19 ms·

As a user of iOS, this is precisely why I go with Apple, and why I push my family to do the same. Particularly for the more elderly in my family, Apple's setup

As a user of iOS, this is precisely why I go with Apple, and why I push my family to do the same. Particularly for the more elderly in my family, Apple's setup (by and large) prevents them from doing anything that would screw themselves over. Removing Apple's control removes my desire to be apart of that ecosystem, and I know that is true for many others outside our insular little community here.

fossuser 5y ago
I agree - Apple needs the control to have the leverage that makes their ecosystem better. It's in the interest of their customers for them to have this leverage and it requires that their 'store' is the only available store so app devs can't bypass their requirements. I like Apple forcing use of in-app-payments, I like Apple giving me subscription control to make canceling easy. I like Apple blocking app tracking and forcing design constraints. That said, the 30% weakens their entire argument about this and is a racket. If they want to charge a yearly deployment fee or something fine, but 30% of a company's income via IAP? That's obnoxious and anti-competitive, particularly in cases like Spotify where they directly compete and undercut them in the same market. Apple is skimming a tax off the top and they're forcing everyone to pay the toll. It weakens their entire argument. I wish they would stop, because I think a world with multiple stores and such would be a huge pain and customers would suffer because of it. If you think it's a pain to have 15 streaming services or 10 different game distributors all with their own shitty incentives - it'd be that on the phone.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- echelon 5y ago
  > Apple needs the control to have the leverage that makes their ecosystem better. It's in the interest of their customers for them to have this leverage and it requires that their 'store' is the only available store so app devs can't bypass their requirements. I don't understand this argument at all. You're almost certainly taking more risk driving in a car than downloading an app, yet you're probably willing to embrace the full degrees of freedom of the roadway. We shouldn't be afraid to use computers. Security is possible without an app store. Apologizing for Apple's exploitive system is doing us all a disservice. It's making it harder to do business, launch a startup, use your own device, refurbish your device, and compute freely. Technology wasn't always a locked-in time share. We're witnessing a hostile takeover. An invented scam, sold to us by the Jobs and Ballmers of the world. The Apple and Google stores make us serfs in their kingdoms. We're renting, not owning. Your choices are impinging upon my freedoms. The more people that accept this, the more companies are willing to take. A Department of Justice breakup is looking like the only solution at this point.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    Yes, one takes more risk using the road than using an unofficial apk. But I’m not aware of an “App Store-like” method of transportation that would let someone get where they’re going just as easily and quickly without any risk. And if we’re talking about the average user, the harm done by malicious software may be much harder to detect in the first place.
  - yossarian1408 5y ago
    You don't have to do business on the App store. You don't have to launch a startup on the App store. You can buy any device you want, and if there isn't currently one sold that meets your specific criterion, society might be better off if someone takes the initiative to meet this demand rather than force a company to roll out the red carpet for it's competition. Your liberty is not at stake here, nor any real detriment to your quality of life really. The more companies take, the more opportunity for disruption there will be. A Department of Justice breakup is certainly the easiest and most immediately gratifying solution. It is hardly the only solution, and in my mind I am certain it is the wrong solution.
    - echelon 5y ago
      > You don't have to do business on the App store. Yes, you do. If you want to reach 50% of Americans, you're forced to build and distribute an app on the App Store. Try building Netflix without an iOS app. Try writing a new social media app and not building for iPhone. Pick any modern vertical without an iPhone app. You just can't do it. Apple is the new AOL for a lot of folks. You immediately surrender 30% to reach 50% of your customer base, and on top of that, you have to dance to Apple's arbitrary rules and app approval release trains. 1. This is not how technology should work. 2. Apple's fees are extortion. 3. This is using monopolistic advantage to strong arm an entire industry.
      - dwaite 5y ago
        There are competing video services to Netflix which are accessible through the web browser on iOS. Also keep in mind that Netflix does not manage subscriptions through in-app purchases (anymore). Several people (including me) access social media sites through the browser rather than having a native app, in part because of the abuses done by social networks in device profiling in the past. > Apple is the new AOL for a lot of folks. So the same sort of companies who made a marketing decision to invest in AOL keywords are now willing to write an app and give money to apple so that users can find their service through a search in the app store? > You immediately surrender 30% to reach 50% of your customer base I assume you do not realize that it is well documented all of the ways you can pay less (e.g. subscriptions, small business program) or nothing (external payments and subscriptions - you are only limited by your ability to advertise those as alternatives to offering in-app purchases, and can raise your in-app price if you prefer to cover the difference).
- FpUser 5y ago
  >"It's in the interest of their customers for them to have this leverage" Most likely it is in the interest of majority of consumers conditioned to this type of control. I realize that it is a benefit for older computer illiterate people. It completely sucks for people like myself. >"10 different game distributors all with their own shitty incentives" That's one classy way of describing business approach. Yes they're shitty in a way that they're there to help you part with your money and everything else is but a fluff around it. You just forgot to add Apple itself to that group.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    For people like yourself, there is Android and there is jailbreaking. But I suspect most people do not actually desire complete control over their phones more than they desire a curated experience.
    - FpUser 5y ago
      Modern phone is a powerful computer but both Google and Apple along with the phone manufacturers do not really want me to use it as one. And I am not prepared do dance around their platforms doing some hacks. The end result is that my current smartphone is mostly just a phone with couple of off-line apps like GPS and apps to install firmware to various gizmos like a drone. I do not even have data plan.
      - emodendroket 5y ago
        Well, I don't really like to fiddle with it that much either... but that's part of why I appreciate the App Store. I don't have to vet the software myself and if I buy a new phone everything just gets installed after I log in. It might be nice if they provided a way to install third-party apps without resorting to Test Flight or a dev certificate or jailbreaking, but I don't think I would actually use such a capability. I never did in many years of using an Android phone.
  - fossuser 5y ago
    > "I realize that it is a benefit for older computer illiterate people." It's a benefit for computer literate people too. - IAP allows easy tracking of subscriptions and cancellation. You don't have to call and argue with a retentions rep for an hour to cancel a service. - Apple restrictions on tracking limit abuse from ad driven business models. - Apple can require features like Apple ID to be implemented alongside FB connect or whatever. Apple ID has privacy friendly features for users like obscuring your email via a relay. This would never be implemented by app devs because hiding your email is counter to their incentives. If they could deploy outside of the store to avoid these constraints they would. Apple's interests are aligned with their users. The reason they can get away with charging 30% is because Apple's users don't care about all the shitty anti-user things Apple blocks app devs from doing. The reason I care about the 30% is because it worries me that they will be forced to allow side-loading or multiple stores and lose their leverage over app devs. If they lose that leverage we as Apple users will lose these benefits, and for what?
- simonh 5y ago
  Subscription services like Spotify only pay 30% for the first year of each subscription. After that they pay 15% and this has been the case since 2016. Apple has done a lot to revise the App Store charging policy over the last few years, and I think they deserve credit for that. Also their hosting of free apps for only a nominal developer registration fee is a huge boon to users and a lot of iOS developers. So I don’t think those criticisms are entirely accurate or fair. I am ok with regulators looking into this though. Apples revisions to their charging structure probably wouldn’t have happened without the threat of regulatory review. It’s important they be held accountable. However Apple invested many, many billions of dollars to develop the technologies in iOS over many decades and took huge commercial risks. iOS and these devices are their product and they have the right to decide how they work and what features they have. Those who don’t like that do have alternatives. The fact is an awful lot of people do like the way Apple does things.
  - fossuser 5y ago
    > "Subscription services like Spotify only pay 30% for the first year of each subscription. After that they pay 15%." That's still pretty extreme imo when you control the only store and you directly compete with them/undercut them. > "Also their hosting of free apps for only a nominal developer registration fee is a huge boon to users and a lot of iOS developers." They charge a fee for it, I wouldn't consider it nominal - the ecosystem of apps also obviously benefits apple. --- I'm a huge Apple fan which is why I find this racket irritating, it worries me that it'll blow up in their face and we'll end up worse off. I'd probably charge a (low) flat annual fee for app store distribution and that's it. Apple should be focused on making money with great products, not taxing devs they force through their channel. Keep the rules, lose the tax.
    - Spivak 5y ago
      > That's still pretty extreme imo when you control the only store and you directly compete with them/undercut them. Regulators don’t (yet I suppose) care about this because of opportunity cost. If I’m making $3/user/mo off your $10 subscription and I decide to enter the market and compete with you at then every user I steal and every user if not for me would have gone with you costs me $3/mo plus cost of providing them service. So if I’m able to still undercut you then either I’m ridiculously more efficient than you or you have fat margins. Neither of these are true so something else is going on here. Either I’m bleeding money and this is some strategic play in which case it might be unfair for different reasons, or the market is segmented and we actually have two different customer bases with insignificant cross pollination.
- jliptzin 5y ago
  They could lower the fee to a much more reasonable 10% and still be the biggest company in the world.
- Aunche 5y ago
  >That's obnoxious and anti-competitive, particularly in cases like Spotify where they directly compete and undercut them in the same market. How many Spotify users paid through their App though? I'd imagine it would only be a tiny fraction.
  - fossuser 5y ago
    Apple bans app devs from linking to sign up via the browser or even mentioning its existence. They also started to prevent apps that don't have IAP for subscriptions.
    - trissylegs 5y ago
      Which is explicitly mentioned in the OP > ...that app developers be allowed to provide consumers with information about alternative payment options...
  - jbverschoor 5y ago
    I used to pay in the app. Someone I know was unable to cancel his Spotify, because it was linked to his facebook account. Because of that he was fined. Spotify is a toxic company. The only thing I really like about Spotify is spotify connect. I don't understand why none of the competitors have anything competing. It's the key selling point for Sonos
- shawnz 5y ago
  Their choices have been a net benefit for you so far, but what if in future they implement restrictions that you don't like? It would be difficult to change platforms over it.
  - fossuser 5y ago
    What happens when they start leveraging their power to hurt their customers rather than to benefit them? That’s when they’re actually in violation of monopoly and consumer protection laws. Consumer harm is part of it.
    - shawnz 5y ago
      I don't mean a situation like that. What if you just disagree about the best way to achieve the ideal ecosystem? Surely not every customer has the same opinion. Like for example, consider their restrictions on third-party browser engines, JITs, etc. Are you happy about all those choices too?
      - fossuser 5y ago
        Ah - I think that's a fair point. I would have to think about it honestly, I don't know what I think. It's a little funny because I think someone reading my comments absent context would think I don't care about general purpose computing. I do care about it though, a lot. I think the centralization of communication services behind a few megacorporations is a sad outcome and a lost promise of decentralized communication between users on the net. The issue I have is the inbetween - in 'the world as it is' at least apple has leverage to stop the shittiest data mining, tracking, email harvesting, call-to-cancel retentions, just general user hostile 'features' on our behalf. If they don't have that leverage, we don't suddenly gain a better environment - we're in the same shitty centralized thin client world, but now it's worse. In the idealized world of decentralized applications or strong data protection legislation I'd be in favor of it, but in our world I think the tradeoffs are serious and its one of the main reasons I buy Apple hardware.
      - PoignardAzur 5y ago
- ngokevin 5y ago
  It's 15% now for most developers, right?
  - fossuser 5y ago
    Not really - it's 15% if you register as a small business and it changes to 30% once you hit $1M in revenue. That's probably technically 'most', but it's not the large sector that matters. Also 15% is still quite high.
    - jbverschoor 5y ago
      And it's been 15% for recurring revenue after the first year. That 15% includes the 1-3% creditcard processing fee. They also take care of VAT and multi currency for your customers.
      - CppCoder 5y ago
        Plus providing the infrastructure for users to download the million of apps and updates. The tools Apple provides to even develop for their platform, like XCode and all the SDKs and APIs to even make apps. And many other things Apple provides.
      - tannedNerd 5y ago
        That 15% does not include VAT, it is taken out after.
    - amelius 5y ago
      The 30% is like an inverse volume discount.
- amelius 5y ago
  > Apple needs the control to have the leverage that makes their ecosystem better. You and Apple are conflating "App Store" and "Content Filter". We can have multiple App Stores and multiple types of content filters. It doesn't need to be like the current situation, with Apple in full control over everything.
  - Redoubts 5y ago
    50 years of worse-is-better ruling the software world suggests otherwise.
    - amelius 5y ago
      Some people prefer the safety of Disney World. Others like to go base jumping from some mountain in the Alps. Shouldn't both be possible? Or do we want a Mickey Mouse in the Alps telling us to go back for our own safety?
      - emodendroket 5y ago
        It is hardly impossible to install third-party software on your phone if you're up for base jump levels of risk.
        amelius 5y ago
        It's getting more difficult every day. And I don't want to punch Mickey Mouse every time I go climbing.
        MR4D 5y ago
        Honest question - why do you have to climb this mountain? I’m genuinely curious, because to me that’s the equivalent of telling Ford that you want a Ferrari engine in your mustang. Maybe if someone could help me understand this I would be more open to those kinds of ideas.
      - Redoubts 5y ago
- nisegami 5y ago
  There's always been a trivial fix here in my opinion - allowing services to charge Google Play and App Store users more. Let users decide how much the safety and convenience of billing through Apple/Google is worth.
  - laurex 5y ago
    There are restrictions to even offering alternate payment methods set by Apple and Google.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      More specifically, there are restrictions on advertising or mentioning alternative payment methods, but there can be an alternative payment method outside of the app stores.
  - fossuser 5y ago
    Some do, YouTube does this.
- lostgame 5y ago
  I'm not sure why people keep using the 30% number. For businesses that make less than $1mil a year (I am assuming that's most of us who are hobbyist or indie developers here), you literally have to push a button to enable the small business program (it was that easy for me) to reduce it to 15%. It has been this way since November, and it seems like either nobody noticed, or they seem to still enjoy quoting the 30% number. If you make more than $1mil a year you probably can afford to deal with that. You're also probably putting significantly more bandwidth off Apple's servers than an app that's had 100 downloads. Unity does a similar thing, but it's free for up to a certain income, pay after that. I personally would like to see that reduced to 10%, but at least Apple responded to the constant criticism that 30% was ludicrous. From Apple: • Existing developers who made up to $1 million in 2020 for all of their apps, as well as developers new to the App Store, can qualify for the program and the reduced (15%) commission. • If a participating developer surpasses the $1 million threshold, the standard commission rate will apply for the remainder of the year. • If a developer’s business falls below the $1 million threshold in a future calendar year, they can requalify for the 15 percent commission the year after. Source: https://www.apple.com/ca/newsroom/2020/11/apple-announces-app-store-small-business-program/ https://www.apple.com/ca/newsroom/2020/11/apple-announces-ap...
  - inspector-g 5y ago
    > If a participating developer surpasses the $1 million threshold, the standard commission rate will apply for the remainder of the year. And for the entirety of the following year.
- CppCoder 5y ago
  Developers, or publishers already do play a yearly fee (~100USD ~100Euro) to Apple in order to publish apps to their app store.
- naravara 5y ago
  Honestly I don’t think the 30% is that bad compared to setting up and managing payment processing yourself. What is difficult for small creators, though, is that Apple owns the customer relationship, not them. Because of the payment processing restrictions creators are unable to do things like offer discount codes or tiered subscription plans for specific kinds of users. It all has to go through what Apple is willing to enable. This is most stark with their recent announcement of supporting paid podcasts. Particularly because of the anonymization around sign-in with Apple, the podcaster doesn’t actually get to know who their subscribers are. Want to have special rewards or a subscriber only discord channel or forum? Too bad! If any of your biggest fans first started donating through Apple Podcasts you’ve got a big hassle in the way of verifying who they are. Got a weird customer service problem that you’d like to address with a personal touch or maybe offer some store credit or a special reward to make up for it? Once again, too bad. There is no capability to do that.
edrxty 5y ago
By the same logic we should just eliminate free will because it's dangerous sometimes. I hate these arguments as it is allowing incompetence to drive innovation. There are plenty of other options whereby 3rd party apps/app stores could be installed safely, just like on any other computer system. If you need to give someone with diminished mental faculties a locked down device, that can be made explicit.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  Exactly. I don't understand the argument Apple users are presenting. Its like they can't comprehend that they can have an option to install third-party apps but they don't have to enable or use that if they like being "protected" from hurting themselves.
  - parasubvert 5y ago
    There is comprehension. But many just don’t want it because it over complicates the experience. It really isn’t that hard to understand: many Apple users value a certain set of design and simplicity criteria over other factors.
  - havernator 5y ago
    Right now, ~100% of the software available for iOS has to follow Apple's rules, offer a consistent and safe payment method, and install through the App Store. I assume you think that would change, else why have other app stores. That's what I don't want. I want as close to 100% of the software for iOS as possible to have to follow the rules. That's part of why I chose iOS.
    - edrxty 5y ago
      That's nice and all, but the rest of us would like to be able to use our hardware, that we paid for up front, for whatever we need. Unfortunately iOS boots with an encrypted bootloader, so you can't replace it, and once booted, only supports this lovely walled garden of cat-meme consumption.
ninjin 5y ago
This point of view comes up from time to time and it is and has always been a false choice. What you need is a consensual mechanism to relinquish in part or entirely aspects of your control to Apple in exchange for convenience/security. Think “parental control”, it does not come with the need to shut down a device as a whole, but simply with an interface to bar certain areas off if you so desire. Now, implementing this technically could be somewhat challenging and there is no obvious line to me where the boundary for customisation/freedom should be. But I think a first step is recognising the false choice that you present so that we can move the discussion to the details of where that technical/societal line should be rather than talk in freedom/non-freedom absolutes.
- orangeoxidation 5y ago
  It's not possible to make this a switch the user can turn on or off (with reasonable effort). Take the alternative app store. If they are allowed you will have some with exclusive apps. Those apps are then outside the apple rules and you have to have to hit the switch if you want them. So you loose out on the app or on all your apps being apple rule / account / payment compatible. If there is no alternative store you will get all apps the apple way. Apple is providing a real benefit here. Of course they are also leveraging their semi-monoplostic position to "extort" money and to distort competition.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > Take the alternative app store. If they are allowed you will have some with exclusive apps. Those apps are then outside the apple rules and you have to have to hit the switch if you want them. So you loose out on the app or on all your apps being apple rule / account / payment compatible. But how is this different than Android? There could be apps exclusive to Android, presumably there are. If you want them you have to choose Android. All the people who only trust Apple can't have them, the same as all the people who would refuse to turn the switch. And even if some of the people who currently have iOS devices would turn the switch, the people who wouldn't are still a huge market. Unless they're not. But in that case what you're really saying is that people don't actually want the Apple-controlled market and most people are only buying iOS devices in spite of rather than because of it.
rawtxapp 5y ago
That also gives you a false sense of security and putting too much trust on Apple, some people have discovered it the hard way [1]. 1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/30/trezor-scam-bitcoin-1-million/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/30/trezor-...
o_p 5y ago
iOS is for idiots, noted.
stale2002 5y ago
Fortunately, no one is going to force you to use other app stores. Feel free to continue using the Apple app store. You can do that, and after these lawsuits other people will have the voluntary choice to choose a different app store as well.
cglong 5y ago
There's always this fear that apps are going to going to become exclusively available via alternative app stores, and yet this has yet to happen on Android. The only app I can think of that's not in Google Play is Fortnite, which, as we know, is to prove a point. Even Amazon (who pushed heavily on their alternative Appstore a few years back) never removed their own apps from Play.
fyzix 5y ago
So you don't use or recommend Mac for your family members? Because third party apps can be installed...
- Redoubts 5y ago
  iPad is probably the best choice for most, and is what most of my older relatives have independently chosen.
swiley 5y ago
God dammit you can still install root CA certs relatively easily on iOS and there are plenty of online scams that trick people into it (especially since installing apps outside the App Store sometimes requires it.) Don't lie to yourself and everyone else that Apple has somehow created a computer where the user can magically avoid fucking themselves over. It's not like the App Store even prevents malware anyway. All Apple does during review is run the app and watch network traffic via a proxy and ask "does this look like it's violating our rules?" There's no instrumentation and there's nothing to prevent apps from changing behavior after the review. These aren't loopholes abused just by flashlight apps but even large companies like Facebook routinely abuse them. Don't forget that you can also get code onto people's phones by providing a completely closed and never reviewed dylib to devs and they'll just include it in their apps if it solves a problem for them. This is another extremely common tactic to distribute iOS malware (and another one Facebook likes.) Also lets not forget all of the outright scams on the AppStore and the fact that it more or less prevents the sharing of community maintained software (chat apps in particular) which tend to align more closely with users interests. There is absolutely no reason not to allow users to be able to enter an alternate App repository and push service in the settings App other than that it protects Apple's monopoly.
dariosalvi78 5y ago
the problem is that mobile phones have become such a necessary tool for day-to-day life that one company cannot control what goes into them and what not. Apple can either allow additional stores (with all the checks and warnings) or that curation should be done by an independent, public and international third-party. The first option looks far easier.
bengale 5y ago
Exactly, and as is pointed out with android supporting different stores, the alternative already exists. I don't understand why people want to force their way of thinking on everybody else. I'm quite happy in my walled garden, and happy that those who don't like it can go to the other place.
dariosalvi78 5y ago
another argument: we've been fighting for computers to be free from monopolies for so many years (anyone remember Microsoft dominance in the 90s? or browsers not complying to standards?) and yet, here we are again with the same shit. Mobile phones are personal computers, actually of the most successful type. We should have learned some lessons, but no, people come with the same arguments as in the past decades (it's easier, it makes me look cool, I'm lazy). Then, one day, you find that your favourite app has been removed because of God knows what other arbitrary rule has been introduced in the name of the greater good, as undemocratically decided by a private company. And, please, don't come with the "if you don't like it, choose Android": at 50% market share that's not an argument any longer.
deepstack 5y ago
It really comes down to business model. Apple is a hardware company, they money on things. Google/Alpha is an Ad company, they make money from your data. Of course they can make their code open source, however their practices is going to be targeted towards getting as much user data as possible.
- orhmeh09 5y ago
  This cliche is a little dated, considering Apple’s revenue from services is considerably higher than that for Mac. There’s a reason it’s no longer Apple Computer. Since when does a hardware company do credit cards? (And, yes, they do make money from your data in this way.)
notsureaboutpg 5y ago
It's not true for anyone outside of Hacker News. Most people have no idea that this is even true about Apple/Google (that one disallows third party apps and the other does not). People here always say the walled garden is good (maybe they are right) but most users don't know it even exists and to act otherwise is to forget the actual users of such software who use what they do because they have to and don't know any alternative (and can't afford the time and money to switch)
AntiImperialist 5y ago
Spoken like an iTard. Here's the thing: just because Google allows the users to install packages from other app stores does not mean they have to. You can allow which app stores you want to use. In fact, you have to explicitly allow app stores, like you'd expect. There is no explanation why this is not regulated, other than the fact that Apple must be paying a significant amount to potential regulators to shut them up.
BiteCode_dev 5y ago
My GF has no idea how to administrate her phone, she has an android, and certainly doesn't side load apps, install them from websites or use an alternative app store. She wouldn't know how to do those things, so this point seems kinda moot.
- tgragnato 5y ago
  Only someone who never tried to compile AOSP can write seriously that "Android is open source". That the platforms are open source is a moot point too.
  - BiteCode_dev 5y ago
    I don't talk about open source anywhere in my comment. I'm simply noting that those "dangerous features" are, practically, only accessible to the people that are tech saavy enough to understand the risks. So the "it's to protect the innocent" argument doesn't seem to hold well.
    - tgragnato 5y ago
      I agree with you. My sentence thinks over the top comment and the one you are replying to, both highlight irrelevant factual positions. Both are interesting details for techies, but in the real world they have no practical value.
devwastaken 5y ago
This is also why I don't let anyone else drive or have a bank account, or anything potentially dangerous at all. Free choice and the ability to make mistakes by ignorance means they can hurt themselves. Therefore the best solution is revoking that ability by force instead of putting the responsibility of learning unto them. It's perfectly acceptable that I get to control everything and crush businesses and users with anti competitive practices with my control. Or else - who's going to keep you 'safe'? The idea of loving apples walled garden comes from a position of extreme privledge. You have to have lots of money to afford apples ecosystem. The hard reality is just like automobiles an iphone has become a societal requirement to participate in the common market. You can't install 3rd party apps by default in android, you have to turn it on.
- emteycz 5y ago
  People should be able to freely choose a walled garden. There are benefits that might be important for the person choosing it, and other people can simply choose another platform. I don't see any reason why a single platform should be forced to cater to any and all.
  - devwastaken 5y ago
    Not when theres only 2 choices, and effectively only 1 choice depending on your work. The rights of wider market and it's consumers involved are higher. This is precedent that's been set time and again in every other consumer facing industry and it applies just as well here.
    - emteycz 5y ago
      Yes, even when there are only 2 choices. No customer has any right, legal or otherwise, for iPhone-the-universal-and-open-computing-device. Not only that, most customers are customers because it's a walled garden. What are you going to say to a company after it loses customers and revenue and its expenses rise because you took away what made it unique? "Sorry, that's how the system works?", I guess?
lofi_lory 5y ago
That's not the argument tho. You liking Apple's ecosystem doesn't mean they aren't anticompetitive. And really your point is kind of... weird. It's not like you don't have to go out of your way to get third-party apps on your Android phone. And you would lose nothing, if Apple did the same, maybe even more buried in hidden settings and behind disclaimers and warnings. Reads like the typical retrospective justification of any limitation Apple features. "A single USB-C port? Yeah, I love it! Keeps you focused and mindful about peripheral devices!" Every god damn time. Beyond bizarre.
ksec 5y ago
>prevents them from doing anything that would screw themselves over. That was the case when App Store was born, it really did provide the security and curation of Apps. But now that is no longer the case, scam Apps and low quality apps / games are everywhere. They are not as bad as Android but still bad. Not to mention Apple doesn't care about your IP, if someone make an app that is 99% the same with look and graphics. There is no way to challenge that because Apple said they dont take side ( What ? ). Especially when they hold the majority of market shares. Today, the iPhone has 66% market share in the United States, 75% of U.S. App Store revenues, and over 80% of time spent on the mobile internet. And these numbers are pre iPhone 12, judging from the trend it looks like the current number will only be higher. They cant hide behind privacy and curation forever.
jjav 5y ago
OTOH if the elders of your family are not hacker tinkerer types, they're not going to install an alternate app store even if that was possible on iOS. So the existence of an alternative wouldn't change their usage or your need of involvement at all. It just provides a way to run applications of my choice on my hardware to people who want that.

fossuser 5y ago

I agree - Apple needs the control to have the leverage that makes their ecosystem better. It's in the interest of their customers for them to have this leverage and it requires that their 'store' is the only available store so app devs can't bypass their requirements. I like Apple forcing use of in-app-payments, I like Apple giving me subscription control to make canceling easy. I like Apple blocking app tracking and forcing design constraints. That said, the 30% weakens their entire argument about this and is a racket. If they want to charge a yearly deployment fee or something fine, but 30% of a company's income via IAP? That's obnoxious and anti-competitive, particularly in cases like Spotify where they directly compete and undercut them in the same market. Apple is skimming a tax off the top and they're forcing everyone to pay the toll. It weakens their entire argument. I wish they would stop, because I think a world with multiple stores and such would be a huge pain and customers would suffer because of it. If you think it's a pain to have 15 streaming services or 10 different game distributors all with their own shitty incentives - it'd be that on the phone.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
echelon 5y ago
> Apple needs the control to have the leverage that makes their ecosystem better. It's in the interest of their customers for them to have this leverage and it requires that their 'store' is the only available store so app devs can't bypass their requirements. I don't understand this argument at all. You're almost certainly taking more risk driving in a car than downloading an app, yet you're probably willing to embrace the full degrees of freedom of the roadway. We shouldn't be afraid to use computers. Security is possible without an app store. Apologizing for Apple's exploitive system is doing us all a disservice. It's making it harder to do business, launch a startup, use your own device, refurbish your device, and compute freely. Technology wasn't always a locked-in time share. We're witnessing a hostile takeover. An invented scam, sold to us by the Jobs and Ballmers of the world. The Apple and Google stores make us serfs in their kingdoms. We're renting, not owning. Your choices are impinging upon my freedoms. The more people that accept this, the more companies are willing to take. A Department of Justice breakup is looking like the only solution at this point.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  Yes, one takes more risk using the road than using an unofficial apk. But I’m not aware of an “App Store-like” method of transportation that would let someone get where they’re going just as easily and quickly without any risk. And if we’re talking about the average user, the harm done by malicious software may be much harder to detect in the first place.
- yossarian1408 5y ago
  You don't have to do business on the App store. You don't have to launch a startup on the App store. You can buy any device you want, and if there isn't currently one sold that meets your specific criterion, society might be better off if someone takes the initiative to meet this demand rather than force a company to roll out the red carpet for it's competition. Your liberty is not at stake here, nor any real detriment to your quality of life really. The more companies take, the more opportunity for disruption there will be. A Department of Justice breakup is certainly the easiest and most immediately gratifying solution. It is hardly the only solution, and in my mind I am certain it is the wrong solution.
  - echelon 5y ago
    > You don't have to do business on the App store. Yes, you do. If you want to reach 50% of Americans, you're forced to build and distribute an app on the App Store. Try building Netflix without an iOS app. Try writing a new social media app and not building for iPhone. Pick any modern vertical without an iPhone app. You just can't do it. Apple is the new AOL for a lot of folks. You immediately surrender 30% to reach 50% of your customer base, and on top of that, you have to dance to Apple's arbitrary rules and app approval release trains. 1. This is not how technology should work. 2. Apple's fees are extortion. 3. This is using monopolistic advantage to strong arm an entire industry.
    - dwaite 5y ago
      There are competing video services to Netflix which are accessible through the web browser on iOS. Also keep in mind that Netflix does not manage subscriptions through in-app purchases (anymore). Several people (including me) access social media sites through the browser rather than having a native app, in part because of the abuses done by social networks in device profiling in the past. > Apple is the new AOL for a lot of folks. So the same sort of companies who made a marketing decision to invest in AOL keywords are now willing to write an app and give money to apple so that users can find their service through a search in the app store? > You immediately surrender 30% to reach 50% of your customer base I assume you do not realize that it is well documented all of the ways you can pay less (e.g. subscriptions, small business program) or nothing (external payments and subscriptions - you are only limited by your ability to advertise those as alternatives to offering in-app purchases, and can raise your in-app price if you prefer to cover the difference).
FpUser 5y ago
>"It's in the interest of their customers for them to have this leverage" Most likely it is in the interest of majority of consumers conditioned to this type of control. I realize that it is a benefit for older computer illiterate people. It completely sucks for people like myself. >"10 different game distributors all with their own shitty incentives" That's one classy way of describing business approach. Yes they're shitty in a way that they're there to help you part with your money and everything else is but a fluff around it. You just forgot to add Apple itself to that group.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  For people like yourself, there is Android and there is jailbreaking. But I suspect most people do not actually desire complete control over their phones more than they desire a curated experience.
  - FpUser 5y ago
    Modern phone is a powerful computer but both Google and Apple along with the phone manufacturers do not really want me to use it as one. And I am not prepared do dance around their platforms doing some hacks. The end result is that my current smartphone is mostly just a phone with couple of off-line apps like GPS and apps to install firmware to various gizmos like a drone. I do not even have data plan.
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      Well, I don't really like to fiddle with it that much either... but that's part of why I appreciate the App Store. I don't have to vet the software myself and if I buy a new phone everything just gets installed after I log in. It might be nice if they provided a way to install third-party apps without resorting to Test Flight or a dev certificate or jailbreaking, but I don't think I would actually use such a capability. I never did in many years of using an Android phone.
- fossuser 5y ago
  > "I realize that it is a benefit for older computer illiterate people." It's a benefit for computer literate people too. - IAP allows easy tracking of subscriptions and cancellation. You don't have to call and argue with a retentions rep for an hour to cancel a service. - Apple restrictions on tracking limit abuse from ad driven business models. - Apple can require features like Apple ID to be implemented alongside FB connect or whatever. Apple ID has privacy friendly features for users like obscuring your email via a relay. This would never be implemented by app devs because hiding your email is counter to their incentives. If they could deploy outside of the store to avoid these constraints they would. Apple's interests are aligned with their users. The reason they can get away with charging 30% is because Apple's users don't care about all the shitty anti-user things Apple blocks app devs from doing. The reason I care about the 30% is because it worries me that they will be forced to allow side-loading or multiple stores and lose their leverage over app devs. If they lose that leverage we as Apple users will lose these benefits, and for what?
simonh 5y ago
Subscription services like Spotify only pay 30% for the first year of each subscription. After that they pay 15% and this has been the case since 2016. Apple has done a lot to revise the App Store charging policy over the last few years, and I think they deserve credit for that. Also their hosting of free apps for only a nominal developer registration fee is a huge boon to users and a lot of iOS developers. So I don’t think those criticisms are entirely accurate or fair. I am ok with regulators looking into this though. Apples revisions to their charging structure probably wouldn’t have happened without the threat of regulatory review. It’s important they be held accountable. However Apple invested many, many billions of dollars to develop the technologies in iOS over many decades and took huge commercial risks. iOS and these devices are their product and they have the right to decide how they work and what features they have. Those who don’t like that do have alternatives. The fact is an awful lot of people do like the way Apple does things.
- fossuser 5y ago
  > "Subscription services like Spotify only pay 30% for the first year of each subscription. After that they pay 15%." That's still pretty extreme imo when you control the only store and you directly compete with them/undercut them. > "Also their hosting of free apps for only a nominal developer registration fee is a huge boon to users and a lot of iOS developers." They charge a fee for it, I wouldn't consider it nominal - the ecosystem of apps also obviously benefits apple. --- I'm a huge Apple fan which is why I find this racket irritating, it worries me that it'll blow up in their face and we'll end up worse off. I'd probably charge a (low) flat annual fee for app store distribution and that's it. Apple should be focused on making money with great products, not taxing devs they force through their channel. Keep the rules, lose the tax.
  - Spivak 5y ago
    > That's still pretty extreme imo when you control the only store and you directly compete with them/undercut them. Regulators don’t (yet I suppose) care about this because of opportunity cost. If I’m making $3/user/mo off your $10 subscription and I decide to enter the market and compete with you at then every user I steal and every user if not for me would have gone with you costs me $3/mo plus cost of providing them service. So if I’m able to still undercut you then either I’m ridiculously more efficient than you or you have fat margins. Neither of these are true so something else is going on here. Either I’m bleeding money and this is some strategic play in which case it might be unfair for different reasons, or the market is segmented and we actually have two different customer bases with insignificant cross pollination.
jliptzin 5y ago
They could lower the fee to a much more reasonable 10% and still be the biggest company in the world.
Aunche 5y ago
>That's obnoxious and anti-competitive, particularly in cases like Spotify where they directly compete and undercut them in the same market. How many Spotify users paid through their App though? I'd imagine it would only be a tiny fraction.
- fossuser 5y ago
  Apple bans app devs from linking to sign up via the browser or even mentioning its existence. They also started to prevent apps that don't have IAP for subscriptions.
  - trissylegs 5y ago
    Which is explicitly mentioned in the OP > ...that app developers be allowed to provide consumers with information about alternative payment options...
- jbverschoor 5y ago
  I used to pay in the app. Someone I know was unable to cancel his Spotify, because it was linked to his facebook account. Because of that he was fined. Spotify is a toxic company. The only thing I really like about Spotify is spotify connect. I don't understand why none of the competitors have anything competing. It's the key selling point for Sonos
shawnz 5y ago
Their choices have been a net benefit for you so far, but what if in future they implement restrictions that you don't like? It would be difficult to change platforms over it.
- fossuser 5y ago
  What happens when they start leveraging their power to hurt their customers rather than to benefit them? That’s when they’re actually in violation of monopoly and consumer protection laws. Consumer harm is part of it.
  - shawnz 5y ago
    I don't mean a situation like that. What if you just disagree about the best way to achieve the ideal ecosystem? Surely not every customer has the same opinion. Like for example, consider their restrictions on third-party browser engines, JITs, etc. Are you happy about all those choices too?
    - fossuser 5y ago
      Ah - I think that's a fair point. I would have to think about it honestly, I don't know what I think. It's a little funny because I think someone reading my comments absent context would think I don't care about general purpose computing. I do care about it though, a lot. I think the centralization of communication services behind a few megacorporations is a sad outcome and a lost promise of decentralized communication between users on the net. The issue I have is the inbetween - in 'the world as it is' at least apple has leverage to stop the shittiest data mining, tracking, email harvesting, call-to-cancel retentions, just general user hostile 'features' on our behalf. If they don't have that leverage, we don't suddenly gain a better environment - we're in the same shitty centralized thin client world, but now it's worse. In the idealized world of decentralized applications or strong data protection legislation I'd be in favor of it, but in our world I think the tradeoffs are serious and its one of the main reasons I buy Apple hardware.
    - PoignardAzur 5y ago
ngokevin 5y ago
It's 15% now for most developers, right?
- fossuser 5y ago
  Not really - it's 15% if you register as a small business and it changes to 30% once you hit $1M in revenue. That's probably technically 'most', but it's not the large sector that matters. Also 15% is still quite high.
  - jbverschoor 5y ago
    And it's been 15% for recurring revenue after the first year. That 15% includes the 1-3% creditcard processing fee. They also take care of VAT and multi currency for your customers.
    - CppCoder 5y ago
      Plus providing the infrastructure for users to download the million of apps and updates. The tools Apple provides to even develop for their platform, like XCode and all the SDKs and APIs to even make apps. And many other things Apple provides.
    - tannedNerd 5y ago
      That 15% does not include VAT, it is taken out after.
  - amelius 5y ago
    The 30% is like an inverse volume discount.
amelius 5y ago
> Apple needs the control to have the leverage that makes their ecosystem better. You and Apple are conflating "App Store" and "Content Filter". We can have multiple App Stores and multiple types of content filters. It doesn't need to be like the current situation, with Apple in full control over everything.
- Redoubts 5y ago
  50 years of worse-is-better ruling the software world suggests otherwise.
  - amelius 5y ago
    Some people prefer the safety of Disney World. Others like to go base jumping from some mountain in the Alps. Shouldn't both be possible? Or do we want a Mickey Mouse in the Alps telling us to go back for our own safety?
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      It is hardly impossible to install third-party software on your phone if you're up for base jump levels of risk.
      - amelius 5y ago
        It's getting more difficult every day. And I don't want to punch Mickey Mouse every time I go climbing.
        MR4D 5y ago
        Honest question - why do you have to climb this mountain? I’m genuinely curious, because to me that’s the equivalent of telling Ford that you want a Ferrari engine in your mustang. Maybe if someone could help me understand this I would be more open to those kinds of ideas.
    - Redoubts 5y ago
nisegami 5y ago
There's always been a trivial fix here in my opinion - allowing services to charge Google Play and App Store users more. Let users decide how much the safety and convenience of billing through Apple/Google is worth.
- laurex 5y ago
  There are restrictions to even offering alternate payment methods set by Apple and Google.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    More specifically, there are restrictions on advertising or mentioning alternative payment methods, but there can be an alternative payment method outside of the app stores.
- fossuser 5y ago
  Some do, YouTube does this.
lostgame 5y ago
I'm not sure why people keep using the 30% number. For businesses that make less than $1mil a year (I am assuming that's most of us who are hobbyist or indie developers here), you literally have to push a button to enable the small business program (it was that easy for me) to reduce it to 15%. It has been this way since November, and it seems like either nobody noticed, or they seem to still enjoy quoting the 30% number. If you make more than $1mil a year you probably can afford to deal with that. You're also probably putting significantly more bandwidth off Apple's servers than an app that's had 100 downloads. Unity does a similar thing, but it's free for up to a certain income, pay after that. I personally would like to see that reduced to 10%, but at least Apple responded to the constant criticism that 30% was ludicrous. From Apple: • Existing developers who made up to $1 million in 2020 for all of their apps, as well as developers new to the App Store, can qualify for the program and the reduced (15%) commission. • If a participating developer surpasses the $1 million threshold, the standard commission rate will apply for the remainder of the year. • If a developer’s business falls below the $1 million threshold in a future calendar year, they can requalify for the 15 percent commission the year after. Source: https://www.apple.com/ca/newsroom/2020/11/apple-announces-app-store-small-business-program/ https://www.apple.com/ca/newsroom/2020/11/apple-announces-ap...
- inspector-g 5y ago
  > If a participating developer surpasses the $1 million threshold, the standard commission rate will apply for the remainder of the year. And for the entirety of the following year.
CppCoder 5y ago
Developers, or publishers already do play a yearly fee (~100USD ~100Euro) to Apple in order to publish apps to their app store.
naravara 5y ago
Honestly I don’t think the 30% is that bad compared to setting up and managing payment processing yourself. What is difficult for small creators, though, is that Apple owns the customer relationship, not them. Because of the payment processing restrictions creators are unable to do things like offer discount codes or tiered subscription plans for specific kinds of users. It all has to go through what Apple is willing to enable. This is most stark with their recent announcement of supporting paid podcasts. Particularly because of the anonymization around sign-in with Apple, the podcaster doesn’t actually get to know who their subscribers are. Want to have special rewards or a subscriber only discord channel or forum? Too bad! If any of your biggest fans first started donating through Apple Podcasts you’ve got a big hassle in the way of verifying who they are. Got a weird customer service problem that you’d like to address with a personal touch or maybe offer some store credit or a special reward to make up for it? Once again, too bad. There is no capability to do that.

edrxty 5y ago

By the same logic we should just eliminate free will because it's dangerous sometimes. I hate these arguments as it is allowing incompetence to drive innovation. There are plenty of other options whereby 3rd party apps/app stores could be installed safely, just like on any other computer system. If you need to give someone with diminished mental faculties a locked down device, that can be made explicit.

encryptluks2 5y ago
Exactly. I don't understand the argument Apple users are presenting. Its like they can't comprehend that they can have an option to install third-party apps but they don't have to enable or use that if they like being "protected" from hurting themselves.
- parasubvert 5y ago
  There is comprehension. But many just don’t want it because it over complicates the experience. It really isn’t that hard to understand: many Apple users value a certain set of design and simplicity criteria over other factors.
- havernator 5y ago
  Right now, ~100% of the software available for iOS has to follow Apple's rules, offer a consistent and safe payment method, and install through the App Store. I assume you think that would change, else why have other app stores. That's what I don't want. I want as close to 100% of the software for iOS as possible to have to follow the rules. That's part of why I chose iOS.
  - edrxty 5y ago
    That's nice and all, but the rest of us would like to be able to use our hardware, that we paid for up front, for whatever we need. Unfortunately iOS boots with an encrypted bootloader, so you can't replace it, and once booted, only supports this lovely walled garden of cat-meme consumption.

ninjin 5y ago

This point of view comes up from time to time and it is and has always been a false choice. What you need is a consensual mechanism to relinquish in part or entirely aspects of your control to Apple in exchange for convenience/security. Think “parental control”, it does not come with the need to shut down a device as a whole, but simply with an interface to bar certain areas off if you so desire. Now, implementing this technically could be somewhat challenging and there is no obvious line to me where the boundary for customisation/freedom should be. But I think a first step is recognising the false choice that you present so that we can move the discussion to the details of where that technical/societal line should be rather than talk in freedom/non-freedom absolutes.

orangeoxidation 5y ago
It's not possible to make this a switch the user can turn on or off (with reasonable effort). Take the alternative app store. If they are allowed you will have some with exclusive apps. Those apps are then outside the apple rules and you have to have to hit the switch if you want them. So you loose out on the app or on all your apps being apple rule / account / payment compatible. If there is no alternative store you will get all apps the apple way. Apple is providing a real benefit here. Of course they are also leveraging their semi-monoplostic position to "extort" money and to distort competition.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > Take the alternative app store. If they are allowed you will have some with exclusive apps. Those apps are then outside the apple rules and you have to have to hit the switch if you want them. So you loose out on the app or on all your apps being apple rule / account / payment compatible. But how is this different than Android? There could be apps exclusive to Android, presumably there are. If you want them you have to choose Android. All the people who only trust Apple can't have them, the same as all the people who would refuse to turn the switch. And even if some of the people who currently have iOS devices would turn the switch, the people who wouldn't are still a huge market. Unless they're not. But in that case what you're really saying is that people don't actually want the Apple-controlled market and most people are only buying iOS devices in spite of rather than because of it.

rawtxapp 5y ago

That also gives you a false sense of security and putting too much trust on Apple, some people have discovered it the hard way [1]. 1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/30/trezor-scam-bitcoin-1-million/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/30/trezor-...

o_p 5y ago

iOS is for idiots, noted.

stale2002 5y ago

Fortunately, no one is going to force you to use other app stores. Feel free to continue using the Apple app store. You can do that, and after these lawsuits other people will have the voluntary choice to choose a different app store as well.

cglong 5y ago

There's always this fear that apps are going to going to become exclusively available via alternative app stores, and yet this has yet to happen on Android. The only app I can think of that's not in Google Play is Fortnite, which, as we know, is to prove a point. Even Amazon (who pushed heavily on their alternative Appstore a few years back) never removed their own apps from Play.

fyzix 5y ago

So you don't use or recommend Mac for your family members? Because third party apps can be installed...

Redoubts 5y ago
iPad is probably the best choice for most, and is what most of my older relatives have independently chosen.

swiley 5y ago

God dammit you can still install root CA certs relatively easily on iOS and there are plenty of online scams that trick people into it (especially since installing apps outside the App Store sometimes requires it.) Don't lie to yourself and everyone else that Apple has somehow created a computer where the user can magically avoid fucking themselves over. It's not like the App Store even prevents malware anyway. All Apple does during review is run the app and watch network traffic via a proxy and ask "does this look like it's violating our rules?" There's no instrumentation and there's nothing to prevent apps from changing behavior after the review. These aren't loopholes abused just by flashlight apps but even large companies like Facebook routinely abuse them. Don't forget that you can also get code onto people's phones by providing a completely closed and never reviewed dylib to devs and they'll just include it in their apps if it solves a problem for them. This is another extremely common tactic to distribute iOS malware (and another one Facebook likes.) Also lets not forget all of the outright scams on the AppStore and the fact that it more or less prevents the sharing of community maintained software (chat apps in particular) which tend to align more closely with users interests. There is absolutely no reason not to allow users to be able to enter an alternate App repository and push service in the settings App other than that it protects Apple's monopoly.

dariosalvi78 5y ago

the problem is that mobile phones have become such a necessary tool for day-to-day life that one company cannot control what goes into them and what not. Apple can either allow additional stores (with all the checks and warnings) or that curation should be done by an independent, public and international third-party. The first option looks far easier.

bengale 5y ago

Exactly, and as is pointed out with android supporting different stores, the alternative already exists. I don't understand why people want to force their way of thinking on everybody else. I'm quite happy in my walled garden, and happy that those who don't like it can go to the other place.

dariosalvi78 5y ago

another argument: we've been fighting for computers to be free from monopolies for so many years (anyone remember Microsoft dominance in the 90s? or browsers not complying to standards?) and yet, here we are again with the same shit. Mobile phones are personal computers, actually of the most successful type. We should have learned some lessons, but no, people come with the same arguments as in the past decades (it's easier, it makes me look cool, I'm lazy). Then, one day, you find that your favourite app has been removed because of God knows what other arbitrary rule has been introduced in the name of the greater good, as undemocratically decided by a private company. And, please, don't come with the "if you don't like it, choose Android": at 50% market share that's not an argument any longer.

deepstack 5y ago

It really comes down to business model. Apple is a hardware company, they money on things. Google/Alpha is an Ad company, they make money from your data. Of course they can make their code open source, however their practices is going to be targeted towards getting as much user data as possible.

orhmeh09 5y ago
This cliche is a little dated, considering Apple’s revenue from services is considerably higher than that for Mac. There’s a reason it’s no longer Apple Computer. Since when does a hardware company do credit cards? (And, yes, they do make money from your data in this way.)

notsureaboutpg 5y ago

It's not true for anyone outside of Hacker News. Most people have no idea that this is even true about Apple/Google (that one disallows third party apps and the other does not). People here always say the walled garden is good (maybe they are right) but most users don't know it even exists and to act otherwise is to forget the actual users of such software who use what they do because they have to and don't know any alternative (and can't afford the time and money to switch)

AntiImperialist 5y ago

Spoken like an iTard. Here's the thing: just because Google allows the users to install packages from other app stores does not mean they have to. You can allow which app stores you want to use. In fact, you have to explicitly allow app stores, like you'd expect. There is no explanation why this is not regulated, other than the fact that Apple must be paying a significant amount to potential regulators to shut them up.

BiteCode_dev 5y ago

My GF has no idea how to administrate her phone, she has an android, and certainly doesn't side load apps, install them from websites or use an alternative app store. She wouldn't know how to do those things, so this point seems kinda moot.

tgragnato 5y ago
Only someone who never tried to compile AOSP can write seriously that "Android is open source". That the platforms are open source is a moot point too.
- BiteCode_dev 5y ago
  I don't talk about open source anywhere in my comment. I'm simply noting that those "dangerous features" are, practically, only accessible to the people that are tech saavy enough to understand the risks. So the "it's to protect the innocent" argument doesn't seem to hold well.
  - tgragnato 5y ago
    I agree with you. My sentence thinks over the top comment and the one you are replying to, both highlight irrelevant factual positions. Both are interesting details for techies, but in the real world they have no practical value.

devwastaken 5y ago

This is also why I don't let anyone else drive or have a bank account, or anything potentially dangerous at all. Free choice and the ability to make mistakes by ignorance means they can hurt themselves. Therefore the best solution is revoking that ability by force instead of putting the responsibility of learning unto them. It's perfectly acceptable that I get to control everything and crush businesses and users with anti competitive practices with my control. Or else - who's going to keep you 'safe'? The idea of loving apples walled garden comes from a position of extreme privledge. You have to have lots of money to afford apples ecosystem. The hard reality is just like automobiles an iphone has become a societal requirement to participate in the common market. You can't install 3rd party apps by default in android, you have to turn it on.

emteycz 5y ago
People should be able to freely choose a walled garden. There are benefits that might be important for the person choosing it, and other people can simply choose another platform. I don't see any reason why a single platform should be forced to cater to any and all.
- devwastaken 5y ago
  Not when theres only 2 choices, and effectively only 1 choice depending on your work. The rights of wider market and it's consumers involved are higher. This is precedent that's been set time and again in every other consumer facing industry and it applies just as well here.
  - emteycz 5y ago
    Yes, even when there are only 2 choices. No customer has any right, legal or otherwise, for iPhone-the-universal-and-open-computing-device. Not only that, most customers are customers because it's a walled garden. What are you going to say to a company after it loses customers and revenue and its expenses rise because you took away what made it unique? "Sorry, that's how the system works?", I guess?

lofi_lory 5y ago

That's not the argument tho. You liking Apple's ecosystem doesn't mean they aren't anticompetitive. And really your point is kind of... weird. It's not like you don't have to go out of your way to get third-party apps on your Android phone. And you would lose nothing, if Apple did the same, maybe even more buried in hidden settings and behind disclaimers and warnings. Reads like the typical retrospective justification of any limitation Apple features. "A single USB-C port? Yeah, I love it! Keeps you focused and mindful about peripheral devices!" Every god damn time. Beyond bizarre.

ksec 5y ago

>prevents them from doing anything that would screw themselves over. That was the case when App Store was born, it really did provide the security and curation of Apps. But now that is no longer the case, scam Apps and low quality apps / games are everywhere. They are not as bad as Android but still bad. Not to mention Apple doesn't care about your IP, if someone make an app that is 99% the same with look and graphics. There is no way to challenge that because Apple said they dont take side ( What ? ). Especially when they hold the majority of market shares. Today, the iPhone has 66% market share in the United States, 75% of U.S. App Store revenues, and over 80% of time spent on the mobile internet. And these numbers are pre iPhone 12, judging from the trend it looks like the current number will only be higher. They cant hide behind privacy and curation forever.

jjav 5y ago

OTOH if the elders of your family are not hacker tinkerer types, they're not going to install an alternate app store even if that was possible on iOS. So the existence of an alternative wouldn't change their usage or your need of involvement at all. It just provides a way to run applications of my choice on my hardware to people who want that.