Too much credit is given to the concept of “just using another phone”, whether it is for a user or a developer.
As a user, no way I would just toss aside years of app purchases and past experiences on one platform to suddenly decide to switch. Sure, some people do but generally they don’t. Switching cost applies to lots of things, not just phones, yet the inability of app stores to transfer proof of purchase makes this cost higher than it would normally be.
As a developer, like it or not you will depend on some (usually large) percentage of APIs available only on your first chosen platform. Probably even the programming language! And for the most unfortunate of businesses, a ton of this effort will be spent up front before even knowing if some new idea for an app will be denied entry to the App Store due to some unwritten rule (or worse, denied a few years in as the rules shift). If you reach the conclusion that you picked the wrong first platform, most developers are not “free” to “just” pick another phone/platform and make it all work out before going broke.
Kinda agree. I as an iPhone user, am completely aware of the fact I'm not only buying "just a device" but I committed myself to an ecosystem.
And I did so, quite willingly as I place my trust in Apple and how they control and guard the quality and safety of the software that I can put on my iPhone.
Now I can understand the sentiment of "free choice". But we're not talking about public utilities here. These are all commercial products provided to us by private companies. The choice we have is to not accept the offer as a whole. The market has spoken however and it seems we - the general public - are ok with how Apple runs their company.
I had some success reaching out to android devs for a voucher on iOS when I switched. My success was mostly limited to finding contact information. When I did, a few answered with a voucher. Most didn’t reply.
Regardless of the outcome, it is clear that the trial (and the inevitable appeals) is going to leave its mark on the future of app stores and digital distribution. What started as a dispute over a random game turned into possibly the highest profile lawsuit Apple has had to fight. They made Tim Cook take the stand for the first time in his life. A lot of damaging PR was unearthed. Apple and others have already announced concessions for developers in the last few months (like cutting the rate to 15% for the first $1M in revenue, followed closely by Google who did the same). Antitrust investigations in the EU and other jurisdictions are picking up steam. This saga is far from over.
It seems that this saga goes far beyond Apple. The bigger question this will probably lead to is to what extent operating systems/platforms/intellectual property fully belong to a person or entity. How much of it should be "shared" if at all? This will affect game consoles, ATMs, automobiles, and anything with an electronic circuit. It's a property rights conundrum fit for the 21st century.
The question of ownership will definitely have to be answered soon enough, as people who have been purchasing digital content over the last 20-30 years start to die. If my dad spent hundreds or thousands of dollars purchasing Beatles albums and memorabilia do I have the right to inherit it? Apple says no, but I bet courts in most jurisdictions will disagree.
We're also now reaching the point where the game consoles that first enabled purchasing games digitally are having their storefronts taken down, and suddenly everyone is realizing that their hundreds or even thousands of dollars in digital purchases can just be revoked on a whim.
Ben argues that even the Apple question is murky enough to make it impractical for regulation to step in. Expanding the question only muddies the waters even more. For any actual change to occur the underlying issue needs more focus and clarity. I would say follow the email trails and focus more specifically on Spotify, iBooks and conflict of interest
I doubt it's within Congress's ability or capability. In addition to property rights, this case also involves freedom of speech and association. Congress can't make any laws abridging Apple's freedoms at the expense of the consumer's/developer's or vice versa. The courts don't exist to regulate, they exist to interpret their impartial findings on the basis of current law. What's needed is an answer to these questions and there's no better place to do it than in the courts.
Marketplaces, even so-called private ones, can ultimately be under the purview of government. If Apple didn’t police scams, you can bet that the FTC would be involved. There are _definitely_ areas where government could interfere. It’s not necessarily inappropriate that the courts are unlikely to interfere in what is fundamentally a legislative responsibility.
I really wish Apple would just allow side loading. This would alleviate most concerns and would enable everyone to run any software they want on the device they bought.
The major problem with enabling sideloading from Apple's perspective is that if they allowed sideloading, all of the big tech companies that compete with Apple would happily, immediately, force users to sideload their app.
Case study: Facebook. Hates Apple for the App Tracking Transparency prompt. Hates that they get substantially less revenue from iPhone users, according to leaked slides, due to restrictions on what APIs they can use to fingerprint and track users. Hates having a Privacy Label in the App Store. Solution? Force users to sideload. They'll most likely do it because they want Facebook, Facebook doesn't need to follow Apple's rules anymore, problem solved.
In that case, it is less that Apple is afraid of giving users the choice, as much as that large apps that people use will force users to make the choice for them.
And for that reason, while some users would legitimately want their iPhones to be able to install apps from anywhere, most users hitting the "Allow Sideloading" button would have essentially been forced into doing so, without actually wanting it.
Furthermore, any big vendor (e.g. Facebook) with its own vast audience and ecosystem would immediately launch its own app store, with its own payment model and revenue cut, its own exclusive titles, developer relationships, and (one assumes) its own vastly more liberal policy with respect to privacy-exploitative dark-pattern apps (notwithstanding that Apple's app store certainly doesn't restrict all such things). The sideloaded Facebook "app" would not simply be Facebook, but the Facebook App Store.
> Furthermore, any big vendor (e.g. Facebook) with its own vast audience and ecosystem would immediately launch its own app store
And yet there is no precedent for this happening, because this didn't happen on Android, Windows or macOS. The Play Store shows the same scary privacy warnings the App Store does for Facebook, and there still isn't a Facebook app store that some people like to fearmonger about.
The Play Store cannot be compared to the iOS App Store, the Windows Store, or the macOS App Store because the iOS App Store is substantially more stringent than the Play Store in what apps are even allowed to request permission for, their sandboxing restrictions, and their privacy requirements. For example, Google gets more than 10X the data from their Android app than they get from their iOS app according to estimates. Also, Google Play only shows a request for Permissions, while iOS shows the entire list of what data is collected that is linked to you, and the data that is collected that is not linked to you, which means that the "scary privacy warnings" are substantially scarier on iOS and don't bear the comparison to the permissions-only Play Store.
What... the Epic store is the BIGGEST example of this. It is a shoddy game store compared to Steam and GOG. Epic paid for massive exclusives to make inroads into the PC gaming space and their product is full of dark patterns.
Others have mentioned Steam, and the lack of an equivalent to Apple’s latest tracking restrictions on Android.
But at the risk of pointing out the obvious: on Windows and macOS, there is no Facebook app at all. There’s a website, because somehow websites have become the standard for desktop applications, even as they’re simultaneously seen as unacceptable on mobile. And Facebook has full control over their website.
Of companies that do make native desktop apps, the big ones almost all eschew the Mac App Store.
Steam is older, so it's had time to grow the feature set that it needs, but it's not fundamentally different. Valve Software was a company that released games, before branching out into the much more profitable business of intermediating.
I'd argue that Epic has the opportunity see what features are out there, what is possible and what users want and could imitate Steam much quicker than it would've taken Steam to build the functionality originally.
And where does that end? Google's got a bunch of apps like Gmail and Google Drive, so the Google Play Store for iOS would probably enter the ring too.
The point is more that if the App Store is to be the only App Store on iOS, and Apple wants to maintain its rules on privacy and other systems and not become Android, sideloading logically cannot be permitted.
Not really—with a marketplace, you can choose to buy a product from Store X, or from Store Y. In this future, you'll still have no choice which store you're buying a product from. Apps like Facebook aren't fungible. And if you want Facebook, you'll have to buy it from the Facebook Store, whether you want to or not.
…for publishers. Stores have to compete for software to publish but users don’t get any additional choice when Facebook is only available on the Facebook App Marketplace.
This is a little like exclusives at physical stores but customers have a much less involved relationship in that case.
> if they allowed sideloading, all of the big tech companies that compete with Apple would happily, immediately, force users to sideload their app.
Google allows sideloading on Android. Neither Facebook nor any other similarly-popular app that I can think of forces users to sideload there. Why would it be different on iOS?
Facebook hasn't taken out any full page ads in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and probably others about Google Android not allowing them to track you without asking first. Clearly the circumstances are different.
Google play store is less restrictive than Apple’s.
With that said, I find the argument weak - it’s hard for me to believe that sideloading will be a big share of the market, as it hasn’t caught on in areas where a google is restrictive (e.g. adult content).
Not everything. The transparency prompt would still appear, but Facebook wouldn't need to show users that Privacy Label in the App Store. They could also access restricted iOS Entitlements that the App Store would not permit. These entitlements can do things such as "read data from other apps" or "see what apps are installed in the system" or other functionality that the App Store doesn't allow under almost any circumstances.
If sideloading was enabled, Facebook could claim use of those entitlements. iOS could potentially show a prompt forcing users to OK their use, but Facebook would obviously hope most people just tap the button without thinking.
further toward the ideal consumer outcome, the apple app store would be compelled to compete with any other ios app store (e.g., cydia) but apple would be allowed to be as stringent about security and privacy of the device as they’d like (promoting competition in the mobile phone market, in addition to the apps/app store market). then, facebook couldn’t circumvent the protections that consumers want in their mobile devices by hopping to another app store.
That's a great way to put it. Absent government bans on a bunch of the bad behavior Apple outlaws in its store, I'd really rather keep the choice of selecting Apple's "users' union".
When spying on users and hoarding the resulting data is illegal, and anti-fraud laws and truth-in-advertising laws and laws mandating a standard interface for subscription management exist or are much better-enforced, then, sure, let's grab the torches and pitchforks and burn down the App Store. Meanwhile, I'm paying Apple to be my private regulation agency, backed by their sheer size (as a company, and of their market) to prevent companies and developers from simply refusing to do business with them (and so, not forcing, but strongly encouraging them to provide me with regulation-compliant products and services).
There is one thing I would like to expand upon in what you said:
> Apple is afraid of giving users the choice, as much as that large apps that people use will force users to make the choice for them.
That assumes that users have no choice but keep using the side loaded software. But that's not true. People could just stop using Facebook entirely.
I guess the majority wouldn't, but the choice is there at least.
In regards to privacy, I agree with Apple's stance. But what about other areas? I don't want one single company dictating what I can or can't use on my device.
Right now: I can (I don't, but I could) use Facebook on iOS devices without giving them access to a bunch of stuff they'd love to have access to, or letting them do things I'd rather they not. Or I can choose not to use it.
Your vision: I can choose not to use Facebook on my iOS devices, or else use it but let FB have access to and/or do a bunch of stuff I don't want them to.
How's the latter something I'd prefer to the former? All it gives me is a worse version of the same to choices from the first one.
If people are still using Facebook, today, knowing all that has happened, the odds are most people will continue using it though one can dream. I would honestly expect 90%+ of Facebook users to sideload if Facebook required it.
"But what about other areas? I don't want one single company dictating what I can or can't use on my device."
If you told this to an Apple Engineer, he'd look at you in the eye and tell you that the iPhone isn't for you and to buy an Android. You have that choice. The iPhone doesn't fit your use case and Apple isn't interested in making it fit your use case.
> If you told this to an Apple Engineer, he'd look at you in the eye and tell you that the iPhone isn't for you and to buy an Android. You have that choice. The iPhone doesn't fit your use case and Apple isn't interested in making it fit your use case.
> If people are still using Facebook, today, knowing all that has happened, the odds are most people will continue using it though one can dream. I would honestly expect 90%+ of Facebook users to sideload if Facebook required it.
Why sideload when you can simply open it up in any mobile browser?
> If you told this to an Apple Engineer, he'd look at you in the eye and tell you that the iPhone isn't for you and to buy an Android.
Easy solution for Apple then: stop selling things labelled as "pro". I was already burned when I bought the 16 inch Macbook Pro, which was a shockingly incapable and undocumented device. Lenovo provides better documentation on their entry level laptops than Apple provides for their Pros, despite the order of magnitude difference in price between both devices. So to the "Apple Engineer" out there, I'd encourage you give people the choice anyways.
In other words, North Korea doesn't justify their atrocities by telling the rest of the world that their culture "isn't for them". Apple is no less accountable for their own product line, particularly when they're some of the most profitable electronic hardware being manufactured right now.
Comparing North Korea, a government, with a public company in a free society makes no sense and disrespects the real atrocities the North Korean people are experiencing, because you are comparing their suffering to problems you have with your laptop, which is appalling.
As for the term "pro" - nobody agrees what "pro" means. An art designer might do professional work on a MacBook Air, even though you wouldn't call that a "pro" machine. Although you might not like the terminology, you should have been able to research and know what you were getting, and it still absolutely does not bear the comparison to North Korea. First world problems compared to third world tyranny.
> Easy solution for Apple then: stop selling things labelled as "pro".
Easy solution for you: Accept that its not for you, even if you think you're "pro". Its just a word for marketing. You're the one with a problem in search of solution, apple is not.
This isn't the case though. Anyone can install Facebook, or Apple music, Netflix, any of the Microsoft or Amazon apps on Android through the play store, without needing to sideload.
Actually, there is much evidence. The Google Play Store is significantly less stringent on Android than iOS. For example, Google is estimated to get less than 1/10th the data from an iOS user as an Android user. The Play Store also, currently, doesn't effectively enforce the use of Google In-App-Purchase.
Because of that, there are less reasons to sideload away from the Play Store (from a company's perspective) as there are on iOS.
> I really wish Apple would just allow side loading
They used to, more or less, either using a development/test certificate or an enterprise certificate. I believe Apple cracked down after this was taken advantage of at scale by Facebook and Google, as well as developers of other apps which would typically be banned from the App store.
That's because Google is also engaging in anti-competitive behavior, and abuse their duopoly with Apple in the mobile app distribution market.
User installable 3rd party mobile app stores cannot implement automatic upgrades, background installation of apps, or batch installs of apps like the Play Store can. These limitations are designed by Google and are implemented in Android.
If the user tries to install an app on their own, they're shown scary warnings and must adjust arcane settings, but if they use Google's Play Store, no scary warnings are shown and no settings need to be adjusted. They're told they're "protected" by Play Protect, but aren't shown scary warnings about the fact that the Play Store is the main distribution method for malware on Android[1] when they go to install apps with it.
The Play Store isn't alone in being a vector for malware, as Apple's App Store is responsible for nearly half of a billion malware installs of just XcodeGhost alone[2].
Like Apple, Google also mandates that apps distributed via the Play Store must use Google's payment system[3], and give Google a 15% to 30% cut of revenue:
> Developers charging for apps and downloads from Google Play must use Google Play's billing system as the method of payment.
Apple is moving in the opposite direction in macOS, so I wouldn't hold my breath on them choosing to do this whatsoever. Sideloading goes against their entire iOS app philosophy.
This would also mean that Facebook would start sideloading and attempt to circumvent any of the tracking/privacy enhancements they've built in to iOS.
I think the correct wording should be "I really wish Apple would just make it easy side loading". I wish it too.
I know how unpopular this is but I will say it anyway, I can't stand it and I am willing to sacrifice a few karma points to convey the message.
I have distaste against the claim that Apple is not allowing people do something on their device because this is technically false. What Apple is not allowing is using its App distribution platform outside of their store rules.
What Apple is not helping with is side loading. They don't have a say on what you install on your phone but they have a say on what you can distribute on their App Store. That's why it's the developers that are suing, not the users.
However hard it is, you have all the rights to run whatever you like on your device you purchased. The "Apple doesn't allow you to install apps, you don't own the device" is a fallacy.
You can pay for the convenience(get a developer account, use the Apple toolchain to install your apps) or hack your device and run whatever you want on it and both are completely O.K.
At the time of purchase you don't sign anything preventing you from doing it, consumer devices are not like those developer devices that apple sells or send upon limited use or NDA agreements. You are free to do whatever you like to your device. Install a Chromium engine or blend it for YouTube views, it's up to you. You are only limited with your local laws, so dispose it's battery responsibly and that's it.
>However hard it is, you have all the rights to run whatever you like on your device you purchased.
This is patently false. Many entitlements are locked behind explicit, human approval from the Apple Developer Program; examples include NFC with payment-related Application IDs and Multicast Networking. You actually have to submit a request that basically goes 'Please can I write software for this device?' to use that hardware on the device (see https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=0oi77447). You emphatically are NOT able to run 'whatever you like'.
However Apple can lock their software. The software is licensed, you don't buy that but licence it like Photoshop. Adobe also doesn't provide you with an easy way to do your taxes on Photoshop but I'm yet hear to claim that Adobe is preventing us from doing our taxes.(I couldn't think out of my head a major software that's not on subscription model, hmm)
Remove it and install something like Android on it, it is hard but it has been done before.
I simply don't see how Apple is obligated to make it easy or create tools for doing it. It's not promised upon purchase or on any advertisement materials.
It's not different than complaining that Apple does not let you use your phone as pocket heater through heating the Qi coil.
The IP argument seems a bit hollow to me, since Apple would've had to build probably upwards of 70% of the API surface for iOS just for their internal apps (and when they launched the iPhone SDK, they repeatedly pushed that developers were using the same tools they used to build the core apps). And even if that is true, the total cost of development of iOS is probably paid for by the sale of the devices. The phone is nothing without a way for someone to write software for it, whether it's Apple or a third-party.
I wonder how long until Apple finds the people who made the "you wouldn't steal a car" advertisement for the MPAA and gets them to make "you wouldn't offer your own payment method for digital goods".
Even if it was 70%, it is hard to put a price on the additional 30%. As an example lets look at the Camera API. It is possible do full encoding at high resolution of two independent sensors recording simultaneously (front + back camera for instance). There is no 1st party functionality that uses this. This requires a combination of hardware (media + sensor chips), OS, API, testing, docs, etc, that is built for 3P. This is just 1 example. It is hard to argue that Apple is not investing a fair share of the 30% platform fees back into the platform itself (hardware, software and services).
>The IP argument seems a bit hollow to me, since Apple would've had to build probably upwards of 70% of the API surface for iOS just for their internal apps (and when they launched the iPhone SDK, they repeatedly pushed that developers were using the same tools they used to build the core apps).
Does Amazon build separate warehouses for third-party goods? All you're saying is that software is a good business, which everyone already knows.
I have the similar wish and opinion as Ben Thompson. ( But somehow unpopular on HN )
>And, for what it’s worth, continue controlling games: I do think the App Store is a safer model, particularly for kids, and the fact of the matter is that consoles have the same rules.
Move Games away from App Store to Game Store. Keep those 30% cut. This way Apple have just protected ~90% of their App Store revenue. Like Ben have said, this is similar to console.
>Let developers own their apps, including telling users about their websites, and let creatives build relationships with their fans instead of intermediating everything.
Not just "creatives", but business to built relationship with their customers. Most people will still definitely sign up through Apple ID simply due to protection and simplicity. Collect flat 10% commission on digital goods with no exemption.
And App Store should approve apps as long as they are legal, fit the quality of apps in both UI and security requirement. Not because of its political speeches.
Finally Subscription Scams. Something needs to be done. I have a few solutions in my head but all of them have major drawbacks.
> What I wish would happen — and yes, I know this is naive and stupid and probably fruitless — is that Apple would just give the slightest bit of ground.
Does anyone know if there's a strategic legal reason Apple hasn't done this (beyond the small developer program)? Like, imagine tomorrow they give ground. What op-eds would I read in the WSJ about how they've exposed themselves x, y, z problems?
I mean this in the legal sense, not the obvious, usual slippery slope.
One thing that really struck me in this article was Phil Schiller's email about sort of capping the rule after Apple takes in $1B in profit. I thought that was a very sweet and kind thing to suggest. Maybe the number is wrong, maybe the motivation is wrong, but I do like the spirit of this.
Basically, "fair" is hard to define. As stated in the article, literally everyone has good points. In cases like this, when fair in some kind of algebraic sense is impossible, maybe the easiest and best way to approach it is to say "fair is when everyone is more or less ok". Maybe that's the case now, maybe that's the sentiment that Phil was putting fourth. I wonder what that version of "fair" would like like today? Or maybe that's exactly what the small developer program is. Like, you don't have to pay that much unless you're making $1M or more. I know I would be very happy as a developer to have an app like this, and anything beyond that I'd probably be totally sucked into a money crazed world anyway, and probably miserable.
This is well put. My primarily concern with Apple is their lack of ability to weed out scam apps from the App Store. Thousands of dollars are burned every year only because the regular non-tech savvy isn't given the dumb transparent information about purchases.
I mean they must knock out a TON of bad apps and actors. I think it is pretty known that the Google Play store is much further fraught with scammy apps than Apple.
A way to maybe rationalize it (not saying it is acceptable, but just the reasoning) is that we don't scrap our antivirus software because it failed to block EVERY SINGLE virus... we keep it because we know it blocks a vast majority of the problems that might affect the computer.
For the point around purchases, Apple owning the App Store wholesale has led to helpful regulation of how in-app purchases work, how subscriptions can be used, how refunding policy on app purchases works. All this would likely get worse if every company pushed their app as an exclusive through their own third-party app store...
First of all, a lot of people have scrapped their antivirus. And second, the problems caused by antivirus false positives are way less bad than the problems caused by all the non-malicious apps Apple has rejected.
> In this world you don’t need 1,000 true fans to make a living; you need 1,786 — 536 fans to pay Apple, 253 fans to pay Twitter, and only then the 1,000 that make it possible to create something new. It is inevitable that some number of businesses never get started, because of this deadweight loss.
So when is Epic going to sue the federal and state tax organizations? They're taking in some case up to 50% (VAT + corporate tax)
Governments can't feasibly sustain themselves without taxation. Apple already drives industry-leading profit margins on their hardware side, so nobody's really fooled when the largest company in the world complains about how hard it is to turn a buck.
I love my iPhone and solidly side with Apple in this case, and have ditched Spotify due to their spiteful position. Fuck Epic.
Still, I totally agree with this:
> What I wish would happen — and yes, I know this is naive and stupid and probably fruitless — is that Apple would just give the slightest bit of ground.
They could have bought a lot of good will if they just changed their fee model slightly for subscription and purchasing apps. It is totally reasonable to require that app subscriptions are done in store, but for services like Spotify, Kindle, etc, there should be options to buy in app. Apple could even require that they process transactions, but just not take a cut.
App store-based subcriptions add a lot of value, enough to justify a small premium. As a consumer, I like having one place to go to cancel my subscriptions. I don’t have to worry about being tricked into an auto-renewal. I don’t see a problem getting rid of anti-steering if the fee is reduced; my time is valuable enough that I’m not going to jump through hoops to save 10%, and I suspect that is true for much of Apple’s customers (I’m told day after day that iPhones are just for rich, elitist people, despite TCO often being lower than Android).
I think Apple could done something like " any application that has payments should offer an Apple Pay option" but not force prices for outside the store or other payment methods or only Apple pay. With this scheme Apple Pay fans can use it for everything.
Besides the profit apple makes, there are other reasons they require apple pay...
my partner used to work as an apple care agent and tons of people would call in saying apple apps took their money (but they were actually just random 3rd parties from app store). Apple is able to give them their money back.
These callers can't distinguish between apple and a third party app. Sometimes even from big names like uber or facebook. Apple is doing what they can to uphold their reputation (and yes, profit).
I understand Apple is proud that 2 years old children can use a tablet but this is not a valid reason to for example remove all text from the OS because 2 years old can't read.
Apple needs to do that work to create UI/UX that can server all the users, maybe even offer customization and options for competent adults.
Using this kind of "think of grandma" reasoning will just lead you in removing every feature, like remove the "delete file" option from the Macs because grandma deleted something( the correct solution is to maybe pout a good confirmation box or some undo deletion/backups not screwing 99% for the 1% though let's be honest this is all about money)
As a user, no way I would just toss aside years of app purchases and past experiences on one platform to suddenly decide to switch. Sure, some people do but generally they don’t. Switching cost applies to lots of things, not just phones, yet the inability of app stores to transfer proof of purchase makes this cost higher than it would normally be.
As a developer, like it or not you will depend on some (usually large) percentage of APIs available only on your first chosen platform. Probably even the programming language! And for the most unfortunate of businesses, a ton of this effort will be spent up front before even knowing if some new idea for an app will be denied entry to the App Store due to some unwritten rule (or worse, denied a few years in as the rules shift). If you reach the conclusion that you picked the wrong first platform, most developers are not “free” to “just” pick another phone/platform and make it all work out before going broke.