26 ms·

Rethinking the App Store

168 points by amaajemyfren 6y ago

munawwar 6y ago
I am more in favour of going back to installing apps from the web, reading app reviews (also from the web), bringing back app listing websites (remember nokia days?), running an antivirus and cutting any chance of another monopoly rising. Alternative app stores won't break this monopoly. Android for example already have alternatives.. but how many know them and how many use them? The one that's shipped with the OS always wins. Besides, most of them take like 20% tax.. which is still hugely profitable.
cblconfederate 6y ago
In other news, i wonder why ios app developers aren't considered apple's employees? In fact someone could sue apple to force them to do so. Their developer guidelines are so strict and hands-on that they don't justify them being used as "gig workers". And apple's statements in this document make the emphatic point that they use those developers to deliver an excellent experience. They even provide their paycheck (and get to keep 30%)
- secretsatan 6y ago
  What about cross platform solutions? web pages? or apps that are interfaces to seperate solutions. What about apps that are written once that developers still receive royalties from without any updates? Apple enforce a base level quality that mostly isn't that hard to conform to, some developers do not like this, but most apple consumers do, otherwise, they would be free to buy android phones and sideload everything
  - cblconfederate 6y ago
    My argument is obviously a stretch, but as more and more work is becoming this kind of "opportunistic work" , there's a valid case that gig work is at a disadvantage by the protections afforded to permanent work. So, a normalization of regulation sounds reasonable. That said, this is about devs, and not about what consumers think. And btw i doubt apple's strongarm of apps is popular among its users. Apple likes to market their "precious app ecosystem", but even an unregulated one isn't bad -- android is doing fine and is more popular.
  - _heimdall 6y ago
    I'd be fine with this argument if they didn't purposely block modern browser features in safari mobile. Push notifications have worked in Safari on OSX for years. They also force any third party browser listed in the app store to use the same crippled safari engine. They prevent it on mobile because they want app store money. Seems like a clear legal case that no one has bothered to fight or enforce.
  - dgellow 6y ago
    There are a lot of different reasons to buy an Apple device, you cannot draw the conclusion that people are fine with the App Store just based one the fact that they own an iPhone. I own an iPhone because Apple supports them for way longer than any other manufacturer and I care about that specific point. But I’m against some of their current store policies and would prefer more choices (either alternative stores or a way to side load). That doesn’t even mean I would actually use these alternatives, to be fair I don’t know myself, but I think that should be an option. It seems insane that Apple has complete control over the entire system and apps distribution with zero possibilities to compete.
- simonh 6y ago
  App developers choose when they work, how they do the work and how much they charge, which are the main indicators of an independent. The main argument against Uber was that drivers can't negotiate on price/pay, but clearly app developers set the price of their apps and IAP.
  - contingencies 6y ago
    They can't choose the cost of the hardware (typically mobile plus desktop = USD$1000s), the cost of the developer membership (annual recurring), or the percentage take given to Apple.
cesher 6y ago
I love Stratechery, but I think this one gets it wrong. Think of App Store as three products: 1. App quality screening 2. App promotion/distribution 3. In app purchasing Ask any reasonable dev if they are willing to foot a fixed cost to get their app screened, a fixed cost per app download (bandwidth), and variable cost to get their app promoted in the store (not everyone needs this) and they would agree. What pisses people off is Apple’s entitlement to the revenue of a company when there is no value add from Apple after the customer has gotten the app. So Apple is using their monopoly to force #3 on developers at no less than 30% of revenue.
- humblecurator 6y ago
  I agree, Apple's approach forces one kind of value capture through in-app purchases, then they do a value capture on that value capture with the 30% take. I'm paraphrasing Byrne Hobart here, but if they beefed up their App Store discoverability and had proper search functionality and a self-serve ad engine like Alibaba, their revenue model would reflect demand and then, finally, the Ubers and Facebooks would have to start paying significant amounts for all the free App Store support they've had this entire time. The fact that digital content services like Spotify are expected to subsidise other companies with different business models like Facebook or Uber is indefensible IMO.
- rimliu 6y ago
  I am considering building some paid apps for the App Store. If I had to deal with payment processors, handling subscriptions, etc. myself there is zero chances I'd do that.
  - cesher 6y ago
    Have you had bad experiences with other payment processors in the past? Honestly curious. I’ve used Stripe, and they are amazing in terms of product quality and customer service.
  - vanviegen 6y ago
    There are quite a few providers that make this very easy to do. Apple isn't one of them.
tonyedgecombe 6y ago
In short, what is needed are new laws built for the Internet, which is why it was encouraging that Congress is holding hearings about these issues, and also frustrating that Apple received relatively little attention. That's because the Google and FB monopolies are a much bigger problem. If you don't like Apple then there are plenty of other choices. It's much harder to avoid Google or Facebook.
- SllX 6y ago
  Avoiding Facebook and Google is trivial; the reason people use their services is they get value from their services.
  - jabirali 6y ago
    > Avoiding Facebook and Google is trivial Avoiding Google is definitely not trivial. I know here in Norway, lots of public schools are giving teachers and pupils Chromebooks, and insisting that homework is done in Google Docs. How would you propose avoiding Google in this setting? You pretty much have to bring a Google device into your home and actively use it if you want to complete your education.
    - SllX 6y ago
      It’s school equipment, not personal equipment, as should be the Google Account associated with it. The value of these is to the school, not to you, not to your children. Treat it like a work laptop and segregate personal crap from school crap (or enforce this on your kids) and return it at the end of the year if you don’t want it. Or just send your kids to a different school, but frankly I’m not familiar with your school system or how much choice you guys have on where to send your kids.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    And that’s not the reason people choose iPhones?
    - 6y ago
zpeti 6y ago
I think Apple have no incentive right now to change anything, although the PR and perception of them is shifting slightly against them. I think there are two things that can happen here: 1. There are more and more cases like wordpress, Hey and Fortnite, and after a while the PR gets so bad that they have to change something, or it becomes so costly to be in the app store that developers will stop developing for it, making the iphone less valuable to users. Of course this will take years if not decades to happen, it would be a really slow process. Fortnite is a really big deal, because I think it does start to chisel away at the iphone market for 12-18 year olds. 2. Government steps in and forces them to do something. But as Ben said, the legal grounds are very shaky. They don't have a monopoly on the phone market, or apps, or anything. Almost all other app stores have fees around 30%. It's very hard to make a strong case to say they're guilty.
Negitivefrags 6y ago
The concept that Apple needs to have a monopoly on app distribution for privacy and security is a smokescreen. The OS does that with its capability based design which of course the desktop OSs have a very hard time migrating to after the fact. Having other means to install apps doesn’t change that at all. And what’s more, nothing forces a user to actually go outside the Apple App Store if they want the supposed benefits they provide.
- dgellow 6y ago
  That’s only partly true. Apple app reviews is also about stopping more shady dark patterns that are tricking the user in accepting something they in fact don’t want, that cannot always be handled by their capabilities system (think social engineering). But I agree with your general point, it’s a smokescreen and even with other stores they would still have complete control over the system and security features.
supermatt 6y ago
I am of the opinion that the only fair option is to allow 3rd party stores with the same permissions as the official app store. Apples curation isn't (as they suggest) preventing malware, theft of information, etc - this if verifiably false given recent history with apps like tiktok stealing clipboard content. The ability to change content of payment screens post-approval (as epic have just done) also means that curation isnt stopping apps from potentially injecting phishing, etc, either. In short, they are just choosing what they like - just as any 3rd party store could do. The security comes from the sandbox (and surrounding permissions) - not from the curation. Jobs originally said that the aim of the 30% was to cover costs of running the store. It is evident from the MASSIVE profits that this is no longer the case. The size of these app marketplaces (I dont just mean apple) make them markets in their own right - its about time they were recognised and treated as such.
- perseusprime11 6y ago
  I am an Apple customer because I believe in their oversight and governance on the App store. I really don't want third party stores and 30% fee seems fair given the access to huge distribution.
- dgellow 6y ago
  As far as I understood TikTok and others weren’t stealing content, there are legitimate reasons to access the clipboard to check for links for example or other type of content the app would be interested into. It would be stealing if they actually send the content back to their servers, but I haven’t seen reports saying that’s the case.
- Hendrikto 6y ago
  > with apps like tiktok stealing clipboard content I do not get the focus on TikTok. Yes, it read your clipboard content… just like Snapchat, Instagram, Reddit, etc. Most security researchers agree that TikTok is among the more restrained social media apps, when it comes to gathering user data. This is a bad look for the social media landscape in general, not TikTok specifically.
  - 6y ago
axilmar 6y ago
The security argument is flawed: iOS devices would be fully secured if Apple allowed secondary app stores on their devices. Using other stores not supported by Apple would have come with a big risk warning anyway. It would then be the user's responsibility.
AriaMinaei 6y ago
One idea I don't see discussed is that the App Store model is a disincentive for Apple to come up with better sandboxing and security. Apple is in fact uniquely positioned to introduce a better sandboxing model. They control most of the stack, crucially the CPU and the build toolchain, not to mention the PL. They could, were they not so reliant on the App Store auditing process, make it less likely for people to develop malware and privacy-invasive software, by building better abstractions around processes and IPC, through eg. virtualization and capabilities [0]. That, of course, would take away the main raison d'être of App Store, which is a significant money-maker for Apple. [0] https://fuchsia.dev/fuchsia-src/concepts#fuchsia_is_designed_for_security_and_privacy https://fuchsia.dev/fuchsia-src/concepts#fuchsia_is_designed...
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  The raison d'être of the Apple App Store is to make money. All other considerations are secondary at best.
  - sjwright 6y ago
    Ultimately true of all businesses and all products.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
      There's always exceptions... Some business exist with the intention of generating a loss, or some sort of tax avoidance scheme. Legally, I don't mean tax evasion.
- threeseed 6y ago
  Any chance you can dispel with the meaningless buzzwords ? "Abstractions around processes and IPC" does not reduce the number of malware and privacy invasive apps. And who knows what "virtualization and capabilities" even means in the context of iOS. It has been limiting and securing access to APIs/data that has been responsible for improving the privacy and security of iOS. For example warning about use of clipboard, per-use permission dialogs for contacts/photos/etc and randomising identifiers.
neiman 6y ago
Fantastically well-written article. The "problem" with forming an opinion about Apple Store rules is that the users are willingly and knowingly putting themselves in the golden cage of apple by buying an iPhone. Under this view the problem is not with Apple, that created a framework that users want, and communicate accurately to its customers what they get - but rather with the app developers, who wants to reach Apple clients, without accepting the rules of the framework that those clients chose willingly.
- throwaway13337 6y ago
  This is a bad argument that comes up over and over. You could use the exact same logical framework to argue against labor laws because employees willingly enter into the bargain. It's easy to see the ends of completely unregulated capitalism with company towns, company scrip, and the oppression that comes with it. We've had this history - we don't need it again.
  - neiman 6y ago
    I see the comparison, but in this case what Apple offer is on of their main selling arguments, not something users are tricked into.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    And labor laws in California around contractors are making it harder for people who want to stay freelance/contractors like writers and some truck drivers.
gandutraveler 6y ago
What stops digital only apps like fortnite to start selling some physical good like t-shirt at a premium price and bypass a Apple's 30% fee?
- guytv 6y ago
  this will reduce their revenue. "whales" on such games can have a life time value in the 10s thousands dollars and more. No premium shirt will cover that. They could price the shirt according to what you buy in the shop, but Apple will surely change its terms & conditions to close such a loop hole.
simonh 6y ago
This is a very emotive issue here and we're never all going to agree on these issues. I hope though that it is possible to reach a consensus on a few areas I think were well explained in the article. One is in-app signup. I have no problem with Apple charging a fee for services accessed via the phone when you sign up through the phone. I do think it's user hostile and opaque to not allow apps to refer the customer to a web site to buy a subscription though. Apple should compete on convenience, not awkward asymmetric information restrictions. The other is the organising principle issue. I agree it makes sense to base the decision to charge on whether the service incurs marginal cost. That seems a fair way to do it, I just don't understand how that could be made into a clearly and unambiguously applicable rule. You may well end up with even more of a fractious grey zone.
nickflood 6y ago
Note how many sources wanted to stay anonymous "for fear of upsetting Apple". Apple knows they can end businesses with the click of a finger. That's what they tried to do by ending the dev license for Unreal Engine. And Apple wants everybody to know that they know. I'm almost certain that the Unreal Dev license revocation is a result of a similar email chain as what happened to Kindle - https://www.macrumors.com/2020/07/31/emails-apple-blocked-kindle-purchases/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/07/31/emails-apple-blocked-ki... - execs just thinking of a way to punish the company. This, for me, is the biggest monopoly argument. Too much business success is hinged on Apple being happy, and they start to abuse this power more and more by tightening (the interpretation of) App Store rules like requiring in-app purchases etc. IMO Epic is not the best company to challenge Apple in all this, but in American judicial system Epic may be one of the very few companies that can afford this lawsuit.
- throwaway13337 6y ago
  Epic isn't the hero we need but the hero we deserve. I can certainly imagine a lot of companies are tight-lipped about it. My livelihood depends on an app store and so I'm super cautious about what I say publicly about the company that controls it. This sort of chilling effect is scary and should rightly be contested. Epic is criticized for being a huge company themselves and using that as leverage in their legal battle. However, small companies stand absolutely no chance so Epic is the only one that can take this fight. Epic is the champion of all the smaller businesses with apps on phones. Not because Epic wants them to do well but because Epic wants Epic to do well. They'll just happen to help all of us - consumer and developer - with them. I'm rooting for them.
  - nickflood 6y ago
    Me too. I think, Epic is uniquely positioned also because it is privately held. As such, its actions are more representative of what Tim Sweeney thinks is right instead of the investor mob. And to me as a developer Tim Sweeney seems like a pretty good guy similar to Carmack in many ways.
    - 6y ago
willvarfar 6y ago
I'm divided. As a programmer, I'm as happy as a pig in mud in the low-level innards of my computers and operating systems, and like that I can get at them etc. That's why I have linux on my desktop. But 'open' systems don't work out well for 'normal' users. Remember the viruses and trojans and instability and all the rest of the Windows days, or Android? I want my parents and friends and everyone else to use an iphone because its hassle-free and secure. Do we really want 'unlocked' iphones? Actually, the idea of having to help someone who wants me to 'just look at the iphone and work out what's wrong' scares me.
- PikachuEXE 6y ago
  Look MacOS They do block "unidentified" apps by default but you still have the option to run it anyway (after a series of warnings maybe) But you can still run them And I think it can be a start
  - scarface74 6y ago
    And that worked out really well for Vista and UAC. People have become blindly accustomed to just clicking ok.
    - mumblerino 6y ago
      That’s the point, in macOS it never runs by just clicking ok. The selected button is “Move to Trash” and the second button is “Cancel” To run those apps, you have to open System Preferences or right-click them (which I don’t remember if it’s still allowed)
    - contextfree 6y ago
      It seems to have worked out at least semi-well? A lot less software on Windows requires admin permissions than did pre-Vista?
      - scarface74 6y ago
        Having admin privileges doesn’t matter. Any software you install still has read and write permissions to all of your files, can encrypt your files (ransomware) can read your contacts (which hasn’t changed since the ILoveYou days in the early 2000s), etc.
czzr 6y ago
One argument that I think deserves extra scrutiny is the idea that extra app stores can be “optional”. The reality is that developers would have a strong incentive to go to the most permissive App Store, and users will follow. Users will also underestimate or ignore risks. You can dismiss that by saying it’s the user’s responsibility, but I think that’s just an abdication of good systems design. I’m not saying that Apple has the perfect model - it doesn’t - but the trade-offs are not as simple as we might like.
- mehlmao 6y ago
  That hasn't happened on Android though, where it has been possible for years. Almost all apps are distributed through the Play Store. There's a huge amount of inertia in being the "default" store. Users need a really good reason to switch.
- yyyk 6y ago
  The reality is that your scenario never happened. Not on Android, not on Windows, not on Linux distributions... The 'official' App Store always wins, unless its demands are so onerous a small minority uses a small store in addition to it.
  - bogwog 6y ago
    Which official app store won on Windows? AFAIK, Steam is the number one store for games, and people buy their apps from vendors directly (example: Adobe, Autodesk, even Microsoft). The Windows app store was dead on arrival. And linux package managers aren't app stores. They're mostly meant for system libraries and core applications, although some devs do distribute their (free) apps through it. In any case, Linux is a weird one to include in this comparison, and I'm pretty sure Steam is still the number one store for getting games on Linux too. But whatever, another thing: a big part of the reason that the official app store won on Android is because of the lengths Google goes to to scare users from installing apps from "unknown sources", hiding the option to do so, displaying scary popups, etc. That's one of the reasons Epic is suing Google for.
    - 6y ago
randomsearch 6y ago
This is really quite a simple problem: the rent is too damn high. Apple should drop or tier their pricing so that a $10 subscription is paying say 5% to them. Developers are happy. Anyone raking it in pays more, a progressive system that ensures small companies can innovate. Is this bad for Apple? In the long-term, they get more innovation and a better user experience. Financially, they lose some income on a subset of existing transactions and gain income from transactions they wouldn't have processed, as apps switch to native dev, and the market sizes increase as incentives change. At the most they could lose a few billion in revenue a year (very unlikely) and gain $0. That's the upper bound. But how many more subscriptions would go through the store if apps like Spotify had signup via the app? I'd guess hundreds of millions of dollars at least, could be much larger in the long-term. Apple are losing the argument, even the best possible cut isn't worth the reputational damage and harm to the user experience, they should restructure the pricing so they save face and potentially benefit, or at least limit the damage. The writing is on the wall at this stage, and they will act or be forced to act.
- electriclove 6y ago
  This is the reasonable thing.. but is it right for a court/lawsuit to force Apple to do this? I would love to see Ebay reduce their fees. I feel like there is more of a monopoly there than there is with cell phones/OSs.
- pentae 6y ago
  This still doesn't solve the fact that Apple can control who gets to do business on the app store. Politically divisive apps, government blacklisted apps, gambling apps, adult oriented apps, crypto apps, free speech apps, certain vpn apps - none of these can currently exist with the Apple curated App Store approach. And just because those apps might not be for you doesn't mean millions and millions of users who have shelled out $1k+ for a phone don't want them on their fancy device they paid for. Allowing sideloading as Android does would fix all these issues. Sideloading can start with a 3rd party app store, even.
fierarul 6y ago
Interesting this is not positioned as a civil rights issue too. I understand, you have a developer company vs Apple. But what about people buying these computing gadgets? The millions upon millions of them. Shouldn't they have the right to run whatever software they feel like it on this general purpose computing OS without Apple's forced intermediation?
- jpttsn 6y ago
  iOS is not sold as a general purpose computing OS. It’s been clear from day one. People use products way beyond their original purpose, and then feel entitled to the manufacturer’s support. Like eating candy for every meal, and then complaining that it’s not good nutrition.
  - izacus 6y ago
    That is patently false if you even take a glance at iPad webpage. Some itself is very loudly screaming about how iPad is a computer to replace your laptop.
    - jpttsn 6y ago
      But that kind of marketing is like saying you should drink water to replace your beer: it doesn't claim the water is beer; it's claiming you probably will be happier with water. See also the "What's a computer" ad for the iPad Pro.
  - wayneftw 6y ago
    Some shady car manufacturers tried to stop people from being able to buy after market parts for their cars and our legal system put a stop to that. So, given that phones are easily as important as cars, I have confidence that we'll get justice for Apple's anti-consumer behavior too.
    - jpttsn 6y ago
      Maybe "justice" will be served: the will of the people goes far sometimes. I'd point out that the public can get away with things that don't match my personal sense of ethics, but your sense of ethics is clearly different and probably incompatible with mine. Incidentally I'm not so confident in this case; I'd take even odds on Apple winning this one.
Santosh83 6y ago
Here's an open secret. Most people globally buy an iDevice because it has become a fashion symbol, a status symbol and the peer pressure is huge to sport one, once you reach the financial ability to buy them. It has little to do with otherwise non-technical people somehow appreciating the technical nuances of security, curation, walled gardens, sideloading and so on.
- AnonHP 6y ago
  Maybe some people buy it as a status symbol, but the user experience in general, for someone who doesn't want root and other customizability but likes a nice smooth easy-to-use interface (as much as smartphones of today can even be user friendly), is far better on the iOS side than on the Android side. And one doesn't have to carry a large and heavier device in order to get this experience (compare the battery capacities between iOS devices and Android devices). There are things that only those who use it can realize.
  - guytv 6y ago
    > far better on the iOS side than on the Android side. From my experience - latest Android on a Pixel phone is as good as the latest iOS experience. Where do you see iOS's being a "far better" experience?
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  This needs to be brought up more often. Apple IS a lifestyle, fashion brand, and this is probably a sector that is heavily underappreciated by entrepreneurs. Fashion is a strong motivator, and phones are strong social signal indicators, - something that is not appreciated among developers/techies. I know some ppl who bought a mac (because their peers did) and yet run windows (because excel is all they do/know). Also, considering that iDevices are designed to appeal to "simple users", it's kind of an oxymoron to pretend that their average consumer appreciates them for Swift compilers or their processors.
- scarface74 6y ago
  People have been accusing Apple devices of being a fashion symbol since the first iPod came out. In the US, Apple has 45% market share. How is anything with that type of market share a status symbol.
threatofrain 6y ago
For any app which has an existence beyond the app store, customers can already pay without Apple. Customers can pay for Microsoft Office, Amazon Prime, or Netflix on their own through conventional channels. Apple's position is that if you are delivering digital goods to be used on their devices, then you must offer an additional way to pay. From the consumer's perspective my choices have now grown. Where before I could've managed my own relationships with Microsoft and others, now I can have the option for Apple to intermediate. For people with elderly parents and runaway subscriptions, this is crazy valuable. And while I say customers can manage their own relationships, the truth is that without Apple backing them up, it's companies who will get the better of the relationship by successfully compelling customers to go through their bad payment system, like they already do.
- ryanbrunner 6y ago
  I think this would be a fair statement if the customer was given an option on the device, but when you consider that scenario, it becomes super clear that Apple's take is predatory: - Either pay X, your purchase is handled through Stripe / Paypal, and your relationship is with the company directly. - Or pay X + 30%, and your relationship is with Apple Certainly I can see some advantages to the second option, but how many customers do you think would willingly pay a 30% premium for that given the choice. At 5-10% (i.e. a few percentage points above established and legit payment processors, but ones that are a little less full-service), I think it becomes a much more reasonable argument.
amelius 6y ago
Why doesn't Apple bump into the same problem with the App store as Microsoft did with IE and the browser ballot screen, imposed on them by the EU?
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  There are other browsers - There is no other ios store
  - amelius 6y ago
    Anyone could easily build one, and start complaining that Apple doesn't provide access.
    - cblconfederate 6y ago
      OK i 'll build one
nachoab 6y ago
The problem with the App Store monopoly is greatly aggravated by the fact that they are blocking web engine competition on iOS. They don't want PWAs to bypass the system.
nodamage 6y ago
This quote is relevant: The problem for Epic — and, I suppose, for me — is that to this observer it seems exceedingly likely that Apple is going to win this case, last night’s decision notwithstanding. Current Supreme Court jurisprudence is very clear that businesses — including monopolies — have no duty to deal with third parties, and if they do choose to deal with them (or are even compelled to), that they can choose the terms on which to do so. The only exceptions are if the monopoly in question changes the rules in an unprofitable way with the express purpose of driving out a competitor, or if any company — not even a monopoly — changes access to after-market parts and services. Current US antitrust law does not favor Epic in this matter. Of Epic's ten claims, their strongest claim is probably the one tying in-app payment processing to app distribution services, but even that one is far from a slam dunk. And even if they were to succeed on that particular claim, the likely outcome would be that they would get to keep their payment system in Fortnite, not that they would be able to run their own app store. I think people need to temper their expectations unless the laws change in the years it takes for this case to make it through the courts. A court ruling that Apple must allow third-party in-app payment systems is a somewhat realistic outcome, whereas a court ruling that Apple must permit third-parties to run their own app stores is probably a non-starter.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  > A judge ruling that Apple must allow third-party in-app payment systems is a somewhat realistic outcome, whereas a judge ruling that Apple must permit third-parties to run their own app stores is probably a non-starter. I gather judges really don't like to impose technical requirements - especially in a fast-moving industry like this. Ordering Apple to make the extensive changes required to allow for some kind of secure (as opposed to insecure, like Cydia) third-party App Store on iOS would be a massive undertaking that would probably cost the company north of a billion in total, especially regarding testing and security point. ...whereas ordering Apple to simply allow what is already possible (namely: permitting apps to collect payment details themselves through their own processors) is a good path forward. How would Apple respond to that though? In the event that Apple is required to allow third-party payment-processors that skirt the Apple tax, I think it's reasonable for Apple to introduce some kind of "app support fee" (beyond the annual $99/developer fee) - but Apple would be hard-pressed to negotiate a reasonable amount of that per-app. Perhaps $1 per app-download per year? Interesting times... I'm also interested in potential legislation regarding forcing Apple to permit third-party web-browsers and other banned software categories - Apple's technical arguments may have had some merit back in 2007-2012, but now that my phone has more RAM and processing power than my previous laptop (which still runs the infamously RAM-hungry Chrome 84 fine!) this isn't an argument that holds water. I'd love to be able to run "real" Firefox on iOS, for example (there is an argument about how Apple can only trust their own build of Webkit to have executable memory pages for the JavaScript JIT - that's going to be interesting). We should compare Apple to Microsoft of 1998: Microsoft was convicted of monopoly abuse by simply bundling Internet Explorer with Windows (granted, this includes integrating it into the shell too) - while Apple doesn't just bundle Safari with iOS, they outright ban any kind of proper competition - Microsoft was convicted for far less, so why should Apple be given a free-pass?
ksec 6y ago
Gaming Retain the 30% Cut, as Standard in the Gaming Industry. Apps and IAP is now down to 15%. And 10% for Subscription. That also puts Spotify And Amazon Prime or other Streaming Services to the 10% category. I honestly dont like the idea of an Open Platform where you can side load Apps. If you want that Android is your choice. Apple tries to built an App Platform on its Appliance or Phone. Android tries to built a Pocket Computer that acts like and look like a Phone. These are two fundamentally different sets of trade offs.
specialist 6y ago
Much as I love Ben Thompson, this is rearranging the deck chairs while the Titanic is sinking. Or maybe arguing about which dinner fork the gorilla should use while it's eating you. Treat the App Store like any other modern open market. Apply real world market rules to all these digital markets. - rule of law. contracts, civil, business, etc. - fair and impartial judiciary - right of appeal - regulations to ensure equal footing of participants - tort Etc. Voila, fixed. A bit more discipline is needed to rationalize Google, Facebook, and Amazon. Starting with no self-dealing (conflicts of interest). And the social networks need particular mitigations to deweaponize their outrage engine feedback loops. This is all pretty simple, obvious stuff. Seriously, am I the only person whose read books like The Mystery of Capital? Why are so many self-proclaimed capitalists so painfully oblivious to liberal and neoliberal traditions?
bogwog 6y ago
This is a well-written and researched article, but I have to disagree with some stuff. The suggested alternative payment processing policies make no sense for Apple; they would incentivize people to not make iPhone-exclusive experiences. That's something the walled-garden aficionados at Apple would never go for. And a court order to implement a change like that (or any change) would be a bad idea. As for the reduced 10% rate, why 10%? In a truly competitive market, we might see figures lower than that. I think that trying to come up with perfect changes for Apple's practices is a waste of time. Apple shouldn't be forced to make changes to their store, nor should we bother trying to convince them to do it themselves. Let them do whatever they want, but allow third-party stores. Competitive forces will fix everything in the long-term. What I'm not sure of is how that would work in practice. Will Apple be forced to release (and maintain) their SDKs and dev tools for free? Will they be forced to make changes to the operating system to allow side-loading? If they are, how long would that take? and wouldn't it be catastrophic from a security point of view, since iOS has never had to worry about the security issues of side-loading.
yyyk 6y ago
There's a very simple law: You can't use a strong position in one market to enhance your position in another market. Simply put, the entire tying up of payments to Apple is classic anti-competitive behaviour, and there's little chance the courts won't put an end to it. Same will happen with Apple using private APIs for its store owned apps. That said, it's very unlikely the courts will interfere with the 30% fee. There are no legal grounds for demanding a smaller fee.
panzagl 6y ago
The most important changes Apple needs to make would not cost them a single line of code- they just get rid of their policy to require consistent pricing across all platforms, and allow promotion/linking of external (i.e. not on iOS) payment sources. If Spotify could charge +30% for a subscription purchased through the App store, and include a link to their main sign up page where subscriptions are regular price, everyone is happy. No security is changed and developers pass along the price of being in the App store to only those consumers who wish it. Only loser is Apple, who does not get to use their gatekeeper status on iOS to enforce monopoly-style pricing controls across all platforms.
- zacwest 6y ago
  The consistent pricing requirement was removed years ago. This is an article from 2011 about it: https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/06/09/apple_backs_down_on_in_app_purchasing_rules_allows_lower_prices_for_out_of_app_purchases https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/06/09/apple_backs_down_...
  - judge2020 6y ago
    For reference, YT Premium is $16 on iOS[0] but $12 directly[1]. 0: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3dznQemACWzb2tbYfdbIsfinczTPJSLJaLKTVKLWG3_UxpfFIpmBx8S5ClHwiurFHBmZM2tuh0iqdAR3ch_OOvtgrr6Iq3FK3QDg4B9fzywSgdrIciI0TtamxupQCV3AJXx3Dr-Kw1l--xUny28FoQy2w=w553-h970-no https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3dznQemACWzb2tbYfd... 1: https://youtube.com/premium https://youtube.com/premium
    - csunbird 6y ago
      The developer chooses if the price should be different or not. In that case, Youtube decided that the users should pay the 30 percent Apple tax.
      - judge2020 6y ago
        Yes - and YT is still losing money on that transaction. $16 will become $11.20 after apple takes their cut.
CharlesW 6y ago
Having read the whole thread, what amazes me is how most people here seem to be thinking about iOS products as general purpose computing products, when in reality the iPhone has been a console-like ecosystem from the start. I'm personally very happy it works like an Xbox or Switch rather than Android, and that I don't have to figure out which app store a given app came from, deal with different parties if I need to resolve billing issues, etc. Any comments focusing on the technical issues are missing the point. Of course it can be done. The benefit of the iOS ecosystem is knowing that it won't be done.
nightski 6y ago
Why do we need 3rd party stores? Why not just have a standard for an app endpoint url that iOS knows how to interact with. So I could publish an app on a private domain and then iOS would know how to download the app and check for updates from that end point? While there is value in a centralized store to search for apps (and that can certainly stick around), I don't understand why apps are forced to be hosted centrally in a store, Apple or third party. Ex: To install the "Pepsi" app just go to pepsi.com and click the install app button. Then iOS could take over from there.
- single_source 6y ago
  because they don't get the margin they're currently getting :)
- cactus2093 6y ago
  This seems like just an implementation detail of the idea of 3rd party stores, I don’t really see how it’s a big distinction. And Apple’s opposition to this idea would clearly be the same as the reasons it has given not to allow third party stores.

168 points by amaajemyfren 6y ago

I am more in favour of going back to installing apps from the web, reading app reviews (also from the web), bringing back app listing websites (remember nokia days?), running an antivirus and cutting any chance of another monopoly rising. Alternative app stores won't break this monopoly. Android for example already have alternatives.. but how many know them and how many use them? The one that's shipped with the OS always wins. Besides, most of them take like 20% tax.. which is still hugely profitable.

cblconfederate 6y ago

In other news, i wonder why ios app developers aren't considered apple's employees? In fact someone could sue apple to force them to do so. Their developer guidelines are so strict and hands-on that they don't justify them being used as "gig workers". And apple's statements in this document make the emphatic point that they use those developers to deliver an excellent experience. They even provide their paycheck (and get to keep 30%)

secretsatan 6y ago
What about cross platform solutions? web pages? or apps that are interfaces to seperate solutions. What about apps that are written once that developers still receive royalties from without any updates? Apple enforce a base level quality that mostly isn't that hard to conform to, some developers do not like this, but most apple consumers do, otherwise, they would be free to buy android phones and sideload everything
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  My argument is obviously a stretch, but as more and more work is becoming this kind of "opportunistic work" , there's a valid case that gig work is at a disadvantage by the protections afforded to permanent work. So, a normalization of regulation sounds reasonable. That said, this is about devs, and not about what consumers think. And btw i doubt apple's strongarm of apps is popular among its users. Apple likes to market their "precious app ecosystem", but even an unregulated one isn't bad -- android is doing fine and is more popular.
- _heimdall 6y ago
  I'd be fine with this argument if they didn't purposely block modern browser features in safari mobile. Push notifications have worked in Safari on OSX for years. They also force any third party browser listed in the app store to use the same crippled safari engine. They prevent it on mobile because they want app store money. Seems like a clear legal case that no one has bothered to fight or enforce.
- dgellow 6y ago
  There are a lot of different reasons to buy an Apple device, you cannot draw the conclusion that people are fine with the App Store just based one the fact that they own an iPhone. I own an iPhone because Apple supports them for way longer than any other manufacturer and I care about that specific point. But I’m against some of their current store policies and would prefer more choices (either alternative stores or a way to side load). That doesn’t even mean I would actually use these alternatives, to be fair I don’t know myself, but I think that should be an option. It seems insane that Apple has complete control over the entire system and apps distribution with zero possibilities to compete.
simonh 6y ago
App developers choose when they work, how they do the work and how much they charge, which are the main indicators of an independent. The main argument against Uber was that drivers can't negotiate on price/pay, but clearly app developers set the price of their apps and IAP.
- contingencies 6y ago
  They can't choose the cost of the hardware (typically mobile plus desktop = USD$1000s), the cost of the developer membership (annual recurring), or the percentage take given to Apple.

cesher 6y ago

I love Stratechery, but I think this one gets it wrong. Think of App Store as three products: 1. App quality screening 2. App promotion/distribution 3. In app purchasing Ask any reasonable dev if they are willing to foot a fixed cost to get their app screened, a fixed cost per app download (bandwidth), and variable cost to get their app promoted in the store (not everyone needs this) and they would agree. What pisses people off is Apple’s entitlement to the revenue of a company when there is no value add from Apple after the customer has gotten the app. So Apple is using their monopoly to force #3 on developers at no less than 30% of revenue.

humblecurator 6y ago
I agree, Apple's approach forces one kind of value capture through in-app purchases, then they do a value capture on that value capture with the 30% take. I'm paraphrasing Byrne Hobart here, but if they beefed up their App Store discoverability and had proper search functionality and a self-serve ad engine like Alibaba, their revenue model would reflect demand and then, finally, the Ubers and Facebooks would have to start paying significant amounts for all the free App Store support they've had this entire time. The fact that digital content services like Spotify are expected to subsidise other companies with different business models like Facebook or Uber is indefensible IMO.
rimliu 6y ago
I am considering building some paid apps for the App Store. If I had to deal with payment processors, handling subscriptions, etc. myself there is zero chances I'd do that.
- cesher 6y ago
  Have you had bad experiences with other payment processors in the past? Honestly curious. I’ve used Stripe, and they are amazing in terms of product quality and customer service.
- vanviegen 6y ago
  There are quite a few providers that make this very easy to do. Apple isn't one of them.

tonyedgecombe 6y ago

In short, what is needed are new laws built for the Internet, which is why it was encouraging that Congress is holding hearings about these issues, and also frustrating that Apple received relatively little attention. That's because the Google and FB monopolies are a much bigger problem. If you don't like Apple then there are plenty of other choices. It's much harder to avoid Google or Facebook.

SllX 6y ago
Avoiding Facebook and Google is trivial; the reason people use their services is they get value from their services.
- jabirali 6y ago
  > Avoiding Facebook and Google is trivial Avoiding Google is definitely not trivial. I know here in Norway, lots of public schools are giving teachers and pupils Chromebooks, and insisting that homework is done in Google Docs. How would you propose avoiding Google in this setting? You pretty much have to bring a Google device into your home and actively use it if you want to complete your education.
  - SllX 6y ago
    It’s school equipment, not personal equipment, as should be the Google Account associated with it. The value of these is to the school, not to you, not to your children. Treat it like a work laptop and segregate personal crap from school crap (or enforce this on your kids) and return it at the end of the year if you don’t want it. Or just send your kids to a different school, but frankly I’m not familiar with your school system or how much choice you guys have on where to send your kids.
- scarface74 6y ago
  And that’s not the reason people choose iPhones?
  - 6y ago

zpeti 6y ago

I think Apple have no incentive right now to change anything, although the PR and perception of them is shifting slightly against them. I think there are two things that can happen here: 1. There are more and more cases like wordpress, Hey and Fortnite, and after a while the PR gets so bad that they have to change something, or it becomes so costly to be in the app store that developers will stop developing for it, making the iphone less valuable to users. Of course this will take years if not decades to happen, it would be a really slow process. Fortnite is a really big deal, because I think it does start to chisel away at the iphone market for 12-18 year olds. 2. Government steps in and forces them to do something. But as Ben said, the legal grounds are very shaky. They don't have a monopoly on the phone market, or apps, or anything. Almost all other app stores have fees around 30%. It's very hard to make a strong case to say they're guilty.

Negitivefrags 6y ago

The concept that Apple needs to have a monopoly on app distribution for privacy and security is a smokescreen. The OS does that with its capability based design which of course the desktop OSs have a very hard time migrating to after the fact. Having other means to install apps doesn’t change that at all. And what’s more, nothing forces a user to actually go outside the Apple App Store if they want the supposed benefits they provide.

dgellow 6y ago
That’s only partly true. Apple app reviews is also about stopping more shady dark patterns that are tricking the user in accepting something they in fact don’t want, that cannot always be handled by their capabilities system (think social engineering). But I agree with your general point, it’s a smokescreen and even with other stores they would still have complete control over the system and security features.

supermatt 6y ago

I am of the opinion that the only fair option is to allow 3rd party stores with the same permissions as the official app store. Apples curation isn't (as they suggest) preventing malware, theft of information, etc - this if verifiably false given recent history with apps like tiktok stealing clipboard content. The ability to change content of payment screens post-approval (as epic have just done) also means that curation isnt stopping apps from potentially injecting phishing, etc, either. In short, they are just choosing what they like - just as any 3rd party store could do. The security comes from the sandbox (and surrounding permissions) - not from the curation. Jobs originally said that the aim of the 30% was to cover costs of running the store. It is evident from the MASSIVE profits that this is no longer the case. The size of these app marketplaces (I dont just mean apple) make them markets in their own right - its about time they were recognised and treated as such.

perseusprime11 6y ago
I am an Apple customer because I believe in their oversight and governance on the App store. I really don't want third party stores and 30% fee seems fair given the access to huge distribution.
dgellow 6y ago
As far as I understood TikTok and others weren’t stealing content, there are legitimate reasons to access the clipboard to check for links for example or other type of content the app would be interested into. It would be stealing if they actually send the content back to their servers, but I haven’t seen reports saying that’s the case.
Hendrikto 6y ago
> with apps like tiktok stealing clipboard content I do not get the focus on TikTok. Yes, it read your clipboard content… just like Snapchat, Instagram, Reddit, etc. Most security researchers agree that TikTok is among the more restrained social media apps, when it comes to gathering user data. This is a bad look for the social media landscape in general, not TikTok specifically.
- 6y ago

axilmar 6y ago

The security argument is flawed: iOS devices would be fully secured if Apple allowed secondary app stores on their devices. Using other stores not supported by Apple would have come with a big risk warning anyway. It would then be the user's responsibility.

AriaMinaei 6y ago

One idea I don't see discussed is that the App Store model is a disincentive for Apple to come up with better sandboxing and security. Apple is in fact uniquely positioned to introduce a better sandboxing model. They control most of the stack, crucially the CPU and the build toolchain, not to mention the PL. They could, were they not so reliant on the App Store auditing process, make it less likely for people to develop malware and privacy-invasive software, by building better abstractions around processes and IPC, through eg. virtualization and capabilities [0]. That, of course, would take away the main raison d'être of App Store, which is a significant money-maker for Apple. [0] https://fuchsia.dev/fuchsia-src/concepts#fuchsia_is_designed_for_security_and_privacy https://fuchsia.dev/fuchsia-src/concepts#fuchsia_is_designed...

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
The raison d'être of the Apple App Store is to make money. All other considerations are secondary at best.
- sjwright 6y ago
  Ultimately true of all businesses and all products.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
    There's always exceptions... Some business exist with the intention of generating a loss, or some sort of tax avoidance scheme. Legally, I don't mean tax evasion.
threeseed 6y ago
Any chance you can dispel with the meaningless buzzwords ? "Abstractions around processes and IPC" does not reduce the number of malware and privacy invasive apps. And who knows what "virtualization and capabilities" even means in the context of iOS. It has been limiting and securing access to APIs/data that has been responsible for improving the privacy and security of iOS. For example warning about use of clipboard, per-use permission dialogs for contacts/photos/etc and randomising identifiers.

neiman 6y ago

Fantastically well-written article. The "problem" with forming an opinion about Apple Store rules is that the users are willingly and knowingly putting themselves in the golden cage of apple by buying an iPhone. Under this view the problem is not with Apple, that created a framework that users want, and communicate accurately to its customers what they get - but rather with the app developers, who wants to reach Apple clients, without accepting the rules of the framework that those clients chose willingly.

throwaway13337 6y ago
This is a bad argument that comes up over and over. You could use the exact same logical framework to argue against labor laws because employees willingly enter into the bargain. It's easy to see the ends of completely unregulated capitalism with company towns, company scrip, and the oppression that comes with it. We've had this history - we don't need it again.
- neiman 6y ago
  I see the comparison, but in this case what Apple offer is on of their main selling arguments, not something users are tricked into.
- scarface74 6y ago
  And labor laws in California around contractors are making it harder for people who want to stay freelance/contractors like writers and some truck drivers.

gandutraveler 6y ago

What stops digital only apps like fortnite to start selling some physical good like t-shirt at a premium price and bypass a Apple's 30% fee?

guytv 6y ago
this will reduce their revenue. "whales" on such games can have a life time value in the 10s thousands dollars and more. No premium shirt will cover that. They could price the shirt according to what you buy in the shop, but Apple will surely change its terms & conditions to close such a loop hole.

simonh 6y ago

This is a very emotive issue here and we're never all going to agree on these issues. I hope though that it is possible to reach a consensus on a few areas I think were well explained in the article. One is in-app signup. I have no problem with Apple charging a fee for services accessed via the phone when you sign up through the phone. I do think it's user hostile and opaque to not allow apps to refer the customer to a web site to buy a subscription though. Apple should compete on convenience, not awkward asymmetric information restrictions. The other is the organising principle issue. I agree it makes sense to base the decision to charge on whether the service incurs marginal cost. That seems a fair way to do it, I just don't understand how that could be made into a clearly and unambiguously applicable rule. You may well end up with even more of a fractious grey zone.

nickflood 6y ago

Note how many sources wanted to stay anonymous "for fear of upsetting Apple". Apple knows they can end businesses with the click of a finger. That's what they tried to do by ending the dev license for Unreal Engine. And Apple wants everybody to know that they know. I'm almost certain that the Unreal Dev license revocation is a result of a similar email chain as what happened to Kindle - https://www.macrumors.com/2020/07/31/emails-apple-blocked-kindle-purchases/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/07/31/emails-apple-blocked-ki... - execs just thinking of a way to punish the company. This, for me, is the biggest monopoly argument. Too much business success is hinged on Apple being happy, and they start to abuse this power more and more by tightening (the interpretation of) App Store rules like requiring in-app purchases etc. IMO Epic is not the best company to challenge Apple in all this, but in American judicial system Epic may be one of the very few companies that can afford this lawsuit.

throwaway13337 6y ago
Epic isn't the hero we need but the hero we deserve. I can certainly imagine a lot of companies are tight-lipped about it. My livelihood depends on an app store and so I'm super cautious about what I say publicly about the company that controls it. This sort of chilling effect is scary and should rightly be contested. Epic is criticized for being a huge company themselves and using that as leverage in their legal battle. However, small companies stand absolutely no chance so Epic is the only one that can take this fight. Epic is the champion of all the smaller businesses with apps on phones. Not because Epic wants them to do well but because Epic wants Epic to do well. They'll just happen to help all of us - consumer and developer - with them. I'm rooting for them.
- nickflood 6y ago
  Me too. I think, Epic is uniquely positioned also because it is privately held. As such, its actions are more representative of what Tim Sweeney thinks is right instead of the investor mob. And to me as a developer Tim Sweeney seems like a pretty good guy similar to Carmack in many ways.
  - 6y ago

willvarfar 6y ago

I'm divided. As a programmer, I'm as happy as a pig in mud in the low-level innards of my computers and operating systems, and like that I can get at them etc. That's why I have linux on my desktop. But 'open' systems don't work out well for 'normal' users. Remember the viruses and trojans and instability and all the rest of the Windows days, or Android? I want my parents and friends and everyone else to use an iphone because its hassle-free and secure. Do we really want 'unlocked' iphones? Actually, the idea of having to help someone who wants me to 'just look at the iphone and work out what's wrong' scares me.

PikachuEXE 6y ago
Look MacOS They do block "unidentified" apps by default but you still have the option to run it anyway (after a series of warnings maybe) But you can still run them And I think it can be a start
- scarface74 6y ago
  And that worked out really well for Vista and UAC. People have become blindly accustomed to just clicking ok.
  - mumblerino 6y ago
    That’s the point, in macOS it never runs by just clicking ok. The selected button is “Move to Trash” and the second button is “Cancel” To run those apps, you have to open System Preferences or right-click them (which I don’t remember if it’s still allowed)
  - contextfree 6y ago
    It seems to have worked out at least semi-well? A lot less software on Windows requires admin permissions than did pre-Vista?
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Having admin privileges doesn’t matter. Any software you install still has read and write permissions to all of your files, can encrypt your files (ransomware) can read your contacts (which hasn’t changed since the ILoveYou days in the early 2000s), etc.

czzr 6y ago

One argument that I think deserves extra scrutiny is the idea that extra app stores can be “optional”. The reality is that developers would have a strong incentive to go to the most permissive App Store, and users will follow. Users will also underestimate or ignore risks. You can dismiss that by saying it’s the user’s responsibility, but I think that’s just an abdication of good systems design. I’m not saying that Apple has the perfect model - it doesn’t - but the trade-offs are not as simple as we might like.

mehlmao 6y ago
That hasn't happened on Android though, where it has been possible for years. Almost all apps are distributed through the Play Store. There's a huge amount of inertia in being the "default" store. Users need a really good reason to switch.
yyyk 6y ago
The reality is that your scenario never happened. Not on Android, not on Windows, not on Linux distributions... The 'official' App Store always wins, unless its demands are so onerous a small minority uses a small store in addition to it.
- bogwog 6y ago
  Which official app store won on Windows? AFAIK, Steam is the number one store for games, and people buy their apps from vendors directly (example: Adobe, Autodesk, even Microsoft). The Windows app store was dead on arrival. And linux package managers aren't app stores. They're mostly meant for system libraries and core applications, although some devs do distribute their (free) apps through it. In any case, Linux is a weird one to include in this comparison, and I'm pretty sure Steam is still the number one store for getting games on Linux too. But whatever, another thing: a big part of the reason that the official app store won on Android is because of the lengths Google goes to to scare users from installing apps from "unknown sources", hiding the option to do so, displaying scary popups, etc. That's one of the reasons Epic is suing Google for.
  - 6y ago

randomsearch 6y ago

This is really quite a simple problem: the rent is too damn high. Apple should drop or tier their pricing so that a $10 subscription is paying say 5% to them. Developers are happy. Anyone raking it in pays more, a progressive system that ensures small companies can innovate. Is this bad for Apple? In the long-term, they get more innovation and a better user experience. Financially, they lose some income on a subset of existing transactions and gain income from transactions they wouldn't have processed, as apps switch to native dev, and the market sizes increase as incentives change. At the most they could lose a few billion in revenue a year (very unlikely) and gain $0. That's the upper bound. But how many more subscriptions would go through the store if apps like Spotify had signup via the app? I'd guess hundreds of millions of dollars at least, could be much larger in the long-term. Apple are losing the argument, even the best possible cut isn't worth the reputational damage and harm to the user experience, they should restructure the pricing so they save face and potentially benefit, or at least limit the damage. The writing is on the wall at this stage, and they will act or be forced to act.

electriclove 6y ago
This is the reasonable thing.. but is it right for a court/lawsuit to force Apple to do this? I would love to see Ebay reduce their fees. I feel like there is more of a monopoly there than there is with cell phones/OSs.
pentae 6y ago
This still doesn't solve the fact that Apple can control who gets to do business on the app store. Politically divisive apps, government blacklisted apps, gambling apps, adult oriented apps, crypto apps, free speech apps, certain vpn apps - none of these can currently exist with the Apple curated App Store approach. And just because those apps might not be for you doesn't mean millions and millions of users who have shelled out $1k+ for a phone don't want them on their fancy device they paid for. Allowing sideloading as Android does would fix all these issues. Sideloading can start with a 3rd party app store, even.

fierarul 6y ago

Interesting this is not positioned as a civil rights issue too. I understand, you have a developer company vs Apple. But what about people buying these computing gadgets? The millions upon millions of them. Shouldn't they have the right to run whatever software they feel like it on this general purpose computing OS without Apple's forced intermediation?

jpttsn 6y ago
iOS is not sold as a general purpose computing OS. It’s been clear from day one. People use products way beyond their original purpose, and then feel entitled to the manufacturer’s support. Like eating candy for every meal, and then complaining that it’s not good nutrition.
- izacus 6y ago
  That is patently false if you even take a glance at iPad webpage. Some itself is very loudly screaming about how iPad is a computer to replace your laptop.
  - jpttsn 6y ago
    But that kind of marketing is like saying you should drink water to replace your beer: it doesn't claim the water is beer; it's claiming you probably will be happier with water. See also the "What's a computer" ad for the iPad Pro.
- wayneftw 6y ago
  Some shady car manufacturers tried to stop people from being able to buy after market parts for their cars and our legal system put a stop to that. So, given that phones are easily as important as cars, I have confidence that we'll get justice for Apple's anti-consumer behavior too.
  - jpttsn 6y ago
    Maybe "justice" will be served: the will of the people goes far sometimes. I'd point out that the public can get away with things that don't match my personal sense of ethics, but your sense of ethics is clearly different and probably incompatible with mine. Incidentally I'm not so confident in this case; I'd take even odds on Apple winning this one.

Santosh83 6y ago

Here's an open secret. Most people globally buy an iDevice because it has become a fashion symbol, a status symbol and the peer pressure is huge to sport one, once you reach the financial ability to buy them. It has little to do with otherwise non-technical people somehow appreciating the technical nuances of security, curation, walled gardens, sideloading and so on.

AnonHP 6y ago
Maybe some people buy it as a status symbol, but the user experience in general, for someone who doesn't want root and other customizability but likes a nice smooth easy-to-use interface (as much as smartphones of today can even be user friendly), is far better on the iOS side than on the Android side. And one doesn't have to carry a large and heavier device in order to get this experience (compare the battery capacities between iOS devices and Android devices). There are things that only those who use it can realize.
- guytv 6y ago
  > far better on the iOS side than on the Android side. From my experience - latest Android on a Pixel phone is as good as the latest iOS experience. Where do you see iOS's being a "far better" experience?
cblconfederate 6y ago
This needs to be brought up more often. Apple IS a lifestyle, fashion brand, and this is probably a sector that is heavily underappreciated by entrepreneurs. Fashion is a strong motivator, and phones are strong social signal indicators, - something that is not appreciated among developers/techies. I know some ppl who bought a mac (because their peers did) and yet run windows (because excel is all they do/know). Also, considering that iDevices are designed to appeal to "simple users", it's kind of an oxymoron to pretend that their average consumer appreciates them for Swift compilers or their processors.
scarface74 6y ago
People have been accusing Apple devices of being a fashion symbol since the first iPod came out. In the US, Apple has 45% market share. How is anything with that type of market share a status symbol.

threatofrain 6y ago

For any app which has an existence beyond the app store, customers can already pay without Apple. Customers can pay for Microsoft Office, Amazon Prime, or Netflix on their own through conventional channels. Apple's position is that if you are delivering digital goods to be used on their devices, then you must offer an additional way to pay. From the consumer's perspective my choices have now grown. Where before I could've managed my own relationships with Microsoft and others, now I can have the option for Apple to intermediate. For people with elderly parents and runaway subscriptions, this is crazy valuable. And while I say customers can manage their own relationships, the truth is that without Apple backing them up, it's companies who will get the better of the relationship by successfully compelling customers to go through their bad payment system, like they already do.

ryanbrunner 6y ago
I think this would be a fair statement if the customer was given an option on the device, but when you consider that scenario, it becomes super clear that Apple's take is predatory: - Either pay X, your purchase is handled through Stripe / Paypal, and your relationship is with the company directly. - Or pay X + 30%, and your relationship is with Apple Certainly I can see some advantages to the second option, but how many customers do you think would willingly pay a 30% premium for that given the choice. At 5-10% (i.e. a few percentage points above established and legit payment processors, but ones that are a little less full-service), I think it becomes a much more reasonable argument.

amelius 6y ago

Why doesn't Apple bump into the same problem with the App store as Microsoft did with IE and the browser ballot screen, imposed on them by the EU?

cblconfederate 6y ago
There are other browsers - There is no other ios store
- amelius 6y ago
  Anyone could easily build one, and start complaining that Apple doesn't provide access.
  - cblconfederate 6y ago
    OK i 'll build one

nachoab 6y ago

The problem with the App Store monopoly is greatly aggravated by the fact that they are blocking web engine competition on iOS. They don't want PWAs to bypass the system.

nodamage 6y ago

This quote is relevant: The problem for Epic — and, I suppose, for me — is that to this observer it seems exceedingly likely that Apple is going to win this case, last night’s decision notwithstanding. Current Supreme Court jurisprudence is very clear that businesses — including monopolies — have no duty to deal with third parties, and if they do choose to deal with them (or are even compelled to), that they can choose the terms on which to do so. The only exceptions are if the monopoly in question changes the rules in an unprofitable way with the express purpose of driving out a competitor, or if any company — not even a monopoly — changes access to after-market parts and services. Current US antitrust law does not favor Epic in this matter. Of Epic's ten claims, their strongest claim is probably the one tying in-app payment processing to app distribution services, but even that one is far from a slam dunk. And even if they were to succeed on that particular claim, the likely outcome would be that they would get to keep their payment system in Fortnite, not that they would be able to run their own app store. I think people need to temper their expectations unless the laws change in the years it takes for this case to make it through the courts. A court ruling that Apple must allow third-party in-app payment systems is a somewhat realistic outcome, whereas a court ruling that Apple must permit third-parties to run their own app stores is probably a non-starter.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
> A judge ruling that Apple must allow third-party in-app payment systems is a somewhat realistic outcome, whereas a judge ruling that Apple must permit third-parties to run their own app stores is probably a non-starter. I gather judges really don't like to impose technical requirements - especially in a fast-moving industry like this. Ordering Apple to make the extensive changes required to allow for some kind of secure (as opposed to insecure, like Cydia) third-party App Store on iOS would be a massive undertaking that would probably cost the company north of a billion in total, especially regarding testing and security point. ...whereas ordering Apple to simply allow what is already possible (namely: permitting apps to collect payment details themselves through their own processors) is a good path forward. How would Apple respond to that though? In the event that Apple is required to allow third-party payment-processors that skirt the Apple tax, I think it's reasonable for Apple to introduce some kind of "app support fee" (beyond the annual $99/developer fee) - but Apple would be hard-pressed to negotiate a reasonable amount of that per-app. Perhaps $1 per app-download per year? Interesting times... I'm also interested in potential legislation regarding forcing Apple to permit third-party web-browsers and other banned software categories - Apple's technical arguments may have had some merit back in 2007-2012, but now that my phone has more RAM and processing power than my previous laptop (which still runs the infamously RAM-hungry Chrome 84 fine!) this isn't an argument that holds water. I'd love to be able to run "real" Firefox on iOS, for example (there is an argument about how Apple can only trust their own build of Webkit to have executable memory pages for the JavaScript JIT - that's going to be interesting). We should compare Apple to Microsoft of 1998: Microsoft was convicted of monopoly abuse by simply bundling Internet Explorer with Windows (granted, this includes integrating it into the shell too) - while Apple doesn't just bundle Safari with iOS, they outright ban any kind of proper competition - Microsoft was convicted for far less, so why should Apple be given a free-pass?

ksec 6y ago

Gaming Retain the 30% Cut, as Standard in the Gaming Industry. Apps and IAP is now down to 15%. And 10% for Subscription. That also puts Spotify And Amazon Prime or other Streaming Services to the 10% category. I honestly dont like the idea of an Open Platform where you can side load Apps. If you want that Android is your choice. Apple tries to built an App Platform on its Appliance or Phone. Android tries to built a Pocket Computer that acts like and look like a Phone. These are two fundamentally different sets of trade offs.

specialist 6y ago

Much as I love Ben Thompson, this is rearranging the deck chairs while the Titanic is sinking. Or maybe arguing about which dinner fork the gorilla should use while it's eating you. Treat the App Store like any other modern open market. Apply real world market rules to all these digital markets. - rule of law. contracts, civil, business, etc. - fair and impartial judiciary - right of appeal - regulations to ensure equal footing of participants - tort Etc. Voila, fixed. A bit more discipline is needed to rationalize Google, Facebook, and Amazon. Starting with no self-dealing (conflicts of interest). And the social networks need particular mitigations to deweaponize their outrage engine feedback loops. This is all pretty simple, obvious stuff. Seriously, am I the only person whose read books like The Mystery of Capital? Why are so many self-proclaimed capitalists so painfully oblivious to liberal and neoliberal traditions?

bogwog 6y ago

This is a well-written and researched article, but I have to disagree with some stuff. The suggested alternative payment processing policies make no sense for Apple; they would incentivize people to not make iPhone-exclusive experiences. That's something the walled-garden aficionados at Apple would never go for. And a court order to implement a change like that (or any change) would be a bad idea. As for the reduced 10% rate, why 10%? In a truly competitive market, we might see figures lower than that. I think that trying to come up with perfect changes for Apple's practices is a waste of time. Apple shouldn't be forced to make changes to their store, nor should we bother trying to convince them to do it themselves. Let them do whatever they want, but allow third-party stores. Competitive forces will fix everything in the long-term. What I'm not sure of is how that would work in practice. Will Apple be forced to release (and maintain) their SDKs and dev tools for free? Will they be forced to make changes to the operating system to allow side-loading? If they are, how long would that take? and wouldn't it be catastrophic from a security point of view, since iOS has never had to worry about the security issues of side-loading.

yyyk 6y ago

There's a very simple law: You can't use a strong position in one market to enhance your position in another market. Simply put, the entire tying up of payments to Apple is classic anti-competitive behaviour, and there's little chance the courts won't put an end to it. Same will happen with Apple using private APIs for its store owned apps. That said, it's very unlikely the courts will interfere with the 30% fee. There are no legal grounds for demanding a smaller fee.

panzagl 6y ago

The most important changes Apple needs to make would not cost them a single line of code- they just get rid of their policy to require consistent pricing across all platforms, and allow promotion/linking of external (i.e. not on iOS) payment sources. If Spotify could charge +30% for a subscription purchased through the App store, and include a link to their main sign up page where subscriptions are regular price, everyone is happy. No security is changed and developers pass along the price of being in the App store to only those consumers who wish it. Only loser is Apple, who does not get to use their gatekeeper status on iOS to enforce monopoly-style pricing controls across all platforms.

zacwest 6y ago
The consistent pricing requirement was removed years ago. This is an article from 2011 about it: https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/06/09/apple_backs_down_on_in_app_purchasing_rules_allows_lower_prices_for_out_of_app_purchases https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/06/09/apple_backs_down_...
- judge2020 6y ago
  For reference, YT Premium is $16 on iOS[0] but $12 directly[1]. 0: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3dznQemACWzb2tbYfdbIsfinczTPJSLJaLKTVKLWG3_UxpfFIpmBx8S5ClHwiurFHBmZM2tuh0iqdAR3ch_OOvtgrr6Iq3FK3QDg4B9fzywSgdrIciI0TtamxupQCV3AJXx3Dr-Kw1l--xUny28FoQy2w=w553-h970-no https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3dznQemACWzb2tbYfd... 1: https://youtube.com/premium https://youtube.com/premium
  - csunbird 6y ago
    The developer chooses if the price should be different or not. In that case, Youtube decided that the users should pay the 30 percent Apple tax.
    - judge2020 6y ago
      Yes - and YT is still losing money on that transaction. $16 will become $11.20 after apple takes their cut.

CharlesW 6y ago

Having read the whole thread, what amazes me is how most people here seem to be thinking about iOS products as general purpose computing products, when in reality the iPhone has been a console-like ecosystem from the start. I'm personally very happy it works like an Xbox or Switch rather than Android, and that I don't have to figure out which app store a given app came from, deal with different parties if I need to resolve billing issues, etc. Any comments focusing on the technical issues are missing the point. Of course it can be done. The benefit of the iOS ecosystem is knowing that it won't be done.

nightski 6y ago

Why do we need 3rd party stores? Why not just have a standard for an app endpoint url that iOS knows how to interact with. So I could publish an app on a private domain and then iOS would know how to download the app and check for updates from that end point? While there is value in a centralized store to search for apps (and that can certainly stick around), I don't understand why apps are forced to be hosted centrally in a store, Apple or third party. Ex: To install the "Pepsi" app just go to pepsi.com and click the install app button. Then iOS could take over from there.

single_source 6y ago
because they don't get the margin they're currently getting :)
cactus2093 6y ago
This seems like just an implementation detail of the idea of 3rd party stores, I don’t really see how it’s a big distinction. And Apple’s opposition to this idea would clearly be the same as the reasons it has given not to allow third party stores.