7 ms·

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 mak

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
> The difference is that you are demanding other people to make personal changes And now you are demanding that other people make personal changes by losing the benefits of the iOS ecosystem (Apple Pay, privacy enforcement, app standards, etc.). > 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. Stop demanding that I act against my wishes then? My wishes are one App Store owned and controlled by Apple. Stop bothering me. This works both ways. > You don't get to gatekeep who can be an iOS user, because nobody else is obligated to listen to you. This is pathetic. I’m gatekeeping? Ok nobody is obligated to listen to me. I’m not obligated to listen to them. So I guess we keep things as they are then. Or am I now 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. Ok then no reason to change a great service for the majority of users to satisfy a tiny minority of use… I mean developers who want better margins. > Having said that, I have yet to see any high-profile Android app pull out from the Play Store without returning soon after Because Google is a fox in the hen house. They have the same privacy-invading business model. Of course they don’t care. > 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. Duopolies naturally occur in free markets. In fact, monopolies do too. It’s not a big deal and a duopoly frothing into existence does not de facto necessitate anti-competitive behavior. (Just as multiple companies can have anti-competitive behaviors. Remember Tech salary collusion amongst the major players?) This is even more true in the case of Apple where consumers benefit because of Apple’s ability to collectively bargain against developers on behalf of users. Should ASML be forced to dissolve or create a competitor since they’re the only ones who can make the machines they do? That’s a monopoly. Your “re-analogy” of the situation with Wal-Mart and Kroger falls flat because if Wal-Mart did sell a house and as part of the sale required or just outfitted the house with all Wal-Mart products nobody would consider that anti-competitive behavior. The grocery example just doesn’t make sense at all unless you wanted to maybe talk about calling Kroger for groceries and then demanding they go pick up from Wal-Mart. Instead a better analogy is looking at Kroger and the products they sell at Kroger as the market. Kroger enforces some standards like POS systems, one or two types of carts, employees who stock shelves or whatever and then Kroger takes margin on the products they sell. To continue, the analogy would be a company saying Kroger should allow them to set up their own shop inside Kroger, and then sell products in that shop and not give Kroger a cut. You’d walk in and there would be multiple POS systems, you’d have different employees some who could help you and some who can only help you in the sub-store. You’d have different carts, and some of the sub-stores would install security cameras and tracking devices. Kroger customer service couldn’t help you. It’s just a nightmare. But hey now I can download Signal as a Chinese person except that if there are any legit other app stores they’ll just comply with CCP demands anyway and we’re back to just sideloading apps. But hey Netflix got a better commission instead of Apple and now my life is worse. Sounds great!

ericmay 5y ago

> The difference is that you are demanding other people to make personal changes And now you are demanding that other people make personal changes by losing the benefits of the iOS ecosystem (Apple Pay, privacy enforcement, app standards, etc.). > 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. Stop demanding that I act against my wishes then? My wishes are one App Store owned and controlled by Apple. Stop bothering me. This works both ways. > You don't get to gatekeep who can be an iOS user, because nobody else is obligated to listen to you. This is pathetic. I’m gatekeeping? Ok nobody is obligated to listen to me. I’m not obligated to listen to them. So I guess we keep things as they are then. Or am I now 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. Ok then no reason to change a great service for the majority of users to satisfy a tiny minority of use… I mean developers who want better margins. > Having said that, I have yet to see any high-profile Android app pull out from the Play Store without returning soon after Because Google is a fox in the hen house. They have the same privacy-invading business model. Of course they don’t care. > 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. Duopolies naturally occur in free markets. In fact, monopolies do too. It’s not a big deal and a duopoly frothing into existence does not de facto necessitate anti-competitive behavior. (Just as multiple companies can have anti-competitive behaviors. Remember Tech salary collusion amongst the major players?) This is even more true in the case of Apple where consumers benefit because of Apple’s ability to collectively bargain against developers on behalf of users. Should ASML be forced to dissolve or create a competitor since they’re the only ones who can make the machines they do? That’s a monopoly. Your “re-analogy” of the situation with Wal-Mart and Kroger falls flat because if Wal-Mart did sell a house and as part of the sale required or just outfitted the house with all Wal-Mart products nobody would consider that anti-competitive behavior. The grocery example just doesn’t make sense at all unless you wanted to maybe talk about calling Kroger for groceries and then demanding they go pick up from Wal-Mart. Instead a better analogy is looking at Kroger and the products they sell at Kroger as the market. Kroger enforces some standards like POS systems, one or two types of carts, employees who stock shelves or whatever and then Kroger takes margin on the products they sell. To continue, the analogy would be a company saying Kroger should allow them to set up their own shop inside Kroger, and then sell products in that shop and not give Kroger a cut. You’d walk in and there would be multiple POS systems, you’d have different employees some who could help you and some who can only help you in the sub-store. You’d have different carts, and some of the sub-stores would install security cameras and tracking devices. Kroger customer service couldn’t help you. It’s just a nightmare. But hey now I can download Signal as a Chinese person except that if there are any legit other app stores they’ll just comply with CCP demands anyway and we’re back to just sideloading apps. But hey Netflix got a better commission instead of Apple and now my life is worse. Sounds great!