7 ms·

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 current

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).
  - Mindwipe 5y ago
    > There are competing video services to Netflix which are accessible through the web browser on iOS. There really aren't, because the HTML5 DRM implementation isn't reliable enough.
Mindwipe 5y ago
> Your liberty is not at stake here, nor any real detriment to your quality of life really. Yes it is. iOS controls a sufficient part of US revenue that wider ecosystem effects on what is permitted speech come directly from the app store terms, or at least in some cases about trying to second guess the inconsistently applied, arbitrary and vague as hell App Store rules. We've got direct testimony from all sorts of app makers that what speech they do and do not censor on the platform (especially around sex, impacting the fundamental liberties and safety of sex workers, queer communities, artists and educators) is directly because their business is such that they need to watch the terms of the app store. We've seen examples in China of Apple blocking apps that literally lead to people failing to escape authoritarian governments and them disappearing, quite possibly to their death. Liberty is the fundamental reason that a singular control of what software can be run on mobile device is a thing too dangerous to be allowed to exist. Competition law is probably the most expedient route to fix it, but a centralised app store should be a criminal act on it's own merits.
- yossarian1408 5y ago
  Except there are no negative rights being infringed upon here. You can hardly appeal to natural law for the right to publish what you want on someone else's platform. Liberty is defined as being 'free from', not 'free to'. > We've seen examples in China of Apple blocking apps that literally lead to people failing to escape authoritarian governments and them disappearing, quite possibly to their death. This seems very flimsy but I would be genuinely interested in reading up on this, if you could provide a source/reference. Either way, this is a great reason not to use and publish on the iOS platform. But the irony of suggesting government overreach as a cure for the ails of extreme government overreach in another country is not lost on me.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    I want freedom from Apple controlling iPhone that is now my property. Where is my liberty?
    - yossarian1408 5y ago
modo_mario 5y ago
>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. Would you say the same if the car market suddenly coalesced into a duopoly and the car companies become very restrictive? Would you defend only them being allowed to do basic repairs in the interest of safety? One going as far as saying you need to buy their tires or tires from companies that pay them tribute or the car won't start, their seat covers unless you manage disable some weird detection, etc The other allowing such stuff just making it a pain. Would you then say a company just needs to pop up and meet this demand? Despite all the stuff involved and the size of cars would be a lot lot easier. Because at least cars don't necessarily need an ecosystem, userbase and developer community outside of the company to get of the ground and get sales. As soon as you apply these things the other industries they start sounding ridiculous and hilariously anticompetitive but with phones people for some reason have come to accept it.
- fossuser 5y ago
  I don’t totally agree with your analogy framing. My take: Car company requires third party manufacturers to adhere to its quality standards and pass review before being installed. The car company installs all of the third party parts for you and distributes them globally, handling payment, they charge 30% (or 15%) to the third party for this. If you refuse to adhere to their quality standards they refuse to install your third party accessory. Drivers can only get approved service from the car company. Seems fine? Probably an exclusive benefit for owners of that car. I could see people choosing that car because of this.
  - echelon 5y ago
    That is not right at all! The world should not work like that. Your car, your choice. You want to install an aftermarket supercharger and fish fins? Your prerogative. Toyota and Apple have no right to tell you what to do.
    - fossuser 5y ago
      Then you can buy a different car from the other company that doesn't have this policy. You can even still hack the fins on your car despite the policy, but it might be difficult to do yourself and it'll void your warranty.
CRConrad 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 don't have to drive on the highway either, so I assume you're fine with having that freedom removed too.

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).
- Mindwipe 5y ago
  > There are competing video services to Netflix which are accessible through the web browser on iOS. There really aren't, because the HTML5 DRM implementation isn't reliable enough.

Mindwipe 5y ago

> Your liberty is not at stake here, nor any real detriment to your quality of life really. Yes it is. iOS controls a sufficient part of US revenue that wider ecosystem effects on what is permitted speech come directly from the app store terms, or at least in some cases about trying to second guess the inconsistently applied, arbitrary and vague as hell App Store rules. We've got direct testimony from all sorts of app makers that what speech they do and do not censor on the platform (especially around sex, impacting the fundamental liberties and safety of sex workers, queer communities, artists and educators) is directly because their business is such that they need to watch the terms of the app store. We've seen examples in China of Apple blocking apps that literally lead to people failing to escape authoritarian governments and them disappearing, quite possibly to their death. Liberty is the fundamental reason that a singular control of what software can be run on mobile device is a thing too dangerous to be allowed to exist. Competition law is probably the most expedient route to fix it, but a centralised app store should be a criminal act on it's own merits.

yossarian1408 5y ago
Except there are no negative rights being infringed upon here. You can hardly appeal to natural law for the right to publish what you want on someone else's platform. Liberty is defined as being 'free from', not 'free to'. > We've seen examples in China of Apple blocking apps that literally lead to people failing to escape authoritarian governments and them disappearing, quite possibly to their death. This seems very flimsy but I would be genuinely interested in reading up on this, if you could provide a source/reference. Either way, this is a great reason not to use and publish on the iOS platform. But the irony of suggesting government overreach as a cure for the ails of extreme government overreach in another country is not lost on me.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  I want freedom from Apple controlling iPhone that is now my property. Where is my liberty?
  - yossarian1408 5y ago

modo_mario 5y ago

>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. Would you say the same if the car market suddenly coalesced into a duopoly and the car companies become very restrictive? Would you defend only them being allowed to do basic repairs in the interest of safety? One going as far as saying you need to buy their tires or tires from companies that pay them tribute or the car won't start, their seat covers unless you manage disable some weird detection, etc The other allowing such stuff just making it a pain. Would you then say a company just needs to pop up and meet this demand? Despite all the stuff involved and the size of cars would be a lot lot easier. Because at least cars don't necessarily need an ecosystem, userbase and developer community outside of the company to get of the ground and get sales. As soon as you apply these things the other industries they start sounding ridiculous and hilariously anticompetitive but with phones people for some reason have come to accept it.

fossuser 5y ago
I don’t totally agree with your analogy framing. My take: Car company requires third party manufacturers to adhere to its quality standards and pass review before being installed. The car company installs all of the third party parts for you and distributes them globally, handling payment, they charge 30% (or 15%) to the third party for this. If you refuse to adhere to their quality standards they refuse to install your third party accessory. Drivers can only get approved service from the car company. Seems fine? Probably an exclusive benefit for owners of that car. I could see people choosing that car because of this.
- echelon 5y ago
  That is not right at all! The world should not work like that. Your car, your choice. You want to install an aftermarket supercharger and fish fins? Your prerogative. Toyota and Apple have no right to tell you what to do.
  - fossuser 5y ago
    Then you can buy a different car from the other company that doesn't have this policy. You can even still hack the fins on your car despite the policy, but it might be difficult to do yourself and it'll void your warranty.

CRConrad 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 don't have to drive on the highway either, so I assume you're fine with having that freedom removed too.