4 ms·

> Companies will want it, but I'm not sure users will. Is Amazon was allowed to run a store on iOS, Android, and Fire devices, and if you bought an app you wer

> Companies will want it, but I'm not sure users will. Is Amazon was allowed to run a store on iOS, Android, and Fire devices, and if you bought an app you were guaranteed the equivalent version on other devices if it existed, I think there would be a lot of incentive for people to use it. I wouldn't necessarily prefer Amazon be the entity running it in the end, but they're probably best poised to do so with customer trust. > Apple does a really good job of warning me, I feel, and centralizing subscription cancellation etc., and that's huge. If there was actual competition between stores, this could be an item of competition, and a minimum acceptable level of support for this might emerge in the front runners. Amazon is already pretty good at making customers happy, this might be something they'd happily take on (and don't they already do subscriptions for magazines?). The whole problem is that people keep looking at this as "Apple may be bad at X, but they do Y really well and I don't want to lose that" when they should be looking at it as "Apple is bad at X, maybe if they get some competition they'll do better at X, and Y will still be done well by them". I can't understand why anyone would assume Apple having competition on their platform would make them worse. They would actually have to address problems for once otherwise worry about losing people to other stores, not entire phone ecosystems which require multiple hundreds of dollars and losing access to all your purchases. If some company is really trying to get out of the Apple controlled system not because of costs but because they really want access to your personal info or to make it hard to stop paying them, maybe they should be allowed to leave and they can get less customers and hopefully change or die. Chances are they're trying to figure out the info using other methods right now anyways.

spsful 5y ago
The issue of subscriptions gets worse --not better-- if there are more companies competing for subscription revenue. Having to use more than one service to manage all your subscriptions would make things even more of a headache, so I don't see how consumers would benefit. Ex. if a 3rd party makes their own subscription management that somehow allows you to cancel subscriptions faster than Apple does, maybe that is more convenient, but now you have to figure out which of your services work with that provider and likely would have to use both as neither could offer you everything you wanted. I understand how the idea of competition for revenue could incentivize better management from the likes of Apple and others but I just don't think the market for this will be competitive at all.
eropple 5y ago
> I can't understand why anyone would assume Apple having competition on their platform would make them worse. Apple having competition isn't a problem. That competition selling me to that competition's actual customers--enabling difficulties and dark patterns that Apple does not--is a problem. I like Stripe as an app developer because I pick them as a seller; they're not there to serve my customer and are there to serve me. I am reasonably confident that Apple's there to serve me at least as much as an app developer because I as a buyer picked Apple. For B2C interactions where I'm the C, I want the platform on my side. Why would your selection of Stripe ever put the platform on my side? Why should I want this as a consumer? The money's already a rounding error, the time and stress aren't. If the end result here is "you must use Apple's subscription system, must honor one-click cancellations through a centralized clearinghouse, and sure you can use your payment provider on the other hand", then that's great. Anything else is worse than the status quo ante.
- kbenson 5y ago
  > Apple having competition isn't a problem. That competition selling me to that competition's actual customers--enabling difficulties and dark patterns that Apple does not--is a problem. Then don't use that competition? It's not like Apple is special here. They've developed a reputation for not doing that, which is what you're relying on for them to not do it. Any other competitor could develop a similar reputation if they chose to compete on that level. > For B2C interactions where I'm the C, I want the platform on my side. And in what way is any of that untrue or different if a different store is allowed to compete on iOS. > Why would your selection of Stripe ever put the platform on my side? Why is the options Apple pay or Stripe? Why isn't it App Store + Apple pay or Some other store + stripe or some other service that attempts to put the same constraints in place? For whatever reason, people only seem to see this issue in terms of straw man arguments. There is nothing unique about any one aspect of Apple or the services they run that some other service couldn't attempt to do the same or better, and maybe that might actually make Apple's version evolve to be better than it is, so I'm confused why people are so against this.
  - eropple 5y ago
    The unique aspect of Apple is that they are uniquely invested in getting me to buy the next iPhone. Stripe doesn't care about having me do anything. The business using Stripe is their customer. I am an incidental aspect of their arrangement with that business and if that business decides to be an asshole, Stripe just shrugs. Apple doesn't. I mean this as politely as I can: that you're writing this off as a strawman argument sounds like deliberate misunderstanding.
paulmd 5y ago
You’re using the term “competition” here like this is something that will be exposed to consumers, but it isn’t. Companies aren’t going to offer a “light pattern” option out of the goodness of their heart, the choice will be dark pattern or don’t use the app. Which is fine for flashlight apps but as someone else put it heee, you don’t have the option of choosing another fortnite clone with a better payment provider - all your friends are on fortnite and you can either play with them or not. Sijilaely, had the court forced Apple to open up “third party app stores” via sideloading, you would have Facebook and others immediately block web access via safari and Force all iOS users to install a full-permissions rootkit like they already got busted for. And sure you would have the choice to not talk with your friends via Facebook ever again, but network effect is a real thing. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-offered-gift-cards-for-root-level-access-to-ios-users-data/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...
- kbenson 5y ago
  > Companies aren’t going to offer a “light pattern” option out of the goodness of their heart, the choice will be dark pattern or don’t use the app. That might be the case with a market that doesn't already have a competitor offering it, but Apple has already positioned themselves as pro consumer with fairly well known differences. Any competitor store on iOS will compared and contrasted to the App Store. I have no idea why you think any dark patterns that Apple specifically has rules and procedures to combat won't be obvious points of comparison, and won't be something competed over. > Which is fine for flashlight apps but as someone else put it heee, you don’t have the option of choosing another fortnite clone with a better payment provider - all your friends are on fortnite and you can either play with them or not. Or, Apple is forced to compete on price, and their cut goes down, and Fortnite is available through the App Store at a slight markup (that is, not 30%) or through the Epic Store without that markup. And if Epic chooses not to list on the App Store, well maybe they lose customers for that choice, but it's the customers choice. If you actually care about combating bad behavior of companies with regard to private data, put your efforts behind legislation or regulation. Markets can't completely deal with that, and a single market definitely isn't doing so. All you're supporting is a system where those with more money get to pay for the rights we all have. There's no reason someone should have to opt into the expensive Apple ecosystem when a $50 whatever phone should have the same safeguards. Letting Apple prevent competition doesn't help that situation at all. I would argue it makes it worse (with competition, we might see better options arise). > Force all iOS users to install a full-permissions rootkit Allowing a separate store does not mean allowing rootkits. A sane permissions system where the store is not the only defense over what is actually allowed would be better for everyone involved, even iOS App Store users. If Apple wants to say certain permissions just plain aren't supported, even for App Store apps, there's nothing wrong with that, and it would keep the whole phone more secure. In the end, if Facebook really wants to pull something like that, let them try, and let them face the backlash for it. Ultimately, Apple is not a good steward for your interests, because your interests only matter to them as much as they align with their profit motives, and there are places where they definitely do not align, such as App Store pricing. Just because you're happy with what Apple says they're doing right now, and perhaps you actually are coming out ahead (but it's important to consider that Apple advertises where they help you, but they hardly advertise where they hurt you, so there may be harms you're not yet aware of), but there's no guarantee that the balance will stay that way or that you can even accurately assess it.

spsful 5y ago

The issue of subscriptions gets worse --not better-- if there are more companies competing for subscription revenue. Having to use more than one service to manage all your subscriptions would make things even more of a headache, so I don't see how consumers would benefit. Ex. if a 3rd party makes their own subscription management that somehow allows you to cancel subscriptions faster than Apple does, maybe that is more convenient, but now you have to figure out which of your services work with that provider and likely would have to use both as neither could offer you everything you wanted. I understand how the idea of competition for revenue could incentivize better management from the likes of Apple and others but I just don't think the market for this will be competitive at all.

eropple 5y ago

> I can't understand why anyone would assume Apple having competition on their platform would make them worse. Apple having competition isn't a problem. That competition selling me to that competition's actual customers--enabling difficulties and dark patterns that Apple does not--is a problem. I like Stripe as an app developer because I pick them as a seller; they're not there to serve my customer and are there to serve me. I am reasonably confident that Apple's there to serve me at least as much as an app developer because I as a buyer picked Apple. For B2C interactions where I'm the C, I want the platform on my side. Why would your selection of Stripe ever put the platform on my side? Why should I want this as a consumer? The money's already a rounding error, the time and stress aren't. If the end result here is "you must use Apple's subscription system, must honor one-click cancellations through a centralized clearinghouse, and sure you can use your payment provider on the other hand", then that's great. Anything else is worse than the status quo ante.

kbenson 5y ago
> Apple having competition isn't a problem. That competition selling me to that competition's actual customers--enabling difficulties and dark patterns that Apple does not--is a problem. Then don't use that competition? It's not like Apple is special here. They've developed a reputation for not doing that, which is what you're relying on for them to not do it. Any other competitor could develop a similar reputation if they chose to compete on that level. > For B2C interactions where I'm the C, I want the platform on my side. And in what way is any of that untrue or different if a different store is allowed to compete on iOS. > Why would your selection of Stripe ever put the platform on my side? Why is the options Apple pay or Stripe? Why isn't it App Store + Apple pay or Some other store + stripe or some other service that attempts to put the same constraints in place? For whatever reason, people only seem to see this issue in terms of straw man arguments. There is nothing unique about any one aspect of Apple or the services they run that some other service couldn't attempt to do the same or better, and maybe that might actually make Apple's version evolve to be better than it is, so I'm confused why people are so against this.
- eropple 5y ago
  The unique aspect of Apple is that they are uniquely invested in getting me to buy the next iPhone. Stripe doesn't care about having me do anything. The business using Stripe is their customer. I am an incidental aspect of their arrangement with that business and if that business decides to be an asshole, Stripe just shrugs. Apple doesn't. I mean this as politely as I can: that you're writing this off as a strawman argument sounds like deliberate misunderstanding.

paulmd 5y ago

You’re using the term “competition” here like this is something that will be exposed to consumers, but it isn’t. Companies aren’t going to offer a “light pattern” option out of the goodness of their heart, the choice will be dark pattern or don’t use the app. Which is fine for flashlight apps but as someone else put it heee, you don’t have the option of choosing another fortnite clone with a better payment provider - all your friends are on fortnite and you can either play with them or not. Sijilaely, had the court forced Apple to open up “third party app stores” via sideloading, you would have Facebook and others immediately block web access via safari and Force all iOS users to install a full-permissions rootkit like they already got busted for. And sure you would have the choice to not talk with your friends via Facebook ever again, but network effect is a real thing. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-offered-gift-cards-for-root-level-access-to-ios-users-data/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...

kbenson 5y ago
> Companies aren’t going to offer a “light pattern” option out of the goodness of their heart, the choice will be dark pattern or don’t use the app. That might be the case with a market that doesn't already have a competitor offering it, but Apple has already positioned themselves as pro consumer with fairly well known differences. Any competitor store on iOS will compared and contrasted to the App Store. I have no idea why you think any dark patterns that Apple specifically has rules and procedures to combat won't be obvious points of comparison, and won't be something competed over. > Which is fine for flashlight apps but as someone else put it heee, you don’t have the option of choosing another fortnite clone with a better payment provider - all your friends are on fortnite and you can either play with them or not. Or, Apple is forced to compete on price, and their cut goes down, and Fortnite is available through the App Store at a slight markup (that is, not 30%) or through the Epic Store without that markup. And if Epic chooses not to list on the App Store, well maybe they lose customers for that choice, but it's the customers choice. If you actually care about combating bad behavior of companies with regard to private data, put your efforts behind legislation or regulation. Markets can't completely deal with that, and a single market definitely isn't doing so. All you're supporting is a system where those with more money get to pay for the rights we all have. There's no reason someone should have to opt into the expensive Apple ecosystem when a $50 whatever phone should have the same safeguards. Letting Apple prevent competition doesn't help that situation at all. I would argue it makes it worse (with competition, we might see better options arise). > Force all iOS users to install a full-permissions rootkit Allowing a separate store does not mean allowing rootkits. A sane permissions system where the store is not the only defense over what is actually allowed would be better for everyone involved, even iOS App Store users. If Apple wants to say certain permissions just plain aren't supported, even for App Store apps, there's nothing wrong with that, and it would keep the whole phone more secure. In the end, if Facebook really wants to pull something like that, let them try, and let them face the backlash for it. Ultimately, Apple is not a good steward for your interests, because your interests only matter to them as much as they align with their profit motives, and there are places where they definitely do not align, such as App Store pricing. Just because you're happy with what Apple says they're doing right now, and perhaps you actually are coming out ahead (but it's important to consider that Apple advertises where they help you, but they hardly advertise where they hurt you, so there may be harms you're not yet aware of), but there's no guarantee that the balance will stay that way or that you can even accurately assess it.