9 ms·

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.

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.
- havernator 5y ago
  Then choose something else? I mean, lobby for the change if you like, but you're eliminating my favored choice if you succeed.
  - edrxty 5y ago
    We can both have our cake and eat it too, we just need either an unlocked bootloader, or the ability to sideload apps over an ADB-like usb interface. People who don't want that functionality will never know it's there and there won't be any decrease in security.
    - havernator 5y ago
      Unlocked boot loader would be fine. Sideloading's fine as long as the UI's bad enough that normal people can't, say, click a link on a website and keep clicking "OK" until the app's installed on their phone, and it also can't (somehow? Not sure how this restriction would be enforced) be scripted into a desktop-based store (as ADB could be, and likely would have been if alternative stores couldn't just be installed directly on Android devices). Essentially as long as nothing threatens Apple's ability to tell other companies, including other tech giants, to play ball or pound sand, I'm fine with it.
      - fossuser 5y ago
        It probably reduces security - if your phone gets taken by a government to be analyzed. Authoritarian governments would probably require side loaded apps.
      - jjav 5y ago
        > Essentially as long as nothing threatens Apple's ability to tell other companies, including other tech giants, to play ball or pound sand, I'm fine with it. Is your premise is that the vast majority of iOS users want the Apple control of apps exactly as it is today? If that premise is true, then having additional app stores available will not change your experience at all. The vast majority, as you assert, of iOS users will want no part in the alternative app stores, thus the Apple app store retains dominance and Apple doesn't need to change their behavior at all. So nothing changes for you. And the few oddballs who want to run non-Apple-approved software, still can, but they'll be a fringe. But if you're worried that there will be a mass exodus to the non-Apple app store, (if that was allowed) then I'm hearing that there is in fact large percentages of unhappy users, which is itself proof that removing control from Apple is required. What doesn't make sense it simultaneously assert that nearly all iOS users are happy with the Apple iron fist but large percentage of them are itching to break away from it the second they could. One or the other can be true, not both.
    - macintux 5y ago
      As soon as Apple offers that, companies like Facebook will tell their users that in order to install their apps, they have to sideload it. And people will go willingly into that dark night.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- hugi 5y ago
  Sounds like you don't want an iPhone. So buy a different phone that does what you want.
  - edrxty 5y ago
    I have several in fact, including the PinePhone which I quite like but isn't really ready for daily use. The issue is Apple is developing a monopoly on high end hardware and there are fewer reasonable options by the day.
    - leadingthenet 5y ago
      And there’s a reason for that. You’re making the mistake of thinking Apple’s special sauce is the hardware. It’s not. It’s the experience.
      - shawnz 5y ago
        I don't think they were making any kind of claim about Apple's "special sauce", only that Apple has a monopoly on high-end hardware, which is true.
        fossuser 5y ago
        It is a little weird though. - Apple has built a world wide empire selling these products in this way people seem to like - As a result Apple has funneled that money and made world class hardware that's better than everyone else and leads in security/privacy - Therefore we should force them to break their model because the others that didn't follow suit have hardware that sucks That's not the most charitable interpretation, but there's some truth to it. There’s some extra irony that the others in this case fuck over their users by leveraging their data to target ads.
        leadingthenet 5y ago
        Yes, thank you. That's the idea I wanted to express, but only managed to do so in a much less capable way.
theli0nheart 5y ago
> ~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. Scams are rampant in the App Store. Give an unlocked iPhone to a 5 year old and they'll spend $1000 before you know it. This is not something worth defending. https://9to5mac.com/2021/02/12/developer-reveals-fake-app-store-reviews-and-scams/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/02/12/developer-reveals-fake-app-st...
- havernator 5y ago
  Pointing out one bad thing doesn't change a bunch of other good things, nor does adding more app stores seem like a useful solution to the problem raised.
  - 8note 5y ago
    Really it's that adding more app stores doesn't remove those things either. Even with things going through apple, you don't have a safe and consistent payments scheme. With more app stores, you can still get every app that's available on the Apple app store, just as you can now. You may not have access to every app, but you don't today either
efraim 5y ago
You could very easily not install any other store or use any other payment system if you don't want them. You can keep your device 100 % Apple approved even if there exist alternatives. Why take that choice away from others?
- havernator 5y ago
  It could fragment the Apple software ecosystem. Since a non-fragmented ecosystem is what I want, I don't like that. Add more stores and my choice to buy into a unified platform is at risk.
  - fredophile 5y ago
    Why is fragmentation a problem? There's already fragmentation of the smartphone software ecosystem. How is an app that ships on iOS but not the apple store any different to you than an app that doesn't ship on iOS at all? Either way if you choose to only buy apps through apple you can't get it.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      Fragmentation means that many apps I want would no longer be available through a vendor that I trust. No, that trust isn't blind or absolute. Yes, I recognise that Apple's review process is patchy at best—but most developers also fear getting on the wrong side of them and THAT alone has been pretty damn effective at keeping most apps under control.
      - fredophile 5y ago
        I'm not convinced this is as big a problem as you think it is. If I chose iOS over Android specifically for privacy reasons I'd be interested in knowing what companies avoid the app store to bypass their privacy restrictions. Do you really want to use a product from a company that would do that as soon as they have the chance or would you rather label them as untrustworthy and find an alternative?
shawnz 5y ago
What if they change their mind about the rules and their vision becomes inconsistent with what you want? You'll have no recourse and vendor lock-in will prevent you from switching platforms
- hugi 5y ago
  Wat? No. I'd buy another phone. There's plenty of choices.
  - shawnz 5y ago
    It will be inconvenient and even impossible to migrate some things (for example contacts, iMessage history, app data). Espcially consider how difficult it would be for a novice user to migrate. And what are those other choices? Presumably you are not considering Android devices.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      It's not Apple's fault if Android devices aren't suitable alternatives.
      - shawnz 5y ago
        Of course not. But the limited selection of alternatives certainly adds to the pain of switching platforms. Therefore it's not so simple to "just buy another phone".
        simondotau 5y ago
        I wholeheartedly agree with that. I just find it difficult to blame Apple when the accusation is that the competition sucks.
        shawnz 5y ago
        That's not the accusation. The accusation is that disallowing sideloading and forcing all customers to observe a single philosophy is especially big of a risk to the user considering that there's little competition. The fix isn't for Apple to create better competition, it's to allow sideloading. I am not saying it's their "fault" for having a lack of competition, that is just a reality of the market they are in.
AnthonyMouse 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. The same would still be true of all the apps in the App Store. There would just be other stores. You wouldn't have to use them. Other people could. The issue here is that many people want the hardware or the OS without the App Store. If you give it to them, "people who only use the Apple App Store" will be a smaller number of people and Apple will have less leverage. That's the point of prohibiting anti-competitive practices. Apple does a lot of things with that leverage that are bad. Like prohibiting apps that compete with theirs (e.g. browser engines), and imposing political censorship in authoritarian countries, and extracting 30% from captive developers. You presumably want Apple to have the leverage because then they can use it against e.g. Facebook. If everybody on iOS thinks like you then you win -- everybody only uses the App Store even though other stores are available and Apple still has all the same leverage. But if most of the people disagree with you, right now you're holding them hostage. Forcing them to use only the App Store even though they don't want to, so that the world's largest corporation can have more leverage.
- havernator 5y ago
  I'd care about this a lot less if the government first outlawed most personal data collection & hoarding (by tech companies and others) before we go destroying the libertarian solution to this (outsource regulation to a company, which is what I'm choosing to do, given the alternatives)
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    It's not really destroying it. You can still refuse to install any apps not approved by Apple, even if other people do. It might even be a good test. If Facebook decides they can't be in Apple's store even though the app is free and there is no government pressure for Apple to block it, you might take pause to ask why and decide that you don't want that app.
    - encryptluks2 5y ago
fredophile 5y ago
Would you be willing to pay a premium for that? What if Apple allowed other stores and simultaneously allowed apps to sell things for more on their store than they charge on other stores? Then an app maker could release on both and charge more to account for Apple's cut and any extra expenses they have releasing on their store.
- simondotau 5y ago
  > Would you be willing to pay a premium for that? That's literally what millions of customers do, whether they do so explicitly or not.
  - fredophile 5y ago
    Could you explain what you mean about customers paying a premium today? I don't think any apps that are on iOS and other platforms charge more for iOS. I also don't believe an iPhone costs more than a similarly high end Android phone. Where's the premium?
    - simondotau 5y ago
      Those very few ultra-premium models are exceptions which prove the rule; a few ultra-expensive, ultra-premium halo products for price-insensitive customers. Android phones are almost always superior value for money.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        iPhones start at $400, and come with 5+ years of prompt software updates.
    - havernator 5y ago
      Some definitely do charge more for e.g. subscriptions on iOS than they do if you go through their website. They can't advertise the website option in their app, but it can exist. Last time I made that mistake the site's subscription management interface was rather... uh, minimum viable product. Switching to paying the Apple premium was well worth it.
Barrin92 5y ago
Sorry, but why exactly do you want other users to be deprived of software choice on iOS? Like how is that enhancing your experience? I get that people want to use Apple only software, in which case I'd understand why they don't want other software on the Apple Store, but how the hell is your experience worse if there is another store available on the phone? Just never use it? It's like as if Microsoft locked down Windows and the only option you have available is to install things through the Windows Store and someone goes "yeah that's why I use windows man, I don't want anyone to be able to install Steam". Has anyone ever argued this? how did it become a thing
- havernator 5y ago
  Apple can no longer force vendors who want access to iOS to play by the rules that I want them to be forced to play by, is the main risk of adding more stores. I bought iOS devices in part for the effects of that leverage—I chose that. It's also a choice.
  - Barrin92 5y ago
    I understand that's what you want, I want to know why you want that. Apple being able to exercise market power is bad for you, it means that Apple can command higher prices that are being passed on to you. It's like saying you only want Walmart in your neighborhood, because that means Walmart can coerce its vendors. The only one who benefits from this is the platform owner. Competition is good (for you, the consumer, even if you only shop at one store!.
    - Gaelan 5y ago
      That's the thing: Apple's exercising market power does bring all sorts of benefits to users. Obvious examples include the new privacy rules they're imposing, in-app purchases allowing any subscriptions to be cancelled with zero hassle. If Apple allowed other app stores, Facebook would almost certainly move to one that let them produce a far more invasive app. And the vast majority of the users will just download Facebook from the new store, because most people (myself included, tbh) value convenience over any absolutist stances about the software they use—see the past several decades of the free software movement. The net result: Apple losing their monopoly means a huge influx of user-hostile behavior in apps. Now, you're not wrong either—Apple does, in some cases, abuse their monopoly, and probably takes more of a cut than is fair from IAPs. (Although, quite frankly, I'd be shocked if the money from cheaper IAPs went to reducing prices and not increasing profits.) So yes, Apple's behavior here is harmful in some ways, but it does good in others. Like pretty much everything in this world, it ain't black and white.
dariosalvi78 5y ago
the rules a company has undemocratically decided that affect millions of users. One day an app you like, or your life may even depend on, suddenly disappears because of some arbitrary, pointless rule is brought by that company, whose decisions are, I repeat, outside of democratic control.

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.

havernator 5y ago
Then choose something else? I mean, lobby for the change if you like, but you're eliminating my favored choice if you succeed.
- edrxty 5y ago
  We can both have our cake and eat it too, we just need either an unlocked bootloader, or the ability to sideload apps over an ADB-like usb interface. People who don't want that functionality will never know it's there and there won't be any decrease in security.
  - havernator 5y ago
    Unlocked boot loader would be fine. Sideloading's fine as long as the UI's bad enough that normal people can't, say, click a link on a website and keep clicking "OK" until the app's installed on their phone, and it also can't (somehow? Not sure how this restriction would be enforced) be scripted into a desktop-based store (as ADB could be, and likely would have been if alternative stores couldn't just be installed directly on Android devices). Essentially as long as nothing threatens Apple's ability to tell other companies, including other tech giants, to play ball or pound sand, I'm fine with it.
    - fossuser 5y ago
      It probably reduces security - if your phone gets taken by a government to be analyzed. Authoritarian governments would probably require side loaded apps.
    - jjav 5y ago
      > Essentially as long as nothing threatens Apple's ability to tell other companies, including other tech giants, to play ball or pound sand, I'm fine with it. Is your premise is that the vast majority of iOS users want the Apple control of apps exactly as it is today? If that premise is true, then having additional app stores available will not change your experience at all. The vast majority, as you assert, of iOS users will want no part in the alternative app stores, thus the Apple app store retains dominance and Apple doesn't need to change their behavior at all. So nothing changes for you. And the few oddballs who want to run non-Apple-approved software, still can, but they'll be a fringe. But if you're worried that there will be a mass exodus to the non-Apple app store, (if that was allowed) then I'm hearing that there is in fact large percentages of unhappy users, which is itself proof that removing control from Apple is required. What doesn't make sense it simultaneously assert that nearly all iOS users are happy with the Apple iron fist but large percentage of them are itching to break away from it the second they could. One or the other can be true, not both.
  - macintux 5y ago
    As soon as Apple offers that, companies like Facebook will tell their users that in order to install their apps, they have to sideload it. And people will go willingly into that dark night.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
hugi 5y ago
Sounds like you don't want an iPhone. So buy a different phone that does what you want.
- edrxty 5y ago
  I have several in fact, including the PinePhone which I quite like but isn't really ready for daily use. The issue is Apple is developing a monopoly on high end hardware and there are fewer reasonable options by the day.
  - leadingthenet 5y ago
    And there’s a reason for that. You’re making the mistake of thinking Apple’s special sauce is the hardware. It’s not. It’s the experience.
    - shawnz 5y ago
      I don't think they were making any kind of claim about Apple's "special sauce", only that Apple has a monopoly on high-end hardware, which is true.
      - fossuser 5y ago
        It is a little weird though. - Apple has built a world wide empire selling these products in this way people seem to like - As a result Apple has funneled that money and made world class hardware that's better than everyone else and leads in security/privacy - Therefore we should force them to break their model because the others that didn't follow suit have hardware that sucks That's not the most charitable interpretation, but there's some truth to it. There’s some extra irony that the others in this case fuck over their users by leveraging their data to target ads.
        leadingthenet 5y ago
        Yes, thank you. That's the idea I wanted to express, but only managed to do so in a much less capable way.

theli0nheart 5y ago

> ~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. Scams are rampant in the App Store. Give an unlocked iPhone to a 5 year old and they'll spend $1000 before you know it. This is not something worth defending. https://9to5mac.com/2021/02/12/developer-reveals-fake-app-store-reviews-and-scams/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/02/12/developer-reveals-fake-app-st...

havernator 5y ago
Pointing out one bad thing doesn't change a bunch of other good things, nor does adding more app stores seem like a useful solution to the problem raised.
- 8note 5y ago
  Really it's that adding more app stores doesn't remove those things either. Even with things going through apple, you don't have a safe and consistent payments scheme. With more app stores, you can still get every app that's available on the Apple app store, just as you can now. You may not have access to every app, but you don't today either

efraim 5y ago

You could very easily not install any other store or use any other payment system if you don't want them. You can keep your device 100 % Apple approved even if there exist alternatives. Why take that choice away from others?

havernator 5y ago
It could fragment the Apple software ecosystem. Since a non-fragmented ecosystem is what I want, I don't like that. Add more stores and my choice to buy into a unified platform is at risk.
- fredophile 5y ago
  Why is fragmentation a problem? There's already fragmentation of the smartphone software ecosystem. How is an app that ships on iOS but not the apple store any different to you than an app that doesn't ship on iOS at all? Either way if you choose to only buy apps through apple you can't get it.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    Fragmentation means that many apps I want would no longer be available through a vendor that I trust. No, that trust isn't blind or absolute. Yes, I recognise that Apple's review process is patchy at best—but most developers also fear getting on the wrong side of them and THAT alone has been pretty damn effective at keeping most apps under control.
    - fredophile 5y ago
      I'm not convinced this is as big a problem as you think it is. If I chose iOS over Android specifically for privacy reasons I'd be interested in knowing what companies avoid the app store to bypass their privacy restrictions. Do you really want to use a product from a company that would do that as soon as they have the chance or would you rather label them as untrustworthy and find an alternative?

shawnz 5y ago

What if they change their mind about the rules and their vision becomes inconsistent with what you want? You'll have no recourse and vendor lock-in will prevent you from switching platforms

hugi 5y ago
Wat? No. I'd buy another phone. There's plenty of choices.
- shawnz 5y ago
  It will be inconvenient and even impossible to migrate some things (for example contacts, iMessage history, app data). Espcially consider how difficult it would be for a novice user to migrate. And what are those other choices? Presumably you are not considering Android devices.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    It's not Apple's fault if Android devices aren't suitable alternatives.
    - shawnz 5y ago
      Of course not. But the limited selection of alternatives certainly adds to the pain of switching platforms. Therefore it's not so simple to "just buy another phone".
      - simondotau 5y ago
        I wholeheartedly agree with that. I just find it difficult to blame Apple when the accusation is that the competition sucks.
        shawnz 5y ago
        That's not the accusation. The accusation is that disallowing sideloading and forcing all customers to observe a single philosophy is especially big of a risk to the user considering that there's little competition. The fix isn't for Apple to create better competition, it's to allow sideloading. I am not saying it's their "fault" for having a lack of competition, that is just a reality of the market they are in.

AnthonyMouse 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. The same would still be true of all the apps in the App Store. There would just be other stores. You wouldn't have to use them. Other people could. The issue here is that many people want the hardware or the OS without the App Store. If you give it to them, "people who only use the Apple App Store" will be a smaller number of people and Apple will have less leverage. That's the point of prohibiting anti-competitive practices. Apple does a lot of things with that leverage that are bad. Like prohibiting apps that compete with theirs (e.g. browser engines), and imposing political censorship in authoritarian countries, and extracting 30% from captive developers. You presumably want Apple to have the leverage because then they can use it against e.g. Facebook. If everybody on iOS thinks like you then you win -- everybody only uses the App Store even though other stores are available and Apple still has all the same leverage. But if most of the people disagree with you, right now you're holding them hostage. Forcing them to use only the App Store even though they don't want to, so that the world's largest corporation can have more leverage.

havernator 5y ago
I'd care about this a lot less if the government first outlawed most personal data collection & hoarding (by tech companies and others) before we go destroying the libertarian solution to this (outsource regulation to a company, which is what I'm choosing to do, given the alternatives)
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  It's not really destroying it. You can still refuse to install any apps not approved by Apple, even if other people do. It might even be a good test. If Facebook decides they can't be in Apple's store even though the app is free and there is no government pressure for Apple to block it, you might take pause to ask why and decide that you don't want that app.
  - encryptluks2 5y ago

fredophile 5y ago

Would you be willing to pay a premium for that? What if Apple allowed other stores and simultaneously allowed apps to sell things for more on their store than they charge on other stores? Then an app maker could release on both and charge more to account for Apple's cut and any extra expenses they have releasing on their store.

simondotau 5y ago
> Would you be willing to pay a premium for that? That's literally what millions of customers do, whether they do so explicitly or not.
- fredophile 5y ago
  Could you explain what you mean about customers paying a premium today? I don't think any apps that are on iOS and other platforms charge more for iOS. I also don't believe an iPhone costs more than a similarly high end Android phone. Where's the premium?
  - simondotau 5y ago
    Those very few ultra-premium models are exceptions which prove the rule; a few ultra-expensive, ultra-premium halo products for price-insensitive customers. Android phones are almost always superior value for money.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      iPhones start at $400, and come with 5+ years of prompt software updates.
  - havernator 5y ago
    Some definitely do charge more for e.g. subscriptions on iOS than they do if you go through their website. They can't advertise the website option in their app, but it can exist. Last time I made that mistake the site's subscription management interface was rather... uh, minimum viable product. Switching to paying the Apple premium was well worth it.

Barrin92 5y ago

Sorry, but why exactly do you want other users to be deprived of software choice on iOS? Like how is that enhancing your experience? I get that people want to use Apple only software, in which case I'd understand why they don't want other software on the Apple Store, but how the hell is your experience worse if there is another store available on the phone? Just never use it? It's like as if Microsoft locked down Windows and the only option you have available is to install things through the Windows Store and someone goes "yeah that's why I use windows man, I don't want anyone to be able to install Steam". Has anyone ever argued this? how did it become a thing

havernator 5y ago
Apple can no longer force vendors who want access to iOS to play by the rules that I want them to be forced to play by, is the main risk of adding more stores. I bought iOS devices in part for the effects of that leverage—I chose that. It's also a choice.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  I understand that's what you want, I want to know why you want that. Apple being able to exercise market power is bad for you, it means that Apple can command higher prices that are being passed on to you. It's like saying you only want Walmart in your neighborhood, because that means Walmart can coerce its vendors. The only one who benefits from this is the platform owner. Competition is good (for you, the consumer, even if you only shop at one store!.
  - Gaelan 5y ago
    That's the thing: Apple's exercising market power does bring all sorts of benefits to users. Obvious examples include the new privacy rules they're imposing, in-app purchases allowing any subscriptions to be cancelled with zero hassle. If Apple allowed other app stores, Facebook would almost certainly move to one that let them produce a far more invasive app. And the vast majority of the users will just download Facebook from the new store, because most people (myself included, tbh) value convenience over any absolutist stances about the software they use—see the past several decades of the free software movement. The net result: Apple losing their monopoly means a huge influx of user-hostile behavior in apps. Now, you're not wrong either—Apple does, in some cases, abuse their monopoly, and probably takes more of a cut than is fair from IAPs. (Although, quite frankly, I'd be shocked if the money from cheaper IAPs went to reducing prices and not increasing profits.) So yes, Apple's behavior here is harmful in some ways, but it does good in others. Like pretty much everything in this world, it ain't black and white.

dariosalvi78 5y ago

the rules a company has undemocratically decided that affect millions of users. One day an app you like, or your life may even depend on, suddenly disappears because of some arbitrary, pointless rule is brought by that company, whose decisions are, I repeat, outside of democratic control.