4 ms·

Ultimately giving users choice is the best way forward. Apple shouldn't be allowed to block competing app stores (or sideloading) on their platform, in my view

Ultimately giving users choice is the best way forward. Apple shouldn't be allowed to block competing app stores (or sideloading) on their platform, in my view that's monopolistic. Imagine if Microsoft had restricted the ability to install and use third party software on Windows, it would of slowed digital transformation dramatically.

gwd 6y ago
> Ultimately giving users choice is the best way forward. OK, but right now as a user I have a choice: I can choose an ecosystem supported in part by a 30% tax on apps, or I can choose an ecosystem supported mainly by advertising. If Apple is forced to allow other stores, I lose that choice. Furthermore, a lot of the things Apple forces on apps really are for my benefit: Take the way they banned Facebook for working around their prohibition on running in the background. They can say, "If you want to access this market, you will follow these rules." If Apple is forced to allow other app stores, then not only Epic and Spotify can say, "We only install on this other store that allows us to sell subscriptions without the 30% tax", then Facebook and others will also be able to say, "We only install on this other store that lets us spy on you." One again: At the moment, as a consumer, I can choose to say, "I prefer Apple to negotiate on my behalf" or, "I'll go with Android, where I can install third-party stores". If Apple is forced to open up, I won't have that choice any more.
- mthoms 6y ago
  >OK, but right now as a user I have a choice: I can choose an ecosystem supported in part by a 30% tax on apps, or I can choose an ecosystem supported mainly by advertising. If Apple is forced to allow other stores, I lose that choice. I'm not sure that follows. Can you elaborate on why you would "lose that choice"?
  - heisenzombie 6y ago
    A sufficiently powerful company or group could promote a third party app store by negotiating exclusive deals. Imagine a "EpicTwitBook" store being the only way to get Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter and Fortnite. Previously those apps were forced to make concessions to be on the iOS store, and I could download "Instagram, the version that makes Apple happy" app. But now, that version of the app is gone! I google "Why is my Instagram gone" and get an article that says I have to sign up to the "EpicTwitBook" store, and download the "Instagram, the version that makes Advertisers happy" app. I would prefer the first version but I don't get a choice.
    - hirako2000 6y ago
      Then a free competitor will step in a offer those binaries via a FreeAppBay store. Which would grow and have an inventory of all the apps out there.
    - mthoms 6y ago
      I see, thanks. My vision of an alternate app store still involves largely adhering to Apples rules for app approval. Except that an alternate store could have a different commission structure and in-store "experience". For example, an alternate store could differentiate on search features, curation, free trials, ratings systems, bundles, periodic sales, developer interaction, developer support and (optionally of course) social recommendations. Exclusivity could even be forbidden. In this scenario, Apple could still set the rules for App approval (with some oversight) and earn a fair commission (%5 to %10?) on transactions. It would still be profitable for Apple but encourage innovation and competition in the actual "stores".

gwd 6y ago

> Ultimately giving users choice is the best way forward. OK, but right now as a user I have a choice: I can choose an ecosystem supported in part by a 30% tax on apps, or I can choose an ecosystem supported mainly by advertising. If Apple is forced to allow other stores, I lose that choice. Furthermore, a lot of the things Apple forces on apps really are for my benefit: Take the way they banned Facebook for working around their prohibition on running in the background. They can say, "If you want to access this market, you will follow these rules." If Apple is forced to allow other app stores, then not only Epic and Spotify can say, "We only install on this other store that allows us to sell subscriptions without the 30% tax", then Facebook and others will also be able to say, "We only install on this other store that lets us spy on you." One again: At the moment, as a consumer, I can choose to say, "I prefer Apple to negotiate on my behalf" or, "I'll go with Android, where I can install third-party stores". If Apple is forced to open up, I won't have that choice any more.

mthoms 6y ago
>OK, but right now as a user I have a choice: I can choose an ecosystem supported in part by a 30% tax on apps, or I can choose an ecosystem supported mainly by advertising. If Apple is forced to allow other stores, I lose that choice. I'm not sure that follows. Can you elaborate on why you would "lose that choice"?
- heisenzombie 6y ago
  A sufficiently powerful company or group could promote a third party app store by negotiating exclusive deals. Imagine a "EpicTwitBook" store being the only way to get Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter and Fortnite. Previously those apps were forced to make concessions to be on the iOS store, and I could download "Instagram, the version that makes Apple happy" app. But now, that version of the app is gone! I google "Why is my Instagram gone" and get an article that says I have to sign up to the "EpicTwitBook" store, and download the "Instagram, the version that makes Advertisers happy" app. I would prefer the first version but I don't get a choice.
  - hirako2000 6y ago
    Then a free competitor will step in a offer those binaries via a FreeAppBay store. Which would grow and have an inventory of all the apps out there.
  - mthoms 6y ago
    I see, thanks. My vision of an alternate app store still involves largely adhering to Apples rules for app approval. Except that an alternate store could have a different commission structure and in-store "experience". For example, an alternate store could differentiate on search features, curation, free trials, ratings systems, bundles, periodic sales, developer interaction, developer support and (optionally of course) social recommendations. Exclusivity could even be forbidden. In this scenario, Apple could still set the rules for App approval (with some oversight) and earn a fair commission (%5 to %10?) on transactions. It would still be profitable for Apple but encourage innovation and competition in the actual "stores".