As a developer, I always thought the basic app price split was an OK one. However, I can see the ongoing subscription splits are problematic for some companies. If this ruling was to hold up (I don't think it will longterm, the supreme court didn't actually rule on the merits and the split decision was a squeeker, supported by a traditionally conservative justice) it would seriously damage Apple which gets something like $10 billion/quarter from services, which are mostly made up from app store cuts.
How the fuck would multiple appstores on iOS even work? My head hurts about thinking about all the security, privacy, stability implications. It's gross. How absurd.
When Apple censors content – and that is not only happening to some US "right wing" groups and individuals, but it happens across all the countries in which they have a presence, it is time to let others have equal opportunity to bring content to the platform, just like they can on macOS.
It is up to the individual to decide how they use, and what content the device will carry, the minute the device is no longere Apple property. Apple is currently blocking this from happening (without possibly jailbreaking the device), and that cannot stand.
Apple manages and censors things they sell through their services. Via the web and a browser instead virtually everything is available.
Neil Gorsuch in his dissent told Apple exactly what they need to do to circumvent further issues and no doubt all developers will soon see their terms and conditions updated to something along those lines. As I understand his reasoning, instead of Apple paying the developer 70% and keeping 30%, they pay 100% to the developer and charge them a fee that will just happen to come to 30% of what they pay them.
Which Apple dismissed early on in the life of the original iPhone, so no, that is no argument.
Are you unaware that web apps still exist? You access them with a web browser. There are some very sophisticated web apps.
"Sophisticated web apps" is an oxymoron and they cannot replace a program running on the machine. Web apps have been around since the Internet was invented and they've not done anything since. The biggest improvement they have had is the introduction of service workers, and they still cannot compete with something running on the machine, specifically built for the mahine they are running on.
How the fuck would multiple appstores on iOS even work? My head hurts about thinking about all the security, privacy, stability implications. It's gross. How absurd.
Well, I would imagine the same way they work on macOS. Apple would create something like Gatekeeper and System Integrity Protection for iOS and require installing unsigned and third party store apps to be a bit more involved. There’s no doubt in my mind that forcing Apple to allow third party app stores will open the floodgates of spyware and malware, cause instability in iOS just like it does in Android and macOS (Clean My Mac for just one example). The bad guys will be looking for easy prey and a third party app store will be just the ticket.
The SCOTUS has ruled that a lawsuit can proceed, that’s all. Their ruling did not include any language that stated the plaintiffs have a good chance of prevailing. The result of that lawsuit will be what determines the end game. I, for one, hope Apple prevails. Otherwise its reputation for security and privacy will be damaged in the long run because users will blame Apple for their woes, not the malware they installed. They always do. The fake techies in this world won't give up until Apple is brought down to the same level as Android.
This really seems like a dumb case. While I'm against Apple's Censorship. I think that's completely WRONG. On the other hand it's their App store. A store they created and opened up to allow 3rd party's into. Just like Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony have their own store on their console systems. It's no different.
Do these developers remember the days of having to put your software on a disc and into a Box and sell it in the store? All that was a bigger cut than Apple's 30%. The same 30% that Google and Amazon charge in their own App stores.
Apple only has about 20% of the Global Market anyway. They are far from some Monopoly.
The evidence you're using to defend Apple's position is bad. In fact, it's actually evidence that would sink Apple's position if it were presented in an actual court. So that I'm clear, I'm not saying Apple's position is bad. Your evidence is. You claim Nintendo, MS, and Sony have their own stores on their systems. True. Apple has it's store on it's system. Also true. Here's where your evidence fails. 3 of the 4 companies allow you to buy software for their systems in their stores, but more importantly -and key to refuting your argument- from multiple other sources on the web and brick and mortar stores. Only 1 of the 4 stores -Apple- require you to purchase in their store only. It's completely different.
You can't use the Google and Amazon argument because both ecosystems allow customers to load apps from other stores with a simple tap.
Apple's global market share is immaterial to topic. No one is claiming they have an app monopoly in general. The claim is a monopoly over iOS apps via the App Store. There's effectively one place to get iOS apps. As I said earlier, that doesn't apply to Nintendo, MS, or Sony. Again, I'm not arguing the merits of the actual case. I'm arguing that you're inadvertently providing an argument against Apple instead of for Apple.
Very lucid and logical points. Can you explain if any of the other three stores mentioned above provide vetting and digital signature services like Apple does? If these are distinct services provided by Apple that could be a reason why Apple can't allow third party stores.
Honestly, I have no idea whether or not any of them do. Not really germane to my comment since it -my comment- has very little or anything to do with Apple's reasoning. I was specifically countering jbdragon's arguments that Apple's App store is just like the stores of Nintendo, MS, and Sony. It definitely isn't. Whether Apple can, can't, or simply chooses not to allow 3rd party stores is a different issue from what my comment addresses. None of us know, so guessing at reasons seems kinda... But I do know the points put forth by jbdragon were easily refutable.
The problem is not with just Apple Store, but censorship. It is not Appe's business what applications should be allowed to run on device (except those that violate some local laws). We purchase that device to own it - not to lease it under strict contract. They can restrict apps on Apple Store, but then do not restrict people from haveing alternative stores. Disclaimers can be in place. I think this backfire of foolish concept of holding manufacturer liable for actions and abuse of others. So California uses that wicked logic and needs to continue along this narrative while it should verify it's foundations in the first place. Any tool in wrong hands could be misused, abused and used for illegal intent as well. No manufacturer should be liable in those cases.
You may own the device, but you do not own the software on that device.
Apple's stake is the operating system on the device and the few apps that are installed by default. The rest does not belong to Apple, and it is not up to them to censor what the user can have on their device.
You are absolutely wrong. Any and every company has the right to control how their devices function. What features they have, what features they don't have. Whether others are allowed to expand those features. Which of those features can be expanded. How those features get distributed and installed. Etc. That doesn't end at the OS level, that includes EVERYTHING that makes the experience the user has with the device. The hardware, the OS, the software, how the user gets the software, etc. that's all part of the device and the experience. If it's not to your liking, there are a vast number of other devices you can purchase and use.
The exception to that is when a company holds a controlling position in an open, competitive market (a monopoly). The real problem (confusion) here is that people tend to think the App Store is an open market where others compete with Apple. That's not the case and never has been as far iOS is concerned. Apples owns the device, the OS, the developer tools, the developer program, and the app distribution model. If a developer wants to write an iOS app, they have to get permission from Apple. And Apple tells them exactly what they can and can't do. That developer also needs to realize that their product may compete with an app or service Apple currently has or may release in the future. If that developer doesn't agree with Apple's way of doing business, they can go elsewhere and write their app. There are many, many other platforms to develop apps for.
Just because you may not agree with how Apple does things, doesn't make them wrong, it just makes them wrong for you.
Also, Apple doesn't "censor" what user can and can't do or can and can't have on their devices. Apple limits what a developer can and can't write AND then distribute to users. If a user really wants something they can't get on the App Store, they are free to download the developer tools, write the app and install it on their device... there is absolutely nothing Apple does to stop that.
The problem is not with just Apple Store, but censorship. It is not Appe's business what applications should be allowed to run on device (except those that violate some local laws). We purchase that device to own it - not to lease it under strict contract. They can restrict apps on Apple Store, but then do not restrict people from haveing alternative stores. Disclaimers can be in place. I think this backfire of foolish concept of holding manufacturer liable for actions and abuse of others. So California uses that wicked logic and needs to continue along this narrative while it should verify it's foundations in the first place. Any tool in wrong hands could be misused, abused and used for illegal intent as well. No manufacturer should be liable in those cases.
don't worry if gun makers can make a product that has one function (to kill a living thing) and never get sued Apple will not have a problem.
Says the person whom wouldn't hesitate to call a cop with a gun to save his ass, hypocrite. Guns are used to SAVE more lives than take them according to the CDC. This is a post about Apple products, don’t bring up a subject you know absolutely nothing about. Go crawl back to your leftist utopia hole that you crawled out of and continue to be a sheep thinking the police have an obligation to protect you. Keep thinking “gun free zones” work while you’re at it.
Clear waste of taxpayer dollars letting this proceed. There are alternatives to iPhones and the App Store. Ridiculous.
I don't agree. There are alternatives to the iPhone, but not the App store if you're an iPhone user. I'm not saying I agree it's an illegal monopoly (I lean towards thinking its not), but there is at least an argument there. It's not ridiculous at all, or SCOTUS wouldn't have allowed it. It means there is at least some substantial chance the plaintiffs will prevail.
If you're a McDonald's customer, there is no Whopper alternative to the Big Mac! McDonald's has a monopoly!
That is not a valid comparison at all. McDonald's did not allow third party vendors to sell burgers or food on each it's stores and then restrict ingredients and price etc.
Not saying I agree with this latest lawsuit but the comparison is not good.
Also with the way Europe is going Apple needs to have grasp the reality that at some point in the not to distant future one of the major regulatory bodies is going to rule against them as the "big bad evil greedy corporation" that provides tens of thousands of jobs, innovations tech and huge amounts of taxes to the world. They will need to deal with the outcome
Of course it is. McDonald's sells a product (Big Macs) and you can only buy that. You cannot buy Whoppers, from a competing brand. This is akin to Apple only letting you use their app store and not a competing app store.
This really seems like a dumb case. While I'm against Apple's Censorship. I think that's completely WRONG. On the other hand it's their App store. A store they created and opened up to allow 3rd party's into. Just like Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony have their own store on their console systems. It's no different.
Do these developers remember the days of having to put your software on a disc and into a Box and sell it in the store? All that was a bigger cut than Apple's 30%. The same 30% that Google and Amazon charge in their own App stores.
Apple only has about 20% of the Global Market anyway. They are far from some Monopoly.
The evidence you're using to defend Apple's position is bad. In fact, it's actually evidence that would sink Apple's position if it were presented in an actual court. So that I'm clear, I'm not saying Apple's position is bad. Your evidence is. You claim Nintendo, MS, and Sony have their own stores on their systems. True. Apple has it's store on it's system. Also true. Here's where your evidence fails. 3 of the 4 companies allow you to buy software for their systems in their stores, but more importantly -and key to refuting your argument- from multiple other sources on the web and brick and mortar stores. Only 1 of the 4 stores -Apple- require you to purchase in their store only. It's completely different.
You can't use the Google and Amazon argument because both ecosystems allow customers to load apps from other stores with a simple tap.
Apple's global market share is immaterial to topic. No one is claiming they have an app monopoly in general. The claim is a monopoly over iOS apps via the App Store. There's effectively one place to get iOS apps. As I said earlier, that doesn't apply to Nintendo, MS, or Sony. Again, I'm not arguing the merits of the actual case. I'm arguing that you're inadvertently providing an argument against Apple instead of for Apple.
Very lucid and logical points. Can you explain if any of the other three stores mentioned above provide vetting and digital signature services like Apple does? If these are distinct services provided by Apple that could be a reason why Apple can't allow third party stores.
App signing is currently optional on Google Play, but I would certainly expect it to become required t some point. As for vetting yes, tho there are legitimate questions about how thorough and effective it is compared to Apple. I understand problems within apps are easier to find on Android due to it's open-source nature, and the anti-virus companies are certainly more vocal about Google Play compared to the App Store.
Ok, but my comment was about Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony. Your response is about a different company.
Apple could brand all third-party apps for the iPhone as Apple products. All software developers would be considered subcontractors for the Apple brand. That way there is no app store for third parties any more. It's all Apple's software.
I think that would make it easier for iPhone users to (successfully) bring anti-trust actions against Apple. It would, for one thing, make it easier for them to make the case that Apple monopolizes apps.
By that logic the very first iPhone, which had no app store, was an egregious monopoly. I don't buy that logic. At all. Nobody can force any company to install other people's software on their hardware if there is no third party software available at all.
This really seems like a dumb case. While I'm against Apple's Censorship. I think that's completely WRONG. On the other hand it's their App store. A store they created and opened up to allow 3rd party's into. Just like Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony have their own store on their console systems. It's no different.
Do these developers remember the days of having to put your software on a disc and into a Box and sell it in the store? All that was a bigger cut than Apple's 30%. The same 30% that Google and Amazon charge in their own App stores.
Apple only has about 20% of the Global Market anyway. They are far from some Monopoly.
The evidence you're using to defend Apple's position is bad. In fact, it's actually evidence that would sink Apple's position if it were presented in an actual court. So that I'm clear, I'm not saying Apple's position is bad. Your evidence is. You claim Nintendo, MS, and Sony have their own stores on their systems. True. Apple has it's store on it's system. Also true. Here's where your evidence fails. 3 of the 4 companies allow you to buy software for their systems in their stores, but more importantly -and key to refuting your argument- from multiple other sources on the web and brick and mortar stores. Only 1 of the 4 stores -Apple- require you to purchase in their store only. It's completely different.
You can't use the Google and Amazon argument because both ecosystems allow customers to load apps from other stores with a simple tap.
Apple's global market share is immaterial to topic. No one is claiming they have an app monopoly in general. The claim is a monopoly over iOS apps via the App Store. There's effectively one place to get iOS apps. As I said earlier, that doesn't apply to Nintendo, MS, or Sony. Again, I'm not arguing the merits of the actual case. I'm arguing that you're inadvertently providing an argument against Apple instead of for Apple.
Very lucid and logical points. Can you explain if any of the other three stores mentioned above provide vetting and digital signature services like Apple does? If these are distinct services provided by Apple that could be a reason why Apple can't allow third party stores.
App signing is currently optional on Google Play, but I would certainly expect it to become required t some point. As for vetting yes, tho there are legitimate questions about how thorough and effective it is compared to Apple. I understand problems within apps are easier to find on Android due to it's open-source nature, and the anti-virus companies are certainly more vocal about Google Play compared to the App Store.
Ok, but my comment was about Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony. Your response is about a different company.
Which Apple dismissed early on in the life of the original iPhone, so no, that is no argument.
Are you unaware that web apps still exist? You access them with a web browser. There are some very sophisticated web apps.
"Sophisticated web apps" is an oxymoron and they cannot replace a program running on the machine. Web apps have been around since the Internet was invented and they've not done anything since. The biggest improvement they have had is the introduction of service workers, and they still cannot compete with something running on the machine, specifically built for the mahine they are running on.
These web apps are different. There's a new technology that runs on all browsers, yes including Safari, called WebAssembly (WASM). It does not require a plugin, the apps run at close to native apps and they are being used today, they're called PWAs. Your Uber app is one of them even though it's listed in the App-Store it's actually a web app.
Apple's stake is the operating system on the device and the few apps that are installed by default. The rest does not belong to Apple, and it is not up to them to censor what the user can have on their device.
If a user really wants something they can't get on the App Store, they are free to download the developer tools, write the app and install it on their device... there is absolutely nothing Apple does to stop that.
Which Apple dismissed early on in the life of the original iPhone, so no, that is no argument.
Are you unaware that web apps still exist? You access them with a web browser. There are some very sophisticated web apps.
"Sophisticated web apps" is an oxymoron and they cannot replace a program running on the machine. Web apps have been around since the Internet was invented and they've not done anything since. The biggest improvement they have had is the introduction of service workers, and they still cannot compete with something running on the machine, specifically built for the mahine they are running on.
Are you kidding? Have you heard of Google Docs? Office 365? There are very sophisticated applications and suites of application that run natively in the browser now. To compare what is available today with anything "since the internet was invented" is absurd.
Which Apple dismissed early on in the life of the original iPhone, so no, that is no argument.
Are you unaware that web apps still exist? You access them with a web browser. There are some very sophisticated web apps.
"Sophisticated web apps" is an oxymoron and they cannot replace a program running on the machine. Web apps have been around since the Internet was invented and they've not done anything since. The biggest improvement they have had is the introduction of service workers, and they still cannot compete with something running on the machine, specifically built for the mahine they are running on.
Are you kidding? Have you heard of Google Docs? Office 365? There are very sophisticated applications and suites of application that run natively in the browser now. To compare what is available today with anything "since the internet was invented" is absurd.
Indeed. I’ve used Google Earth via a web browser (using macOS) and the experience was impressive.
The problem is not with just Apple Store, but censorship. It is not Appe's business what applications should be allowed to run on device (except those that violate some local laws). We purchase that device to own it - not to lease it under strict contract. They can restrict apps on Apple Store, but then do not restrict people from haveing alternative stores. Disclaimers can be in place. I think this backfire of foolish concept of holding manufacturer liable for actions and abuse of others. So California uses that wicked logic and needs to continue along this narrative while it should verify it's foundations in the first place. Any tool in wrong hands could be misused, abused and used for illegal intent as well. No manufacturer should be liable in those cases.
You may own the device, but you do not own the software on that device.
Apple's stake is the operating system on the device and the few apps that are installed by default. The rest does not belong to Apple, and it is not up to them to censor what the user can have on their device.
Apple does not own 3rd party apps. They own the store and set up the guidelines. You want to sell in my store then you follow the rules, otherwise go somewhere else to peddle your goods.
Which is exactly why alternatives are needed! :-)
Yep the google store the other alternative already exists.We only need one Apple store operated by the people who make the hardware for the software.
Comments
The SCOTUS has ruled that a lawsuit can proceed, that’s all. Their ruling did not include any language that stated the plaintiffs have a good chance of prevailing. The result of that lawsuit will be what determines the end game. I, for one, hope Apple prevails. Otherwise its reputation for security and privacy will be damaged in the long run because users will blame Apple for their woes, not the malware they installed. They always do. The fake techies in this world won't give up until Apple is brought down to the same level as Android.
You are absolutely wrong. Any and every company has the right to control how their devices function. What features they have, what features they don't have. Whether others are allowed to expand those features. Which of those features can be expanded. How those features get distributed and installed. Etc. That doesn't end at the OS level, that includes EVERYTHING that makes the experience the user has with the device. The hardware, the OS, the software, how the user gets the software, etc. that's all part of the device and the experience. If it's not to your liking, there are a vast number of other devices you can purchase and use.
The exception to that is when a company holds a controlling position in an open, competitive market (a monopoly). The real problem (confusion) here is that people tend to think the App Store is an open market where others compete with Apple. That's not the case and never has been as far iOS is concerned. Apples owns the device, the OS, the developer tools, the developer program, and the app distribution model. If a developer wants to write an iOS app, they have to get permission from Apple. And Apple tells them exactly what they can and can't do. That developer also needs to realize that their product may compete with an app or service Apple currently has or may release in the future. If that developer doesn't agree with Apple's way of doing business, they can go elsewhere and write their app. There are many, many other platforms to develop apps for.
Just because you may not agree with how Apple does things, doesn't make them wrong, it just makes them wrong for you.
Also, Apple doesn't "censor" what user can and can't do or can and can't have on their devices. Apple limits what a developer can and can't write AND then distribute to users. If a user really wants something they can't get on the App Store, they are free to download the developer tools, write the app and install it on their device... there is absolutely nothing Apple does to stop that.
By that logic the very first iPhone, which had no app store, was an egregious monopoly. I don't buy that logic. At all. Nobody can force any company to install other people's software on their hardware if there is no third party software available at all.
Government forgets Apple invented the market and thinks Apple should not own their invention.