Everybody wants free ride on Apple's amazingly successful platform. On both the Mac and iOS a developer is more likely to succeed financially if their products are in the App Store where it's easy to buy, install and pay for. But that's not good enough, they want free access or just a nominal fee. Most people don't know that grocery stores actually charge brands for shelf space in their stores. Don't pay, your product does not make it to the shelves. Grocery stores also sell their own branded products in competition with the name brands. Lots of retailers do the same thing but in Apple's case it's deemed anti-trust and anti-competitive.Go figure.
That's what you got out of reading the article, is that everybody wants a free ride? I've not read anywhere that anyone thinks the App Store should be a free service to developers. What is an issue is the mandatory 30% cut that Apple takes, and the inability of app companies to sell their own product without going through the App Store.
Your grocery store analogy doesn't really work here because there are more than one grocery store chains. There is only one App Store. If Grocery store A sets a 30% fee to sell a food item, and grocery store B sets a 10% fee, the manufacturer has a choice and can sell at store B. There is no choice in the Apple ecosystem. That is the problem, not that everybody wants a free ride.
LOL. So by you argument the manufacturer has a choice to sell at store B with 10% fee, and is by doing this entitled to sell in Store A with the same fee?
It looks like you think so. Because you demand to sell in Apple’s Store/ecosystem by grocery Store B rules. Why do you think so that grocery store A should allow grocery store B to sell on its land?
No. That is an example of competition. The manufacturer goes to store B and shuns store A, who ends up losing out because of their higher fees. But with iOS, there is one store.
Imagine spending thousands of hours and tends of thousands of dollars creating, designing and refining a product which will only fit in slots in store A's shelves, and requires, say, flour to work. You go to store A and say "here is my product, please place it on your shelf". Store A then says hmm, no, we don't like that your product has a website address on wherein you might get flour cheaper than you can here, you have to sell your flour here and give us 30% of your revenue. So then you are stuffed if you still want to make money on the flour. You can't go to store B because their slots are different, you would have to spend tens of thousands again redesigning your product from the ground up to fit. Does that metaphor make it easier to understand why Apple's ecosystem could be seen as a monopoly?
Your example is one of bad programming. If you're in business, you need to know your market. Is this product going to sell on Android, or are the only customers who are willing to shell out money for your product the Apple folks. For many, recovering cost of development for Android products is a non-starter.
Further, if you're *redesigning* your product for Android after having built it for Apple, you didn't do it right. Programming for Android is just recoding -- not redesigning. That doesn't mean the process is trivial and inexpensive but you didn't build the product with correctly in the first place.
If the product was built correctly, you've built the application correctly, the design does not change, and much of the coding doesn't change. It's one-to-one recoding from one language to another for much of the code. Then, at the lowest level of your code, you call on platform specific coding to do the job.
This has a nice name -- Stepwise Refinement. Maybe you cough up some auto translation software to help with the recoding.
I distinctly remember Microsoft forcing PC makers to pay a Windows license fee for machines that did not have Windows installed, and this asshat has the audacity to say things are worse now?
The big difference is that what happened to Microsoft was well deserved. Microsoft is just having a hissy-fit that it's no longer in the game anymore.
Thank goodness that Apple did not wither away and came back from the brink to bring choice and security back to what was a dismal, Wild West.
Remember when Amazon took Apple's iBook to court for being a monopoly? (Kindle claiming iBook was monopolistic) Apple lost, and now Kindle eBooks number over one million.
"Because of the market power that Apple has, it is charging exorbitant rents — highway robbery, basically — bullying people to pay 30 percent or denying access to their market," Cicilline said. "It's crushing small developers who simply can't survive with those kinds of payments. If there were real competition in this marketplace, this wouldn't happen."
Lol. Market power of less than 15% in smartphones and less than 10% in computers. Hahaha. Market power... I can’t understand how such a company with such a small market share can be investigated for antitrust. They are the minority of the market. They should be getting the support for competing with the ‘big’ players on the market, who has much more users and owns the market.
The monopoly is within the Apple ecosystem itself moreso than the market as a whole. If you've written an app in Swift, and Apple changes how it interprets (or even changes the wording) of their rules you're SOL. The only option is to rewrite your app from the ground up for Android.
There is nonsuch thing as a 'monopoly within' an ecosystem. That's complete bullshit and you are apparently one of the ones who want iOS tp become Android. Therein lies the bullshit as you are perfectly free to leave the 'monopoly' you so despise. You are in no way locked in to that ecosystem. You are there by choice. Ma Bell was a monopoly because if you wanted a telephone you had one and one place only to go. There are hundreds of smartphone manufacturers to choose from in a myriad of colors, styles, features, and dozens of cell service providers to subscribe to. But YOU decided to do business with Apple. Why?
Blah blah "bullshit" blah blah attack person rather than argument blah blah "bullshit" blah.
That's all I read when you post, as you're one of the ones who would defend Apple to the ends of the Earth, even if they dropped a bomb on every user who didn't update you'd defend them. As usual you didn't have an answer as to why it's fine to force devs to rewrite their app from the ground up because Apple says they don't like their app. And in any case, we'll see soon whether the law in the US and in the EU thinks there is a monopoly, and of course if Apple is found to be monopolistic you'll disagree with that too, shouting at the lawmakers and calling them idiots.
Just like Bell, if you want an app on iOS you have just one place to go. If a developer has written an app in Swift, they have just one place to go. Apple disallows apps that are similar to built-in ones. That's anticompetitive. You're forced to use Safari, because Apple won't allow you to change the default app used to open http links. Why can't you see that lock in is the the same thing as Bell's? Well - you can, just you defend Apple's every last action like any reasonable discussion that's not 100% pro-Apple somehow personally damages you. And in any case you are locked in to a certain extent, when you have invested money in apps and devices that are useless with Android (HomePod for example). The stickiness of Apple's ecosystem is well known. But when that's not convenient you just say it's not a thing when that's patently false.
If that person has written a Swift app using Apple's APIs then of course they have only one place to go, the Apple ecosystem. If they write an app without using any of the Apple APIs and try to make it run under Apple operating systems by force of law, that is the total bullshit you don't even deserve responding. No user is forced to use Safari because on iOS you can open any web link with any iOS browser via the Share sheet and you can also launch 3d party browsers independently from Safari. Any fun else...?
These technocrats have veered so far off the path of reality and into the absurd that it's like they're hiring monkeys as chief executives. Does this MSFT idiot believe for one millisecond that Target should be able to tell Walmart how to operate its stores, stock its shelves, and manage its suppliers? Quit treating these app stores like they're any different than any other store front that has ever existed. These are stores that sell products that they source from a variety of suppliers under terms and conditions negotiated between the store owner and suppliers. Apple's App Store is no different than Home Depot, Bed Bath & Beyond, Kohls, Macys, or whatever retailer you'd like to name. Having a social media outlet and pulpit to spew garbage doesn't make it right, it simply allows the proliferation of stupidity on a massive scale. Apple's App Store is just a friggen store, nothing more and nothing less.
To Microsoft: get your own sh** together and quit trying to get up into Apple's shorts. You had your chance. You blew it. Stop the BS.
Everybody wants free ride on Apple's amazingly successful platform. On both the Mac and iOS a developer is more likely to succeed financially if their products are in the App Store where it's easy to buy, install and pay for. But that's not good enough, they want free access or just a nominal fee. Most people don't know that grocery stores actually charge brands for shelf space in their stores. Don't pay, your product does not make it to the shelves. Grocery stores also sell their own branded products in competition with the name brands. Lots of retailers do the same thing but in Apple's case it's deemed anti-trust and anti-competitive.Go figure.
That's what you got out of reading the article, is that everybody wants a free ride? I've not read anywhere that anyone thinks the App Store should be a free service to developers. What is an issue is the mandatory 30% cut that Apple takes, and the inability of app companies to sell their own product without going through the App Store.
Your grocery store analogy doesn't really work here because there are more than one grocery store chains. There is only one App Store. If Grocery store A sets a 30% fee to sell a food item, and grocery store B sets a 10% fee, the manufacturer has a choice and can sell at store B. There is no choice in the Apple ecosystem. That is the problem, not that everybody wants a free ride.
No, I get it. Loser developers want everything provided to them for free and they want 100% of the profits. They should just give up now, because they can’t make it in the real world.
I can't believe all these people who are complaining that Apple has a monopoly on Apple products. How stupid can an argument get? Why aren't they complaining that BMW monopolizes the market for BMW cars? Why aren't they complaining that BMW is unfairly excluding MB from displaying and selling MB cars in BMW dealerships?
Apple is a very profitable business but that's because they sell a very popular and desirable product, not because they have tremendous market power in the smartphone business.
Everybody wants free ride on Apple's amazingly successful platform. On both the Mac and iOS a developer is more likely to succeed financially if their products are in the App Store where it's easy to buy, install and pay for. But that's not good enough, they want free access or just a nominal fee. Most people don't know that grocery stores actually charge brands for shelf space in their stores. Don't pay, your product does not make it to the shelves. Grocery stores also sell their own branded products in competition with the name brands. Lots of retailers do the same thing but in Apple's case it's deemed anti-trust and anti-competitive.Go figure.
That's what you got out of reading the article, is that everybody wants a free ride? I've not read anywhere that anyone thinks the App Store should be a free service to developers. What is an issue is the mandatory 30% cut that Apple takes, and the inability of app companies to sell their own product without going through the App Store.
Your grocery store analogy doesn't really work here because there are more than one grocery store chains. There is only one App Store. If Grocery store A sets a 30% fee to sell a food item, and grocery store B sets a 10% fee, the manufacturer has a choice and can sell at store B. There is no choice in the Apple ecosystem. That is the problem, not that everybody wants a free ride.
You are inventing quack antitrust theories out of thin air. If you would only read an introductory college textbook on antitrust theory before chiming in, then maybe you won't spout such inane ideas. There are so many antitrust basics you are missing but let's just talk about one for now: That Apple has a monopoly in the market for Apple smartphones is anticompetitive only if Apple has no significant competition in the smartphone market. Otherwise, Honda would be in big trouble for its monopoly in Honda cars, or Samsung for its monopoly in Samsung appliances, and so on.
If the government can force a non-monopolist to alter its business practices, not for a legitimate reason like costumer/environmental safety or national security, but because some costumers don't like the current business practices, then let's just say goodbye to the free enterprise system and just have the government dictate what products are to be built and what features they should have. I'm sure there are a few retired Chinese or Russian civil servants still around who can tell us how to go about doing that.
If you are really concerned about anticompetitive behavior in the tech industry, Amazon, Facebook and Google are right there sticking their middle fingers at all of us.
What about Microsofts Xbox? There's only one store on there, why can't I buy software from someone else on my Xbox?
I buy XBOX games from Amazon and Best Buy. There is also Walmart, Target, and hundreds of other places. Where can you get iPhone apps but the App Store?
And Microsoft get a cut of EVERY single game sold no matter where you bought it (except for 2nd hand).
Everybody wants free ride on Apple's amazingly successful platform. On both the Mac and iOS a developer is more likely to succeed financially if their products are in the App Store where it's easy to buy, install and pay for. But that's not good enough, they want free access or just a nominal fee. Most people don't know that grocery stores actually charge brands for shelf space in their stores. Don't pay, your product does not make it to the shelves. Grocery stores also sell their own branded products in competition with the name brands. Lots of retailers do the same thing but in Apple's case it's deemed anti-trust and anti-competitive.Go figure.
That's what you got out of reading the article, is that everybody wants a free ride? I've not read anywhere that anyone thinks the App Store should be a free service to developers. What is an issue is the mandatory 30% cut that Apple takes, and the inability of app companies to sell their own product without going through the App Store.
Your grocery store analogy doesn't really work here because there are more than one grocery store chains. There is only one App Store. If Grocery store A sets a 30% fee to sell a food item, and grocery store B sets a 10% fee, the manufacturer has a choice and can sell at store B. There is no choice in the Apple ecosystem. That is the problem, not that everybody wants a free ride.
Well, what an interesting article, chock full of high-tension aspects perfectly suited for “analysis” by each of us—regardless of our appreciation of the exact definitions and existing laws that regulate the involved subject(s) 👀
I’m not a developer myself, but I seem to remember something about the 30% fee being cut in half when a subscriber chooses NOT to cancel the subscription for twelve concurrent months. Please correct me, in case I’m in error.
And the explicit inability to by-pass and thereby the possibility to install “novel” software on your iOS-device, is—in my opinion—the very reason the App Store is trustworthy. There are certainly apps of questionable content on the App Store—but the proportion of harmful malware in the vast catalogue of apps that are available to iOS-devices, are frankly negligible, which is a testament to the thoroughness of scrutiny of all apps—including apps that are free to download and which taxes at the philanthropic rate of zero percent.
I’m all for critical investigation into and its business practices. And if I were a developer, I imagine I would be interested in the algorithms that determine how apps are listed and presented on the App Store.
If I wanted to experience an unregulated ecosystem (sans any system), I could get a device that is “regulated” by AnthraxOS. But I don’t have the need for yet another worrying and uncertain aspect in my life.
Everybody wants free ride on Apple's amazingly successful platform. On both the Mac and iOS a developer is more likely to succeed financially if their products are in the App Store where it's easy to buy, install and pay for. But that's not good enough, they want free access or just a nominal fee. Most people don't know that grocery stores actually charge brands for shelf space in their stores. Don't pay, your product does not make it to the shelves. Grocery stores also sell their own branded products in competition with the name brands. Lots of retailers do the same thing but in Apple's case it's deemed anti-trust and anti-competitive.Go figure.
That's what you got out of reading the article, is that everybody wants a free ride? I've not read anywhere that anyone thinks the App Store should be a free service to developers. What is an issue is the mandatory 30% cut that Apple takes, and the inability of app companies to sell their own product without going through the App Store.
Your grocery store analogy doesn't really work here because there are more than one grocery store chains. There is only one App Store. If Grocery store A sets a 30% fee to sell a food item, and grocery store B sets a 10% fee, the manufacturer has a choice and can sell at store B. There is no choice in the Apple ecosystem. That is the problem, not that everybody wants a free ride.
Your analogy of a choice between Store A and a Store B is still wrong. It is assuming that the shoppers are the same in both stores and that the manufacturers wants to sell their products in both of the stores.
Suppose Store A is located in a high end, air condition mall, with plenty of indoor parking, in the middle of a wealthy community and Store B is located in an outdoor strip mall with limited parking and in the middle of a poor community. Yes, a manufacturer can deal with both stores to sell their products, but suppose they only want to sell their products in Store A. Where it would have a better chance of selling and at a higher price. Does this mean the manufacturer don't have a choice? So can they demand that Store A charge them what Store B would charge them for shelve space? If Store A is not willing to charge the lower price that Store B is charging for shelve space, is Store A abusing a monopoly they have with their own customers? After all, the shoppers shopping in Store A can only buy what Store A is selling and have to pay what's being charged. So does Store A have a monopoly, in the meaning that applies to anti-trust laws? A shopper choosing to shop at Store A can not claim Store A is a monopoly just because they can not buy items available at Store B or pay the lower price for the same items available at Store B. If the shopper wants the item or wants to pay less for the item, they can always shop at Store B. Store A will not and can not stop them.
And here's where your analogy really got it wrong. The Apple App Store is not Store A or B, the iDevice is Store A or B. And the products available for customers to purchase in Store A or B, are like the apps available to iDevice users in the Apple App Store. A developer can always develop for Android or Windows devices or all three, but must abide by the rules set by each platform. They can't claim they don't have a choice because they only want to develop for one of the platform devices. Or that they are being unfairly treated because one platform rules are different that the others. iDevice users can always switch to an Android or Windows device. Where is the abuse of a monopoly, whose meaning can be applied to anti-trust laws?
If a rest stop only has a McDonalds, can Burger King demand that the McDonalds sells Whoppers, because there's no more land for Burger King to build a diner at the same rest stop and McDonalds has a monopoly of the people that wants a burger at the rest stop? Can customers walk into the McDonalds and demand that they should be able to buy a Whopper or they'll file an anti-trust suit claiming that McDonalds has a monopoly on what's on the menu in their diners? And like the Store A and B analogy, the McDonalds diner is the iDevice, the McDonalds diner is not the app store available in the iDevice. The app store in an iDevice is like the menu in a McDonalds diner. And the customer knows beforehand, that they can only order what's on the menu, before walking into a McDonalds or buying an iDevice.
Where your analogy would only apply is if a huge % of the shoppers in a very large area, shops at Store A and only a very small % of them shops at Store B and all the others stores in the area. Then one can claim the Store A is abusing their monopoly share of the customers by charging too much for manufacturers to have access to their customers. But the area has to be extremely wide. This was what MS had to deal with when they were charged with abusing the monopoly they had, with over 90% of the world-wide computer market. Apple is not in that position with their iDevices and developers are not limited to only developing for iOS. Apple customers are not protected by any anti-trust laws just because Apple has full control of what can be purchased in their App Store. Just as no one walking into a McDonalds is protected by anti-trust laws because they can't order a Whopper. No one is forcing the Apple customers to use Apple devices.
I distinctly remember Microsoft forcing PC makers to pay a Windows license fee for machines that did not have Windows installed, and this asshat has the audacity to say things are worse now?
The big difference is that what happened to Microsoft was well deserved. Microsoft is just having a hissy-fit that it's no longer in the game anymore.
Thank goodness that Apple did not wither away and came back from the brink to bring choice and security back to what was a dismal, Wild West.
Jealous haters.
Mostly agreed. Unfortunately, Apple’s excellent offer of competition is failing. They’re currently continuing to cash in on, and resting on their historically-earned image, not maintaining it. From design to business practices, this is not the same company that earned its high regard.
Everybody wants free ride on Apple's amazingly successful platform. On both the Mac and iOS a developer is more likely to succeed financially if their products are in the App Store where it's easy to buy, install and pay for. But that's not good enough, they want free access or just a nominal fee. Most people don't know that grocery stores actually charge brands for shelf space in their stores. Don't pay, your product does not make it to the shelves. Grocery stores also sell their own branded products in competition with the name brands. Lots of retailers do the same thing but in Apple's case it's deemed anti-trust and anti-competitive.Go figure.
That's what you got out of reading the article, is that everybody wants a free ride? I've not read anywhere that anyone thinks the App Store should be a free service to developers. What is an issue is the mandatory 30% cut that Apple takes, and the inability of app companies to sell their own product without going through the App Store.
Your grocery store analogy doesn't really work here because there are more than one grocery store chains. There is only one App Store. If Grocery store A sets a 30% fee to sell a food item, and grocery store B sets a 10% fee, the manufacturer has a choice and can sell at store B. There is no choice in the Apple ecosystem. That is the problem, not that everybody wants a free ride.
LOL. So by you argument the manufacturer has a choice to sell at store B with 10% fee, and is by doing this entitled to sell in Store A with the same fee?
It looks like you think so. Because you demand to sell in Apple’s Store/ecosystem by grocery Store B rules. Why do you think so that grocery store A should allow grocery store B to sell on its land?
No. That is an example of competition. The manufacturer goes to store B and shuns store A, who ends up losing out because of their higher fees. But with iOS, there is one store.
Imagine spending thousands of hours and tends of thousands of dollars creating, designing and refining a product which will only fit in slots in store A's shelves, and requires, say, flour to work. You go to store A and say "here is my product, please place it on your shelf". Store A then says hmm, no, we don't like that your product has a website address on wherein you might get flour cheaper than you can here, you have to sell your flour here and give us 30% of your revenue. So then you are stuffed if you still want to make money on the flour. You can't go to store B because their slots are different, you would have to spend tens of thousands again redesigning your product from the ground up to fit. Does that metaphor make it easier to understand why Apple's ecosystem could be seen as a monopoly?
Your example is one of bad programming. If you're in business, you need to know your market. Is this product going to sell on Android, or are the only customers who are willing to shell out money for your product the Apple folks. For many, recovering cost of development for Android products is a non-starter.
Further, if you're *redesigning* your product for Android after having built it for Apple, you didn't do it right. Programming for Android is just recoding -- not redesigning. That doesn't mean the process is trivial and inexpensive but you didn't build the product with correctly in the first place.
If the product was built correctly, you've built the application correctly, the design does not change, and much of the coding doesn't change. It's one-to-one recoding from one language to another for much of the code. Then, at the lowest level of your code, you call on platform specific coding to do the job.
This has a nice name -- Stepwise Refinement. Maybe you cough up some auto translation software to help with the recoding.
Depends on the API used. If you use the provided UI elements in the API of the OS, you DO need to recode & redesign for a new platform. The alternative is to use a cross-platform API toolkit, or create your own. There are some tools that try to shortcut this work (write code once, let the tools change for each OS), but I don’t know that the results are ideal from a usability stance (or bugs).
In my experience, iOS apps that don’t use iOS UI API elements are annoyingly inconsistent in behavior from the OS and the rest of the apps that do use iOS API elements.
It’s terribly annoying to have to learn new UI concepts for each app, and even more annoying when the developers mimic an element or concept incompletely, or in a way that shows they misunderstand the concept entirely.
Apple have done this themselves: look at the multiple-item-select modes across iOS: there’re few correct implementations, so it seems there’s no API for it. It’s done wrongly in almost every example, to the point where it serves no real purpose at all (as in Reminders and Safari’s website storage management tool in settings). This is an age-old UI feature that even Apple themselves seem to not comprehend anymore. How this happened at Apple, after being the company to spend tons of money on UI research and publish an excellent user interface guidelines book... it showcases how today’s Apple isn’t yesterday’s Apple. The expertise isn’t there anymore, and part of that seems to be because Jonathan Ive was allowed to bypass Apple’s in-house UI design teams to create a team of his own making from the print-advertising staff, when redesigning iOS for iOS 7.
Even with a cross-platform UI toolkit, cross-platform development tends to suffer in usability as a result of not using the platform’s own APIs. This is true in my experiences with software on all platforms where developers “write once & publish many places”. Some are better or worse than others. Not only is the design & implementation inconsistent, application sizes tend to balloon.
One of the best cross-platform UI designs have been Adobe’s Photoshop, Illustrator, etc, since their UI designs were (maybe not still are) good choices seemingly inspired by the UI themes on Mac OS. Where possible, they included native UI element styles and behaviors where it didn’t cause confusion. Since they absorbed other company’s products, and since some of their own products were created with sometimes very different teams, the consistency hasn’t been ideal at all times. It took a while for Photoshop to be used as the model all other Adobe products should use, and that goal hasn’t been fully realized either.
The worst I’ve seen lately are Google’s iOS apps, where consistency seems to be high, while usability is utter garbage. Google has literally added features that compete with built-in functionality (text suggestions), UI elements that lack basic OS functionality (such as copy and paste in address text fields), and just generally bad choices for any software (like truncating the content you’re using it to view). If these apps are the design apex of Droid stuff... well, no wonder I hate Droid.
“30% of your revenue has to go to the toll keeper." Except it isn’t ‘their’ revenue, it’s Apple’s. I pay Apple, Apple pays the developer. To mitigate Apple’s platform & access to it, is pure arrogance.
Comments
Further, if you're *redesigning* your product for Android after having built it for Apple, you didn't do it right. Programming for Android is just recoding -- not redesigning. That doesn't mean the process is trivial and inexpensive but you didn't build the product with correctly in the first place.
If the product was built correctly, you've built the application correctly, the design does not change, and much of the coding doesn't change. It's one-to-one recoding from one language to another for much of the code. Then, at the lowest level of your code, you call on platform specific coding to do the job.
This has a nice name -- Stepwise Refinement. Maybe you cough up some auto translation software to help with the recoding.
To Microsoft: get your own sh** together and quit trying to get up into Apple's shorts. You had your chance. You blew it. Stop the BS.
Apple is a very profitable business but that's because they sell a very popular and desirable product, not because they have tremendous market power in the smartphone business.
You are inventing quack antitrust theories out of thin air. If you would only read an introductory college textbook on antitrust theory before chiming in, then maybe you won't spout such inane ideas. There are so many antitrust basics you are missing but let's just talk about one for now: That Apple has a monopoly in the market for Apple smartphones is anticompetitive only if Apple has no significant competition in the smartphone market. Otherwise, Honda would be in big trouble for its monopoly in Honda cars, or Samsung for its monopoly in Samsung appliances, and so on.
If the government can force a non-monopolist to alter its business practices, not for a legitimate reason like costumer/environmental safety or national security, but because some costumers don't like the current business practices, then let's just say goodbye to the free enterprise system and just have the government dictate what products are to be built and what features they should have. I'm sure there are a few retired Chinese or Russian civil servants still around who can tell us how to go about doing that.
If you are really concerned about anticompetitive behavior in the tech industry, Amazon, Facebook and Google are right there sticking their middle fingers at all of us.
I’m not a developer myself, but I seem to remember something about the 30% fee being cut in half when a subscriber chooses NOT to cancel the subscription for twelve concurrent months. Please correct me, in case I’m in error.
And the explicit inability to by-pass and thereby the possibility to install “novel” software on your iOS-device, is—in my opinion—the very reason the App Store is trustworthy. There are certainly apps of questionable content on the App Store—but the proportion of harmful malware in the vast catalogue of apps that are available to iOS-devices, are frankly negligible, which is a testament to the thoroughness of scrutiny of all apps—including apps that are free to download and which taxes at the philanthropic rate of zero percent.
I’m all for critical investigation into and its business practices. And if I were a developer, I imagine I would be interested in the algorithms that determine how apps are listed and presented on the App Store.
If I wanted to experience an unregulated ecosystem (sans any system), I could get a device that is “regulated” by AnthraxOS. But I don’t have the need for yet another worrying and uncertain aspect in my life.
Suppose Store A is located in a high end, air condition mall, with plenty of indoor parking, in the middle of a wealthy community and Store B is located in an outdoor strip mall with limited parking and in the middle of a poor community. Yes, a manufacturer can deal with both stores to sell their products, but suppose they only want to sell their products in Store A. Where it would have a better chance of selling and at a higher price. Does this mean the manufacturer don't have a choice? So can they demand that Store A charge them what Store B would charge them for shelve space? If Store A is not willing to charge the lower price that Store B is charging for shelve space, is Store A abusing a monopoly they have with their own customers? After all, the shoppers shopping in Store A can only buy what Store A is selling and have to pay what's being charged. So does Store A have a monopoly, in the meaning that applies to anti-trust laws? A shopper choosing to shop at Store A can not claim Store A is a monopoly just because they can not buy items available at Store B or pay the lower price for the same items available at Store B. If the shopper wants the item or wants to pay less for the item, they can always shop at Store B. Store A will not and can not stop them.
And here's where your analogy really got it wrong. The Apple App Store is not Store A or B, the iDevice is Store A or B. And the products available for customers to purchase in Store A or B, are like the apps available to iDevice users in the Apple App Store. A developer can always develop for Android or Windows devices or all three, but must abide by the rules set by each platform. They can't claim they don't have a choice because they only want to develop for one of the platform devices. Or that they are being unfairly treated because one platform rules are different that the others. iDevice users can always switch to an Android or Windows device. Where is the abuse of a monopoly, whose meaning can be applied to anti-trust laws?
If a rest stop only has a McDonalds, can Burger King demand that the McDonalds sells Whoppers, because there's no more land for Burger King to build a diner at the same rest stop and McDonalds has a monopoly of the people that wants a burger at the rest stop? Can customers walk into the McDonalds and demand that they should be able to buy a Whopper or they'll file an anti-trust suit claiming that McDonalds has a monopoly on what's on the menu in their diners? And like the Store A and B analogy, the McDonalds diner is the iDevice, the McDonalds diner is not the app store available in the iDevice. The app store in an iDevice is like the menu in a McDonalds diner. And the customer knows beforehand, that they can only order what's on the menu, before walking into a McDonalds or buying an iDevice.
Where your analogy would only apply is if a huge % of the shoppers in a very large area, shops at Store A and only a very small % of them shops at Store B and all the others stores in the area. Then one can claim the Store A is abusing their monopoly share of the customers by charging too much for manufacturers to have access to their customers. But the area has to be extremely wide. This was what MS had to deal with when they were charged with abusing the monopoly they had, with over 90% of the world-wide computer market. Apple is not in that position with their iDevices and developers are not limited to only developing for iOS. Apple customers are not protected by any anti-trust laws just because Apple has full control of what can be purchased in their App Store. Just as no one walking into a McDonalds is protected by anti-trust laws because they can't order a Whopper. No one is forcing the Apple customers to use Apple devices.
In my experience, iOS apps that don’t use iOS UI API elements are annoyingly inconsistent in behavior from the OS and the rest of the apps that do use iOS API elements.
It’s terribly annoying to have to learn new UI concepts for each app, and even more annoying when the developers mimic an element or concept incompletely, or in a way that shows they misunderstand the concept entirely.
Apple have done this themselves: look at the multiple-item-select modes across iOS: there’re few correct implementations, so it seems there’s no API for it. It’s done wrongly in almost every example, to the point where it serves no real purpose at all (as in Reminders and Safari’s website storage management tool in settings). This is an age-old UI feature that even Apple themselves seem to not comprehend anymore. How this happened at Apple, after being the company to spend tons of money on UI research and publish an excellent user interface guidelines book... it showcases how today’s Apple isn’t yesterday’s Apple. The expertise isn’t there anymore, and part of that seems to be because Jonathan Ive was allowed to bypass Apple’s in-house UI design teams to create a team of his own making from the print-advertising staff, when redesigning iOS for iOS 7.
Even with a cross-platform UI toolkit, cross-platform development tends to suffer in usability as a result of not using the platform’s own APIs. This is true in my experiences with software on all platforms where developers “write once & publish many places”. Some are better or worse than others. Not only is the design & implementation inconsistent, application sizes tend to balloon.
One of the best cross-platform UI designs have been Adobe’s Photoshop, Illustrator, etc, since their UI designs were (maybe not still are) good choices seemingly inspired by the UI themes on Mac OS. Where possible, they included native UI element styles and behaviors where it didn’t cause confusion. Since they absorbed other company’s products, and since some of their own products were created with sometimes very different teams, the consistency hasn’t been ideal at all times. It took a while for Photoshop to be used as the model all other Adobe products should use, and that goal hasn’t been fully realized either.
The worst I’ve seen lately are Google’s iOS apps, where consistency seems to be high, while usability is utter garbage. Google has literally added features that compete with built-in functionality (text suggestions), UI elements that lack basic OS functionality (such as copy and paste in address text fields), and just generally bad choices for any software (like truncating the content you’re using it to view). If these apps are the design apex of Droid stuff... well, no wonder I hate Droid.