6 ms·
EU Competition Chief all but confirmed Apple to be forced to allow 2nd App Store
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- LatteLazy 5y agoSounds fair
- criddell 5y agoSame rules for game consoles as well?
- LatteLazy 5y agoI think there is a slight difference because initially the hardware is sold at a loss for consoles. Manufacturers should be able to recoup that. But broadly, yes.
- jaywalk 5y agoWhether or not the manufacturer sold it at a loss, I still own the device. Their accounting doesn't change that fact, and it can't be a consideration.
- LatteLazy 5y agoThat's a fair stance to take. I certainly think their lockdowns should be limited if not banned completely...
- criddell 5y agoI don't think any of the major consoles are sold at a loss when you look at the entire run of it. If they are sold at a loss, that could be seen as anti-competitive move that keeps competing consoles out and game prices high. Perhaps the competition chief should look into as well.
- Ekaros 5y agoWhy not. Don't see any reason why that equipment shouldn't be free as well.
- thechao 5y agoI like it! Also, obviously applies to in-game stores like in Roblox, Fortnite, etc.
- hajile 5y agoDefinitely yes. They’re just desktop hardware anyway. A new PlayStation or Xbox is all the more PC most people ever need. We could reduce e-waste by reducing the need for multiple, specialized machines. In the same way, I think I should be able to run a desktop by plugging in my phone. If a pi can do it, my iPhone definitely can.
- ArkanExplorer 5y agoApple's greed means that instead of getting 30%, or 10% (probably a reasonable commission for them to voluntarily move to), they will be getting 0%.
- epicureanideal 5y agoThat depends. I do feel somewhat more comfortable installing apps from the App Store due to their vetting process.
- Spartan-S63 5y agoWill it? As a former Android user, I never installed third-party app stores because they all sucked — whether it be poor app selection, poor curation, or just trying to shove their apps down my throat (looking at you Amazon Appstore). Likewise, even if Apple does have to open up their platform, I will not install another app store. I will trust Apple over anyone else to run a reputable store. Sure, they're not without fault, but I expect most others to do a far worse job. I think it'll be a performative action at best. It's good policy to not allow platform monopolies, but I don't think it'll be the downfall of Apple's commission that everyone thinks it will be.
- aequitas 5y agoI also would be really hesitant to install apps from other stores. Sideloaded or alternative store app's will also still be subject to OS's restrictions and available API's. It's not like Apple will allow rooted app's to be installed. The only things the new stores will have to offer is circumvention of the Apple Tax or review guidelines. The only benefit I see is that it wouldn't cost me $100 to build and sideload my own or open source app's. But in all these years I've never had the need for this (though this might sprawl up a bit with availability ofc). The only things I truly wanted where changes at an OS level so would still require a jailbreak or root. Like how the widget screen is covered for 50% by icons I don't use and can't remove/configure.
- gorbypark 5y agoIt’s free to download Xcode and compile open source apps yourself. You’ll have to resign them (open Xcode, reload on phone) once a week, though, and you can’t distribute the app to other phones. It’s only $100/yr if you want to publish to the App Store.
- anfilt 5y agoHow about just make it so they cant sell a device that is locked down from the owner. The fact the boot ROM will only run code signed by apple effectively lets apple retain the right of exclusion even after selling the device. At the very least a device owner should be able to load their own signing keys for the boot rom to use.
- josho 5y agoI like your solution better. Another App Store protects commerce. But a lot of the arguments are about protecting consumers. Your solution empowers consumers to truly do what they want. Instead of doing what an arbitrary App Store allows.
- Iv 5y agoI don't think both are incompatible. The EU competition chief talks about preserving competition, digital rights are also defended by EU and may reach that point as well.
- jonplackett 5y agoI would rather Apple just have to abide by some small changes to the current store: 1) Lower commission. I think even 15% would make almost everyone happy - Even Stripe will charge you 3% + 20p which is 23% on a $1 app! 2) No ban on telling customers they can subscribe a different way. Just that probably solves 99% of objections.
- pylon 5y agoIn addition to what you listed, I would have liked to see something about Apple not getting special rules when it comes to their own apps. For example Spotify does not have to pay 30% since Apple has a competing music service.
- rdudekul 5y agoAssume you are an owner of Apple stock and your networth depends on it. What should Apple do to minimize your risk?
- jonplackett 5y agoExactly what I just suggested. Surely control of the AppStore (ie. no 2nd store owned by Epic) is massively preferable to Apple long term. AppStore revenue isn't a massive part of their earnings. But control over their own hardware has to be right up there as a priority.
- threatofrain 5y agoI feel that only big apps are worth side loading, because only they have enough reputation to evaluate (like Fortnite); it's the small apps which have a credibility problem. I think small apps will even have a credibility problem on the official Apple app store, because, say, let's just consider an app which tries to be a better calendar. You download the app and you don't like it, but your entire calendar data history has basically been exfiltrated, and could be worth far more than whatever the price of software. This is true for almost all apps which would normally be seen simple and innocuous. Contacts. Mail. Messages. If we don't solve this credibility and privacy problem, I can't see how small players should compete in a way which is harmonious with user privacy concerns. This makes me only want Apple to have more domination. Domination to force every single app vendor to use Apple Pay. Domination to force every single app vendor to support Apple's anonymous account registration process. Domination to abide by Apple's new demands to inform the user of tracking.
- dogma1138 5y agoThis won’t help small players it would help the big ones like Facebook that would move to their own store in order to avoid Apple’s policies… I doubt that the EU would allow Apple to impose the same restrictions on the alternatives which means that privacy protections that aren’t enshrined within the OS will be the first ones to go.
- anfilt 5y agoI would not even use facebooks apps right now if you cared about your privacy. Also if you could sideload you could install firefox with its own engine allowing more finegrain control over browser settings in about:config or more privacy focused fork. This means if some reason you need facebook you can lock it down more than iOS does. Although the best solution is don't use facebook.
- dogma1138 5y agoYes and how many users would actually do that vs how many would be even further exploited by apps that bypass Apple’s policies? For example you can’t release an app right now that requires location services access including background or it won’t start not because you can’t develop one but because it won’t pass Apple’s store policies. Facebook might be shite for privacy in general but it can be much much worse if they are allowed to do w/e they want and they have a large enough userbase that it really doesn’t fucking matter if their EULA would force you to donate your first born to Zuck most people would still use it out of sheer peer pressure.
- dogma1138 5y agoNot having the ability to side load apps and having only one store is why I buy an iPhone in the first place.
- boardwaalk 5y agoThe app store is so well established at this point, do you think it’ll matter if there are more ways to get apps? Google doesn’t have a problem with it and they’ve allowed it forever.
- dogma1138 5y agoGoogle doesn’t enforce nearly as many constraints as Apple does. Do you think the same restrictions that Apple currently enforces on app developers would remain in place?
- Iv 5y agoWhy not? You reach far more people through the stores. Just check the PC gamedev scene. There is basically zero constraints on getting an app installed and users are used to it, yet devs jump through hoops to be published on Steam because it gives visibility and access to many desirable features. If only the abilities to use Apple Pay in-app or to use Apple's advertisement distribution system are probably a good enough reason for 80% of the existing apps to continue being on the store.
- dogma1138 5y agoSmall devs yes, Facebook no.
- LatteLazy 5y agoNo one will force you to use the other store, no one will make you side load apps. You can even voluntarily continue paying a higher commission, just post Apple cheques.
- 5y ago
- lucasmullens 5y agoI really wish their "2nd App Store" could just be the web. If they had some easy way to search for PWAs (on par with the App Store), and had better support for PWAs (on par with Android), PWAs could finally take off as the "write once, run anywhere" solution for apps instead of things like Flutter/React Native.
- fuu_dev 5y agoThe elephant in the room here is that apple controls the browser and app store and therefore dictates limitations/experience pwa gives to developers/users.
- Spartan-S63 5y agoNot to mention that PWAs are kludgy and provide significantly worse user experiences.
- mensetmanusman 5y agoActually excited at the prospect of Steam for the iPad. The new iPad is powerful enough to be a game console controlled by wireless keyboards, etc.
- dogma1138 5y agoIt won’t be Steam, it would be Google and Facebook and the CCP who would have their own stores on day one.
- FreezerburnV 5y agoI'm going to get downvoted to oblivion for this, and I say: bring it on, destroy my karma. I will not squelch my opinion when I care greatly about this. So: I legitimately hate this. I use an iPhone because I don't have the attention span (I'm ADHD) to manage things being fiddly with a ton of different choices. Because it's set up in such a way that it's much easier to live my daily life due to how Apple forces things to be done in general. (and don't get me wrong, I KNOW the App Store has problems that NEED to be solved) All this is going to do is make my phone into the nightmare that Android is for me. I've tried to use Android multiple times, and it ALWAYS ends up with me extremely frustrated. Get the heck away from my iPhone legislators. And people who literally constantly go on about "you don't have to side load an app" or "I should be able to do anything with my phone" PLEASE stop for 5 minutes to consider how a bullheaded move like this is going to massively disrupt not only my own life, but a lot of people's lives and make them more confusing and harder to manage. For example: People who don't know much about using a phone/tablet are going to have a harder time when Facebook becomes more hostile when they have their own store. Or if utility apps such as for parking put themselves in something like Facebook's store, suddenly you have NO CHOICE but to use that store and their app if you want to park somewhere with a meter. Such as when you're visiting another state for a vacation. Subscriptions are going to become a potential nightmare, and those scam apps that you can currently easily unsubscribe from their thing might become WAY HARDER to do because they're in some other store that doesn't tightly control that with an easy UI. I hate this. So much. Maybe I'll just go back to everything being on paper and use a flip phone for calls/texts if this garbage goes through and the doom scenario becomes real. It would have been a good run of having something usable.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- threatofrain 5y agoI also want a phone which is deliberately locked down for the folks in my family who don't care to exercise freedoms that takes nuance and confidence to navigate between the pros and the cons. If FB wants people to go outside the app store they will. FB has the power. I want every single app vendor to support Apple Pay because it's much safer and reveals far less private information. I want every single app vendor to support Apple's anonymous account registration process. I want every single app vendor to have to be approved to track users. I want every app to make recurring subscriptions easy to find. If this could happen without the side effect of Apple bullying companies into giving up revenue, that'd be great.
- eyesee 5y agoI'm curious on a technical level where Apple would go if forced to allow third party stores. Presumably they would still control the keys for notarization and entitlements used by apps, and still require developers to purchase Apple Developer Program accounts. Would we see the APIs be restricted to only allow 'App Store' apps to use things like iCloud and Apple Pay, as it is on the Mac? Would more APIs be partitioned between first- and third-party access?