I'm for choice in distribution models and less power for store controllers.
I'd like to see developers have the option to opt out of the App Store if it suits their needs and for Apple to have less say on what is 'acceptable' or not. Likewise, choice would then extend to the end user.
The open web exists for that. The App Store should be apple controlled.
Apple wants to hoard as much money as possible, which is why they make it nearly impossible for the average user to side load apps. Controlling what I can or can’t do with my phone...pfft.
As a developer, I love the single store concept and increased visibility allowing cheaper prices to my constomers because of increased volume. Sounds win-win to me.
Apple developers should band together and file amicus briefs with the court in support of Apple.
This frivolous lawsuit is an insult and dangerous to the earnings potential for all Apple developers.
Some of them did. Both the BSA / The Software Alliance and the ACT / The App Association filed briefs in support of Apple.
As a developer, I love the single store concept and increased visibility allowing cheaper prices to my constomers because of increased volume. Sounds win-win to me.
Apple developers should band together and file amicus briefs with the court in support of Apple.
This frivolous lawsuit is an insult and dangerous to the earnings potential for all Apple developers.
Some of them did. Both the BSA / The Software Alliance and the ACT / The App Association filed briefs in support of Apple.
And I’m talking about individual developers, possibly even regular customers, filing briefs in support of Apple’s model.
I think App Store is about security. You could have number of stores but iOS security will not allow to install App that was not examined. It is one of core features of platform why people buy iPhones. .
That Apple is approving/checking apps before they are allowed to put on the App Store is a great thing, but it is not necessarily related to the distribution model which is the core question here. With digital signatures it is technically very easy to set up a system where Apple approves apps before the apps are distributed/hosted via a non Apple app store.
Digital signatures are compromised already. This is why Apple added "Allow apps downloaded from AppStore" option to macOS. The other macOS option is "AppStore and identified developers" but that "identified developer" you gladly trust may be fake, thus you use this option at your own risk. On a limited OS like iOS that would be catastrophic.
On the other hand, considering that security and commercial distribution are different things, many distribution models might be possible once Apple's authority in security is recognized by developers (developer or app certification by Apple, purchase from developer's site but download from Apple's safe lockers etc.. comes to mind) but unfortunately those who oppose to the current distribution model would oppose to any model Apple is involved with and we would be back at square one... Anarchy always creates its opposite, that's it...
As a developer, I love the single store concept and increased visibility allowing cheaper prices to my constomers because of increased volume. Sounds win-win to me.
Apple developers should band together and file amicus briefs with the court in support of Apple.
This frivolous lawsuit is an insult and dangerous to the earnings potential for all Apple developers.
Some of them did. Both the BSA / The Software Alliance and the ACT / The App Association filed briefs in support of Apple.
And I’m talking about individual developers, possibly even regular customers, filing briefs in support of Apple’s model.
That's part of what such associations are for, to advocate in the interests of members. I wouldn't expect individual app developers, especially small ones, to file briefs. For one thing, it costs money to do so.
I'm for choice in distribution models and less power for store controllers.
I'd like to see developers have the option to opt out of the App Store if it suits their needs and for Apple to have less say on what is 'acceptable' or not. Likewise, choice would then extend to the end user.
I don't understand why there is any anti-trust in cases like this, when Android exists. Microsoft was under scrutiny because they were so dominant by market share. Everyone who buys an iPhone knows that they have to use the App Store to get apps. And everyone knows that, they can either jailbreak (if they so please, there are even services that will do it for you), or they can buy one of many many android phones that are just fine, and that don't have the same app store restrictions.
It just feels like everyone who buys into Apple, either as a consumer getting an iPhone, or an app developer making an app for iPhone, they go in with their eyes wide open. Everyone since the dawn of the App Store has known that it's the only shop for apps, and that Apple charges developers a percent. If you look at the Mac side of things, the "pass-on" has always been obvious in iOS. A Mac App bought outside the store is often less expensive than the same Mac App bought in the store. Obviously, because of pass-on.
There is an essential and profound difference between Apple restrictions to limit free and open access and Microsoft or Google:
-- Apple does it primarily to improve security and stability of its devices.
-- Microsoft and Google do it to improve their profits.
In the case of Apple, they are maintaining the reputation of their brand while the user reaps a benefit. That is not true in the case of Microsoft and Google.
-- The same is true with Apple's restrictions on repairs and upgrades.
I'm for choice in distribution models and less power for store controllers.
I'd like to see developers have the option to opt out of the App Store if it suits their needs and for Apple to have less say on what is 'acceptable' or not. Likewise, choice would then extend to the end user.
I don't understand why there is any anti-trust in cases like this, when Android exists. Microsoft was under scrutiny because they were so dominant by market share. Everyone who buys an iPhone knows that they have to use the App Store to get apps. And everyone knows that, they can either jailbreak (if they so please, there are even services that will do it for you), or they can buy one of many many android phones that are just fine, and that don't have the same app store restrictions.
It just feels like everyone who buys into Apple, either as a consumer getting an iPhone, or an app developer making an app for iPhone, they go in with their eyes wide open. Everyone since the dawn of the App Store has known that it's the only shop for apps, and that Apple charges developers a percent. If you look at the Mac side of things, the "pass-on" has always been obvious in iOS. A Mac App bought outside the store is often less expensive than the same Mac App bought in the store. Obviously, because of pass-on.
Yes, that's one of the reasons I tend to lean towards the judicial system and clear legislation to even out the field of play. Times change and many laws adapt to those changes sooner or later.
In this particular type of situation you will come across varied opinions.
I wish Apple the best, but this suit, they should lose, or else consumers’ rights are a thing of the past. Someone who is in a position of gatekeeper who also actively lobbies the providers of the goods for which he acts as gatekeeper, and restricts what the apps may do, has way too much power. If there were multiple AppStores, with different policies, and consumers had the choice of which store or which policies they want to subscribe to, that’s different. But Apple not only helps and promotes users getting screwed (e.g. by pushing developers towards the subscription model), it lowers the value of devices people already paid for, e.g. by revoking users’ and apps’ access to MAC addresses, rendering network admin apps for iOS close to useless. For these things to stop, there needs to be competition, and there’s none.
You are taking the one-sided Libertarian approach that sees only one side of that coin.
This is the interesting thing with humans. Sometimes they complain about a situation, telling the story of freedom of choice and whatever, when in reality they only want to make money of their own crappy offerings.
This is the crazy thing with humans. There are always people, who have no real problems with the current situation in the first place, but nonetheless believe those complainers.
Works for Appstores, Presidents and Brexits. And human society in general.
The funny thing here is that I fall on both sides of the App Store discussion.
On on my iPhone I really don’t care about Apples practices with the App Store. Most of the functionality I need there come from the Apple supplied apps. The few extras are some games and vendor Apps. There are a few other apps loaded but they are hardly used. So from the perspective of an iPhone user the AppStore approach is fine.
It is with iOS on iPad that I have a lot of problems with Apples approach to software. My current iPad is broken and one of the things that has kept me from replacing it is the lack of functionality within iOS and the significant limitations of iOS. That really sucks considering how powerful the new iPads are. For software I suppose somethings could be loaded via XCode, if I had a Mac and wanted to maintain XCode. The problem with that is that iPad really isn’t a laptop replacement device then. Actually the thought that you need a +$1000 Mac from Apple to maintain some level of software freedom on an iPad is a horrible joke.
In any event im not a lawyer but my understanding is that this is just about a groups right to take Apple to court. It isn’t addressing antitrust or Apple stupidity at all. Frankly I really hope that Apple looses this action because frankly many companies are engaging in some really horrible practices with respect to consummer rights. The right to repair is something that companies like Apple. John Deere and others are using their influence to block. Hopefully the prospect of being dragged into court due to anti competitive practices will change some really ignorant behavior in corporate America. In the end it the right to take Apple to court can be established, I really see many practices of the company coming under fire. A few wins would change Apple for the better.
For Apple it is, for the user this is unclear, for the developer it is definitely not
How quickly they forget.
In the world before the iPhone, there were multiple mobile App “store” web pages, charging at least 50%, with differing policies and requirements for developers, and didn’t allow free distribution. Some didn’t provide hosting. None provided server side services such as push notifications and Game Center.
A unified store charging a flat 30% and handling hosting, distribution, and payment fulfillment was a revolution.
That Apple is approving/checking apps before they are allowed to put on the App Store is a great thing, but it is not necessarily related to the distribution model which is the core question here. With digital signatures it is technically very easy to set up a system where Apple approves apps before the apps are distributed/hosted via a non Apple app store.
And they should provide this service to third party app stores for free?
Every time this subject comes up it reminds me of the clowns who started Psystar. Psystar decided on its own that Apple was a monopolist in and of itself because it was the only manufacturer of Macintosh computers. So Psystar claimed it was fighting for consumer’s rights when it started making Mac clones and even preinstalled OS X on them to boot. And a lot of asshats bought into that argument and purchased their fake Macs... until Apple wiped them off the face of the earth. Same argument being made here but I wonder on the Android side just how much “side-loading” actually goes on and why the desires of a small but vocal minority trumps everything else. I put this issue right up there with “Right to Repair” and “Net Neutrality”.
Many of us who spew on tech blogs have no idea what the legal definition of anti-trust or monopoly is when we try to apply that to Apple, a company that has a minority share of every market on the planet except its own products and softwares. I think government forcing the existence of third party app stores and regulating “commissions” in the name of “competition" is about as dumb as it gets. And that's just my personal opinion, okay. But we’ll see if the new "conservative majority” on the SCOTUS lives up to tis expectations.
Every time this subject comes up it reminds me of the clowns who started Psystar. Psystar decided on its own that Apple was a monopolist in and of itself because it was the only manufacturer of Macintosh computers. So Psystar claimed it was fighting for consumer’s rights when it started making Mac clones and even preinstalled OS X on them to boot. And a lot of asshats bought into that argument and purchased their fake Macs... until Apple wiped them off the face of the earth. Same argument being made here but I wonder on the Android side just how much “side-loading” actually goes on and why the desires of a small but vocal minority trumps everything else. I put this issue right up there with “Right to Repair” and “Net Neutrality”.
Many of us who spew on tech blogs have no idea what the legal definition of anti-trust or monopoly is when we try to apply that to Apple, a company that has a minority share of every market on the planet except its own products and softwares. I think government forcing the existence of third party app stores and regulating “commissions” in the name of “competition" is about as dumb as it gets. And that's just my personal opinion, okay. But we’ll see if the new "conservative majority” on the SCOTUS lives up to tis expectations.
Well, the most common mistake around here is the bizarre assumption that a monopoly is illegal, and that Apple has one.
For Apple it is, for the user this is unclear, for the developer it is definitely not
How quickly they forget.
In the world before the iPhone, there were multiple mobile App “store” web pages, charging at least 50%, with differing policies and requirements for developers, and didn’t allow free distribution. Some didn’t provide hosting. None provided server side services such as push notifications and Game Center.
A unified store charging a flat 30% and handling hosting, distribution, and payment fulfillment was a revolution.
Handango used to take up the 70% of the cover price. When Apple said they were charging 30%, I thought they meant 60% and the journalist had simply misunderstood.
And I love how Amazon protests about Apple charging 30% for an app while they themselves take up to 70% for an eBook.
I would add that I would be surprised if the Supreme Court ruled against Apple in this case.
Agreed. The original Illinois Brick case was decided 6-3 with three most liberal justices at the time dissenting. Obviously a lot has changed in four decades, but I expect the conservative-liberal alignment on this issue still exists. I expect it will either be a unanimous ruling that the appeals court got it wrong and misapplied Illinois Brick (with even the liberal justices basically saying "hey we decided this case already") or 6-3 in favor of Apple (with Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor dissenting).
As a developer, I love the single store concept and increased visibility allowing cheaper prices to my constomers because of increased volume. Sounds win-win to me.
Apple developers should band together and file amicus briefs with the court in support of Apple.
This frivolous lawsuit is an insult and dangerous to the earnings potential for all Apple developers.
Yup, once piracy takes hold they'll be whining about Apple not doing enough to protect them.
And let's not forget what happens once malware gets hold of the platform with the most valued customer base.
Okay, how about this:
If you have an app on your device that doesn't come from the app store, then Apple no longer has to support the phone.
A good precedent for Apple to point to is the Mac App Store. Prices on the store are the same as the prices on the developers' websites.
For example, Affinity Photo is $47.99 on the Mac App Store, and it is also $47.99 on the developer's website.
Developers sell their software on the Mac App Store, and pay Apple a commission for each copy of their software sold, because it is worth it for the worldwide exposure and publicity that Apple provides, and because it makes installation and updates much easier for users (which also helps sell the product).
Comments
Xcode is free. Sideload all you want from there.
On the other hand, considering that security and commercial distribution are different things, many distribution models might be possible once Apple's authority in security is recognized by developers (developer or app certification by Apple, purchase from developer's site but download from Apple's safe lockers etc.. comes to mind) but unfortunately those who oppose to the current distribution model would oppose to any model Apple is involved with and we would be back at square one... Anarchy always creates its opposite, that's it...
In this particular type of situation you will come across varied opinions.
This is the crazy thing with humans. There are always people, who have no real problems with the current situation in the first place, but nonetheless believe those complainers.
Works for Appstores, Presidents and Brexits. And human society in general.
On on my iPhone I really don’t care about Apples practices with the App Store. Most of the functionality I need there come from the Apple supplied apps. The few extras are some games and vendor Apps. There are a few other apps loaded but they are hardly used. So from the perspective of an iPhone user the AppStore approach is fine.
It is with iOS on iPad that I have a lot of problems with Apples approach to software. My current iPad is broken and one of the things that has kept me from replacing it is the lack of functionality within iOS and the significant limitations of iOS. That really sucks considering how powerful the new iPads are. For software I suppose somethings could be loaded via XCode, if I had a Mac and wanted to maintain XCode. The problem with that is that iPad really isn’t a laptop replacement device then. Actually the thought that you need a +$1000 Mac from Apple to maintain some level of software freedom on an iPad is a horrible joke.
In any event im not a lawyer but my understanding is that this is just about a groups right to take Apple to court. It isn’t addressing antitrust or Apple stupidity at all. Frankly I really hope that Apple looses this action because frankly many companies are engaging in some really horrible practices with respect to consummer rights. The right to repair is something that companies like Apple. John Deere and others are using their influence to block. Hopefully the prospect of being dragged into court due to anti competitive practices will change some really ignorant behavior in corporate America. In the end it the right to take Apple to court can be established, I really see many practices of the company coming under fire. A few wins would change Apple for the better.
In the world before the iPhone, there were multiple mobile App “store” web pages, charging at least 50%, with differing policies and requirements for developers, and didn’t allow free distribution. Some didn’t provide hosting. None provided server side services such as push notifications and Game Center.
A unified store charging a flat 30% and handling hosting, distribution, and payment fulfillment was a revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar_Corporation
Many of us who spew on tech blogs have no idea what the legal definition of anti-trust or monopoly is when we try to apply that to Apple, a company that has a minority share of every market on the planet except its own products and softwares. I think government forcing the existence of third party app stores and regulating “commissions” in the name of “competition" is about as dumb as it gets. And that's just my personal opinion, okay. But we’ll see if the new "conservative majority” on the SCOTUS lives up to tis expectations.
Handango used to take up the 70% of the cover price. When Apple said they were charging 30%, I thought they meant 60% and the journalist had simply misunderstood.
And I love how Amazon protests about Apple charging 30% for an app while they themselves take up to 70% for an eBook.
Yup, once piracy takes hold they'll be whining about Apple not doing enough to protect them.
And let's not forget what happens once malware gets hold of the platform with the most valued customer base.
Okay, how about this:
If you have an app on your device that doesn't come from the app store, then Apple no longer has to support the phone.
A good precedent for Apple to point to is the Mac App Store. Prices on the store are the same as the prices on the developers' websites.
For example, Affinity Photo is $47.99 on the Mac App Store, and it is also $47.99 on the developer's website.
Developers sell their software on the Mac App Store, and pay Apple a commission for each copy of their software sold, because it is worth it for the worldwide exposure and publicity that Apple provides, and because it makes installation and updates much easier for users (which also helps sell the product).