6 ms·

Is Apple really going to keep playing this game of gatekeeping until legislation forces them not to? I really don't understand how you could remain so stubborn

Is Apple really going to keep playing this game of gatekeeping until legislation forces them not to? I really don't understand how you could remain so stubborn as a company that a system of complex rules across regions is preferable to just making it open and getting with the times. I've considered an iPhone due to the recent Google announcement w.r.t. code signing but it's still too walled off for me. They need to open up access to third party stores and third party browser engines. EDIT: yes I understand that we live in a capitalist system that is maximizing profit. My argument is that long term they're going to lose this battle seeing as the EU and Japan have already forced them to play ball. There are two options: remain stagnant and collect app store rent as long as possible or learn to be competitive in this new environment.

asimovfan 1y ago
Do you 'really not understand' that they only want to maximize profit?
- SXX 1y ago
  Not only want, but this is what they must do in interest of shareholders.
misnome 1y ago
Presumably they did a cost/benefit analysis and think it is more profitable this way?
- hypeatei 1y ago
  I mean, sure, but it's most likely a myopic analysis trying to keep earnings looking good for next quarter. My personal feeling is that, after seeing the winds shifting, you would figure out how to operate in an open garden and start pivoting now rather than resisting it at every corner.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- mdhb 1y ago
  Only in a quarter to quarter sense. I’ll never give them another cent. I’ve watched large numbers of people go from fans to haters in the last five years especially. I also think at just a fundamental technical level their moat is quickly disappearing.
rckt 1y ago
They all will try to gatekeep as much as they can. Google's move made this pretty obvious. They don't need free market and open platform. This is something for some nerdy enthusiasts. Funny that all the new device that are being released lately, like Sidephone or Light Phone; they all do the same thing. And not only they lock you into their OSes, but they even restrict the software that you are allowed to use.
latexr 1y ago
> Is Apple really going to keep playing this game of gatekeeping until legislation forces them not to? By this point it seems pretty clear that they will, at least while Tim Cook is in charge. Other higher ups, specifically Phil Schiller, knew this was a bad idea but were overruled. https://www.macrumors.com/2025/02/25/apples-phil-schiller-concerns-app-store-fee/ https://www.macrumors.com/2025/02/25/apples-phil-schiller-co...
ndiddy 1y ago
The current system gives Apple a 30% cut of every transaction that happens on iOS. Did you really think they'd voluntarily give that up just to be nice?
cbg0 1y ago
Apple makes over $10B from App Store commissions in the US alone, why would they reduce their profits unless forced to do so?
- latexr 1y ago
  Because doing so would have generated goodwill, which would have lead to a stronger brand and more money in the long term. Instead, they shot themselves in the foot and put themselves in a situation where the launch of a new product (Vision Pro) was an embarrassing and utter failure with lacklustre support from third-parties.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - lopis 1y ago
    You don't need goodwill when you have captured the market.
    - latexr 1y ago
      They haven’t captured every market (again, Vision Pro), and the ones they have they are losing power in.
  - arkitct 1y ago
    It is a shame that people want to believe that companies are or will be good. Or that they should even be given "human" expectations. Companies are not people and should not be afforded being treated as such. A companies function, especially if it is a publically-traded company is to continuously provide greater return for investors, so say the majority of prospectus. What we the people, regardless of country, need to start doing is holding the company heads to account, perhaps if the threat of execution (is China right here?) could "make" the company/people good? Something needs to be done before everything we have and "are" as a human will be, is a subscription to life.
    - 1y ago
fundatus 1y ago
Yeah, the fragmentation that is caused by Apple's behaviour is insane. You can set a different email client globally, but a different default Messages or Maps app? That only works in some regions. In-App payments? You can now basically do whatever you want in the US, in the EU you can opt-in into a different regime, in other regions it's staying the same but who knows for how long. By fighting this everywhere they're basically losing control over the outcomes and will end up with lot's of different regulations everywhere. Instead of doing the sensible thing and opening up their platform before they're being forced to do so.
- dwaite 1y ago
  Four points: 1. Apple potentially loses giving ground to regulators before the regulators ask for something. They don't want to allow alternative app stores and then have a regulator say they are also not allowed to mandate royalties for digital good/service sales in their own store. Apple is likely nudging regulators to go a particular way, but is effectively trying to barter. 2. Likewise, individual regulatory bodies solving the issues they see in different ways has and will continue to create complexity in app developers, in some cases meaning their app needs different business models in different countries to take advantage of the individual regulated changes. That is a consequence of regulators pushing Apple to themselves have different business models to fund the App Store in different countries. 3. If Apple doesn't want a feature to be used or thinks the feature is actively harmful, they aren't going to encourage its use by making it available in jurisdictions where it isn't required. 4. Some of these features (such as default maps app) are semi-baked and without industry consensus, but rolled out because they were required for regulatory timelines. I can emphasize with not wanting to roll out broken features where you aren't being required to.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    The ground is already lost. Apple can't prove that their monopoly is worthwhile, and none of their detractors are willing to renege. The "issues they see in different ways" ultimately boils down to one objectionable product (the App Store) that Apple is unwilling to part with. Apple can fix this issue without excess complexity. They are the ones demanding fragmentation and disparity as a result, allowing alternative app storefronts has always been a one-size-fits-all solution.
junaru 1y ago
> They need to open up access to third party stores and third party browser engines. Here in EU they did allow third party stores and all we got were shovelware sites with subscriptions. It added even more friction an shadiness to acquiring apps. We need to sop pretending iOS third party stores are anything like what we envisioned them to be. They are not f-droid or anything even half as good. Apple complies with this impotent law because the law changes absolutely nothing for end user.
- fukka42 1y ago
  > Here in EU they did allow third party stores Hardly. They did everything they could to make it completely pointless. Your apps still need to be blessed by apple and you still need to pay them. It's embarrassing the EU is allowing this sham.
  - junaru 1y ago
    Exactly. The law achieved nothing yet its being championed overseas as 'move to the right direction' and 'progress'.
    - fukka42 1y ago
      All it did was embolden Google to start locking down as well.
heavyset_go 1y ago
> Is Apple really going to keep playing this game of gatekeeping until legislation forces them not to? Is Apple going to kill the golden goose unless it is literally forced to? Of course not. Apple, together with Google, get a cut of 15% to 30% of all mobile app revenue. They have the entire market captured. They will only give that up when they're forced to.
- TulliusCicero 1y ago
  Google has allowed alternate app stores for a long time though. Just being the default is good enough to capture a lot of revenue.
  - heavyset_go 1y ago
    It's more than just defaults, Google puts up several road blocks for app stores and its most recent developer doxxing policy breaks F-Droid. Alternate app stores are 2nd class citizens on Android, and gated behind several scary warnings and layers of settings pages. Then there's the fact that the biggest alternative app store on Android is about to be made defunct by Google's new policy.
the_gipsy 1y ago
Is Apple really going to leave all that money on the table until obligated? No.
gregoriol 1y ago
Tim Cook must go: he failed at preserving their gatekeeping, and failed at opening it in an honorable manner.
arrozconcosas 1y ago
There are end user benefits to apples approach too, due to better governance and control over what apps are available. Governments also have incentive to maximize their power and are not benevolent actors in this scheme.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
TechRemarker 1y ago
On the other hand if long ago they backed down and lowered fees and allowed more control, aside from the potential security and privacy concerns that could negatively affect the brand, companies would have just then wanted more. As Epic has said they think they should have to pay nothing for all that Apple provides. So not saying all Apple’s choices and timing were right or best, but giving up previously wouldn’t have prevented all of this but rather just lowered the bar and making it easier for companies and countries to make it easier to lower it even further.
- myko 1y ago
  > As Epic has said they think they should have to pay nothing for all that Apple provides. I agree with this assuming what Epic Games wants is to be able to distribute their software themselves without Apple being in the loop
- isodev 1y ago
  > aside from the potential security and privacy concerns I make apps both as an indie and during my day job. The App Store review doesn’t do anything to protect the privacy or security of iPhone users. Most of the review is focused on ensuring Apple doesn’t get sued and that you as a developer don’t try to advertise something Apple doesn’t like. The whole idea that the App Store is safer is a marketing thing.
  - bzzzt 1y ago
    Ok, what do you make of this then? https://support.apple.com/en-us/122712 https://support.apple.com/en-us/122712 While not perfect, they claim to do security checks and verify some privacy choices. So they do something at least. As a consumer I can see value in Apple forcing itself in an arbiter role for app payments so they can step in when I have a conflict with an app developer.
    - isodev 1y ago
      All this is rehashed common sense - what you as a seller of software probably will do anyway to appear legitimate. No part of the review process stops someone from circumventing any of those rules - all you need is for the app to behave during review. Every technical safeguard is part of the operating system anyway, so that’s what’s really protecting you and it will still protect you when you install an app from another source. Just like computers have worked since forever.
eptcyka 1y ago
Even if alternative app stores are opened up, there are enough limitations that severely impede the device for me as is. You can't use a VPN and at the same time do service discovery on your local network, for instance. For some services, anyway.
yieldcrv 1y ago
Cigarette companies do this everywhere And they’re just the most visible Everything banned in the US is still offered as soon as you step across a border, every gross visual warning mandated in those countries is not implemented in the US
fainpul 1y ago
> I've considered an iPhone due to the recent Google announcement w.r.t. code signing You might want to get informed about the hurdles Apple puts in your way first.
- IncreasePosts 1y ago
  Android will still be able to install apps via ADB, even if the worst rumors are true about the restriction that will be enforced. If Apple allowed installation via some command line utility, that would be a radical opening of the platform.
45764986 1y ago
What incentive does Apple have to comply in advance? Every government wants to have their stamp on it, trying to build ahead of the specifications risks building something that is not compliant.

asimovfan 1y ago

Do you 'really not understand' that they only want to maximize profit?

SXX 1y ago
Not only want, but this is what they must do in interest of shareholders.

misnome 1y ago

Presumably they did a cost/benefit analysis and think it is more profitable this way?

hypeatei 1y ago
I mean, sure, but it's most likely a myopic analysis trying to keep earnings looking good for next quarter. My personal feeling is that, after seeing the winds shifting, you would figure out how to operate in an open garden and start pivoting now rather than resisting it at every corner.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
mdhb 1y ago
Only in a quarter to quarter sense. I’ll never give them another cent. I’ve watched large numbers of people go from fans to haters in the last five years especially. I also think at just a fundamental technical level their moat is quickly disappearing.

rckt 1y ago

They all will try to gatekeep as much as they can. Google's move made this pretty obvious. They don't need free market and open platform. This is something for some nerdy enthusiasts. Funny that all the new device that are being released lately, like Sidephone or Light Phone; they all do the same thing. And not only they lock you into their OSes, but they even restrict the software that you are allowed to use.

latexr 1y ago

> Is Apple really going to keep playing this game of gatekeeping until legislation forces them not to? By this point it seems pretty clear that they will, at least while Tim Cook is in charge. Other higher ups, specifically Phil Schiller, knew this was a bad idea but were overruled. https://www.macrumors.com/2025/02/25/apples-phil-schiller-concerns-app-store-fee/ https://www.macrumors.com/2025/02/25/apples-phil-schiller-co...

ndiddy 1y ago

The current system gives Apple a 30% cut of every transaction that happens on iOS. Did you really think they'd voluntarily give that up just to be nice?

cbg0 1y ago

Apple makes over $10B from App Store commissions in the US alone, why would they reduce their profits unless forced to do so?

latexr 1y ago
Because doing so would have generated goodwill, which would have lead to a stronger brand and more money in the long term. Instead, they shot themselves in the foot and put themselves in a situation where the launch of a new product (Vision Pro) was an embarrassing and utter failure with lacklustre support from third-parties.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- lopis 1y ago
  You don't need goodwill when you have captured the market.
  - latexr 1y ago
    They haven’t captured every market (again, Vision Pro), and the ones they have they are losing power in.
- arkitct 1y ago
  It is a shame that people want to believe that companies are or will be good. Or that they should even be given "human" expectations. Companies are not people and should not be afforded being treated as such. A companies function, especially if it is a publically-traded company is to continuously provide greater return for investors, so say the majority of prospectus. What we the people, regardless of country, need to start doing is holding the company heads to account, perhaps if the threat of execution (is China right here?) could "make" the company/people good? Something needs to be done before everything we have and "are" as a human will be, is a subscription to life.
  - 1y ago

fundatus 1y ago

Yeah, the fragmentation that is caused by Apple's behaviour is insane. You can set a different email client globally, but a different default Messages or Maps app? That only works in some regions. In-App payments? You can now basically do whatever you want in the US, in the EU you can opt-in into a different regime, in other regions it's staying the same but who knows for how long. By fighting this everywhere they're basically losing control over the outcomes and will end up with lot's of different regulations everywhere. Instead of doing the sensible thing and opening up their platform before they're being forced to do so.

dwaite 1y ago
Four points: 1. Apple potentially loses giving ground to regulators before the regulators ask for something. They don't want to allow alternative app stores and then have a regulator say they are also not allowed to mandate royalties for digital good/service sales in their own store. Apple is likely nudging regulators to go a particular way, but is effectively trying to barter. 2. Likewise, individual regulatory bodies solving the issues they see in different ways has and will continue to create complexity in app developers, in some cases meaning their app needs different business models in different countries to take advantage of the individual regulated changes. That is a consequence of regulators pushing Apple to themselves have different business models to fund the App Store in different countries. 3. If Apple doesn't want a feature to be used or thinks the feature is actively harmful, they aren't going to encourage its use by making it available in jurisdictions where it isn't required. 4. Some of these features (such as default maps app) are semi-baked and without industry consensus, but rolled out because they were required for regulatory timelines. I can emphasize with not wanting to roll out broken features where you aren't being required to.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  The ground is already lost. Apple can't prove that their monopoly is worthwhile, and none of their detractors are willing to renege. The "issues they see in different ways" ultimately boils down to one objectionable product (the App Store) that Apple is unwilling to part with. Apple can fix this issue without excess complexity. They are the ones demanding fragmentation and disparity as a result, allowing alternative app storefronts has always been a one-size-fits-all solution.

junaru 1y ago

> They need to open up access to third party stores and third party browser engines. Here in EU they did allow third party stores and all we got were shovelware sites with subscriptions. It added even more friction an shadiness to acquiring apps. We need to sop pretending iOS third party stores are anything like what we envisioned them to be. They are not f-droid or anything even half as good. Apple complies with this impotent law because the law changes absolutely nothing for end user.

fukka42 1y ago
> Here in EU they did allow third party stores Hardly. They did everything they could to make it completely pointless. Your apps still need to be blessed by apple and you still need to pay them. It's embarrassing the EU is allowing this sham.
- junaru 1y ago
  Exactly. The law achieved nothing yet its being championed overseas as 'move to the right direction' and 'progress'.
  - fukka42 1y ago
    All it did was embolden Google to start locking down as well.

heavyset_go 1y ago

> Is Apple really going to keep playing this game of gatekeeping until legislation forces them not to? Is Apple going to kill the golden goose unless it is literally forced to? Of course not. Apple, together with Google, get a cut of 15% to 30% of all mobile app revenue. They have the entire market captured. They will only give that up when they're forced to.

TulliusCicero 1y ago
Google has allowed alternate app stores for a long time though. Just being the default is good enough to capture a lot of revenue.
- heavyset_go 1y ago
  It's more than just defaults, Google puts up several road blocks for app stores and its most recent developer doxxing policy breaks F-Droid. Alternate app stores are 2nd class citizens on Android, and gated behind several scary warnings and layers of settings pages. Then there's the fact that the biggest alternative app store on Android is about to be made defunct by Google's new policy.

the_gipsy 1y ago

Is Apple really going to leave all that money on the table until obligated? No.

gregoriol 1y ago

Tim Cook must go: he failed at preserving their gatekeeping, and failed at opening it in an honorable manner.

arrozconcosas 1y ago

There are end user benefits to apples approach too, due to better governance and control over what apps are available. Governments also have incentive to maximize their power and are not benevolent actors in this scheme.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

TechRemarker 1y ago

On the other hand if long ago they backed down and lowered fees and allowed more control, aside from the potential security and privacy concerns that could negatively affect the brand, companies would have just then wanted more. As Epic has said they think they should have to pay nothing for all that Apple provides. So not saying all Apple’s choices and timing were right or best, but giving up previously wouldn’t have prevented all of this but rather just lowered the bar and making it easier for companies and countries to make it easier to lower it even further.

myko 1y ago
> As Epic has said they think they should have to pay nothing for all that Apple provides. I agree with this assuming what Epic Games wants is to be able to distribute their software themselves without Apple being in the loop
isodev 1y ago
> aside from the potential security and privacy concerns I make apps both as an indie and during my day job. The App Store review doesn’t do anything to protect the privacy or security of iPhone users. Most of the review is focused on ensuring Apple doesn’t get sued and that you as a developer don’t try to advertise something Apple doesn’t like. The whole idea that the App Store is safer is a marketing thing.
- bzzzt 1y ago
  Ok, what do you make of this then? https://support.apple.com/en-us/122712 https://support.apple.com/en-us/122712 While not perfect, they claim to do security checks and verify some privacy choices. So they do something at least. As a consumer I can see value in Apple forcing itself in an arbiter role for app payments so they can step in when I have a conflict with an app developer.
  - isodev 1y ago
    All this is rehashed common sense - what you as a seller of software probably will do anyway to appear legitimate. No part of the review process stops someone from circumventing any of those rules - all you need is for the app to behave during review. Every technical safeguard is part of the operating system anyway, so that’s what’s really protecting you and it will still protect you when you install an app from another source. Just like computers have worked since forever.

eptcyka 1y ago

Even if alternative app stores are opened up, there are enough limitations that severely impede the device for me as is. You can't use a VPN and at the same time do service discovery on your local network, for instance. For some services, anyway.

yieldcrv 1y ago

Cigarette companies do this everywhere And they’re just the most visible Everything banned in the US is still offered as soon as you step across a border, every gross visual warning mandated in those countries is not implemented in the US

fainpul 1y ago

> I've considered an iPhone due to the recent Google announcement w.r.t. code signing You might want to get informed about the hurdles Apple puts in your way first.

IncreasePosts 1y ago
Android will still be able to install apps via ADB, even if the worst rumors are true about the restriction that will be enforced. If Apple allowed installation via some command line utility, that would be a radical opening of the platform.

45764986 1y ago

What incentive does Apple have to comply in advance? Every government wants to have their stamp on it, trying to build ahead of the specifications risks building something that is not compliant.