apps from the store. Folks can have a good experience with the app store, until they don't. There's survivorship bias in creating an app unaffected by the ever changing app review policies. This isn't exclusive to Apple's walled garden either.
heavyset_go 6y ago
If you're a small indie band, or a large act, Bandcamp only charges 10% - 15% for digital assets purchased on their platform. Surely if fair competition was allowed between app store platforms, other companies could be more efficient with the 30% cut Apple currently takes, and could even take less.

hughw 6y ago

"We believed the web was dead"... well there's your problem.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

FpUser 6y ago

I feel happy that aside of doing couple of small contract things I've never had to deal with App stores and their respective owners. I just can't tolerate that kind of control over my products hence refuse to participate.

egocentric 6y ago

I fully agree with the author, and "App Review is getting too powerful" was an extremely prescient thing to say back then - let alone today. I've had my own share of similar experiences with Apple in the past, one of which was here on HN recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23585682 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23585682 Apple currently has an unreasonable amount of control not only on what apps can be available on their devices, but also on how they look, work, and generate revenue. They allow 3rd-party innovation to occur only down specific paths that they deem beneficial. On top of everything, Apple is also systematically erasing all App Review rejection communications [1] and keeping most of this abuse in the dark, thus buying themselves more time to stay in this dominant position. Something definitely needs to change here, hopefully sooner than later. [1] https://www.change.org/p/apple-let-us-browse-all-our-past-resolution-center-communications https://www.change.org/p/apple-let-us-browse-all-our-past-re...

mhafez17 6y ago
Signed the petition! Thanks for helping make change.
CamperBob2 6y ago
On top of everything, Apple is also systematically erasing all App Review rejection communications [1] If someone were to sue them for any reason related to rejection of an app submission, they could probably obtain an injunction to bring that bullshit to a screeching halt. Just saying.
scarface74 6y ago
I’ll just repost what the top comment said. But I see it as really disingenuous to try to put what you are trying to do, in the same category as Basecamp/Hey, whose side I completely support. Here's the thing: why should anyone trust that you will actually honor this 3-day money back guarantee, or that even if you honor it now that you will continue to honor it in the future? Part of the benefit of the App Store payment system is that it puts the user in control of their trials and subscriptions and lets them easily manage, cancel, and request refunds in a way that is guaranteed. But if your refund form magically disappeared one day, no one would have any recourse against that.

rafaelturk 6y ago

We're in the process to leave the App store ecosystem ourselves by migrating our Apps to a WebApp, responsive, PWA, HTML5. Surprisingly, somehow, it is actually based on Steve's amazing Thoughts on flash Open Letter, that emphasizes HTML5

halfFact 6y ago

Don't all users understand this before giving Apple money? No sympathy here. Make people use web apps instead of feeding the beast.

NorwegianDude 6y ago
Good luck with web apps on iOS. Safari is a shitshow with more serious bugs than anything else I know of. You can report bugs, and maybe someone working on WebKit will look at it in 5 years, and maybe it will be fixed in 10 years. And then probably appear again in the next iOS version. Either Apple is incompetent, or they're making/keeping it bad on purpose.
- halfFact 6y ago
  Can't you install chrome?
  - 654wak654 6y ago
    All browsers on ios use the safari engine. Only thing chrome can do is sync your bookmarks.
    - myko 6y ago
      I think they go a bit more advanced than that - IIRC they use their own networking stack. But yeah the rendering / JS interpreter is all Safari.
  - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
    All browsers on iOS use a Safari webview. iOS does not allow the installation of competing browser engines. So, no. It may be called chrome, it may look like chrome, but it is Safari, with all the limitations that implies (and a few extra limitations as a webview, just for good measure). Apple does this on purpose to push people to use native apps, and then they lock down access to a market of 1 billion people to their whim of the day. Edit: another poster pulled the trigger at the same time as me, will leave my comment for good measure.

gajeam 6y ago

Coincidentally, iOS 13 updated iBeacon in a way that also made it a lot less useful to developers (although there was a clear privacy benefit for users.)

themihai 6y ago

>> We didn't even have a web version of the product because we believed the web was dead Well he deserved what he's got...like all the people pumping up dictators because they are "good" for a short period of time just to find out later they are not so good anymore and they have no way to change that.

greatjack613 6y ago

I honestly feel the best option would be for spotify, netflix, microsoft, facebook, epic, and all other companies who have been burned by apple to pull their apps indefinitely. Sort of like a hunger strike. I am confident apple will cave first.

greatjack613 6y ago
Imagine telling someone with an iphone that there is no facebook, whatsapp, spotify, or netflix. I think android would gain a huge boost from this.
xuki 6y ago
All at the same time? Yeah. One app at a time? Just a chance for their competitors to gain ground. And I would bet anything all the companies you listed would do the same thing if they were in Apple’s position.
perryizgr8 6y ago
I actually don't think it will make a difference. Apple users are used to accepting weird compromises. Iphone 4 was notorious for bad reception during calls. Apple's solution: hold it correctly. People buy apple h/w for the shine, not any specific use, whose absence would make them buy something else. So they will just endure without Fortnite, MS Word, Google Maps, Youtube etc. In fact I'm sure many people will blame Microsoft/Google/Epic and say that Apple is in the clear, just look at this thread.
jpttsn 6y ago
Collusion, wouldn’t it be?

salawat 6y ago

The first time I read the guidance documents for branding and submission of apps to the Apple and Google App stores, I had to look around and ask myself why no one else was calling it out as anti-competitive. I know what a free market looks like, I also know when onerous requirements are being place on something just to get in. Both companies have done the same things. When you see as many companies acquired and killed as has gone on in the last 20 years or so it becomes pretty damn obvious what is going on. It's just amazing it has taken this long for traction to develop in that regard.

dataintelli 6y ago

gerash 6y ago

The legislation I'd get behind is to enforce import / export of data across platforms a la. Google takeout but better where you can both export and import with a single click. That is, rather than getting into some abstract arguments on what an App store should or shouldn't do the focus should be on lowering the cost of switching mobile / wearable computing platforms down to a single click of a button. There is no issue with making an ecosystem more appealing by making them well integrated but there has to be an out of some kind for the consumer. All those "Their app store, their rule" arguments don't hold water if you compare it to, say, AT&T holding your phone number hostage and claiming that they're not a monopoly and you can switch to another carrier but need to use a new phone number if you do.

singron 6y ago
Isn't that issue orthogonal? I don't think the iPhone has the userbase it does because it takes more than 1 click to switch to android. Many people have expensive devices that they like along with the software they prefer. The fact that android and iOS compete for users is irrelevant to the fact that Apple has a monopoly over access to iOS users and Google has a monopoly over access to Android users. If you want to access people on mobile, you must interact with one or both largely disjoint monopolies.
- jspaetzel 6y ago
  The difference between Apple and Google in this instance is a matter of transparency and predatory actions.
- gerash 6y ago
  Monopoly over iOS or Android is a bit murky definition IMO. They are both creations of those companies and it seems fine for them to have a monopoly over them. Ring devices by Amazon or Nest devices by Google can have a monopoly over the devices in their ecosystem but no one cares [yet]. Mobile computing is what Apple and Google have created and of course you need to go through them to access the users there. You have to go through MS and Sony for example to access game console users, duh! The issue is if for example tomorrow a new company builds a nicer hardware and software package there's no easy way for users to migrate. The migration cost is super high. That company can't emulate iOS or Windows to be compatible with the existing apps. I don't think they can do a clean room reimplementation of the OS calls either. The users would need to repurchase all the apps, music, games, movies and other media they've already paid for even though none of those content were created by the platform owners. Imagine running a web server on Azure VMs and try to migrate to AWS to GCP but then realize you need to repurchase all the stock images you used in your website and any other software you run on your servers. I think for popular enough platforms like iOS, Android, Windows, etc. the cost of switching should be regulated. That way the quick feedback loop from consumers will ensure the platforms owners are always kept on their toes to keep all the consumers happy without relying on the moat they've built.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

oltremarino 6y ago

I don't really understand why Apple is allowed to have the amount of power it has today: it provides the hardware, the operating system, the software store (which they make sure is the only way to get software for most users), _and_ gets to decide whether any particular piece of software is allowed on the store? Surely there needs to be some separation of powers? e.g. a third party (could be set up by the government or in some other ways) will review the apps and Apple only maintains the software store without having much power over the contents in the store. It was understandable at the time when everything was uncharted territory so Apple got to do whatever it wanted, but now that smart phones are so tightly integrated into the lives of many people, it seems Apple shouldn't be allowed to hold on to all those power. Is anything being done in that direction that might become effective?

perryizgr8 6y ago
> Is anything being done in that direction that might become effective? Stop buying iphones and macs.
- reportgunner 6y ago
  So much this. Apple customers are funding this behavior.
  - Razengan 6y ago
    Because other companies are worse and do all sorts of other shit.
    - reportgunner 6y ago
      Yes they pay Apple for reinforcing this notion too.
xuki 6y ago
Because the gov should not control what a private business could do unless it's against the laws? The debate is whether Apple is a monopoly, until we conclude that Apple should be able to run their store as they see fit. Personally I would say Apple is not a monopoly, but Apple + Google is a duopoly and maybe gov should do something about BOTH of them.

cdata 6y ago

The App Store was always a walled garden with notably tall walls. The power Apple has over who gets into the App Store has been described as the primary virtue and attraction of iOS devices for years. Users love that it is a curated collection with a very high bar for quality, and many are willing to accept the trade-off that not all apps (even technically legitimate ones) will be published there. This is why the web is so important. More to the topic at hand: this is why Apple purposely, broadly second-classing the web on iOS is so important, and needs to stop. On Android, a directory-style app would be trivial to distribute on the web as an installable PWA that eventually becomes indistinguishable from a native app from the user's perspective. It's 2020; this is a sub-basement level of capability that all platforms should include by now. Let's stop pretending that ceding all the publishing power to one company is a trade-off that makes sense in the long-run (this goes for Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and all the rest).

rimliu 6y ago
Have you seen the web lately?
- cdata 6y ago
  If you don't like the web, nobody is forcing you to use it. But, your decision not to use it shouldn't come at the cost of someone else's freedom to distribute legitimate software or creative works to those users who seek it out. Speaking for myself, most of the "apps" I use on my phone and desktop on a daily basis are PWAs, and they are generally indistinguishable from the native apps I use in terms of quality.
  - mytherin 6y ago
    I don't think the above poster was critiquing the quality of the web, but rather stating that the web has the same problem of generally being consolidated into the hands of a few big players (Google/Facebook). If you make a website and Google decides to remove you from their search index for whatever reason, the financial effects on most companies would also be disastrous. Perhaps even comparable to being removed from the App Store.

caro_douglos 6y ago

I'd be curious to see the letters written directly to jeff@amazon by small businesses (3rd party merchants) which were suspended. Would be interesting to see if they: * went out of business * took predatory loans * were given loans directly by Amazon [1]. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200416132704/https://sell.amazon.com/programs/amazon-lending.html https://web.archive.org/web/20200416132704/https://sell.amaz...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

superdeeda 6y ago

Here is the list of more such documents from the hearing: https://judiciary.house.gov/online-platforms-and-market-power/ https://judiciary.house.gov/online-platforms-and-market-powe...