cloudguy

mark fearing said:

Can you imagine what a mess will be created if this kind of argument gains the favor of the courts? What business has any control to curate anything? Why do some stores only take Visa? Why can't Walmart except my payment system? Why should Target mark-up my goods they buy wholesale? They best be carful because it seems all this is a house of cards if they truly attack a business setting up and painting rules for purchase. I'd guess this will cause havoc for many companies. They don't have to offer their service on iPhones, right? Is Apple forcing them to offer it? ugh. 

Another person who for some reason is ignoring the actual issues at stake here.

sflocal said:

I’m embarrassed to be associated with these entitled crybabies.  If you don’t like the way Apple runs its exclusive platform, leave.

That is, er, not the law. The law requires that marketplaces have clear rules that are evenly enforced as opposed to vague rules that are arbitrarily enforced, and particularly rules that are vague for the express purpose of favoring some entities - such as yourself - over others during enforcement. So while your sentiments are legitimate, they are in fact very illegal.

lightvox88 said:

I'm not claiming to speak for the millions of iOS device owners, but I personally buy Apple devices for the sand-boxed and curated App Store. I don't want any alternate app stores.

If you want alternate, and willy nilly then go buy an Android device, and sell your wares on those platforms. Leave our walled infrastructure alone. If you don't like it, then leave...

I understand ... but that is not what this article is about at all. This has nothing to do with Epic Games wanting alternate app stores or others wanting the ability to side load. Proton has no problem with being required to be in the App Store. Their problem is Apple's governance of said store. So what you are doing here is responding to someone who says:

"Pork is bad" 

with

"I like chocolate"

Your liking chocolate - while fascinating on its own merits - has nothing to do with the health effects of eating pork or the ethics of raising animals for the purpose of slaughtering them. Likewise your desire for a single method to install apps on iOS has nothing to do with the way that Apple chooses to manage that method. ProtonMail isn't saying that he wants an alternative app store for the purpose of not having to offer IAPs. He is saying that he didn't want to be forced to offer IAPs on the App Store that he is already in.

Two main issues.

1. Cost. I know the arguments against that, but most companies refresh their PCs every 3 years. The Dell, HP and Lenovo laptops that enterprises prefer are well-built quality machines that have no problem lasting that long.
2. Software. While all the "major" software runs on macOS, a lot of specialty and especially business software doesn't. The benefits of using a Mac are irrelevant if it doesn't run the software that you need to do your job. This is something that is only going to get worse when Mac switches to ARM. 

The downsides of running Windows are basically mitigated. IT people are going to be MSCE types so they are well versed with dealing with the problems. Also, Microsoft provides great support. Further, it is faster to just restore the last good scheduled backup, wipe and reimage or just give them a new PC than actually try to "fix" the problem. In fact, while Windows has more problems, IT people are actually more knowledgeable on how to fix them than they would a macOS problem. Given the choice between having to deal with 10 problems a day that you know how to fix - or can easily find the fix in some forum or subreddit because 1000 other Windows admins have had the same - versus 1 problem a day that you don't, most would choose the latter. If you think otherwise, you haven't worked in support or don't know someone who has.

Also, I don't know where the idea that these decisions are driven by IT people come from anyway. That is just sour grapes stuff. Those decisions are actually made by purchasing and acquisitions. The purchasing departments accept input from the IT people, of course, but at the end of the day they are still on the financial side as opposed to the technical. And I repeat: the policy is to refresh your devices once every 3 years regardless of their manufacturer. So you can replace 10,000 Macs every 3 years for $2000 a pop or do the same with Dell/HP/Lenovo for half that. Even if you have a house filled with Macs, iPhones, iPads, Apple TVs and Apple Watches, you are going to go for the latter. It is easier to justify to your boss, plus you are going to have sellers from the PC makers giving you the full court press constantly. 

Finally, Microsoft heavily emphasizes the enterprise side of their business. It is their bread and butter. Ditto with the major enterprise PC manufacturers. So when you buy a Dell PC, you get the benefits of Dell AND Microsoft enterprise support. Apple meanwhile ... does Apple promote and emphasize enterprise the way that Microsoft and the PC makers do? Even if they did in times past back when Mac sales were necessary for their survival, surely you must know that Apple is primarily an iPhone (and iPad, AirPod, Apple Watch and services) company now. To put it another way, while enterprises certainly can and do use Apple products, Apple is primarily a consumer products and services company now. Microsoft now likely makes most of their money on products consumers and users never see like databases, servers and especially cloud. Apple by contrast makes very little of their money on that comparatively, and it could be said that nearly all their enterprise revenue comes from the same products and consumers can also buy.

So it is much more complicated than the "lazy IT people" and conspiracies that get bandied about. There are legit business reasons why Windows PCs dominate the enterprise, not least that Windows PCs are only one of an extensive list of enterprise products that Microsoft offers. Even the hardware companies: Dell, Lenovo and HP all make servers and other enterprise hardware. Apple doesn't. With Microsoft and the big 3 PC makers, you could take away all their sales to consumers and they would still be very viable businesses by relying solely on their sales to enterprises. Apple? Not so much.

sflocal said:

Thankfully iOS users represent only a small piece of the very large smartphone pie right?  Just like the trolls and iHaters constantly preach, the iPhone is a small player in the smartphone market.

Wouldn't have anything to do with iOS users actually more willing to spend more money than the entire 10-fold-larger Android market right?

Update:  Why did AI change everything about the original article?  This was about Facebook criticizing the privacy measures of iOS14.  Now it's an entirely different subject?  It's deceptive.

Sigh.

The "trolls and iHaters" - or more accurately people who are not as loyal and devoted to Apple as you are - do not claim that the iPhone is a small player in the smartphone market.

Also - for the who knows how many time - Android generates more revenue than does iOS. What you see commonly reported is that the App Store generates more revenue than does Google Play. The revenue from all Android app stores - most specifically Amazon (which earns 3 times more per device than does Google Play devices), the China app stores and Google Play - does in fact exceed that of the iOS store and has for years.

Finally, the issue is that due to its size, influence and revenue - something that "trolls and Android haters" love to mention in every other context - people argue that iOS constitutes its own market or industry. You have automobiles, movies and TV, textiles, restaurants ... and iOS apps. So if taken as a commercial sector all its own, then the App Store monopolizes it. 

It is a new legal theory, a new definition of "trust", "monopoly" etc. that has been adapted to the current landscape that is defined by 3 things that weren't the case when our monopoly laws were written:

1. Globalism
2. Assets being intangible - i.e. data and code - as opposed to tangible (real estate, gold, oil, transmission lines, rail lines, factories, farmland)
3. Companies adapting to anti-monopoly laws by focusing on vertical/horizontal integration (getting a decent market share in any number of industries) as opposed to dominating a single sector or related industries (i.e. Standard Oil owning oil wells, refineries and gas stations). The thinking is that Apple (and Google, Facebook, Amazon ... strange that Microsoft is absent) having a critical mass in so many industries makes avoiding doing business with them practically impossible and gives them even more influence than a company with, say, 80% of the tobacco market would have.

 Whether this new theory gets traction in the United States - and more to the point in Europe which would consider it if only to find yet another way to express their disdain for us Yanks - remains to be seen.