3 ms·

You can sideload on Android and yet there are stories all the time about Google removing some app and destroying some ones whole business. It's false to say tha

You can sideload on Android and yet there are stories all the time about Google removing some app and destroying some ones whole business. It's false to say that multiple avenues for app installation destroys apples leverage over app makers. The tyranny of the default is very real. Facebook is not about to move to the epic store so it can violate your privacy more. Besides, there doesn't need to necessarily be a competing store. Even the ability to install from a website would be enough IMO. Apple can put up a scary message before you install a non app store app, and epic can side load their app. If you want the benefit of the app store, you can pay the 30%. I suspect most developers would. Additionally, you still have to get your app signed through apples developer program, so if they revoke your certificate, they could still destroy you. And I think we can let go of the idea that apple curates it's apps for safety and security. It's been shown repeatedly that they let scams through all the time, while scrutinizing and removing apps over tiny mistakes around phrasing of payment.

ericmay 5y ago
> It's false to say that multiple avenues for app installation destroys apples leverage over app makers. Sorry, I just completely disagree. Google's Play Store or w/e it is on Android is the fox in the hen house. Google is one of the offenders that Apple is making disclose data collection practices! I don't think they situation is exactly comparable and it's different enough that the prior precedent may not be applicable. > Apple can put up a scary message before you install a non app store app, and epic can side load their app. Yea until that becomes anti-competitive. Besides, that makes the user experience bad. Why do any of this at all? If you're sophisticated enough to want to side load apps, you're sophisticated enough to jailbreak your iPhone and get what you want. I can already see it. You see some app in the App Store - you download it thinking it's an app but it's just a message: "Want to download our app? Go to our website!". Then I get all these pop-up warnings, download some malware on accident, whatever. IMO (and I'll vote with my dollars at least) it's just a dumb experiment to run. I see 0 benefit in doing any of this. 0. > It's been shown repeatedly that they let scams through all the time Failures like this aren't indicative of overall policy so I don't really see the point here. (also hey there fellow Eric :) )
- ericwooley 5y ago
  > Google's Play Store or w/e it is on Android is the fox in the hen house. Google is one of the offenders that Apple is making disclose data collection practices! I don't think they situation is exactly comparable and it's different enough that the prior precedent may not be applicable. You don't think that it's a a good comparison to compare the only other large scale play store which implements the exact behavior I'm talking about? And googles bad behaviors, and Google does have bad behaviors, is irrelevant to this conversation. > Yea until that becomes anti-competitive. How would that be anti competitive? > If you're sophisticated enough to want to side load apps, you're sophisticated enough to jailbreak your iPhone and get what you want. Jailbreaking your phone is a huge pita, even if you are technical, and it forces you to always be several versions behind. Not to mention very few companies will be making apps for jailbroken phones. This isn't a realistic alternative. If jailbreaking your phone were allowed by apple, then maybe it would be a reasonable compromise. > Failures like this aren't indicative of overall policy so I don't really see the point here. It is very indicative of the over all policy. It's very clear that the app review process is a tool for stifling competition, and that apple is abusing it. -- The big argument I see is that the app store provides value, so the 30 percent is justified. If that's true, let apps side load, and keep the 30 percent fee, and let people side load. If it's truly worth the 30 percent, very few apps would switch away from the app store. If it's not worth 30 percent, then we have introduced a mechanism for competition and it's healthier for the whole ecosystem. > (also hey there fellow Eric :) ) Spelled the same and everything
  - ericmay 5y ago
    > You don't think that it's a a good comparison to compare the only other large scale play store which implements the exact behavior I'm talking about? Well, I didn't it wasn't good, just that I wasn't sure it's comparable. Google is a software company, and has tons of apps (Youtube, Gmail, Maps, etc.) that are big-time heavy hitters that exist on both their App Store and the Apple one. And given that they own the Play Store and aren't inherently inclined to follow Apple's privacy rules, I think it's hard to draw an exact comparison between the two. > How would that be anti competitive? I think people would start to say it discourages users from participating in a free market or something along those lines. But I also don't think the Apple App Store is anti-competitive. > It is very indicative of the over all policy. It's very clear that the app review process is a tool for stifling competition, and that apple is abusing it Sorry, I don't have much to say here that's isn't us going back and forth with. I couldn't disagree more and it's unlikely we'll reach any consensus. > The big argument I see is that the app store provides value, so the 30 percent is justified. I think that's one argument, but it's not the only one. > If that's true, let apps side load, and keep the 30 percent fee, and let people side load. > If it's truly worth the 30 percent, very few apps would switch away from the app store. If it's not worth 30 percent, then we have introduced a mechanism for competition and it's healthier for the whole ecosystem. You'd have to convince me that, say, tracking users and avoiding Apple's privacy and security rules wouldn't be worth more for app makers. I think they're likely to change, to the detriment of users. So I'll personally oppose any changes here. TBH I've done a lot of thinking on this topic, I'm pretty passionate about it, and I think I've arrived at a conclusion that is just and fair (in my view) and I'm unlikely to change my opinion in really any way - more likely to double down on it. I want to bring that up just to let you know where I'm coming from here. Thanks

ericmay 5y ago

> It's false to say that multiple avenues for app installation destroys apples leverage over app makers. Sorry, I just completely disagree. Google's Play Store or w/e it is on Android is the fox in the hen house. Google is one of the offenders that Apple is making disclose data collection practices! I don't think they situation is exactly comparable and it's different enough that the prior precedent may not be applicable. > Apple can put up a scary message before you install a non app store app, and epic can side load their app. Yea until that becomes anti-competitive. Besides, that makes the user experience bad. Why do any of this at all? If you're sophisticated enough to want to side load apps, you're sophisticated enough to jailbreak your iPhone and get what you want. I can already see it. You see some app in the App Store - you download it thinking it's an app but it's just a message: "Want to download our app? Go to our website!". Then I get all these pop-up warnings, download some malware on accident, whatever. IMO (and I'll vote with my dollars at least) it's just a dumb experiment to run. I see 0 benefit in doing any of this. 0. > It's been shown repeatedly that they let scams through all the time Failures like this aren't indicative of overall policy so I don't really see the point here. (also hey there fellow Eric :) )

ericwooley 5y ago
> Google's Play Store or w/e it is on Android is the fox in the hen house. Google is one of the offenders that Apple is making disclose data collection practices! I don't think they situation is exactly comparable and it's different enough that the prior precedent may not be applicable. You don't think that it's a a good comparison to compare the only other large scale play store which implements the exact behavior I'm talking about? And googles bad behaviors, and Google does have bad behaviors, is irrelevant to this conversation. > Yea until that becomes anti-competitive. How would that be anti competitive? > If you're sophisticated enough to want to side load apps, you're sophisticated enough to jailbreak your iPhone and get what you want. Jailbreaking your phone is a huge pita, even if you are technical, and it forces you to always be several versions behind. Not to mention very few companies will be making apps for jailbroken phones. This isn't a realistic alternative. If jailbreaking your phone were allowed by apple, then maybe it would be a reasonable compromise. > Failures like this aren't indicative of overall policy so I don't really see the point here. It is very indicative of the over all policy. It's very clear that the app review process is a tool for stifling competition, and that apple is abusing it. -- The big argument I see is that the app store provides value, so the 30 percent is justified. If that's true, let apps side load, and keep the 30 percent fee, and let people side load. If it's truly worth the 30 percent, very few apps would switch away from the app store. If it's not worth 30 percent, then we have introduced a mechanism for competition and it's healthier for the whole ecosystem. > (also hey there fellow Eric :) ) Spelled the same and everything
- ericmay 5y ago
  > You don't think that it's a a good comparison to compare the only other large scale play store which implements the exact behavior I'm talking about? Well, I didn't it wasn't good, just that I wasn't sure it's comparable. Google is a software company, and has tons of apps (Youtube, Gmail, Maps, etc.) that are big-time heavy hitters that exist on both their App Store and the Apple one. And given that they own the Play Store and aren't inherently inclined to follow Apple's privacy rules, I think it's hard to draw an exact comparison between the two. > How would that be anti competitive? I think people would start to say it discourages users from participating in a free market or something along those lines. But I also don't think the Apple App Store is anti-competitive. > It is very indicative of the over all policy. It's very clear that the app review process is a tool for stifling competition, and that apple is abusing it Sorry, I don't have much to say here that's isn't us going back and forth with. I couldn't disagree more and it's unlikely we'll reach any consensus. > The big argument I see is that the app store provides value, so the 30 percent is justified. I think that's one argument, but it's not the only one. > If that's true, let apps side load, and keep the 30 percent fee, and let people side load. > If it's truly worth the 30 percent, very few apps would switch away from the app store. If it's not worth 30 percent, then we have introduced a mechanism for competition and it's healthier for the whole ecosystem. You'd have to convince me that, say, tracking users and avoiding Apple's privacy and security rules wouldn't be worth more for app makers. I think they're likely to change, to the detriment of users. So I'll personally oppose any changes here. TBH I've done a lot of thinking on this topic, I'm pretty passionate about it, and I think I've arrived at a conclusion that is just and fair (in my view) and I'm unlikely to change my opinion in really any way - more likely to double down on it. I want to bring that up just to let you know where I'm coming from here. Thanks