6 ms·

Apple's restrictions are anti-competitive for all iOS users, and have a negative effect on iOS users who have different preferences than you. You don't speak fo

Apple's restrictions are anti-competitive for all iOS users, and have a negative effect on iOS users who have different preferences than you. You don't speak for all iOS users, and it is not your place to demand iOS users who want to obtain iOS apps from alternative app stores to go out of their way and switch ecosystems to satisfy your preferences, if a more convenient option is available for them to obtain what they want. Allowing alternative app stores does not prevent Apple from setting arbitrary fees and restrictions (like Apple Pay and Apple sign-in) on apps published through Apple's App Store. You are still free to exclusively use Apple's App Store, regardless of where other iOS users choose to get their apps from if Apple's anti-competitive restrictions on iOS app installation were removed.

ericmay 5y ago
> Apple's restrictions are anti-competitive for all iOS users, and have a negative effect on iOS users who have different preferences than you. You don't speak for all iOS users, and it is not your place to demand iOS users who want to obtain iOS apps from alternative app stores to go out of their way and switch ecosystems to satisfy your preferences, if a more convenient option is available for them to obtain what they want. Ok. Now just reverse everything here. You don’t speak for iOS users. It’s not your place to demand changes that satisfy your preferences. Etc. And honestly you can just buy an Android phone with the features you want. Why is this so difficult for people? > Allowing alternative app stores does not prevent Apple from setting arbitrary fees and restrictions (like Apple Pay and Apple sign-in) on apps published through Apple's App Store. You are still free to exclusively use Apple's App Store, regardless of where other iOS users choose to get their apps from if Apple's anti-competitive restrictions on iOS app installation were removed. What your suggesting degrades the ecosystem (privacy, payments, etc.) and does not provide value to users. If anybody at all gave a damn it would be affecting sales. Literally nobody cares. Walk down the street in idk, Indianapolis and ask people if they care that they have one App Store on Apple. It’ll be crickets. It’s literally just figuring out whether Facebook or Netflix have better margins or if Apple does. That’s it. There’s no cost savings to customers. 90%+ of apps are junk, and these changes mean that Apple is no longer able to collectively bargain against developers on behalf of users. When you add another App Store what will happen is the big companies will create new app stores. These stores won’t have things like privacy protection. You might say “apple should compete on privacy protection” sure just like people who advocate for bike lanes should compete with car owners. The overall product of, say, Facebook being on another marketplace will cause users to switch. And now Facebook (again just picking on them here) gets to collect invasive data, skirt ethical privacy policies, and just do whatever they want. With Apple you get the best of both worlds. Facebook has to provide their product and they have to do it in a way that protects privacy. Also it would be great if you and others would consider not using “anti-competitive” here because what Apple is doing isn’t anti-competitive. If you want to suggest that it is, then the term loses meaning. Kroger can’t sell Kroger brand products at Wal-Mart. I can’t sell custom game skins on the Epic store. Apple competes fiercely with an all-in experience against numerous competitors. That they’re crushing the competition is proving what the market actually wants.
- commoner 5y ago
  Anyone can call for changes in the regulatory environment to make a market more equitable for them. The difference is that you are demanding other people to make personal changes (going out of their way to buy a different phone, re-purchase all of their apps, and switch ecosystems) to satisfy your preferences and not theirs. Others aren't obligated to follow your demands, which is why it's not your place to demand them to act against their own wishes. On the other hand, nobody is demanding you to do anything. If the regulatory environment changes to prevent Apple from suppressing consumer choice on iOS, you can continue doing what you are doing now (purchasing and installing exclusively from Apple's App Store) as if it never happened. Sideloading might not benefit you if you are committed to never using the feature, but it benefits other iOS users. There are iOS users who want to remain on iOS, while accessing apps that Apple has blocked from its App Store for various reasons. iOS users who want to use secure messengers like Signal, certain VPN apps, and other apps banned in China benefit from sideloading. Fortnite players who want the latest version of the app on iOS regardless of the ongoing legal case benefit from sideloading. There are also iOS users who are mostly content with Apple's App Store, but would gladly sideload other apps that are not available in the App Store, such as alternative clients for services like NewPipe, SMS/MMS apps with features that Apple doesn't provide, and FOSS apps that developers don't want to pay $99/year for the rest of their life to keep in the App Store. Sideloading provides benefits to all of these iOS users, without affecting people like you who wouldn't use the feature. You don't get to gatekeep who can be an iOS user, because nobody else is obligated to listen to you. Most iOS users will continue to get apps from Apple's App Store even if sideloading were allowed. Google allows sideloading on Android with restrictions, and almost all users get apps from the Play Store in regions where it is available. There is little reason to believe that the situation would be different on iOS. If a developer does pull an app out of the App Store, that is their right to choose not to serve users in the App Store. You cannot compel others to make a business arrangement with Apple, because that is their decision to make. You are also not entitled to force any developer to make their apps available to you. Having said that, I have yet to see any high-profile Android app pull out from the Play Store without returning soon after (excepting those that discontinued Android support completely), and the situation on iOS and the App Store will likely be the same. Apple would still be able to impose the fees and restrictions that they want on apps published through their App Store. I will continue to note that Apple's iOS restrictions are anti-competitive, because they prevent other app stores from competing with Apple's App Store on iOS. Walmart is not selling homes that require the homeowner to buy all of their groceries and appliances from Walmart. Also, Walmart and Kroger don't have a duopoly in any country, while Apple and Google do in many countries. Duopolies and other uncompetitive markets are not free markets, and they don't accurately reflect consumer preferences.

ericmay 5y ago

> Apple's restrictions are anti-competitive for all iOS users, and have a negative effect on iOS users who have different preferences than you. You don't speak for all iOS users, and it is not your place to demand iOS users who want to obtain iOS apps from alternative app stores to go out of their way and switch ecosystems to satisfy your preferences, if a more convenient option is available for them to obtain what they want. Ok. Now just reverse everything here. You don’t speak for iOS users. It’s not your place to demand changes that satisfy your preferences. Etc. And honestly you can just buy an Android phone with the features you want. Why is this so difficult for people? > Allowing alternative app stores does not prevent Apple from setting arbitrary fees and restrictions (like Apple Pay and Apple sign-in) on apps published through Apple's App Store. You are still free to exclusively use Apple's App Store, regardless of where other iOS users choose to get their apps from if Apple's anti-competitive restrictions on iOS app installation were removed. What your suggesting degrades the ecosystem (privacy, payments, etc.) and does not provide value to users. If anybody at all gave a damn it would be affecting sales. Literally nobody cares. Walk down the street in idk, Indianapolis and ask people if they care that they have one App Store on Apple. It’ll be crickets. It’s literally just figuring out whether Facebook or Netflix have better margins or if Apple does. That’s it. There’s no cost savings to customers. 90%+ of apps are junk, and these changes mean that Apple is no longer able to collectively bargain against developers on behalf of users. When you add another App Store what will happen is the big companies will create new app stores. These stores won’t have things like privacy protection. You might say “apple should compete on privacy protection” sure just like people who advocate for bike lanes should compete with car owners. The overall product of, say, Facebook being on another marketplace will cause users to switch. And now Facebook (again just picking on them here) gets to collect invasive data, skirt ethical privacy policies, and just do whatever they want. With Apple you get the best of both worlds. Facebook has to provide their product and they have to do it in a way that protects privacy. Also it would be great if you and others would consider not using “anti-competitive” here because what Apple is doing isn’t anti-competitive. If you want to suggest that it is, then the term loses meaning. Kroger can’t sell Kroger brand products at Wal-Mart. I can’t sell custom game skins on the Epic store. Apple competes fiercely with an all-in experience against numerous competitors. That they’re crushing the competition is proving what the market actually wants.

commoner 5y ago
Anyone can call for changes in the regulatory environment to make a market more equitable for them. The difference is that you are demanding other people to make personal changes (going out of their way to buy a different phone, re-purchase all of their apps, and switch ecosystems) to satisfy your preferences and not theirs. Others aren't obligated to follow your demands, which is why it's not your place to demand them to act against their own wishes. On the other hand, nobody is demanding you to do anything. If the regulatory environment changes to prevent Apple from suppressing consumer choice on iOS, you can continue doing what you are doing now (purchasing and installing exclusively from Apple's App Store) as if it never happened. Sideloading might not benefit you if you are committed to never using the feature, but it benefits other iOS users. There are iOS users who want to remain on iOS, while accessing apps that Apple has blocked from its App Store for various reasons. iOS users who want to use secure messengers like Signal, certain VPN apps, and other apps banned in China benefit from sideloading. Fortnite players who want the latest version of the app on iOS regardless of the ongoing legal case benefit from sideloading. There are also iOS users who are mostly content with Apple's App Store, but would gladly sideload other apps that are not available in the App Store, such as alternative clients for services like NewPipe, SMS/MMS apps with features that Apple doesn't provide, and FOSS apps that developers don't want to pay $99/year for the rest of their life to keep in the App Store. Sideloading provides benefits to all of these iOS users, without affecting people like you who wouldn't use the feature. You don't get to gatekeep who can be an iOS user, because nobody else is obligated to listen to you. Most iOS users will continue to get apps from Apple's App Store even if sideloading were allowed. Google allows sideloading on Android with restrictions, and almost all users get apps from the Play Store in regions where it is available. There is little reason to believe that the situation would be different on iOS. If a developer does pull an app out of the App Store, that is their right to choose not to serve users in the App Store. You cannot compel others to make a business arrangement with Apple, because that is their decision to make. You are also not entitled to force any developer to make their apps available to you. Having said that, I have yet to see any high-profile Android app pull out from the Play Store without returning soon after (excepting those that discontinued Android support completely), and the situation on iOS and the App Store will likely be the same. Apple would still be able to impose the fees and restrictions that they want on apps published through their App Store. I will continue to note that Apple's iOS restrictions are anti-competitive, because they prevent other app stores from competing with Apple's App Store on iOS. Walmart is not selling homes that require the homeowner to buy all of their groceries and appliances from Walmart. Also, Walmart and Kroger don't have a duopoly in any country, while Apple and Google do in many countries. Duopolies and other uncompetitive markets are not free markets, and they don't accurately reflect consumer preferences.