8 ms·

> Alternative app marketplaces. Marketplaces can choose to offer a catalog of apps solely from the developer of the marketplace. How does that count as a "mark

by bogwog 3y ago

> Alternative app marketplaces. Marketplaces can choose to offer a catalog of apps solely from the developer of the marketplace. How does that count as a "marketplace"? > Web Distribution ... will let authorized developers distribute their iOS apps to EU users directly from a website owned by the developer All of this just makes it crystal clear what Apple's goal is: to prevent competition. It's not about security like they've been lying about; it's all about maintaining their app store monopoly.

MatthiasPortzel 3y ago
Before this, if you had an alternative marketplace, you had to accept submissions from other developers. You are still allowed to accept submissions from other developers, but are no longer required to.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  I suppose the point is that, if we're being pedantic (and after all, that is what the internet is _for_), you cannot have a single vendor marketplace based on the commonly understood meaning of the word 'marketplace'. (But yeah, this is just slightly silly naming from Apple).
  - yard2010 3y ago
    Are you demonstrating Cunningham's law because the internet is for porn
bloppe 3y ago
Apple is just trying to protect users from scammers! I'm sure all this sensible authorization and notarization business will continue even after the fees are removed from the equation
nektro 3y ago
debating about how they run the store is totally valid, but there being only one store absolutely does make iOS safer overall
- greazy 3y ago
  But does it? I haven't seen any hard evidence, and lots of anecdotal tales of technology illiterate grandparents, fathers and mothers being better off.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Particularly when there are better alternatives. For example, put a physical hardware switch on the inside of the device that disables new stores from being added. Now you can set up your technically disinclined relatives with Apple's store, and a couple of others you trust if it pleases you, then flip the switch and they can't get into trouble because they can't add others. Move the switch back and the device won't boot without a factory wipe. That's going to deter both anyone who can't successfully disassemble the device to flip the switch (i.e. severely technically illiterate people) and the people who aren't willing to press YES to a prompt that says it's about to erase all their data (i.e. mildly technically illiterate people), while leaving it possible for exactly the people it should be possible for.
    - chongli 3y ago
      What happens when Meta, X, Google et al. move to their own stores where they distribute apps unencumbered by Apple's privacy policies? Your relatives then contact you and insist that you flip the switch for them so they can install Facebook and Instagram from the Meta store so they can continue scrolling cat memes. I have yet to hear a convincing argument (from multi-store proponents) about how to prevent this. If the big social media companies pull their apps from Apple's official store and move to their own stores (with unfettered access to spy on users) then they will be successful at dragging their users with them. Furthermore, there is no evidence that GDPR has had any success stopping them from siphoning up all the data they want.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        You tell them to use the service's web page because their app isn't available from a trustworthy source. And if their web page sucks, you encourage them to use a competing service whenever possible and only use the inconvenient one when strictly necessary. Which, as others do the same, pressures the service to do what you want and put their app in the existing store. This is the same thing that Apple does if they refuse to follow the process as it is, right? You're being insufficiently stubborn. And excessively dismissive if you think users making choices have no power. There are demonstrably people committed to having it their way: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685700 Unless you think tech companies have gotten too big and people don't have a choice anymore. If you have a monopoly, what you want is not another monopoly to fight them over which gets to fleece you, it's to smash them both by any available means. One of which is resistance through personal choices, one of which is... anti-trust enforcement.
willseth 3y ago
> All of this just makes it crystal clear what Apple's goal is: to prevent competition. Web Distribution requires stricter app and developer review than Marketplace distribution.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Isn't that kind of the point? The goal was to get out of Apple's clutches when your customers have their devices, so Apple made the thing meant to be independent even more dependent than the original in order to deter adoption.
  - willseth 3y ago
    The parent comment cited Web Distribution as evidence that Apple doesn't actually care about safety and security, when in fact Web Distribution is more secured than Marketplace distribution. > The goal was to get out of Apple's clutches when your customers have their devices Whose goal? Read the DMA. It is very explicit that it expects Apple to maintain security of devices and apps.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > The parent comment cited Web Distribution as evidence that Apple doesn't actually care about safety and security, when in fact Web Distribution is more secured than Marketplace distribution. Which goes to the parent's point that their intent is to prevent competition. Otherwise why would the alternative need more onerous security measures, if not to act as a deterrent through friction? > Read the DMA. It is very explicit that it expects Apple to maintain security of devices and apps. It also says that the security measures have to be "strictly necessary" and "there are no less-restrictive means to safeguard the integrity of the hardware or operating system" and "[t]he gatekeeper should be prevented from implementing such measures as a default setting or as pre-installation" etc. Which implies to me that you not only have to be able to turn them off, they have to be off by default.
      - willseth 3y ago
mellutussa 3y ago
> How does that count as a "marketplace"? I'm assuming that Apple is going to profit from that catalogue.
stouset 3y ago
> it's all about maintaining their app store monopoly. Does this only makes sense if you assume payments are tied to the App Store? They aren’t. If you remove payments from your list of motivations, what do you presume Apple’s motivation is to encourage apps to list themselves on the App Store and not a third-party marketplace?
- thefounder 3y ago
  Ads
- noapologies 3y ago
  It is much harder to explain to consumers why Apple should get a percentage-based rent (sorry Core Technology Fee that enables Privacy and Security™) if they go to a non-Apple website, download a non-Apple app, to do non-Apple-related things. Like literally the only participants in that business transaction are the consumer and the company, Apple does not even enter the picture. It would be like car manufacturers charging you a percentage for going to the grocery store, because they provide a Private and Secure™ transportation platform. Consumers will soon catch up, and if the EU does not put pressure on Apple about this, they definitely will.
  - simondotau 3y ago
    > Apple does not even enter the picture. Not exactly true, there are fragments of Apple intellectual property distributed with compiled binaries.
    - callmeal 3y ago
      >Not exactly true, there are fragments of Apple intellectual property distributed with compiled binaries. Which the annual tax (aka developer fee) presumably covers.
      - simondotau 3y ago
        A Happy Meal doesn't include a Sundae because you believe McDonald's is morally obligated to include one.

by bogwog 3y ago

MatthiasPortzel 3y ago

Before this, if you had an alternative marketplace, you had to accept submissions from other developers. You are still allowed to accept submissions from other developers, but are no longer required to.

rsynnott 3y ago
I suppose the point is that, if we're being pedantic (and after all, that is what the internet is _for_), you cannot have a single vendor marketplace based on the commonly understood meaning of the word 'marketplace'. (But yeah, this is just slightly silly naming from Apple).
- yard2010 3y ago
  Are you demonstrating Cunningham's law because the internet is for porn

bloppe 3y ago

Apple is just trying to protect users from scammers! I'm sure all this sensible authorization and notarization business will continue even after the fees are removed from the equation

nektro 3y ago

debating about how they run the store is totally valid, but there being only one store absolutely does make iOS safer overall

greazy 3y ago
But does it? I haven't seen any hard evidence, and lots of anecdotal tales of technology illiterate grandparents, fathers and mothers being better off.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Particularly when there are better alternatives. For example, put a physical hardware switch on the inside of the device that disables new stores from being added. Now you can set up your technically disinclined relatives with Apple's store, and a couple of others you trust if it pleases you, then flip the switch and they can't get into trouble because they can't add others. Move the switch back and the device won't boot without a factory wipe. That's going to deter both anyone who can't successfully disassemble the device to flip the switch (i.e. severely technically illiterate people) and the people who aren't willing to press YES to a prompt that says it's about to erase all their data (i.e. mildly technically illiterate people), while leaving it possible for exactly the people it should be possible for.
  - chongli 3y ago
    What happens when Meta, X, Google et al. move to their own stores where they distribute apps unencumbered by Apple's privacy policies? Your relatives then contact you and insist that you flip the switch for them so they can install Facebook and Instagram from the Meta store so they can continue scrolling cat memes. I have yet to hear a convincing argument (from multi-store proponents) about how to prevent this. If the big social media companies pull their apps from Apple's official store and move to their own stores (with unfettered access to spy on users) then they will be successful at dragging their users with them. Furthermore, there is no evidence that GDPR has had any success stopping them from siphoning up all the data they want.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      You tell them to use the service's web page because their app isn't available from a trustworthy source. And if their web page sucks, you encourage them to use a competing service whenever possible and only use the inconvenient one when strictly necessary. Which, as others do the same, pressures the service to do what you want and put their app in the existing store. This is the same thing that Apple does if they refuse to follow the process as it is, right? You're being insufficiently stubborn. And excessively dismissive if you think users making choices have no power. There are demonstrably people committed to having it their way: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685700 Unless you think tech companies have gotten too big and people don't have a choice anymore. If you have a monopoly, what you want is not another monopoly to fight them over which gets to fleece you, it's to smash them both by any available means. One of which is resistance through personal choices, one of which is... anti-trust enforcement.

willseth 3y ago

> All of this just makes it crystal clear what Apple's goal is: to prevent competition. Web Distribution requires stricter app and developer review than Marketplace distribution.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
Isn't that kind of the point? The goal was to get out of Apple's clutches when your customers have their devices, so Apple made the thing meant to be independent even more dependent than the original in order to deter adoption.
- willseth 3y ago
  The parent comment cited Web Distribution as evidence that Apple doesn't actually care about safety and security, when in fact Web Distribution is more secured than Marketplace distribution. > The goal was to get out of Apple's clutches when your customers have their devices Whose goal? Read the DMA. It is very explicit that it expects Apple to maintain security of devices and apps.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > The parent comment cited Web Distribution as evidence that Apple doesn't actually care about safety and security, when in fact Web Distribution is more secured than Marketplace distribution. Which goes to the parent's point that their intent is to prevent competition. Otherwise why would the alternative need more onerous security measures, if not to act as a deterrent through friction? > Read the DMA. It is very explicit that it expects Apple to maintain security of devices and apps. It also says that the security measures have to be "strictly necessary" and "there are no less-restrictive means to safeguard the integrity of the hardware or operating system" and "[t]he gatekeeper should be prevented from implementing such measures as a default setting or as pre-installation" etc. Which implies to me that you not only have to be able to turn them off, they have to be off by default.
    - willseth 3y ago

mellutussa 3y ago

> How does that count as a "marketplace"? I'm assuming that Apple is going to profit from that catalogue.

stouset 3y ago

> it's all about maintaining their app store monopoly. Does this only makes sense if you assume payments are tied to the App Store? They aren’t. If you remove payments from your list of motivations, what do you presume Apple’s motivation is to encourage apps to list themselves on the App Store and not a third-party marketplace?

thefounder 3y ago
Ads
noapologies 3y ago
It is much harder to explain to consumers why Apple should get a percentage-based rent (sorry Core Technology Fee that enables Privacy and Security™) if they go to a non-Apple website, download a non-Apple app, to do non-Apple-related things. Like literally the only participants in that business transaction are the consumer and the company, Apple does not even enter the picture. It would be like car manufacturers charging you a percentage for going to the grocery store, because they provide a Private and Secure™ transportation platform. Consumers will soon catch up, and if the EU does not put pressure on Apple about this, they definitely will.
- simondotau 3y ago
  > Apple does not even enter the picture. Not exactly true, there are fragments of Apple intellectual property distributed with compiled binaries.
  - callmeal 3y ago
    >Not exactly true, there are fragments of Apple intellectual property distributed with compiled binaries. Which the annual tax (aka developer fee) presumably covers.
    - simondotau 3y ago
      A Happy Meal doesn't include a Sundae because you believe McDonald's is morally obligated to include one.