5 ms·

Sure I understand that, but personally as an iPhone user I don't care. Users benefit from consolidation in the app store space, it much easier for me to have al

by simonh 6y ago

Sure I understand that, but personally as an iPhone user I don't care. Users benefit from consolidation in the app store space, it much easier for me to have all my apps come from one app store with one set of rules and policies. I benefit from the fact Facebook can't bypass the App Store rules for security and privacy through side loading and an alternate store. Why do you want to take that away from me? Also as a user I don't see any evidence that I am suffering from this, are app prices significantly lower on Android App Stores other than the Play Store? The vast majority of Apps are free, or rally pretty cheap. Show me the evidence. I think the idea that competition in this area will benefit users is highly dubious. Does it really benefit users on Android? Side loading didn't work out for Fortnite very well. At the end of the day it's Apple's product and they get to decide what code they do or don't write and what features they do or don't support and how they work. They get to decide, and are accountable for the security architecture. As long as hey are meeting trade, advertising and safety standards it's up to them.

simion314 6y ago
So if you personally won't benefit from it you should not be against someone else benefiting right? If you want to buy Cyberpunk 2077 you have the option of at least 3 stores, I did not see any Steam user getting damaged by the fact the game is on other stores too.
- ericmay 6y ago
  As the topic has been beat to death a million times, the danger is that adding additional app stores will result in decreases in the exact thing the OP likes the App Store for. All of the hard work fighting for privacy, security, etc., goes out the window. Facebook will put their app on a 3rd party store and now we’re back to them and others abusing privacy and tracking users and not sharing what and how they’re tracking. Apple’s benevolent dictator approach has revealed some nasty stuff these companies and others were doing. With a third party app, companies don’t have to tell me how they are using my data or give me an anonymous sign in option. Naturally they’re fighting back. The App Store gives Apple a way to collectively bargain against app makers on behalf of users. Take that away and we lose what little power we have.
  - simonh 6y ago
    Exactly, I like the fact that if Facebook want to be on my phone they have to meet Apple's security and privacy standards. That directly benefits me, and it's one of the reasons I buy iPhones. Forcing Apple to change their product to allow side loading and alternative stores takes that away from me.
    - d1sxeyes 6y ago
      The question really is do you think that it's fair to expect app developers to meet the criteria and then pay the Apple tax? To be clear, I'm not decided on my opinion yet, I can see merits on both sides of the argument.
      - simion314 6y ago
        Maybe we need to consider users, they are the larger number of victims. Should information be hidden from them? Should the user not decide if the wants to be tracked? Should the user not be allowed to donate to a developer without giving Apple a big cut?
    - simion314 6y ago
      The standards could be in the SDK and the sandbox. Like you don't allow location data or access to photos to any apo (not even Apple ones). So even if I sideload an app or start a Apple app I should get same prompts("Do you want to let this app ignore your firewall rules? This might be insecure The app dev is "Facebook/Apple/Unkown) . And if Apple does not like Facebook tracking people maybe they should lobby for anti-tracking laws. They should also not allow lootboxes, gems or other gaming related shit (to be consistent with their puritanical PR spin)
      - briandear 6y ago
        Why does there need to be anti-tracking laws? What if some people want to be tracked in exchange for a cheaper product? Apple allows people that value that to buy that.
- simonh 6y ago
  Is the App Store really an obstacle to apps getting on the iOS platform? Is it artificially raising prices? That's what matters from a consumer interests perspective, are they losing out or are they getting ripped off. If the answer is no, there's no case to answer. The reason for companies to exist and develop and sell products isn't to benefit their competitors.
  - eyesee 6y ago
    If anything I think the App Store has helped to drive the purchase price of software to $0. This in turn has driven every software vendor to either a subscription pricing model or a (privacy-invasive) ad model. Open question on if this is net beneficial to consumers or developers, but it could also be considered an economic inevitability when MC = MR = 0.
    - simion314 6y ago
      I think maybe the ads helped this more, and what helped that is probably some ad library the developer can drop in the application. What kind of free apps are there ? 1 some open source software that is compatible with iOS store license 2 trials or apps with pay to unlock stuff 3 free with ads So IMO even if you have 3 stores this will not change. But you could get finally GPL software and apps/games that target adults.
  - thayne 6y ago
    > Is the App Store really an obstacle to apps getting on the iOS platform? Yes. A tremendous amount of effort goes into playing the game of guessing what you need to do to pass the approval process. And I don't mean things like tracking. I mean things like removing any links to your website, because users could buy a subscription there instead of on through the app. > Is it artificially raising prices? Absolutely. That 30% has to come from somewhere. And since you aren't allowed to charge more for an app purchase than a subscription online, that means it raises the price for everyone. Not just people who use the app.
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
>Sure I understand that, but personally as an iPhone user I don't care. I suspect the law is not structured so as to take your personal interest into consideration. >I think the idea that competition in this area will benefit users is highly dubious. this seems a very American concept of anti-trust, benefiting consumers is only one part of what concerns European anti-trust, in this case the question is does Apple Music have an unfair advantage on the platform against other music services - the answer would appear to be yes, for actually two points - 1. because they don't have the pay the fee the other music services have to pay 2. because they are not artificially restricted from communicating alternative methods of subscribing to their customers (because they don't need to because they are Apple)

by simonh 6y ago

simion314 6y ago

So if you personally won't benefit from it you should not be against someone else benefiting right? If you want to buy Cyberpunk 2077 you have the option of at least 3 stores, I did not see any Steam user getting damaged by the fact the game is on other stores too.

ericmay 6y ago
As the topic has been beat to death a million times, the danger is that adding additional app stores will result in decreases in the exact thing the OP likes the App Store for. All of the hard work fighting for privacy, security, etc., goes out the window. Facebook will put their app on a 3rd party store and now we’re back to them and others abusing privacy and tracking users and not sharing what and how they’re tracking. Apple’s benevolent dictator approach has revealed some nasty stuff these companies and others were doing. With a third party app, companies don’t have to tell me how they are using my data or give me an anonymous sign in option. Naturally they’re fighting back. The App Store gives Apple a way to collectively bargain against app makers on behalf of users. Take that away and we lose what little power we have.
- simonh 6y ago
  Exactly, I like the fact that if Facebook want to be on my phone they have to meet Apple's security and privacy standards. That directly benefits me, and it's one of the reasons I buy iPhones. Forcing Apple to change their product to allow side loading and alternative stores takes that away from me.
  - d1sxeyes 6y ago
    The question really is do you think that it's fair to expect app developers to meet the criteria and then pay the Apple tax? To be clear, I'm not decided on my opinion yet, I can see merits on both sides of the argument.
    - simion314 6y ago
      Maybe we need to consider users, they are the larger number of victims. Should information be hidden from them? Should the user not decide if the wants to be tracked? Should the user not be allowed to donate to a developer without giving Apple a big cut?
  - simion314 6y ago
    The standards could be in the SDK and the sandbox. Like you don't allow location data or access to photos to any apo (not even Apple ones). So even if I sideload an app or start a Apple app I should get same prompts("Do you want to let this app ignore your firewall rules? This might be insecure The app dev is "Facebook/Apple/Unkown) . And if Apple does not like Facebook tracking people maybe they should lobby for anti-tracking laws. They should also not allow lootboxes, gems or other gaming related shit (to be consistent with their puritanical PR spin)
    - briandear 6y ago
      Why does there need to be anti-tracking laws? What if some people want to be tracked in exchange for a cheaper product? Apple allows people that value that to buy that.
simonh 6y ago
Is the App Store really an obstacle to apps getting on the iOS platform? Is it artificially raising prices? That's what matters from a consumer interests perspective, are they losing out or are they getting ripped off. If the answer is no, there's no case to answer. The reason for companies to exist and develop and sell products isn't to benefit their competitors.
- eyesee 6y ago
  If anything I think the App Store has helped to drive the purchase price of software to $0. This in turn has driven every software vendor to either a subscription pricing model or a (privacy-invasive) ad model. Open question on if this is net beneficial to consumers or developers, but it could also be considered an economic inevitability when MC = MR = 0.
  - simion314 6y ago
    I think maybe the ads helped this more, and what helped that is probably some ad library the developer can drop in the application. What kind of free apps are there ? 1 some open source software that is compatible with iOS store license 2 trials or apps with pay to unlock stuff 3 free with ads So IMO even if you have 3 stores this will not change. But you could get finally GPL software and apps/games that target adults.
- thayne 6y ago
  > Is the App Store really an obstacle to apps getting on the iOS platform? Yes. A tremendous amount of effort goes into playing the game of guessing what you need to do to pass the approval process. And I don't mean things like tracking. I mean things like removing any links to your website, because users could buy a subscription there instead of on through the app. > Is it artificially raising prices? Absolutely. That 30% has to come from somewhere. And since you aren't allowed to charge more for an app purchase than a subscription online, that means it raises the price for everyone. Not just people who use the app.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

>Sure I understand that, but personally as an iPhone user I don't care. I suspect the law is not structured so as to take your personal interest into consideration. >I think the idea that competition in this area will benefit users is highly dubious. this seems a very American concept of anti-trust, benefiting consumers is only one part of what concerns European anti-trust, in this case the question is does Apple Music have an unfair advantage on the platform against other music services - the answer would appear to be yes, for actually two points - 1. because they don't have the pay the fee the other music services have to pay 2. because they are not artificially restricted from communicating alternative methods of subscribing to their customers (because they don't need to because they are Apple)