6 ms·

The notarization is the worst part. Additionally, the installation sheets, page labels, and disclosure sheets make it sound to me like they're going to do thei

The notarization is the worst part. Additionally, the installation sheets, page labels, and disclosure sheets make it sound to me like they're going to do their best to scare users away from alternatives. I hope the EU brings the hammer down on them. It's obvious, in my opinion, the goal here is to make the EU version as bad as possible so Apple can "prove" regulation is bad for developers and users. I've never understood how developers think Apple is on their side. I thought the app store would flop when they announced they'd gatekeep distribution, but here we are. I'm sure there will be plenty of developers claiming this current development is good for everyone. It seems so obvious that all the platform owners are working against everyone (developers, advertisers, users) and I just can't understand how they have so many supporters.

dmix 3y ago
> Additionally, the installation sheets, page labels, and disclosure sheets make it sound to me like they're going to do their best to scare users away from alternatives. It does sound very European though.
Nathanba 3y ago
Yes in my view this is really obvious punishment and the EU should increase the pressure on Apple. Don't be afraid of US companies and their bully tactics, let's see who has the longer arm. For all I care we can remove Apple devices entirely in the EU. People who want an Apple device can import it "illegally" then.
- kmlx 3y ago
  > For all I care we can remove Apple devices entirely in the EU. the rest of the world also has no problem with the EU confirming it's status :)
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Don't be afraid of US companies and their bully tactics You might disagree with Apple's move, but all the EU has is power. Apple provides value, from which it derives money. The EU is combatting it not with an environment that allows competitors to arise. It's combatting value with power.
  - TwentyPosts 3y ago
    I don't know, seems to me like the EU is providing plenty of value to me. In fact, the EU is making changes that will in fact make it easier for competitors to arise, so I really don't know what you're on about.
  - trealira 3y ago
    This situation is like if the majority of the EU's transportation infrastructure (e.g. roads, train tracks, etc.) were owned by a handful of private American companies. Whatever value they provide (maybe it's really good infrastructure), their power comes from their overwhelming dominance and control of these sectors of the economy (i.e. transportation/tech). Don't act as though Apple is some powerless and altruistic party.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > Don't act as though Apple is some powerless and altruistic party. If you have to straw man, what's the point? I'm not mentioning altruism. They provide value; they get money. The second they stop providing value, they have no money. That's different to power. A bureacrat can write some words and suddenly phones can't be sold any more. That's power.
      - trealira 3y ago
        You're making meaningless distinctions. Fundamentally, I don't see a difference between Apple writing some words and suddenly, you have to pay a fee for distribution of iPhone apps on non-Apple app stores, and say, a government writing some words and suddenly, foreign imports have to pay extra taxes. Neither is generating value; they're both rent-seeking in those examples. They both have power because of what's "theirs". Alternately, you could say neither has any power, and both provide value. The government provides value by funding public infrastructure, promoting economic development, protecting citizens from foreign invasion, and so on. If citizens don't like it, they can vote the government out (though it would be different if it were a dictatorship). In my original comment, I was basically irritated by you implying Apple has no "power," and that they can only counter the government's power through "value," i.e., making people's lives better somehow. It's insinuating Apple derives no power from their business, and that Apple provides value for no reason (hence the use of the word "altruism").
elevatedastalt 3y ago
Developers unfortunately don't have any practical choice. As long as rich people keep buying Apple phones (I am specifically targeting phones here, because I think those are the ones that matter for this discussion, not Macbooks), this shit will continue. Buying an Apple phone is as strong a signal as you can get that someone has a) a lot of discretionary income and b) a propensity towards paying for luxuries that no app developer who intends to make money can afford to ignore them in this "you'll own nothing and be happy" hellscape we have created.
- sneak 3y ago
  Rich people? Everyone wants iPhones, they are by far the best smartphones. I’m not defending Apple’s anticompetitive nonsense but this comment seems to ignore the elephant in the room about why they have the opportunity to be anticompetitive: they make the best smartphone user experience by far and consumers really really want that. They don’t understand that the censorship and racketeering comes fully integrated and inseparable (until today) with the rest of that UX. Most users are happy to outsource the sysadminning of their phones to Apple, and the job Apple does is good enough for them. This is why iOS malware in the wild isn’t a widespread thing like it is on Android.
  - elevatedastalt 3y ago
    "Everyone wants iPhones" Anyone is free to "want" anything. But they need to be rich to actually afford it. Also, I think it's a HN bubble thing to think that the vast majority of iPhone users know or care about Apple's fine-tuned App Store-related extortion or their privacy promises. In fact until recently Apple had made it literally a bannable offence on the App Store to EVEN INFORM PEOPLE that Apple was taking a cut of their money. FB collected money through their apps for charity fundraisers and Apple not only wanted 30% of that, but they refused to let FB EVEN INFORM their customers that this was happening. I am sorry for using all caps but if you seriously do not see how insane this is becoming, we are operating on very different axioms. Apple makes good hardware and decent software and has managed to maintain a patina of luxury and class and 'high society' for all these years, yes. Completely agreed. Side note: I don't want an iPhone and have in 20 years of adult life never paid for an Apple product.
orasis 3y ago
iOS developer here. As long as you make < $1M/year their cut is 15%, which is absolutely worth it considering the quality of the App Store and payment experience and the fact that iOS users actually pay unlike Android. When I hit that 30% fee, however, I’m not going to be so stoked.
- Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
  > When I hit that 30% fee, however, I’m not going to be so stoked. One could entertain the idea that some real and viable competition to AppStore could really improve things for both developers and users. /s
- spywaregorilla 3y ago
  it is worth it only because they forbid alternatives
  - rollcat 3y ago
    Consider the context. There are alternatives (Android, and everyone else in the mobile space that tried and didn't make it), and as orasis pointed out, the users there aren't that keen on making purchases.
    - spywaregorilla 3y ago
      The valuable target is "iphone users" not "app store users". They're only the same because apple forbids competition with itself.
      - rollcat 3y ago
        > The valuable target is "iphone users" not "app store users". As an actual "iPhone user", I personally am going to be extremely reluctant to install things from outside the app store, let alone pay for anything. I don't think Apple's rules or the 30% cut are fair, but they did something nobody else in that space seems to be able to: they built trust. > They're only the same because apple forbids competition with itself. The competition is either dead, or is Google. If you'd like to blame anyone, you should blame Apple and Google for working together to establish an oligopoly.
sircastor 3y ago
> The notarization is the worst part. This seems like a positive for users. Notarized apps are signed apps that have been evaluated (albeit simply) for malicious code. If an app is notarized, the code executing is from who it says it is, and at least has been given a once over. That's appealing to me as a user, and I'm willing to ask the developer to exchange a little convenience for that assurance. I realize a lot of this stuff is annoying for developers. And yes, a fair bit of this stuff is clearly intended to discourage developers from choosing to distribute outside the iOS App store. > I've never understood how developers think Apple is on their side... > ...I just can't understand how they have so many supporters. Apple built a platform that a lot of people make their living from. They made something appealing to users and allowed developers to sell to those users. There are a lot of developers who look at the iPhone as just another Von Neumann machine: I should be able to do whatever I like, however I like and Apple shouldn't be part of the picture after they sold the phone to the user. Apple (and some users, and some developers) don't view it that way.
- donmcronald 3y ago
  > If an app is notarized, the code executing is from who it says it is, and at least has been given a once over. That's appealing to me as a user, and I'm willing to ask the developer to exchange a little convenience for that assurance. I don’t have a problem with identity verification and code signing. It’s the gatekeeping that I don’t agree with. I think it damages the low end of the market because it makes it too difficult for small developers to build and sell custom line of business apps. All of the enterprise ish methods for deploying custom apps are pretty burdensome in the small business space and it’s risky to develop an app without being able to guarantee it can be deployed and used long term. I’ve written tiny, one-off apps for small businesses that are more than 10 years old and still being used. That’s virtually impossible to do in the iOS ecosystem.
- kweingar 3y ago
  > There are a lot of developers who look at the iPhone as just another Von Neumann machine: I should be able to do whatever I like, however I like and Apple shouldn't be part of the picture after they sold the phone to the user. I don’t view the iPhone as a Von Neumann machine: I view it as a product that I bought. Out of all of the physical goods in my home, I am hard-pressed to think of any that require an exclusive ongoing relationship with the original manufacturer. The piano tuner makes a living because companies design and manufacture pianos, but I do not see anyone arguing that he ought to pay fees to the designer because they “allowed” him to sell me that service.

dmix 3y ago

> Additionally, the installation sheets, page labels, and disclosure sheets make it sound to me like they're going to do their best to scare users away from alternatives. It does sound very European though.

Nathanba 3y ago

Yes in my view this is really obvious punishment and the EU should increase the pressure on Apple. Don't be afraid of US companies and their bully tactics, let's see who has the longer arm. For all I care we can remove Apple devices entirely in the EU. People who want an Apple device can import it "illegally" then.

kmlx 3y ago
> For all I care we can remove Apple devices entirely in the EU. the rest of the world also has no problem with the EU confirming it's status :)
robertlagrant 3y ago
> Don't be afraid of US companies and their bully tactics You might disagree with Apple's move, but all the EU has is power. Apple provides value, from which it derives money. The EU is combatting it not with an environment that allows competitors to arise. It's combatting value with power.
- TwentyPosts 3y ago
  I don't know, seems to me like the EU is providing plenty of value to me. In fact, the EU is making changes that will in fact make it easier for competitors to arise, so I really don't know what you're on about.
- trealira 3y ago
  This situation is like if the majority of the EU's transportation infrastructure (e.g. roads, train tracks, etc.) were owned by a handful of private American companies. Whatever value they provide (maybe it's really good infrastructure), their power comes from their overwhelming dominance and control of these sectors of the economy (i.e. transportation/tech). Don't act as though Apple is some powerless and altruistic party.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > Don't act as though Apple is some powerless and altruistic party. If you have to straw man, what's the point? I'm not mentioning altruism. They provide value; they get money. The second they stop providing value, they have no money. That's different to power. A bureacrat can write some words and suddenly phones can't be sold any more. That's power.
    - trealira 3y ago
      You're making meaningless distinctions. Fundamentally, I don't see a difference between Apple writing some words and suddenly, you have to pay a fee for distribution of iPhone apps on non-Apple app stores, and say, a government writing some words and suddenly, foreign imports have to pay extra taxes. Neither is generating value; they're both rent-seeking in those examples. They both have power because of what's "theirs". Alternately, you could say neither has any power, and both provide value. The government provides value by funding public infrastructure, promoting economic development, protecting citizens from foreign invasion, and so on. If citizens don't like it, they can vote the government out (though it would be different if it were a dictatorship). In my original comment, I was basically irritated by you implying Apple has no "power," and that they can only counter the government's power through "value," i.e., making people's lives better somehow. It's insinuating Apple derives no power from their business, and that Apple provides value for no reason (hence the use of the word "altruism").

elevatedastalt 3y ago

Developers unfortunately don't have any practical choice. As long as rich people keep buying Apple phones (I am specifically targeting phones here, because I think those are the ones that matter for this discussion, not Macbooks), this shit will continue. Buying an Apple phone is as strong a signal as you can get that someone has a) a lot of discretionary income and b) a propensity towards paying for luxuries that no app developer who intends to make money can afford to ignore them in this "you'll own nothing and be happy" hellscape we have created.

sneak 3y ago
Rich people? Everyone wants iPhones, they are by far the best smartphones. I’m not defending Apple’s anticompetitive nonsense but this comment seems to ignore the elephant in the room about why they have the opportunity to be anticompetitive: they make the best smartphone user experience by far and consumers really really want that. They don’t understand that the censorship and racketeering comes fully integrated and inseparable (until today) with the rest of that UX. Most users are happy to outsource the sysadminning of their phones to Apple, and the job Apple does is good enough for them. This is why iOS malware in the wild isn’t a widespread thing like it is on Android.
- elevatedastalt 3y ago
  "Everyone wants iPhones" Anyone is free to "want" anything. But they need to be rich to actually afford it. Also, I think it's a HN bubble thing to think that the vast majority of iPhone users know or care about Apple's fine-tuned App Store-related extortion or their privacy promises. In fact until recently Apple had made it literally a bannable offence on the App Store to EVEN INFORM PEOPLE that Apple was taking a cut of their money. FB collected money through their apps for charity fundraisers and Apple not only wanted 30% of that, but they refused to let FB EVEN INFORM their customers that this was happening. I am sorry for using all caps but if you seriously do not see how insane this is becoming, we are operating on very different axioms. Apple makes good hardware and decent software and has managed to maintain a patina of luxury and class and 'high society' for all these years, yes. Completely agreed. Side note: I don't want an iPhone and have in 20 years of adult life never paid for an Apple product.

orasis 3y ago

iOS developer here. As long as you make < $1M/year their cut is 15%, which is absolutely worth it considering the quality of the App Store and payment experience and the fact that iOS users actually pay unlike Android. When I hit that 30% fee, however, I’m not going to be so stoked.

Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
> When I hit that 30% fee, however, I’m not going to be so stoked. One could entertain the idea that some real and viable competition to AppStore could really improve things for both developers and users. /s
spywaregorilla 3y ago
it is worth it only because they forbid alternatives
- rollcat 3y ago
  Consider the context. There are alternatives (Android, and everyone else in the mobile space that tried and didn't make it), and as orasis pointed out, the users there aren't that keen on making purchases.
  - spywaregorilla 3y ago
    The valuable target is "iphone users" not "app store users". They're only the same because apple forbids competition with itself.
    - rollcat 3y ago
      > The valuable target is "iphone users" not "app store users". As an actual "iPhone user", I personally am going to be extremely reluctant to install things from outside the app store, let alone pay for anything. I don't think Apple's rules or the 30% cut are fair, but they did something nobody else in that space seems to be able to: they built trust. > They're only the same because apple forbids competition with itself. The competition is either dead, or is Google. If you'd like to blame anyone, you should blame Apple and Google for working together to establish an oligopoly.

sircastor 3y ago

> The notarization is the worst part. This seems like a positive for users. Notarized apps are signed apps that have been evaluated (albeit simply) for malicious code. If an app is notarized, the code executing is from who it says it is, and at least has been given a once over. That's appealing to me as a user, and I'm willing to ask the developer to exchange a little convenience for that assurance. I realize a lot of this stuff is annoying for developers. And yes, a fair bit of this stuff is clearly intended to discourage developers from choosing to distribute outside the iOS App store. > I've never understood how developers think Apple is on their side... > ...I just can't understand how they have so many supporters. Apple built a platform that a lot of people make their living from. They made something appealing to users and allowed developers to sell to those users. There are a lot of developers who look at the iPhone as just another Von Neumann machine: I should be able to do whatever I like, however I like and Apple shouldn't be part of the picture after they sold the phone to the user. Apple (and some users, and some developers) don't view it that way.

donmcronald 3y ago
> If an app is notarized, the code executing is from who it says it is, and at least has been given a once over. That's appealing to me as a user, and I'm willing to ask the developer to exchange a little convenience for that assurance. I don’t have a problem with identity verification and code signing. It’s the gatekeeping that I don’t agree with. I think it damages the low end of the market because it makes it too difficult for small developers to build and sell custom line of business apps. All of the enterprise ish methods for deploying custom apps are pretty burdensome in the small business space and it’s risky to develop an app without being able to guarantee it can be deployed and used long term. I’ve written tiny, one-off apps for small businesses that are more than 10 years old and still being used. That’s virtually impossible to do in the iOS ecosystem.
kweingar 3y ago
> There are a lot of developers who look at the iPhone as just another Von Neumann machine: I should be able to do whatever I like, however I like and Apple shouldn't be part of the picture after they sold the phone to the user. I don’t view the iPhone as a Von Neumann machine: I view it as a product that I bought. Out of all of the physical goods in my home, I am hard-pressed to think of any that require an exclusive ongoing relationship with the original manufacturer. The piano tuner makes a living because companies design and manufacture pianos, but I do not see anyone arguing that he ought to pay fees to the designer because they “allowed” him to sell me that service.