3 ms·

I actually believe that if they allowed side-loading it would be one of the best ways to guarantee that they continue capturing 30% of revenue in perpetuity. Th

I actually believe that if they allowed side-loading it would be one of the best ways to guarantee that they continue capturing 30% of revenue in perpetuity. This is because they could actually for the first time make developers feel like they're getting something for that 30%, as opposed to it being an "existence tax". Apple could actually with a straight face say "hey, you don't HAVE to be on the store, try doing it on your own". This is much different than the current Hobson's Choice of "you don't have to be on the store, you could just not have an app" which feels increasingly shallow in a duopoly, which gets to another important point: they'd actually have a fantastic argument for regulators: competitors really do have choices other than Apple! It would be very hard to argue that Apple should cater to your app that they don't like when there is another way to deliver that app to all the same customers (that doesn't involve first convincing them to switch platforms). I honestly believe that some sort of side-loading option would be best for any cynical Apple interests long-term and for developers and for users. The current course of action just leads to developer frustration (which is fine until a disruptive player enters the market), a super shitty store that leaves customers pissed (with scams, etc.), constant churn in rules to try to appease everyone and kick the can another 2 years (like the 15% reduction), and worst of all, unwanted attention from regulators that could have chaotic effects.

ed_elliott_asc 6y ago
This is the worst thing they could do, leave google open to host iOS apps on their store
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  Not really, judging by the current quality of the Play Store.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    I should clarify the above means that given the (lack of) quality of the Play Store, I don't see Google hosting iOS apps would get much traction and receive many adopters.
Apocryphon 6y ago
Truth be told, Apple could own side-loading on its own terms. They can present their own APIs that provide some freedom outside of the App Store, without ceding all of their control. Wrap it up in copious disclaimers and language informing the end-user that Apple is not responsible for what happens with these "advanced settings." Bake security checks into this process. Make side-loading into a walled garden unto itself. This would also disincentivize jailbreakers, as fewer power users would be interested in pursuing the 100% amount of freedom that jailbreaking allows. You could even go all of the way and have Apple adopt a "can't beat us? Join us" mentality towards independent app repositories outside of App Store by providing their own APIs and SDKs to run your own third-party app store. Again, architect it to automatically include security checks. Tie in subtle ways for Apple still to get a cut and a measure of their control. This is far from a concrete description of what "third party stores brought to you by Apple" would look like, but if there's any company that could square the circle and make it a reality, it'd be Apple.
- ksec 6y ago
  >They can present their own APIs that provide some freedom outside of the App Store, without ceding all of their control. That is what I have been saying for quite some time. If Apple separate their Game Store and held some of those API, they have effectively kept 80% of their App Store revenue intact even if they allowed side loading. Then at the expense of 20% of their App Store revenue, they can think what is the best possible balance to the problem here.
infogulch 6y ago
I think it's apple playing chicken with regulators. Surely they also see this problem as inevitably coming to a head, but if they can flirt with the line, they can make bank until they're forced to move on it. They probably have responses to potential issues and a transition already planned out; they are simply milking the current situation for all its worth.

ed_elliott_asc 6y ago

This is the worst thing they could do, leave google open to host iOS apps on their store

Apocryphon 6y ago
Not really, judging by the current quality of the Play Store.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  I should clarify the above means that given the (lack of) quality of the Play Store, I don't see Google hosting iOS apps would get much traction and receive many adopters.

Apocryphon 6y ago

Truth be told, Apple could own side-loading on its own terms. They can present their own APIs that provide some freedom outside of the App Store, without ceding all of their control. Wrap it up in copious disclaimers and language informing the end-user that Apple is not responsible for what happens with these "advanced settings." Bake security checks into this process. Make side-loading into a walled garden unto itself. This would also disincentivize jailbreakers, as fewer power users would be interested in pursuing the 100% amount of freedom that jailbreaking allows. You could even go all of the way and have Apple adopt a "can't beat us? Join us" mentality towards independent app repositories outside of App Store by providing their own APIs and SDKs to run your own third-party app store. Again, architect it to automatically include security checks. Tie in subtle ways for Apple still to get a cut and a measure of their control. This is far from a concrete description of what "third party stores brought to you by Apple" would look like, but if there's any company that could square the circle and make it a reality, it'd be Apple.

ksec 6y ago
>They can present their own APIs that provide some freedom outside of the App Store, without ceding all of their control. That is what I have been saying for quite some time. If Apple separate their Game Store and held some of those API, they have effectively kept 80% of their App Store revenue intact even if they allowed side loading. Then at the expense of 20% of their App Store revenue, they can think what is the best possible balance to the problem here.

infogulch 6y ago

I think it's apple playing chicken with regulators. Surely they also see this problem as inevitably coming to a head, but if they can flirt with the line, they can make bank until they're forced to move on it. They probably have responses to potential issues and a transition already planned out; they are simply milking the current situation for all its worth.