4 ms·

> 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

by 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.
    - LexGray 6y ago
      So Apple still needs to be responsible for content of third party stores? The stores should require Apple code signing to allow remote shut down and be complaints about items in non Apple stores reviewed by Apple for unscrupulous behavior? Sound like a waste of battery where like Mac and Windows a constant malware checker would be required at the OS level.
      - pwinnski 6y ago
        If you spend your time looking for ways to insist that the status quo is easiest, then yes, you'll find ways to insist that the status quo is easiest. Like I said, I'm only now coming around on this, but I think a $2T company with total control of both hardware and software can probably work out a way to support additional stores without requiring a full-time battery-draining malware checker. In fact, I suspect most of us could figure out how to avoid that if we tried, rather than trying the opposite. Sandboxing and limited APIs already exist, Apple doesn't need to review apps that don't appear in their App Store. As I've said, I suspect a very small percentage of people would be willing to install additional stores, and they can hardly complain if it turns out apps purchased there overshare PII.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  Keeping 90% of a tiny pile of money is usually not a better deal than keeping 70% of a large pile of money. Cydia has existed for ages, and yet Apple's own App Store is still the undisputed market leader. I'm having trouble envisioning a scenario in which consumers lose here.
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.

by dannyr 6y ago

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.
  - LexGray 6y ago
    So Apple still needs to be responsible for content of third party stores? The stores should require Apple code signing to allow remote shut down and be complaints about items in non Apple stores reviewed by Apple for unscrupulous behavior? Sound like a waste of battery where like Mac and Windows a constant malware checker would be required at the OS level.
    - pwinnski 6y ago
      If you spend your time looking for ways to insist that the status quo is easiest, then yes, you'll find ways to insist that the status quo is easiest. Like I said, I'm only now coming around on this, but I think a $2T company with total control of both hardware and software can probably work out a way to support additional stores without requiring a full-time battery-draining malware checker. In fact, I suspect most of us could figure out how to avoid that if we tried, rather than trying the opposite. Sandboxing and limited APIs already exist, Apple doesn't need to review apps that don't appear in their App Store. As I've said, I suspect a very small percentage of people would be willing to install additional stores, and they can hardly complain if it turns out apps purchased there overshare PII.
pwinnski 6y ago
Keeping 90% of a tiny pile of money is usually not a better deal than keeping 70% of a large pile of money. Cydia has existed for ages, and yet Apple's own App Store is still the undisputed market leader. I'm having trouble envisioning a scenario in which consumers lose here.

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.