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.
You can always tell when somebody makes a big statement that contravenes the possibility they read the article that’s being commented upon. You meet that criteria.
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.
Anything you buy has restrictions, so don't single out one smartphone company. Do you get to install whatever you want on LG, Samsung, or Vizio TVs How about Roku? Do you get to install apps on car infotainment screens? You want an iPhone, but don't like the policies? Put your money where your whine is and take it to a competitor. Some of us would prefer an appliance model that works. Now, if there were no other competitor in smartphones, maybe you have a point.
Folk won't take responsibility for what they install from places outside the Apple ecosystem. They'll want Apple to fix their phones that they've installed god-knows-what from god-knows-where. They'll take to Twitter and complain that the battery life of their phone has halved since they've installed a piece or software that Apple has never seen and has no visibility over. They will not be able to prevent folk from installing cracked and insecure profiles that lay the platform open to malware.
Seriously, there are other phones out there which allow you to install whatever you want. If Apple doesn't want to do that then I can't see why they should be forced to.
BINGO! As it is, they complain and everything is a "gate." Too many people I know on Android fall for the 'free' pirated stuff they side load from an article, or a friend, or a son/daughter doing for a parent, and then complain about the problems caused by it. There is a pro mode on iOS and it is called developer program, and for large companies, enterprise certificates.
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.
This is about personal choice and personal responsibility. Greater power and greater responsibility for the users that need it. Greater safety for users that don't.
Ever heard of the developer program? You can side load an app there. For the general public, no! iOS does not need to become the situation I have seen for decades on Windows. As for MacOS, great, iOS was created from the get go as a next gen OS for appliances like phones, tablets, TVs, etc.. MacOS is a general purpose computer (PC) with a nice Unix based OS on it.
You have a choice if iOS doesn't work for you; Android. Lot of choice and openness there.
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.
I just hope you are there pushing the government to open up all digital and traditional businesses as well please. All diabetic monitors should allow any strips to be used. All TV platforms should be opened including Samsung, LG, Vizio, Fire TV, and Roku -- HBO Max shouldn't be held hostage to Roku or Amazon for not wanting to share! Anyone should be able to have Walmart, Amazon, or Target sell their product, with no slotting fees! I should be able to reprogram my car's computers.. all of them, but certainly the infotainment stuff, right?
If you own it, you should be able to do whatever. I fear the outrage culture here will have governments forcing Apple to change and appease, and it will be great for some, but terrible for many, many others.. Entitlements is alive and well.
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.
Wrong. If an iPhone has been voluntarily compromised, they don’t owe the user a damn thing. Apple is doing the “adult” thing by promising users a curated environment and app purchasing system. Don’t want that? Get an 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.
Where are these people coming from? This is all utter nonsense.
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.
Anything you buy has restrictions, so don't single out one smartphone company. Do you get to install whatever you want on LG, Samsung, or Vizio TVs How about Roku? Do you get to install apps on car infotainment screens? You want an iPhone, but don't like the policies? Put your money where your whine is and take it to a competitor. Some of us would prefer an appliance model that works. Now, if there were no other competitor in smartphones, maybe you have a point.
Those are not general purpose computing devices. iPhone, iPad, and Mac are. Big difference.
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.
This is about personal choice and personal responsibility. Greater power and greater responsibility for the users that need it. Greater safety for users that don't.
Ever heard of the developer program? You can side load an app there. For the general public, no! iOS does not need to become the situation I have seen for decades on Windows. As for MacOS, great, iOS was created from the get go as a next gen OS for appliances like phones, tablets, TVs, etc.. MacOS is a general purpose computer (PC) with a nice Unix based OS on it.
You have a choice if iOS doesn't work for you; Android. Lot of choice and openness there.
So are the iPhone and iPad. The only difference is Apple willfully disallowed side-loading of apps on the latter devices.
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.
Your last point is the problem.
Folk won't take responsibility for what they install from places outside the Apple ecosystem. They'll want Apple to fix their phones that they've installed god-knows-what from god-knows-where. They'll take to Twitter and complain that the battery life of their phone has halved since they've installed a piece or software that Apple has never seen and has no visibility over. They will not be able to prevent folk from installing cracked and insecure profiles that lay the platform open to malware.
Seriously, there are other phones out there which allow you to install whatever you want. If Apple doesn't want to do that then I can't see why they should be forced to.
So because there is a possibility that idiots exist in the world, Apple should lock everything down for everyone? No. And Apple will lose this battle.
You’d have to understand how many “idiots” there may be. Every single day, I repeat every single day we have at least ten people come into my store (I work for a cellphone carrier) with issue stating their phone is messed up because one of their apps don’t work. We tell them, we aren’t in the position to troubleshoot third party apps considering our company did not create them. The very first thing they say is, “well I bought the phone from ya’ll”, and we politely say yes this is true, but we provide you the service to make and receive phone calls and access the data network. Everything else is a result of the developer of the app and you have to reach out to them for support, not us and not Apple (if it’s not an Apple app).
I say all of that to say that customers assume that we as wireless carriers created the phone they are using and should deal with its app issues. Therefore, if people install apps elsewhere than the AppStore, they will expect Apple to deal with those issues and it’s not their position to do so, it’s up to whomever they retrieved the software from to resolve the issue.
Apple should absolutely be able to control the software installed on its devices or you end up with the Windows shambles where few apps are compatible with other apps. You just end up with a Wild West. If a developer wants to make an app. why wouldn’t it want the thing to work? If an app. developer wants its app. to work on a particular platform (and Apple is not the only one), it needs the source code. Why should it not pay for that?
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.
Your last point is the problem.
Folk won't take responsibility for what they install from places outside the Apple ecosystem. They'll want Apple to fix their phones that they've installed god-knows-what from god-knows-where. They'll take to Twitter and complain that the battery life of their phone has halved since they've installed a piece or software that Apple has never seen and has no visibility over. They will not be able to prevent folk from installing cracked and insecure profiles that lay the platform open to malware.
Seriously, there are other phones out there which allow you to install whatever you want. If Apple doesn't want to do that then I can't see why they should be forced to.
So because there is a possibility that idiots exist in the world, Apple should lock everything down for everyone? No. And Apple will lose this battle.
Actually, yes, I do believe that.
And I also believe that because there are idiots in the world, they shouldn’t let the general public own guns.
If someone installs crap from an App Store run from someone’s shed, then that rogue app now has access to his phone, and his contacts, and through his contacts, other iPhones.
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
Yes, but obviously developers would demand the ability to bypass the notorization model for complete and total freedom. So you’re still going to get malware.
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.
No, it's about who shouts loud enough. It's called 'lobbying' and that's how this works. A lot of this stuff is about the likes of Spotify complaining that the can't make a buck on the Apple platform, but also can't make a buck on the Android platform for reasons that they don't seem to want to go into.
I hope Apple fights it all the way, because I don't want my iOS experience compromised.
That is an increasing problem. That's why we see so many really petty lawsuits filed against Apple. Personal Responsibilty bsed upon that thing called Common Sense is fast becoming a thing of the past to the obvious glee of lawyers all over the place (sic)
You sign a waiver/liability release to go through a Haunted Mansion or ride on a zipline, etc. Certainly (and rightfully so) Apple could require an acknowledgement of indemnity from the user when they wish to install an app outside of the official store to protect them against such things. And certainly, if a user comes in with all kinds of problems as a result of buggy software (a problem Apple fields on mac computers already), that can be treated as non-warranty work, just as if you cracked your screen or some other non-warranty service, without voiding the full warranty. The arguments that have been presented is basically that Apple does not want to operate like every other computing company that already deals with these things.
Guess, what?
In the EU, those waivers aren't worth the paper they're written on. In the EU, (and the UK, though no doubt this will change) you cannot sign away your rights under law. That's why Apple has to offer different warranties in different countries So, just signing a waiver does not mean that Apple won't be off the hook for self-inflicted damage by stupid users (the same users who ignore warnings and install beta software even though they're not mentally equipped to deal with the problems beta software causes, or emotionally equipped to deal with the fact that they brought it on themselves).
Waiver or not, Apple will be swamped under a deluge of lawsuits and support problems they have no way of tracing through.
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.
The app store does have competition. There are load of Android stores to choose from. All customers need to do is pick a different phone. All developers have to do is write for Android and dump the Apple store.
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.
Jesus Christ, don't even start me on the mess that the EU made of the web.
Every effing site now has to put up a list of effing checkboxes before I can get in.
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.
On top of the credit card processing:
The developers employed to work on the app store The content editors who write the features and reviews for the app store The huge number of reviewers who assess apps before they reach the app store (not counting the time to train and review their reviews) The cost of actually hosting one of the world's biggest app stores
The credit card processing is peanuts compared to the cost of running the rest of it.
Now 70%ish of the income from the app store goes back to the developers. I say 'ish' because after one year, subscriptions return 85% to the developer. What's left is used to run the app store, and what's left after that is the profit, and I don't think it's as high as some people like to think it is.
Also interesting how people like to frame it as taking 30%, completely ignoring that the 70-85% going back has made a lot of developers very rich with very little advertising outlay.
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.
This won't work because the sheer cost of reviewing every single piece of crap that turns up on every store would cause months of delays and would be impossible to forecast and plan for.
Yes, of course it doesn't seem difficult to set up: you don't run an app store servicing a billion customers, that's why it doesn't seem difficult to set up.
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.
Anything you buy has restrictions, so don't single out one smartphone company. Do you get to install whatever you want on LG, Samsung, or Vizio TVs How about Roku? Do you get to install apps on car infotainment screens? You want an iPhone, but don't like the policies? Put your money where your whine is and take it to a competitor. Some of us would prefer an appliance model that works. Now, if there were no other competitor in smartphones, maybe you have a point.
But there is. So he doesn't.
What the EU has to prove is that the Apple ecosystem is a market. If they do this then what they're saying is that a company can only be allowed to be so successful before they face fines and oversight, regardless of whether they break the law or not.
Comments
Ever heard of the developer program? You can side load an app there. For the general public, no! iOS does not need to become the situation I have seen for decades on Windows. As for MacOS, great, iOS was created from the get go as a next gen OS for appliances like phones, tablets, TVs, etc.. MacOS is a general purpose computer (PC) with a nice Unix based OS on it.
You have a choice if iOS doesn't work for you; Android. Lot of choice and openness there.
I just hope you are there pushing the government to open up all digital and traditional businesses as well please. All diabetic monitors should allow any strips to be used. All TV platforms should be opened including Samsung, LG, Vizio, Fire TV, and Roku -- HBO Max shouldn't be held hostage to Roku or Amazon for not wanting to share! Anyone should be able to have Walmart, Amazon, or Target sell their product, with no slotting fees! I should be able to reprogram my car's computers.. all of them, but certainly the infotainment stuff, right?
If you own it, you should be able to do whatever. I fear the outrage culture here will have governments forcing Apple to change and appease, and it will be great for some, but terrible for many, many others.. Entitlements is alive and well.
Yes, but obviously developers would demand the ability to bypass the notorization model for complete and total freedom. So you’re still going to get malware.
I hope Apple fights it all the way, because I don't want my iOS experience compromised.
Guess, what?
In the EU, those waivers aren't worth the paper they're written on. In the EU, (and the UK, though no doubt this will change) you cannot sign away your rights under law. That's why Apple has to offer different warranties in different countries So, just signing a waiver does not mean that Apple won't be off the hook for self-inflicted damage by stupid users (the same users who ignore warnings and install beta software even though they're not mentally equipped to deal with the problems beta software causes, or emotionally equipped to deal with the fact that they brought it on themselves).
Waiver or not, Apple will be swamped under a deluge of lawsuits and support problems they have no way of tracing through.
The app store does have competition. There are load of Android stores to choose from. All customers need to do is pick a different phone. All developers have to do is write for Android and dump the Apple store.
Jesus Christ, don't even start me on the mess that the EU made of the web.
Every effing site now has to put up a list of effing checkboxes before I can get in.
On top of the credit card processing:
The developers employed to work on the app store
The content editors who write the features and reviews for the app store
The huge number of reviewers who assess apps before they reach the app store (not counting the time to train and review their reviews)
The cost of actually hosting one of the world's biggest app stores
The credit card processing is peanuts compared to the cost of running the rest of it.
Now 70%ish of the income from the app store goes back to the developers. I say 'ish' because after one year, subscriptions return 85% to the developer. What's left is used to run the app store, and what's left after that is the profit, and I don't think it's as high as some people like to think it is.
Also interesting how people like to frame it as taking 30%, completely ignoring that the 70-85% going back has made a lot of developers very rich with very little advertising outlay.
This won't work because the sheer cost of reviewing every single piece of crap that turns up on every store would cause months of delays and would be impossible to forecast and plan for.
Yes, of course it doesn't seem difficult to set up: you don't run an app store servicing a billion customers, that's why it doesn't seem difficult to set up.
What the EU has to prove is that the Apple ecosystem is a market. If they do this then what they're saying is that a company can only be allowed to be so successful before they face fines and oversight, regardless of whether they break the law or not.