10 ms·

Yet another example of the Facebook boogeyman being trotted out in an effort to explain why lack of user freedom, lack of consumer choice and anticompetitive bu

Yet another example of the Facebook boogeyman being trotted out in an effort to explain why lack of user freedom, lack of consumer choice and anticompetitive business practices are actually good for the customers that are being fleeced by them. This didn't happen on Android, macOS, or Windows, despite all of them allowing alternative app stores.

atonse 4y ago
I keep hearing this – what exactly is the freedom or lack of consumer choice that's being stifled here?
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  Apple, and only Apple, gets to decide what is allowed to run on the devices consumers own. Similarly, Google is converging on the same anticompetitive practices with the Play Store. This duopoly quite literally prevents competition in the mobile app distribution and mobile app payments markets.
  - judge2020 4y ago
    So if I make a competitor called the Avocado company, and my Avocado phone can only run third-party software I vet myself, and my entire marketing pitch is "this vetting process protects your security and privacy", would the same argument apply?
    - heavyset_go 4y ago
      Is your company a firm that has significant and durable market power such that they can set prices and exclude competitors[1], like the Apple and Google duopoly can and does? [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
      - judge2020 4y ago
        So "you can only have security if you're using an inferior device that nobody would purchase unless they <only> care about security".
        heavyset_go 4y ago
        You can have security without the App Store, it isn't a dichotomy. Apple doesn't have the best track record with "security" on the App Store, either, considering multimillion dollar scams flourish on the platform, and the fact that Apple is responsible for distributing a half billion copies of just one type of malware to iOS users via the App Store. Thankfully, there are more responsible parties and more capable security paradigms than the one Apple forces down users' throats via the App Store, and users should have the choice to use them on the devices they own. Maybe if Apple actually faced competition when it came to the App Store, they would take the security of users, and not just their profit margins, more seriously and wouldn't let fraud and malware affect hundreds of millions of their own customers.
    - devmor 4y ago
      Yes, but no one is likely to care unless your Avocado phone ends up controlling half of the mobile market share.
  - atonse 4y ago
    Small but meaningful correction: Apple decides what is allowed on _Apple_ devices consumers own. So again, how does this hurt choice? You can choose a dozen other phones. Your ability to participate in the smartphone revolution isn’t hindered in any meaningful way. To be clear, I HATE the App Store review process as it stands. But that’s not because I don’t have a choice and somehow magically think other app stores will fix everything. It’s because it is objectively badly run as a business process. They don’t respond for weeks. The communication is entirely arbitrary. The application of rules is wholly inconsistent. I’m not sure a second App Store will help with that. I can still only see mostly downsides by creating confusion for consumers like others have said will happen.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      > Apple decides what is allowed on _Apple_ devices consumers own. It doesn't matter, the consumer still bought the device. It's their hardware, they own the iPhone. They deserve the last say over what runs on their computer. A system like the current M1 Macs (unlocked bootloader, OS with overrides) would completely shut everyone up over Apple's abuse here. This legislation is a step in the right direction. > I’m not sure a second App Store will help with that. If nothing else, it gives Apple an incentive to compete. Something I'd argue is sorely needed on iOS. > I can still only see mostly downsides by creating confusion for consumers like others have said will happen. Well, it didn't really cause any confusions when Android did it, or even when Microsoft added sideloading to Xbox. Very little evidence supports the claim that everything will fall to pandemonium when third-party stores hit iOS.
      - WindRiderZ0 4y ago
        > still bought the device. It's their hardware, they own the iPhone. Consumers own the hardware NOT the software. Apple, Google, etc are expected maintain the software over a long period of time. The content on the device is owned and manage by developers, Apple, Google, etc. You only rent access to the software. It's not yours. You can buy a TV but you still have a cable bill. The TV is yours, the channels are not!
  - jsnell 4y ago
    > Similarly, Google is converging on the same anticompetitive practices with the Play Store. What do you mean? Google has been making things easier for third-party app stores over time, not converging to Apple's model. (Most recently in adding the auto-update permission in Android 12.)
    - heavyset_go 4y ago
      You can't distribute apps on the Play Store without using Google's mobile payments platform, giving them the 15%-30% cut that Apple takes. They're preventing competition in the mobile app payments market by leveraging their dominance in the mobile OS and mobile app distribution markets, just like Apple does.
ethbr0 4y ago
That didn't happen on Android because while Android allows alternative app stores, it doesn't go out of its way to encourage users to them. So Google still has a lot of power via Play store user count. Sometimes, we get a good outcome because titanic companies' competing interests are balanced... but that doesn't mean we should forget that if that balance were upset the winner would screw over users in a nanosecond.
slg 4y ago
>This didn't happen on Android, macOS, or Windows, despite all of them allowing alternative app stores. I'm guessing you aren't a gamer. This absolutely happened on Android and PC. Fortnight is the most obvious example on Android and the various PC game stores are constantly battling over exclusives which has led to bizarre and annoying situations like this[1] [1] - https://wccftech.com/goat-simulator-3-devs-tell-players-to-use-steam-as-a-response-to-lack-of-native-controller-support/ https://wccftech.com/goat-simulator-3-devs-tell-players-to-u...
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  And yet Facebook hasn't done this, and Epic hasn't done any of the scary things you're spooking yourself over in your OP. The fact that an app is distributed outside of the app store isn't proof that the sky is falling like you're saying will happen. At the end of the day, if you're this afraid of Facebook, you're free to not use it. There's no reason other users should be restricted because you think that the spectre of Facebook might lurk in the shadows.
  - slg 4y ago
    >At the end of the day, if you're this afraid of Facebook, you're free to not use it. I guess that is the end of our discussion as there is no way to counter this type of logic other than saying that if you didn't agree with Apple's walled garden policy, you were free to not use Apple devices.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - satvikpendem 4y ago
      Facebook is not a duopoly service that is a significant factor of everyone's lives, controlling the parts not just in their social life but in the professional, financial, and other parts of life. iOS is.
      - 4y ago
tshaddox 4y ago
“User freedom” doesn’t work in this argument. Apple’s restrictive App Store is a big reason of why I use iPhones and why I recommend them to most people who ask. There are effectively only two smartphone platforms available to users, and destroying one of the only meaningful differences between the platforms in the name of “user choice” is nothing if not ironic.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  What you're saying is that you like Apple's playpen, so everyone else should be forced to stay in that playpen, too. If you want to stay in the playpen, that's fine, but there's no reason why users who want to use the full potential of their devices shouldn't be able to in order to keep you happy. It's not a dichotomy. If you want to keep your options limited, stay in the playpen. Users who value freedom, competition, and efficiencies of markets can also enjoy those things, but they currently are prevented because Apple will pull no stops to protect their App Store moneyhose.
  - slg 4y ago
    >Users who value freedom, competition, and efficiencies of markets can also enjoy those things, but they currently are prevented because Apple will pull no stops to protect their App Store moneyhose. The counter is that these users do have a choice. They can buy an Android. Allowing different stores might end up removing choice for the end user who like Apple's current approach as the large developers with power like Meta will likely force the different stores on us. This change is reducing Apple's power, but that power isn't all going to the end user. It is empowering Meta, Google, Amazon, and other big tech companies who are seemingly even less likely to act in the end user's best interest than Apple.
    - heavyset_go 4y ago
      Google is part of the same duopoly that leverages their dominance in the mobile OS and hardware markets in order to dominate the mobile app distribution and mobile app payments markets. The majority of the mobile OS market in the US is iOS, the rest is Android. Apple is responsible for 2x mobile app revenue than Google, but Apple and Google both make up more than 99% of all mobile app sales. When talking about monopolies, the working definition from the FTC are firms that have significant and durable market power such that they can set prices and exclude competitors[1]. That describes the Apple and Google duopoly accurately. Such firms and their anticompetitive tactics are outlawed by antitrust legislation in the US. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
pwinnski 4y ago
Android, macOS, and Windows aren't being blamed by Facebook public for a $10 million drop in ad revenue due to a change in iOS policies, so it's not quite the same fruit.
- saagarjha 4y ago
  Billion.
hoistbypetard 4y ago
> This didn't happen on Android, macOS, or Windows, despite all of them allowing alternative app stores. EA and Epic have entered the chat. This has absolutely happened on Windows. Source: the PC attached to my TV where my kid plays games, just this week. I would posit that there are two possibilities for why it hasn't happened on Android: 1. The UX for alternative app stores is so terrible that they may as well not be allowed. 2. Not enough people want to pay for software on Anrdoid for this to be worthwhile.
emodendroket 4y ago
Does the Epic Games Store ring a bell?

atonse 4y ago

I keep hearing this – what exactly is the freedom or lack of consumer choice that's being stifled here?

heavyset_go 4y ago
Apple, and only Apple, gets to decide what is allowed to run on the devices consumers own. Similarly, Google is converging on the same anticompetitive practices with the Play Store. This duopoly quite literally prevents competition in the mobile app distribution and mobile app payments markets.
- judge2020 4y ago
  So if I make a competitor called the Avocado company, and my Avocado phone can only run third-party software I vet myself, and my entire marketing pitch is "this vetting process protects your security and privacy", would the same argument apply?
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    Is your company a firm that has significant and durable market power such that they can set prices and exclude competitors[1], like the Apple and Google duopoly can and does? [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
    - judge2020 4y ago
      So "you can only have security if you're using an inferior device that nobody would purchase unless they <only> care about security".
      - heavyset_go 4y ago
        You can have security without the App Store, it isn't a dichotomy. Apple doesn't have the best track record with "security" on the App Store, either, considering multimillion dollar scams flourish on the platform, and the fact that Apple is responsible for distributing a half billion copies of just one type of malware to iOS users via the App Store. Thankfully, there are more responsible parties and more capable security paradigms than the one Apple forces down users' throats via the App Store, and users should have the choice to use them on the devices they own. Maybe if Apple actually faced competition when it came to the App Store, they would take the security of users, and not just their profit margins, more seriously and wouldn't let fraud and malware affect hundreds of millions of their own customers.
  - devmor 4y ago
    Yes, but no one is likely to care unless your Avocado phone ends up controlling half of the mobile market share.
- atonse 4y ago
  Small but meaningful correction: Apple decides what is allowed on _Apple_ devices consumers own. So again, how does this hurt choice? You can choose a dozen other phones. Your ability to participate in the smartphone revolution isn’t hindered in any meaningful way. To be clear, I HATE the App Store review process as it stands. But that’s not because I don’t have a choice and somehow magically think other app stores will fix everything. It’s because it is objectively badly run as a business process. They don’t respond for weeks. The communication is entirely arbitrary. The application of rules is wholly inconsistent. I’m not sure a second App Store will help with that. I can still only see mostly downsides by creating confusion for consumers like others have said will happen.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    > Apple decides what is allowed on _Apple_ devices consumers own. It doesn't matter, the consumer still bought the device. It's their hardware, they own the iPhone. They deserve the last say over what runs on their computer. A system like the current M1 Macs (unlocked bootloader, OS with overrides) would completely shut everyone up over Apple's abuse here. This legislation is a step in the right direction. > I’m not sure a second App Store will help with that. If nothing else, it gives Apple an incentive to compete. Something I'd argue is sorely needed on iOS. > I can still only see mostly downsides by creating confusion for consumers like others have said will happen. Well, it didn't really cause any confusions when Android did it, or even when Microsoft added sideloading to Xbox. Very little evidence supports the claim that everything will fall to pandemonium when third-party stores hit iOS.
    - WindRiderZ0 4y ago
      > still bought the device. It's their hardware, they own the iPhone. Consumers own the hardware NOT the software. Apple, Google, etc are expected maintain the software over a long period of time. The content on the device is owned and manage by developers, Apple, Google, etc. You only rent access to the software. It's not yours. You can buy a TV but you still have a cable bill. The TV is yours, the channels are not!
- jsnell 4y ago
  > Similarly, Google is converging on the same anticompetitive practices with the Play Store. What do you mean? Google has been making things easier for third-party app stores over time, not converging to Apple's model. (Most recently in adding the auto-update permission in Android 12.)
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    You can't distribute apps on the Play Store without using Google's mobile payments platform, giving them the 15%-30% cut that Apple takes. They're preventing competition in the mobile app payments market by leveraging their dominance in the mobile OS and mobile app distribution markets, just like Apple does.

ethbr0 4y ago

That didn't happen on Android because while Android allows alternative app stores, it doesn't go out of its way to encourage users to them. So Google still has a lot of power via Play store user count. Sometimes, we get a good outcome because titanic companies' competing interests are balanced... but that doesn't mean we should forget that if that balance were upset the winner would screw over users in a nanosecond.

slg 4y ago

>This didn't happen on Android, macOS, or Windows, despite all of them allowing alternative app stores. I'm guessing you aren't a gamer. This absolutely happened on Android and PC. Fortnight is the most obvious example on Android and the various PC game stores are constantly battling over exclusives which has led to bizarre and annoying situations like this[1] [1] - https://wccftech.com/goat-simulator-3-devs-tell-players-to-use-steam-as-a-response-to-lack-of-native-controller-support/ https://wccftech.com/goat-simulator-3-devs-tell-players-to-u...

heavyset_go 4y ago
And yet Facebook hasn't done this, and Epic hasn't done any of the scary things you're spooking yourself over in your OP. The fact that an app is distributed outside of the app store isn't proof that the sky is falling like you're saying will happen. At the end of the day, if you're this afraid of Facebook, you're free to not use it. There's no reason other users should be restricted because you think that the spectre of Facebook might lurk in the shadows.
- slg 4y ago
  >At the end of the day, if you're this afraid of Facebook, you're free to not use it. I guess that is the end of our discussion as there is no way to counter this type of logic other than saying that if you didn't agree with Apple's walled garden policy, you were free to not use Apple devices.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - satvikpendem 4y ago
    Facebook is not a duopoly service that is a significant factor of everyone's lives, controlling the parts not just in their social life but in the professional, financial, and other parts of life. iOS is.
    - 4y ago

tshaddox 4y ago

“User freedom” doesn’t work in this argument. Apple’s restrictive App Store is a big reason of why I use iPhones and why I recommend them to most people who ask. There are effectively only two smartphone platforms available to users, and destroying one of the only meaningful differences between the platforms in the name of “user choice” is nothing if not ironic.

heavyset_go 4y ago
What you're saying is that you like Apple's playpen, so everyone else should be forced to stay in that playpen, too. If you want to stay in the playpen, that's fine, but there's no reason why users who want to use the full potential of their devices shouldn't be able to in order to keep you happy. It's not a dichotomy. If you want to keep your options limited, stay in the playpen. Users who value freedom, competition, and efficiencies of markets can also enjoy those things, but they currently are prevented because Apple will pull no stops to protect their App Store moneyhose.
- slg 4y ago
  >Users who value freedom, competition, and efficiencies of markets can also enjoy those things, but they currently are prevented because Apple will pull no stops to protect their App Store moneyhose. The counter is that these users do have a choice. They can buy an Android. Allowing different stores might end up removing choice for the end user who like Apple's current approach as the large developers with power like Meta will likely force the different stores on us. This change is reducing Apple's power, but that power isn't all going to the end user. It is empowering Meta, Google, Amazon, and other big tech companies who are seemingly even less likely to act in the end user's best interest than Apple.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    Google is part of the same duopoly that leverages their dominance in the mobile OS and hardware markets in order to dominate the mobile app distribution and mobile app payments markets. The majority of the mobile OS market in the US is iOS, the rest is Android. Apple is responsible for 2x mobile app revenue than Google, but Apple and Google both make up more than 99% of all mobile app sales. When talking about monopolies, the working definition from the FTC are firms that have significant and durable market power such that they can set prices and exclude competitors[1]. That describes the Apple and Google duopoly accurately. Such firms and their anticompetitive tactics are outlawed by antitrust legislation in the US. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

pwinnski 4y ago

Android, macOS, and Windows aren't being blamed by Facebook public for a $10 million drop in ad revenue due to a change in iOS policies, so it's not quite the same fruit.

saagarjha 4y ago
Billion.

hoistbypetard 4y ago

> This didn't happen on Android, macOS, or Windows, despite all of them allowing alternative app stores. EA and Epic have entered the chat. This has absolutely happened on Windows. Source: the PC attached to my TV where my kid plays games, just this week. I would posit that there are two possibilities for why it hasn't happened on Android: 1. The UX for alternative app stores is so terrible that they may as well not be allowed. 2. Not enough people want to pay for software on Anrdoid for this to be worthwhile.

emodendroket 4y ago

Does the Epic Games Store ring a bell?