6 ms·

Having 3rd party stores will be net negative for me as a user. Currently I have trust to Apple, if I am or my kid charged wrong or tricked into some subscript

Having 3rd party stores will be net negative for me as a user. Currently I have trust to Apple, if I am or my kid charged wrong or tricked into some subscription etc, I have proof with experience that Apple will fix it. Now let’s say if we have many stores, some stores will try to be smart, will make exclusive deals, force people to install their stores to maybe play a one popular game. As a user I will end up with 10 stores on my phone, each has my billing information, if I have a problem, not I need to go to that store to handle. Oh than X app will decide to move from store A to store B, then he needs to move all subscribers there, good luck :)

dannyr 6y ago
> Having 3rd party stores will be net negative for me as a user. Having 3rd party stores will not prevent you for using the Apple App Store exclusively. > As a user I will end up with 10 stores on my phone, each has my billing information, Imagine if there is only 1 store, e.g. Walmart? Only Walmart has your billing information and it's the only store where you can buy things. > Now let’s say if we have many stores That would be great. These stores will be competing for customers that would drive prices down. One store might decline to sell a specific product for many reasons but another store might carry the product. Imagine that as a manufacturer, you can only sell thru Walmart. Walmart declines to sell your product and you have nowhere else to sell.
- pmontra 6y ago
  Or they sell but decide the price they buy from you. It's called monopsony. This is not the case of Apple even if the OP made clear that Apple is making some business models impractical.
- sjwright 6y ago
  > Having 3rd party stores will not prevent you for using the Apple App Store exclusively. It will if enough developers flee to whichever store has the cheapest rate and the fewest restrictions. It’s a race to the bottom and the consumer ultimately loses.
  - mijamo 6y ago
    That is the whole purpose of a free economy. It's a race to the bottom only as long as the customer needs are satisfied with the product, which is exactly what's good for society. Sure you might have several stores, so what? It's like saying there should only be one car dealership because dealerships take too much space and it's not convenient to go in many places to check cars.
    - dllthomas 6y ago
      A "race to the bottom" that only impacts price means the customer wins. But the important point (which often goes unsaid) when people speak of a race to the bottom is that they are concerned that position in that race will be earned by sacrificing things that matter. That may or may not be the case, but I expect it'll be more fruitful to address it.
  - kitsunesoba 6y ago
    Exactly, as a user I'm not going to be happy if I have to resort to using an unscrupulous third party App Store with fewer privacy restrictions in order to get the app I need. There's also the possibility of mobile equivalents to the Adobe CC installer/manager that act as their own "App Store" and aren't subject to any rules at all, which is even worse. After seeing what the likes of Adobe does on desktop PCs, I do not want to see what they do when granted effectively unfettered access to my phone.
    - pwinnski 6y ago
      Allowing alternate sources of apps is not at all the same thing as allowing apps to do whatever they wish on your device. iOS apps would still be sandboxed and heavily restricted. In-app privacy would be unchanged. Apple should have the ability to "shut off" unscrupulous third-party App Stores just as they do today with unscrupulous developers. Adobe would find it tough going if they withdrew from Apple's App Store, and I can't imagine keeping 30% minus whatever it costs to provide an alternative would be worth it to the, given how many people would just stop using Adobe apps.
- realityking 6y ago
  > Having 3rd party stores will not prevent you for using the Apple App Store exclusively. This is an interesting question. Let's say Apple will be forced to allow the Epic Games Store on iOS. Would Epic be forced to offer Fornite on the App Store in addition to the Epic Games Store? If not, bluesign's kid might very well force him to use another store.
guytv 6y ago
Exactly. That's the price of freedom. Are you willing to pay it? or sacrifice your freedom for convenience? Most people, I suspect, will choose the latter.
- bluesign 6y ago
  There is nothing wrong to sacrifice your freedom to convenience, it is like living in the city and delegating protection to police, or living in the wild and taking care of yourself.
- OctopusLupid 6y ago
  You don't speak for most people.
- sjwright 6y ago
  I’m not giving up freedom, I’m eagerly paying a premium for a valuable service.
kqvamxurcagg 6y ago
At a micro level I can understand this point, but the proper functioning of markets requires competition. You likely wouldn't advocate one supermarket, one car company or one hardware manufacturer. Even if you would prefer to use Apple's Store it's wrong to deny others (both producers and consumers) free choice.
- bluesign 6y ago
  I am looking at with a different perspective: I am thinking Apple is like a union for their users. And they are regulating developers and they have huge negotiating power because they are gateway to user’s phone. I don’t see them as market participant, I more likely see them as market regulator.
  - hellisothers 6y ago
    It is wrong to deny me the free choice of an ecosystem with only one store then. You wouldn’t walk into a town with only one grocery store and car dealership and demand a second one open “because freedom”. Maybe that town likes it that way and if you don’t then you don’t need to live there.
  - Mindwipe 6y ago
    > I am thinking Apple is like a union for their users. Unions are broadly democratic institutions. Apple isn't.
  - realityking 6y ago
    > I am thinking Apple is like a union for their users. While I'm decidedly not Epic's side on this I think this is a misleading and dangerous argument. In a union, members get to vote to change the rules to benefit the membership. Apple never asked for my input on App Store rules.
    - quesera 6y ago
      > Apple never asked for my input on App Store rules. But they really did. They asked "Walled garden, restrictive app publishing, no BS", or "Sideload to your heart's content", you choose! And Apple customers said "Walled garden, please and thank you!" This is a completely respectable choice -- but of course it is not everyone's choice! I was unintentionally (and unexpectedly) a unionized employee once. They didn't ask me to ratify their agenda, but they did require me to pay dues!
52-6F-62 6y ago
I'm very much of a similar opinion. In response to OP's comment, my first question is "fair to whom". Is it fair that suddenly that the ecosystem we consciously paid for should suddenly be forcefully changed, permanently, because vendors see dollar signs?
kevincox 6y ago
I don't think it will. Android and the Play Store have shown that even with the ability to install arbitrary apps and stores very few apps that would have been available on the Play Store have migrated to only be available on other stores. So the tradeoff is a fairly large number of previously disallowed apps are now available, if you want. And a small number of previously allowed apps are only available outside of Apple's store. Of course if this is worth it to you depends on how much you value either side of the equation but at least in the Android case it is a clear win to me.
pwinnski 6y ago
Epic took Fortnite out of Google's Play Store because they wanted to stop giving Google 30% of all transactions. After a few months, they put it back in. Very, very, very few developers are going to avoid Apple's App Store deliberately. It just doesn't make economic sense. Game-streaming services don't have a choice, of course.

dannyr 6y ago

> Having 3rd party stores will be net negative for me as a user. Having 3rd party stores will not prevent you for using the Apple App Store exclusively. > As a user I will end up with 10 stores on my phone, each has my billing information, Imagine if there is only 1 store, e.g. Walmart? Only Walmart has your billing information and it's the only store where you can buy things. > Now let’s say if we have many stores That would be great. These stores will be competing for customers that would drive prices down. One store might decline to sell a specific product for many reasons but another store might carry the product. Imagine that as a manufacturer, you can only sell thru Walmart. Walmart declines to sell your product and you have nowhere else to sell.

pmontra 6y ago
Or they sell but decide the price they buy from you. It's called monopsony. This is not the case of Apple even if the OP made clear that Apple is making some business models impractical.
sjwright 6y ago
> Having 3rd party stores will not prevent you for using the Apple App Store exclusively. It will if enough developers flee to whichever store has the cheapest rate and the fewest restrictions. It’s a race to the bottom and the consumer ultimately loses.
- mijamo 6y ago
  That is the whole purpose of a free economy. It's a race to the bottom only as long as the customer needs are satisfied with the product, which is exactly what's good for society. Sure you might have several stores, so what? It's like saying there should only be one car dealership because dealerships take too much space and it's not convenient to go in many places to check cars.
  - dllthomas 6y ago
    A "race to the bottom" that only impacts price means the customer wins. But the important point (which often goes unsaid) when people speak of a race to the bottom is that they are concerned that position in that race will be earned by sacrificing things that matter. That may or may not be the case, but I expect it'll be more fruitful to address it.
- kitsunesoba 6y ago
  Exactly, as a user I'm not going to be happy if I have to resort to using an unscrupulous third party App Store with fewer privacy restrictions in order to get the app I need. There's also the possibility of mobile equivalents to the Adobe CC installer/manager that act as their own "App Store" and aren't subject to any rules at all, which is even worse. After seeing what the likes of Adobe does on desktop PCs, I do not want to see what they do when granted effectively unfettered access to my phone.
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    Allowing alternate sources of apps is not at all the same thing as allowing apps to do whatever they wish on your device. iOS apps would still be sandboxed and heavily restricted. In-app privacy would be unchanged. Apple should have the ability to "shut off" unscrupulous third-party App Stores just as they do today with unscrupulous developers. Adobe would find it tough going if they withdrew from Apple's App Store, and I can't imagine keeping 30% minus whatever it costs to provide an alternative would be worth it to the, given how many people would just stop using Adobe apps.
realityking 6y ago
> Having 3rd party stores will not prevent you for using the Apple App Store exclusively. This is an interesting question. Let's say Apple will be forced to allow the Epic Games Store on iOS. Would Epic be forced to offer Fornite on the App Store in addition to the Epic Games Store? If not, bluesign's kid might very well force him to use another store.

guytv 6y ago

Exactly. That's the price of freedom. Are you willing to pay it? or sacrifice your freedom for convenience? Most people, I suspect, will choose the latter.

bluesign 6y ago
There is nothing wrong to sacrifice your freedom to convenience, it is like living in the city and delegating protection to police, or living in the wild and taking care of yourself.
OctopusLupid 6y ago
You don't speak for most people.
sjwright 6y ago
I’m not giving up freedom, I’m eagerly paying a premium for a valuable service.

kqvamxurcagg 6y ago

At a micro level I can understand this point, but the proper functioning of markets requires competition. You likely wouldn't advocate one supermarket, one car company or one hardware manufacturer. Even if you would prefer to use Apple's Store it's wrong to deny others (both producers and consumers) free choice.

bluesign 6y ago
I am looking at with a different perspective: I am thinking Apple is like a union for their users. And they are regulating developers and they have huge negotiating power because they are gateway to user’s phone. I don’t see them as market participant, I more likely see them as market regulator.
- hellisothers 6y ago
  It is wrong to deny me the free choice of an ecosystem with only one store then. You wouldn’t walk into a town with only one grocery store and car dealership and demand a second one open “because freedom”. Maybe that town likes it that way and if you don’t then you don’t need to live there.
- Mindwipe 6y ago
  > I am thinking Apple is like a union for their users. Unions are broadly democratic institutions. Apple isn't.
- realityking 6y ago
  > I am thinking Apple is like a union for their users. While I'm decidedly not Epic's side on this I think this is a misleading and dangerous argument. In a union, members get to vote to change the rules to benefit the membership. Apple never asked for my input on App Store rules.
  - quesera 6y ago
    > Apple never asked for my input on App Store rules. But they really did. They asked "Walled garden, restrictive app publishing, no BS", or "Sideload to your heart's content", you choose! And Apple customers said "Walled garden, please and thank you!" This is a completely respectable choice -- but of course it is not everyone's choice! I was unintentionally (and unexpectedly) a unionized employee once. They didn't ask me to ratify their agenda, but they did require me to pay dues!

52-6F-62 6y ago

I'm very much of a similar opinion. In response to OP's comment, my first question is "fair to whom". Is it fair that suddenly that the ecosystem we consciously paid for should suddenly be forcefully changed, permanently, because vendors see dollar signs?

kevincox 6y ago

I don't think it will. Android and the Play Store have shown that even with the ability to install arbitrary apps and stores very few apps that would have been available on the Play Store have migrated to only be available on other stores. So the tradeoff is a fairly large number of previously disallowed apps are now available, if you want. And a small number of previously allowed apps are only available outside of Apple's store. Of course if this is worth it to you depends on how much you value either side of the equation but at least in the Android case it is a clear win to me.

pwinnski 6y ago

Epic took Fortnite out of Google's Play Store because they wanted to stop giving Google 30% of all transactions. After a few months, they put it back in. Very, very, very few developers are going to avoid Apple's App Store deliberately. It just doesn't make economic sense. Game-streaming services don't have a choice, of course.