7 ms·

Might be an unpopular opinion but I don’t think they are acting to the level of MSFT in the 90s. What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to

Might be an unpopular opinion but I don’t think they are acting to the level of MSFT in the 90s. What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps. Also recall that Jobs was pretty adamant about allowing third-party apps in the beginning. Now, do I think 30% is ridiculous in 2020? Yes. But it made sense a decade ago when having a half decent working app almost guaranteed you revenue.

stale2002 6y ago
> hat MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps This is exactly what Apple is doing. Apple does not allow 3rd party app stores on the iPhone. They are literally preventing competitors on the platform, and forcing people to only use the apple app store. > about allowing third-party apps in the beginning. No, they absolutely do not allow 3rd party app stores on the iPhone. That is what this is all about. It is about Apple preventing competing app stores on the iPhone.
pier25 6y ago
You can't uninstall Safari from iOS. In fact you can't even browse the web without it as Apple prohibits any other browsing engine (Chrome, FF, etc, are using WKWebView). I don't know the numbers but I imagine there are more iOS devices now than there were Windows PCs back in the 90s.
- bitxbit 6y ago
  Fair point but that’s largely due to security not Apple’s desire to lockout other browsers.
  - flyingswift 6y ago
    That is a large benefit of the doubt...
  - criley2 6y ago
    >Fair point but that’s largely due to security not Apple’s desire to lockout other browsers Lol, if I remember correctly Microsoft also used the "security" angle to defend their monopolistic behavior too.
  - pier25 6y ago
    I seriously doubt it but I guess we'll never know.
  - Falell 6y ago
    Justify "largely", please. I don't think Apple has demonstrated more commitment to "building secure devices" than to "building a tightly walled garden to maximize leverage over developers and users". Edit: grammar
    - threeseed 6y ago
      I don't know of any consumer company that has taken privacy and security more seriously than Apple. They led the way on iOS with Sandboxing, Secure Enclave, forcing HTTPS, on-device ML, on-use permissions model, fingerprinting prevention. And TouchID/FaceID both were popularised on iOS and made simple and reliable enough to be used by tens of millions.
      - pier25 6y ago
        > I don't know of any consumer company that has taken privacy and security more seriously than Apple. True, but that doesn't negate other intentions.
      - heavyset_go 6y ago
        And yet iOS exploits are cheaper than Android exploits, because iOS exploits are so plentiful in comparison.
- threeseed 6y ago
  Apple does NOT prevent other browsing engines. It prevents you from dynamically compiling code at runtime which is a needed rule because otherwise apps would just run around the curation process.
  - commoner 6y ago
    By disallowing dynamic code execution, Apple does disallow other browsing engines. It does not matter what language Apple uses to disallow other browsing engines, since the effect is the same.
    - threeseed 6y ago
      It prevents JIT compilation for Javascript code. You can create browser engines without this feature.
      - commoner 6y ago
        The App Store Review Guidelines explicitly forbid this: > 2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
  - pier25 6y ago
    Yes they do, quite explicitly in fact: > 2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
amelius 6y ago
But where is the equivalent of the browser-ballot screen? [1] Why don't we apply the same principle to the App store? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu
- scarface74 6y ago
  From your article. Competing browsers saw their traffic increase,[16] suggesting that these smaller competing developers were gaining users. However, long-term trends show browsers such as Opera and Firefox losing market share in Europe, calling into question the usefulness of the browser choice screen.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > However, long-term trends show browsers such as Opera and Firefox losing market share in Europe To Chrome, not IE/Edge, which benefits from the browser ballot as much as they do.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      If that were the case, you would have seen Chrome’s market share increase faster in the EU than the US where there was no browser ballot. That wasn’t the case.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        The premise of browser lock-in was that Microsoft was tying IE to Windows and then encouraging the creation of websites that required IE. If Europe broke the lock on global websites that required IE, that would enable people all over the world to switch to other browsers at the same time.
        scarface74 6y ago
        What do you think had more to do with IE losing market share worldwide “browser choice” or the most popular website in the world hawking their browser on the front page and MS losing mobile - you can’t very well be IE only and want to work on mobile browsers.
cnst 6y ago
> What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps. How many HTML/CSS/DOM/JavaScript rendering engines have been available on iOS compared to Android?! Has Gecko or Presto ever been available on iOS? What is the ONLY platform in wide use today that does not support Gecko or Blink? Apple's iOS is by far worse than the Microsoft with Windows.
jayd16 6y ago
Apple does ban apps that replace built in functionality.
- scarface74 6y ago
  That is a provably false claim. Podcasts - Overcast, PocketCasts, etccc Music - Spotify, Rhapsody, Amazon Music Books - Kindle. Maps - Google Maps Mail - Gmail, Yahoo Mail ...
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Signal can't send SMS on iPhones (it can on Android). Firefox has to use Apple's browser engine. Just because they don't do it in 100% of cases doesn't mean they don't do it.
    - threeseed 6y ago
      Those are security restrictions. Allowing apps to send SMS exposes users (think: kids) to all sorts of headaches such as auto-signing them up for premium content. And Apple has no mechanism to prevent this other than blocking the APIs entirely. And you can use a third party browser engine. You just can't be dynamically compiling code at runtime which is needed for JIT Javascript. Being able to do this defeats the purpose of having an app curation process.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        Signal doesn't auto-sign up kids for premium content. Firefox doesn't run local apps. If these were actually security restrictions then they would be privileging their own applications by waiving them for themselves, which is just as bad. Meanwhile in practice the effects of these "security restrictions" rather than rules against apps taking the bad behavior you're actually objecting to are suspiciously convenient for them -- their users can't switch to Chrome and it gives iMessage a larger network effect, and keeps people on iPhones when their friends have iPhones because they're all using iMessage rather than Signal or Whatsapp etc.
yyyk 6y ago
>What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps. There was never any limit on installing software. Any Windows user could have easily installed Netscape. Now, if we want to compare actual complaints, I recall that the idea that MS used private APIs to get Word a leg up was considered outrageous. These days, Apple uses private APIs to help Apple Music, and not a peep (well, until the EU will smack them down).
manfredo 6y ago
> What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps. Did I read this right? My understanding was that Microsoft was penalized for bundling Windows with IE. Windows never forbade users from installing other web browsers. Apple situation today would be more like if Windows did not allow users to install word processors other than Office, didn't allow browsers other than IE, etc.
- bitxbit 6y ago
  Very good point and my example was not quite right. Although Apple’s market share is nothing even close to what MSFT had. It would be very difficult to prove in court that Apple is flexing market power when (a) they apply the same cut across the board, (b) competition charges the same amount, and more importantly (c) they have not changed it since inception. I think lawsuits are only possible once Apple crosses 50% market share which I don’t see happening.
orangecat 6y ago
Might be an unpopular opinion but I don’t think they are acting to the level of MSFT in the 90s. It's far worse. Microsoft may have played dirty tricks with bundling, but they never prevented developers from distributing competing software. If Microsoft had the control over Windows that Apple does over iOS, they never would have allowed web browsers (for "security", no doubt) and we might be in a Windows monoculture today.
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  But Windows had 90%+ of the market. iOS does not.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  > It's far worse. Microsoft may have played dirty tricks with bundling, but they never prevented developers from distributing competing software. In a way, they did. They made deals with OEMs to only ship PCs with Windows on them, and not, say, BeOS or Linux.
jcranmer 6y ago
> What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps. Does Apple prohibiting apps from using any other payment processors than Apple's come close enough to equivalency to you? That's one of the key elements of the dispute here.

stale2002 6y ago

> hat MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps This is exactly what Apple is doing. Apple does not allow 3rd party app stores on the iPhone. They are literally preventing competitors on the platform, and forcing people to only use the apple app store. > about allowing third-party apps in the beginning. No, they absolutely do not allow 3rd party app stores on the iPhone. That is what this is all about. It is about Apple preventing competing app stores on the iPhone.

pier25 6y ago

You can't uninstall Safari from iOS. In fact you can't even browse the web without it as Apple prohibits any other browsing engine (Chrome, FF, etc, are using WKWebView). I don't know the numbers but I imagine there are more iOS devices now than there were Windows PCs back in the 90s.

bitxbit 6y ago
Fair point but that’s largely due to security not Apple’s desire to lockout other browsers.
- flyingswift 6y ago
  That is a large benefit of the doubt...
- criley2 6y ago
  >Fair point but that’s largely due to security not Apple’s desire to lockout other browsers Lol, if I remember correctly Microsoft also used the "security" angle to defend their monopolistic behavior too.
- pier25 6y ago
  I seriously doubt it but I guess we'll never know.
- Falell 6y ago
  Justify "largely", please. I don't think Apple has demonstrated more commitment to "building secure devices" than to "building a tightly walled garden to maximize leverage over developers and users". Edit: grammar
  - threeseed 6y ago
    I don't know of any consumer company that has taken privacy and security more seriously than Apple. They led the way on iOS with Sandboxing, Secure Enclave, forcing HTTPS, on-device ML, on-use permissions model, fingerprinting prevention. And TouchID/FaceID both were popularised on iOS and made simple and reliable enough to be used by tens of millions.
    - pier25 6y ago
      > I don't know of any consumer company that has taken privacy and security more seriously than Apple. True, but that doesn't negate other intentions.
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      And yet iOS exploits are cheaper than Android exploits, because iOS exploits are so plentiful in comparison.
threeseed 6y ago
Apple does NOT prevent other browsing engines. It prevents you from dynamically compiling code at runtime which is a needed rule because otherwise apps would just run around the curation process.
- commoner 6y ago
  By disallowing dynamic code execution, Apple does disallow other browsing engines. It does not matter what language Apple uses to disallow other browsing engines, since the effect is the same.
  - threeseed 6y ago
    It prevents JIT compilation for Javascript code. You can create browser engines without this feature.
    - commoner 6y ago
      The App Store Review Guidelines explicitly forbid this: > 2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
- pier25 6y ago
  Yes they do, quite explicitly in fact: > 2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/

amelius 6y ago

But where is the equivalent of the browser-ballot screen? [1] Why don't we apply the same principle to the App store? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu

scarface74 6y ago
From your article. Competing browsers saw their traffic increase,[16] suggesting that these smaller competing developers were gaining users. However, long-term trends show browsers such as Opera and Firefox losing market share in Europe, calling into question the usefulness of the browser choice screen.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > However, long-term trends show browsers such as Opera and Firefox losing market share in Europe To Chrome, not IE/Edge, which benefits from the browser ballot as much as they do.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    If that were the case, you would have seen Chrome’s market share increase faster in the EU than the US where there was no browser ballot. That wasn’t the case.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      The premise of browser lock-in was that Microsoft was tying IE to Windows and then encouraging the creation of websites that required IE. If Europe broke the lock on global websites that required IE, that would enable people all over the world to switch to other browsers at the same time.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        What do you think had more to do with IE losing market share worldwide “browser choice” or the most popular website in the world hawking their browser on the front page and MS losing mobile - you can’t very well be IE only and want to work on mobile browsers.

cnst 6y ago

> What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps. How many HTML/CSS/DOM/JavaScript rendering engines have been available on iOS compared to Android?! Has Gecko or Presto ever been available on iOS? What is the ONLY platform in wide use today that does not support Gecko or Blink? Apple's iOS is by far worse than the Microsoft with Windows.

jayd16 6y ago

Apple does ban apps that replace built in functionality.

scarface74 6y ago
That is a provably false claim. Podcasts - Overcast, PocketCasts, etccc Music - Spotify, Rhapsody, Amazon Music Books - Kindle. Maps - Google Maps Mail - Gmail, Yahoo Mail ...
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Signal can't send SMS on iPhones (it can on Android). Firefox has to use Apple's browser engine. Just because they don't do it in 100% of cases doesn't mean they don't do it.
  - threeseed 6y ago
    Those are security restrictions. Allowing apps to send SMS exposes users (think: kids) to all sorts of headaches such as auto-signing them up for premium content. And Apple has no mechanism to prevent this other than blocking the APIs entirely. And you can use a third party browser engine. You just can't be dynamically compiling code at runtime which is needed for JIT Javascript. Being able to do this defeats the purpose of having an app curation process.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      Signal doesn't auto-sign up kids for premium content. Firefox doesn't run local apps. If these were actually security restrictions then they would be privileging their own applications by waiving them for themselves, which is just as bad. Meanwhile in practice the effects of these "security restrictions" rather than rules against apps taking the bad behavior you're actually objecting to are suspiciously convenient for them -- their users can't switch to Chrome and it gives iMessage a larger network effect, and keeps people on iPhones when their friends have iPhones because they're all using iMessage rather than Signal or Whatsapp etc.

yyyk 6y ago

>What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps. There was never any limit on installing software. Any Windows user could have easily installed Netscape. Now, if we want to compare actual complaints, I recall that the idea that MS used private APIs to get Word a leg up was considered outrageous. These days, Apple uses private APIs to help Apple Music, and not a peep (well, until the EU will smack them down).

manfredo 6y ago

> What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps. Did I read this right? My understanding was that Microsoft was penalized for bundling Windows with IE. Windows never forbade users from installing other web browsers. Apple situation today would be more like if Windows did not allow users to install word processors other than Office, didn't allow browsers other than IE, etc.

bitxbit 6y ago
Very good point and my example was not quite right. Although Apple’s market share is nothing even close to what MSFT had. It would be very difficult to prove in court that Apple is flexing market power when (a) they apply the same cut across the board, (b) competition charges the same amount, and more importantly (c) they have not changed it since inception. I think lawsuits are only possible once Apple crosses 50% market share which I don’t see happening.

orangecat 6y ago

Might be an unpopular opinion but I don’t think they are acting to the level of MSFT in the 90s. It's far worse. Microsoft may have played dirty tricks with bundling, but they never prevented developers from distributing competing software. If Microsoft had the control over Windows that Apple does over iOS, they never would have allowed web browsers (for "security", no doubt) and we might be in a Windows monoculture today.

AlexandrB 6y ago
But Windows had 90%+ of the market. iOS does not.
heavyset_go 6y ago
> It's far worse. Microsoft may have played dirty tricks with bundling, but they never prevented developers from distributing competing software. In a way, they did. They made deals with OEMs to only ship PCs with Windows on them, and not, say, BeOS or Linux.

jcranmer 6y ago

> What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps. Does Apple prohibiting apps from using any other payment processors than Apple's come close enough to equivalency to you? That's one of the key elements of the dispute here.