4 ms·

Can someone who's on Apple's side here elaborate on why they think the outcome for consumers would be worse if they're forced to loosen some of their restrictio

Can someone who's on Apple's side here elaborate on why they think the outcome for consumers would be worse if they're forced to loosen some of their restrictions? It's very unlikely that app developers choose to forgo the AppStore since it will be driving the majority of app installs even in a completely open world for years to come. And if they do choose to forgo that distribution channel that should be seen as a very strong signal of how unhappy developers are with the current policies. So if you want to just keep doing what you've been doing and just use the AppStore not much should change, but at least now there's the possibility of competition.

eknkc 6y ago
They are not acting rational in these kind of discussions. Most Apple users are deeply locked into the ecosystem. I guess it is sunk cost fallacy, now even though the cracks are clearly showing they don't want to see Apple fail in any way. You'll see people rationalize anything Apple does without blinking. And it makes sense too. If I use a mac, iphone, apple watch, airpods, have all my photos on iCloud etc I would not want Apple to face any hurdles.
WiseWeasel 6y ago
I'm on weasel's side, but I can understand Apple wanting to keep iOS trusted by its users by restricting unapproved software coded to their current native app API layer. What I can't understand is the harm for end users in apps using 3rd party payment processing without giving Apple a cut. That restriction encourages a worse experience for users who now have to go to the vendor's website to complete a purchase they could be making in-app.
zupa-hu 6y ago
> Can someone who's on Apple's side here elaborate on why they think the outcome for consumers would be worse if they're forced to loosen some of their restrictions? I don’t see why this is relevant. Apple runs a business. If you force it to walk away from income sources, you could just as well force any other company to do the same. So even if consumers would win, how would it justify the enforcement? I win if I get your car. Now what? (I’m on neither side.)
notfried 6y ago
I don’t need apps on my iPhone to do 100% of all things that apps can do. I am fine with some restrictions, so long as there’s enough reliability, consistency, privacy and security. If there are alternate app stores, I am sure others would make their apps exclusive there and demand you download them through these stores: 1. Facebook will want a store that allows them to build an app that has no ad or data collection restrictions. 2. Epic will want a store that allows them to directly charge for in-app purchases. 3. Google will want a store that allows them to track your location in the background regardless of your consent. 4. The New York Times will want a store where you cannot find a way to cancel your subscription. And so on... I end up having to download 5 or 10 stores, and end up with a poor user experience. And what do I get in return? As a consumer, I see no value for me. I spend a small fraction of what I spend to buy my iPhone on apps per year. If their developers want to charge more to recoup their 30%, I am fine with that.
- librish 6y ago
  But why could you not just keep using the AppStore and nothing else? Out of the things you've listed the only one who would actually consider leaving the AppStore would be Epic.
  - notfried 6y ago
    I would, if I could. Take Amazon’s Audible as an example. I use that. I want to continue using that. If Amazon launched its own store on iOS, does that mean they stop distributing it on the native App Store? If they do make it exclusive to their store, I will have to download their store. I really don’t like the 30%, but that I see the line Apple shouldn’t cross. Loosening restrictions or opening it up for more stores effectively means the iOS platform wouldn’t be worth What it is now.
  - OctopusLupid 6y ago
    Facebook has been pretty vocal about iOS privacy restrictions as well. They don’t need to make their own store on Android; but they very well might on iOS.
- Fej 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nxc18 6y ago
Note that Apple wouldn't be just be forced to loosen some restrictions to match Google Play and Android, they'd have to go far further. Google Play is also being sued. Its not as dramatic or fun to cover it that way, but I feel like news orgs could be doing a lot better here. Android is already a mess with multiple stores and loose, to put it mildly, standards for the quality of apps. And that still isn't enough for Epic. I don't want my iPhone turning into an Android (I did have many choices, and I chose iPhone) and I __definitely__ don't want it turning to an even less regulated ecosystem than what we already have with Android. I don't really care if developers are happy, because so many of them have interests hostile to mine. Apple is fortunately big enough to be able to force folks like Facebook and Uber to play by the rules. They're also big enough to force developers to play ball with things like iPad support or get booted from the store. The cost of targeting iPad is less than the cost of e.g. Twitter losing their spot on iPhones, so now iPad has a great Twitter app where it didn't before. Edit: forgot to mention how Apple's subscription management process is far, far superior to any other device. I explicitly choose to subscribe through Apple because I know I will be notified before renewal and that I can cancel easily. I know the scale of the iPhone market, combined with Apple's restrictions, are the only reason I have that choice. People paint this whole situation as Epic fighting for the consumer, but really Epic is fighting for the interests of Epic alone. I know Android users don't get it becuase they may not have experienced it, but really Apple is adding loads of value here and taking that value away isn't automatically pro-consumer, even if associated with words like 'freedom' and 'competition'. Edit: Another perspective on this is that as a developer who writes software for Android and iOS, iOS is a far, far superior experience. Things work more reliably, testing is easier because iOS is an OS whereas Android is really a family of operating systems - see how much things can change on Pixel vs Galaxy. Things are getting better over time especially with AndroidX and Jetpack, but the developer experience is still loads better on iOS. If you're referring to developer as 'individual who writes software for iOS' Apple is far superior. If you're thinking of developer as 'financial entity that profits off software' then the 30% cut becomes more painful, but Apple justifies that by having a premium offering with customers who spend more on apps.
zemo 6y ago
the setup to your question is flawed, since you're starting from the perspective that someone should be on one side or the other. Epic is suing on multiple points, and there are probably very few people that agree with Epic on every point. iOS is widely regarded as being the safest consumer OS in widespread usage on the market today. Much of that is because of the restrictions that apple places on developers ability to install arbitrary code on the user's device. Epic is suing for the ability to create an app store that would allow third-party developers to install arbitrary binaries on iOS devices without oversight from Apple. that level of restriction is a part of the product. It's what people are paying for when they buy an iOS device. People actually want that. And there's no reason why there shouldn't be an option for consumers to pick a locked-down platform. Many developers are hostile to users, and many users consciously want a device that makes that hostility harder for developers. The 30% take that Apple charges is steep and is replicated by basically all other vendors, so I'd be happy to see that reduced since it improves all ecosystems. But the app approval process and the single app store ecosystem is a thing that I think differentiates iOS, and I wouldn't want to see that changed. fwiw, I have an Android phone, which I picked because I wanted to use Daydream. I never really use that, so my next phone will probably be an iPhone.

eknkc 6y ago

They are not acting rational in these kind of discussions. Most Apple users are deeply locked into the ecosystem. I guess it is sunk cost fallacy, now even though the cracks are clearly showing they don't want to see Apple fail in any way. You'll see people rationalize anything Apple does without blinking. And it makes sense too. If I use a mac, iphone, apple watch, airpods, have all my photos on iCloud etc I would not want Apple to face any hurdles.

WiseWeasel 6y ago

I'm on weasel's side, but I can understand Apple wanting to keep iOS trusted by its users by restricting unapproved software coded to their current native app API layer. What I can't understand is the harm for end users in apps using 3rd party payment processing without giving Apple a cut. That restriction encourages a worse experience for users who now have to go to the vendor's website to complete a purchase they could be making in-app.

zupa-hu 6y ago

> Can someone who's on Apple's side here elaborate on why they think the outcome for consumers would be worse if they're forced to loosen some of their restrictions? I don’t see why this is relevant. Apple runs a business. If you force it to walk away from income sources, you could just as well force any other company to do the same. So even if consumers would win, how would it justify the enforcement? I win if I get your car. Now what? (I’m on neither side.)

notfried 6y ago

I don’t need apps on my iPhone to do 100% of all things that apps can do. I am fine with some restrictions, so long as there’s enough reliability, consistency, privacy and security. If there are alternate app stores, I am sure others would make their apps exclusive there and demand you download them through these stores: 1. Facebook will want a store that allows them to build an app that has no ad or data collection restrictions. 2. Epic will want a store that allows them to directly charge for in-app purchases. 3. Google will want a store that allows them to track your location in the background regardless of your consent. 4. The New York Times will want a store where you cannot find a way to cancel your subscription. And so on... I end up having to download 5 or 10 stores, and end up with a poor user experience. And what do I get in return? As a consumer, I see no value for me. I spend a small fraction of what I spend to buy my iPhone on apps per year. If their developers want to charge more to recoup their 30%, I am fine with that.

librish 6y ago
But why could you not just keep using the AppStore and nothing else? Out of the things you've listed the only one who would actually consider leaving the AppStore would be Epic.
- notfried 6y ago
  I would, if I could. Take Amazon’s Audible as an example. I use that. I want to continue using that. If Amazon launched its own store on iOS, does that mean they stop distributing it on the native App Store? If they do make it exclusive to their store, I will have to download their store. I really don’t like the 30%, but that I see the line Apple shouldn’t cross. Loosening restrictions or opening it up for more stores effectively means the iOS platform wouldn’t be worth What it is now.
- OctopusLupid 6y ago
  Facebook has been pretty vocal about iOS privacy restrictions as well. They don’t need to make their own store on Android; but they very well might on iOS.
Fej 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

nxc18 6y ago

Note that Apple wouldn't be just be forced to loosen some restrictions to match Google Play and Android, they'd have to go far further. Google Play is also being sued. Its not as dramatic or fun to cover it that way, but I feel like news orgs could be doing a lot better here. Android is already a mess with multiple stores and loose, to put it mildly, standards for the quality of apps. And that still isn't enough for Epic. I don't want my iPhone turning into an Android (I did have many choices, and I chose iPhone) and I __definitely__ don't want it turning to an even less regulated ecosystem than what we already have with Android. I don't really care if developers are happy, because so many of them have interests hostile to mine. Apple is fortunately big enough to be able to force folks like Facebook and Uber to play by the rules. They're also big enough to force developers to play ball with things like iPad support or get booted from the store. The cost of targeting iPad is less than the cost of e.g. Twitter losing their spot on iPhones, so now iPad has a great Twitter app where it didn't before. Edit: forgot to mention how Apple's subscription management process is far, far superior to any other device. I explicitly choose to subscribe through Apple because I know I will be notified before renewal and that I can cancel easily. I know the scale of the iPhone market, combined with Apple's restrictions, are the only reason I have that choice. People paint this whole situation as Epic fighting for the consumer, but really Epic is fighting for the interests of Epic alone. I know Android users don't get it becuase they may not have experienced it, but really Apple is adding loads of value here and taking that value away isn't automatically pro-consumer, even if associated with words like 'freedom' and 'competition'. Edit: Another perspective on this is that as a developer who writes software for Android and iOS, iOS is a far, far superior experience. Things work more reliably, testing is easier because iOS is an OS whereas Android is really a family of operating systems - see how much things can change on Pixel vs Galaxy. Things are getting better over time especially with AndroidX and Jetpack, but the developer experience is still loads better on iOS. If you're referring to developer as 'individual who writes software for iOS' Apple is far superior. If you're thinking of developer as 'financial entity that profits off software' then the 30% cut becomes more painful, but Apple justifies that by having a premium offering with customers who spend more on apps.

zemo 6y ago

the setup to your question is flawed, since you're starting from the perspective that someone should be on one side or the other. Epic is suing on multiple points, and there are probably very few people that agree with Epic on every point. iOS is widely regarded as being the safest consumer OS in widespread usage on the market today. Much of that is because of the restrictions that apple places on developers ability to install arbitrary code on the user's device. Epic is suing for the ability to create an app store that would allow third-party developers to install arbitrary binaries on iOS devices without oversight from Apple. that level of restriction is a part of the product. It's what people are paying for when they buy an iOS device. People actually want that. And there's no reason why there shouldn't be an option for consumers to pick a locked-down platform. Many developers are hostile to users, and many users consciously want a device that makes that hostility harder for developers. The 30% take that Apple charges is steep and is replicated by basically all other vendors, so I'd be happy to see that reduced since it improves all ecosystems. But the app approval process and the single app store ecosystem is a thing that I think differentiates iOS, and I wouldn't want to see that changed. fwiw, I have an Android phone, which I picked because I wanted to use Daydream. I never really use that, so my next phone will probably be an iPhone.