4 ms·

Am I the only one that doesn’t want to allow alternative app stores on iOS? I specially don’t want developers to be able to accept non Apple Pay payment methods

Am I the only one that doesn’t want to allow alternative app stores on iOS? I specially don’t want developers to be able to accept non Apple Pay payment methods and I don’t want app developers to circumvent the App Store. If I wanted a bunch of spammy apps with annoying checkout flows I would buy an android phone. But I didn’t because I find Android annoying for all the above reasons. To everyone saying there isn’t competion: hello Android! Go buy one and side load whatever you want. But leave iOS users alone :)

naikrovek 6y ago
All Apple needs to do to appease people that want a more open app store is to drop the 30% royalty they take on every sale (or reduce it GREATLY) and allow in-app payments that do not go through their app store, OR allow side loading as a legitimate, supported way to install applications. It's very simple. Apple claims that 30% is required to pay for the infrastructure they use to vet submitted applications. Anyone that has automated anything with software will have a strong clue that this claim is absolute rubbish. All they have to do is stop being ultra-greedy about their royalties. That's literally it, and they won't. They won't relent. So what's an alternative that a state law can enforce? Allow third party app stores. Third party app stores are the less attractive option that can be enforced by laws, so that's what North Dakota is attempting to do here. If third party app stores do exist for iOS one day, you won't be required to use them. They only need to be an option.
- fearoffish 6y ago
  Funny thing about software is it costs money to produce and maintain. Another funny thing, is it runs on hardware which also isn’t free to buy or maintain. At Apple scale, that means for every new app or update, they need to compile it, scan it, pass it off for checks and then distribute it globally. That will be done many many many times a second. On top of that they have to maintain a payment system that I’ve not once seen go down or had a problem with. Then they need to handle fraud, payment refund requests through support etc. All I’m getting at, is it’s naive to boil what they do for that 30% down to “they automate some software”.
  - naikrovek 6y ago
    If you think it costs 30% of every sale to provide that service, then I disagree with that, strongly. 3%, MAYBE. Maximum. See my reply to your sibling comment for a more detailed explanation of my perspective, if you wish. Makes no sense to repeat it here.
- myrandomcomment 6y ago
  Please provide your detailed analysis of the cost of operating any maintaining software at scale to back up your arguments. Please site sources and make sure your data comes from enterprises at the same scale as Apple. You comment is a rant with no data. I have run product teams as well as run production customer facing networks. It is never as simple as your comment says. While I can GUESS on 20+ years of experience in the space that Apple is likely making a nice profit on their cut, I in no way believe it “free”. Also please tell me why a company is not allowed to profit on their work? Where is the bill to open the Google Play store, or the Samsung store, or the XYZ store for your TV apps? I personally am very happy with the knowledge that in general the Apple Store is safe for my non-techie wife and kids. I cannot say the same thing for Google that my in-laws use, having been forced to remove the spam apps the Google store happily allowed them to install. Reviewing an application is not a 100% software / script driven function. Apple seems to set the bar on quality and trust for that. I am happy to pay to live in that system. This is being driven by someone that is pissed at Apple because they could not deal with the terms required to provide an application in the Apple ecosystem.
  - naikrovek 6y ago
    I can sideload on any device you mentioned that isn't an apple device. All Apple need to do is allow sideloading, just like everyone else does. Anyone and everyone can continue to use the app store all they want, but there must be a way around (sideloading) if apple want to avoid the threat of laws like this. Stop being a blind fan for a few minutes and think. No one is suggesting that the app store go away. No one is saying that apple must give away access to the app store for free. All anyone with a valid complaint wants is a single viable way to load apps and accept payment without going through the app store. THAT'S IT. THAT'S LITERALLY THE ENTIRE ASK. It's not a lot to ask for given that literally every other consumer device you mentioned allows exactly that and has from the beginning. Apple fans act like it's impossible to provide this or unreasonable to ask for it. Everyone else recognizes that this is a valid thing to allow your customers to do. Apple says "nah, screw the customer" and the apple fans just go "oh apple, you're so wise and sexy" and I simply don't get the lust some seem to have for that company.
wayneftw 6y ago
Your same argument can be applied against you: Allowing other distribution channels doesn't mean you'd have to use them. You can continue to only buy apps from Apple's app store. If Facebook then decides to only sell on their app store - go use another social network. If Epic does the same - go play different games. Same with your bank, your supermarket and your taxi service - you get to decide who you do business with... unless you're an app developer. In that case you only have one choice: Ignore half your potential customers or follow Apple's shitty rules to the letter and still risk them kicking you out on a whim. Apple owns roughly 50% of the US phone users. That's too much market power to ignore. They're going to be forced into opening up eventually.

naikrovek 6y ago

All Apple needs to do to appease people that want a more open app store is to drop the 30% royalty they take on every sale (or reduce it GREATLY) and allow in-app payments that do not go through their app store, OR allow side loading as a legitimate, supported way to install applications. It's very simple. Apple claims that 30% is required to pay for the infrastructure they use to vet submitted applications. Anyone that has automated anything with software will have a strong clue that this claim is absolute rubbish. All they have to do is stop being ultra-greedy about their royalties. That's literally it, and they won't. They won't relent. So what's an alternative that a state law can enforce? Allow third party app stores. Third party app stores are the less attractive option that can be enforced by laws, so that's what North Dakota is attempting to do here. If third party app stores do exist for iOS one day, you won't be required to use them. They only need to be an option.

fearoffish 6y ago
Funny thing about software is it costs money to produce and maintain. Another funny thing, is it runs on hardware which also isn’t free to buy or maintain. At Apple scale, that means for every new app or update, they need to compile it, scan it, pass it off for checks and then distribute it globally. That will be done many many many times a second. On top of that they have to maintain a payment system that I’ve not once seen go down or had a problem with. Then they need to handle fraud, payment refund requests through support etc. All I’m getting at, is it’s naive to boil what they do for that 30% down to “they automate some software”.
- naikrovek 6y ago
  If you think it costs 30% of every sale to provide that service, then I disagree with that, strongly. 3%, MAYBE. Maximum. See my reply to your sibling comment for a more detailed explanation of my perspective, if you wish. Makes no sense to repeat it here.
myrandomcomment 6y ago
Please provide your detailed analysis of the cost of operating any maintaining software at scale to back up your arguments. Please site sources and make sure your data comes from enterprises at the same scale as Apple. You comment is a rant with no data. I have run product teams as well as run production customer facing networks. It is never as simple as your comment says. While I can GUESS on 20+ years of experience in the space that Apple is likely making a nice profit on their cut, I in no way believe it “free”. Also please tell me why a company is not allowed to profit on their work? Where is the bill to open the Google Play store, or the Samsung store, or the XYZ store for your TV apps? I personally am very happy with the knowledge that in general the Apple Store is safe for my non-techie wife and kids. I cannot say the same thing for Google that my in-laws use, having been forced to remove the spam apps the Google store happily allowed them to install. Reviewing an application is not a 100% software / script driven function. Apple seems to set the bar on quality and trust for that. I am happy to pay to live in that system. This is being driven by someone that is pissed at Apple because they could not deal with the terms required to provide an application in the Apple ecosystem.
- naikrovek 6y ago
  I can sideload on any device you mentioned that isn't an apple device. All Apple need to do is allow sideloading, just like everyone else does. Anyone and everyone can continue to use the app store all they want, but there must be a way around (sideloading) if apple want to avoid the threat of laws like this. Stop being a blind fan for a few minutes and think. No one is suggesting that the app store go away. No one is saying that apple must give away access to the app store for free. All anyone with a valid complaint wants is a single viable way to load apps and accept payment without going through the app store. THAT'S IT. THAT'S LITERALLY THE ENTIRE ASK. It's not a lot to ask for given that literally every other consumer device you mentioned allows exactly that and has from the beginning. Apple fans act like it's impossible to provide this or unreasonable to ask for it. Everyone else recognizes that this is a valid thing to allow your customers to do. Apple says "nah, screw the customer" and the apple fans just go "oh apple, you're so wise and sexy" and I simply don't get the lust some seem to have for that company.

wayneftw 6y ago

Your same argument can be applied against you: Allowing other distribution channels doesn't mean you'd have to use them. You can continue to only buy apps from Apple's app store. If Facebook then decides to only sell on their app store - go use another social network. If Epic does the same - go play different games. Same with your bank, your supermarket and your taxi service - you get to decide who you do business with... unless you're an app developer. In that case you only have one choice: Ignore half your potential customers or follow Apple's shitty rules to the letter and still risk them kicking you out on a whim. Apple owns roughly 50% of the US phone users. That's too much market power to ignore. They're going to be forced into opening up eventually.