3 ms·

I like the idea of allowing alternate App Stores on iOS (or even setting a flag to allow running unsigned binaries). I do not agree that Apple has an obligatio

• AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > I do not agree that Apple has an obligation to develop this functionality for me. The issue isn't they should have to do it for you, it's that they've taken purposeful action to prevent anyone else from doing it. > I think iOS is a better consumer product because it has never allowed ad hoc app installs. But this doesn't require the store to be glued to the device. You could get the same experience by using only Apple's store, or some other store you trust, even if others were available. Linux package managers are a fine example of this. The large majority of Linux software is installed through them, and doing what the packagers require to get included is enough of a benefit that developers do it, but there is nothing at all preventing there from being multiple independent packaging systems or preventing people from installing software from the internet. They just don't, in general, because they prefer to get it from the package manager. > Mobile platform mobility is very high. People do it all the time! People move house all the time too, that doesn't mean the cost is low. You're essentially arguing that it's possible for it to be low. If you're about to buy a new phone anyway and you don't have many apps and none of your apps only run on iOS, then all you have is the retraining cost of learning a different operating system and the differences between the hardware of different platforms and so on. But this is just arguing that if you're about to move house anyway then the cost of switching away from Comcast isn't as high. For one thing it's still high, because the differences between different houses/platforms is still quite significant and decisions are made based on a multitude of considerations in addition to app stores. But for another, what happens to the people in the opposite circumstances? They're not halfway through their contract and have many expensive iOS-specific apps with a network effect, and then they want to buy your app. No way they can switch just for that. > Apps which are platform-exclusive (Apple Messages) are a different kettle of wax, and I don't think germane here. Complicated product/ecosystems inevitably fan out to imperfect sets of compromises. Sure, this contributes to intangible switching costs, but that's hardly Apple's responsibility to mitigate on my behalf. They don't have to mitigate it but then it's a significant component of switching costs. Eat your cake or have it.
  • quesera 6y ago
    > The issue isn't they should have to do it for you, it's that they've taken purposeful action to prevent anyone else from doing it. The crux of our disagreement may lie here. Apple did not take active steps to prevent other app stores from running on iOS. They spent many years of active effort to prevent any app from escaping the runtime sandbox. As a side effect, I cannot load arbitrary phone applications, keyboard handlers, or app stores. Demanding that Apple undo (or make exceptions in) this design, which provides runtime security across the OS, would be coerced development. It weakens the product, is contrary to corporate goals, and is not valuable to most customers. It is reasonable to argue that sideloading is less problematic than allowing alternate app stores. The sideloaded app would still run in the sandbox. But it would break an important layer of defense-in-depth, and why would Apple willingly take on that extra risk? I can understand why some customers would consider it convenient if they did, but I cannot support forcing them to do so. Re: switching costs: In what consumer relationship does the buyer not assume some risk in their decision? If I buy a car, but change my mind in a few months and prefer a different model, who eases that transition for me? Any complex product will come with compromises -- suitability for purpose is not guaranteed. The compromise on iOS is that you do not install arbitrary apps. Maybe this surprises some people, but they can return the device in-window, or they can choose differently next time. I do not see any level of extraordinary consumer harm in this practice.
    • AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      > Demanding that Apple undo (or make exceptions in) this design, which provides runtime security across the OS, would be coerced development. At this point you're arguing that prohibiting them from doing something is coercing them to do something merely because they've already done it. Consider the case where they have an absolute monopoly on phones. There are only iPhones, nothing else. Would you still object to a requirement to allow other app stores because it's "coercing development"? What if they used the app store monopoly to monopolize the market for online payment processing, and from there the entire retail market? Can you imagine how that would harm the customer? > Re: switching costs: In what consumer relationship does the buyer not assume some risk in their decision? This is actually true for the large majority of consumer products. If you go to the grocery store and buy a carton of eggs, you don't have to buy the same company's sugar or flour or chocolate chips, and when you've bought those things and have them in your kitchen, you don't have to throw them out if you switch to another brand of eggs. Moreover, the issue with switching costs isn't that they exist -- for many complex products, they will -- it's that they create a barrier which thwarts the competitive pressure on the company that would otherwise prevent it from abusing its market position, so then you need something else to do that, e.g. antitrust. Having a monopoly isn't, in itself, illegal; abusing it is.