I think what you are saying is probably correct, but remember what happened to MS and IE. IE was never forced, and other options weren't blocked. The issue was bundling and inability to uninstall due to tight coupling. Both of those would apply to iOS though the details and current political landscape would probably give them a pass.
For me, I think the open question is can they deny 3rd party app stores or side-loading apps. Then, we get into the "Microsoft installing IE by default" fight. How can a 3rd party app store compete? (I don't have an answer)
Isn't this almost the same as the Windows/IE bundling antitrust case? Actually it's potentially worse.
Basically they have disabled a feature that already exists on the OS, and only let you take advantage of it unless you use their bundled system (app store).
Firefox and Chrome were able to dethrone IE because Windows doesn't have any gatekeeper preventing apps from being installed.
Apple has the right to decide who they do business with, but app developers shouldn't be forced to do business with Apple at all. That's the asymmetric part of the relationship. App developers should be allowed to distribute/sell apps directly to people. Specifically, the expected outcome is either that the App Store becomes optional (sideloading is allowed) or that the App Store becomes a neutral utility where everything is allowed.
With one anti-trust case behind them, and a loss (packaging IE as the only browser for those to young to remember), a single access point for all software would likely raise similar flags.
Apple can get away with it (or close to it) because they are still not the dominant platform.
I suspect we'll get to a point where the App Store, Google Play and Microsoft Store (not sure what Microsoft's is called) will be considered monopolizing the sales channel and be decoupled forcing competition in the store space, or allowing software to be installed without going through a store at all.
Thankfully we've got history on our side with installing apps from any source being the default behavior.
Ultimately giving users choice is the best way forward. Apple shouldn't be allowed to block competing app stores (or sideloading) on their platform, in my view that's monopolistic.
Imagine if Microsoft had restricted the ability to install and use third party software on Windows, it would of slowed digital transformation dramatically.
This reminds me of the Internet Explorer antitrust issue. Eventually Microsoft had to give users a choice on start up. Not sure if it directly led to better browsers or not, but it certainly didn't hurt. I could see the outcome being the same here where users will get to choose which store(s) they want on their device during setup rather than defaulting to the play or apple store
What about the other issue, specifically Apple which can 'deplatform' you from their garden and you have no way of getting your app on an iPhone?
Apple could just remove the Netflix app. What then? Smaller companies have no recourse or resources to fight it and are effectively dead.
At least on Android you still have the option of another app store, however it is also not the same and Google may block alternate source in its next os.
This is a much bigger problem than when Microsoft was shipping IE pre installed. You could always remove it and install something else. You can not do that on an iPhone.
Something like the "browser choice" that the EU forced Microsoft to implement for a while would do the trick. During initial iOS setup you'd have to choose which app store to use (from the currently most popular choices).
The law suit that resulted in "browser choice" started in 1993 and "browser choice" was started 2010, so this may happen "soon".
That's a false dichotomy. Apple itself is famous for picking good defaults, I'm sure they can implement a decent compromise that simply moves the needle a bit more towards consumers. Free browsers and a simple option to allow 3rd party appstores, set to off by default and somewhat bothersome to switch (i.e. buried into iTunes account screens, behind password, possibly with a periodic reminder every few months) would be more than enough. People who want to stay safe in the Appstore garden have nothing to do, and everyone else can go the extra mile if they want to.
Anything else, like two iOS versions, is simply a provocation on the level of "we cannot unbundle IE".
That might help, but I think that first there should be no rules that prevent apps which are not malicious and doesn't hurt end user from being in the app stores.
What the world would have been like, if you wouldn't have had the ability to use IE6 to download Firefox?
No, i have no such assumptions. Developers can and some may even will (though market forces will push at least one app store to be the dominant - chances are it'll be the one that comes out of the box with the device) focus on a single app store and there is nothing wrong with that.
The only wrong part is users not being in control over what they can install on their devices and from where they will install them.
Yes, it is possible that people will be forced to install applications they do not want, but this isn't something that is or even should be up to the OS vendor to try and protect against - the person being forced to do that is the one who should and if they cannot, then legal action should be seeked. The entire issue is outside the scope of the OS.
That makes sense.
I'll also grant that one of the most effective security measure is to deny by default and only allow stuff explicitly (with a single, controlled app store in this case).
Personally I think the reasons for those security measure are not worth the freedom limitations and I guess that's why I've never been a fan of the apple ecosystem.
My one fear for this is the leverage it gives large tech companies.
What's to stop Microsoft, Meta, or Amazon from forcing you to download their own app store to use their apps? We kind of see this on PC already with every company having their own game or app store.
When Chrome is on iOS and is pushed on every Google search, what happens to health of the web? Does that create a new web monopoly?
It's not totally fair that Apple gives themselves special permissions and blocks competitors, or forces the prices they do from devs who would otherwise sell their apps through their website, but is that the lesser of two evils?
You're forgetting that there is no other way to sell software or content on an iOS device. You can't circumvent the App Store unless you tell your customers to crack their devices and use Cydia.
I would be completely fine with Apple's App Store restrictions if iOS devices weren't locked down like they are. Even Microsoft never dreamed of the kind of Orwellian nightmare that Apple is spinning around the computing industry.
For me forcing them to open up APIs doesn't mean they lose anything. It'd simply separate the frontend from the backend. They could still provide their own clients and people who love the Apple brand and trust them can use them, I wouldn't even object to them shipping as the default experience on their phones. (something windows got punished for heavily when they bundled browsers, but think about how much less serious that was compared to the restrictions on phones)
All it'd do is offer up an alternative of stores or apps to interface with Apple for people who want it. For example have a chat app that seemingly bridges Android services and iMessage.
There are entities big enough to challenge Apple if they were forced to accommodate alternative app stores but obstructed them in practice, like GOG, Steam, Google, Microsoft etc.
Nobody would tolerate this kind of total platform control in OS X or windows.
I disagree. I think, if the control were introduced slowly enough and with the right justifications ("security" and "convenience" spring to mind) many users would welcome iOS level restrictions on their general purpose computing hardware. Indeed, we're already seeing Apple move in this direction with its increasingly strict restrictions on App Store purchases in OSX.
I hate to be as alarmist as Stallman and co., but I do think the ship has sailed on this one. The only way to guarantee that your device is open is to run an open operating system on it. If this were an Android app instead of an iPad, then the developers could have asked users to install a different app. store (like Amazon's app store) or even offered the .apk for the users to install themselves. It would have been less convenient than installing from Google Play, but it wouldn't have been nearly as difficult as with iOS.
Not without massive loss of users. Both Microsoft and Apple would love to lock down their platforms, but they have to do it in tandem or users will flock to the other. So we will see a slow lock-in creep until they look like current day smartphones.
Only way to stop this is to react strongly, so if most users are apathetic like you then it is inevitable. Of course I believe that you are right and most are this apathetic, so from my perspective this is inevitable. When they roll out the enforced appstore you will say something along the lines of "but this appstore is secure and I can get all the programs I wanted from it anyway, and even if I couldn't would I really want an insecure program?".
reply