3 ms·

The difference being that Apple isn't strong arming other companies into using their App Store. Google opens itself up to scrutiny because they both offer the a

The difference being that Apple isn't strong arming other companies into using their App Store. Google opens itself up to scrutiny because they both offer the ability to compete but then actively use their influence to try to stop that competition.

cyberax 3y ago
> The difference being that Apple isn't strong arming other companies into using their App Store. They do. It's either Apple store or you go out of business, if you are developing a mobile app.
- skydhash 3y ago
  > They do. It's either Apple store or you go out of business, if you are developing a mobile app. They don't. Apple is selling both the services and the hardware. They're not asking anyone to develop apps for them and no one is entitled to build an app store for their hardware. But if I'm an Android phone manufacturer and Epic wanted to build an app stores for my devices, but I refused for no other reason than Google's money or pressure, there's a case for anti-competition. If Apple licensed iOS to other manufacturers, the same case would apply.
  - cyberax 3y ago
    > They're not asking anyone to develop apps for them and no one is entitled to build an app store for their hardware. You are clearly missing the point on purpose. Imagine that all roads in the US belonged to Apple and you had to pay 30% of the cost of your goods to Apple for the privilege of transporting them. This would be OK, because you'll still be able to walk or maybe even use rail transport. Apple's ecosystem is _unavoidable_ if you are making mobile applications (not games). You HAVE to support iOS, or you'll go out of business. No alternatives.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      And before someone tries to refute this part of your argument: sure, Android is an alternative... if you have a very niche app that somehow only caters to Android users, and somehow caters to the comparatively small percentage of Android users who are willing to actually pay for apps. Ultimately if you're a sizeable company that wants to operate in the US, and a mobile app is something you need to offer, you have to build one for iOS. If you don't, you'll fail. I would say these days you aren't going to do quite as well if you don't also build an Android app, but you can probably get away with it in quite a few markets if you really didn't want to. Heh, I remember when Instagram was iOS-only, and that was the case for... at least a year? More?
    - skydhash 3y ago
      > Imagine that all roads in the US belonged to Apple If you go this route, not all roads would have belonged to Apple. People would use Apple's roads because they're well built, the majority of cars are nice ones and drivers drive well because enforcement is harsh. Maintenance is usually done on schedule and if people want hassle free travel, it's the best choice even if they're boring and uniform. There exists other roads for every (start, destination) pairs. But only the new ones are maintained. Drivers do whatever they want and even enforcement wants to stop at every turn. Sometimes you're not even sure what exactly are alongside you on the road. Here you come trying to create a taxi service (But you did not build any road yourself) and both companies ask you for the same fee. But you know you can probably get your cars on Google's road and bypass the fee with some hassle. But Apple's won't let you do that. People has paid a high fee to get access to these road and they don't want random cars on it. But you know these people has money and you want some of it. I could go on and on with this. > Apple's ecosystem is _unavoidable_ if you are making mobile applications (not games). If you're a business, why would you care for 30%? Apple is providing the whole SDK for free, and your users' platform is getting updates for free. You are not doing any of that. the 99$ yearly fee is peanut. If you're building things for yourself, Apple has never advertise that iOS was something to tinker with.
      - cyberax 3y ago
        > If you go this route, not all roads would have belonged to Apple. Yes, some backwoods roads would belong to Android. Maybe around 30%. > If you're a business, why would you care for 30%? Because it's a lot. Apple is triple-dipping: 1. You have to pay for Apple computers. 2. You have to pay for the SDKs. 3. You have to give the MAFIA shakedown 30%.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    > They're not asking anyone to develop apps for them Building a mobile app SDK and an app store is very much asking a lot of people to develop apps for them.
- icehawk 3y ago
  But as a mobile app developer, I don't have to sell my app on the Apple app store.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    If you want to build a successful, growing business in the US, yes, you absolutely do. Certainly the definition of "success" differs depending on who you ask, but if we're talking about a player like Epic, they absolutely have to sell their app on the Apple app store. They absolutely should also sell on the Google Play Store, but it's still table stakes (at least in the US) to have an iOS app.

cyberax 3y ago

> The difference being that Apple isn't strong arming other companies into using their App Store. They do. It's either Apple store or you go out of business, if you are developing a mobile app.

skydhash 3y ago
> They do. It's either Apple store or you go out of business, if you are developing a mobile app. They don't. Apple is selling both the services and the hardware. They're not asking anyone to develop apps for them and no one is entitled to build an app store for their hardware. But if I'm an Android phone manufacturer and Epic wanted to build an app stores for my devices, but I refused for no other reason than Google's money or pressure, there's a case for anti-competition. If Apple licensed iOS to other manufacturers, the same case would apply.
- cyberax 3y ago
  > They're not asking anyone to develop apps for them and no one is entitled to build an app store for their hardware. You are clearly missing the point on purpose. Imagine that all roads in the US belonged to Apple and you had to pay 30% of the cost of your goods to Apple for the privilege of transporting them. This would be OK, because you'll still be able to walk or maybe even use rail transport. Apple's ecosystem is _unavoidable_ if you are making mobile applications (not games). You HAVE to support iOS, or you'll go out of business. No alternatives.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    And before someone tries to refute this part of your argument: sure, Android is an alternative... if you have a very niche app that somehow only caters to Android users, and somehow caters to the comparatively small percentage of Android users who are willing to actually pay for apps. Ultimately if you're a sizeable company that wants to operate in the US, and a mobile app is something you need to offer, you have to build one for iOS. If you don't, you'll fail. I would say these days you aren't going to do quite as well if you don't also build an Android app, but you can probably get away with it in quite a few markets if you really didn't want to. Heh, I remember when Instagram was iOS-only, and that was the case for... at least a year? More?
  - skydhash 3y ago
    > Imagine that all roads in the US belonged to Apple If you go this route, not all roads would have belonged to Apple. People would use Apple's roads because they're well built, the majority of cars are nice ones and drivers drive well because enforcement is harsh. Maintenance is usually done on schedule and if people want hassle free travel, it's the best choice even if they're boring and uniform. There exists other roads for every (start, destination) pairs. But only the new ones are maintained. Drivers do whatever they want and even enforcement wants to stop at every turn. Sometimes you're not even sure what exactly are alongside you on the road. Here you come trying to create a taxi service (But you did not build any road yourself) and both companies ask you for the same fee. But you know you can probably get your cars on Google's road and bypass the fee with some hassle. But Apple's won't let you do that. People has paid a high fee to get access to these road and they don't want random cars on it. But you know these people has money and you want some of it. I could go on and on with this. > Apple's ecosystem is _unavoidable_ if you are making mobile applications (not games). If you're a business, why would you care for 30%? Apple is providing the whole SDK for free, and your users' platform is getting updates for free. You are not doing any of that. the 99$ yearly fee is peanut. If you're building things for yourself, Apple has never advertise that iOS was something to tinker with.
    - cyberax 3y ago
      > If you go this route, not all roads would have belonged to Apple. Yes, some backwoods roads would belong to Android. Maybe around 30%. > If you're a business, why would you care for 30%? Because it's a lot. Apple is triple-dipping: 1. You have to pay for Apple computers. 2. You have to pay for the SDKs. 3. You have to give the MAFIA shakedown 30%.
- kelnos 3y ago
  > They're not asking anyone to develop apps for them Building a mobile app SDK and an app store is very much asking a lot of people to develop apps for them.
icehawk 3y ago
But as a mobile app developer, I don't have to sell my app on the Apple app store.
- kelnos 3y ago
  If you want to build a successful, growing business in the US, yes, you absolutely do. Certainly the definition of "success" differs depending on who you ask, but if we're talking about a player like Epic, they absolutely have to sell their app on the Apple app store. They absolutely should also sell on the Google Play Store, but it's still table stakes (at least in the US) to have an iOS app.