avon b7 said: Users will benefit from having more choice and that choice obviously includes choosing not to use third party stores. It is a win win.
It's the other way around. Users benefited from iOS and the App Store having a different approach from desktop operating systems. Software prices got significantly cheaper. Security was improved. Smaller app developers getting the same contract terms as the titans of legacy desktop software made for better competition.
The EU is going to find all this out the hard way, unfortunately. Forcing iOS to become a Windows/macOS clone won't help consumers at all.
Absolutely right. EU is acting in the best interest of the big companies who are pushing this change, not small developers and not consumers.
I am struggling to see the upside, other than proving that Apple have worked EXTREMELY hard on security and privacy and this will only validate their approach.
I don’t think the average person has any idea how hard it is to keep software security flaw free. Who is going to allow their ‘third part apps’ access to their camera, photos, location data and contacts?
It's not the 30% fee that will drive most developers out of the Apple App store, it's the Apple App Store Review Guidelines. Let's look at the first 10 rules just as an example of the things that developers will now be freed from adhering to if they use someone else's app store. These are just the first few items in a document spanning roughly 1000 different requirements. A third party App Store will be motivated to remove as many of these restrictions as possible, or won't bother to enforce their own restrictions like Apple does. App developers will look upon third party app stores as a new golden age for app development where there are fewer rules.
1. Safety When people install an app from the App Store, they want to feel confident that it’s safe to do so—that the app doesn’t contain upsetting or offensive content, won’t damage their device, and isn’t likely to cause physical harm from its use. We’ve outlined the major pitfalls below, but if you’re looking to shock and offend people, the App Store isn’t the right place for your app.
1.1 Objectionable Content Apps should not include content that is offensive, insensitive, upsetting, intended to disgust, in exceptionally poor taste, or just plain creepy. Examples of such content include:
1.1.1 Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content, including references or commentary about religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, national/ethnic origin, or other targeted groups, particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted individual or group. Professional political satirists and humorists are generally exempt from this requirement.
1.1.2 Realistic portrayals of people or animals being killed, maimed, tortured, or abused, or content that encourages violence. “Enemies” within the context of a game cannot solely target a specific race, culture, real government, corporation, or any other real entity.
1.1.3 Depictions that encourage illegal or reckless use of weapons and dangerous objects, or facilitate the purchase of firearms or ammunition.
1.1.4 Overtly sexual or pornographic material, defined as “explicit descriptions or displays of sexual organs or activities intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.” This includes “hookup” apps and other apps that may include pornography or be used to facilitate prostitution, or human trafficking and exploitation.
1.1.5 Inflammatory religious commentary or inaccurate or misleading quotations of religious texts.
1.1.6 False information and features, including inaccurate device data or trick/joke functionality, such as fake location trackers. Stating that the app is “for entertainment purposes” won’t overcome this guideline. Apps that enable anonymous or prank phone calls or SMS/MMS messaging will be rejected.
1.1.7 Harmful concepts which capitalize or seek to profit on recent or current events, such as violent conflicts, terrorist attacks, and epidemics.
The Luna Display guy in the article discussed many of the freedoms he’d like to have to essentially deliver crapware to unsuspecting customers if he were just free of the onerous restrictions in the Apple App Store that protect the customers. Same apparently goes for the complaint right above this post.
Apple has standards that its customers really like. It’s a major reason people choose iPhones. Some developers don’t want to adhere to quality, safety and security standards, and would rather have the freedom to deliver shoddy, exploitative junk instead. I hope Apple finds a way to hold the line, so customers still have the choice of a device with high standards in hardware, operating systems and even third-party software.
Forcing Apple to allow side-loading and third-party software is a loss of consumer choice, not an enhancement of it.
I have no current desire to obtain apps outside of Apple’s App Store, but I’m not overly concerned, much less panicked, about having third party app stores in the mix. This should not be fundamentally different than the current situation on macOS.
As others have noted, this falls back on the notion of trust, which means that the only apps I’d consider installing outside of the App Store would have to be apps that are from vendors who I trust at the same or a higher level of trust as I trust Apple. That’s a very high bar to achieve, as it is today on macOS.
I do think a lot of people have always been somewhat delusional when it comes to understanding the role that middlemen play in commerce. Middlemen provide a service that contributes to customer value. If you cut out the middleman somebody’s got to step in and do the service that the middleman was previously doing. Sure, the end customer may see a price reduction but suddenly they’re left wandering around in a warehouse and strapping their new La-z-boy sofa to the roof of their Kia to get it home.
Apple’s App Store provides several valuable services for end customers, like functional, security, and privacy testing, distribution, placement in the store, searchable linking, payment processing, etc. If you cut out the App Store middleman who’s going to perform those services? If it’s anything like macOS the answer to some of those services is YOU. You are going to assume responsibility for vetting sellers, discovering whether the app is functional, secure, respects your privacy, whether the vendor accepts payments using you preferred method, processes refunds, allows family sharing, etc.
None of these additional burdens pushed on to customers are insurmountable, which is obvious from taking on equivalent responsibilities on macOS. I have no problem installing apps on my Mac from vendors I trust at the same level as I trust Apple, for example Microsoft, Google, the makers of the Affinity products, the maker of 1Password, the maker of Carbon Copy Cloner, etc. However, it took me years to establish this level of trust, whereas apps in Apple’s App Store come with a certain level of trust by virtue of having been allowed in the App Store.
So yeah, I’m comfortable with the “use at your own risk” model for myself. But I think a lot of less experienced users may end up with a world of hurt that they will regret and they’ll blame Apple, not the idiots that forced their naive ideology on Apple’s unsuspecting customers.
It's not the 30% fee that will drive most developers out of the Apple App store, it's the Apple App Store Review Guidelines. Let's look at the first 10 rules just as an example of the things that developers will now be freed from adhering to if they use someone else's app store. These are just the first few items in a document spanning roughly 1000 different requirements. A third party App Store will be motivated to remove as many of these restrictions as possible, or won't bother to enforce their own restrictions like Apple does. App developers will look upon third party app stores as a new golden age for app development where there are fewer rules.
1. Safety When people install an app from the App Store, they want to feel confident that it’s safe to do so—that the app doesn’t contain upsetting or offensive content, won’t damage their device, and isn’t likely to cause physical harm from its use. We’ve outlined the major pitfalls below, but if you’re looking to shock and offend people, the App Store isn’t the right place for your app.
1.1 Objectionable Content Apps should not include content that is offensive, insensitive, upsetting, intended to disgust, in exceptionally poor taste, or just plain creepy. Examples of such content include:
1.1.1 Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content, including references or commentary about religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, national/ethnic origin, or other targeted groups, particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted individual or group. Professional political satirists and humorists are generally exempt from this requirement.
1.1.2 Realistic portrayals of people or animals being killed, maimed, tortured, or abused, or content that encourages violence. “Enemies” within the context of a game cannot solely target a specific race, culture, real government, corporation, or any other real entity.
1.1.3 Depictions that encourage illegal or reckless use of weapons and dangerous objects, or facilitate the purchase of firearms or ammunition.
1.1.4 Overtly sexual or pornographic material, defined as “explicit descriptions or displays of sexual organs or activities intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.” This includes “hookup” apps and other apps that may include pornography or be used to facilitate prostitution, or human trafficking and exploitation.
1.1.5 Inflammatory religious commentary or inaccurate or misleading quotations of religious texts.
1.1.6 False information and features, including inaccurate device data or trick/joke functionality, such as fake location trackers. Stating that the app is “for entertainment purposes” won’t overcome this guideline. Apps that enable anonymous or prank phone calls or SMS/MMS messaging will be rejected.
1.1.7 Harmful concepts which capitalize or seek to profit on recent or current events, such as violent conflicts, terrorist attacks, and epidemics.
Epic has already be fined a considerable amount for for exposing young players to potential harm. Third Party app stores are going to have to follow laws in all local territories and that list above is likely to be part of how they also manage their risk. Independent developers with apps from their website that you can side load, not so much.
It's not the 30% fee that will drive most developers out of the Apple App store, it's the Apple App Store Review Guidelines. Let's look at the first 10 rules just as an example of the things that developers will now be freed from adhering to if they use someone else's app store. These are just the first few items in a document spanning roughly 1000 different requirements. A third party App Store will be motivated to remove as many of these restrictions as possible, or won't bother to enforce their own restrictions like Apple does. App developers will look upon third party app stores as a new golden age for app development where there are fewer rules.
1. Safety When people install an app from the App Store, they want to feel confident that it’s safe to do so—that the app doesn’t contain upsetting or offensive content, won’t damage their device, and isn’t likely to cause physical harm from its use. We’ve outlined the major pitfalls below, but if you’re looking to shock and offend people, the App Store isn’t the right place for your app.
1.1 Objectionable Content Apps should not include content that is offensive, insensitive, upsetting, intended to disgust, in exceptionally poor taste, or just plain creepy. Examples of such content include:
1.1.1 Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content, including references or commentary about religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, national/ethnic origin, or other targeted groups, particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted individual or group. Professional political satirists and humorists are generally exempt from this requirement.
1.1.2 Realistic portrayals of people or animals being killed, maimed, tortured, or abused, or content that encourages violence. “Enemies” within the context of a game cannot solely target a specific race, culture, real government, corporation, or any other real entity.
1.1.3 Depictions that encourage illegal or reckless use of weapons and dangerous objects, or facilitate the purchase of firearms or ammunition.
1.1.4 Overtly sexual or pornographic material, defined as “explicit descriptions or displays of sexual organs or activities intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.” This includes “hookup” apps and other apps that may include pornography or be used to facilitate prostitution, or human trafficking and exploitation.
1.1.5 Inflammatory religious commentary or inaccurate or misleading quotations of religious texts.
1.1.6 False information and features, including inaccurate device data or trick/joke functionality, such as fake location trackers. Stating that the app is “for entertainment purposes” won’t overcome this guideline. Apps that enable anonymous or prank phone calls or SMS/MMS messaging will be rejected.
1.1.7 Harmful concepts which capitalize or seek to profit on recent or current events, such as violent conflicts, terrorist attacks, and epidemics.
Developers can do whatever they want, but they CANNOT force majority of Apple's customers to download their Apps from 3rd party stores. Let us say Twitter take its app out of App store and host it exclusively in its own store. What do you think will happen in real world (not in Mars or any other alternate universe but in planet earth)? Clue for you (if you are really clueless) - You have an ongoing experience from a competing ecosystem to base your predictions on.
Can't wait for this to fail. I understand the pros and cons, but as a consumer, I'm not waiting for this. The examples Rouge lists should all be taken care of by Apple and don't require a separate store. The current developer situation is far from ideal, and stuck in the early 2010's.
It's not the 30% fee that will drive most developers out of the Apple App store, it's the Apple App Store Review Guidelines. Let's look at the first 10 rules just as an example of the things that developers will now be freed from adhering to if they use someone else's app store. These are just the first few items in a document spanning roughly 1000 different requirements. A third party App Store will be motivated to remove as many of these restrictions as possible, or won't bother to enforce their own restrictions like Apple does. App developers will look upon third party app stores as a new golden age for app development where there are fewer rules.
1. Safety When people install an app from the App Store, they want to feel confident that it’s safe to do so—that the app doesn’t contain upsetting or offensive content, won’t damage their device, and isn’t likely to cause physical harm from its use. We’ve outlined the major pitfalls below, but if you’re looking to shock and offend people, the App Store isn’t the right place for your app.
1.1 Objectionable Content Apps should not include content that is offensive, insensitive, upsetting, intended to disgust, in exceptionally poor taste, or just plain creepy. Examples of such content include:
1.1.1 Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content, including references or commentary about religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, national/ethnic origin, or other targeted groups, particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted individual or group. Professional political satirists and humorists are generally exempt from this requirement.
1.1.2 Realistic portrayals of people or animals being killed, maimed, tortured, or abused, or content that encourages violence. “Enemies” within the context of a game cannot solely target a specific race, culture, real government, corporation, or any other real entity.
1.1.3 Depictions that encourage illegal or reckless use of weapons and dangerous objects, or facilitate the purchase of firearms or ammunition.
1.1.4 Overtly sexual or pornographic material, defined as “explicit descriptions or displays of sexual organs or activities intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.” This includes “hookup” apps and other apps that may include pornography or be used to facilitate prostitution, or human trafficking and exploitation.
1.1.5 Inflammatory religious commentary or inaccurate or misleading quotations of religious texts.
1.1.6 False information and features, including inaccurate device data or trick/joke functionality, such as fake location trackers. Stating that the app is “for entertainment purposes” won’t overcome this guideline. Apps that enable anonymous or prank phone calls or SMS/MMS messaging will be rejected.
1.1.7 Harmful concepts which capitalize or seek to profit on recent or current events, such as violent conflicts, terrorist attacks, and epidemics.
Developers can do whatever they want, but they CANNOT force majority of Apple's customers to download their Apps from 3rd party stores. Let us say Twitter take its app out of App store and host it exclusively in its own store. What do you think will happen in real world (not in Mars or any other alternate universe but in planet earth)? Clue for you (if you are really clueless) - You have an ongoing experience from a competing ecosystem to base your predictions on.
Why are you trying to demean me? You've just proved my point: if Twitter removes its app from Apple's App store, and hosts it exclusively in its own App Store, then users WILL BE forced to get the Twitter App Store to get the Twitter App. Isn't that exactly what I was saying would happen? Yes, that's exactly what I was saying.
As for your comparison to an unstated competing ecosystem, I can't read your mind, despite being very smart, so you will either have to explain yourself or not win this argument. I do not have any "ongoing experience" with a competing ecosystem as you said I do. You are wrong, I do not have any experience with a competing ecosystem.
It's not the 30% fee that will drive most developers out of the Apple App store, it's the Apple App Store Review Guidelines. Let's look at the first 10 rules just as an example of the things that developers will now be freed from adhering to if they use someone else's app store. These are just the first few items in a document spanning roughly 1000 different requirements. A third party App Store will be motivated to remove as many of these restrictions as possible, or won't bother to enforce their own restrictions like Apple does. App developers will look upon third party app stores as a new golden age for app development where there are fewer rules.
1. Safety When people install an app from the App Store, they want to feel confident that it’s safe to do so—that the app doesn’t contain upsetting or offensive content, won’t damage their device, and isn’t likely to cause physical harm from its use. We’ve outlined the major pitfalls below, but if you’re looking to shock and offend people, the App Store isn’t the right place for your app.
1.1 Objectionable Content Apps should not include content that is offensive, insensitive, upsetting, intended to disgust, in exceptionally poor taste, or just plain creepy. Examples of such content include:
1.1.1 Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content, including references or commentary about religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, national/ethnic origin, or other targeted groups, particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted individual or group. Professional political satirists and humorists are generally exempt from this requirement.
1.1.2 Realistic portrayals of people or animals being killed, maimed, tortured, or abused, or content that encourages violence. “Enemies” within the context of a game cannot solely target a specific race, culture, real government, corporation, or any other real entity.
1.1.3 Depictions that encourage illegal or reckless use of weapons and dangerous objects, or facilitate the purchase of firearms or ammunition.
1.1.4 Overtly sexual or pornographic material, defined as “explicit descriptions or displays of sexual organs or activities intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.” This includes “hookup” apps and other apps that may include pornography or be used to facilitate prostitution, or human trafficking and exploitation.
1.1.5 Inflammatory religious commentary or inaccurate or misleading quotations of religious texts.
1.1.6 False information and features, including inaccurate device data or trick/joke functionality, such as fake location trackers. Stating that the app is “for entertainment purposes” won’t overcome this guideline. Apps that enable anonymous or prank phone calls or SMS/MMS messaging will be rejected.
1.1.7 Harmful concepts which capitalize or seek to profit on recent or current events, such as violent conflicts, terrorist attacks, and epidemics.
Developers can do whatever they want, but they CANNOT force majority of Apple's customers to download their Apps from 3rd party stores. Let us say Twitter take its app out of App store and host it exclusively in its own store. What do you think will happen in real world (not in Mars or any other alternate universe but in planet earth)? Clue for you (if you are really clueless) - You have an ongoing experience from a competing ecosystem to base your predictions on.
Why are you trying to demean me? You've just proved my point: if Twitter removes its app from Apple's App store, and hosts it exclusively in its own App Store, then users WILL BE forced to get the Twitter App Store to get the Twitter App. Isn't that exactly what I was saying would happen? Yes, that's exactly what I was saying.
As for your comparison to an unstated competing ecosystem, I can't read your mind, despite being very smart, so you will either have to explain yourself or not win this argument. I do not have any "ongoing experience" with a competing ecosystem as you said I do. You are wrong, I do not have any experience with a competing ecosystem.
You are completely incorrect on the bolded part. Majority of iPhone users will NOT bother to download from twitter store. With the iOS user base dwindling, it will be Twitter who will be FORCED to put their app back in App Store IF they do not want to lose iPhone customers. If Twitter is fine with a miniscule of iOS users using their app (and decide to permanently keep it out of App store), it is fair game to them. On the other hand, IF majority of the iOS users believe that it is a good idea to download it from Twitter store, it is fair game too. It will be the iPhone users (free market) that will decide the success/failure of that app store, NOT the developers.
Despite Google's Android allowing 3rd party app stores, Epic did NOT remove their app from Google play store on their own until they were booted from the Google play store for the exact same violations that Apple booted the Epic apps from App store. Did you ever think why Epic did NOT remove their app from Google play store earlier, despite Android allowing side-loading AND 3rd party app stores?
I have no current desire to obtain apps outside of Apple’s App Store, but I’m not overly concerned, much less panicked, about having third party app stores in the mix. This should not be fundamentally different than the current situation on macOS.
As others have noted, this falls back on the notion of trust, which means that the only apps I’d consider installing outside of the App Store would have to be apps that are from vendors who I trust at the same or a higher level of trust as I trust Apple. That’s a very high bar to achieve, as it is today on macOS.
I do think a lot of people have always been somewhat delusional when it comes to understanding the role that middlemen play in commerce. Middlemen provide a service that contributes to customer value. If you cut out the middleman somebody’s got to step in and do the service that the middleman was previously doing. Sure, the end customer may see a price reduction but suddenly they’re left wandering around in a warehouse and strapping their new La-z-boy sofa to the roof of their Kia to get it home.
Apple’s App Store provides several valuable services for end customers, like functional, security, and privacy testing, distribution, placement in the store, searchable linking, payment processing, etc. If you cut out the App Store middleman who’s going to perform those services? If it’s anything like macOS the answer to some of those services is YOU. You are going to assume responsibility for vetting sellers, discovering whether the app is functional, secure, respects your privacy, whether the vendor accepts payments using you preferred method, processes refunds, allows family sharing, etc.
None of these additional burdens pushed on to customers are insurmountable, which is obvious from taking on equivalent responsibilities on macOS. I have no problem installing apps on my Mac from vendors I trust at the same level as I trust Apple, for example Microsoft, Google, the makers of the Affinity products, the maker of 1Password, the maker of Carbon Copy Cloner, etc. However, it took me years to establish this level of trust, whereas apps in Apple’s App Store come with a certain level of trust by virtue of having been allowed in the App Store.
So yeah, I’m comfortable with the “use at your own risk” model for myself. But I think a lot of less experienced users may end up with a world of hurt that they will regret and they’ll blame Apple, not the idiots that forced their naive ideology on Apple’s unsuspecting customers.
Yes I can see it as a way for productivity apps to deliver plugins and niche content to a community that trusts them already but outside of that who’d have enough brand value to make it worth the effort?
I have no current desire to obtain apps outside of Apple’s App Store, but I’m not overly concerned, much less panicked, about having third party app stores in the mix. This should not be fundamentally different than the current situation on macOS.
As others have noted, this falls back on the notion of trust, which means that the only apps I’d consider installing outside of the App Store would have to be apps that are from vendors who I trust at the same or a higher level of trust as I trust Apple. That’s a very high bar to achieve, as it is today on macOS.
I do think a lot of people have always been somewhat delusional when it comes to understanding the role that middlemen play in commerce. Middlemen provide a service that contributes to customer value. If you cut out the middleman somebody’s got to step in and do the service that the middleman was previously doing. Sure, the end customer may see a price reduction but suddenly they’re left wandering around in a warehouse and strapping their new La-z-boy sofa to the roof of their Kia to get it home.
Apple’s App Store provides several valuable services for end customers, like functional, security, and privacy testing, distribution, placement in the store, searchable linking, payment processing, etc. If you cut out the App Store middleman who’s going to perform those services? If it’s anything like macOS the answer to some of those services is YOU. You are going to assume responsibility for vetting sellers, discovering whether the app is functional, secure, respects your privacy, whether the vendor accepts payments using you preferred method, processes refunds, allows family sharing, etc.
None of these additional burdens pushed on to customers are insurmountable, which is obvious from taking on equivalent responsibilities on macOS. I have no problem installing apps on my Mac from vendors I trust at the same level as I trust Apple, for example Microsoft, Google, the makers of the Affinity products, the maker of 1Password, the maker of Carbon Copy Cloner, etc. However, it took me years to establish this level of trust, whereas apps in Apple’s App Store come with a certain level of trust by virtue of having been allowed in the App Store.
So yeah, I’m comfortable with the “use at your own risk” model for myself. But I think a lot of less experienced users may end up with a world of hurt that they will regret and they’ll blame Apple, not the idiots that forced their naive ideology on Apple’s unsuspecting customers.
Yes I can see it as a way for productivity apps to deliver plugins and niche content to a community that trusts them already but outside of that who’d have enough brand value to make it worth the effort?
Yes, that is a valid point but apart from the obvious cases of stores for apps that Apple doesn't allow, both Google and Huawei have brand value and app store infrastructure to step up to the plate, but surely the effort would only be worthwhile if they could run GMS and HMS natively on iOS devices. Would that fall under the umbrella of 'apps'? For example, if Google were allowed to put GMS on iOS devices using its own GMS frameworks, would they be able to disconnect Chrome from WebKit? Would Huawei be allowed to put its AI Life libraries onto iOS devices for the thousands of HarmonyOS IoT devices on the market, instead of having to run everything through the limited AI Life app currently available through the App Store?
Would something like WeChat become more 'independent'? I'm imagining there are things that WeChat would like to do but currently can not due to App Store policy.
Maybe it’s just me but I’m not looking to have my info spread across so many different entities. I find it more convenient the way the AppStore is setup now. If my children want an app, I get a message request and I approve or deny accordingly.
You can also easily get refunds from Apple that isn’t happening in the future
I don’t really care either way buy it amazes me that Apple and Google are able to get so many developers to work on their terms.
Then you are very young or you were asleep at the time that Steve Jobs announced web apps on the Apple iPhone, but then the developers cried we want apps on the iPhone, so Apple had to go back to the drawing board (took over a year) and create a whole new ecosystem (AppStore) for that to happen.
Now a few years down the road a few of the bigger app companies are greedy and they think they can make more money if they kick Apple to the side. Note they started to lobby government to give them what they want. Free market really is only a fantasy.
I wonder if there might be a silver lining for apple and users…. If there exist other app stores, that might actually give apple room to more aggressively curate their App Store. They could make their App Store a more exclusive, premium experience, leaving sketchier stuff for the Epics of the world. Take the physical Apple Store as an example — there are a ton of accessories for apple devices that are not sold in apples physical stores. Only the stuff that apple thinks is highest quality or utility to their customers gets sold in their store. I think it would be great if the App Store went down a similar path.
That may be true because in the end, it’s really a fight among the 1%, the smaller developers and the public in the end will probably get hurt, as the market will divides, into something that is similar to what has happened in the video streaming world.
There will be many companies trying to get you to subscribe to their service but there are only so many that most people will subscribe to, so it goes back to the one percent the big companies being dominant, while the smaller companies will be left out in the cold along with the public both of whom are not spearheading this money grab.
I can't wait for Microsoft to release the true Game Pass app they wanted to previously (when they were blocked by Apple). I'd also like to buy Kindle books via the Kindle app. For everything else, I'll continue to buy through the regular App Store.
So when will the crying start when Epic or any developer makes you download their apps from their own store and no where else.
I boycott them. I do however have an old pc which I use to get any “free” game that Epic gives away. I don’t play them, just make it an extra unit for Epic to account for.
I don’t really care either way buy it amazes me that Apple and Google are able to get so many developers to work on their terms.
Then you are very young or you were asleep at the time that Steve Jobs announced web apps on the Apple iPhone, but then the developers cried we want apps on the iPhone, so Apple had to go back to the drawing board (took over a year) and create a whole new ecosystem (AppStore) for that to happen.
Now a few years down the road a few of the bigger app companies are greedy and they think they can make more money if they kick Apple to the side. Note they started to lobby government to give them what they want. Free market really is only a fantasy.
I don't think Apple went back to the drawing board. It was pretty clear from the first jailbreak native apps were in the plan and not just pulled out the hat in 12months due to customer "demands". If they could pull that together in 12months there just aren't an excuses for the state of some software they make.
Yes SJ pitched WebApps that way as it was all he had, I mean he was very good at the deflection it was like in his mind if it wasn't ready to ship then it might as well not exist, and frankly Apple have continuously improved web apps that they could be today more than ever a viable alternative store that was cross platform if someone choose to push that market.
Many of the free or business direst app you use could be web apps and provide the same function without the need to jump thru Apples hoops but the the brand AppStore has enough to offer that very few companies feel.
Seems the only voices demanding an alternative loudly are borderline scammers.
I don’t really care either way buy it amazes me that Apple and Google are able to get so many developers to work on their terms.
Then you are very young or you were asleep at the time that Steve Jobs announced web apps on the Apple iPhone, but then the developers cried we want apps on the iPhone, so Apple had to go back to the drawing board (took over a year) and create a whole new ecosystem (AppStore) for that to happen.
Now a few years down the road a few of the bigger app companies are greedy and they think they can make more money if they kick Apple to the side. Note they started to lobby government to give them what they want. Free market really is only a fantasy.
I don't think Apple went back to the drawing board. It was pretty clear from the first jailbreak native apps were in the plan and not just pulled out the hat in 12months due to customer "demands". If they could pull that together in 12months there just aren't an excuses for the state of some software they make.
Yes SJ pitched WebApps that way as it was all he had, I mean he was very good at the deflection it was like in his mind if it wasn't ready to ship then it might as well not exist, and frankly Apple have continuously improved web apps that they could be today more than ever a viable alternative store that was cross platform if someone choose to push that market.
Many of the free or business direst app you use could be web apps and provide the same function without the need to jump thru Apples hoops but the the brand AppStore has enough to offer that very few companies feel.
Seems the only voices demanding an alternative loudly are borderline scammers.
Apple didn't do a 180. They simply didn't over promise something that wasn't yet ready. The iPhone was launched in July 2007 and the App Store was announced in October 2007 during their iPod event (right before their Christmas sales started), it was then demoed in early 2008 with an SDK available, and opened in July 2008 with the iPhone 3G and iOS 2.0 being launched. Saying Apple has no plans or interest for apps on the iPhone because it didn't launch with it is like saying that Apple never intended to make the 2nd iPhone 3G-capable.
Comments
"Some men just want to watch the world burn."
None of these additional burdens pushed on to customers are insurmountable, which is obvious from taking on equivalent responsibilities on macOS. I have no problem installing apps on my Mac from vendors I trust at the same level as I trust Apple, for example Microsoft, Google, the makers of the Affinity products, the maker of 1Password, the maker of Carbon Copy Cloner, etc. However, it took me years to establish this level of trust, whereas apps in Apple’s App Store come with a certain level of trust by virtue of having been allowed in the App Store.
So yeah, I’m comfortable with the “use at your own risk” model for myself. But I think a lot of less experienced users may end up with a world of hurt that they will regret and they’ll blame Apple, not the idiots that forced their naive ideology on Apple’s unsuspecting customers.
As for your comparison to an unstated competing ecosystem, I can't read your mind, despite being very smart, so you will either have to explain yourself or not win this argument. I do not have any "ongoing experience" with a competing ecosystem as you said I do. You are wrong, I do not have any experience with a competing ecosystem.
Despite Google's Android allowing 3rd party app stores, Epic did NOT remove their app from Google play store on their own until they were booted from the Google play store for the exact same violations that Apple booted the Epic apps from App store. Did you ever think why Epic did NOT remove their app from Google play store earlier, despite Android allowing side-loading AND 3rd party app stores?
Would something like WeChat become more 'independent'? I'm imagining there are things that WeChat would like to do but currently can not due to App Store policy.
It's clear the devil will be in the details.
Now a few years down the road a few of the bigger app companies are greedy and they think they can make more money if they kick Apple to the side. Note they started to lobby government to give them what they want. Free market really is only a fantasy.
Yes SJ pitched WebApps that way as it was all he had, I mean he was very good at the deflection it was like in his mind if it wasn't ready to ship then it might as well not exist, and frankly Apple have continuously improved web apps that they could be today more than ever a viable alternative store that was cross platform if someone choose to push that market.
Many of the free or business direst app you use could be web apps and provide the same function without the need to jump thru Apples hoops but the the brand AppStore has enough to offer that very few companies feel.
Seems the only voices demanding an alternative loudly are borderline scammers.