17 ms·

United States vs. Apple

100 points by robenkleene 3y ago

eldadf 3y ago
When will the US do something against Google and Android? We at Appwrite are trying to build a decent alternative for Firebase push notifications, but in 2024 still forced to send our own customers to signup for our competitors service to be able to do it properly. I hope its just a question of time and not convenience.
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  You assume the US can just sue however they want. In practice, even the US DOJ holds back, for fear their lawyers won't be as good as Apple's (or other company's). Which, on one hand, shows the relative impartiality of the court system. On the other hand, it means that just as much as a corporation would likely loose a lawsuit against a tech giant, the US government also fears that outcome. Also, unlike a civil matter, losing an antitrust case could be disastrous for the government. The Microsoft case, for example, was a technical victory, but a practical loss that put fear in the government to use antitrust action for almost 2 decades. From their perspective, it way too much work (5 years of litigation) for too little an outcome (yay, we've decoupled Internet Explorer and got a few concessions). And the main reason why, was because the judge squawked and broke ethics rules, which was awfully unpredictable and unpreventable.
  - bevekspldnw 3y ago
    Not an issue of being as good or not, it’s resources - Apples are infinite, the DoJs are not.
    - cryptonector 3y ago
      I believe you have this backwards.
      - passwordoops 3y ago
        The FTC anti-trust department has been pretty well gutted, so yes with Apple the DOJ is still facing an entity with relatively infinite resources.
        Hasu 3y ago
        FTC antitrust is not part of the DOJ. The antitrust division of the DOJ only got $255m last year, not just to fight Apple, but to fight _all_ antitrust cases and run the division. Apple made $97b in profits last year, and reportedly had a legal budget in excess of $1b as of 2017. So yes, Apple's legal resources for this case are effectively infinite compared to the DOJ's.
        cryptonector 3y ago
        The U.S. can add funds to that department as needed and can exceed all of what Apple or any other company can spend on this.
    - passwordoops 3y ago
      And politics. The general policy of the FTC from the 1980s until about 2020 was that mergers and market concentration are good for consumers and the economy as a whole. Just to take one example, Facebook buying Instagram 100% should have been blocked, but the DOJ under Obama, carrying on the policies of Reagan, Clinton and Bush, decided not to pursue it.
      - SllX 3y ago
        > Facebook buying Instagram 100% should have been blocked On what grounds? Instagram was a small startup with about 30M users when Facebook proffered a deal. People legitimately thought they were overpaying at the time and while it was a hot app, it became the cultural phenomenon it is today under Facebook’s stewardship.
        afavour 3y ago
        Probably an easier argument to sub out the acquisition of WhatsApp instead.
        SllX 3y ago
        WhatsApp had a much bigger user base but was still a small startup with about 50 employees and was losing money. The scummy thing was the role Onavo played in Facebook identifying it as an acquisition target, but that’s not the same as illegal. I think this is still a weak case.
- wswope 3y ago
  ??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2020) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2...
- willmadden 3y ago
  Amazon too. These companies aren't just monopolies, they are groups of related monopolies.
  - passwordoops 3y ago
    https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/...
- passwordoops 3y ago
  I'm guessing you're new here. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-google-monopolizing-digital-advertising-technologies https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-googl... https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-wraps-up-antitrust-case-against-google-historic-trial-2023-11-16/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-wraps-up-antitrust-case-aga...
  - joshstrange 3y ago
    Those are both about search and not about Android from what I can see.
- jwells89 3y ago
  Chrome needs to be addressed, too. It’s achieved near-monopoly status (especially if lumping in Chrome reskins like Edge) and posing meaningful competition to Google’s cross-promotion, marketing, and army of engineers working on the project is for practical purposes impossible. Prying away significant marketshare would be incredibly difficult even for the best non-Blink browser imaginable.
  - danpalmer 3y ago
    Edge is not a Chrome reskin, it's a Chromium reskin, and I think that distinction matters a lot here. The point of Chromium is that there is effectively no promotion or marketing in it. I think the fact that Microsoft push pop-ups to get users to move to Edge from Chrome is testament to that. Now from a technical perspective, more diversity in browser engine might be nice, but this doesn't really contribute to the competition discussion. (my opinions, not those of my employer)
    - jwells89 3y ago
      The distinction doesn’t matter that much in my mind, because Chromium reskins give Google just as much power over the web as Chrome reskins would. If for example the marketshare of Edge and Chrome suddenly traded places, very little would change in terms of Google’s control of the web. Chromium/Blink being FOSS with Google also by far being the most dominant contributor essentially allows them to wield the same sort of power over the web that Microsoft once did, except this time it’s been whitewashed with an “open” gloss that helps keep the regulators off their backs.
      - kemayo 3y ago
        > If for example the marketshare of Edge and Chrome suddenly traded places, very little would change in terms of Google’s control of the web. I think it'd make a bit of a difference, because Microsoft would now have the threat available of changing rendering engines and taking all their users with them (via Windows automatic updates). It'd be expensive and risky, so they wouldn't really want to do it, but they'd have it as leverage against any Google decisions.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  This doesn't make any sense to me. It's definitely possible to send push notifications to Android apps without Firebase Cloud Messenger.
  - DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
    Yes-and-no. Yes, you technically can - but your users will complain: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41511475/android-push-notification-without-firebase https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41511475/android-push-no...
    - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      The top comment on that SO post is: > It's definitely possible -- you don't have to use Firebase to deliver push notifications. You can roll out your own notification solution or consider a paid product such as Pushy (pushy.me) which does not rely on Firebase Cloud Messaging. Full disclosure - I am the Founder & CEO at Pushy. So clearly someone else has done it and built a business around it.
- danpalmer 3y ago
  Push notifications are a tricky one because they only really work when there's one central distribution point, for performance/battery/etc. Apple does it this way too, and almost every mobile platform does the same thing. Yes you can sit in the background and hold a connection open or poll on some platforms, but it's not a good experience. I see a thriving third-party ecosystem around push notifications as a marketing channel. Yes the low level APIs end up going via the central platform, but they are remarkably low level, and the business value comes from the automation, easier integration, tracking, rich notifications, etc. Companies like Urban Airship have been around for well over a decade doing this. Are these central platforms holding you back? If so I'm interested to know what you're unable to do that you would be able to do better. (This is all my own opinion, mostly from developing for iOS in a previous role, not that of my employer where I'm nothing to do with push)
  - eldadf 3y ago
    All good, but why couple it with GCP? It used to be a separate, independent service (GCM) and how convenient it was to couple it with Firebase and call it FCM...
andsoitis 3y ago
Interesting insight from the article: Apple builds incredible user experiences, which gains them loyal customers who collectively have massive market power, which Apple can then effectively wield to get its way — a way that involves maximizing the user experience. It’s a virtuous circle.
- micromacrofoot 3y ago
  More biased than interesting, they've done lots of things that aren't particularly user friendly... the long history of proprietary connectors and dongles for example.
  - jwells89 3y ago
    Even that’s a mixed bag, though. When it came out, Lightning was a legitimate large step up from micro-USB and their old 30-pin iPod connector, and on MacBooks MagSafe was loved enough by users that it managed to come back from the dead and co-exist with USB-C PD.
    - dguest 3y ago
      Was the USB-C co-existence mandated by the European courts?
      - jwells89 3y ago
        Not sure. I’m not aware of any EU regulations on laptop charging (though I have not looked), and Apple was actually one of the earliest implementors of USB-C PD in laptops so if such regulations exist, MacBooks have likely always complied.
      - SllX 3y ago
        No. Apple moved to USB PD on their notebooks starting in 2015 with the 12” MacBook and 2016 in their existing products. Most phone lines that would switch to USB-C hadn’t even fully made the transition yet. Bringing MagSafe back was just them listening to customers for once.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
truculent 3y ago
It would be interesting to know if there were ways regulation could promote new competitor businesses, instead of handicapping Apple. It seems to me that in a healthier marketplace, Apple could argue that consumers were choosing them because their practices result in a better product. But in a duopoly (as with smartphone OSes), the argument rings hollow. It will be interesting to see where the courts rule, and where we decide the line between integration-for-better-UX and monopoly-enforcement is. I do wonder if that line would appear different if there were more competitors, and if there are additional, or creative ways that new competitors could be promoted.
- Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
  Demanding sideloading is not handicapping in any measure. It is about removing a harmful and arbitrary restriction that Apple imposes on its users. It should not be up to Apple to decide which apps a user can run on their own device. (And don't even get me started on how Apple readily removes access to apps after demands from Putin's Government.)
  - truculent 3y ago
    Yes, that change I wouldn’t call handicapping; although I’m sure Apple would. On the other hand, I think it’s reasonable to suggest that greater interoperability could result in some features being degraded or unavailable (maybe certain things happen slower, or consume more battery life, for example). We might still decide this is worth it overall, but it could genuinely handicap the UX.
    - aftbit 3y ago
      Really? Can you give an example? I don't see why performance or battery life would need to be impacted for users of the default services. In other words, if you want to keep using Apple-only stuff, you would get the same outcome as today.
  - andrewla 3y ago
    On the one hand, as a developer, I agree with you. On the other hand, as a user, and one who has to do de facto IT support for my family, I strongly disagree. Having an off-store method of installing apps is just dangerous. You could argue that it's a question of Apple having an incomplete security model, in which they enforce through human review that apps do not perform malicious behavior. But Apple is just pretty good at this -- the rare app that slips through their net is usually quickly caught and killed, and their security on-first-use opt-ins "Allow this app to access your camera", along with enforcing that apps for whom the permission is denied must still function, is critical, compared to the Android "Allow this app to access all device state forever including private information and your entire DNA sequence" that you get on app install. On the gripping hand, advanced users, like developers, can basically sideload whatever the hell they want. The barrier here is a lot stronger than a checkbox in settings saying "allow sideloading apps" and thus is intrisically more difficult to access, and then only by people who know what they're doing anyway.
xt00 3y ago
"What’s weirdest about Apple’s antitrust and PR problems related to the App Store is that the App Store is a side hustle for Apple. " -- that seems to be a feature not a bug -- Apple incorporating more and more capability into the base iPhone OS / software stack is what keeps people coming back. There was a mentality years ago that the iPhone was the good hardware plus a bunch of apps -- but over time many of the most important apps have been built in apps / services from Apple directly. So in many ways, if Apple allowed the app store to be more open, then it would allow 3rd parties to actually build a bunch of value there without much control from Apple -- so it would make more money for Apple at the expense of creating a more vibrant set of 3rd party apps that almost assuredly work on both the iPhone and Android phones. So in many ways, Apple probably would be happy with close to zero revenue in their App store as long as people were 100% locked into buying new iPhones and airpods and ipads next year.
- jwells89 3y ago
  We’ll have to see how it plays out. It’s also possible that iOS having a distribution model similar to that of the Mac opens it up to a bunch of high quality single-platform indieware similar to that macOS has enjoyed for decades, which could help maintain its reputation for better apps.
  - joshspankit 3y ago
    macOS has shifted and it’s harder than ever to distribute indieware. Devs must compile with and up-to-date version of Xcode which means they must legally abide by Apple’s TOS even if they don’t pay for the yearly license (and agree to the further agreements), and if they choose to circumvent the App Store the user must know how to unlock the restrictions needed to run unsigned apps and also push through the fear-inducing security warnings. As an HN user that’s “easy” but how many first-timers will be comfortable enough to get to the point where they can actually run that 3rd party app?
    - jwells89 3y ago
      Xcode doesn’t require the yearly fee, it’s downloadable for free, and you can get a barebones compiler toolchain with a terminal command. Devs who distribute outside of the Mac App Store can notarize their apps to make them run without the security warning stuff. I’ve done it to distribute a screensaver on Github, it’s not too bad, no worse than the hoops one needs to jump through to build and distribute apps with some cross-platform UI frameworks.
amadeuspagel 3y ago
> Leaving aside the fact that green bubbles actually serve a product function — they are not encrypted, while blue iMessage bubbles are Yes, that's itself an attempt to lock people in, which is particularly absurd considering Apple's privacy branding -- Apple sacrifices the privacy of its users communications with Android users to lock them in.
- tshell 3y ago
  I don't understand this line of thinking. Even if Apple were to build an iMessage client for Android, do you really believe that the average Android user would install it just to have conversations with those particular users? How would they even know that a user is on iMessage without it already being their default SMS app? Is Apple then really obligated to build an Android app that can facilitate base-level SMS conversations? How is that good for their business or valuable to their customer base?
  - afavour 3y ago
    > Even if Apple were to build an iMessage client for Android, do you really believe that the average Android user would install it just to have conversations with those particular users? Absolutely yes. Apple could also make the Android iMessage app fall back to SMS (IIRC the Android FB Messenger app does something similar) if the user wasn’t on iMessage if they wanted to.
    - tshell 3y ago
      Sure, they could do that. But once again, I must ask: How is making an SMS Android app in 2024 good for their business or valuable to their existing customer base?
      - hellcow 3y ago
        Avoiding anti-trust investigations and massive DMA fines sounds mighty good for their business to me.
      - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
retskrad 3y ago
Ever since Tim Cook said Apple is going to become a services company, that's when Apple stopped progressing. The Apple car is dead. The Vision Pro is DOA. Apple is a decade behind the others in AI which forced them work with Google. What other product category is there for them to take a crack at? This is why Apple is fighting tooth and nail to keep their App Store revenue going because if that growth stops showing up on quarterly earnings, their stock will crash and hell will break loose.
- returningfory2 3y ago
  How do the M chips fit in with this narrative?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- CaptainFever 3y ago
  > The Vision Pro is DOA. That's a pretty bold claim.
odyssey7 3y ago
It's perhaps not surprising that the security benefits of the App Store are under systemic pressures, as aftermath of Apple inconveniencing many organizations by adding so many privacy features to iOS. Many of the numerous organizations that leverage user data will want new capabilities for obtaining information from iOS, to replace or even to expand beyond what was previously available.
- sircastor 3y ago
  I wonder if that translates into anything that Apple can be pushed into? Government surveillance aside, does the existence of additional marketplaces strongarm Apple into rolling back any of those features? There has been a bit of suggestion that a powerful competitor, running their own marketplace might be able to force Apple's hand to do something it hasn't done up until now. If Meta runs their own Marketplace and offers Instagram only through that store, I don't think they gain any actual API differences - only a different set of EULA terms for distribution maybe?
  - odyssey7 3y ago
    Additional marketplaces aside, one of the specific complaints mentioned in the article is that some iOS system APIs are private, usable only by apps that Apple itself produces. "private APIs and system-level integrations that Apple claims provide for better battery life, messaging management, etc.; the DOJ says that these integrations should be modularized and made available" While messaging management makes it sound like the DOJ potentially wants Apple to give 3rd-party apps read access to users' SMS messages, the battery life API seems innocuous, yet batteries have already seen use in fingerprinting: "Fingerprinting happens when an app takes innocent-looking but technical information from your iPhone, like the volume, battery level and IP address. Combined, those details create a picture of your phone that can be as unique as the skin on your thumb." [1] Apple responded [2] to this type of fingerprinting by requiring app developers to give good reasons for requesting it, but a 3rd-party App Store would offer limited if any oversight from Apple. "'To prevent the misuse of these APIs […] developers will need to declare the reasons for using these APIs in their app’s privacy manifest,' Apple says. 'This will help ensure that apps only use these APIs for their intended purpose.' ... The data includes points such as IP address, screen resolution, language setting, fonts used, operating system type and version, processor type and speed, network information, battery level, etc." [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/23/iphone-tracking/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/23/iphone-... [2] https://www.bitdefender.com/blog/hotforsecurity/want-to-fingerprint-an-iphone-user-tell-us-why-says-apple/ https://www.bitdefender.com/blog/hotforsecurity/want-to-fing...
macleginn 3y ago
In a nutshell: "In short, I suspect the DOJ doesn’t want to follow in Epic’s footsteps, but they do want to sue Apple, so they framed Apple’s defining characteristic — integration — in the most uncharitable light possible to make their case. To put it another way, the Epic case may have shown that Apple’s policies around the App Store were (mostly) legal, but that didn’t mean they were right; now the DOJ, looking for another point of vulnerability, is trying to make the case that Apple’s right approach in delivering an integrated experience is in fact illegal."
- lolinder 3y ago
  This is what I've been warning about in these threads from the beginning: every time a government does something to Apple, certain people on HN cheer them on because any government action is seen as a good step. Unfortunately, as illustrated here, that's not actually the case. The current course of government action against Apple (on both sides of the pond!) will not lead to the iPhone as we know it minus the specific things that irk us as app and web developers. What the EU is doing and what this lawsuit seeks to do will end Apple as we know it. For some people that might be an acceptable outcome, but I think a lot of people are laboring under the false assumption that these actions will give them exactly what they want without any downsides.
someguydave 3y ago
"I don’t think the developers are wrong, but even if they are wrong, it’s not good for Apple that they’re so unhappy, and feel so aggrieved. It’s not good for Apple that developers don’t see the App Store as a platform that works in their interests. Like the Apple logo, “developer goodwill” has no price tag." I think many echo this sentiment. What exactly does one get for their 30% tax? Great docs? Awesome development platforms that are integrated with industry-standard CI/CD and revision management? Super responsive Apple devs who publish loads of useful "application notes" every week? Nope, none of that.
minhduong243 3y ago
Calling the App Store Apple's side hustle is weird as best and practically wrong. Someone's blog is a side hustle to their full-time job. Not blogging for days likely wouldn't affect their ability to make ends meet. But how would the whole Apple ecosystem function without this "side hustle"? "To put it another way, the Epic case may have shown that Apple’s policies around the App Store were (mostly) legal, but that didn’t mean they were right; now the DOJ, looking for another point of vulnerability, is trying to make the case that Apple’s right approach in delivering an integrated experience is in fact illegal." It is legal but it is not right, but the government is trying to prove that its right approach is illegal? What does it even mean? There are multiple interests in this ecosystem. Consumers', Apple's, shareholders', small developers and big developers. And they have different interests, often conflicting. By "being right", right by whom? Who is to say that they know how to appease every party in this ecosystem?

100 points by robenkleene 3y ago

When will the US do something against Google and Android? We at Appwrite are trying to build a decent alternative for Firebase push notifications, but in 2024 still forced to send our own customers to signup for our competitors service to be able to do it properly. I hope its just a question of time and not convenience.

gjsman-1000 3y ago
You assume the US can just sue however they want. In practice, even the US DOJ holds back, for fear their lawyers won't be as good as Apple's (or other company's). Which, on one hand, shows the relative impartiality of the court system. On the other hand, it means that just as much as a corporation would likely loose a lawsuit against a tech giant, the US government also fears that outcome. Also, unlike a civil matter, losing an antitrust case could be disastrous for the government. The Microsoft case, for example, was a technical victory, but a practical loss that put fear in the government to use antitrust action for almost 2 decades. From their perspective, it way too much work (5 years of litigation) for too little an outcome (yay, we've decoupled Internet Explorer and got a few concessions). And the main reason why, was because the judge squawked and broke ethics rules, which was awfully unpredictable and unpreventable.
- bevekspldnw 3y ago
  Not an issue of being as good or not, it’s resources - Apples are infinite, the DoJs are not.
  - cryptonector 3y ago
    I believe you have this backwards.
    - passwordoops 3y ago
      The FTC anti-trust department has been pretty well gutted, so yes with Apple the DOJ is still facing an entity with relatively infinite resources.
      - Hasu 3y ago
        FTC antitrust is not part of the DOJ. The antitrust division of the DOJ only got $255m last year, not just to fight Apple, but to fight _all_ antitrust cases and run the division. Apple made $97b in profits last year, and reportedly had a legal budget in excess of $1b as of 2017. So yes, Apple's legal resources for this case are effectively infinite compared to the DOJ's.
        cryptonector 3y ago
        The U.S. can add funds to that department as needed and can exceed all of what Apple or any other company can spend on this.
  - passwordoops 3y ago
    And politics. The general policy of the FTC from the 1980s until about 2020 was that mergers and market concentration are good for consumers and the economy as a whole. Just to take one example, Facebook buying Instagram 100% should have been blocked, but the DOJ under Obama, carrying on the policies of Reagan, Clinton and Bush, decided not to pursue it.
    - SllX 3y ago
      > Facebook buying Instagram 100% should have been blocked On what grounds? Instagram was a small startup with about 30M users when Facebook proffered a deal. People legitimately thought they were overpaying at the time and while it was a hot app, it became the cultural phenomenon it is today under Facebook’s stewardship.
      - afavour 3y ago
        Probably an easier argument to sub out the acquisition of WhatsApp instead.
        SllX 3y ago
        WhatsApp had a much bigger user base but was still a small startup with about 50 employees and was losing money. The scummy thing was the role Onavo played in Facebook identifying it as an acquisition target, but that’s not the same as illegal. I think this is still a weak case.
wswope 3y ago
??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2020) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2...
willmadden 3y ago
Amazon too. These companies aren't just monopolies, they are groups of related monopolies.
- passwordoops 3y ago
  https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/...
passwordoops 3y ago
I'm guessing you're new here. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-google-monopolizing-digital-advertising-technologies https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-googl... https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-wraps-up-antitrust-case-against-google-historic-trial-2023-11-16/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-wraps-up-antitrust-case-aga...
- joshstrange 3y ago
  Those are both about search and not about Android from what I can see.
jwells89 3y ago
Chrome needs to be addressed, too. It’s achieved near-monopoly status (especially if lumping in Chrome reskins like Edge) and posing meaningful competition to Google’s cross-promotion, marketing, and army of engineers working on the project is for practical purposes impossible. Prying away significant marketshare would be incredibly difficult even for the best non-Blink browser imaginable.
- danpalmer 3y ago
  Edge is not a Chrome reskin, it's a Chromium reskin, and I think that distinction matters a lot here. The point of Chromium is that there is effectively no promotion or marketing in it. I think the fact that Microsoft push pop-ups to get users to move to Edge from Chrome is testament to that. Now from a technical perspective, more diversity in browser engine might be nice, but this doesn't really contribute to the competition discussion. (my opinions, not those of my employer)
  - jwells89 3y ago
    The distinction doesn’t matter that much in my mind, because Chromium reskins give Google just as much power over the web as Chrome reskins would. If for example the marketshare of Edge and Chrome suddenly traded places, very little would change in terms of Google’s control of the web. Chromium/Blink being FOSS with Google also by far being the most dominant contributor essentially allows them to wield the same sort of power over the web that Microsoft once did, except this time it’s been whitewashed with an “open” gloss that helps keep the regulators off their backs.
    - kemayo 3y ago
      > If for example the marketshare of Edge and Chrome suddenly traded places, very little would change in terms of Google’s control of the web. I think it'd make a bit of a difference, because Microsoft would now have the threat available of changing rendering engines and taking all their users with them (via Windows automatic updates). It'd be expensive and risky, so they wouldn't really want to do it, but they'd have it as leverage against any Google decisions.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
This doesn't make any sense to me. It's definitely possible to send push notifications to Android apps without Firebase Cloud Messenger.
- DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
  Yes-and-no. Yes, you technically can - but your users will complain: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41511475/android-push-notification-without-firebase https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41511475/android-push-no...
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    The top comment on that SO post is: > It's definitely possible -- you don't have to use Firebase to deliver push notifications. You can roll out your own notification solution or consider a paid product such as Pushy (pushy.me) which does not rely on Firebase Cloud Messaging. Full disclosure - I am the Founder & CEO at Pushy. So clearly someone else has done it and built a business around it.
danpalmer 3y ago
Push notifications are a tricky one because they only really work when there's one central distribution point, for performance/battery/etc. Apple does it this way too, and almost every mobile platform does the same thing. Yes you can sit in the background and hold a connection open or poll on some platforms, but it's not a good experience. I see a thriving third-party ecosystem around push notifications as a marketing channel. Yes the low level APIs end up going via the central platform, but they are remarkably low level, and the business value comes from the automation, easier integration, tracking, rich notifications, etc. Companies like Urban Airship have been around for well over a decade doing this. Are these central platforms holding you back? If so I'm interested to know what you're unable to do that you would be able to do better. (This is all my own opinion, mostly from developing for iOS in a previous role, not that of my employer where I'm nothing to do with push)
- eldadf 3y ago
  All good, but why couple it with GCP? It used to be a separate, independent service (GCM) and how convenient it was to couple it with Firebase and call it FCM...

andsoitis 3y ago

Interesting insight from the article: Apple builds incredible user experiences, which gains them loyal customers who collectively have massive market power, which Apple can then effectively wield to get its way — a way that involves maximizing the user experience. It’s a virtuous circle.

micromacrofoot 3y ago
More biased than interesting, they've done lots of things that aren't particularly user friendly... the long history of proprietary connectors and dongles for example.
- jwells89 3y ago
  Even that’s a mixed bag, though. When it came out, Lightning was a legitimate large step up from micro-USB and their old 30-pin iPod connector, and on MacBooks MagSafe was loved enough by users that it managed to come back from the dead and co-exist with USB-C PD.
  - dguest 3y ago
    Was the USB-C co-existence mandated by the European courts?
    - jwells89 3y ago
      Not sure. I’m not aware of any EU regulations on laptop charging (though I have not looked), and Apple was actually one of the earliest implementors of USB-C PD in laptops so if such regulations exist, MacBooks have likely always complied.
    - SllX 3y ago
      No. Apple moved to USB PD on their notebooks starting in 2015 with the 12” MacBook and 2016 in their existing products. Most phone lines that would switch to USB-C hadn’t even fully made the transition yet. Bringing MagSafe back was just them listening to customers for once.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

truculent 3y ago

It would be interesting to know if there were ways regulation could promote new competitor businesses, instead of handicapping Apple. It seems to me that in a healthier marketplace, Apple could argue that consumers were choosing them because their practices result in a better product. But in a duopoly (as with smartphone OSes), the argument rings hollow. It will be interesting to see where the courts rule, and where we decide the line between integration-for-better-UX and monopoly-enforcement is. I do wonder if that line would appear different if there were more competitors, and if there are additional, or creative ways that new competitors could be promoted.

Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
Demanding sideloading is not handicapping in any measure. It is about removing a harmful and arbitrary restriction that Apple imposes on its users. It should not be up to Apple to decide which apps a user can run on their own device. (And don't even get me started on how Apple readily removes access to apps after demands from Putin's Government.)
- truculent 3y ago
  Yes, that change I wouldn’t call handicapping; although I’m sure Apple would. On the other hand, I think it’s reasonable to suggest that greater interoperability could result in some features being degraded or unavailable (maybe certain things happen slower, or consume more battery life, for example). We might still decide this is worth it overall, but it could genuinely handicap the UX.
  - aftbit 3y ago
    Really? Can you give an example? I don't see why performance or battery life would need to be impacted for users of the default services. In other words, if you want to keep using Apple-only stuff, you would get the same outcome as today.
- andrewla 3y ago
  On the one hand, as a developer, I agree with you. On the other hand, as a user, and one who has to do de facto IT support for my family, I strongly disagree. Having an off-store method of installing apps is just dangerous. You could argue that it's a question of Apple having an incomplete security model, in which they enforce through human review that apps do not perform malicious behavior. But Apple is just pretty good at this -- the rare app that slips through their net is usually quickly caught and killed, and their security on-first-use opt-ins "Allow this app to access your camera", along with enforcing that apps for whom the permission is denied must still function, is critical, compared to the Android "Allow this app to access all device state forever including private information and your entire DNA sequence" that you get on app install. On the gripping hand, advanced users, like developers, can basically sideload whatever the hell they want. The barrier here is a lot stronger than a checkbox in settings saying "allow sideloading apps" and thus is intrisically more difficult to access, and then only by people who know what they're doing anyway.

xt00 3y ago

"What’s weirdest about Apple’s antitrust and PR problems related to the App Store is that the App Store is a side hustle for Apple. " -- that seems to be a feature not a bug -- Apple incorporating more and more capability into the base iPhone OS / software stack is what keeps people coming back. There was a mentality years ago that the iPhone was the good hardware plus a bunch of apps -- but over time many of the most important apps have been built in apps / services from Apple directly. So in many ways, if Apple allowed the app store to be more open, then it would allow 3rd parties to actually build a bunch of value there without much control from Apple -- so it would make more money for Apple at the expense of creating a more vibrant set of 3rd party apps that almost assuredly work on both the iPhone and Android phones. So in many ways, Apple probably would be happy with close to zero revenue in their App store as long as people were 100% locked into buying new iPhones and airpods and ipads next year.

jwells89 3y ago
We’ll have to see how it plays out. It’s also possible that iOS having a distribution model similar to that of the Mac opens it up to a bunch of high quality single-platform indieware similar to that macOS has enjoyed for decades, which could help maintain its reputation for better apps.
- joshspankit 3y ago
  macOS has shifted and it’s harder than ever to distribute indieware. Devs must compile with and up-to-date version of Xcode which means they must legally abide by Apple’s TOS even if they don’t pay for the yearly license (and agree to the further agreements), and if they choose to circumvent the App Store the user must know how to unlock the restrictions needed to run unsigned apps and also push through the fear-inducing security warnings. As an HN user that’s “easy” but how many first-timers will be comfortable enough to get to the point where they can actually run that 3rd party app?
  - jwells89 3y ago
    Xcode doesn’t require the yearly fee, it’s downloadable for free, and you can get a barebones compiler toolchain with a terminal command. Devs who distribute outside of the Mac App Store can notarize their apps to make them run without the security warning stuff. I’ve done it to distribute a screensaver on Github, it’s not too bad, no worse than the hoops one needs to jump through to build and distribute apps with some cross-platform UI frameworks.

amadeuspagel 3y ago

> Leaving aside the fact that green bubbles actually serve a product function — they are not encrypted, while blue iMessage bubbles are Yes, that's itself an attempt to lock people in, which is particularly absurd considering Apple's privacy branding -- Apple sacrifices the privacy of its users communications with Android users to lock them in.

tshell 3y ago
I don't understand this line of thinking. Even if Apple were to build an iMessage client for Android, do you really believe that the average Android user would install it just to have conversations with those particular users? How would they even know that a user is on iMessage without it already being their default SMS app? Is Apple then really obligated to build an Android app that can facilitate base-level SMS conversations? How is that good for their business or valuable to their customer base?
- afavour 3y ago
  > Even if Apple were to build an iMessage client for Android, do you really believe that the average Android user would install it just to have conversations with those particular users? Absolutely yes. Apple could also make the Android iMessage app fall back to SMS (IIRC the Android FB Messenger app does something similar) if the user wasn’t on iMessage if they wanted to.
  - tshell 3y ago
    Sure, they could do that. But once again, I must ask: How is making an SMS Android app in 2024 good for their business or valuable to their existing customer base?
    - hellcow 3y ago
      Avoiding anti-trust investigations and massive DMA fines sounds mighty good for their business to me.
    - 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

retskrad 3y ago

Ever since Tim Cook said Apple is going to become a services company, that's when Apple stopped progressing. The Apple car is dead. The Vision Pro is DOA. Apple is a decade behind the others in AI which forced them work with Google. What other product category is there for them to take a crack at? This is why Apple is fighting tooth and nail to keep their App Store revenue going because if that growth stops showing up on quarterly earnings, their stock will crash and hell will break loose.

returningfory2 3y ago
How do the M chips fit in with this narrative?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
CaptainFever 3y ago
> The Vision Pro is DOA. That's a pretty bold claim.

odyssey7 3y ago

It's perhaps not surprising that the security benefits of the App Store are under systemic pressures, as aftermath of Apple inconveniencing many organizations by adding so many privacy features to iOS. Many of the numerous organizations that leverage user data will want new capabilities for obtaining information from iOS, to replace or even to expand beyond what was previously available.

sircastor 3y ago
I wonder if that translates into anything that Apple can be pushed into? Government surveillance aside, does the existence of additional marketplaces strongarm Apple into rolling back any of those features? There has been a bit of suggestion that a powerful competitor, running their own marketplace might be able to force Apple's hand to do something it hasn't done up until now. If Meta runs their own Marketplace and offers Instagram only through that store, I don't think they gain any actual API differences - only a different set of EULA terms for distribution maybe?
- odyssey7 3y ago
  Additional marketplaces aside, one of the specific complaints mentioned in the article is that some iOS system APIs are private, usable only by apps that Apple itself produces. "private APIs and system-level integrations that Apple claims provide for better battery life, messaging management, etc.; the DOJ says that these integrations should be modularized and made available" While messaging management makes it sound like the DOJ potentially wants Apple to give 3rd-party apps read access to users' SMS messages, the battery life API seems innocuous, yet batteries have already seen use in fingerprinting: "Fingerprinting happens when an app takes innocent-looking but technical information from your iPhone, like the volume, battery level and IP address. Combined, those details create a picture of your phone that can be as unique as the skin on your thumb." [1] Apple responded [2] to this type of fingerprinting by requiring app developers to give good reasons for requesting it, but a 3rd-party App Store would offer limited if any oversight from Apple. "'To prevent the misuse of these APIs […] developers will need to declare the reasons for using these APIs in their app’s privacy manifest,' Apple says. 'This will help ensure that apps only use these APIs for their intended purpose.' ... The data includes points such as IP address, screen resolution, language setting, fonts used, operating system type and version, processor type and speed, network information, battery level, etc." [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/23/iphone-tracking/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/23/iphone-... [2] https://www.bitdefender.com/blog/hotforsecurity/want-to-fingerprint-an-iphone-user-tell-us-why-says-apple/ https://www.bitdefender.com/blog/hotforsecurity/want-to-fing...

macleginn 3y ago

In a nutshell: "In short, I suspect the DOJ doesn’t want to follow in Epic’s footsteps, but they do want to sue Apple, so they framed Apple’s defining characteristic — integration — in the most uncharitable light possible to make their case. To put it another way, the Epic case may have shown that Apple’s policies around the App Store were (mostly) legal, but that didn’t mean they were right; now the DOJ, looking for another point of vulnerability, is trying to make the case that Apple’s right approach in delivering an integrated experience is in fact illegal."

lolinder 3y ago
This is what I've been warning about in these threads from the beginning: every time a government does something to Apple, certain people on HN cheer them on because any government action is seen as a good step. Unfortunately, as illustrated here, that's not actually the case. The current course of government action against Apple (on both sides of the pond!) will not lead to the iPhone as we know it minus the specific things that irk us as app and web developers. What the EU is doing and what this lawsuit seeks to do will end Apple as we know it. For some people that might be an acceptable outcome, but I think a lot of people are laboring under the false assumption that these actions will give them exactly what they want without any downsides.

someguydave 3y ago

"I don’t think the developers are wrong, but even if they are wrong, it’s not good for Apple that they’re so unhappy, and feel so aggrieved. It’s not good for Apple that developers don’t see the App Store as a platform that works in their interests. Like the Apple logo, “developer goodwill” has no price tag." I think many echo this sentiment. What exactly does one get for their 30% tax? Great docs? Awesome development platforms that are integrated with industry-standard CI/CD and revision management? Super responsive Apple devs who publish loads of useful "application notes" every week? Nope, none of that.

minhduong243 3y ago

Calling the App Store Apple's side hustle is weird as best and practically wrong. Someone's blog is a side hustle to their full-time job. Not blogging for days likely wouldn't affect their ability to make ends meet. But how would the whole Apple ecosystem function without this "side hustle"? "To put it another way, the Epic case may have shown that Apple’s policies around the App Store were (mostly) legal, but that didn’t mean they were right; now the DOJ, looking for another point of vulnerability, is trying to make the case that Apple’s right approach in delivering an integrated experience is in fact illegal." It is legal but it is not right, but the government is trying to prove that its right approach is illegal? What does it even mean? There are multiple interests in this ecosystem. Consumers', Apple's, shareholders', small developers and big developers. And they have different interests, often conflicting. By "being right", right by whom? Who is to say that they know how to appease every party in this ecosystem?