3 ms·

I have definitely come around on this. I can see a case for making adding a third-party story cumbersome, and having Apple still control the "certificates," let

I have definitely come around on this. I can see a case for making adding a third-party story cumbersome, and having Apple still control the "certificates," let's say, for each store, but yes, I agree, there need to be alternatives. It still seems awkward to say that Apple must allow for competitors, but they're a $2 trillion company now, and I think rules are just weird for companies of that size.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Presumably control of iOS means Apple would never lose the ability to distrust/remove a given store and apps installed with it. But Apple would need to be under clear regulation that it could not do so for a revenue-related reason. Presumably a store openly promoting pirated apps would be a reason, and a store which has significant malware problems, could both be compelling reasons to permit Apple to do this, but I would go so far as to suggest they should be required to involve the legal system somehow in the process, rather than make a unilateral call.
- wbronitsky 6y ago
  > it could not do so for a revenue-related reason While this might sound good, this would be impossible to enforce in practice, as everything a company does is revenue-related. Any rules the app store or iOS have are directly related to revenue by definition. For example, if Apple allowed boundless permissions and tons of buggy apps, their revenue would probably decrease. This issue is harder to regulate than it first seems.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    Yes, technically, "everything a company does is revenue-related". However, you can realistically draw a line sonewhere between blocking illegal material (pirated/malware) and blocking apps that don't pay Apple their 30%. My comment was not intended to be the exact legalese that would be required for such a limitation, but you can probably gather roughly where I draw the line from it.
    - wbronitsky 6y ago
      I want to point out that the crux of my argument, the very reason I posted, was that I could not "draw the line" from the previous argument. There is no actual rebuttal or new information in the reply, just a restatement of the previous point. My point was that everything a company does is revenue related, and thus we cannot draw some imaginary line between things that are "more" or "less" revenue related. Restating that we can doesn't move us forward. I would be interested to hear how we can separate some revenue related reasons from others.
gwd 6y ago
> It still seems awkward to say that Apple must allow for competitors, but they're a $2 trillion company now, and I think rules are just weird for companies of that size. Apple only controls 14% of the smartphone market. If Apple is a $2T company, doesn't that mean those 14% of people overall approve of what Apple is doing? I certainly think some of the restrictions are onerous; but if I had to choose between "Some onerous restrictions on some app developers" and "No way to capture value from applications to support the platform", I'd go with the first one. Right now, if you don't like what Apple's doing, you can choose not to do with Apple; and if I do, I can choose to go with them. If you get your way & Apple is forced to open up, I'll no longer have that choice.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  Keep in mind, I've basically shift on this within the last day or two, so my thinking is possibly still underbaked when it comes to "the other side." But I think you might be making the mistake of thinking that since Apple does A, B, and C, and they have the safest/best experience, therefore A, B, and C are necessary for them to continue to have the safest/best experience. I can see a world, for example, in which Apple approves a very-limited number of alternate app stores, each of which must still give Apple 30% of what they make from every transaction. So a $1 purchase in Apple's App Store gives them 30 cents, while a $1 purchase in Epic's App Store gives Epic 14 cents, and Apple 6 cents (30% of the 20 cents the ultimate developer doesn't get). Would that mean Apple would go broke? I don't think so. Would Epic find that it's harder to make things work on 14% than they'd estimated? Could be: they gave up going indie over on Android already. Would I be forced to use the alternate App Store? I suspect only for apps excluded from Apple's App Store, because what developer would want to give up on that revenue? > Right now, if you don't like what Apple's doing, you can choose not to do with Apple; and if I do, I can choose to go with them I think the reasoning here misses the point. If Apple were doing something truly dastardly, inarguably evil, would this argument still apply? It's not trivial to switch platforms, though it is possible. And "Apple's way or the highway" shouldn't give them a license to do whatever they want to, no matter what. I hope that whatever is decided in court, I am able to stick with the Apple experience I know and appreciate. But maybe also I want to use one of the several game-streaming services that Apple will not allow. Must I buy an Android tablet to use Stadia? How much other innovation is currently not happening, or are unavailable to iOS users because of Apple's App Store restrictions?

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

Presumably control of iOS means Apple would never lose the ability to distrust/remove a given store and apps installed with it. But Apple would need to be under clear regulation that it could not do so for a revenue-related reason. Presumably a store openly promoting pirated apps would be a reason, and a store which has significant malware problems, could both be compelling reasons to permit Apple to do this, but I would go so far as to suggest they should be required to involve the legal system somehow in the process, rather than make a unilateral call.

wbronitsky 6y ago
> it could not do so for a revenue-related reason While this might sound good, this would be impossible to enforce in practice, as everything a company does is revenue-related. Any rules the app store or iOS have are directly related to revenue by definition. For example, if Apple allowed boundless permissions and tons of buggy apps, their revenue would probably decrease. This issue is harder to regulate than it first seems.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Yes, technically, "everything a company does is revenue-related". However, you can realistically draw a line sonewhere between blocking illegal material (pirated/malware) and blocking apps that don't pay Apple their 30%. My comment was not intended to be the exact legalese that would be required for such a limitation, but you can probably gather roughly where I draw the line from it.
  - wbronitsky 6y ago
    I want to point out that the crux of my argument, the very reason I posted, was that I could not "draw the line" from the previous argument. There is no actual rebuttal or new information in the reply, just a restatement of the previous point. My point was that everything a company does is revenue related, and thus we cannot draw some imaginary line between things that are "more" or "less" revenue related. Restating that we can doesn't move us forward. I would be interested to hear how we can separate some revenue related reasons from others.

gwd 6y ago

> It still seems awkward to say that Apple must allow for competitors, but they're a $2 trillion company now, and I think rules are just weird for companies of that size. Apple only controls 14% of the smartphone market. If Apple is a $2T company, doesn't that mean those 14% of people overall approve of what Apple is doing? I certainly think some of the restrictions are onerous; but if I had to choose between "Some onerous restrictions on some app developers" and "No way to capture value from applications to support the platform", I'd go with the first one. Right now, if you don't like what Apple's doing, you can choose not to do with Apple; and if I do, I can choose to go with them. If you get your way & Apple is forced to open up, I'll no longer have that choice.

pwinnski 6y ago
Keep in mind, I've basically shift on this within the last day or two, so my thinking is possibly still underbaked when it comes to "the other side." But I think you might be making the mistake of thinking that since Apple does A, B, and C, and they have the safest/best experience, therefore A, B, and C are necessary for them to continue to have the safest/best experience. I can see a world, for example, in which Apple approves a very-limited number of alternate app stores, each of which must still give Apple 30% of what they make from every transaction. So a $1 purchase in Apple's App Store gives them 30 cents, while a $1 purchase in Epic's App Store gives Epic 14 cents, and Apple 6 cents (30% of the 20 cents the ultimate developer doesn't get). Would that mean Apple would go broke? I don't think so. Would Epic find that it's harder to make things work on 14% than they'd estimated? Could be: they gave up going indie over on Android already. Would I be forced to use the alternate App Store? I suspect only for apps excluded from Apple's App Store, because what developer would want to give up on that revenue? > Right now, if you don't like what Apple's doing, you can choose not to do with Apple; and if I do, I can choose to go with them I think the reasoning here misses the point. If Apple were doing something truly dastardly, inarguably evil, would this argument still apply? It's not trivial to switch platforms, though it is possible. And "Apple's way or the highway" shouldn't give them a license to do whatever they want to, no matter what. I hope that whatever is decided in court, I am able to stick with the Apple experience I know and appreciate. But maybe also I want to use one of the several game-streaming services that Apple will not allow. Must I buy an Android tablet to use Stadia? How much other innovation is currently not happening, or are unavailable to iOS users because of Apple's App Store restrictions?