If Apple held a monopoly, it might be a different story.
But, they don't. They compete in a very aggressive environment. We don't get to play 95% of the stand-alone games on our Mac OS. Even on-line games and web sites don't always work with a Mac OS or IOS.
Apple experimented with allowing 3rd party hardware and the results were disastrous.
Quality control ls a hallmark of Apple's products.
Just because Apple can't prove harm from allowing 3rd party app libraries, doesn't mean it isn't a really threat.
You are missing the point entirely and quality control isn't one of Apple's strongest points in OS development. In fact, not long ago it went through a very rough patch. There is a good case to be made for slowing OS releases (or major reworking to the system) down, which I think they are even doing right now.
Apple's problems with gaming are largely of its own making. They definitely could have done more in improving things. They just never really put that much effort into it until relatively recently.
The platform monopoly is definitely there IMO. When you bought your device was it explained to you that your sole point of on device app store access would be through Apple's own store? Was it explained to you that Apple would decide for you what would be available? Was it explained to you that no competition would be allowed and Apple would determine commissions etc?
Would you agree that almost all the recent changes to commissions have been brought about because Apple sees that its practices could be viewed as harmful to competition in the eyes of the many government departments currently investigating its operations?
There is no harm in choice and adults should have that choice. Throw up all the warnings you feel necessary to warn of the risks of third party app stores or better still, make users aware of app store limitations and Apple's vice-like grip on app store policy before the purchaser hands over any money.
You forget Apple's press coverage - both good and bad - is utterly hysterical. Look at the way the press handles coverage of kids who spent thousands of dollars on in-game consumables. Is the the fault of the parent for not setting up proper parental controls? No, it's all Apple's fault according to the press.
What you're suggesting would be a total PR disaster for Apple.
There is no harm in choice and adults should have that choice. Throw up all the warnings you feel necessary to warn of the risks of third party app stores or better still, make users aware of app store limitations and Apple's vice-like grip on app store policy before the purchaser hands over any money.
You forget Apple's press coverage - both good and bad - is utterly hysterical. Look at the way the press handles coverage of kids who spent thousands of dollars on in-game consumables. Is the the fault of the parent for not setting up proper parental controls? No, it's all Apple's fault according to the press.
What you're suggesting would be a total PR disaster for Apple.
Maybe what Apple should do is have two versions of each iPhone they sell, the duplicate models will have the exact same features except one will be labeled “Open” and will have a version of iOS that is able to have an alternative App Store, while the other is closed and the way things are now. This way, users can choose how they prefer to use their phone. When this backfires on the user and they get spam, viruses, hacked, etc, Apple could make that into a special use case in court showing why they did not want to go down this route to begin with.
Why should Apple do all that extra work and spend all that extra R&D money? Why should they get front page headlines about how crappy the OS is just for being like Android?
None of his makes sense and it’s easy for people on forums to say “Apple should just” when WE aren’t the ones paying money for it.
I don’t understand how allowing external app stores would impact Apple’s secure image. Simply don’t install the external App Store (simple default switch that prevents external app stores from being installed), users will remain secure.
The only logical reason Apple is against this is the loss of income from said external app stores.
Major corporations that don’t agree with Apple’s privacy standards and nutrition labels will start offering more features if they download outside the AppStore. Most users don’t know any better they just want Facebook, Spotify, Epic games. Those corporations will collude on make the AppStore inferior, devaluing the entire ecosystem.
Do they collude now to make the Google Play Store inferior? So much handwringing over, in my opinion, an imaginary issue. Apple's objection is primarily economic and not security/privacy.
Perception of course means something. I do understand Apple wanting to avoid any stories that might question the security and safety of their ecosystem, which could potentially affect sales. Blogs love to promote scareware stories with little basis in fact. But that still doesn't make it an actual security problem. Yup, economic again, and with Apple's whole reason to exist being profit, then of course they'll blame their resistance on everything other than the money which doesn't make for a great excuse in the eyes of many users. But "OMG, Security!!" makes it sound like it's all about protecting us.
Now I may be leaving the impression I endorse third-party stores. I do not. Apple has a right to restrict their store until the law says they do not. If Google got a do-over I'm not sure they'd still make the same choice regarding side-loading.
If the security/privacy issue with apps from third party app stores and side loading are imaginary, then why do Google spend 10's of millions of dollars (most likely in the 100's) a year scanning every installed app on Android for malware, under their "Play Protection Program"? Why do Google recommend users to not turn off "Google Play Protection"? Why are there warnings to Android users about the danger of side loading an app, when the user enable .... "allow from unknown sources"? Why do Google not allow side loading or installing apps from third party app stores (unless the apps are also available in the Google Play Store) for users signed up for their "Advance Protection Program"? With all the money spent on protecting users from malware, neither Apple nor Google, can stop all malware from being installed from their own app stores and Google has the extra cost of trying to stop malware from third party app stores and side loading. Is all the 100's of millions of dollars that Google spends every year, on protecting Android users from the security/privacy danger of installing apps from third party app store and side loading, also imaginary?
Apple having to spend the money it would take to only be just as secure as Android, by allowing third party app stores and side loading, is not the choice Apple should make. Apple choice should be to not have to spend that money by not allowing third party stores and side loading and bemore secure than Android.
So I do agree with you in that Apple reason for not allowing third party stores and side loading is primarily economic. Apple do not want to have to spend all the money that Google is spending on keeping third party apps and side loading as secure as possible, for their users. You thinking that it has anything to do with Apple losing profits from the Apple App Store is what's .... "imaginary".
You sidestep a major issue here. User choice.
One of the major concerns from almost all parties (and mentioned in the article) is the vice like grip on the industry that Apple and Google have.
When Apple speaks of 'unsubstantiated allegations and hypothetical concerns' it fails to see that those words are also applicable to what it is claiming as no third party app store is allowed on iOS devices. Users are denied choice, and that should be one of the key issues to look at here. Not security per se.
Are other app stores may even go further than Apple when it comes to security.
I agree that nothing connected to third party apps will probably ever offer bulletproof security but there is zero reason to believe that Apple's own gate is always better than the rest.
I also believe that Apple is definitely continously scanning what apps do (even if only on a bank of Apple devices at Cupertino) in an effort to flag dubious usage.
Some third party appstores already do this on user devices via AI.
There is no harm in choice and adults should have that choice. Throw up all the warnings you feel necessary to warn of the risks of third party app stores or better still, make users aware of app store limitations and Apple's vice-like grip on app store policy before the purchaser hands over any money.
That would be the easiest and fairest way to put an end to this particular point.
What a stupid argument. At first it was “unfair” that Apple invented the iPhone so there should be “choice” by allowing knockoffs to flood the market that do the exact same thing.
wow look at that CHOICE!
Now the only “choice” you’re gonna get with knockoff App Stores is duplicate apps and apps that would have appeared on the App Store ANYWAY are now exclusive to a 3rd party store.
Why do I want this illusions of “choice” to download Candy Crush on the Epic Store instead of the App Store and download a new game on the Disney Store that would have been on the App Store but now is exclusive?
wow, what choices I have!
And why is it a problem that “greedy Apple” benefits economically from iPhone and the App Store but then it’s ok for other companies to benefit economically by stealing from Apple? Why is no one calling Epic “greedy” for taking Apple to court to benefit economically from 3rd party stores?
Why should Apple’s product belong to anyone themselves? Fu** your choice! If you don’t want Apple products, choose to buy a flip phone.
In the end this whole thing can be summed up in one sentence: “We’re mad Apple won’t share their money with us!!!!!” -Imaginary quote
I don’t understand how allowing external app stores would impact Apple’s secure image. Simply don’t install the external App Store (simple default switch that prevents external app stores from being installed), users will remain secure.
The only logical reason Apple is against this is the loss of income from said external app stores.
Major corporations that don’t agree with Apple’s privacy standards and nutrition labels will start offering more features if they download outside the AppStore. Most users don’t know any better they just want Facebook, Spotify, Epic games. Those corporations will collude on make the AppStore inferior, devaluing the entire ecosystem.
Do they collude now to make the Google Play Store inferior? So much handwringing over, in my opinion, an imaginary issue. Apple's objection is primarily economic and not security/privacy.
Perception of course means something. I do understand Apple wanting to avoid any stories that might question the security and safety of their ecosystem, which could potentially affect sales. Blogs love to promote scareware stories with little basis in fact. But that still doesn't make it an actual security problem. Yup, economic again, and with Apple's whole reason to exist being profit, then of course they'll blame their resistance on everything other than the money which doesn't make for a great excuse in the eyes of many users. But "OMG, Security!!" makes it sound like it's all about protecting us.
Now I may be leaving the impression I endorse third-party stores. I do not. Apple has a right to restrict their store until the law says they do not. If Google got a do-over I'm not sure they'd still make the same choice regarding side-loading.
If the security/privacy issue with apps from third party app stores and side loading are imaginary, then why do Google spend 10's of millions of dollars (most likely in the 100's) a year scanning every installed app on Android for malware, under their "Play Protection Program"? Why do Google recommend users to not turn off "Google Play Protection"? Why are there warnings to Android users about the danger of side loading an app, when the user enable .... "allow from unknown sources"? Why do Google not allow side loading or installing apps from third party app stores (unless the apps are also available in the Google Play Store) for users signed up for their "Advance Protection Program"? With all the money spent on protecting users from malware, neither Apple nor Google, can stop all malware from being installed from their own app stores and Google has the extra cost of trying to stop malware from third party app stores and side loading. Is all the 100's of millions of dollars that Google spends every year, on protecting Android users from the security/privacy danger of installing apps from third party app store and side loading, also imaginary?
Apple having to spend the money it would take to only be just as secure as Android, by allowing third party app stores and side loading, is not the choice Apple should make. Apple choice should be to not have to spend that money by not allowing third party stores and side loading and bemore secure than Android.
So I do agree with you in that Apple reason for not allowing third party stores and side loading is primarily economic. Apple do not want to have to spend all the money that Google is spending on keeping third party apps and side loading as secure as possible, for their users. You thinking that it has anything to do with Apple losing profits from the Apple App Store is what's .... "imaginary".
You sidestep a major issue here. User choice.
One of the major concerns from almost all parties (and mentioned in the article) is the vice like grip on the industry that Apple and Google have.
When Apple speaks of 'unsubstantiated allegations and hypothetical concerns' it fails to see that those words are also applicable to what it is claiming as no third party app store is allowed on iOS devices. Users are denied choice, and that should be one of the key issues to look at here. Not security per se.
Are other app stores may even go further than Apple when it comes to security.
I agree that nothing connected to third party apps will probably ever offer bulletproof security but there is zero reason to believe that Apple's own gate is always better than the rest.
I also believe that Apple is definitely continously scanning what apps do (even if only on a bank of Apple devices at Cupertino) in an effort to flag dubious usage.
Some third party appstores already do this on user devices via AI.
There is no harm in choice and adults should have that choice. Throw up all the warnings you feel necessary to warn of the risks of third party app stores or better still, make users aware of app store limitations and Apple's vice-like grip on app store policy before the purchaser hands over any money.
That would be the easiest and fairest way to put an end to this particular point.
What a stupid argument. At first it was “unfair” that Apple invented the iPhone so there should be “choice” by allowing knockoffs to flood the market that do the exact same thing.
wow look at that CHOICE!
Now the only “choice” you’re gonna get with knockoff App Stores is duplicate apps and apps that would have appeared on the App Store ANYWAY are now exclusive to a 3rd party store.
Why do I want this illusions of “choice” to download Candy Crush on the Epic Store instead of the App Store and download a new game on the Disney Store that would have been on the App Store but now is exclusive?
wow, what choices I have!
And why is it a problem that “greedy Apple” benefits economically from iPhone and the App Store but then it’s ok for other companies to benefit economically by stealing from Apple? Why is no one calling Epic “greedy” for taking Apple to court to benefit economically from 3rd party stores?
Why should Apple’s product belong to anyone themselves? Fu** your choice! If you don’t want Apple products, choose to buy a flip phone.
In the end this whole thing can be summed up in one sentence: “We’re mad Apple won’t share their money with us!!!!!” -Imaginary quote
By squeezing my eyes and trying to read between the lines of that rant, I take it you have issues with someone pulling their app from the App Store and and making it exclusive to another one.
That's a possibility and and no different from what already happens in the wider mobile app platforms. Some stores get exclusives.
It's part of competing.
As far as duplicate apps go, what is the problem? Most useful apps will also plug into the infrastructure the platform runs on (GMS, HMS, Apple's services etc).
Users being able to choose is good, not bad.
It actually serves to loosen the grip of any one company on the industry.
I don’t understand how allowing external app stores would impact Apple’s secure image. Simply don’t install the external App Store (simple default switch that prevents external app stores from being installed), users will remain secure.
The only logical reason Apple is against this is the loss of income from said external app stores.
Major corporations that don’t agree with Apple’s privacy standards and nutrition labels will start offering more features if they download outside the AppStore. Most users don’t know any better they just want Facebook, Spotify, Epic games. Those corporations will collude on make the AppStore inferior, devaluing the entire ecosystem.
Do they collude now to make the Google Play Store inferior? So much handwringing over, in my opinion, an imaginary issue. Apple's objection is primarily economic and not security/privacy.
Perception of course means something. I do understand Apple wanting to avoid any stories that might question the security and safety of their ecosystem, which could potentially affect sales. Blogs love to promote scareware stories with little basis in fact. But that still doesn't make it an actual security problem. Yup, economic again, and with Apple's whole reason to exist being profit, then of course they'll blame their resistance on everything other than the money which doesn't make for a great excuse in the eyes of many users. But "OMG, Security!!" makes it sound like it's all about protecting us.
Now I may be leaving the impression I endorse third-party stores. I do not. Apple has a right to restrict their store until the law says they do not. If Google got a do-over I'm not sure they'd still make the same choice regarding side-loading.
If the security/privacy issue with apps from third party app stores and side loading are imaginary, then why do Google spend 10's of millions of dollars (most likely in the 100's) a year scanning every installed app on Android for malware, under their "Play Protection Program"? Why do Google recommend users to not turn off "Google Play Protection"? Why are there warnings to Android users about the danger of side loading an app, when the user enable .... "allow from unknown sources"? Why do Google not allow side loading or installing apps from third party app stores (unless the apps are also available in the Google Play Store) for users signed up for their "Advance Protection Program"? With all the money spent on protecting users from malware, neither Apple nor Google, can stop all malware from being installed from their own app stores and Google has the extra cost of trying to stop malware from third party app stores and side loading. Is all the 100's of millions of dollars that Google spends every year, on protecting Android users from the security/privacy danger of installing apps from third party app store and side loading, also imaginary?
Apple having to spend the money it would take to only be just as secure as Android, by allowing third party app stores and side loading, is not the choice Apple should make. Apple choice should be to not have to spend that money by not allowing third party stores and side loading and bemore secure than Android.
So I do agree with you in that Apple reason for not allowing third party stores and side loading is primarily economic. Apple do not want to have to spend all the money that Google is spending on keeping third party apps and side loading as secure as possible, for their users. You thinking that it has anything to do with Apple losing profits from the Apple App Store is what's .... "imaginary".
You sidestep a major issue here. User choice.
One of the major concerns from almost all parties (and mentioned in the article) is the vice like grip on the industry that Apple and Google have.
When Apple speaks of 'unsubstantiated allegations and hypothetical concerns' it fails to see that those words are also applicable to what it is claiming as no third party app store is allowed on iOS devices. Users are denied choice, and that should be one of the key issues to look at here. Not security per se.
Are other app stores may even go further than Apple when it comes to security.
I agree that nothing connected to third party apps will probably ever offer bulletproof security but there is zero reason to believe that Apple's own gate is always better than the rest.
I also believe that Apple is definitely continously scanning what apps do (even if only on a bank of Apple devices at Cupertino) in an effort to flag dubious usage.
Some third party appstores already do this on user devices via AI.
There is no harm in choice and adults should have that choice. Throw up all the warnings you feel necessary to warn of the risks of third party app stores or better still, make users aware of app store limitations and Apple's vice-like grip on app store policy before the purchaser hands over any money.
That would be the easiest and fairest way to put an end to this particular point.
I didn't side step a major issue, "user choice" is not an issue here.
The "users" made the choice to get all their apps from the Apple App Store, when they bought an iPhone. If being able to get apps from third party app stores or by side loading was something the user wanted or needed, then they could have chosen to buy a smartphone made by Samsung, Huawei, Xiaomi, Oppo, Vivo, LG, etc.. When one buy an Xbox, one gave up the choice to play Sony PlayStation games (or Nintendo Wii games). When one buy a BMW, one gave up the choice to drive a car with a 4Matic transmission. When one buy an Amazon Fire tablet, one gave up the choice to get apps from the Google Play Store. When one walks into a McDonalds, one gave up the choice to order a Whopper.
And how far are you willing to use this silly "user choice" argument? If one chooses to use iOS, should Apple be forced to allow other smartphone venders to sell smartphones with iOS? This so that there's "user choice"?
Third party app stores and side loading security issues are NOT hypothetical. All the proof is in Android. You think all the effort and money Google put in to making Android more secure from third party stores and side loading, is to fight a "hypothetical" security issue?
And don't believe for a second, that all these multi-billion dollar companies that are suing Apple and Google over their vise-like grip on mobile OS's, are fighting for "user choice". They are all, specially that looney Sweeney, fighting for their own choice to sell their apps on in either app stores or to be able to profit from the mobile OS customers, without having to paid any commission or have to compete with Apple or Google, who invest in and maintains their mobile OS's to attract customers. If Apple and Google were to stop charging a commission in their app stores, you think any of these companies would be fighting for "user choice"? Get real for a moment. You think any of these companies would be interesting in opening a third party app store for the sake of "user choice", if it cost them nothing to sell their apps to the same customers through the Apple App or Google Play stores? .
I don’t understand how allowing external app stores would impact Apple’s secure image. Simply don’t install the external App Store (simple default switch that prevents external app stores from being installed), users will remain secure.
The only logical reason Apple is against this is the loss of income from said external app stores.
Major corporations that don’t agree with Apple’s privacy standards and nutrition labels will start offering more features if they download outside the AppStore. Most users don’t know any better they just want Facebook, Spotify, Epic games. Those corporations will collude on make the AppStore inferior, devaluing the entire ecosystem.
Do they collude now to make the Google Play Store inferior? So much handwringing over, in my opinion, an imaginary issue. Apple's objection is primarily economic and not security/privacy.
Perception of course means something. I do understand Apple wanting to avoid any stories that might question the security and safety of their ecosystem, which could potentially affect sales. Blogs love to promote scareware stories with little basis in fact. But that still doesn't make it an actual security problem. Yup, economic again, and with Apple's whole reason to exist being profit, then of course they'll blame their resistance on everything other than the money which doesn't make for a great excuse in the eyes of many users. But "OMG, Security!!" makes it sound like it's all about protecting us.
Now I may be leaving the impression I endorse third-party stores. I do not. Apple has a right to restrict their store until the law says they do not. If Google got a do-over I'm not sure they'd still make the same choice regarding side-loading.
If the security/privacy issue with apps from third party app stores and side loading are imaginary, then why do Google spend 10's of millions of dollars (most likely in the 100's) a year scanning every installed app on Android for malware, under their "Play Protection Program"? Why do Google recommend users to not turn off "Google Play Protection"? Why are there warnings to Android users about the danger of side loading an app, when the user enable .... "allow from unknown sources"? Why do Google not allow side loading or installing apps from third party app stores (unless the apps are also available in the Google Play Store) for users signed up for their "Advance Protection Program"? With all the money spent on protecting users from malware, neither Apple nor Google, can stop all malware from being installed from their own app stores and Google has the extra cost of trying to stop malware from third party app stores and side loading. Is all the 100's of millions of dollars that Google spends every year, on protecting Android users from the security/privacy danger of installing apps from third party app store and side loading, also imaginary?
Apple having to spend the money it would take to only be just as secure as Android, by allowing third party app stores and side loading, is not the choice Apple should make. Apple choice should be to not have to spend that money by not allowing third party stores and side loading and bemore secure than Android.
So I do agree with you in that Apple reason for not allowing third party stores and side loading is primarily economic. Apple do not want to have to spend all the money that Google is spending on keeping third party apps and side loading as secure as possible, for their users. You thinking that it has anything to do with Apple losing profits from the Apple App Store is what's .... "imaginary".
You sidestep a major issue here. User choice.
One of the major concerns from almost all parties (and mentioned in the article) is the vice like grip on the industry that Apple and Google have.
When Apple speaks of 'unsubstantiated allegations and hypothetical concerns' it fails to see that those words are also applicable to what it is claiming as no third party app store is allowed on iOS devices. Users are denied choice, and that should be one of the key issues to look at here. Not security per se.
Are other app stores may even go further than Apple when it comes to security.
I agree that nothing connected to third party apps will probably ever offer bulletproof security but there is zero reason to believe that Apple's own gate is always better than the rest.
I also believe that Apple is definitely continously scanning what apps do (even if only on a bank of Apple devices at Cupertino) in an effort to flag dubious usage.
Some third party appstores already do this on user devices via AI.
There is no harm in choice and adults should have that choice. Throw up all the warnings you feel necessary to warn of the risks of third party app stores or better still, make users aware of app store limitations and Apple's vice-like grip on app store policy before the purchaser hands over any money.
That would be the easiest and fairest way to put an end to this particular point.
I didn't side step a major issue, "user choice" is not an issue here.
The "users" made the choice to get all their apps from the Apple App Store, when they bought an iPhone. If being able to get apps from third party app stores or by side loading was something the user wanted or needed, then they could have chosen to buy a smartphone made by Samsung, Huawei, Xiaomi, Oppo, Vivo, LG, etc.. When one buy an Xbox, one gave up the choice to play Sony PlayStation games (or Nintendo Wii games). When one buy a BMW, one gave up the choice to drive a car with a 4Matic transmission. When one buy an Amazon Fire tablet, one gave up the choice to get apps from the Google Play Store. When one walks into a McDonalds, one gave up the choice to order a Whopper.
And how far are you willing to use this silly "user choice" argument? If one chooses to use iOS, should Apple be forced to allow other smartphone venders to sell smartphones with iOS? This so that there's "user choice"?
Third party app stores and side loading security issues are NOT hypothetical. All the proof is in Android. You think all the effort and money Google put in to making Android more secure from third party stores and side loading, is to fight a "hypothetical" security issue?
And don't believe for a second, that all these multi-billion dollar companies that are suing Apple and Google over their vise-like grip on mobile OS's, are fighting for "user choice". They are all, specially that looney Sweeney, fighting for their own choice to sell their apps on in either app stores or to be able to profit from the mobile OS customers, without having to paid any commission or have to compete with Apple or Google, who invest in and maintains their mobile OS's to attract customers. If Apple and Google were to stop charging a commission in their app stores, you think any of these companies would be fighting for "user choice"? Get real for a moment. You think any of these companies would be interesting in opening a third party app store for the sake of "user choice", if it cost them nothing to sell their apps to the same customers through the Apple App or Google Play stores? .
In reality it all boils down to choice but Apple has no counterclaim to that so it throws security in just for good measure.
I can guarantee you that the vast majority of iOS users had no idea of the true limitations of one Apple governed app store. It definitely wasn't made aware to them at purchase.
However, if they were made aware of it, many would definitely raise an eyebrow and say they don't agree.
That is exactly why, IMO, Apple doesn't spell these details out at purchase time. If they did, and made users sign off on Apple's rules, I'm sure most of Apple's problems in this shpere would instantly vanish because users would be exercising their choice.
The Whopper, Big Mac analogies are tired and worthless. You do not have to pay a penny to get into a fast food outlet.
You do need to pay a pretty price to get onto an iOS platform and once you've paid that price, moving to a different one isn't an easy task precisely because of that financial outlay. It is called lock in for a reason.
If you walked into a Burger King and bought a Whopper, how would you feel if they said you could only buy physically from Burger King store's for the next few years? I hope you can see why the analogy doesn't work.
Apple is probably running all kinds of back end testing for trojans, malware, abusive practices etc. It simply doesn't make it marketing fodder as much as other stores.
Those practices, often a mix of in-house tools and industry tools are most likely commonplace within the industry.
I don’t understand how allowing external app stores would impact Apple’s secure image. Simply don’t install the external App Store (simple default switch that prevents external app stores from being installed), users will remain secure.
The only logical reason Apple is against this is the loss of income from said external app stores.
Major corporations that don’t agree with Apple’s privacy standards and nutrition labels will start offering more features if they download outside the AppStore. Most users don’t know any better they just want Facebook, Spotify, Epic games. Those corporations will collude on make the AppStore inferior, devaluing the entire ecosystem.
Do they collude now to make the Google Play Store inferior? So much handwringing over, in my opinion, an imaginary issue. Apple's objection is primarily economic and not security/privacy.
Perception of course means something. I do understand Apple wanting to avoid any stories that might question the security and safety of their ecosystem, which could potentially affect sales. Blogs love to promote scareware stories with little basis in fact. But that still doesn't make it an actual security problem. Yup, economic again, and with Apple's whole reason to exist being profit, then of course they'll blame their resistance on everything other than the money which doesn't make for a great excuse in the eyes of many users. But "OMG, Security!!" makes it sound like it's all about protecting us.
Now I may be leaving the impression I endorse third-party stores. I do not. Apple has a right to restrict their store until the law says they do not. If Google got a do-over I'm not sure they'd still make the same choice regarding side-loading.
If the security/privacy issue with apps from third party app stores and side loading are imaginary, then why do Google spend 10's of millions of dollars (most likely in the 100's) a year scanning every installed app on Android for malware, under their "Play Protection Program"? Why do Google recommend users to not turn off "Google Play Protection"? Why are there warnings to Android users about the danger of side loading an app, when the user enable .... "allow from unknown sources"? Why do Google not allow side loading or installing apps from third party app stores (unless the apps are also available in the Google Play Store) for users signed up for their "Advance Protection Program"? With all the money spent on protecting users from malware, neither Apple nor Google, can stop all malware from being installed from their own app stores and Google has the extra cost of trying to stop malware from third party app stores and side loading. Is all the 100's of millions of dollars that Google spends every year, on protecting Android users from the security/privacy danger of installing apps from third party app store and side loading, also imaginary?
Apple having to spend the money it would take to only be just as secure as Android, by allowing third party app stores and side loading, is not the choice Apple should make. Apple choice should be to not have to spend that money by not allowing third party stores and side loading and bemore secure than Android.
So I do agree with you in that Apple reason for not allowing third party stores and side loading is primarily economic. Apple do not want to have to spend all the money that Google is spending on keeping third party apps and side loading as secure as possible, for their users. You thinking that it has anything to do with Apple losing profits from the Apple App Store is what's .... "imaginary".
You sidestep a major issue here. User choice.
One of the major concerns from almost all parties (and mentioned in the article) is the vice like grip on the industry that Apple and Google have.
When Apple speaks of 'unsubstantiated allegations and hypothetical concerns' it fails to see that those words are also applicable to what it is claiming as no third party app store is allowed on iOS devices. Users are denied choice, and that should be one of the key issues to look at here. Not security per se.
Are other app stores may even go further than Apple when it comes to security.
I agree that nothing connected to third party apps will probably ever offer bulletproof security but there is zero reason to believe that Apple's own gate is always better than the rest.
I also believe that Apple is definitely continously scanning what apps do (even if only on a bank of Apple devices at Cupertino) in an effort to flag dubious usage.
Some third party appstores already do this on user devices via AI.
There is no harm in choice and adults should have that choice. Throw up all the warnings you feel necessary to warn of the risks of third party app stores or better still, make users aware of app store limitations and Apple's vice-like grip on app store policy before the purchaser hands over any money.
That would be the easiest and fairest way to put an end to this particular point.
I didn't side step a major issue, "user choice" is not an issue here.
The "users" made the choice to get all their apps from the Apple App Store, when they bought an iPhone. If being able to get apps from third party app stores or by side loading was something the user wanted or needed, then they could have chosen to buy a smartphone made by Samsung, Huawei, Xiaomi, Oppo, Vivo, LG, etc.. When one buy an Xbox, one gave up the choice to play Sony PlayStation games (or Nintendo Wii games). When one buy a BMW, one gave up the choice to drive a car with a 4Matic transmission. When one buy an Amazon Fire tablet, one gave up the choice to get apps from the Google Play Store. When one walks into a McDonalds, one gave up the choice to order a Whopper.
And how far are you willing to use this silly "user choice" argument? If one chooses to use iOS, should Apple be forced to allow other smartphone venders to sell smartphones with iOS? This so that there's "user choice"?
Third party app stores and side loading security issues are NOT hypothetical. All the proof is in Android. You think all the effort and money Google put in to making Android more secure from third party stores and side loading, is to fight a "hypothetical" security issue?
And don't believe for a second, that all these multi-billion dollar companies that are suing Apple and Google over their vise-like grip on mobile OS's, are fighting for "user choice". They are all, specially that looney Sweeney, fighting for their own choice to sell their apps on in either app stores or to be able to profit from the mobile OS customers, without having to paid any commission or have to compete with Apple or Google, who invest in and maintains their mobile OS's to attract customers. If Apple and Google were to stop charging a commission in their app stores, you think any of these companies would be fighting for "user choice"? Get real for a moment. You think any of these companies would be interesting in opening a third party app store for the sake of "user choice", if it cost them nothing to sell their apps to the same customers through the Apple App or Google Play stores? .
I can guarantee you that the vast majority of iOS users had no idea of the true limitations of one Apple governed app store. It definitely wasn't made aware to them at purchase.
However, if they were made aware of it, many would definitely raise an eyebrow and say they don't agree.
That is exactly why, IMO, Apple doesn't spell these details out at purchase time. If they did, and made users sign off on Apple's rules, I'm sure most of Apple's problems in this shpere would instantly vanish because users would be exercising their choice.
I find this argument hard to agree with. This argument would have been acceptable about 10 years ago, but not in 2022. Most of the current iPhone owners have already owned an iPhone and they know about this limitation and they are still buying it because they agree with it.
I don’t understand how allowing external app stores would impact Apple’s secure image. Simply don’t install the external App Store (simple default switch that prevents external app stores from being installed), users will remain secure.
The only logical reason Apple is against this is the loss of income from said external app stores.
Major corporations that don’t agree with Apple’s privacy standards and nutrition labels will start offering more features if they download outside the AppStore. Most users don’t know any better they just want Facebook, Spotify, Epic games. Those corporations will collude on make the AppStore inferior, devaluing the entire ecosystem.
Do they collude now to make the Google Play Store inferior? So much handwringing over, in my opinion, an imaginary issue. Apple's objection is primarily economic and not security/privacy.
Perception of course means something. I do understand Apple wanting to avoid any stories that might question the security and safety of their ecosystem, which could potentially affect sales. Blogs love to promote scareware stories with little basis in fact. But that still doesn't make it an actual security problem. Yup, economic again, and with Apple's whole reason to exist being profit, then of course they'll blame their resistance on everything other than the money which doesn't make for a great excuse in the eyes of many users. But "OMG, Security!!" makes it sound like it's all about protecting us.
Now I may be leaving the impression I endorse third-party stores. I do not. Apple has a right to restrict their store until the law says they do not. If Google got a do-over I'm not sure they'd still make the same choice regarding side-loading.
If the security/privacy issue with apps from third party app stores and side loading are imaginary, then why do Google spend 10's of millions of dollars (most likely in the 100's) a year scanning every installed app on Android for malware, under their "Play Protection Program"? Why do Google recommend users to not turn off "Google Play Protection"? Why are there warnings to Android users about the danger of side loading an app, when the user enable .... "allow from unknown sources"? Why do Google not allow side loading or installing apps from third party app stores (unless the apps are also available in the Google Play Store) for users signed up for their "Advance Protection Program"? With all the money spent on protecting users from malware, neither Apple nor Google, can stop all malware from being installed from their own app stores and Google has the extra cost of trying to stop malware from third party app stores and side loading. Is all the 100's of millions of dollars that Google spends every year, on protecting Android users from the security/privacy danger of installing apps from third party app store and side loading, also imaginary?
Apple having to spend the money it would take to only be just as secure as Android, by allowing third party app stores and side loading, is not the choice Apple should make. Apple choice should be to not have to spend that money by not allowing third party stores and side loading and bemore secure than Android.
So I do agree with you in that Apple reason for not allowing third party stores and side loading is primarily economic. Apple do not want to have to spend all the money that Google is spending on keeping third party apps and side loading as secure as possible, for their users. You thinking that it has anything to do with Apple losing profits from the Apple App Store is what's .... "imaginary".
You sidestep a major issue here. User choice.
One of the major concerns from almost all parties (and mentioned in the article) is the vice like grip on the industry that Apple and Google have.
When Apple speaks of 'unsubstantiated allegations and hypothetical concerns' it fails to see that those words are also applicable to what it is claiming as no third party app store is allowed on iOS devices. Users are denied choice, and that should be one of the key issues to look at here. Not security per se.
Are other app stores may even go further than Apple when it comes to security.
I agree that nothing connected to third party apps will probably ever offer bulletproof security but there is zero reason to believe that Apple's own gate is always better than the rest.
I also believe that Apple is definitely continously scanning what apps do (even if only on a bank of Apple devices at Cupertino) in an effort to flag dubious usage.
Some third party appstores already do this on user devices via AI.
There is no harm in choice and adults should have that choice. Throw up all the warnings you feel necessary to warn of the risks of third party app stores or better still, make users aware of app store limitations and Apple's vice-like grip on app store policy before the purchaser hands over any money.
That would be the easiest and fairest way to put an end to this particular point.
I didn't side step a major issue, "user choice" is not an issue here.
The "users" made the choice to get all their apps from the Apple App Store, when they bought an iPhone. If being able to get apps from third party app stores or by side loading was something the user wanted or needed, then they could have chosen to buy a smartphone made by Samsung, Huawei, Xiaomi, Oppo, Vivo, LG, etc.. When one buy an Xbox, one gave up the choice to play Sony PlayStation games (or Nintendo Wii games). When one buy a BMW, one gave up the choice to drive a car with a 4Matic transmission. When one buy an Amazon Fire tablet, one gave up the choice to get apps from the Google Play Store. When one walks into a McDonalds, one gave up the choice to order a Whopper.
And how far are you willing to use this silly "user choice" argument? If one chooses to use iOS, should Apple be forced to allow other smartphone venders to sell smartphones with iOS? This so that there's "user choice"?
Third party app stores and side loading security issues are NOT hypothetical. All the proof is in Android. You think all the effort and money Google put in to making Android more secure from third party stores and side loading, is to fight a "hypothetical" security issue?
And don't believe for a second, that all these multi-billion dollar companies that are suing Apple and Google over their vise-like grip on mobile OS's, are fighting for "user choice". They are all, specially that looney Sweeney, fighting for their own choice to sell their apps on in either app stores or to be able to profit from the mobile OS customers, without having to paid any commission or have to compete with Apple or Google, who invest in and maintains their mobile OS's to attract customers. If Apple and Google were to stop charging a commission in their app stores, you think any of these companies would be fighting for "user choice"? Get real for a moment. You think any of these companies would be interesting in opening a third party app store for the sake of "user choice", if it cost them nothing to sell their apps to the same customers through the Apple App or Google Play stores? .
In reality it all boils down to choice but Apple has no counterclaim to that so it throws security in just for good measure.
I can guarantee you that the vast majority of iOS users had no idea of the true limitations of one Apple governed app store. It definitely wasn't made aware to them at purchase.
However, if they were made aware of it, many would definitely raise an eyebrow and say they don't agree.
That is exactly why, IMO, Apple doesn't spell these details out at purchase time. If they did, and made users sign off on Apple's rules, I'm sure most of Apple's problems in this shpere would instantly vanish because users would be exercising their choice.
The Whopper, Big Mac analogies are tired and worthless. You do not have to pay a penny to get into a fast food outlet.
You do need to pay a pretty price to get onto an iOS platform and once you've paid that price, moving to a different one isn't an easy task precisely because of that financial outlay. It is called lock in for a reason.
If you walked into a Burger King and bought a Whopper, how would you feel if they said you could only buy physically from Burger King store's for the next few years? I hope you can see why the analogy doesn't work.
Apple is probably running all kinds of back end testing for trojans, malware, abusive practices etc. It simply doesn't make it marketing fodder as much as other stores.
Those practices, often a mix of in-house tools and industry tools are most likely commonplace within the industry.
That is pure BS.
in 2020, over 80% of the iPhone purchases were by iPhone users upgrading an older iPhone. How can 80% of iPhone purchasers, not know the limitation of iOS and their iPhone, when they've been using an iPhone with iOS, for over a year, (at the least). Unless you're mathematically challenged and think that 20% is a "vast majority".
>The iPhone business has turned into an upgrading business. While Apple is still bringing in 20M to 30M new iPhone users each year, the percentage of overall iPhone sales going to new users has steadily declined. For FY2020, iPhone sales to new users will likely have accounted for less than 20% of overall iPhone sales - an all-time low.<
If Apple held a monopoly, it might be a different story.
But, they don't. They compete in a very aggressive environment. We don't get to play 95% of the stand-alone games on our Mac OS. Even on-line games and web sites don't always work with a Mac OS or IOS.
Apple experimented with allowing 3rd party hardware and the results were disastrous.
Quality control ls a hallmark of Apple's products.
Just because Apple can't prove harm from allowing 3rd party app libraries, doesn't mean it isn't a really threat.
.........
The platform monopoly is definitely there IMO. When you bought your device was it explained to you that your sole point of on device app store access would be through Apple's own store? Was it explained to you that Apple would decide for you what would be available? Was it explained to you that no competition would be allowed and Apple would determine commissions etc?
.......
FYI - every "platform" would be a "monopoly", if one narrows the "relevant market" down to only include the brand owner of that "platform". Microsoft would have a "monopoly" with the Xbox platform. Sony would have a "monopoly" with the PlayStation platform. Walmart would have a "monopoly" with Walmart Stores. McDonalds would have a "monopoly" with the Big Mac burger. Apple would have a "monopoly" with the iOS platform. But that's not the way it works with anti-trust laws
Under current anti-trust laws, it is very, very rare that the "relevant market" can consist of only one brand. Otherwise, every company would have a "monopoly", if the "relevant market" only included their brand. Which was why the Federal Judge in the Epic lawsuit against Apple, shot down, stepped on and then shot again, looney Sweeney and his lawyers claim that Apple have a "monopoly" with iOS and their proof amounted to no more than .... "IMO".
Apple do not have a monopoly with iOS because iOS is not a monopoly in the mobile OS market. The mobile OS market is what counts under current anti-trust laws. With anti-trust, there is no such thing as an "iOS market". The "iOS market" would only include Apple.
Apple do not have a monopoly with the Apple App Store because the app store is not a separate product. It only comes with iOS. Apple don't have a monopoly that falls under anti-trust with the Apple App Store, for the same reason why Epic do not have such a monopoly with the Fortnite Item Store in their Fortnite game.
Both Fortnite and iOS are copyrighted/patented IP. US copyright laws gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to monetize their IP. The government can not force Epic to allow third party Fortnite stores to sell virtual goods to Fortnite game players. Why should the government be able to force Apple to allow third party app stores in iOS? Neither Fortnite or iOS, are monopolies in their "relevant market". Just like there is no such thing as an "iOS market", there is no such thing as a "Fortnite market", that would be considered "relevant", under current anti-trust laws.
If Apple held a monopoly, it might be a different story.
But, they don't. They compete in a very aggressive environment. We don't get to play 95% of the stand-alone games on our Mac OS. Even on-line games and web sites don't always work with a Mac OS or IOS.
Apple experimented with allowing 3rd party hardware and the results were disastrous.
Quality control ls a hallmark of Apple's products.
Just because Apple can't prove harm from allowing 3rd party app libraries, doesn't mean it isn't a really threat.
You are missing the point entirely and quality control isn't one of Apple's strongest points in OS development. In fact, not long ago it went through a very rough patch. There is a good case to be made for slowing OS releases (or major reworking to the system) down, which I think they are even doing right now.
Apple's problems with gaming are largely of its own making. They definitely could have done more in improving things. They just never really put that much effort into it until relatively recently.
The platform monopoly is definitely there IMO. When you bought your device was it explained to you that your sole point of on device app store access would be through Apple's own store? Was it explained to you that Apple would decide for you what would be available? Was it explained to you that no competition would be allowed and Apple would determine commissions etc?
Would you agree that almost all the recent changes to commissions have been brought about because Apple sees that its practices could be viewed as harmful to competition in the eyes of the many government departments currently investigating its operations?
The iPhone has been out for almost 15 years. I don't think there is anyone in the world that isn't able to figure out that Apple only has a single App store.
Most of the 1 billion iPhone users are fine with that; a fraction are not. Why should the majority suffer the tyranny of the minority?
There is always Android, and according to you, Harmony OS 3.0, "just around the corner", which is, in your opinion, superior to iOS.
Comments
Apple's problems with gaming are largely of its own making. They definitely could have done more in improving things. They just never really put that much effort into it until relatively recently.
The platform monopoly is definitely there IMO. When you bought your device was it explained to you that your sole point of on device app store access would be through Apple's own store? Was it explained to you that Apple would decide for you what would be available? Was it explained to you that no competition would be allowed and Apple would determine commissions etc?
Would you agree that almost all the recent changes to commissions have been brought about because Apple sees that its practices could be viewed as harmful to competition in the eyes of the many government departments currently investigating its operations?
What you're suggesting would be a total PR disaster for Apple.
None of his makes sense and it’s easy for people on forums to say “Apple should just” when WE aren’t the ones paying money for it.
wow look at that CHOICE!
Now the only “choice” you’re gonna get with knockoff App Stores is duplicate apps and apps that would have appeared on the App Store ANYWAY are now exclusive to a 3rd party store.
Why do I want this illusions of “choice” to download Candy Crush on the Epic Store instead of the App Store and download a new game on the Disney Store that would have been on the App Store but now is exclusive?
wow, what choices I have!
And why is it a problem that “greedy Apple” benefits economically from iPhone and the App Store but then it’s ok for other companies to benefit economically by stealing from Apple? Why is no one calling Epic “greedy” for taking Apple to court to benefit economically from 3rd party stores?
Why should Apple’s product belong to anyone themselves? Fu** your choice! If you don’t want Apple products, choose to buy a flip phone.
In the end this whole thing can be summed up in one sentence:
“We’re mad Apple won’t share their money with us!!!!!”
-Imaginary quote
That's a possibility and and no different from what already happens in the wider mobile app platforms. Some stores get exclusives.
It's part of competing.
As far as duplicate apps go, what is the problem? Most useful apps will also plug into the infrastructure the platform runs on (GMS, HMS, Apple's services etc).
Users being able to choose is good, not bad.
It actually serves to loosen the grip of any one company on the industry.
The "users" made the choice to get all their apps from the Apple App Store, when they bought an iPhone. If being able to get apps from third party app stores or by side loading was something the user wanted or needed, then they could have chosen to buy a smartphone made by Samsung, Huawei, Xiaomi, Oppo, Vivo, LG, etc.. When one buy an Xbox, one gave up the choice to play Sony PlayStation games (or Nintendo Wii games). When one buy a BMW, one gave up the choice to drive a car with a 4Matic transmission. When one buy an Amazon Fire tablet, one gave up the choice to get apps from the Google Play Store. When one walks into a McDonalds, one gave up the choice to order a Whopper.
And how far are you willing to use this silly "user choice" argument? If one chooses to use iOS, should Apple be forced to allow other smartphone venders to sell smartphones with iOS? This so that there's "user choice"?
Third party app stores and side loading security issues are NOT hypothetical. All the proof is in Android. You think all the effort and money Google put in to making Android more secure from third party stores and side loading, is to fight a "hypothetical" security issue?
And don't believe for a second, that all these multi-billion dollar companies that are suing Apple and Google over their vise-like grip on mobile OS's, are fighting for "user choice". They are all, specially that looney Sweeney, fighting for their own choice to sell their apps on in either app stores or to be able to profit from the mobile OS customers, without having to paid any commission or have to compete with Apple or Google, who invest in and maintains their mobile OS's to attract customers. If Apple and Google were to stop charging a commission in their app stores, you think any of these companies would be fighting for "user choice"? Get real for a moment. You think any of these companies would be interesting in opening a third party app store for the sake of "user choice", if it cost them nothing to sell their apps to the same customers through the Apple App or Google Play stores? .
I can guarantee you that the vast majority of iOS users had no idea of the true limitations of one Apple governed app store. It definitely wasn't made aware to them at purchase.
However, if they were made aware of it, many would definitely raise an eyebrow and say they don't agree.
That is exactly why, IMO, Apple doesn't spell these details out at purchase time. If they did, and made users sign off on Apple's rules, I'm sure most of Apple's problems in this shpere would instantly vanish because users would be exercising their choice.
The Whopper, Big Mac analogies are tired and worthless. You do not have to pay a penny to get into a fast food outlet.
You do need to pay a pretty price to get onto an iOS platform and once you've paid that price, moving to a different one isn't an easy task precisely because of that financial outlay. It is called lock in for a reason.
If you walked into a Burger King and bought a Whopper, how would you feel if they said you could only buy physically from Burger King store's for the next few years? I hope you can see why the analogy doesn't work.
Apple is probably running all kinds of back end testing for trojans, malware, abusive practices etc. It simply doesn't make it marketing fodder as much as other stores.
Those practices, often a mix of in-house tools and industry tools are most likely commonplace within the industry.
in 2020, over 80% of the iPhone purchases were by iPhone users upgrading an older iPhone. How can 80% of iPhone purchasers, not know the limitation of iOS and their iPhone, when they've been using an iPhone with iOS, for over a year, (at the least). Unless you're mathematically challenged and think that 20% is a "vast majority".
https://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2020/10/26/a-billion-iphone-users
>The iPhone business has turned into an upgrading business. While Apple is still bringing in 20M to 30M new iPhone users each year, the percentage of overall iPhone sales going to new users has steadily declined. For FY2020, iPhone sales to new users will likely have accounted for less than 20% of overall iPhone sales - an all-time low.<
FYI - every "platform" would be a "monopoly", if one narrows the "relevant market" down to only include the brand owner of that "platform". Microsoft would have a "monopoly" with the Xbox platform. Sony would have a "monopoly" with the PlayStation platform. Walmart would have a "monopoly" with Walmart Stores. McDonalds would have a "monopoly" with the Big Mac burger. Apple would have a "monopoly" with the iOS platform. But that's not the way it works with anti-trust laws
Under current anti-trust laws, it is very, very rare that the "relevant market" can consist of only one brand. Otherwise, every company would have a "monopoly", if the "relevant market" only included their brand. Which was why the Federal Judge in the Epic lawsuit against Apple, shot down, stepped on and then shot again, looney Sweeney and his lawyers claim that Apple have a "monopoly" with iOS and their proof amounted to no more than .... "IMO".
Apple do not have a monopoly with iOS because iOS is not a monopoly in the mobile OS market. The mobile OS market is what counts under current anti-trust laws. With anti-trust, there is no such thing as an "iOS market". The "iOS market" would only include Apple.
Apple do not have a monopoly with the Apple App Store because the app store is not a separate product. It only comes with iOS. Apple don't have a monopoly that falls under anti-trust with the Apple App Store, for the same reason why Epic do not have such a monopoly with the Fortnite Item Store in their Fortnite game.
Both Fortnite and iOS are copyrighted/patented IP. US copyright laws gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to monetize their IP. The government can not force Epic to allow third party Fortnite stores to sell virtual goods to Fortnite game players. Why should the government be able to force Apple to allow third party app stores in iOS? Neither Fortnite or iOS, are monopolies in their "relevant market". Just like there is no such thing as an "iOS market", there is no such thing as a "Fortnite market", that would be considered "relevant", under current anti-trust laws.
Most of the 1 billion iPhone users are fine with that; a fraction are not. Why should the majority suffer the tyranny of the minority?
There is always Android, and according to you, Harmony OS 3.0, "just around the corner", which is, in your opinion, superior to iOS.