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.
If you want to damage your phone with harmful apps, go right ahead. You know good and well that this is really about people who are interested in loading up on stolen content.
100% disagree with you on that one. We have at least a half dozen apps that we use at my office which have to be sideloaded because they are created in house and wouldn't in a million years clear the App Store review. There is proprietary info in there and since it uses our LDAP credentials that too would be an issue. There a plenty of use cases for a private app store besides stolen content.
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 those users will be still coming to Apple. Whining. When they screw up with their third-party access apps. At Apple's cost. Meaning also at the cost of those who are just using a more secure App Store. I personally would recommend those users (who whine now, before they whine later) just go get Android. Android was always more customisable. And it was always one of the main selling points for such people.
That isn't actually a reason. Is there a reason that a third party app store couldn't be as good, or better than Apple's? The point is we don't know because the only way a regular user can get apps is by going through Apple's store and the vast majority of them are unnaware of how much Apple takes for providing the service or if Apple is filtering what is available to them.
Those would be non-issues if users had the option go elsewhere for iOS apps.
It is a complex issue but a legal challenge helps clarify many aspects and could possibly lead to changes in how things work.
Here's a bit more about my above comment on trademark law. After a product, like iPhone or iPad, or iOS, has been on the market for a number of years, the design of that product acquires what's called "secondary meaning", a concept at the heart of trademark law. Secondary meaning refers to an association of a design, like the design of an iPhone or the iOS operating system, with quality, craftsmanship or other positive attributes one might associate with the brand. Security is paramount among those attributes when it comes to any Apple product.
A 3rd-party App Store, which potentially could include insecure apps, malware, spyware, etc, could diminish the value of Apple’s trademarks associated with the affected products and with the entirety of tne value of Apple as a brand. What is the value of Apple’s reputation as a business that takes great care to protect its users against security breaches? Will a 3rd-party App Store work as diligently to protect Apple’s reputation in the eyes of Apple’s existing and potential customers? And what remedy might Apple have against a loss of reputation, which might cost in the $10s or even $100s of billions in future revenue and customer goodwill, against the creator of an App Store which might have corporate resources in the $millions, not billions? Apple could suffer an enormous hit with no recourse to recover against the entity that did the damage.
What is the obligation of Apple to assist and oversee any 3rd-party App Store? To provide it the tools Apple has spend untold $billions to develop, in order to ensure that the 3rd-party, through negligence or malice, to minimize the probability of malware, spyware and insecure apps making their way onto iPhones and iPads, AppleTVs and watches and HomePods and AirPods, etc?
Clearly there should be consideration to protect Apple as a strong competitor offering users a choice versus the market volume dominant Android. A loss of Apple’s control of its App Store equates to a deterioration of quality of Apple products and diminishment of competition to Android.
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.
Yeah, this isn't a violation of the Antitrust act. There are potentially other issues with this, but antitrust isn't one of them.
Can you help me understand why that example isn't an antitrust one? Apple controls the only avenue to get an app onto a phone (short of an airwatch or some other esoteric workaround) and now refuses to allow the app to use the sole distribution channel. Sounds exactly like an antitrust issue...restrict competition and then censor what you don't agree with.
Basically the argument is this: You can always use Android etc.
iOS isn’t a single market, but part of a much larger market where you have lots of options; and you can even install webapps on your iOS device.
I haven’t finished reading all these comments, but from what I’ve read, I still do’t get it????
Can you say? Choice
Can you say? Microsoft store Can you say? Google Play
Can you say? Android
Lack of choice is at the crux of the concept of monopoly.
Everyone has made a choice when the go with one operating system or the other. If someone feels they are overpaying for anything, they are free to choose another OS. People are not being forced to buy anything. They can chose other approaches or solutions. The marketplace will decide... Apple will go out of business if they make a bad marketing decision.
From the looks of it, they’ve made a marketing decision... and the market as whole likes it.
The idea is that you choose a platform.
Say a smartphone with app capability.
Apple makes a smartphone. But Their are many Manufacturers of other smartphones - each with their own flavor, quality, etc.
Yet the manufacturers have to play by the rules when they are allowed to sell in the USA.
Ford and Chevy both make cars with radio capability in the cars. But one doesn’t choose for you what you can and can’t legally listen to over the available airwaves.
So you’re saying that a person using an iPhone should be able to browse any website they like. Agreed. Because that’s the closest to your radio airwaves example.
A better analogy would be that Ford and Chevy should be forced to allow users to install any engine management apps they like. And if someone installs some poorly designed ignition and valve timing app that siezes the engine, can they bring it to Ford or Chevy to get it serviced under warranty? Is that what you’re trying to suggest? And if someone installs an engine management app that causes the engine to rev out of control resulting in a crash and some dead passengers and pedestrians?
Cars CAN load any engine or fuel management system on them, but no it isn't covered under warranty. That's explicitly spelled out in the warranty. Above and beyond that I can put any engine I want in any car, assuming the real estate exists. Again voids the warranty, but it isn't like anyone doing that task cares. Apple could do the same.
The automotive industry should not be the one you use as an example. There are literally hundreds of thousands of companies and aftermarket parts you can install on any car without approval from the manufacturer. The difference would be if you leased a car, and if this were a case where Apple (or a middle man) still owned the device you were leasing then I could see them putting limits on them. But I paid full price for my phone right from the beginning, so to be told "Tim thinks that company is mean so we won't let you have access to their app" is childish.
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?
That becomes a trademark issue, believe it or not. The iPhone and iOS is protected by trademark, and represents in the eyes of consumers a more secure smartphone versus the competition, among other favorably comparable attributes. To allow third parties to install less secure or not-at-all-secure apps on top of iOS would be to dilute that trademark and would result in harm to the good name Apple has earned through its diligence in keeping the platform secure.
You see, this is not merely a cut and dry issue.
Definitely not cut and dry but there is no reason to think that someone couldn't actually do an equally good, or better job than Apple. Yes, some might be worse but that wouldn't be enough to rule that security would be affected. That remains to be seen (supposing someone gets something through a ruling that increases app store competition). At the very least direct app to consumer sales from trusted developers (safeguards in place) is hard to argue against if the developer is willing to manage the administrative side.
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.
I agree with this, the App store provides a single source of apps to buy and you know there is a great chance they have been thoroughly vetted and are safe. Some malicious apps still get through but it's not a wild west.
However, there should be alternatives allowed with a "purchase at your own risk". IMO the biggest issue is Apple restricting access to apps based on their moral compass. I'm not saying I want smut on my phone or ipad, but it should be possible for an average owner of a device to put literally any app on it. Apple could protect itself by not allowing these externally sold apps to have access to secure enclaves of the phone.
There is a happy medium there, and sounds like it will require the courts to force Apple to explore it.
Basically we’re getting there with webapps.
If you keep up with the development of good standards etc you know it’s slow work, but progress is made as far as letting webapps get deeper integration with especially mobile devices.
like PWA's? I agree with you on that for retail, but not so sure that works when it comes to games. Maybe it does.
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.
If you want to damage your phone with harmful apps, go right ahead. You know good and well that this is really about people who are interested in loading up on stolen content.
100% disagree with you on that one. We have at least a half dozen apps that we use at my office which have to be sideloaded because they are created in house and wouldn't in a million years clear the App Store review. There is proprietary info in there and since it uses our LDAP credentials that too would be an issue. There a plenty of use cases for a private app store besides stolen content.
If you have in-house Apps you should have an enterprise developer account and distribute them yourselves without requiring any third party store. Your comment is pure BS.
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.
If you want to damage your phone with harmful apps, go right ahead. You know good and well that this is really about people who are interested in loading up on stolen content.
100% disagree with you on that one. We have at least a half dozen apps that we use at my office which have to be sideloaded because they are created in house and wouldn't in a million years clear the App Store review. There is proprietary info in there and since it uses our LDAP credentials that too would be an issue. There a plenty of use cases for a private app store besides stolen content.
You can do that already though with the Enterprise Program? My company has a web portal to in-house 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.
If you want to damage your phone with harmful apps, go right ahead. You know good and well that this is really about people who are interested in loading up on stolen content.
100% disagree with you on that one. We have at least a half dozen apps that we use at my office which have to be sideloaded because they are created in house and wouldn't in a million years clear the App Store review. There is proprietary info in there and since it uses our LDAP credentials that too would be an issue. There a plenty of use cases for a private app store besides stolen content.
If you have in-house Apps you should have an enterprise developer account and distribute them yourselves without requiring any third party store. Your comment is pure BS.
Not at all BS. These aren't enterprise apps, these are task management apps which aren't enterprise solutions. They are created for a subset of employees, and so we use hockeyapp to get them to the few hundreds users that need them. We don't need to spin our entire mobile group up for internal apps when they are instead focused on the customer facing ones.
So feel free to take your BS judgement and place it where the sun doesn't shine.
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.
I agree with this, the App store provides a single source of apps to buy and you know there is a great chance they have been thoroughly vetted and are safe. Some malicious apps still get through but it's not a wild west.
However, there should be alternatives allowed with a "purchase at your own risk". IMO the biggest issue is Apple restricting access to apps based on their moral compass. I'm not saying I want smut on my phone or ipad, but it should be possible for an average owner of a device to put literally any app on it. Apple could protect itself by not allowing these externally sold apps to have access to secure enclaves of the phone.
There is a happy medium there, and sounds like it will require the courts to force Apple to explore it.
Basically we’re getting there with webapps.
If you keep up with the development of good standards etc you know it’s slow work, but progress is made as far as letting webapps get deeper integration with especially mobile devices.
like PWA's? I agree with you on that for retail, but not so sure that works when it comes to games. Maybe it does.
No need to make it about the acronym of the week; it’s just about plain vanilla JavaScript being able to do more, and access more. The rest is just fluff, libraries, APIs and marketing speak.
As far as doing heavier graphics stuff you might want to have a look at WebGPU (which, btw, is Apple initiated work).
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.
If you want to damage your phone with harmful apps, go right ahead. You know good and well that this is really about people who are interested in loading up on stolen content.
100% disagree with you on that one. We have at least a half dozen apps that we use at my office which have to be sideloaded because they are created in house and wouldn't in a million years clear the App Store review. There is proprietary info in there and since it uses our LDAP credentials that too would be an issue. There a plenty of use cases for a private app store besides stolen content.
You can do that already though with the Enterprise Program? My company has a web portal to in-house apps.
Again that works great when they are enterprise wide apps, not so much when they are side projects created to assist in the daily work of a few hundred employees. There are two that I use daily but aren't enterprise wide.
Bottom line is they are not "stolen apps" like the poster I was disagreeing with said. There are legit reasons to have apps that can't go through the App Store.
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 those users will be still coming to Apple. Whining. When they screw up with their third-party access apps. At Apple's cost. Meaning also at the cost of those who are just using a more secure App Store. I personally would recommend those users (who whine now, before they whine later) just go get Android. Android was always more customisable. And it was always one of the main selling points for such people.
That isn't actually a reason. Is there a reason that a third party app store couldn't be as good, or better than Apple's? The point is we don't know because the only way a regular user can get apps is by going through Apple's store and the vast majority of them are unnaware of how much Apple takes for providing the service or if Apple is filtering what is available to them.
Those would be non-issues if users had the option go elsewhere for iOS apps.
It is a complex issue but a legal challenge helps clarify many aspects and could possibly lead to changes in how things work.
Here's a bit more about my above comment on trademark law. After a product, like iPhone or iPad, or iOS, has been on the market for a number of years, the design of that product acquires what's called "secondary meaning", a concept at the heart of trademark law. Secondary meaning refers to an association of a design, like the design of an iPhone or the iOS operating system, with quality, craftsmanship or other positive attributes one might associate with the brand. Security is paramount among those attributes when it comes to any Apple product.
A 3rd-party App Store, which potentially could include insecure apps, malware, spyware, etc, could diminish the value of Apple’s trademarks associated with the affected products and with the entirety of tne value of Apple as a brand. What is the value of Apple’s reputation as a business that takes great care to protect its users against security breaches? Will a 3rd-party App Store work as diligently to protect Apple’s reputation in the eyes of Apple’s existing and potential customers? And what remedy might Apple have against a loss of reputation, which might cost in the $10s or even $100s of billions in future revenue and customer goodwill, against the creator of an App Store which might have corporate resources in the $millions, not billions? Apple could suffer an enormous hit with no recourse to recover against the entity that did the damage.
What is the obligation of Apple to assist and oversee any 3rd-party App Store? To provide it the tools Apple has spend untold $billions to develop, in order to ensure that the 3rd-party, through negligence or malice, to minimize the probability of malware, spyware and insecure apps making their way onto iPhones and iPads, AppleTVs and watches and HomePods and AirPods, etc?
Clearly there should be consideration to protect Apple as a strong competitor offering users a choice versus the market volume dominant Android. A loss of Apple’s control of its App Store equates to a deterioration of quality of Apple products and diminishment of competition to Android.
That was VERY well said. And, it is both true and pertinent.
There are many parts that come together to comprise Apple: Hardware, software, support, security, stability, reliability, etc...
Allowing unregulated entities into its products will adversely impact or even destroy its stability, reliability, security and assurance of privacy -- which, in many respects, would relegate it to being just another Microsoft.
An analogy might be the superstructure of a bridge. At first glance it's a maze of beams and girders none of which matter on the individual level. Yet the integrity of that bridge depends on each of those beams and girders. Pulling one out causes the the whole thing to collapse.
People rightly complain about the limitations of the walled garden. And, it DOES restrict their freedom. But that walled garden also, at the same time, provides them services that no other entity can provide. The Walled Garden is, in many ways, the foundation that Apple is built upon.
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).
What part are you struggling with?
Well said. It's a perfect analogy.
But there isn't a single provider of house building services, there's a huge number of them. The choice isn't between Houses Inc or do it yourself, there are a massive amount of choices. It really doesn't work at all.
If anything it proves the opposite point. If you bought a piece of land and then had to use a single monopoly company to build a house on that land (or d.i.y.) you'd be major league pissed and it may well go to the courts to get rid of the absurd restriction.
Do you know the number of Android smartphone vendors that exist? Hint: after you name all the ones you hear about - Hauwei, Oppo, Vivo, Samsung, LG, etc, there are still hundreds upon hundreds. Every single one is a competitor to Apple, and to all the others. Huge number of them. Lots of choice.
The land anology doesn’t even work. For a couple reasons. First, the land is analogous to an iPhone or iPad, but you can do whatever you want with your iPhone or iPad. You can build yourself an OS to run on it or hire a software team to do that for you. Once you’ve got that accomplished, go build or find a 3rd-party App Store vendor to get your apps from.
The land analogy is the wrong analogy. A closer, though still not perfect analogy is a condo. You bought a townhouse condo and now you want to paint it electric purple, but the condo associated is telling you that’s not one of the approved colors. Time to confirm to the rules you agreed to, or move. You see, the Apple App Store runs on iOS, and you don’t own iOS, just like you don’t hold direct title to the land your condo is build upon. You license iOS; it’s not your property, and you aren’t allowed to do certain things with it, like install apps directly. You don’t have that right, and that’s what’s stopping you, or anyone else, from creatibg a 3rd-party App Store. Go do that on Android. Lots of choice.
thw other reason the land analogy doesn’t work is a reason that actually relates directly to your description of the problem. Yes, you guessed it... if you buy land in any of the thousands of subdivisions created by home development companies, yup, you cannot use just any contractor to build your home; you have to have it built by that home developer. Better read the fine print.
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).
What part are you struggling with?
Well said. It's a perfect analogy.
But there isn't a single provider of house building services, there's a huge number of them. The choice isn't between Houses Inc or do it yourself, there are a massive amount of choices. It really doesn't work at all.
If anything it proves the opposite point. If you bought a piece of land and then had to use a single monopoly company to build a house on that land (or d.i.y.) you'd be major league pissed and it may well go to the courts to get rid of the absurd restriction.
Do you know the number of Android smartphone vendors that exist? Hint: after you name all the ones you hear about - Hauwei, Oppo, Vivo, Samsung, LG, etc, there are still hundreds upon hundreds. Every single one is a competitor to Apple, and to all the others. Huge number of them. Lots of choice.
The land anology doesn’t even work. For a couple reasons. First, the land is analogous to an iPhone or iPad, but you can do whatever you want with your iPhone or iPad. You can build yourself an OS to run on it or hire a software team to do that for you. Once you’ve got that accomplished, go build or find a 3rd-party App Store vendor to get your apps from.
The land analogy is the wrong analogy. A closer, though still not perfect analogy is a condo. You bought a townhouse condo and now you want to paint it electric purple, but the condo associated is telling you that’s not one of the approved colors. Time to confirm to the rules you agreed to, or move. You see, the Apple App Store runs on iOS, and you don’t own iOS, just like you don’t hold direct title to the land your condo is build upon. You license iOS; it’s not your property, and you aren’t allowed to do certain things with it, like install apps directly. You don’t have that right, and that’s what’s stopping you, or anyone else, from creatibg a 3rd-party App Store. Go do that on Android. Lots of choice.
thw other reason the land analogy doesn’t work is a reason that actually relates directly to your description of the problem. Yes, you guessed it... if you buy land in any of the thousands of subdivisions created by home development companies, yup, you cannot use just any contractor to build your home; you have to have it built by that home developer. Better read the fine print.
Agreed that it's not a good analogy, I'm not taking any ownership of it. Everyone now understands the problem without bringing land, houses or cars into it.
Maybe the more pertinent question, relating to the "hundred upon hundreds" of competitors to Apple is how many of them would you consider? I'd wager that a high proportion of phone customers are now pretty much locked into one or other ecosystem, which Apple and Google have actively worked to make sticky. That may mean it's effectively not an even and competitive landscape, in terms of OS anyway (Android hardware is more competitive, as you say). You're either iOS or Android. And given that the ecosystems are so sticky and customers feel locked in, is it then acceptable for Apple to act in an anti-competitive way towards a captive market, even if it is a captive market that Apple single-handedly created and curated, and that provides a range of benefits to its customers.
I'm not totally convinced either way. Even if Apple allowed other stores I'd almost certainly stick with Apples, but I'm still not sure if I agree that Apple has carte blanche to define this platform - this huge, amazing platform - as so closed and locked into Apple's ownership.
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.
If you want to damage your phone with harmful apps, go right ahead. You know good and well that this is really about people who are interested in loading up on stolen content.
100% disagree with you on that one. We have at least a half dozen apps that we use at my office which have to be sideloaded because they are created in house and wouldn't in a million years clear the App Store review. There is proprietary info in there and since it uses our LDAP credentials that too would be an issue. There a plenty of use cases for a private app store besides stolen content.
If you have in-house Apps you should have an enterprise developer account and distribute them yourselves without requiring any third party store. Your comment is pure BS.
Not at all BS. These aren't enterprise apps, these are task management apps which aren't enterprise solutions. They are created for a subset of employees, and so we use hockeyapp to get them to the few hundreds users that need them. We don't need to spin our entire mobile group up for internal apps when they are instead focused on the customer facing ones.
So feel free to take your BS judgement and place it where the sun doesn't shine.
Still BS along with your other pathetic attempts to make excuses for third party stores.
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.
If you want to damage your phone with harmful apps, go right ahead. You know good and well that this is really about people who are interested in loading up on stolen content.
100% disagree with you on that one. We have at least a half dozen apps that we use at my office which have to be sideloaded because they are created in house and wouldn't in a million years clear the App Store review. There is proprietary info in there and since it uses our LDAP credentials that too would be an issue. There a plenty of use cases for a private app store besides stolen content.
If you have in-house Apps you should have an enterprise developer account and distribute them yourselves without requiring any third party store. Your comment is pure BS.
Not at all BS. These aren't enterprise apps, these are task management apps which aren't enterprise solutions. They are created for a subset of employees, and so we use hockeyapp to get them to the few hundreds users that need them. We don't need to spin our entire mobile group up for internal apps when they are instead focused on the customer facing ones.
So feel free to take your BS judgement and place it where the sun doesn't shine.
Still BS along with your other pathetic attempts to make excuses for third party stores.
A third party store would be a failure. First let’s look at what kinds of Apps you’d find there:
- Free Apps (Twitter, Facebook, browsers, email clients, countless banking/service/shopping Apps. Nobody is going to host a free App since there’s no money to be made. - Ad-supported. Again, they won’t exist since the ad revenue goes to the developer directly, not the store. - In-App purchase supported. Nope, won’t find these either. Developers will simply host their own stores and bypass the third party stores altogether keeping all the profit themselves. - Higher end Apps (the ones over $5-10). They won’t exist either for the same reasons as above. A developer can make their own store and keep all revenue.
What does that leave you with? All those $0.99 Apps. Except now they’ll be $0.79 or $0.89 since third party stores will presumably takes less than 30% (the gist of this lawsuit is higher App prices due to Apples control, so they’ll have to charge less).
Who’s going to sign up at a third party store (and expose your credit card/credentials) so you can save $0.10-0.20 here and there on Apps that aren’t vetted as well as The App Store? Further, who’s going to expose their credentials on numerous sites for all those developers who try to sell direct through their own store?
People are delusional if they think third party stores will be worthwhile. And this is before we look at security.
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.
Yeah, this isn't a violation of the Antitrust act. There are potentially other issues with this, but antitrust isn't one of them.
Can you help me understand why that example isn't an antitrust one? Apple controls the only avenue to get an app onto a phone (short of an airwatch or some other esoteric workaround) and now refuses to allow the app to use the sole distribution channel. Sounds exactly like an antitrust issue...restrict competition and then censor what you don't agree with.
Apple controls the only way to get apps onto a phone? Wow! They must be getting TONS of revenue from all those other phones out there not running iOS.
Or maybe phones is the market like you implied, not Apple iOS phones...?
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.
If you want to damage your phone with harmful apps, go right ahead. You know good and well that this is really about people who are interested in loading up on stolen content.
100% disagree with you on that one. We have at least a half dozen apps that we use at my office which have to be sideloaded because they are created in house and wouldn't in a million years clear the App Store review. There is proprietary info in there and since it uses our LDAP credentials that too would be an issue. There a plenty of use cases for a private app store besides stolen content.
Wait, I thought you said Apple controls the installation of apps. How can it be that your office has a half dozen apps that didn't get loaded from the App Store and that would never clear App Store review? How is that possible?
A third party store would be a failure. First let’s look at what kinds of Apps you’d find there:
- Free Apps (Twitter, Facebook, browsers, email clients, countless banking/service/shopping Apps. Nobody is going to host a free App since there’s no money to be made. - Ad-supported. Again, they won’t exist since the ad revenue goes to the developer directly, not the store. - In-App purchase supported. Nope, won’t find these either. Developers will simply host their own stores and bypass the third party stores altogether keeping all the profit themselves. - Higher end Apps (the ones over $5-10). They won’t exist either for the same reasons as above. A developer can make their own store and keep all revenue.
What does that leave you with? All those $0.99 Apps. Except now they’ll be $0.79 or $0.89 since third party stores will presumably takes less than 30% (the gist of this lawsuit is higher App prices due to Apples control, so they’ll have to charge less).
Who’s going to sign up at a third party store (and expose your credit card/credentials) so you can save $0.10-0.20 here and there on Apps that aren’t vetted as well as The App Store? Further, who’s going to expose their credentials on numerous sites for all those developers who try to sell direct through their own store?
People are delusional if they think third party stores will be worthwhile. And this is before we look at security.
So if they're going to fail and no one would go to them anyway, why are you opposed to them being allowed to exist?
+ Developer's own stores are included in "third party stores". The "third party" is third party to Apple.
++ Also an app store can itself run ads, which would be a revenue stream allowing them to host free apps.
Comments
Here's a bit more about my above comment on trademark law. After a product, like iPhone or iPad, or iOS, has been on the market for a number of years, the design of that product acquires what's called "secondary meaning", a concept at the heart of trademark law. Secondary meaning refers to an association of a design, like the design of an iPhone or the iOS operating system, with quality, craftsmanship or other positive attributes one might associate with the brand. Security is paramount among those attributes when it comes to any Apple product.
A 3rd-party App Store, which potentially could include insecure apps, malware, spyware, etc, could diminish the value of Apple’s trademarks associated with the affected products and with the entirety of tne value of Apple as a brand. What is the value of Apple’s reputation as a business that takes great care to protect its users against security breaches? Will a 3rd-party App Store work as diligently to protect Apple’s reputation in the eyes of Apple’s existing and potential customers? And what remedy might Apple have against a loss of reputation, which might cost in the $10s or even $100s of billions in future revenue and customer goodwill, against the creator of an App Store which might have corporate resources in the $millions, not billions? Apple could suffer an enormous hit with no recourse to recover against the entity that did the damage.
What is the obligation of Apple to assist and oversee any 3rd-party App Store? To provide it the tools Apple has spend untold $billions to develop, in order to ensure that the 3rd-party, through negligence or malice, to minimize the probability of malware, spyware and insecure apps making their way onto iPhones and iPads, AppleTVs and watches and HomePods and AirPods, etc?
Clearly there should be consideration to protect Apple as a strong competitor offering users a choice versus the market volume dominant Android. A loss of Apple’s control of its App Store equates to a deterioration of quality of Apple products and diminishment of competition to Android.
iOS isn’t a single market, but part of a much larger market where you have lots of options; and you can even install webapps on your iOS device.
The automotive industry should not be the one you use as an example. There are literally hundreds of thousands of companies and aftermarket parts you can install on any car without approval from the manufacturer. The difference would be if you leased a car, and if this were a case where Apple (or a middle man) still owned the device you were leasing then I could see them putting limits on them. But I paid full price for my phone right from the beginning, so to be told "Tim thinks that company is mean so we won't let you have access to their app" is childish.
If you have in-house Apps you should have an enterprise developer account and distribute them yourselves without requiring any third party store. Your comment is pure BS.
So feel free to take your BS judgement and place it where the sun doesn't shine.
As far as doing heavier graphics stuff you might want to have a look at WebGPU (which, btw, is Apple initiated work).
Bottom line is they are not "stolen apps" like the poster I was disagreeing with said. There are legit reasons to have apps that can't go through the App Store.
There are many parts that come together to comprise Apple: Hardware, software, support, security, stability, reliability, etc...
An analogy might be the superstructure of a bridge. At first glance it's a maze of beams and girders none of which matter on the individual level. Yet the integrity of that bridge depends on each of those beams and girders. Pulling one out causes the the whole thing to collapse.
People rightly complain about the limitations of the walled garden. And, it DOES restrict their freedom. But that walled garden also, at the same time, provides them services that no other entity can provide. The Walled Garden is, in many ways, the foundation that Apple is built upon.
The land anology doesn’t even work. For a couple reasons. First, the land is analogous to an iPhone or iPad, but you can do whatever you want with your iPhone or iPad. You can build yourself an OS to run on it or hire a software team to do that for you. Once you’ve got that accomplished, go build or find a 3rd-party App Store vendor to get your apps from.
The land analogy is the wrong analogy. A closer, though still not perfect analogy is a condo. You bought a townhouse condo and now you want to paint it electric purple, but the condo associated is telling you that’s not one of the approved colors. Time to confirm to the rules you agreed to, or move. You see, the Apple App Store runs on iOS, and you don’t own iOS, just like you don’t hold direct title to the land your condo is build upon. You license iOS; it’s not your property, and you aren’t allowed to do certain things with it, like install apps directly. You don’t have that right, and that’s what’s stopping you, or anyone else, from
creatibg a 3rd-party App Store. Go do that on Android. Lots of choice.
thw other reason the land analogy doesn’t work is a reason that actually relates directly to your description of the problem. Yes, you guessed it... if you buy land in any of the thousands of subdivisions created by home development companies, yup, you cannot use just any contractor to build your home; you have to have it built by that home developer. Better read the fine print.
Maybe the more pertinent question, relating to the "hundred upon hundreds" of competitors to Apple is how many of them would you consider? I'd wager that a high proportion of phone customers are now pretty much locked into one or other ecosystem, which Apple and Google have actively worked to make sticky. That may mean it's effectively not an even and competitive landscape, in terms of OS anyway (Android hardware is more competitive, as you say). You're either iOS or Android. And given that the ecosystems are so sticky and customers feel locked in, is it then acceptable for Apple to act in an anti-competitive way towards a captive market, even if it is a captive market that Apple single-handedly created and curated, and that provides a range of benefits to its customers.
I'm not totally convinced either way. Even if Apple allowed other stores I'd almost certainly stick with Apples, but I'm still not sure if I agree that Apple has carte blanche to define this platform - this huge, amazing platform - as so closed and locked into Apple's ownership.
Still BS along with your other pathetic attempts to make excuses for third party stores.
- Free Apps (Twitter, Facebook, browsers, email clients, countless banking/service/shopping Apps. Nobody is going to host a free App since there’s no money to be made.
- Ad-supported. Again, they won’t exist since the ad revenue goes to the developer directly, not the store.
- In-App purchase supported. Nope, won’t find these either. Developers will simply host their own stores and bypass the third party stores altogether keeping all the profit themselves.
- Higher end Apps (the ones over $5-10). They won’t exist either for the same reasons as above. A developer can make their own store and keep all revenue.
What does that leave you with? All those $0.99 Apps. Except now they’ll be $0.79 or $0.89 since third party stores will presumably takes less than 30% (the gist of this lawsuit is higher App prices due to Apples control, so they’ll have to charge less).
Who’s going to sign up at a third party store (and expose your credit card/credentials) so you can save $0.10-0.20 here and there on Apps that aren’t vetted as well as The App Store? Further, who’s going to expose their credentials on numerous sites for all those developers who try to sell direct through their own store?
People are delusional if they think third party stores will be worthwhile. And this is before we look at security.
+ Developer's own stores are included in "third party stores". The "third party" is third party to Apple.
++ Also an app store can itself run ads, which would be a revenue stream allowing them to host free apps.