CEO Tim Cook has called this examination "fair," but insisted that Apple doesn't have any sort of monopoly, even though it bans iPhone and iPad developers from selling apps anywhere but the App Store.
Wait, so app devs can't sell their apps on the Android Play store or other platforms? News to me.
I found this odd too...
is it during those rimes when Apple signs an exclusivity agreement maybe?
You and StrangeDays seem so confused about it all. Such a mystery why ANYONE could possible think Apple had a lock on approving and selling 3rd party apps to half the US smartphone installed base, and by far the most potentially profitable segment of US consumers.
Oh look, the google guy is back with another false, FUD-dispensing narrative. Nope, not confused at all -- the reality is, there is no Apple monopoly, since by your own giddy hand you'd admit Apple has a minority market share to other platforms. Apple can't have a monopoly on their own store any more than McDonald's can a monopoly on their own store, menu, and available offerings to their customers. No taco trucks allowed inside McDonald's. And yes, android is a taco truck.
The sentence, as written, is false. Apple doesn't ban devs from selling apps to other avenues other than App Store. There are indeed apps on iOS and the dumpster fire known as android.
Why do you keep referring to Apple not being a classic "monopolist" in the overall US smartphone marketplace (around 50% share) as proof they could therefore not be guilty of stifling competition, perhaps illegally? You're underselling your intelligence IMO.
I'm very curious about something. Do you ACTUALLY think that even if Apple allowed 3rd party appstores on iOS, that they would get ANY kind of mainstream usage? Why the hell would 99.99% of people want to use these stores, instead of the appstore? Do you honestly think developers would find ANY success using an unofficial store? The apps that would be sold there will most likely all be relegated to trash-tier garbage that would not be fit for the official apptore (which doesn't have very high standards to begin with), and shady shit. It would compromise iOS security, add customer confusion, and provide little to no benefit to the VAST majority of Apple's customers. And for what?
iOS apps distributed outside the Apple App Store could use private API's and allow direct purchase of digital goods without giving Apple a cut. I imagine Amazon and Google would love to directly distribute apps that take over as default apps in iOS and offer cheaper prices on their digital goods. Apps acquired from them and from Facebook would probably offer all sorts of good stuff in exchange for your soul. And right now we buy apps directly from app-publisher's web sites. I would certainly be comfortable doing that with iOS apps.
CEO Tim Cook has called this examination "fair," but insisted that Apple doesn't have any sort of monopoly, even though it bans iPhone and iPad developers from selling apps anywhere but the App Store.
Wait, so app devs can't sell their apps on the Android Play store or other platforms? News to me.
I found this odd too...
is it during those rimes when Apple signs an exclusivity agreement maybe?
You and StrangeDays seem so confused about it all. Such a mystery why ANYONE could possible think Apple had a lock on approving and selling 3rd party apps to half the US smartphone installed base, and by far the most potentially profitable segment of US consumers.
Oh look, the google guy is back with another false, FUD-dispensing narrative. Nope, not confused at all -- the reality is, there is no Apple monopoly, since by your own giddy hand you'd admit Apple has a minority market share to other platforms. Apple can't have a monopoly on their own store any more than McDonald's can a monopoly on their own store, menu, and available offerings to their customers. No taco trucks allowed inside McDonald's. And yes, android is a taco truck.
The sentence, as written, is false. Apple doesn't ban devs from selling apps to other avenues other than App Store. There are indeed apps on iOS and the dumpster fire known as android.
Why do you keep referring to Apple not being a classic "monopolist" in the overall US smartphone marketplace (around 50% share) as proof they could therefore not be guilty of stifling competition, perhaps illegally? You're underselling your intelligence IMO.
A "classic monopolist" ? What does that mean? You're either a monopoly or you're not. Monopolies have to "play" by different rules than everyone else to ensure that its respective open/free market can remain active and thrive. You're bending the definition of monopoly to suit your argument... That Apple is a monopolist, but not in a classic sense, and they could potentially do something illegal, therefor, they should be treated "like" a monopoly.
Every company that develops and maintains their own platform is going to have an advantage over others who want to be on that platform. The only time that should EVER become an issue is if that platform has a monopoly. (Such as Google favoring their services in search listings.) An iOS developer has the potential to reach any iOS device across the globe, just as an Android developer. Because of that fact, the potential market is worldwide, not national and you cannot use the stats of a single country to demonstrate Apple's market share in order to qualify them as a "non-classic monopolist".
Apple owns the platform. That platform includes the developer tools, the operating system, the App Store, the services, the hardware. It is not an open platform. No part of the platform is open. Forcing open any part of it, could lead to other parts being forced open as well. What happens when OEMs start complaining that they want to run iOS on their devices? Will Apple be forced to license iOS too? What if Amazon starts complaining that they want Alexa built-in to iOS? Will Apple be forced to allow that too?
CEO Tim Cook has called this examination "fair," but insisted that Apple doesn't have any sort of monopoly, even though it bans iPhone and iPad developers from selling apps anywhere but the App Store.
Wait, so app devs can't sell their apps on the Android Play store or other platforms? News to me.
I found this odd too...
is it during those rimes when Apple signs an exclusivity agreement maybe?
You and StrangeDays seem so confused about it all. Such a mystery why ANYONE could possible think Apple had a lock on approving and selling 3rd party apps to half the US smartphone installed base, and by far the most potentially profitable segment of US consumers.
Oh look, the google guy is back with another false, FUD-dispensing narrative. Nope, not confused at all -- the reality is, there is no Apple monopoly, since by your own giddy hand you'd admit Apple has a minority market share to other platforms. Apple can't have a monopoly on their own store any more than McDonald's can a monopoly on their own store, menu, and available offerings to their customers. No taco trucks allowed inside McDonald's. And yes, android is a taco truck.
The sentence, as written, is false. Apple doesn't ban devs from selling apps to other avenues other than App Store. There are indeed apps on iOS and the dumpster fire known as android.
Why do you keep referring to Apple not being a classic "monopolist" in the overall US smartphone marketplace (around 50% share) as proof they could therefore not be guilty of stifling competition, perhaps illegally? You're underselling your intelligence IMO.
A "classic monopolist" ? What does that mean? You're either a monopoly or you're not. Monopolies have to "play" by different rules than everyone else to ensure that its respective open/free market can remain active and thrive. You're bending the definition of monopoly to suit your argument... That Apple is a monopolist, but not in a classic sense, and they could potentially do something illegal, therefor, they should be treated "like" a monopoly.
Every company that develops and maintains their own platform is going to have an advantage over others who want to be on that platform. The only time that should EVER become an issue is if that platform has a monopoly. (Such as Google favoring their services in search listings.) An iOS developer has the potential to reach any iOS device across the globe, just as an Android developer. Because of that fact, the potential market is worldwide, not national and you cannot use the stats of a single country to demonstrate Apple's market share in order to qualify them as a "non-classic monopolist".
Apple owns the platform. That platform includes the developer tools, the operating system, the App Store, the services, the hardware. It is not an open platform. No part of the platform is open. Forcing open any part of it, could lead to other parts being forced open as well. What happens when OEMs start complaining that they want to run iOS on their devices? Will Apple be forced to license iOS too? What if Amazon starts complaining that they want Alexa built-in to iOS? Will Apple be forced to allow that too?
Certainly possible that the DoJ, Federal Courts, the EU and other assorted parties who have indicated concerns will 100% agree with your line of reasoning.
CEO Tim Cook has called this examination "fair," but insisted that Apple doesn't have any sort of monopoly, even though it bans iPhone and iPad developers from selling apps anywhere but the App Store.
Wait, so app devs can't sell their apps on the Android Play store or other platforms? News to me.
And this is why you shouldn’t get legal advice from blog sites.
Also worth mentioning a couple of things:
Having a monopoly is not illegal, and even if it were, the Apple platform is not a market in the same way my Toyota Prius+ is not a market. I can buy into other ecosystems, and I can buy other cars. I can take my Prius+ to Chernobyl Bob’s Battery Emporium to get a new car battery, but I shouldn’t expect Toyota to touch the car afterwards.
One other point that, as a fellow developer, you already know:
If you hate your customers so much that you’ve decided to give them a cross-platform app then simply interrogate the device and put the sign-in button at the top that makes the most sense. On an Apple device then this is always going to be at the top. For Android, I would put Facebook first, Twitter second, then a Google, then Apple (assuming it can be done). Android users have already decided their privacy isn’t a priority, so why put the Apple Sign-in at the top?
For websites (I’m assuming Apple sign-on works for websites), it becomes more tricky, and would probably depend on the site (it appears that Apple s only making this recommendation for their own devices). Any site that sells anything, then I’d put the Apple button on top. Any site that relies on tracking revenue, then an Apple signer isn’t going to bring you as much as a Facebook/Twitter/Google user, so the Apple button sinks to the bottom.
For me, this was the best keynote in years. As one site pointed out, even Hair Force One was taken aback by the explosion of applause when he explained how Apple SignIn was going to protect users’ privacy.
About five years ago, Horace Dediu said that, in the future, there would be a section on company profit sheets dedicated to losses stemming from privacy breaches. Soon after, Apple started putting privacy at the forefront of everything it did, even to the detriment of projects such as Siri. They decided that establishing trust amongst its users was worth losing their lead in the personal assistant race, and a couple of engineers along the way, until they had the expertise and tech to do this right, and keep their users protected.
Now we’re getting Conversational Shortcuts and video from security cameras loaded into the cloud. Do we trust Apple when they say the video is encrypted and cannot be viewed by Apple employees? Yes, because they have spent the past five years establishing trust, while Google and Facebook have been haemorrhaging trust almost as fast as the BBC.
Favourite part of the keynote:
After a very long video made by two “influencers” on how to add lipstick, eye shadow and a nose stud to your emoji, Craig Federighi walks back to the centre and says, without a mote of visible irony, “That’s given us all something to think about.”
Priceless.
If they really want to prove their AI chops, I’d like an avatar of myself generated from the camera with the simple command: “Hey Siri … Asshole Resting Face.”
As an web and app developer, I don't think I will use Sign in with Apple on my apps or web sites. The fact that Apple will use an intermediate email address is a showstopper.. It just creates a lot of burden if something goes wrong during registration and if I have to give customer support. The customer experience will suffer without any real increase of privacy compared to a normal e-mail registration.
This makes for an interesting dilemma for developers, allowing Google and Facebook log in developer are monetarily compensated by Google and Facebook. I am assuming apple is not going to pay developers to use this feature. More likely consumers will drive this, since people are starting to realize that it is not a good thing that Google and Facebook knows everything about them.
This makes for an interesting dilemma for developers, allowing Google and Facebook log in developer are monetarily compensated by Google and Facebook. I am assuming apple is not going to pay developers to use this feature. More likely consumers will drive this, since people are starting to realize that it is not a good thing that Google and Facebook knows everything about them.
LOL... I swear people are making up their own stories and then posting 'em as fact.
Where did you see that Google pays websites to use Google sign-in? They don't AFAIK. It's simply an efficient way for websites to integrate Google services with a secure log-in of members onto their sites with name, email address and if available the profile photo. That's it. Sites don't get a whole plethora of personal information.
Does Google benefit from those account connections too? I'm sure they do, and they use what they connect for better ad targeting (companies like P&G, GM and Apple like to know they're spending their ad dollars with Google wisely) but the underlying data is not for sale. "You" are relegated to a resettable advertising ID number lumped in a mix of hundreds or thousands or millions of other ID numbers who are presumed to have similar interests.
Do I need to sign in to my Google account via the Google app by “Sign in with Apple”?
I would assume you use you Apple account for sign-ins except for those sites that wouldn't offer it. It would not make sense for Apple to be used for signing into your Google account since Apple can't manage your personal data in Google Calendars, Gmail, reminders, maps and such since they are not responsible for securely storing or delivering it. The Apple sign-in is for identifying and/or logging unique members on a website, not managing that sites data which doesn't belong to Apple.
Clarity is good. If some judicial body wants to weigh in on whether Apple (or Google) is a monopoly in any or all respects, that's a positive development. It's all about clarity. Sometimes we have to wait for appeals to proceed. But in the end the US system is fair and balanced and people should abide by the final judicial ruling. Of course the law can always be changed, before or after the judicial body rules, but that's part of the system too. 1&2) Elections and Constitution 3&4) Laws and Judiciary 5) Administration directives and procedures.
Comments
A "classic monopolist" ? What does that mean? You're either a monopoly or you're not. Monopolies have to "play" by different rules than everyone else to ensure that its respective open/free market can remain active and thrive. You're bending the definition of monopoly to suit your argument... That Apple is a monopolist, but not in a classic sense, and they could potentially do something illegal, therefor, they should be treated "like" a monopoly.
Every company that develops and maintains their own platform is going to have an advantage over others who want to be on that platform. The only time that should EVER become an issue is if that platform has a monopoly. (Such as Google favoring their services in search listings.) An iOS developer has the potential to reach any iOS device across the globe, just as an Android developer. Because of that fact, the potential market is worldwide, not national and you cannot use the stats of a single country to demonstrate Apple's market share in order to qualify them as a "non-classic monopolist".
Apple owns the platform. That platform includes the developer tools, the operating system, the App Store, the services, the hardware. It is not an open platform. No part of the platform is open. Forcing open any part of it, could lead to other parts being forced open as well. What happens when OEMs start complaining that they want to run iOS on their devices? Will Apple be forced to license iOS too? What if Amazon starts complaining that they want Alexa built-in to iOS? Will Apple be forced to allow that too?
Or not.
Also worth mentioning a couple of things:
Having a monopoly is not illegal, and even if it were, the Apple platform is not a market in the same way my Toyota Prius+ is not a market. I can buy into other ecosystems, and I can buy other cars. I can take my Prius+ to Chernobyl Bob’s Battery Emporium to get a new car battery, but I shouldn’t expect Toyota to touch the car afterwards.
One other point that, as a fellow developer, you already know:
If you hate your customers so much that you’ve decided to give them a cross-platform app then simply interrogate the device and put the sign-in button at the top that makes the most sense. On an Apple device then this is always going to be at the top. For Android, I would put Facebook first, Twitter second, then a Google, then Apple (assuming it can be done). Android users have already decided their privacy isn’t a priority, so why put the Apple Sign-in at the top?
For websites (I’m assuming Apple sign-on works for websites), it becomes more tricky, and would probably depend on the site (it appears that Apple s only making this recommendation for their own devices). Any site that sells anything, then I’d put the Apple button on top. Any site that relies on tracking revenue, then an Apple signer isn’t going to bring you as much as a Facebook/Twitter/Google user, so the Apple button sinks to the bottom.
For me, this was the best keynote in years. As one site pointed out, even Hair Force One was taken aback by the explosion of applause when he explained how Apple SignIn was going to protect users’ privacy.
About five years ago, Horace Dediu said that, in the future, there would be a section on company profit sheets dedicated to losses stemming from privacy breaches. Soon after, Apple started putting privacy at the forefront of everything it did, even to the detriment of projects such as Siri. They decided that establishing trust amongst its users was worth losing their lead in the personal assistant race, and a couple of engineers along the way, until they had the expertise and tech to do this right, and keep their users protected.
Now we’re getting Conversational Shortcuts and video from security cameras loaded into the cloud. Do we trust Apple when they say the video is encrypted and cannot be viewed by Apple employees? Yes, because they have spent the past five years establishing trust, while Google and Facebook have been haemorrhaging trust almost as fast as the BBC.
Favourite part of the keynote:
After a very long video made by two “influencers” on how to add lipstick, eye shadow and a nose stud to your emoji, Craig Federighi walks back to the centre and says, without a mote of visible irony, “That’s given us all something to think about.”
Priceless.
If they really want to prove their AI chops, I’d like an avatar of myself generated from the camera with the simple command: “Hey Siri … Asshole Resting Face.”
Where did you see that Google pays websites to use Google sign-in? They don't AFAIK. It's simply an efficient way for websites to integrate Google services with a secure log-in of members onto their sites with name, email address and if available the profile photo. That's it. Sites don't get a whole plethora of personal information.
Does Google benefit from those account connections too? I'm sure they do, and they use what they connect for better ad targeting (companies like P&G, GM and Apple like to know they're spending their ad dollars with Google wisely) but the underlying data is not for sale. "You" are relegated to a resettable advertising ID number lumped in a mix of hundreds or thousands or millions of other ID numbers who are presumed to have similar interests.