I don't think anyone on this thread is suggesting how Apple run THEIR app store. The suggestion is that it should not be the ONLY app store (or only way to legitimately load an app).
I do think that Apple should be the ONLY store.
I like that Apple is the gatekeeper for apps. I trust that my iOS devices are more secure than other platforms and I'd like to keep it that way.
Allowing other app stores would be a disaster, a massive breach of security and malware, viruses and illegal apps would greatly increase. It would make the entire platform less secure and worse for all users.
If somebody wants the wild, wild west of app stores, and the garbage that comes with that, then go use Android.
The App Store needs competition, it should be the user's choice if they want to buy from Apple or trust another app store. 30% provision for app purchases is also too much and only possible because of the monopoly App Store. In addition I believe it's bad to let a single company decide which kind of apps are allowed and which not.
These ignorant a-holes who want the app store completely open would ruin the entire app store if their ideas were to be implemented.
Look at the mess that is Android.
Nobody has any business telling Apple how to run their app store. If anybody doesn't like it, then go use something else. Nobody ever forced anybody to be in the Apple eco system. Don't come to Apple with your braindead ideas and demand them to change.
I don't think anyone on this thread is suggesting how Apple run THEIR app store. The suggestion is that it should not be the ONLY app store (or only way to legitimately load an app).
From what I've seen, most folks who oppose there being some sort of alternative app store would say that consumers are making that choice when they elect to purchase an Apple device. Anyone is free to choose another product if they don't agree with some aspect of the experience or with the available storefronts. The security and the tight control that reduces bad experiences are the point, not some problem that needs to be solved. It brings with it legitimate concerns and sometimes unhappiness, but anyone not happy or comfortable with this has readily-available alternatives like Android.
I can't load software on my PS4, my car, my refrigerator, my TV, my oven, my thermostat, or my doorbell either--without out the manufacturers blessing/approval. In fact my Macs are probably the only things I own where the manufacturer provides a way for me to load 3rd-party software without going through them. Companies like Tesla are probably very (privately) concerned about what governments might make Apple do in the name of "competition."
...until we enter software subscriptions. I rather pay $500 for a box of Adobe software that I can use for an eternity, than paying a monthly tax, and my ability to be creative and earn money evaporated when I need it most: when there’s financial hardship and I won’t be able to pay monthly subscription fees.
...until Apple starts imposing its moral code of a Disney whitewashed world where apps can’t be sold because Apple doesn’t want them on their store (fine) but there exists no alternative (not fine)
...until Apple does the bidding of totalitarian regimes and bans apps useful for dissidents and there’s no reasonable alternative.
"Along the same lines, Apple built its iOS, iPad, Mac, Watch, and other platforms, and should have the right to set policies that demand, for example, that third parties can't set up their own 'app stores-within an app..."
Doesn't Apple allow WeChat/Tencent to do just that?
"For example, most banks offer App Store titles that charge nothing and therefore contribute nothing back to the App Store. All of these free apps, along with extension content such as Watch apps, have to be supported by the minority of apps that do generate revenues." Without those free apps the iOS platform would be less attractive. If for example even a small percentage of iPhone buyers could no longer access their free banking apps Apple hardware sales would suffer. Some portion of Apple's hardware revenues can be directly attributed to the availability of free apps on the App Store which makes an iPhone more valuable. Apple gets richer because of them.
Nobody is asking for a free App Store. What developers are asking for are options. On macOS there's a feature known as GateKeeper that allows the user to select one of three options with respect to downloading apps:
App Store only
App Store and identified developers (signed & notarized apps)
Anywhere (Internet)
Not a single person can make a legitimate case that this has made macOS less secure or harmed the platform. If anything, the macOS user base has grown to 100 million users. The developers who choose to rely on Apple's infrastructure will distribute through the App Store and be subject to Apple's fees and those who don't, won't.
"Along the same lines, Apple built its iOS, iPad, Mac, Watch, and other platforms, and should have the right to set policies that demand, for example, that third parties can't set up their own 'app stores-within an app..."
Doesn't Apple allow WeChat/Tencent to do just that?
"For example, most banks offer App Store titles that charge nothing and therefore contribute nothing back to the App Store. All of these free apps, along with extension content such as Watch apps, have to be supported by the minority of apps that do generate revenues."
Without those free apps the iOS platform would be less attractive. If for example even a small percentage of iPhone buyers could no longer access their free banking apps Apple hardware sales would suffer. Some portion of Apple's hardware revenues can be directly attributed to the availability of free apps on the App Store which makes an iPhone more valuable. Apple gets richer because of them.
"Along the same lines, Apple built its iOS, iPad, Mac, Watch, and other platforms, and should have the right to set policies that demand, for example, that third parties can't set up their own 'app stores-within an app..."
Doesn't Apple allow WeChat/Tencent to do just that?
"For example, most banks offer App Store titles that charge nothing and therefore contribute nothing back to the App Store. All of these free apps, along with extension content such as Watch apps, have to be supported by the minority of apps that do generate revenues."
Without those free apps the iOS platform would be less attractive. If for example even a small percentage of iPhone buyers could no longer access their free banking apps Apple hardware sales would suffer. Some portion of Apple's hardware revenues can be directly attributed to the availability of free apps on the App Store which makes an iPhone more valuable. Apple gets richer because of them.
Regarding the Tweet, it doesn't do that at all.
Businesses, including Apple, are allowed to make special deals with any given party. It also can refuse to do so, when asked.
Full disclosure: This is Dan's editorial and opinion, and not mine. Generally, I agree with Dan's overall premise, but I have disagreements with other points in the matter, and think that the "Hey" email guy is trying to accuse a company of rent-seeking when he is doing the exact same thing.
The App Store needs competition, it should be the user's choice if they want to buy from Apple or trust another app store. 30% provision for app purchases is also too much and only possible because of the monopoly App Store. In addition I believe it's bad to let a single company decide which kind of apps are allowed and which not.
Full disclosure: This is Dan's editorial and opinion, and not mine. Generally, I agree with Dan's overall premise, but I have disagreements with other points in the matter, and think that the "Hey" email guy is trying to accuse a company of rent-seeking when he is doing the exact same thing.
I don't think people understand how little it costs Apple to sign and host apps. Online credit card processors charge around 2.9% per transaction. Apple is literally printing money in their walled garden. 30% is ridiculous. Saying there isn't anything better, look at Android, is just pointing out the failure of Google to do anything about it. Doesn't make it a good thing.
Having the Apple-endorsed app store, and allowing third party app stores separately, should be fine. They are not mutually exclusive. One of the areas where Apple struggles is giving users choice (e.g., do i want that icon in the control center to _really_ turn off bluetooth or just disable it for however long apple decides) and expects them to just be happy with what Apple believes to be best. That is great for 99% of the use cases, but Apple doesn't know _you_ or _me_ and can't meet every use case by locking things down. Owners of an iPhone should be able to install whatever software they want on it, without fear of their warranty for the hardware being voided. Apple impeding that ability (and bloggers discouraging it) is not a Good Thing. Certainly people should install software at their own peril, but adults who own their devices should not have someone else dictate that for them.
The problem with this line of thinking is that the complexity of modern devices speak to a mind-boggling array of options. You want a certain Bluetooth behaviour, someone else else wants scroll bars thicker, or something equally Byzantine. (And why stop at software, we can play this game with hardware too, even firmware versions.) So even if we disregard the issue of programming time that such accommodations bring, what these bring is needless complexity, and that’s something that makes the OS so inflexible that adding innovation becomes recursively more a massive task with every new feature addition. This is the exact opposite of what the apple devices are supposed to be.
Now Apple aren’t immovable and they listen to feedback. If there is something you don’t like then you speak up about it, if you’re not an outlier this will lead to an option being added, a big squashed or a feature’s behaviour switched.
Side loading is a thing, but people seem to want Apple to still curate a store but also let people download anything inside of it. That won’t happen.
I don't think people understand how little it costs Apple to sign and host apps. Online credit card processors charge around 2.9% per transaction. Apple is literally printing money in their walled garden. 30% is ridiculous. Saying there isn't anything better, look at Android, is just pointing out the failure of Google to do anything about it. Doesn't make it a good thing.
1. "Printing money" is literally the point of businesses. Otherwise, it is called a charity. And, that's not the only expense associated with the App Store. App store margins are at about 60% of Apple's 30% or 15% of subscriptions after a year. Out of curiosity, what isn't "ridiculous" in your eyes?
2. It costs a much higher percent to put a product on a WalMart or supermarket shelf. It cost way more than that with boxed software. Beyond just Google, Most digital software download stores are still at 30%.
This is why iOS needs a "Pro Mode". Users who want a safe app environment can stick with the Apple moderated App Store while users who do not want any restrictions can switch to pro mode and install any app store they want free of Apple's SDK restrictions. Pro mode users would be responsible for their own security and should expect malware, apps that drain the battery in the back ground and so on (just like on laptop and desktop computers). They would also be able to install anti-malware apps as well as the professional tools they need to get work done. Personally, I would stick with the safe mode on my main iPhone and use pro mode on older devices and my iPad.
But apps would still be subject to the same sandbox as ones from the App Store, they would still need to be code-signed.
If Apple ever allowed apps from outside the App Store on iOS, they would most certainly go with the notarization model that they have for macOS as a requirement along with enforcing the sandbox
Well, that's why I was thinking that his idea might have legs.
Here's the thing: in this game, it's not a case of who's right; it's who shouts the loudest, and Apple has never shouted that loudly. They could end up in a position where they're forced to open up the phone to third-party platforms. Here's where they could preempt such a catastrophe: don't risk all the hard work they've put in building a secure platform; just build another phone line and an open version of iOS and say, "There you go. Have at it."
Support it, but don't advertise it. Build great phones, but don't offer AppleCare.
It's not about who shouts loud enough. It is about which government agency is going to reign in Apple first, and force them to permit freedom of choice on devices that their customers own. My bet is that the EU will move first, and it will happen in the next 6-9 months. The handwriting is on the wall and there will ultimately be no alternative for Apple. The resistance between now and that time is simply a delay tactic and Apple knows it.
The EU did such a bang up job of "fixing" cookies! Now in addition to the problem that already existed (and still exists) you also get hasseld with stupid crap that tells you to click "OK whatever" on every website you touch. The EU tried to design the internet and failed miserably. Good thing American companies were there with a backup because the ITU CCITT and their reams of pages of X.400 and X.500 etc offer a mountain of evicence that shows the EU shouldn't be shaping anything online.
I don't think people understand how little it costs Apple to sign and host apps. Online credit card processors charge around 2.9% per transaction. Apple is literally printing money in their walled garden. 30% is ridiculous. Saying there isn't anything better, look at Android, is just pointing out the failure of Google to do anything about it. Doesn't make it a good thing.
1. "Printing money" is literally the point of businesses. Otherwise, it is called a charity. And, that's not the only expense associated with the App Store. App store margins are at about 60% of Apple's 30% or 15% of subscriptions after a year. Out of curiosity, what isn't "ridiculous" in your eyes?
2. It costs a much higher percent to put a product on a WalMart or supermarket shelf. It cost way more than that with boxed software. Beyond just Google, Most digital software download stores are still at 30%.
I would rather the money go to the developers instead of Apple's dragon horde of cash. You posted the retailer cuts yourself. 12% for Epic Games, (15%+10% charity) for Humble. Could you imagine if Apple just gave 10% to charity how much money that would be.
I don't think people understand how little it costs Apple to sign and host apps. Online credit card processors charge around 2.9% per transaction. Apple is literally printing money in their walled garden. 30% is ridiculous. Saying there isn't anything better, look at Android, is just pointing out the failure of Google to do anything about it. Doesn't make it a good thing.
1. "Printing money" is literally the point of businesses. Otherwise, it is called a charity. And, that's not the only expense associated with the App Store. App store margins are at about 60% of Apple's 30% or 15% of subscriptions after a year. Out of curiosity, what isn't "ridiculous" in your eyes?
2. It costs a much higher percent to put a product on a WalMart or supermarket shelf. It cost way more than that with boxed software. Beyond just Google, Most digital software download stores are still at 30%.
I would rather the money go to the developers instead of Apple's dragon horde of cash. You posted the retailer cuts yourself. 12% for Epic Games, (15%+10% charity) for Humble. Could you imagine if Apple just gave 10% to charity how much money that would be.
I did, and Epic is the outlier, which is pretty obvious from the chart.
I have no idea what percentage of Apple's earnings go to charity now, like the $100M that Cook announced this week, but it's not zero.
Again, I think that there's room for improvement in the App Store. I'd like better discovery, and I don't like the paid search ads in the App Store. I'd also like there to not be a restriction on directing folks to a website for subscriptions. I just don't think the 30% cut is where the main focus of reform should be. Apple isn't telling developers what to charge for apps. If the business model for Hey didn't work with a 30% cut of $99 per year, then $149 on the app store, and $99 on the website will get what he needs.
Apple didn't create the "race to the bottom" of app pricing, the consumers did when they said with their wallets that they'd rather have subscriptions and in-app purchases.
I don't think people understand how little it costs Apple to sign and host apps. Online credit card processors charge around 2.9% per transaction. Apple is literally printing money in their walled garden. 30% is ridiculous. Saying there isn't anything better, look at Android, is just pointing out the failure of Google to do anything about it. Doesn't make it a good thing.
1. "Printing money" is literally the point of businesses. Otherwise, it is called a charity. And, that's not the only expense associated with the App Store. App store margins are at about 60% of Apple's 30% or 15% of subscriptions after a year. Out of curiosity, what isn't "ridiculous" in your eyes?
2. It costs a much higher percent to put a product on a WalMart or supermarket shelf. It cost way more than that with boxed software. Beyond just Google, Most digital software download stores are still at 30%.
I would rather the money go to the developers instead of Apple's dragon horde of cash. You posted the retailer cuts yourself. 12% for Epic Games, (15%+10% charity) for Humble. Could you imagine if Apple just gave 10% to charity how much money that would be.
I did, and Epic is the outlier, which is pretty obvious from the chart.
I have no idea what percentage of Apple's earnings go to charity now, like the $100M that Cook announced this week, but it's not zero.
Again, I think that there's room for improvement in the App Store. I just don't think the 30% cut is it.
As for that $100M I believe I recall reading that it actually wasn't directly to a charity, which would explain why none was named, but instead to what is referred to as a Donor-Advised Fund. Tim Cook would not be the only tech billionaire to use that a way of shifting funds around while claiming an immediate tax deduction. The wonders of the tax code. That's one reason you see these large "donations to charity (!?) " at the end of the year. Larry Page does the same.
Here’s how I would go about fixing the complaints.
1. Add a feature that allows users to change their default apps. Mail, Web or anything else. (This might be already on its way).
2. Create an alternate distribution service within Apple. Applications still need review but only for preventing malware, copyright violations, and egregious privacy problems. The developer pays Apple reasonable hosting fees per application and for download bandwidth at a price similar to cloud services like Amazon’s AWS. Apple supplies the developer with a web address that the developer can link to on their own website or app store where the user can download the app. The developer is responsible for all purchase or subscription requirements. Apple does not advertise or promote these apps on their App Store.
Apple controls the download web addresses so piracy is no more of a problem than with the current App Store. If a copyright or other legal problem comes up, the app download is removed. The apps are marked with a flag that says battery or performance problems on any device where the app is installed does not get Apple Care support until those apps are disabled or removed. Apple could provide an easy mechanism to turn off or delete non-curated apps for diagnosis and general cleanup.
This does not seem particularly difficult to set up and it should stop the vast majority of complaints and solve the no third party app store problem. Anyone can host their own website and promote their own apps and do their own sales and marketing.
If Apple will end the monopoly on iOS app sales they can charge whatever they want for their app store. All they have to do is let us load apps from wherever we choose.
If they won't do it willingly, then they need antitrust regulators to force them to do it.
Comments
I like that Apple is the gatekeeper for apps. I trust that my iOS devices are more secure than other platforms and I'd like to keep it that way.
Allowing other app stores would be a disaster, a massive breach of security and malware, viruses and illegal apps would greatly increase. It would make the entire platform less secure and worse for all users.
If somebody wants the wild, wild west of app stores, and the garbage that comes with that, then go use Android.
...until we enter software subscriptions.
I rather pay $500 for a box of Adobe software that I can use for an eternity, than paying a monthly tax, and my ability to be creative and earn money evaporated when I need it most: when there’s financial hardship and I won’t be able to pay monthly subscription fees.
...until Apple starts imposing its moral code of a Disney whitewashed world where apps can’t be sold because Apple doesn’t want them on their store (fine) but there exists no alternative (not fine)
...until Apple does the bidding of totalitarian regimes and bans apps useful for dissidents and there’s no reasonable alternative.
Doesn't Apple allow WeChat/Tencent to do just that?
"For example, most banks offer App Store titles that charge nothing and therefore contribute nothing back to the App Store. All of these free apps, along with extension content such as Watch apps, have to be supported by the minority of apps that do generate revenues."
Without those free apps the iOS platform would be less attractive. If for example even a small percentage of iPhone buyers could no longer access their free banking apps Apple hardware sales would suffer. Some portion of Apple's hardware revenues can be directly attributed to the availability of free apps on the App Store which makes an iPhone more valuable. Apple gets richer because of them.
App Store only App Store and identified developers (signed & notarized apps) - Anywhere (Internet)
Not a single person can make a legitimate case that this has made macOS less secure or harmed the platform. If anything, the macOS user base has grown to 100 million users. The developers who choose to rely on Apple's infrastructure will distribute through the App Store and be subject to Apple's fees and those who don't, won't.Businesses, including Apple, are allowed to make special deals with any given party. It also can refuse to do so, when asked.
Full disclosure: This is Dan's editorial and opinion, and not mine. Generally, I agree with Dan's overall premise, but I have disagreements with other points in the matter, and think that the "Hey" email guy is trying to accuse a company of rent-seeking when he is doing the exact same thing.
Full disclosure: This is Dan's editorial and opinion, and not mine. Generally, I agree with Dan's overall premise, but I have disagreements with other points in the matter, and think that the "Hey" email guy is trying to accuse a company of rent-seeking when he is doing the exact same thing.
So even if we disregard the issue of programming time that such accommodations bring, what these bring is needless complexity, and that’s something that makes the OS so inflexible that adding innovation becomes recursively more a massive task with every new feature addition. This is the exact opposite of what the apple devices are supposed to be.
Now Apple aren’t immovable and they listen to feedback. If there is something you don’t like then you speak up about it, if you’re not an outlier this will lead to an option being added, a big squashed or a feature’s behaviour switched.
I would rather the money go to the developers instead of Apple's dragon horde of cash. You posted the retailer cuts yourself. 12% for Epic Games, (15%+10% charity) for Humble. Could you imagine if Apple just gave 10% to charity how much money that would be.
I have no idea what percentage of Apple's earnings go to charity now, like the $100M that Cook announced this week, but it's not zero.
Again, I think that there's room for improvement in the App Store. I'd like better discovery, and I don't like the paid search ads in the App Store. I'd also like there to not be a restriction on directing folks to a website for subscriptions. I just don't think the 30% cut is where the main focus of reform should be. Apple isn't telling developers what to charge for apps. If the business model for Hey didn't work with a 30% cut of $99 per year, then $149 on the app store, and $99 on the website will get what he needs.
Apple didn't create the "race to the bottom" of app pricing, the consumers did when they said with their wallets that they'd rather have subscriptions and in-app purchases.
Really not much at all but they are not obligated to give even a dollar so every bit helps another charitable cause.
As for that $100M I believe I recall reading that it actually wasn't directly to a charity, which would explain why none was named, but instead to what is referred to as a Donor-Advised Fund. Tim Cook would not be the only tech billionaire to use that a way of shifting funds around while claiming an immediate tax deduction. The wonders of the tax code. That's one reason you see these large "donations to charity (!?) " at the end of the year. Larry Page does the same.
1. Add a feature that allows users to change their default apps. Mail, Web or anything else. (This might be already on its way).
2. Create an alternate distribution service within Apple. Applications still need review but only for preventing malware, copyright violations, and egregious privacy problems. The developer pays Apple reasonable hosting fees per application and for download bandwidth at a price similar to cloud services like Amazon’s AWS. Apple supplies the developer with a web address that the developer can link to on their own website or app store where the user can download the app. The developer is responsible for all purchase or subscription requirements. Apple does not advertise or promote these apps on their App Store.
Apple controls the download web addresses so piracy is no more of a problem than with the current App Store. If a copyright or other legal problem comes up, the app download is removed. The apps are marked with a flag that says battery or performance problems on any device where the app is installed does not get Apple Care support until those apps are disabled or removed. Apple could provide an easy mechanism to turn off or delete non-curated apps for diagnosis and general cleanup.
This does not seem particularly difficult to set up and it should stop the vast majority of complaints and solve the no third party app store problem. Anyone can host their own website and promote their own apps and do their own sales and marketing.