4 ms·

I totally agree. We as techies /developers see problems from our perspective (too high of a cut, arbitrarily limiting what apps can be distributed, no third-par

I totally agree. We as techies /developers see problems from our perspective (too high of a cut, arbitrarily limiting what apps can be distributed, no third-party payment processing etc). And those are legit concerns. But in a typical “customer harm” perspective I think it’s very hard to make a case. Apps aren’t really that more expensive on iOS nor is the catalog smaller. However much we want a freer iOS experience, competing App Stores will just make iOS like modern gaming with a crappy custom App Store for each vendor. It would be more reasonable to have easier side loading for enthusiast or stuff Apple doesn’t want in its store.

daveidol 6y ago
So if you really want that level of centralization then at the very least can't we agree that Apple should reduce it's fee (30% of ALL revenue for some basic binary hosting and payment processing?) and be far less restrictive in it's decisions of what is allowed and what isn't (god forbid we have xcloud on iOS! the horror!)?
- laurent92 6y ago
  Let’s assume the validation process takes $300 for each pass (each version, and initial release, has a consultant for 1/2 day, assuming the consultant takes that time to analyse code and has tools ready, and that 1/2 includes the occasional PR problem and the occasional escalation process). Given an app has an average of 30 versions, it costs Apple 9000$ per app, excluding the Marketplace hosting which must be minor compared to this. That means the breakeven for the 30% fee is at 27000 sales for a $3 app _in average_, but many apps make no sales, many others are free, many are cheaper than $3. So the 30% fee is effectively the bigger apps paying so the smaller apps can exist, and so a market can exist, with low-cost apps, which makes it interesting for customers to come. Therefore I don’t personally think the 30% cut is unfair; just that « the bigger paying for the smaller » is a debatable choice (which is the same idea as the bigger taxpayers paying for the poorest).
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Half a day? You're being exceedingly generous. App reviewers usually spend something like 5-10 minutes on any given app, at that.
tingol 6y ago
It is very easy to make a case actually, the equivalent would be no music besides iTunes store (no spotify). Same thing for games (no epic store, no steam, no GOG etc). Just because Apple provides a good experience doesn't give them the right to disallow competition. Don't fall into Stockholm syndrome.
- soraminazuki 6y ago
  > no epic store, no steam, no GOG etc The current situation sucks, but it's worth mentioning that this alternative sucks equally as well. Specifically, games from these distributors often install dodgy kernel drivers rendering computers useless for purposes other than gaming for anyone who are conscious about security and privacy. Furthermore, advertising, entertainment, and gaming industries are known to be hostile towards users when they're given control over user devices. They would most certainly force users onto their own app stores when given the chance and proceed to install whatever invasive piece of software they seem fit. So while I'd love to have an easy way to install community-run app stores for free and open source software, I'd be wary of any attempts by user-hostile industries to create their own app store. I'd really like to be proven wrong, but it seems we currently have a choice between two evils. > no music besides iTunes store (no spotify) FYI you can install the Spotify app from the App Store at https://apps.apple.com/us/app/spotify-music-and-podcasts/id324684580 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/spotify-music-and-podcasts/id3...
  - BenTheElder 6y ago
    Microsoft could block dodgy kernel drivers while still allowing game stores ... These are not inherently related. I think OP is aware that competing music apps are allowed. They're making an analogy about banning competing app stores, just because itunes is good doesn't mean we don't want competition ... the same concept applies.
    - soraminazuki 6y ago
      Dodgy kernel drivers are just one example of user hostile software. Given the past and current track record of the advertising, entertainment, and gaming industries, would you really want to be forced to install an app store run by any of them? If this was purely about getting something like F-Droid into iDevices or side loading for power users, it would be very beneficial for users. Apple deserves some of the negativity for not letting that happen. However, known user hostile players trying to have a go at people's personal devices under the guise of competition is something that we as consumers should be equally wary of. Because in the end, we won't be given much choice. Monopolies are not something exclusive to Apple, and big players will use their own monopolistic power to coerce users to install their privacy invading app store.
gputhrowaway630 6y ago
> Apps aren’t really that more expensive on iOS Some are. [0] And because of the 30% cut many popular services simply aren't available through their iOS apps. [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-app-makers-break-their-apps-to-avoid-paying-apple-11593349200 https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-app-makers-break-their-apps...

daveidol 6y ago

So if you really want that level of centralization then at the very least can't we agree that Apple should reduce it's fee (30% of ALL revenue for some basic binary hosting and payment processing?) and be far less restrictive in it's decisions of what is allowed and what isn't (god forbid we have xcloud on iOS! the horror!)?

laurent92 6y ago
Let’s assume the validation process takes $300 for each pass (each version, and initial release, has a consultant for 1/2 day, assuming the consultant takes that time to analyse code and has tools ready, and that 1/2 includes the occasional PR problem and the occasional escalation process). Given an app has an average of 30 versions, it costs Apple 9000$ per app, excluding the Marketplace hosting which must be minor compared to this. That means the breakeven for the 30% fee is at 27000 sales for a $3 app _in average_, but many apps make no sales, many others are free, many are cheaper than $3. So the 30% fee is effectively the bigger apps paying so the smaller apps can exist, and so a market can exist, with low-cost apps, which makes it interesting for customers to come. Therefore I don’t personally think the 30% cut is unfair; just that « the bigger paying for the smaller » is a debatable choice (which is the same idea as the bigger taxpayers paying for the poorest).
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Half a day? You're being exceedingly generous. App reviewers usually spend something like 5-10 minutes on any given app, at that.

tingol 6y ago

It is very easy to make a case actually, the equivalent would be no music besides iTunes store (no spotify). Same thing for games (no epic store, no steam, no GOG etc). Just because Apple provides a good experience doesn't give them the right to disallow competition. Don't fall into Stockholm syndrome.

soraminazuki 6y ago
> no epic store, no steam, no GOG etc The current situation sucks, but it's worth mentioning that this alternative sucks equally as well. Specifically, games from these distributors often install dodgy kernel drivers rendering computers useless for purposes other than gaming for anyone who are conscious about security and privacy. Furthermore, advertising, entertainment, and gaming industries are known to be hostile towards users when they're given control over user devices. They would most certainly force users onto their own app stores when given the chance and proceed to install whatever invasive piece of software they seem fit. So while I'd love to have an easy way to install community-run app stores for free and open source software, I'd be wary of any attempts by user-hostile industries to create their own app store. I'd really like to be proven wrong, but it seems we currently have a choice between two evils. > no music besides iTunes store (no spotify) FYI you can install the Spotify app from the App Store at https://apps.apple.com/us/app/spotify-music-and-podcasts/id324684580 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/spotify-music-and-podcasts/id3...
- BenTheElder 6y ago
  Microsoft could block dodgy kernel drivers while still allowing game stores ... These are not inherently related. I think OP is aware that competing music apps are allowed. They're making an analogy about banning competing app stores, just because itunes is good doesn't mean we don't want competition ... the same concept applies.
  - soraminazuki 6y ago
    Dodgy kernel drivers are just one example of user hostile software. Given the past and current track record of the advertising, entertainment, and gaming industries, would you really want to be forced to install an app store run by any of them? If this was purely about getting something like F-Droid into iDevices or side loading for power users, it would be very beneficial for users. Apple deserves some of the negativity for not letting that happen. However, known user hostile players trying to have a go at people's personal devices under the guise of competition is something that we as consumers should be equally wary of. Because in the end, we won't be given much choice. Monopolies are not something exclusive to Apple, and big players will use their own monopolistic power to coerce users to install their privacy invading app store.

gputhrowaway630 6y ago

> Apps aren’t really that more expensive on iOS Some are. [0] And because of the 30% cut many popular services simply aren't available through their iOS apps. [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-app-makers-break-their-apps-to-avoid-paying-apple-11593349200 https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-app-makers-break-their-apps...