6 ms·

“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

“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...
    - atonse 4y ago
      It’s not like many others haven’t tried. Microsoft, Palm, maybe they can try again. But for whatever reason that I can’t quite explain (especially on android, on iOS I think iMessage locks people in. Maybe on Android it’s the Google suite?), others haven’t made a dent.
    - llbeansandrice 4y ago
      How is Apple's app store specifically anti-competitive with respect to other mobile OSs and devices? I can, to some degree, understand people's gripe with Apple for DRM behaviors on hardware you own. But I don't see why forcing Apple to host multiple app stores will provide more user-choice in the mobile OS space. It might make Apple's platform more compelling for some users. But it will do the opposite for other users and still doesn't solve the duopoly problem you're citing. I also don't see what the FTC's definition of a monopoly brings to the discussion other than to boogey-man the big bad corporations. It sounds like your issue is with the lack of OS choice in the mobile market. Forcing Apple to allow other app stores does nothing to solve this problem.
      - heavyset_go 4y ago
        Microsoft went to court and lost to the FTC for less. Microsoft leveraged their dominance in the PC OS market to dominate the browser market, as well. The FTC successfully upheld antitrust legislation against Microsoft in that instance. Apple and Google are doing the same with their dominance in the mobile OS market to dominate the mobile app distribution and mobile app payments markets. If you don't see the significance of literal illegal anticompetitive business practices, I don't know what to tell you.
        shagie 4y ago
        I would urge you to specifically read the complaint and identify which provisions would be applicable to Apple's ecosystem. https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp Has Apple compelled asked companies that are using Android to dump Android and switch to iOS (for some money)? (P.17) How about having 3rd party iPhone manufacturers be restricted to using iOS as a condition for licensing and distributing iOS? (P.18 - note, if you're making Android and requiring all of the 3rd party manufactures that use it to also have Google Play... that's ok) Has Apple entered into exclusive contracts with all the top ISPs to brand their web pages to work with Safari but not Chrome? (P.28 - note, if you are making Chrome and make a site not work with... say Firefox, that's ok) So yes, Microsoft and the DOJ went to court. But the thing was about Microsoft forcing its terms on other companies that excluded it's competitors. Is Apple going to other companies and enforcing terms that are excluding Android?
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    > the large developers with power like Meta will likely force the different stores on us I don't think so- they'll try, they might build their own stores, but I doubt they can force the customers to switch. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926
    - tshaddox 4y ago
      I'm certainly not as confident as you are. Why wouldn't essentially every large app with even a moderate amount of lock-in do this? I would be extremely surprised if any large social networks or online games wouldn't immediately do this.
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
        They would try, but they would likely fail because, as I mentioned above- do you have any responses to the points I bring up? To enumerate some of them- 1. Consumers are already sick and tired of having to do account management already and having to deal with Meta or Google forcing them to do more of that will lead to backlash. 2. I'm unconvinced that Meta and Google have the product capability wherewithal to force a great migration, judging by their attempts at new products in recent years, let alone what basically amounts to a new platform. The Facebook Home launcher went nowhere and I'm pretty sure Android Instant Apps didn't either. They don't really fare very well outside of their home turf, and iOS is definitely not theirs. 3. Regulators, particularly in the EU, would not sit idly by while Big Tech lures customers to shady third party app stores; if anything, these stores would present opportunities for greater scrutiny and more crackdowns. 4. I'm not even sure if Meta can get away with pulling a crucial app such as WhatsApp away from the main App Store. That seems like monopolistic behavior, and disruptive to the lives of tens of millions of people who use it for basic communications. The EU would probably mandate them host it on their third party app store AND on the official App Store. 5. I do have a carve out exception for games, because publishers regularly engage in extractive abusive behavior and gamers just take it or pirate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204012 I do think the possibility of a Bytedance app store/sideloaded .ipa is a wildcard, as TikTok seems to be the current killer app on mobile.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- n0tth3dro1ds 4y ago
  >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. This is just flat out not true with networked devices. I want my tech illiterate mother on a platform with no malware. That includes no malware on other devices that can contact hers and trick her into installing the same malware on her device. Apple’s iOS is the only computing platform that she has ever used on which she has avoided being tricked into malware installation. I’m skeptical that that will continue with third party app stores becoming a thing.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Just tell her not to enable developer mode. This is FUD: Apple would clearly have the right to determine the side-loading process as they see fit, and they can put in all sorts of protections to prevent novice users from accessing it easily. Think parental mode type protections. Apple is the master of UX; surely they can figure out a way to keep things secure for users who need it to be?
    - n0tth3dro1ds 4y ago
      >Just tell her not to enable developer mode She doesn’t know what that is. She won’t remember what I said 5 minutes after I leave. She will blindly follow the instructions of any official-looking website or any scam caller that instructs her to disable these protections in order to “watch a video” (actually sideload an executable). > Apple is the master of UX; surely they can figure out a way to keep things secure for users who need it to be? She got around all of the modern permissions and signing protections on macOS and installed a malicious phony video player that nuked her device and stole her banking credentials. It doesn’t matter what you tell her: she WILL get tricked unless it’s impossible to be tricked.
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
        That's both unfortunate, and sort of amazing. So she's not technically literate to know if she's being scammed, yet obviously competent enough to follow directions to get hacked.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  No, I'm saying that Apple's restrictions on third-party developers are one of the most significant distinguishing characteristics of their smartphones versus their competitors, and that if you wanted an alternative you could easily and almost certainly already have decided to use a competitor's product instead.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    They're also totally arbitrary. It should be the user's choice if they want to impose those restrictions, because the user bought the hardware. In any just world, the consumer deserves the final say over what software runs on the hardware they own.
    - sixstringtheory 4y ago
      The purchase of the hardware is the users choosing those restrictions. You are advocating for your own preferences and dressing it up as a noble pursuit of some general user choice, when the users have already chosen. You simply want to subvert their choice.
      - smoldesu 4y ago
        How am I subverting their choice by adding an option? I don't understand.
        tshaddox 4y ago
        How many times does someone have to make a choice before other people will stop saying “that person should be able to choose”?
        commoner 4y ago
        There are people who prefer using iOS or Apple hardware but do not want Apple's anticompetitive App Store restrictions imposed on the Apple devices they own. Those are the people whose user choice is being suppressed, and those are the people you are sidelining because you wish to impress your own preferences onto them. People content with the status quo, including you, can continue to exclusively use the App Store on iOS on Apple devices.

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...
  - atonse 4y ago
    It’s not like many others haven’t tried. Microsoft, Palm, maybe they can try again. But for whatever reason that I can’t quite explain (especially on android, on iOS I think iMessage locks people in. Maybe on Android it’s the Google suite?), others haven’t made a dent.
  - llbeansandrice 4y ago
    How is Apple's app store specifically anti-competitive with respect to other mobile OSs and devices? I can, to some degree, understand people's gripe with Apple for DRM behaviors on hardware you own. But I don't see why forcing Apple to host multiple app stores will provide more user-choice in the mobile OS space. It might make Apple's platform more compelling for some users. But it will do the opposite for other users and still doesn't solve the duopoly problem you're citing. I also don't see what the FTC's definition of a monopoly brings to the discussion other than to boogey-man the big bad corporations. It sounds like your issue is with the lack of OS choice in the mobile market. Forcing Apple to allow other app stores does nothing to solve this problem.
    - heavyset_go 4y ago
      Microsoft went to court and lost to the FTC for less. Microsoft leveraged their dominance in the PC OS market to dominate the browser market, as well. The FTC successfully upheld antitrust legislation against Microsoft in that instance. Apple and Google are doing the same with their dominance in the mobile OS market to dominate the mobile app distribution and mobile app payments markets. If you don't see the significance of literal illegal anticompetitive business practices, I don't know what to tell you.
      - shagie 4y ago
        I would urge you to specifically read the complaint and identify which provisions would be applicable to Apple's ecosystem. https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp Has Apple compelled asked companies that are using Android to dump Android and switch to iOS (for some money)? (P.17) How about having 3rd party iPhone manufacturers be restricted to using iOS as a condition for licensing and distributing iOS? (P.18 - note, if you're making Android and requiring all of the 3rd party manufactures that use it to also have Google Play... that's ok) Has Apple entered into exclusive contracts with all the top ISPs to brand their web pages to work with Safari but not Chrome? (P.28 - note, if you are making Chrome and make a site not work with... say Firefox, that's ok) So yes, Microsoft and the DOJ went to court. But the thing was about Microsoft forcing its terms on other companies that excluded it's competitors. Is Apple going to other companies and enforcing terms that are excluding Android?
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  > the large developers with power like Meta will likely force the different stores on us I don't think so- they'll try, they might build their own stores, but I doubt they can force the customers to switch. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    I'm certainly not as confident as you are. Why wouldn't essentially every large app with even a moderate amount of lock-in do this? I would be extremely surprised if any large social networks or online games wouldn't immediately do this.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      They would try, but they would likely fail because, as I mentioned above- do you have any responses to the points I bring up? To enumerate some of them- 1. Consumers are already sick and tired of having to do account management already and having to deal with Meta or Google forcing them to do more of that will lead to backlash. 2. I'm unconvinced that Meta and Google have the product capability wherewithal to force a great migration, judging by their attempts at new products in recent years, let alone what basically amounts to a new platform. The Facebook Home launcher went nowhere and I'm pretty sure Android Instant Apps didn't either. They don't really fare very well outside of their home turf, and iOS is definitely not theirs. 3. Regulators, particularly in the EU, would not sit idly by while Big Tech lures customers to shady third party app stores; if anything, these stores would present opportunities for greater scrutiny and more crackdowns. 4. I'm not even sure if Meta can get away with pulling a crucial app such as WhatsApp away from the main App Store. That seems like monopolistic behavior, and disruptive to the lives of tens of millions of people who use it for basic communications. The EU would probably mandate them host it on their third party app store AND on the official App Store. 5. I do have a carve out exception for games, because publishers regularly engage in extractive abusive behavior and gamers just take it or pirate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204012 I do think the possibility of a Bytedance app store/sideloaded .ipa is a wildcard, as TikTok seems to be the current killer app on mobile.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
n0tth3dro1ds 4y ago
>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. This is just flat out not true with networked devices. I want my tech illiterate mother on a platform with no malware. That includes no malware on other devices that can contact hers and trick her into installing the same malware on her device. Apple’s iOS is the only computing platform that she has ever used on which she has avoided being tricked into malware installation. I’m skeptical that that will continue with third party app stores becoming a thing.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Just tell her not to enable developer mode. This is FUD: Apple would clearly have the right to determine the side-loading process as they see fit, and they can put in all sorts of protections to prevent novice users from accessing it easily. Think parental mode type protections. Apple is the master of UX; surely they can figure out a way to keep things secure for users who need it to be?
  - n0tth3dro1ds 4y ago
    >Just tell her not to enable developer mode She doesn’t know what that is. She won’t remember what I said 5 minutes after I leave. She will blindly follow the instructions of any official-looking website or any scam caller that instructs her to disable these protections in order to “watch a video” (actually sideload an executable). > Apple is the master of UX; surely they can figure out a way to keep things secure for users who need it to be? She got around all of the modern permissions and signing protections on macOS and installed a malicious phony video player that nuked her device and stole her banking credentials. It doesn’t matter what you tell her: she WILL get tricked unless it’s impossible to be tricked.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      That's both unfortunate, and sort of amazing. So she's not technically literate to know if she's being scammed, yet obviously competent enough to follow directions to get hacked.
tshaddox 4y ago
No, I'm saying that Apple's restrictions on third-party developers are one of the most significant distinguishing characteristics of their smartphones versus their competitors, and that if you wanted an alternative you could easily and almost certainly already have decided to use a competitor's product instead.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  They're also totally arbitrary. It should be the user's choice if they want to impose those restrictions, because the user bought the hardware. In any just world, the consumer deserves the final say over what software runs on the hardware they own.
  - sixstringtheory 4y ago
    The purchase of the hardware is the users choosing those restrictions. You are advocating for your own preferences and dressing it up as a noble pursuit of some general user choice, when the users have already chosen. You simply want to subvert their choice.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      How am I subverting their choice by adding an option? I don't understand.
      - tshaddox 4y ago
        How many times does someone have to make a choice before other people will stop saying “that person should be able to choose”?
        commoner 4y ago
        There are people who prefer using iOS or Apple hardware but do not want Apple's anticompetitive App Store restrictions imposed on the Apple devices they own. Those are the people whose user choice is being suppressed, and those are the people you are sidelining because you wish to impress your own preferences onto them. People content with the status quo, including you, can continue to exclusively use the App Store on iOS on Apple devices.