Of course Apple is all about the creator as they want the revenue in exchange for having a frictionless marketplace. Even if there are other store options 99.99999999999% of users will not leave the Appstore.
If that were likely to be true this wouldn't worry me so much.
The problem is that there are two types of developers. Those that drive purchases, and those that don't. The latter benefit from being on the App Store - to whatever extent they benefit from discovery. They won't abandon the store, though they will likely list on other platforms as well.
The problem is devs who drive purchases. Do you think MS and Adobe will stay on the App store one second more than they have to? The answer is likely to depend on whether it's feasible for them to offer free versions that advertise their non-app store paid versions. They would have to think that they're likely to lose at least 25% of their customer base by leaving the app store, in order to stay on it. Do you think that that's likely? I don't. They'll leave.
Once that happens, the App Store is no longer the place you know you can go to get whatever you want. And once *that* happens, you *have* to start going to other stores to get things you need- even if you would rather give up that 30% cut for the relative (yes, I know, not absolute) safety of the app store. That's the big danger: For users without the time/patience/tech ability for dealing with malware and other issues, there will be no possible way for them to decide to play it safe. The Apple App Store will simply not have everything they need.
I've been in tech for 40 years, I built a big part of the Internet, and I am well versed in security. But I have no interest in jailbreaking my phone and I am content to have Apple take 30% for the relative security of not having to think much about what I download from the app store. I don't want to give that up. If I did I could buy an Android. The sorts of laws proposed by Sweeney and Amy Klobuchar (who is, generally, an excellent senator) will deprive me of that choice.
Google and Apple champion the "open" and "closed" models. They should be allowed to duke it out in the marketplace. (Yes, I know that that's simplistic, and not totally true on either side. Close enough for this discussion, though.)
Interviewers don't call him out on this. His real motive is he wants to be the one charging the fee instead of Apple and his Tencent cronies want to kick Apple out of China like they've done with Google.
I’m happy someone has pointed out the main issue. Sweeney is not the issue or the instigator. His Chinese minders are the controllers. We need to see the bigger picture. This is an off-the-books China v. USA Apple war. WEF Marxist play against the western values.
Of course Apple is all about the creator as they want the revenue in exchange for having a frictionless marketplace. Even if there are other store options 99.99999999999% of users will not leave the Appstore.
If that were likely to be true this wouldn't worry me so much.
The problem is that there are two types of developers. Those that drive purchases, and those that don't. The latter benefit from being on the App Store - to whatever extent they benefit from discovery. They won't abandon the store, though they will likely list on other platforms as well.
The problem is devs who drive purchases. Do you think MS and Adobe will stay on the App store one second more than they have to? The answer is likely to depend on whether it's feasible for them to offer free versions that advertise their non-app store paid versions. They would have to think that they're likely to lose at least 25% of their customer base by leaving the app store, in order to stay on it. Do you think that that's likely? I don't. They'll leave.
Once that happens, the App Store is no longer the place you know you can go to get whatever you want. And once *that* happens, you *have* to start going to other stores to get things you need- even if you would rather give up that 30% cut for the relative (yes, I know, not absolute) safety of the app store. That's the big danger: For users without the time/patience/tech ability for dealing with malware and other issues, there will be no possible way for them to decide to play it safe. The Apple App Store will simply not have everything they need.
I've been in tech for 40 years, I built a big part of the Internet, and I am well versed in security. But I have no interest in jailbreaking my phone and I am content to have Apple take 30% for the relative security of not having to think much about what I download from the app store. I don't want to give that up. If I did I could buy an Android. The sorts of laws proposed by Sweeney and Amy Klobuchar (who is, generally, an excellent senator) will deprive me of that choice.
Google and Apple champion the "open" and "closed" models. They should be allowed to duke it out in the marketplace. (Yes, I know that that's simplistic, and not totally true on either side. Close enough for this discussion, though.)
Have they already left the "Google Play Store"???? They "can" leave Google Play Store, but they have NOT done that YET should give you a clue about what would happen with the Apple App Store.
Of course Apple is all about the creator as they want the revenue in exchange for having a frictionless marketplace. Even if there are other store options 99.99999999999% of users will not leave the Appstore.
If that were likely to be true this wouldn't worry me so much.
The problem is that there are two types of developers. Those that drive purchases, and those that don't. The latter benefit from being on the App Store - to whatever extent they benefit from discovery. They won't abandon the store, though they will likely list on other platforms as well.
The problem is devs who drive purchases. Do you think MS and Adobe will stay on the App store one second more than they have to? The answer is likely to depend on whether it's feasible for them to offer free versions that advertise their non-app store paid versions. They would have to think that they're likely to lose at least 25% of their customer base by leaving the app store, in order to stay on it. Do you think that that's likely? I don't. They'll leave.
Once that happens, the App Store is no longer the place you know you can go to get whatever you want. And once *that* happens, you *have* to start going to other stores to get things you need- even if you would rather give up that 30% cut for the relative (yes, I know, not absolute) safety of the app store. That's the big danger: For users without the time/patience/tech ability for dealing with malware and other issues, there will be no possible way for them to decide to play it safe. The Apple App Store will simply not have everything they need.
I've been in tech for 40 years, I built a big part of the Internet, and I am well versed in security. But I have no interest in jailbreaking my phone and I am content to have Apple take 30% for the relative security of not having to think much about what I download from the app store. I don't want to give that up. If I did I could buy an Android. The sorts of laws proposed by Sweeney and Amy Klobuchar (who is, generally, an excellent senator) will deprive me of that choice.
Google and Apple champion the "open" and "closed" models. They should be allowed to duke it out in the marketplace. (Yes, I know that that's simplistic, and not totally true on either side. Close enough for this discussion, though.)
Have they already left the "Google Play Store"???? They "can" leave Google Play Store, but they have NOT done that YET should give you a clue about what would happen with the Apple App Store.
That's a pretty good argument! But I was lazy, and left out a big part of it, so... let me expand.
Right now, all the MS and Adobe apps are *free*. They monetize by subscription. In the GPS they're not barred from including subscription info/options in the app, as they presently are in the Apple store. No need to leave.
So pick instead any app that's paid for up front, that is big enough to pull people to the app store to get it. Do you think they will stay? (My answer's the same.)
Also note that there's not that much incentive to leave the GPS - revenue there is a fraction of the revenue in the Apple store, and if they don't want to leave that money on the table they can simply put their app somewhere else and direct people there, while leaving it in the GPS to pick up sales on the margins.
Now, if you want to convince me, there's a way: show that big paid-up-front apps stay in the GPS, and also show that there's a healthy alternate-app-store ecosystem for Android that could easily accommodate those apps. If both those things are generally true, then my argument loses a lot of force. (Even better, also show that volume in GPS for those apps is meaningful, compared to Apple's store.) I don't know if this data exists.
Of course Apple is all about the creator as they want the revenue in exchange for having a frictionless marketplace. Even if there are other store options 99.99999999999% of users will not leave the Appstore.
If that were likely to be true this wouldn't worry me so much.
The problem is that there are two types of developers. Those that drive purchases, and those that don't. The latter benefit from being on the App Store - to whatever extent they benefit from discovery. They won't abandon the store, though they will likely list on other platforms as well.
The problem is devs who drive purchases. Do you think MS and Adobe will stay on the App store one second more than they have to? The answer is likely to depend on whether it's feasible for them to offer free versions that advertise their non-app store paid versions. They would have to think that they're likely to lose at least 25% of their customer base by leaving the app store, in order to stay on it. Do you think that that's likely? I don't. They'll leave.
Once that happens, the App Store is no longer the place you know you can go to get whatever you want. And once *that* happens, you *have* to start going to other stores to get things you need- even if you would rather give up that 30% cut for the relative (yes, I know, not absolute) safety of the app store. That's the big danger: For users without the time/patience/tech ability for dealing with malware and other issues, there will be no possible way for them to decide to play it safe. The Apple App Store will simply not have everything they need.
I've been in tech for 40 years, I built a big part of the Internet, and I am well versed in security. But I have no interest in jailbreaking my phone and I am content to have Apple take 30% for the relative security of not having to think much about what I download from the app store. I don't want to give that up. If I did I could buy an Android. The sorts of laws proposed by Sweeney and Amy Klobuchar (who is, generally, an excellent senator) will deprive me of that choice.
Google and Apple champion the "open" and "closed" models. They should be allowed to duke it out in the marketplace. (Yes, I know that that's simplistic, and not totally true on either side. Close enough for this discussion, though.)
Have they already left the "Google Play Store"???? They "can" leave Google Play Store, but they have NOT done that YET should give you a clue about what would happen with the Apple App Store.
That's a pretty good argument! But I was lazy, and left out a big part of it, so... let me expand.
Right now, all the MS and Adobe apps are *free*. They monetize by subscription. In the GPS they're not barred from including subscription info/options in the app, as they presently are in the Apple store. No need to leave.
So pick instead any app that's paid for up front, that is big enough to pull people to the app store to get it. Do you think they will stay? (My answer's the same.)
Also note that there's not that much incentive to leave the GPS - revenue there is a fraction of the revenue in the Apple store, and if they don't want to leave that money on the table they can simply put their app somewhere else and direct people there, while leaving it in the GPS to pick up sales on the margins.
Now, if you want to convince me, there's a way: show that big paid-up-front apps stay in the GPS, and also show that there's a healthy alternate-app-store ecosystem for Android that could easily accommodate those apps. If both those things are generally true, then my argument loses a lot of force. (Even better, also show that volume in GPS for those apps is meaningful, compared to Apple's store.) I don't know if this data exists.
Well, GatorGuy would be the best person to answer your last paragraph. Having said that, wasn't Epic's Fortnite a good example for the scenario that you mentioned, until it was taken out of GPS for the exact same violations which led to its removal from App store?
Edit: On second thoughts, Fortnite was not the right example for the scenario that you asked .
This Sweeney guy’s on an unhinged, not-very-smart rant. So much wrong with this interview. To simplify, one, Apple =/= Google; two, Meta’s oculus is totally a walled garden and platform on top of that.
Comments
Google and Apple champion the "open" and "closed" models. They should be allowed to duke it out in the marketplace. (Yes, I know that that's simplistic, and not totally true on either side. Close enough for this discussion, though.)
Edit: On second thoughts, Fortnite was not the right example for the scenario that you asked .