3 ms·

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

by atonse 4y ago

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.

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

by atonse 4y ago

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

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.