The only problem with this position is that Apple changed Personal Team accounts' Sideloads to expire every 7 days. This made it essentially useless for anything but a quick test or Proof of Concept. The original Personal Team accounts' sideload of 90 was useful.
I do wonder whether the real driving force behind the lawsuit is actually from the Android community. If Apple opened up iOS to allowing app installations via methods other than The App Store it would degrade the overall iOS user experience significantly. If a third party installer craps all over your data or destabilizes your iOS device who do you think is going to catch all the flack? Apple of course. If a third party non App Store app leaks your personal information or installs malware, ransomware, zombie process, or any number of other nefarious processes who is going to catch all the flack. Apple of course. In other words, opening up iOS to third party installations turns iOS into Android, effectively diluting one of Apple's key competitive advantages against Android. Apple would have to install a firewall around all core iOS services and only allow third party installed apps to run in an isolated sandbox. So who is going to catch all the flack when developers realize that they are now locked out of some of the core iOS services that they depend on? Apple of course.
The bottom line is that some people want everything provided to them on their own terms, at no cost or effort to themselves, and no matter the actual cost or expense behind what it is that they are consuming. They want it all and they want it their way. Period. The proper name for people like this is "asshole." The fact that Apple spent (and continues to spend) tens of billions creating the massive infrastructure that powers the iOS App Ecosystem, the App Store, iCloud, and the security and verification processes that provide billions of iOS customers worldwide with a high level of assurance that everything they purchase (for free or otherwise) from the App Store can be considered functional, safe, and traceable to a legitimate developer somehow does not register as a value-add to these assholes.
We are living in a new and clearly defined age of human history. There was the Stone Age, followed by the Bronze Age, leading to the Iron Age, on to modern history with the Industrial Age, the Atomic Age, and the Information Age. Societal evolution never rests so ... welcome to the Asshole Age. While previous ages replaced human toil with mechanized processes and augmented human capabilities with technological breakthroughs, the Asshole Age is characterized by replacing human empathy, understanding, compassion, and consideration with just being a total dick about everything that does not serve your own personal whims, self centered needs, or selfish desires. I wonder what kind of artifacts of the Asshole Age will be dug up by our successors in future millennia? Perhaps just a thin layer of scorched radioactive deposits interspersed with melted plastic, e-waste, and fossilized SUV carcasses.
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.
For somebody who isn't an Apple user, you sure do have strong opinions about the company whose products you aren't using.
Take the Alex Jones Info Wars app for instance. Apple doesn't want Info Wars in the app store for hate speech. This is an example of why Apple should allow developers to host their apps from their website. If I want to download Info Wars, I should be allowed to download it from infowars.com if App doesn't like the app. This is what I call a violation of the Antitrust Act.
InfoWars is free to do exactly that -- there is a really sweet solution called web apps.
Apple owns its distribution platform and can't be forced to host & sell things that violate their terms. It is 100% the same as InfoWar's own disclaimer statement on their own web forum platform, that uses very similar language.
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.
Xcode is free. Sideload all you want from there.
One needs a developer account to download the “free” software, and registering such an account requires money. There’s also the fact that Xcode only runs on Mac OS X, and buying a Mac requires money. The average user has zero idea on how to virtualize Mac OS X in Windows or even use Xcode for that matter. So once again...nearly impossible for the average user to side load apps without having to pay for it.
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.
And why not allow third-party app stores at the user's risk?
Because doing so can and arguably will harm user experience, as the apps won’t be vetted for malware, etc.
You are free to jailbreak and install non-App Store apps. Or web apps.
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.
It’s not about hoarding money, it’s about user experience. Yes, Apple values simplicity and safety over DIY tinkering. Android is for tinkerers, iOS is for normals.
For Apple it is, for the user this is unclear, for the developer it is definitely not
Actually it’s quite clear that for the normal end user the walled garden is a benefit. I don’t need to explain the myriad of reasons why here, as it’s been discussed to death. The people have spoken and they vote with their wallets.
All if your posts indicate you’re quite unhappy with Apple products. Get a Dell?
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.
Xcode is free. Sideload all you want from there.
One needs a developer account to download the “free” software, and registering such an account requires money. There’s also the fact that Xcode only runs on Mac OS X, and buying a Mac requires money. The average user has zero idea on how to virtualize Mac OS X in Windows or even use Xcode for that matter. So once again...nearly impossible for the average user to side load apps without having to pay for it.
So what? I'm free to build my own house, that doesn't mean that it's some sort of evil oligarchy controlling the house building market just because I lack the skills to build houses myself… You either accept having to pay extra for it to be easy, or you put in the hard work to learn how to do it yourself.
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.
It’s not about hoarding money, it’s about user experience. Yes, Apple values simplicity and safety over DIY tinkering. Android is for tinkerers, iOS is for normals.
Simplicity and safety can be achieved just fine while giving the owner of the phone control of what he/she wants.
The only problem with this position is that Apple changed Personal Team accounts' Sideloads to expire every 7 days. This made it essentially useless for anything but a quick test or Proof of Concept. The original Personal Team accounts' sideload of 90 was useful.
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.
Xcode is free. Sideload all you want from there.
One needs a developer account to download the “free” software, and registering such an account requires money. There’s also the fact that Xcode only runs on Mac OS X, and buying a Mac requires money. The average user has zero idea on how to virtualize Mac OS X in Windows or even use Xcode for that matter. So once again...nearly impossible for the average user to side load apps without having to pay for it.
You don’t need a paid dev account to download Xcode. It’s part of macOS.
Yes, buying a Mac costs money. You will find in life that things cost money. Like Microsoft Visual Studio.
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.
It’s not about hoarding money, it’s about user experience. Yes, Apple values simplicity and safety over DIY tinkering. Android is for tinkerers, iOS is for normals.
Simplicity and safety can be achieved just fine while giving the owner of the phone control of what he/she wants.
Nope. Windows and Android have proven otherwise. If there is no source vetting iOS apps app devs are free to sneak in bitcoin mining code, call & text snoopers, etc...just like what has happened on Android.
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.
Xcode is free. Sideload all you want from there.
One needs a developer account to download the “free” software, and registering such an account requires money. There’s also the fact that Xcode only runs on Mac OS X, and buying a Mac requires money. The average user has zero idea on how to virtualize Mac OS X in Windows or even use Xcode for that matter. So once again...nearly impossible for the average user to side load apps without having to pay for it.
So what? I'm free to build my own house, that doesn't mean that it's some sort of evil oligarchy controlling the house building market just because I lack the skills to build houses myself… You either accept having to pay extra for it to be easy, or you put in the hard work to learn how to do it yourself.
Nonsensical analogy.
No it isn’t it’s a great analogy. You’re free to build and side-load apps for iOS, just like you’re free to build a house. But that doesn’t mean it’s “free” to do so without costs. To build a house you must buy tools (wood, saws, etc). To build an iOS app you must als buy tools (a Mac).
Overall this is a complicated matter and definitely beyond what current laws had in mind when written.
First, if Apple is considers themselves a distributor that also means they are free to set the price of a product as they see fit. In a typical distributor model, a company who makes a product sells a product to a distributor, at that point they have no say so over the price a distributor sell the product to anyone else. This is also mostly true even in direct to consumer type of transactions. If you agree to have a store like Walmart carry and sell your product, you do not always have any say over the price Walmart will sell your product to the public.
This also the reason Apple never really like the big box retail model, it did not allow them to control the selling price. Once Apple establish their market dominance they were able to set the selling price in all channels of sale. Retailer can not discount Apple products without getting Apple's approval.
The other challenge with retail and distribution models is the fact that everyone who touches the product gets to make a profit off the product. This is the piece most consumers do not want to realize. In this case the people suing Apple is claiming since Apple controls the distribution they get to set the price, well that true anywhere in the world someone is always setting and controlling the price and someone is always making a profits. Apple 30% they make is not too unusual in the retail space. Retails and distributors target between a 25% to 35% markup on product they sell. Apple is not making any more than any other retailer.
There is no rule that says that there has to be more than one App store for software that runs on apples product. Plus most apps can not be bough in android. The only issue if you have the App for ios you can not simply transfer it to an android phone and via verse and the Developer will make you buy it again. Add in the fact that you do not really own an application, its on loan to you until they decide they no longer want to license and support your app on your product.
These folks are essentially arguing that there should be others stores like an Amazon who has proven they will give away products at loose to make a sale as competitor to Apple, and because this does not exist, apple is keeping pricing artificial high
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.
Xcode is free. Sideload all you want from there.
One needs a developer account to download the “free” software, and registering such an account requires money. There’s also the fact that Xcode only runs on Mac OS X, and buying a Mac requires money. The average user has zero idea on how to virtualize Mac OS X in Windows or even use Xcode for that matter. So once again...nearly impossible for the average user to side load apps without having to pay for it.
Downloading and using Xcode is free. but there are restrictions. The paid account gives you other privileges. You're right about the Mac part, though.
Good news! There's a competing platform that holds the majority of the marketshare globally that users concerned about such things can shift to.
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.
Xcode is free. Sideload all you want from there.
One needs a developer account to download the “free” software, and registering such an account requires money. There’s also the fact that Xcode only runs on Mac OS X, and buying a Mac requires money. The average user has zero idea on how to virtualize Mac OS X in Windows or even use Xcode for that matter. So once again...nearly impossible for the average user to side load apps without having to pay for it.
Registering a developer account does not cost money, it is free to everyone. Registering to a "development program" costs money, but that is required only if one wants to sell apps in the AppStores. The average user may contract a programmer or rent a Mac. This is life, nothing is free.
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.
Xcode is free. Sideload all you want from there.
One needs a developer account to download the “free” software, and registering such an account requires money. There’s also the fact that Xcode only runs on Mac OS X, and buying a Mac requires money. The average user has zero idea on how to virtualize Mac OS X in Windows or even use Xcode for that matter. So once again...nearly impossible for the average user to side load apps without having to pay for it.
Downloading and using Xcode is free. but there are restrictions. The paid account gives you other privileges. You're right about the Mac part, though.
Good news! There's a competing platform that holds the majority of the marketshare globally that users concerned about such things can shift to.
Nope. It’s all about taking Apple down. That’s the motive, the driving force, the mission statement, the raison d'être.
Comments
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/38307356/iphone-app-under-test-crashes-after-a-few-days (Second answer for more details)
The bottom line is that some people want everything provided to them on their own terms, at no cost or effort to themselves, and no matter the actual cost or expense behind what it is that they are consuming. They want it all and they want it their way. Period. The proper name for people like this is "asshole." The fact that Apple spent (and continues to spend) tens of billions creating the massive infrastructure that powers the iOS App Ecosystem, the App Store, iCloud, and the security and verification processes that provide billions of iOS customers worldwide with a high level of assurance that everything they purchase (for free or otherwise) from the App Store can be considered functional, safe, and traceable to a legitimate developer somehow does not register as a value-add to these assholes.
We are living in a new and clearly defined age of human history. There was the Stone Age, followed by the Bronze Age, leading to the Iron Age, on to modern history with the Industrial Age, the Atomic Age, and the Information Age. Societal evolution never rests so ... welcome to the Asshole Age. While previous ages replaced human toil with mechanized processes and augmented human capabilities with technological breakthroughs, the Asshole Age is characterized by replacing human empathy, understanding, compassion, and consideration with just being a total dick about everything that does not serve your own personal whims, self centered needs, or selfish desires. I wonder what kind of artifacts of the Asshole Age will be dug up by our successors in future millennia? Perhaps just a thin layer of scorched radioactive deposits interspersed with melted plastic, e-waste, and fossilized SUV carcasses.
InfoWars is free to do exactly that -- there is a really sweet solution called web apps.
Apple owns its distribution platform and can't be forced to host & sell things that violate their terms. It is 100% the same as InfoWar's own disclaimer statement on their own web forum platform, that uses very similar language.
You are free to jailbreak and install non-App Store apps. Or web apps.
It’s not about hoarding money, it’s about user experience. Yes, Apple values simplicity and safety over DIY tinkering. Android is for tinkerers, iOS is for normals.
All if your posts indicate you’re quite unhappy with Apple products. Get a Dell?
You don’t need a paid dev account to download Xcode. It’s part of macOS.
Yes, buying a Mac costs money. You will find in life that things cost money. Like Microsoft Visual Studio.
Nope. Windows and Android have proven otherwise. If there is no source vetting iOS apps app devs are free to sneak in bitcoin mining code, call & text snoopers, etc...just like what has happened on Android.
What part are you struggling with?
First, if Apple is considers themselves a distributor that also means they are free to set the price of a product as they see fit. In a typical distributor model, a company who makes a product sells a product to a distributor, at that point they have no say so over the price a distributor sell the product to anyone else. This is also mostly true even in direct to consumer type of transactions. If you agree to have a store like Walmart carry and sell your product, you do not always have any say over the price Walmart will sell your product to the public.
This also the reason Apple never really like the big box retail model, it did not allow them to control the selling price. Once Apple establish their market dominance they were able to set the selling price in all channels of sale. Retailer can not discount Apple products without getting Apple's approval.
The other challenge with retail and distribution models is the fact that everyone who touches the product gets to make a profit off the product. This is the piece most consumers do not want to realize. In this case the people suing Apple is claiming since Apple controls the distribution they get to set the price, well that true anywhere in the world someone is always setting and controlling the price and someone is always making a profits. Apple 30% they make is not too unusual in the retail space. Retails and distributors target between a 25% to 35% markup on product they sell. Apple is not making any more than any other retailer.
There is no rule that says that there has to be more than one App store for software that runs on apples product. Plus most apps can not be bough in android. The only issue if you have the App for ios you can not simply transfer it to an android phone and via verse and the Developer will make you buy it again. Add in the fact that you do not really own an application, its on loan to you until they decide they no longer want to license and support your app on your product.
These folks are essentially arguing that there should be others stores like an Amazon who has proven they will give away products at loose to make a sale as competitor to Apple, and because this does not exist, apple is keeping pricing artificial high