Your idea is a good idea not just because Tim'S Whiney [sic] is on Apple's back, but several governments around the world are breathing down Apple's back too. By allowing Android/Linux on iPhones, this would halt some of the silly complaints that Apple has a monopoly for app distribution for the iPhone. This is probably an ace that Apple is reserving for a future emergency.
Yes, I was definitely not out to help Mr Whiney :-) but rather to: 1. Protect Apple from potential antitrust suits, like you suggested 2. Cause it's the right thing to do with regards to tech savvy end-users who like to tinker.
Maybe you're right that Apple should not make it simple to dual boot in terms of self interest, but I would argue, from a moral perspective, that enabling dual boot is still the right thing to do with regards to the end user. There are many use cases that are currently not doable with an iPhone, because the whole premise of the application needs the kind of hardware access that Apple (often for good reasons, security comes to mind) chooses not to allow. For those users it would be an acceptable work-around to reboot the device into Linux, run their custom software that they need for one reason or another, and then reboot again back into iOS to use their phone as they normally do.
This approach would probably not cost them much in terms of effort and risk for potential competition, but it would give them a good moral leg to stand on when arguing they they are not restricting user choice, similar to how Tim Cook has been positioning Apple with regards to user privacy. I think it would mostly be a win/win for Apple to do this. Not saying they will though, unless their hand is forced.
It's not that hard to understand the issue. The problem is that developers has no other avenue to sell their apps to IOS users. You have to use the app store if you want to sell anything that can be installed on an IPhone or Ipad. It doesn't even matter if the developer has the money or expertise to host, manage and advertise their app on their own system. You could be a multi billionaire, you could own your own hosting facility, your own advertising team and at the end of the day the only way you can get your app to any IOS users is through the app store. I'm sorry but that does sound a bit like a monopoly. And before anyone says "oh you can sell to android users, it's not a monopoly". No, this is about selling to IOS users and there is only one way.
and iOS users only exist on Apple devices. If Apple wants to limit how software is installed on those devices, they are well within their right. Just as any other hardware OEM is allowed to make their devices function anyway they'd like.
Your idea is a good idea not just because Tim'S Whiney [sic] is on Apple's back, but several governments around the world are breathing down Apple's back too. By allowing Android/Linux on iPhones, this would halt some of the silly complaints that Apple has a monopoly for app distribution for the iPhone. This is probably an ace that Apple is reserving for a future emergency.
Yes, I was definitely not out to help Mr Whiney :-) but rather to: 1. Protect Apple from potential antitrust suits, like you suggested 2. Cause it's the right thing to do with regards to tech savvy end-users who like to tinker.
Maybe you're right that Apple should not make it simple to dual boot in terms of self interest, but I would argue, from a moral perspective, that enabling dual boot is still the right thing to do with regards to the end user. There are many use cases that are currently not doable with an iPhone, because the whole premise of the application needs the kind of hardware access that Apple (often for good reasons, security comes to mind) chooses not to allow. For those users it would be an acceptable work-around to reboot the device into Linux, run their custom software that they need for one reason or another, and then reboot again back into iOS to use their phone as they normally do.
**This approach would probably not cost them much in terms of effort and risk for potential competition, but it would give them a good moral leg to stand on when arguing they they are not restricting user choice, similar to how Tim Cook has been positioning Apple with regards to user privacy. I think it would mostly be a win/win for Apple to do this. Not saying they will though, unless their hand is forced.
I understand your idea, and I don't hate your idea, but I think you are making a huge assumption here** that building a dual boot system for iPhones is "easy" or "cheap". It took Apple years to develop it for macOS. They would have to write partitioning software that doesn't damage Android or Linux OS data when partitions are created, moved or resized. That's not easy, because it means Apple has to handle actual file contents in Android. That's a HUGE job. They certainly don't want Android software to be partitioning the iOS partitions. Can they even stop Android from accessing or damaging the iOS partitions? I'm not sure. How could Apple easily support iOS if Android can tamper with the iOS partition?
Who is going to pay Apple all the increased costs of doing the "moral" thing in this case? Will Google and Linux pay Apple? Or will Apple have to take it out of consumer purchases?
I would say Apple can cheaply wipe its hands of all responsibility and tell users "you are on your own."
It's not that hard to understand the issue. The problem is that developers has no other avenue to sell their apps to IOS users. **You have to use the app store if you want to sell anything that can be installed on an IPhone or Ipad. It doesn't even matter if the developer has the money or expertise to host, manage and advertise their app on their own system. You could be a multi billionaire, you could own your own hosting facility, your own advertising team and at the end of the day the only way you can get your app to any IOS users is through the app store. I'm sorry but that does sound a bit like a monopoly. And before anyone says "oh you can sell to android users, it's not a monopoly". No, this is about selling to IOS users and there is only one way.
developers who produce Mac OS applications can sell it anywhere and macbook users can buy it, download it and install it without having to go to the app store on the mac. Yet **on IOS, developers are told that they can only reach IOS users if they use the official app store.
**Wrong. Haven't you ever heard of web apps? Haven't you ever heard of Google Stadia? If you are a developer you CAN get your software to iOS users WITHOUT going through the iOS app store by using a web based service. This has been allowed on iOS devices even BEFORE the existence of the App Store on the very first iPhone. It was not only allowed, it was actually encouraged by Steve Jobs personally.
Therefore this is not a monopoly for selling apps to users who are on iOS. You have always been able to charge users to obtain web apps.
What people like you want is for Apple to throw out its entire App Store Guidelines and allow anything by any developer. You want developers to be unrestricted. You want developers to be able to use hidden APIs, and sell gambling apps, and track users without restrictions, and sell apps that promote tobacco. In short, you want ANDROID. Admit it. You want iOS to copy the entire Android app store rules. Right? Right.
I guess calling it "Anti-App Store" is one way of spinning it. "Pro-consumer" is an equally correct way of spinning it. There's no reason why I should have to ask for Apple's permissions to install an app on a device I paid for with my own money. It would be no different than Subaru telling me I can only install kayak racks I bought from a Subaru dealer on my car.
Do you want Subaru to be forced to let you replace the software on your Subaru's internal computers? Why or why not? After all, it's YOUR Subaru.
This is an unfortunate analogy. You can already flash the ROM in your car with different software.
Do you want Subaru to continue to SUPPORT/WARRANTY your vehicle after you have flashed your car's ROM? Really? You seem to be wanting Apple to support iOS after third party app stores start installing software Apple doesn't want on your iOS storage device. Or are you saying Apple no longer has to support your device if you install third party apps from untrusted app stores? What exactly are you saying? That's the problem with people on your side... you don't answer the obvious questions.
I guess calling it "Anti-App Store" is one way of spinning it. "Pro-consumer" is an equally correct way of spinning it. There's no reason why I should have to ask for Apple's permissions to install an app on a device I paid for with my own money. It would be no different than Subaru telling me I can only install kayak racks I bought from a Subaru dealer on my car.
Do you want Subaru to be forced to let you replace the software on your Subaru's internal computers? Why or why not? After all, it's YOUR Subaru.
This is an unfortunate analogy. You can already flash the ROM in your car with different software.
And you can already jailbreak any iPhone to get the apps you want, from where you want. Wouldn't that be about the same as flashing the ROM in your car. You don't expect the car dealer to help you with this, do you. Then why do you insist that Apple should help you to access apps from where ever you want, by forcing them to re-write iOS, the software that runs iDevices?
...... and money! Sweeney is lucky that he is the CEO of Epic, otherwise he has been fired a long time ago. He is destroying Epic, just because of
his personal ego ambitions.
Epic has lost much more money to pay lawyers, from missed revenue from AppStore sales and from the loss of customers, than if Epic has kept paying the AppStore commission, like it did it over the last ten years.
Are you their accountant? Unless you are their accountant or the CEO or a board member you have no idea what the numbers are or how they calculated how much they are willing to invest in following this path. They have obviously calculated the investment to pursue this path is worth the financial risk and if they are successful they see the payoff as huge. If they lose, the cost will be written off against their profits which on an estimated $1 billion of revenue with gross margins over 50% is huge. They can afford to lose. I doubt you have much knowledge about who controls Epic and has the biggest chunk of ownership. Simply put, you have no idea whatsoever what the numbers and returns are either way it comes out.
No company goes into an action like this blind or without the support of its board.
Epic is a privately held company and is not traded on the stock market. Tim Sweeney owns more than 50% of the shares in Epic, and despite being a billionaire, apparently lives a pretty frugal lifestyle, with none or few of the usual trappings of extreme wealth, and no kids/partner/family. He seems to be highly invested in this dispute, and has the resources to (pardon the pun) be epically petty and vindictive in the tactics used. I don't think he's right (either legally or , and I think Epic will ultimately lose in court in the vast majority of jurisdictions, but Epic can be a vexatious litigious pain in the butt Apple for as long as he remains motivated about this, and I think they will pursue this well past the point that a more conventional corporate leadership team would have pragmatically moved on. Tim doesn't have a lot of the normal constraints imposed on him by a more typical corporate governance structure.
Not much of this has been tested in court yet, and my best guess the reaction to losing in court will be to double down.
Paying lobbyists to write legislation in many countries & jurisdictions, and push it up in legislatures, is just a tactic to push up the costs to Apple, in a hope that they'll give up because its all too hard/expensive to fight against. Many smaller jurisdiction like states in the US, are actually quite vulnerable to this kind of tactic of having lobbyists writing legislation and effectively influencing or buying votes to pass it.
Epic's worth about US $20 billion, and Tencent owns about 40% of that - even if Apple bought Tencent out, Tim Sweeney would still be able to outvote them on the board (and there would be legitimate arguments about Apple owning Unreal from an anti-trust perspective).
He's in a really strong position to just keep at this, for as long as he wants.
Epic isn't a pure as the driven snow white night here, they have been doing a bunch of anti-competitive things themselves like paying developers (effectively from Unreal licensing revenue) to not publish games on other platforms, and use the Epic Store instead (examples including iOS, Mac, Google, Microsoft and Steam)
It's not that hard to understand the issue. The problem is that developers has no other avenue to sell their apps to IOS users. You have to use the app store if you want to sell anything that can be installed on an IPhone or Ipad. It doesn't even matter if the developer has the money or expertise to host, manage and advertise their app on their own system. You could be a multi billionaire, you could own your own hosting facility, your own advertising team and at the end of the day the only way you can get your app to any IOS users is through the app store. I'm sorry but that does sound a bit like a monopoly. And before anyone says "oh you can sell to android users, it's not a monopoly". No, this is about selling to IOS users and there is only one way.
developers who produce Mac OS applications can sell it anywhere and macbook users can buy it, download it and install it without having to go to the app store on the mac. Yet on IOS, developers are told that they can only reach IOS users if they use the official app store.
1. If you narrow the scope, you can define anything as a monopoly. 2. Monopolies are not intrinsically illegal. 3. You don't need to use to use the App Store to sell software that works on iOS.
The game platforms market includes iOS, Google Play, Mac, Windows, Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo, Steam, Epic, Facebook, Amazon and many more.
There are heaps of companies that a) never publish anything on any Apple platform b) are doing do just great financially, and c) are publishing on other platforms that are as closed or even more so than Apple.
Publishing on iOS isn't necessary for the success of a software vendor - its a business decision and a trade-off.
I have friends who have worked in the games industry for 20 years, have successful careers, and will probably never be involved with anything that runs on Apple's hardware.
Apple has programs for enterprises to deploy software outside of the App store, and plenty of software vendors ONLY write stuff for organisations to deploy via that mechanism. You can publish source code on getup and users can compile and install it on their own devices. You can stream games via a web browser (Microsoft is in beta for doing exactly this with Xbox games).
The App Store is only a monopoly if you ignore every other platform, AND want to sell something that is a pre-compiled App, AND you want to sell it to consumers, AND you don't want to deliver it via a browser. Apple didn't make that monopoly, a software vendor chose to work within that set of constraints.
A given software business model doesn't automatically have the right to go everywhere in the market or every platform.
Epic's complaint is effectively, "we don't like having to play by a one size fits all set of platform rules, and if a platform vendor won't negotiate exceptions individually to us, want the right to dismantle other people's monopolies, so we can set up our own".
I guess calling it "Anti-App Store" is one way of spinning it. "Pro-consumer" is an equally correct way of spinning it. There's no reason why I should have to ask for Apple's permissions to install an app on a device I paid for with my own money. It would be no different than Subaru telling me I can only install kayak racks I bought from a Subaru dealer on my car.
Yeah, not so much. As a consumer you are free to buy any device that's available. You are not free to buy a device and demand that manufacturer make it work in a way that was not guaranteed or intended. You buy it as is, if you don't like it, you return it. If Apple wants to limit how software is installed on their devices, they are free to do so. Anyone who does not like that limitation can choose to use another device. That's how the free market works. This is how Apple's iOS devices have ALWAYS worked (except when first released and you couldn't install ANY apps).
There is no argument or example that can demonstrate that Apple's decision to run their platform this way is restricting consumers (or developers outside their platform). The proof is in the fact that consumers choose Android over iOS by a wide margin. If there comes a time in that market where Apple's devices are nearly ubiquitous and consumers have very few alternative, non-Apple, devices to choose from, then there might be a problem about limiting software installation.
In most rich western countries, consumer's do often choose iOS use by a wide margin. Its consistently about half new device sales and often 66-80% of devices in active use (iOS devices keep being used for longer by more people). The global figures skew heavily to Android because of the large populations in Africa, India and China, mainly using low cost Android devices (eg China and India are overwhelmingly Android and between them more than 1/3 of the global handset market). So whilst its true that Android is ~80% of global handset sales, the by country figures vary wildly from that, and the devices currently in use figures by country do as well. With a few exceptions, iOS share correlates strongly with the disposable income.
For software vendors, its devices currently in use that matters, not annual handset sales. And most aren't going to care about the software market revenue potential of people in developing countries, they are going to focus on rich western markets.
For some carriers, 80-90% of their handset sales are iOS. They view this as a business risk, being too dependent on a single vendor and actively work to sell Android (eg I know of more than one carrier with this mix who pays their staff 2x-3x the commission to sell Android than iOS)
There's real competition, but Apple is getting into very high share percentages in some countries.
Uroshnor, those are decent posts, but logic doesn't work with these people. And when you write a post with ten points, they will find one point that they think they can argue, and ignore all your other points. So I find it better to make short, single points as often as possible.
For the arguement about Macs not needing an App Store, Macs were around before there were App stores. Mac and PC software was purchased that way. The only reason why you can still buy Mac software outside of the App Store is because that method existed before the App Store was created.
The whole purpose of the App Store was to entice development of iPhone apps without having to have a budget for server hosting, billing, and accounting and taxes. At the time, there weren’t many people developing apps for the iPhone and many weren’t even making Mac apps. The App Store enticed developers to “dip” their toe in the Apple ecosystem and see if it works, much like Epic did over 10 years ago.
I’ll admit that searching for good apps is broken in the App Store, but it’s better than searching on the web for an app and hoping that the site you are on is the actual developer/publisher of the app and not a spoof with a malicious app instead.
For the arguement about Macs not needing an App Store, Macs were around before there were App stores. Mac and PC software was purchased that way. The only reason why you can still buy Mac software outside of the App Store is because that method existed before the App Store was created.
MacOS on Macs was never made with a walled garden, and Apple seems to have said it never will be. Although I'm getting some garden vibes from macOS on my M1. For one thing Boot Camp doesn't work, even though the binary is still there (I think.) For another, there was a news story last week that Apple removed the ability of users to side-load iOS apps into M1 macOS Macs. https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/02/09/apple-again-bars-sideloading-of-ios-apps-on-m1-macs <--
For the arguement about Macs not needing an App Store, Macs were around before there were App stores. Mac and PC software was purchased that way. The only reason why you can still buy Mac software outside of the App Store is because that method existed before the App Store was created.
MacOS on Macs was never made with a walled garden, and Apple seems to have said it never will be. Although I'm getting some garden vibes from macOS on my M1. For one thing Boot Camp doesn't work, even though the binary is still there (I think.) For another, there was a news story last week that Apple removed the ability of users to side-load iOS apps into M1 macOS Macs. https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/02/09/apple-again-bars-sideloading-of-ios-apps-on-m1-macs <--
Wrong and wrong examples. Side loading is a painful, stupid way of doing things and you get no updates. Boot Camp cost Apple time and money for people to run Windows on their Intel Macs. Microsoft hasn’t allowed or pushed to run Windows on ASi Macs.
Comments
1. Protect Apple from potential antitrust suits, like you suggested
2. Cause it's the right thing to do with regards to tech savvy end-users who like to tinker.
Maybe you're right that Apple should not make it simple to dual boot in terms of self interest, but I would argue, from a moral perspective, that enabling dual boot is still the right thing to do with regards to the end user. There are many use cases that are currently not doable with an iPhone, because the whole premise of the application needs the kind of hardware access that Apple (often for good reasons, security comes to mind) chooses not to allow. For those users it would be an acceptable work-around to reboot the device into Linux, run their custom software that they need for one reason or another, and then reboot again back into iOS to use their phone as they normally do.
This approach would probably not cost them much in terms of effort and risk for potential competition, but it would give them a good moral leg to stand on when arguing they they are not restricting user choice, similar to how Tim Cook has been positioning Apple with regards to user privacy. I think it would mostly be a win/win for Apple to do this. Not saying they will though, unless their hand is forced.
and iOS users only exist on Apple devices. If Apple wants to limit how software is installed on those devices, they are well within their right. Just as any other hardware OEM is allowed to make their devices function anyway they'd like.
Who is going to pay Apple all the increased costs of doing the "moral" thing in this case? Will Google and Linux pay Apple? Or will Apple have to take it out of consumer purchases?
I would say Apple can cheaply wipe its hands of all responsibility and tell users "you are on your own."
Therefore this is not a monopoly for selling apps to users who are on iOS. You have always been able to charge users to obtain web apps.
What people like you want is for Apple to throw out its entire App Store Guidelines and allow anything by any developer. You want developers to be unrestricted. You want developers to be able to use hidden APIs, and sell gambling apps, and track users without restrictions, and sell apps that promote tobacco. In short, you want ANDROID. Admit it. You want iOS to copy the entire Android app store rules. Right? Right.
Not much of this has been tested in court yet, and my best guess the reaction to losing in court will be to double down.
Paying lobbyists to write legislation in many countries & jurisdictions, and push it up in legislatures, is just a tactic to push up the costs to Apple, in a hope that they'll give up because its all too hard/expensive to fight against. Many smaller jurisdiction like states in the US, are actually quite vulnerable to this kind of tactic of having lobbyists writing legislation and effectively influencing or buying votes to pass it.
Epic's worth about US $20 billion, and Tencent owns about 40% of that - even if Apple bought Tencent out, Tim Sweeney would still be able to outvote them on the board (and there would be legitimate arguments about Apple owning Unreal from an anti-trust perspective).
He's in a really strong position to just keep at this, for as long as he wants.
Epic isn't a pure as the driven snow white night here, they have been doing a bunch of anti-competitive things themselves like paying developers (effectively from Unreal licensing revenue) to not publish games on other platforms, and use the Epic Store instead (examples including iOS, Mac, Google, Microsoft and Steam)
The game platforms market includes iOS, Google Play, Mac, Windows, Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo, Steam, Epic, Facebook, Amazon and many more.
There are heaps of companies that a) never publish anything on any Apple platform b) are doing do just great financially, and c) are publishing on other platforms that are as closed or even more so than Apple.
Publishing on iOS isn't necessary for the success of a software vendor - its a business decision and a trade-off.
I have friends who have worked in the games industry for 20 years, have successful careers, and will probably never be involved with anything that runs on Apple's hardware.
Apple has programs for enterprises to deploy software outside of the App store, and plenty of software vendors ONLY write stuff for organisations to deploy via that mechanism. You can publish source code on getup and users can compile and install it on their own devices. You can stream games via a web browser (Microsoft is in beta for doing exactly this with Xbox games).
The App Store is only a monopoly if you ignore every other platform, AND want to sell something that is a pre-compiled App, AND you want to sell it to consumers, AND you don't want to deliver it via a browser. Apple didn't make that monopoly, a software vendor chose to work within that set of constraints.
A given software business model doesn't automatically have the right to go everywhere in the market or every platform.
Epic's complaint is effectively, "we don't like having to play by a one size fits all set of platform rules, and if a platform vendor won't negotiate exceptions individually to us, want the right to dismantle other people's monopolies, so we can set up our own".
For software vendors, its devices currently in use that matters, not annual handset sales. And most aren't going to care about the software market revenue potential of people in developing countries, they are going to focus on rich western markets.
For some carriers, 80-90% of their handset sales are iOS. They view this as a business risk, being too dependent on a single vendor and actively work to sell Android (eg I know of more than one carrier with this mix who pays their staff 2x-3x the commission to sell Android than iOS)
There's real competition, but Apple is getting into very high share percentages in some countries.