... so why should I hesitate buying from another iOS app store software that will be perfectly sandboxed?
My reasoning would be: 1) a phone is a homing beacon that shows my location 24 / 7 - a desktop isn't; 2) Apple has the motivation of protecting privacy so I'll buy more hardware - an alternate app store doesn't; and 3) on my $600 - $1200 phone, I'm not going to carp about a few dollars more for an app that has been screened.
Even more to the point, my health records are on my iPhone, along with access to my financial accounts, etc. And that’s true for a whole lot of iPhone owners, many who might not be as aware of security issues. So what happens when an iPhone is compromised through some shenanigans that an App attempts and that it’s App Store didn’t gate? Apple takes the reputational hit, that’s what. But I guess those who advocate for additional app stores and side loading apps figure Apple should still be the one to expend the time and resources required to play gatekeeper for security and malicious malware.
Apple provides a wonderful choice to consumers - a curated app store. It's a choice that I absolutely adore and is my main reason for choosing the Apple ecosystem. People who hate Apple are trying to remove my freedom of choice by forcing Apple's OS to comply with THEIR PERSONAL PREFERENCES, even though they have LOTS OF OTHER CHOICES to get the EXACT SAME APPS on other platforms. Basically they are trying to make Apple's iOS illegal. They are taking away my freedom to choose. It reminds me of Germany in the 1930s. But I won't say more than that or this post might be removed, because freedom of speech is not highly respected.
That’s the right way to go forward - Apple should adopt it. I doubt that Apple would loose too much money by allowing 3rd party app stores - even if this would mean that the commission is going down. Security should also remain intact, because 3rd party app stores would need to use install permissions granted by Apple (in contrast to jail breaking).
The right way to go forward? Are you forgetting that Windows is a true monopoly. No question about it. Windows is still on over 85% of the World's computers and Windows 10 is on over 65% of World's PC.
>>Some of the principles include not blocking rival app stores from Windows, not barring apps with alternate payment systems, and charging "reasonable fees that reflect the competition we face from other app stores on Windows."<<
To me, this is Microsoft ONLY way to go. No way is Microsoft ever going to get away with....... not allowing any other app store in Windows 10,......... barring alternate payment system,........ or not charging reasonable fees to their completion. Not when the DOJ have already determined that Windows is a monopoly and Microsoft has already once been found guilty of abusing that monopoly, by doing some of the things that they are now promising not to do in Windows 10.
You thinking Microsoft is doing this out of the goodness of their heart and looking out for PC users, is a joke. They are doing this because they don't have a choice. Not after being found guilty of violating anti-trust laws, about 20 years ago. (Maybe you're too young to remember.) Their "principles" are nothing but "conditions" they must follow to avoid any more anti-trust suits for abusing the monopoly they have with Windows..
They don't have to do this on their X-Box platform because their X-Box is not a monopoly in the gaming console market, even though they have a monopoly with the Microsoft Store on their X-Box platform. Even if they sold their X-Box at a reasonable profit, they would still not give up any control of the X-Box platform because they don't have to. Selling a product at a loss is a marketing strategy that has been around since Gillette been selling their razors at cost or a loss and making up that loss by selling the blades.
Hmm, if you’re a developer paying more than $1000 a year for a MSDN subscription versus Apple’s $99 per year, exactly how is Microsoft’s “guiding principles” making your life better?
In case you haven’t noticed it yet, there is a concerted and orchestrated effort by several a major ISVs including MSFT to break Apple’s dominance in the competitive marketplace. Simply put, all of these companies that have failed to compete against Apple on a level competitive playing field are trying to use the court of public opinion and political hacks to do what their engineers were unable to accomplish when presented with the challenge to out-innovate, out-perform, and out-satisfy buyers in the markets that they compete against Apple. They have basically given up and thrown in the towel because they couldn’t compete on a level playing field, so now now they want to tilt the field. Quite pathetic and demoralizing for the people involved. Microsoft and its army of mediocrity is shooting for a big shiny participation trophy and guaranteed payday, courtesy of Uncle Sam.
At least Gates and Balmer tried to win.
Google, Apple and Xbox are free operating systems earning on their app store sales. Windows is a paid-for operating system Microsoft earns on initial and possibly ongoing O/S sale.
Any scheme to have external app store allows for WeChat App-as-OS with its own store/payment system and no oversight. What if there were Communist-Chat, GunChat or PornChat apps that themselves had no rule breaking code or content but their internal cloud apps did whatever they wanted? Not only are all those sales avoiding payments to the free operating systems (starving them) but there is no app review, API security or data protections. Its Cydia as Jailbreaking app in the AppStore. -RJ
I am curious as to how alternate app stores would be of any value to the device user, it seems to me you would just have another entity involved that could potentially muck things up since their attention probably won’t be as focused as Apple’s. I say this because they would have no where near the vested interest in protecting the ecosphere as Apple does. I think the better approach is for Apple to amend its rules to be more transparent and allow for an appeal process for developers. Apple should also lower their percentage on a tiered system where smaller companies pay less and larger companies pay more, this could be done by app sales or higher developers cost (the $99 thing).
I’m not convinced alternate stores would in the end be successful?
They already adjusted to offering a program where smaller developers pay half as much up to a million dollars per year. The developers that are complaining are competitors who failed at hardware or greedy developers who made billions on the App Store. Ironically, they are fine with paying a higher percentage of their income to Microsoft on XBox. Odd huh 🤔. They are both pushing the same battle
Comments
iPhone, along with access to my financial accounts, etc. And that’s true for a whole lot of iPhone owners, many who might not be as aware of security issues. So what happens when an iPhone is compromised through some shenanigans that an App attempts and that it’s App Store didn’t gate? Apple takes the reputational hit, that’s what. But I guess those who advocate for additional app stores and side loading apps figure Apple should still be the one to expend the time and resources required to play gatekeeper for security and malicious malware.
If you are saying Apple should be forced to do this, please also indicate how many of Apple's App Store rules must be discarded: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ <--
I recommend in your future posts to speak less ambiguously so that we don't have to guess what you mean.
Our new app store rules
Should apply to iOS
But not to Xbox.
>>Some of the principles include not blocking rival app stores from Windows, not barring apps with alternate payment systems, and charging "reasonable fees that reflect the competition we face from other app stores on Windows."<<
To me, this is Microsoft ONLY way to go. No way is Microsoft ever going to get away with....... not allowing any other app store in Windows 10,......... barring alternate payment system,........ or not charging reasonable fees to their completion. Not when the DOJ have already determined that Windows is a monopoly and Microsoft has already once been found guilty of abusing that monopoly, by doing some of the things that they are now promising not to do in Windows 10.
You thinking Microsoft is doing this out of the goodness of their heart and looking out for PC users, is a joke. They are doing this because they don't have a choice. Not after being found guilty of violating anti-trust laws, about 20 years ago. (Maybe you're too young to remember.) Their "principles" are nothing but "conditions" they must follow to avoid any more anti-trust suits for abusing the monopoly they have with Windows..
They don't have to do this on their X-Box platform because their X-Box is not a monopoly in the gaming console market, even though they have a monopoly with the Microsoft Store on their X-Box platform. Even if they sold their X-Box at a reasonable profit, they would still not give up any control of the X-Box platform because they don't have to. Selling a product at a loss is a marketing strategy that has been around since Gillette been selling their razors at cost or a loss and making up that loss by selling the blades.
Any scheme to have external app store allows for WeChat App-as-OS with its own store/payment system and no oversight. What if there were Communist-Chat, GunChat or PornChat apps that themselves had no rule breaking code or content but their internal cloud apps did whatever they wanted? Not only are all those sales avoiding payments to the free operating systems (starving them) but there is no app review, API security or data protections. Its Cydia as Jailbreaking app in the AppStore. -RJ