> Nobody is forcing you to use a 3rd party app store, but Apple is forcing everyone to go through their store.
Many employers do that very thing. How many people have been compelled by employment circumstances to install Zoom despite its dubious pedigree? What happens when a corporate timecard app exists only in a 3rd party app store?
> What some people may not understand is that a large percentage of Apple customers are buying iPhones because of those restrictions and not in spite of them.
Huh?? This is an extraordinary claim, given the plain fact that if someone really doesn't want apps from 3rd-party stores on their device, they could just, you know... not install any...?
> What happens when the app for some piece of hardware you bought is on a 3rd party store? You don’t have a choice there either. (Besides returning the hardware if you have the option.)
Surely that's more choice than if the app for some piece of hardware you bought is not on iOS at all because Apple refuses to approve it?
> There is no “Apple market” and “Google market”, there is just one market for apps. The respective app stores are direct sales channels. This direct sales exclusivity (ie. no resellers) exists in many other industries.
I don’t think this holds.
I shop at multiple grocery stores, but only one mobile app store. Apple has a monopoly on sales of apps to iPhone users.
If I sell fruit I can distribute it through multiple channels. If business though one channel sours I can take my business elsewhere.
If I’m an iOS app maker with a popular app I can only distribute it on Apple’s store. If I can no longer distribute my app through Apple’s store then I’m screwed. Apple has a monopoly on the distribution of iOS apps.
> 1. No, this is limited to the AppStore, those businesses can operate elsewhere.
Defining "elsewhere" is important here.
They cannot operate on the same platform through alternative installation methods or the web (considering how Apple limits PWAs to be dead in the water). They also cannot reach these users through other platforms because of the immense lock in that Apple builds up intentionally. [1]
So they can operate "elsewhere" but they cannot reach those consumers. They are owned by Apple.
Regardless of how you feel about the legalities or how much freedom you think a company should have, that is obviously bad for competition and consumers.
> hat MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps
This is exactly what Apple is doing. Apple does not allow 3rd party app stores on the iPhone. They are literally preventing competitors on the platform, and forcing people to only use the apple app store.
> about allowing third-party apps in the beginning.
No, they absolutely do not allow 3rd party app stores on the iPhone. That is what this is all about. It is about Apple preventing competing app stores on the iPhone.
> Apple can choose which 3rd parties are able to allow installs (and hopefully some regulation prevents this from being anti-competitive).
What regulation could ever make Apple behave nicely to sub-stores who are eating their lunch? I doubt there would ever be a truly effective way to do that.
Instead, why not just tell Apple to allow side-loading (like basically every other consumer-grade OS has since the history of computers began)? If they want to include a 3rd-party app store in the Apple App Store, that's fine. If they don't, also fine. But I should be able to run whatever programs I want
> whether you have the right to force Apple to carry any apps
We are explicitly talking the opposite - let me install apps even if Apple disapproves of them. No need for the Appstore. Just let my sideload my own software on my own device I paid for with cash.
> Why is there no app store for personal team apps?
Honestly, for most people the App Store is good enough. For a long, long time, it wasn't good enough, and Apple was much stricter. As it got better, Apple started loosening the restrictions around deploying whatever you want to your device. People didn't really notice, and that's because the App Store was good enough. I suspect this was the game plan all along.
> Users don’t choose an app store based on how good the processor or download is, or even on discovery, but on trust.
Yes. For instance if people could install the Steam store on their phones, gamers would do so in droves and Apple don’t want people to be given that choice.
That would cut into their ability to tax and control all commerce happening on the user’s device, which to be clear, is not Apple’s property.
The monopolistic AppStore we’re forced to use is a BS arrangement and Apple is just afraid of what real competition would bring.
> A) Consumers want Apple's walled garden and Apple is meeting their needs,
> and
> B) The option to install apps from a 3rd party source would immediately mean that consumers all jump ship from Apple's official store and there would be no incentive for companies to release apps on the official store, and security on the device would be ruined forever.
> Both of those arguments can't be true at the same time. If you're providing a service that consumers want, you don't have to force them into it. If forcing consumers not to sideload apps is the only reason why consumers use Apple's store, then maybe that's a good sign that consumers don't want what Apple is providing.
The reason this looks like a contradiction is because it's not the actual position.
Mine, at least, is that 1) yes to A, and I'm not speculating, I personally feel that way as an iOS user, but then 2) no, on B: the concern isn't that users will jump ship from the App Store (I don't care, why would I?) but that developers will (and that I care about).
> So you basically want to force your preferences on me
No one is forcing you to install third party apps. Are you really unable to control the impulse to install third party app stores on your device? You need Apple to stop you from doing something you don't want to do in the first place?
Just because you want to stick in the Apple approved apps doesn't mean that I should have to do the same on my own iPhone.
"But why is it that so many people feel like they have a right to have their application sold in the iPhone App Store? Store owners do get to pick and choose what they're going to sell. You can't just come up with whatever lame product, show up at Best Buy or Amazon headquarters and demand that they start selling it in their stores. What in the world makes this guy or anyone else think the App Store is somehow an exception?"
Well, the problem is that Apple has made so that theirs is the only store in the world. If your store doesn't want to stock my book, it's not a problem, I can always go to the bookstore across the street and cut a deal with them. But if I write an app for the iPhone, the only place that I can sell it is the App Store.
That being the case, developers are going to see Apple being fickle about what apps are accepted/rejected, and they are going to start asking themselves is it worth the risk to spend 6 months developing an app just to discover that it can never even be put on the market.
Apple risks losing developers if they continue with this, and that doesn't help their cause.
> Right now I have confidence that anything that can run on my device is signed off and approved by Apple.
> That gives me a sense of security and privacy. I don’t have to worry about something being approved or not approved.
(Except apparently you do, judging from your previous paragraph.)
> If there’s an app, I rely on Apple to have signed off on it.
That's why people are saying they should allow other app stores beside their own: So they can continue to curate and ban apps in their own one, and still not be (seen as) totally evil monopolists who use their entrenched position to crush potential competition in the app space.
Keep installing apps only from the Official Apple App Store — don't even install another one (they'd probably put up lots of scary warnings around that) — and you'll still be just as safe as now. Just like all the other inmates.
> you can only get it from a third-party store that you don't trust. (Something gross like Facebook starting an app store.)
As apposed to today where you can’t get it at all if apple and the app disagree about anything?
I know you are thinking of another large enough player you don’t trust as much forcing their store as the only avenue for an app, but it’s hard to imagine how that wouldn’t provide large incentives for a smaller party to make a competitor on the official store.
> It’s night and day between it and what would happen if other app stores were allowed to install unvetted Apps.
I don't see it, and I'm more skeptical because this statement treats speculation as fact.
Anecdotally, I'm a potential (and once!) Apple customer that will never consider using an iPhone or iPad solely because Apple has created and enforced rules that elevate their judgment over mine when it comes to what software I am allowed to install on a device I purchased. That is just completely unacceptable to me. The argument that restricting what I can do with my device somehow has value to their other customers with a similar model of device seems far-fetched. I suspect it has value to Apple because they want the 30% cut, not because they think customers would leave if they offered it.
I agree with you that Apple disallows other stores because they truly believe in their walled garden. But I believe in giving customers the ability to choose for themselves, knowing that some customers will make bad decisions, but also knowing some customers will do amazing stuff because they were given the freedom to do so. Perhaps I'm just not a customer that Apple cares about serving. It's a shame, because it leaves me stuck with Android and Google's ever-invasive Google Play Services.
> I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload. (Emphasis mine)
Confusing phrasing, but would I agree that security and privacy could in fact be reduced by using another app store or sideloading.
Consider an app that is removed from Apple's app store for violating Apple's privacy and/or security requirements (for example refusing to report, or inaccurately reporting, collection of personal information). There is no guarantee that the app would also be removed from third-party app stores, or that it could not be sideloaded.
Many employers do that very thing. How many people have been compelled by employment circumstances to install Zoom despite its dubious pedigree? What happens when a corporate timecard app exists only in a 3rd party app store?
reply