InspiredCode

The changes to HomeKit were a huge improvement for me–no more Siri confusion about the state of the home, but some of my devices took about 30 minutes after the home app launched to "update accessories" with no warning from the app that it might take that long. A lot of people probably thought the app locked up.

The App Store works great for 90% of developers and users. I don't think you would see a mass exodus. Multi-platform support for non-Apple platforms is probably the most compelling reason for third party stores. For most of the apps that leave, we were probably already going to their website to buy a subscription, audio book, etc.... so no change in revenue for Apple. I doubt we will see much in alternative app stores. They need to be really entrenched or people will worry they will lose their purchases when it goes under and compelling enough to get people to go out of their way. Instead we will probably see a handful of apps that have always struggled with App Store rules move to side-load or provide a side-load option as long as it is easy for them install and update from a website. Similarly, I don't really see casual gamers leaving the App Store where a lot of Apple's App Store revenue comes from unless Nintendo enters the game. Even if the heavyweight, Steam, enters the space they likely only pull over hardcore gamers.

danox said:

The smaller developers will then get the shaft under the new system.

I don't think so. Being an advocate for small developers is in Apple's DNA. The App Store was amazing for small developers when it first launched and Apple's developer programs are much more slanted toward the needs of small developers.

arthurba said:

AFAICT this does NOT require Apple to give up control or fees.   An "App Store" will be a new class of app that can be distributed by Apple. And you can bet (just like the 3rd party payments) that Apple will charge fees.  Ie: if you want to have an App Store then 30% of your revenues will go to Apple. 

I've long said this is a no-brainier for Apple. There absolutely should be choices in App Store because the Apple one is full of rubbish. There is a market for a real decent curated App Store where consumers (eg: parents of young children) can get a curated selection of Apps and better support.  I would happily pay more for this. And I would expect the App Store fees for these other app stores to be significantly higher - 70% to 150%. The same as retail. You go to a physical store that sells software (effectively curated) then that shop will be charging at least 200% of the wholesale price. 

I'm not sure that the alternative "App Store" app would need to be distributed by Apple. In fact I think Apple would want to avoid that. Most likely you would just pull a notarized app off a website like it works on macOS. It is possible Apple will add a stronger verification option then macOS has (which might be a paid service), since macOS essentially just checks that the app came from a verified developer, wasn't modified by a middle man, and that the developers verification wasn't revoked. Apple's paid verification could certify an app doesn't hurt your privacy, send unencrypted communications, etc. Sort of the app equivalent of certifying food is organic.

I somewhat agree on your second point, but I don't think that it will enable that in third-party stores. I think it will allow those things in Apple's first-party store. I think this could allow Apple to make the store a more curated experience since people have other places to go. Right now I think Apple feels they need to accept virtually everything because there is no alternative. Retail software pricing is dead, so no stores could charge that much. Alternative stores all charge about the same as Apple for non-subscription content, so for most apps and games there wouldn't be a compelling reason to switch. I hope that the App Store remains very welcoming and supportive to small developers, but that doesn't mean Apple needs to accept everything equally going forward. I think third party stores will be rare since they can't make it unless they have a very entrenched user base. It is really hard to make them work. Particularly if the store needs an editorial staff to curate content. Most paid app side-loading will probably be for single cross-platform apps that uses a subscription that you buy on a website. 

Despite Apple's fears, I think it is more then likely Apple will actually see a services revenue increase and market share increase from this. It would help make the App Store more focused and discoverable. It will create a sense of goodwill that may cause more people to evangelize the platform. It will eliminate one of the reasons some Android users, including coveted developers and power users, stay away from Apple products. Companies that are currently at odds with Apple would be more likely to partner with them. Apple still controls the whole stack and for years have been carefully sandboxing parts of the operating system, so they should be able to do this without hurting the positive sides of the walled garden too much.

I haven't read all of the proposed legislation, but it feels like in some areas Apple may be going beyond if all the rumors are accurate. Particularly if they open this to the US too. I personally think Apple should have embraced this to control the narrative a few years ago, but if they push beyond a bit past what they are required to do they may still be able to do that. It may also help Apple lead the conversation when legislation inevitably comes to the US. At first I thought they might do the minimum and continue to fight this in court, but I'm inclined to think they decided to embrace it instead with the amount of engineering effort suggested.

I've been thinking a lot on this and I believe we will not see much negative fallout if this were to happen. The App Store will still dominate. There may be more options, but they would just cater to small niches where there is enough profitability to stay alive, but would never take over the App Store. Most of those niches probably wouldn't cut in to App Store revenue since they would be primarily new markets or be an alternative for apps that were already monetized outside of the App Store. I don't see the iOS App Store becoming like the Mac App Store with most distribution happening outside of it. If it does lose apps, I think it will be mostly subscription based apps that already don't use IAP for the subscription.

Third party stores generally don't succeed, so probably not a lot to worry with store fragmentation or security because the app you want isn't on the store. Many tried and failed to build an alternative to Google Play. Even for games, Steam leads because it is entrenched and gamers know it will always be there. It is really hard to build loyalty if not entrenched or the platform owner. Particularly because you will need to go to the platform's store to get first-party apps, so you are faced with either just using the platform store or having to use multiple stores. There may be some niches where it is nice to have side-loading as long as it can be turned off or restricted. Allowing side loading might also help Apple reduce the number of garbage apps on the store since there would be an alternative. I like the App Stores democratization of the app market where both small and large developers can succeed, but I think it is taken a little too far and set the bar to entry too low.