4 ms·

The main issue is the lack of sideloading, and stemming from it is how Apple tries very hard to convince everyone that it owns all the relationships between app

The main issue is the lack of sideloading, and stemming from it is how Apple tries very hard to convince everyone that it owns all the relationships between app developers and their users. As macOS shows, when the use of the app store is optional, most developers would rather pretend it doesn't exist.

matheusmoreira 5y ago
> Apple tries very hard to convince everyone that it owns all the relationships between app developers and their users That's the critical issue. Why should Apple be able to own users? It's such an offensive idea. If I buy an iPhone then I'm actually a product that gets sold to software developers. Imagine paying to be the product. At least other companies give out stuff for free when they do that.
- grishka 5y ago
  Thing is, Apple would deserve at least some of that if people installed apps thanks to the app store influence alone. But that's not the case. Most developers do their own marketing, with Apple forcibly inserting itself in between. Many would distribute their apps from their own websites given the option. Apple and its infamous app review process is just an additional annoyance to deal with because that's your only way to get your app to your users.
- mullingitover 5y ago
  As a buyer of software, it's not that Apple 'owns' the relationship, it's that Apple protects me from unscrupulous sellers. Take NYT subscriptions as an example: prior to the app store it was notoriously difficult to cancel. That's a common dark pattern that Apple wiped out, and as a user I appreciate some adult supervision over those types of practices. If developers don't like it they can make their sideloading Android app and see how that works out for them.
  - horsawlarway 5y ago
    As a maker of software - I have no problem with Apple providing that type of protection as an opt-in value add for their users. I do mind (quite a fucking bit) when - I don't do the abusive shit and Apple still keeps all my customers - I'm forced to give 30% of my operating revenue to apple for this "favor" - Apple is not neutral: they will happily monitor items that sell well on their store, release a shoddy half-baked internal version, bump it right to the top of the store, and eat all my revenue. ---- The first two I could maybe stomach - The third is entirely bullshit, particularly in combination with the first two. It's ok though, We're watching Apple lose this fight (correctly, IMO) in every jurisdiction that's not the US.
    - grishka 5y ago
      Also: different countries have different cultures. Not every country shares the Silicon Valley prudishness. Not every country shares the overwhelming respect for copyright either. Yet, Apple not only reviews apps on technical merits, they also review the service itself, if your app is for a service. If the service allows something Apple doesn't like (for example NSFW content, or pirated music), Apple will reject your perfectly fine app and force you to change your terms of service if you want any iOS presence at all. That's absolutely bonkers. I'm Russian. We're fine with porn on the internet and we pirate everything. The company I worked at had these problems incessantly. They once rejected our app saying, I'm not kidding, "we opened the video section, typed 'porn' into the search field, and naked people came up, this is not allowed under App Store Review Guidelines™". You typed "porn" into search. What did you expect, Karen? Cat videos?
      - matheusmoreira 5y ago
        Yeah, it sucks. Why must they force their prudishness on the whole world? Such a pain. They force copyright as well via US government and its trade agreements. It's like they won't rest until the entire world becomes America.
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      > Apple is not neutral: they will happily monitor items that sell well on their store, release a shoddy half-baked internal version, bump it right to the top of the store, and eat all my revenue. http://www.paulgraham.com/road.html http://www.paulgraham.com/road.html https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-lost-the-api-war/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-lost... > If you want to write desktop software now you do it on Microsoft’s terms, calling their APIs and working around their buggy OS. > And if you manage to write something that takes off, you may find that you were merely doing market research for Microsoft. History repeats.
diebeforei485 5y ago
I think some restrictions are good, actually. Side-loading is not optional if your school, employer, or government distributes apps (that spy on you to prevent you from cheating on tests, say) that way. > As macOS shows, when the use of the app store is optional, most developers would rather pretend it doesn't exist. Okay, wow. Have you used an Adobe Creative product on macOS recently? It comes with so many junk processes constantly running in the background 24/7, I wish Apple could step in on my behalf.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

> Apple tries very hard to convince everyone that it owns all the relationships between app developers and their users That's the critical issue. Why should Apple be able to own users? It's such an offensive idea. If I buy an iPhone then I'm actually a product that gets sold to software developers. Imagine paying to be the product. At least other companies give out stuff for free when they do that.

grishka 5y ago
Thing is, Apple would deserve at least some of that if people installed apps thanks to the app store influence alone. But that's not the case. Most developers do their own marketing, with Apple forcibly inserting itself in between. Many would distribute their apps from their own websites given the option. Apple and its infamous app review process is just an additional annoyance to deal with because that's your only way to get your app to your users.
mullingitover 5y ago
As a buyer of software, it's not that Apple 'owns' the relationship, it's that Apple protects me from unscrupulous sellers. Take NYT subscriptions as an example: prior to the app store it was notoriously difficult to cancel. That's a common dark pattern that Apple wiped out, and as a user I appreciate some adult supervision over those types of practices. If developers don't like it they can make their sideloading Android app and see how that works out for them.
- horsawlarway 5y ago
  As a maker of software - I have no problem with Apple providing that type of protection as an opt-in value add for their users. I do mind (quite a fucking bit) when - I don't do the abusive shit and Apple still keeps all my customers - I'm forced to give 30% of my operating revenue to apple for this "favor" - Apple is not neutral: they will happily monitor items that sell well on their store, release a shoddy half-baked internal version, bump it right to the top of the store, and eat all my revenue. ---- The first two I could maybe stomach - The third is entirely bullshit, particularly in combination with the first two. It's ok though, We're watching Apple lose this fight (correctly, IMO) in every jurisdiction that's not the US.
  - grishka 5y ago
    Also: different countries have different cultures. Not every country shares the Silicon Valley prudishness. Not every country shares the overwhelming respect for copyright either. Yet, Apple not only reviews apps on technical merits, they also review the service itself, if your app is for a service. If the service allows something Apple doesn't like (for example NSFW content, or pirated music), Apple will reject your perfectly fine app and force you to change your terms of service if you want any iOS presence at all. That's absolutely bonkers. I'm Russian. We're fine with porn on the internet and we pirate everything. The company I worked at had these problems incessantly. They once rejected our app saying, I'm not kidding, "we opened the video section, typed 'porn' into the search field, and naked people came up, this is not allowed under App Store Review Guidelines™". You typed "porn" into search. What did you expect, Karen? Cat videos?
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      Yeah, it sucks. Why must they force their prudishness on the whole world? Such a pain. They force copyright as well via US government and its trade agreements. It's like they won't rest until the entire world becomes America.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > Apple is not neutral: they will happily monitor items that sell well on their store, release a shoddy half-baked internal version, bump it right to the top of the store, and eat all my revenue. http://www.paulgraham.com/road.html http://www.paulgraham.com/road.html https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-lost-the-api-war/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-lost... > If you want to write desktop software now you do it on Microsoft’s terms, calling their APIs and working around their buggy OS. > And if you manage to write something that takes off, you may find that you were merely doing market research for Microsoft. History repeats.

diebeforei485 5y ago

I think some restrictions are good, actually. Side-loading is not optional if your school, employer, or government distributes apps (that spy on you to prevent you from cheating on tests, say) that way. > As macOS shows, when the use of the app store is optional, most developers would rather pretend it doesn't exist. Okay, wow. Have you used an Adobe Creative product on macOS recently? It comes with so many junk processes constantly running in the background 24/7, I wish Apple could step in on my behalf.