If it was possible to side-load apps, then those advantages go out the window. To see what I'm talking about, look at apps that are skirting the apple app store.

Onavo is a good example. They:

- paid teens

- to install the Facebook Enterprise Certificate

- to side-load the Onavo VPN

- to spy on their internet traffic

- to find out about new apps or websites that might be a threat to facebook (among other things)

I'm not forced to use FDroid just because I have an Android phone. People aren't arguing that the app store should go away, just that consumers should have a choice.

As an analogy, if I want OEM care for my car, I can get that. It's more expensive, but it offers me strict guarantees about where parts are coming from, and I don't need to worry so much that I'll get substandard care.

The existence of a third-party marketplace doesn't change anything about that situation other than forcing the OEMs to compete more and push their advantages and commitment to quality.

- The software is free and the developer doesn't want to pay $99/year to Apple

- The software is paid but the developer either doesn't want to give 30% to Apple, or they want to use a pricing model incompatible with the App Store (discounted upgrade pricing, rolling subscriptions etc.)

- The software does something that violates the guidelines, or in general is incompatible with sandboxing (or would be a worse product because of it)

Because so many applications are not, or in many cases _cannot_ be made available via the Mac App Store, users of said apps are in a sense "forced" to install outside the App Store. I believe that if sideloading was feasible for iOS, many developers (and certainly the big players) would pull out of the App Store completely.

I want to make it very clear though: I don't consider this an argument against sideloading apps at all. I consider it evidence that the App Store (on both iOS and macOS) is woefully inadequate at covering the full range of software developers want to build, and that in turn hurts customers.

I would love to use my iPad for more work related stuff, but I'm a software developer, so most of my day-to-day work involves software that just cannot run on iOS. If sideloading was available I could actually use it like the "Pro" device it claims to be, rather than just a very nice content consumption device.

I think as long as sideloading is made inconvenient enough, most consumers won't use it and therefore most developers won't provide it. But it should still be an option for the sake of consumers that want things that the walled garden can't support.

I completely agree with you though, there should always be an escape hatch.

Why do you believe that, when it hasn't happened with the only other comparable platform after years and years of supporting this model?

Windows and Mac are not comparable, as people are not as used to their respective stores, and lots of pre-existing software actually has to go out of its way to integrate with the store, instead of the other way around.

Were sideloading permitted I could see, for example, an Epic App Store, with their 12% cut and lessened restriction on external payment processing, being a popular place for apps to move to.

People will install insecure app stores to get a hot app. Facebook would likely launch a store with none of Apple’s spyware restrictions. Cisco and IBM and Microsoft would too, and with that come e.g. employer mandates for certain apps and thus certain stores.

Apple regulates its App Store. Remove its distribution control and that regulatory power diminish. That diminish meant is fine when Apple extends its App Store dominance to win at music streaming and payments. But it’s a poor argument against the App Store per se.

Why haven't they done this on Android already? Why aren't my employers currently mandating that I install 3rd-party stores on Android phones?

Most Android users I know have never installed an Android app outside of the official Play store. Why haven't companies taken advantage of them yet?

You have the chicken and egg problem there. There are no apps so no users and no one is going to add apps because you don't have users.

Big companies could make their own apps to promote their own shop but let's be honest they would have to put a lot of money to get something good that everyone would use, not just generic crap.

I suppose this would mean that Facebook app itself would have to be sideloaded, which would probably result in a hit they wouldn't want to take. For a while Amazon had two versions of their app on Android, one in Play store and a second one you could sideload that had their app store integrated. Based on the fact that AFAIK they now only have standalone app store for sideloading, I assume it wasn't a popular option

The current situation seems more anti-business than anti-consumer (it is both). Pro-consumer would be requiring any purchase be decoupled from that distribution platform.

You know what would be a better solution for that? The same one that happens with some applications now on Android: publishing an app in multiple stores. Many apps are simultaneously published in Play Store and other stores.

For example, you could have a game published on the publisher's store. If you buy it there, the price is X. Simultaneously, you could have the same app published on Apple store for $X + 30%.

Then, you let the market decide. Increasing competition is better for consumers.

If you prefer the convenience of buying from just one store, it's OK, you can buy everything from the Apple store, and pay the premium for that. But that would also let the door open for people who want to choose where else to buy their stuff.

It's like saying: how is it better to have multiple supermarkets to buy the stuff i want, if they offer the same product at different prices? Well... it's an option, nobody forces you to do it. You can always go to the same place, and know that there's going to be times when you pay more, and times when you pay less.

But you also have the chance to check on other store's offers and buy there if you want.

> How is having to navigate N stores

You don't "have to". In the end, more offer = better for consumers. It's up to each individual person to decide if they want to find better prices or just go to their default place.

Companies dont't open their own stores, and sell the games there cheaper than at a competitors store. They only sell it there.

Yes they do? Steam, GoG, and Itch don't coordinate their sales with each other. They offer different games at different prices at different times. Even Epic's weekly free game is designed to make people check in on the Epic store regularly instead of just buying those same games immediately on Steam.

There are a ton of PC games that are available in multiple stores, and comparison shopping will often give you different prices.

It doesn't just sound lovely, it's the reality of the PC market right now and you can either take advantage of it if you're willing to comparison shop, or ignore it and buy all of your games on Steam if comparison shopping is too much work for you. It's really not theoretical, it's how the PC market works right now.

Yes, there are some exclusives, but even that is fine, because a lot of the games that are exclusive to stores like GoG, Itch, and even Epic, flat out wouldn't have been made in the first place unless storefronts were competing with each other.

This is something that devs try to get across to gamers occasionally with Epic -- having someone step in and fully fund your game with the only restriction being that it's temporarily exclusive to a store is an unbelievably good deal, and it frees devs up to make more creative, interesting, risky games and passion projects that push boundaries and appeal to more niche audiences.

Not only are a huge portion of PC games not exclusive to specific stores, even where exclusives are concerned competition between different storefronts -- each trying to build the more attractive offering of games -- is still better than having one store owned by one company that only funds a small subset of games. PC gaming is better today than it was when only giant companies like Walmart could distribute games.

My frame of reference was streaming services, where more platforms meant fever content on each, and having to pay more to watch everything you wanted. But if it is indeed this was with games, maybe multiple appstores could be the way to go.

Also, consoles have exclusives too. I choose PC over console anyday.

I really like the idea of a purchase being decoupled from the distribution. GOG(completely) and HumbleBundle (limited extent) seems to be the only option at the moment.

Playnite is another software offering something similar, and is also quite good.

GoG Galaxy was a bad idea that undermined GoG almost immediately.

They still market themselves as "GOG.COM, the DRM-free home for a curated selection of games". But there are two forms of DRM they allow.

#1, you can't use multiplayer without providing a registration code.

#2, you can't play the game unless you're running Galaxy in the background.

I have a hard time believing they honestly think "well, DRM is a bad thing in general, but not when we're doing it".

On Windows, publishers can choose to which store they would publish, and you can choose from where you want to buy it.

On iOS you are completely at the mercy of Apple; not only won't they allow specific apps or content on the store, they seem to make exceptions for some apps/publishers. There is no way to install and use something that Apple doesn't like.

Android is quite different, since it allows to load a different store, like the Amazon one, or FDroid for open source projects (you are still more or less tied to having Google Play Services on the device, since majority of Android apps use it, but the situation is a LOT better than on iOS.)

A lot of people credit Steam (I think justifiably) with kickstarting a huge portion of the modern indie gaming scene -- precisely because they got rid of the crazy rules, agreements, and contracts of the retail boxes, which acted as a massive barrier to entry for game developers. If Steam had never been built, I don't think modern games would be even half as diverse or creative as they are.

Then we move on to storefronts like Humble and GoG, which I think have been hugely influential in pushing DRM-free games as the norm for indies. There are a lot of games that flat-out would not have DRM-free releases if GoG didn't exist. Heck, there are a lot of games that would not run on modern Windows if GoG didn't exist.

Then we move on to Epic's store, which I know gamers hate, but trust me when I say a lot of indie developers are thrilled right now to see someone forcing Steam to lower their splits. Epic has done some serious good for the indie scene. I don't like that they're encouraging exclusives, I think that's bad for gamers. But I'm not going to pretend that as a developer I'm not happy to see someone breaking Steam's stranglehold on the mainstream PC marketplace.

So yeah, there are a lot of PC stores. This has been a massive boon to the industry, there are a lot of excellent games that (I think) would not exist today if not for the diversity of marketplaces. And a lot of these marketplaces fill different niches. GoG focuses on older games, Steam offers mainstream AA titles, Uplay/Origin offer corporate AAA titles, Itch has all the really weird, creative "true-indy" stuff.

No single PC store is expansive enough to cover all of the niches of the entire market.

Even on the console side of things, the diversity of games on the PC has pushed console manufacturers to offer much wider selections of games. Are you happy that basically every indie developer and their dog is releasing their game for the Switch? A big part of that is Nintendo opening up the development process, and they did that because after the Wii U they realized that they needed to pull indie devs away from the PC to stay competitive.

And on PC, what's actually the problem with this? You can basically ignore all of the other platforms and just download your games from Steam. You can opt out of all of the complexity that you dislike.

Sure, you'll miss out on a few exclusives if you do. But you would have missed out on many of those exclusives with a unified storefront anyway, because a lot of those games just wouldn't have been created if there weren't stores that were a good fit for them to sell on. You'll miss out on just as many games if you decide to stick with curated console storefronts.

Steam and its alternatives brought conveniences to the developers by providing easy advertisement, a streamlined way of delivering patches, an actual digital store to perform transactions, and also more recently started to serve as a major platform for the communities of many games.

I am not a game developer, but I guess that nothing that these stores provide is essential to publish a game and keep it alive, and any developer might simply put a site online, sell the game there, and allow me to pay directly to them. This is probably a niche opinion right now, but given any transaction involving digital goods such as e-books, music, software, games, etc. I am delighted whenever I see the content creator do this.

You may argue that this would limit the discoverability of games by a huge factor compared to them simply being advertised on the front page of some online store, and I agree, but I think if Steam had not grown to be as massive as it is today, that job would simply be delegated to the gaming magazines, forums, and many other independent platforms where the creators would more freely have a chance to promote their content.

Well, discoverability is a big problem. Yes, in theory we could do discoverability a different way, but in practice we haven't built that kind of infrastructure (yet).

There are other problems regarding payment processors and transactions/refunds, tracking where users came from for tax purposes... there's just a lot of infrastructure.

Now, that's not to say we couldn't ever get rid of centralized stores. It would just be a lot of work to build a lot of open infrastructure, get some better payment processors that are easier to sign up for, build the kind of systems and lists you're talking about around discoverability.

I don't think it's impossible to imagine a world with fewer centralized stores and more self-hosted games, and I don't think it's unreasonable to say that world might be nice to live in. I just think that world is far away and that getting there would be a lot of work.

Currently, I can set up an Itch account from scratch and be selling a real game to real people for real money in, like, an hour? Maybe 2? And it'll handle stuff like archiving all of my old versions, and I won't need to set up accounts for my users, and there's a nice integrated blogging platform, and people can comment, and currency conversion is just not an issue. Plus as a user, I don't need to provide my name/address to each developer either, only Itch needs to know where/who I am. So that neatly bypasses the privacy problem of payment systems like Paypal.

Again, none of that is impossible for us to provide in a decentralized way. But the decentralized tools aren't comparable right now; if you want to sell directly it's going to be a lot more work.

Maybe that will change in the future.

But even distribution is still an issue. Even indi games today are multiple GB in size. And on the first few days of release (or sales or bundles etc.) you have huge download spikes spikes.

Sure you can put it on aws, but better make sure to read you CDN fineprint so you don't end up with astronomical aws bill. In addition steam out of the box support partial updates,which again you can implement on your own, but that too takes time.

Payment. You can google around for problems indies who tried to roll their own store had. Today you have more options some of them explicitly catering to indies but its still an issue. Aditionaly steam supports charging in foreighen currencies, you can lower price in poorer countries etc.

Additionally steam offers their SDK that includes matchmaking and netwrking and host of other feautures, that are used by a lot of games.

Then there is in game chat, friendliest integration, cheat prevention, cloud saves and steam workshop integration, forums (which suck but are still there and have some auto moderation for spam) ...

Sure you could do all of that on your own, but some of it requires quite a bit of effort.

They put eyeballs in front of games = sales They handle logistics and payment = do game devs want to be a gaming company or a logistics / customer service company? They provide quality vetting, curation and discovery for customers with a reasonable degree of impartiality.

None of these are 'hard' but they take man hours and money to do well.

I'm not saying Apple is in the right with how it behaves, but as a user more stores have made things like playing PC games, streaming video, and even PC apps suck more.

These are billion dollar companies fighting each other for their benefit. I'm a bit skeptical about what users get.

Imagine if Walmart and Costco were the only two feasible places for most people to buy groceries. Is there anyone who doesn't think that would be a giant problem for both consumers and producers?

The vast majority of games are available just on steam, if having choice bothers you just pick steam or maybe epic (but steam probably has more) and ignore the rest.

This is a bizarre argument to me. Can you imagine if there was only one supermarket brand, or only one department store. Don't you think that might turn out badly?

If it's really DRM that bothers you then the only big option is GOG.

The key thing to me is supporting Apple's ecosystem. That ecosystem doesn't come out of nowhere; it's supported by the Apple Tax. If Apple can't collect that tax, they have to either reduce the quality of the ecosystem, or look for revenue elsewhere, like selling your data or obsoleting older models faster.

If these "alternate" app stores help to fund iOS development and maintenance, then they'll have to collect a similar amount of money. If they don't help fund iOS development and maintenance, then of course they'll be able to undercut Apple on cost; but then Apple will have less revenue, meaning they'll have to either reduce spending on iOS development and maintenance and/or look for revenue elsewhere, like forcing you to upgrade or selling your data to advertisers. At which point you have Android.

Or to put it differently: The Apple Tax is not about the value of Apple's App Store; it's about the value of the entire Apple platform.

And it's bit ironic you call it a tax when clearly Apple isn't a big fan of paying taxes themselves. I know, it's not a very good argument but I don't think the stakes are as dire as you make them to be.

They could separate the fee as fee paid for the Apple Store and the fee paid for maintaining the ecosystem. So if you build your own App Store you can avoid paying the Apple Store fee but have to pay the maintenance fee. Which should be reasonable amount, eg 10%. They get so many synergies either way and surely run a great profit in both cases. And if they will get a little less money than currently, boo-hoo.

If that's true, then someone should be able to raise money for a start-up with the same business model as Apple but charging only at 10% markup; and eventually everyone would go over to them because they get the same thing but for a lower price.

> And it's bit ironic you call it a tax when clearly Apple isn't a big fan of paying taxes themselves. I know, it's not a very good argument but I don't think the stakes are as dire as you make them to be.

I'm not saying Apple aren't often jerks; their "innovation" in tax avoidance harms society and makes the world a worse place. And possibly 30% really is extortionate, jerk-like behavior. But the arguments here about forcing Apple to allow third-party app stores would not only prevent a 30% "extortionate" rate, but would prevent even a more moderate 10% rate.

Is that why iPhones are famously cheaper than most other options on the market, and why Apple is constantly launching so many entry-level budget options for lower-income families?

It changes one other thing, customer experience. Apple believes fewer problems with a device is a better customer experience and with a better experience customers will return time and time again to purchase their products. It's not right for everyone, but I believe that is true for some people.

In order to deliver such an experience, they have to backup their products with exceptional service, and they do a better job at this than most companies. Now, that level of service is not cheap, not to mention most people don't want to deal with support anymore than they have to. So, to make that level of service feasible, they need to reduce the amount of service you need. For that, their solution is to lock the operating system and hardware down very tightly and vet every piece of software that can be loaded on to the phone.

For some people, all of that sounds terrible, and those people will choose not to buy Apple products. For others, it sounds like a carefree experience and they will choose to accept the trade offs for the benefits.

Bringing this full circle to your car example, there is a lot of crossover between these two worlds. Most cars have very good warranties and pretty amazing coverage while you car is under warranty... sounds a lot like Apple. Like your car, there are certain limitations on changes to hardware and software if you don't want to void that warranty. In other words, you are limited as long as you're under warranty.

So, I can appreciate Apple's desire to lock things down... yes, it benefits their bottom line, but I think they also do it for benefits to the consumer. Now, like your car, when the warranty runs out, the OEM service isn't quite so special anymore. The OEM doesn't care what you do at that point because you're on the hook for everything. I think the same should be true for iOS devices -- when the warranty runs out you should be able to request an unlock and then you can sideload whatever you want. If you like Apple's protective measures, you can continue to run in safe mode. Apple would never voluntarily do this of course, because that would increase the value of old phones and potentially deter the purchase of new models. But, it might be a strategy that the feds could pursue.

No. If the app wants to sell me out to bigcorps, Apple will ban them from the store.

Of course, as a consumer, I'll have the choice to leave the Apple store and follow my favorite apps elsewhere. But if the 3rd-party stores end up with a reputation of being insecure, then consumers will refuse to use them. And everything will be fine.

> Now imagine that Epic wins the fight, has millions of teens on the fortnite needle and no one to prevent them or some inside bad actor to demand whatever device clearance they want.

Then Apple will ban them from the store, and teens will either follow them elsewhere, or they won't.

In theory, this is already possible with Android. But people can't have this argument both ways.

- If jumping ship to Android is easy and available to everyone who owns an Apple device, then clearly having an escape hatch out of Apple's store isn't a big deal and consumers are smart enough to choose whether or not they want to download apps from a secure store.

- If consumers aren't smart enough to choose their own platform based on security, and the cost and difficulty of moving outside of Apple's ecosystem is the only reason why stupid teens aren't being exploited by Fortnite right now, then clearly the "consumers voluntarily choose to stay with Apple" argument is nonsense.

Nobody is talking about forcing Apple to get rid of their store. You will always have the choice to opt into downloading apps only from a secure, strictly managed, curated storefront.

This logic will not work for fortnite users, because you do not expect a knowledge about insecure stores more prevalent among them more than that there is fortnite. You logic works for highly logical and disciplined people, but not for those who want that unique thing that everyone has. Epic simply doesn't care as much as apple/google about a platform sanity, because it is not their net loss in the end. It's the reason very similar to why we ban drugs off the streets. Drugs are fun, but they have heavy strings attached, and much less than everyone realizes that in full detail, while sellers lose nothing.

>You will always have the choice to opt into downloading apps only from a secure, strictly managed, curated storefront.

You seem to have missed the "app-makers" part. If apple to allow more profiting stores, the culture of selling there will grow exponentially and there will be no apps left in appstore beyond few generic and very safe-statused. All custom calculators, galleries and unique apps will be able to demand your AB, geo, etc, because it is even more profit. And they will be listed at the top because more money means more promotion. It is a systematic problem, not just one of a choice.

Then why hasn't this already happened? Are app developers free to abandon iOS and move to Android or not? Why haven't they all done so?

And if developers can't realistically abandon iOS or reject Apple's terms and remain profitable, then doesn't that add a lot of evidence to the idea that Apple is a duopoly with a stranglehold over a significant section of the market?

> this logic will not work for fortnite users, because you do not expect a knowledge about insecure stores more prevalent among them more than that there is fortnite.

Why haven't the Fortnite users all moved to Android so they can install the manipulative apps and games that aren't available on iOS?

If they're free to switch platforms, and they're not smart enough to avoid following bad apps around to lower-quality platforms, then why have they stayed on iOS?

Some of this is due to Apple trying to push for products to be sold for money (up-front, upgrades, subscriptions) rather than being free and advertising supported. Google pushes for apps to be free and advertising based because they are an advertising company.

The second is that android phones may be bought by people who do not intend to use a lot of the smartphone/app features of the device. Apple users tend to go into the store and onto the web more often.

The third being that Apple products tend to attract more profitable demographics of people - people who actually are willing to pay money for things.

These extend outside of the App Store as well, which is one reason why Google pays quite a bit of money to Apple for Google search to be the default search engine of Safari.

If Apple users are generally higher spenders, generally more advanced users that buy apps more often -- then that sounds a lot to me like market pressures that will make an official app store attractive even if iOS allows sideloading. In which case, why are people so frightened of sideloading?

If iOS allows third-party stores, all of the same demographic forces you describe will still exist. Consumers will still want to use a store that offers up-front pricing rather than ads, the iOS market will still be filled with power users who buy apps more often, and they'll still want their apps to be included in a user-friendly, secure store.

If those users you describe are attractive enough to force companies to target them now, then they'll still be attractive enough to force companies to target them after third-party app stores are introduced.

I don't know how to reconcile "devs target iOS because of its unique, opinionated user-base who want a secure platform" with "users are dumb and just follow bad apps without thinking". It can't be both -- either Apple users are too dumb to understand security decisions and can't be taught to avoid shady 3rd-party ad-filled stores, or Apple users are smart enough to consciously opt into a locked-down environment and they understand the implications and tradeoffs of that choice. But how can they be both?

This idea of faking may be the solution against bad actors, but not until apple and google would make that option official. And even then most of naive users will be tricked and burdened into not using it.

(VPNs and provisioning profiles are sort of an exception to this, because they can escape the sandbox, but a) the number of scary warnings presented by the system should be enough to limit their impact, and b) they will also continue to exist separately from the app store issue).

There's also:

- App store guidelines on what is and is not permissible in different cases

- Restrictions against using private APIs

- Restrictions against jailbreaking the device

There are a variety of VPN apps available on iOS. Why was Onavo blocked? Because it violated the guidelines on the use of the information, which is the kind of thing that it difficult to automate.

Restrictions against using private APIs are semi-automated, and would be difficult to completely automate.

The fact that you can't get an iOS app that jailbreaks the device in order to do whatever it wants is in part due to human review - if one existed in the store, it would get pulled, and the developer cert would get revoked. Jailbreaks exist, and human review in the app store is one way they are mitigated.

I for one remember the bad old days when playing a CD could (and did!) install a rootkit.

Software isn't even installed, new versions are downloaded daily or more so the concept of sandboxing as been throughly tested and proven effective for those 27 years.

And that's before we get into resource usage.

Apple should build a better sandbox, the idea that "private APIs" exist and the only thing stopping them from being used is a basic string search on the app store review is pretty horrifying.

Nope, sandboxing is largely orthogonal to performance.

I haven't done enough iOS development to know for sure, but I'm assuming Apple could prevent private API usage by apps through technical means, rather than just app review.

And also because, once you’re jailbroken, you can setup software to automatically resign the app on-device every few days, so you never need a computer again.

This, of course, is a catch-22. You need to run an app to allow unsigned apps, but that app can't run if it isn't signed.

---

† The community makes a distinction between "tethered", "semi-tethered", and "semi-untethered" jailbreaks. The jailbreak I described above is "semi-untethered". You really couldn't come up with terminology more prone to getting mixed up...

Security doesn't require a 30% cut of every transaction though, nor does it require them to ban other payment methods. Apple should be forced to compete on a level playing field, rather than leveraging their platform to bully other companies into compliance.

Epic’s fight, regarding Apple bundling its payment service with its App Store, is orthogonal to the “free device” cause. The former is compelling. The latter is interesting, but it’s an old debate that has never found traction.

It’s helpful to segregate these arguments.

How do you think that the iOS platform is paid for? Apple's current business model is supported by paying the Apple Tax. If they don't get that tax revenue, they're going to have to either reduce the quality of their platform, or get more revenue somewhere else, like selling my data to advertising companies.

Right now I have a choice to buy a phone whose software ecosystem is supported by hardware sales and appstore taxes, or a phone whose software ecosystem is supported by spying on me. If Apple is forced to give up their Apple Tax, I will no longer have that choice.

If Fortnite wanted, they could just make things more expensive on iOS, passing the Apple Tax on to consumers. That's how stores treat sales tax and VAT in different countries; there's no reason app developers can't do the same thing. If users don't like paying more they can go to other platforms; and if users like the iOS platform, they should accept that paying more for apps is part of what makes it possible.

It would be a monopoly if Apple was 80%+ of the phone market; but they're not. If you don't like Apple's business model, there are plenty of other fine phones out there to buy. It's not like Microsoft in the 90's, where they controlled 95% of the desktop market.

> The onerous terms forbid (among other things) pricing differently on the app store.

Didn't know about this; this is onerous, I agree. And I would say forcing price changes for things outside of your dominion should be illegal. (i.e., forcing Fortnite to charge people more who are not buying through the Apple platform is prima facie evidence of an abuse of power.)

The development of iOS is not funded by the app store, it's funded by iPhone hardware sales, and iOS is necessary for those iPhone sales - that's why they make iOS, not solely as a platform for third party apps.

The app store adds to the value of iOS, and thus the value of iphones, because of all the work put in by third parties. Apple should be thanking these third party developers, not sucking them dry and trying to force competitors in any ___domain off their store (e.g. the kindle app doesn't allow purchases and can't even link to the Amazon website because Apple wants a 30% cut of every sale).

But conversely, iOS adds value to every app on the app store -- a lot more value. iOS adds much more value to the Fortnite app than the Fortnite app adds to iOS. Nobody held a gun to Epic Games' head and forced them to put their app on Apple's app store (or Netflix or Spotify or Kindle). Epic did it because even with the 30% tax, they were going to be making loads more money with their app there than without it. And they are making loads of money with Fortnite. They're just annoyed that Apple is getting so much of it. (And Google too -- they were kicked off Google Play for the same reason.)

Cry me a river. Apple and Google have both created loads of value in developing and maintaining the iOS and Android ecosystems, which Epic wants to take advantage of without paying for. I don't feel bad for them at all.

On the iOS hardware platform(s) it competes with nobody. The owner of an iPhone isn’t tossing up between Play or App stores. It’s Apple or nothing. There is no competition for methods to install apps. Both developers and users are completely at the mercy of Apple.

I'm an android user, and I think you have the wrong impression of what android is actually like. Have you ever used one as your primary device for a non-insignificant amount of time?

The last time I had a virus was on my Amiga which I got at a copy party in the Netherlands.

I think it is perfectly fine that you want the security from the Apple store and pay 30% on top for this, but why should I pay those 30%? It's not some kind of insurance that works better the more people take it.

Sure, neither did I, but Apple also has to provide a secure platform to my dad, my grandparents or any other non-tech-savvy person that will wreak havoc on any fresh Windows installation in record time.

But why should I pay for a service that I dont want or need?

So what's the other option? Just don't offer your games at all on a platform like iOS, and people need to own multiple smartphones just to get all the apps and games they want?

It doesn't seem like a solution.

Who's to say what constitutes an advantage? From this discussion, half the people here consider it to be an advantage to having the possibility to load whatever they want on their phone, and have control over it.

Not entirely. You just don't sideload to keep those advantages. Only powerusers sideload apps on android currently.

But this also doesn't help epics usecase where they would want every user to sideload to access a popular app.

I fundamentally disagree and this is also a misrepresentation of the current situation.

If I buy an open operating system which advertises that I can run on it what pleases me then I should have the right to carry out this freedom of choice.

However, if a company advertises a product as a walled garden, specifically claims that one of the things it does is to vet and prohibit apps which violate their guidelines (which are also open for me to assess myself) and I buy a product for its benefits doing this, then I have a right as a consumer that the company will stick to this and not be forced to change in order to please some dodgy companies or gaming apps which I honestly couldn't care less.

It's like saying I bought a petrol car but I should have a legal right to fill it up with Diesel or make it work with electricity. It's illogical. The packaging said petrol and so I knownlingly bought petrol. The packaging says secure, long battery life, high quality phone because of walled garden, so I fucking expect Apple to deliver the walled garden promise so I don't have to do the vetting myself. When I buy an iPhone for my kids or parents, then I pay more for it because of Apple's walled garden, because it means I have to spend less time doing dumb things for them which I'd have to do on another operating system.

Though it's not really uncommon to modify a car for autogas or electric. Often it's also possible to change the radio receiver to e.g. one with android car.

I kinda expect the same freedom to modify other products including smartphones.

Unless the car is a piece of agricultural equipment, in which case, we can see exactly why walled ecosystems are bad.

It's not, no. It's like buying a petrol car and being limited to using BP to fill it up, and not being able to use Q8, or Shell, or whatever.

No one buys Apple/iOS and expects it to run Windows (although arguably you can, and you should be able to, if you weren't locked-in)

A much more apt analogy would be a Keurig machine that's only designed to take official k-cups, and your legal right to make it work with off-brand k-cups.

Now arguing that consumers are disadvantaged because they don't get what they want is falsifying the actual state of the market, when really they get exactly what they want and it's only some bad actors like addictive abusive gaming companies or other dodgy businesses which are doing more harm than help to our society and they want to force Apple or Google into opening more up to allow them even shadier practices.

Nothing stops anyone to create a more open mobile OS. There is no actual barrier to enter like in what real monopolies or duopolies have.

EDIT:

It's also important to remember that Apple hasn't invented their strict walled garden after Microsoft, Nokia and Blackberry left the competition. They always had their walled garden as a feature, and that is proof that customers actively chose to use Apple despite having a healthy competition of other open marketplaces, which clearly didn't deliver what consumers wanted. Consumers don't have the time to vet everything themselves. They value Apple's proposition and are even willing to pay more for an app on average than on any other mobile system. People change their phones every 1-2 years and if the walled garden wouldn't appeal to consumers then we'd see everyone have an Android by now for a very long time.

If Apple was to change how their App Store operates and it stops appealing to the mass, then the mass will react and Apple will see sales drop over time and consumers will migrate to Android. Not the next day, but it would certainly happen like it did for Nokia users, Blackberry users, etc.

However, Apple didn't change their App Store guidelines. Users who bought a phone get exactly what they got on the day of purchase. It's Epic who tries to violate a feature which consumers have purchased and now Epic is suing Apple for having such a feature to begin with. This is not Apple vs. Consumers. This is a gaming company not finding a way to apply their shady practices on the Apple consumer based and they are pissed off. Consumers are happy for it though.

Apple prevents that to a certain degree.

This is not a two-way relationship. It’s three-way. People expect businesses to have a store front in the App Store. If there is none, they don’t think it’s Apple‘s fault.

A better comparison would be hiring people at a maximum of 10 hours a week, and then the employee getting upset they don’t get 11+ hours.

Could you please show me such an advertisement? I do not really follow Apple, and have failed to encounter it.

Further, what if I'm a user, who wants to purchase the hardware (and even operating system), but does not want the added security. Mind you that Apple has their own CPU and OS which is unlike anything in the competition. Don't I also buy the product for those benefits, and don't I have a right as a consumer to opt out of arbitrary limitations that I have no option but accepting?

In the past, you had no option but accepting tracking cookies in every website, GDPR showed that as a society, we decided to force companies to provide an option.

Tough luck my friend. I mean only because you want something unreasonable doesn't make it a right.

Example:

What if I want to buy the engine of a Ferrari but not pay the price for a Ferrari and just have it inside a Volkswagen?

The answer to that is also tough luck. You want a Ferrari engine, well it only comes in a bloody Ferrari so either buy the whole thing and then mod it yourself or tough luck. Same for Apple hardware. If you want just want one piece then you'll have to buy the whole thing and mod it yourself.

Nothing in this world gives you a right to have all your wishes fulfilled by others.

My point is that a car is a complete piece of hardware, all of which is necessary for it to fulfil its purpose, while computers have the advantage (over other machines) to be easily modified by software.

You are correct that my wishes should not affect others, but what about the wishes/needs of multiple people? Even if it's just a wish/personal preference, and not a fundamental property of software, should people's opinion affect private corporations directly?

All of this assuming that there are multiple people who agree with the notion of software freedom.

The thing is, people do have this right on Apple phones; the Library of Congress can designate exemptions from the DMCA and they have done so for jailbreaking smart phones. You have the legal right to jailbreak your phone and install whatever you want; neither Apple nor the Feds can stop you.

Now, whether Apple must make it easy for you to do that is a different question. They actually do, in a way--if you have an Apple developer account you can "side load" whatever you want onto your personal phone. You have to register and pay $99 for that privilege, though. Again--the question is how easy Apple should make it for you to do that.

Anyway, this particular lawsuit is not about Apple devices at all; it's about the contract between Apple and the App Developers in their store. If Epic wins this lawsuit, it might encourage some more developers to list their apps in the App Store, but it will have zero impact on how hard it is for you to freely install whatever software on an Apple phone.

The law isn’t that simple, and even if it was, Apple does stop most people from jailbreaking most Apple devices most of the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#Digital_Mille...

> The jailbreaking of smartphones continued to be legal "where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of [lawfully obtained software] applications with computer programs on the telephone handset." However, the U.S. Copyright office refused to extend this exemption to tablets, such as iPads, arguing that the term "tablets" is broad and ill-defined, and an exemption to this class of devices could have unintended side effects.

Because this is a time and place to call out Apple and Google, the colluding monopolists, for their de facto, if not (yet) proven de jure, criminal behavior, which costs developers, like us, enormous amounts of money.

A call to arms is what we need. It's not a difficult philosophical question. (1) Cut the ridiculous 30% fee, (2) allow other payment processors, (3) allow alternative app installation processes.

OTOH, the thing about Epic is I think they're incredibly generous with their developers and with their customers. You can play Fortnite for free, and are only charged if you want to buy a vanity item. And if you develop using Unreal Engine, you're only charged if you literally make millions of dollars. I can see being pissed off at Apple for being incredibly rapacious, wrecking their standing with developers, and undermining their own platform. I, for one, will never develop for Apple again after awful experiences with two apps I developed for their store.

Ultimately, IMO Apple is hurting themselves very badly, but I think it might be their right to do so.

This is what Google's been doing for years. In a healthy market we could have incredible email providers, video hosting services, calendars and whatnot.

Subsidizing phones with app revenue means customers buy phones even though the benefit they gain from them is lower than the cost of the phone. Conversely, they don't buy apps when the benefit would have outweighed the cost.

Yes, I have. You put unnecessary limits on our freedom to agree on certain contracts.

Hence your measures are authoritarian, you try to restrict my freedom. In my opinion it's unethical to restrict people's freedom to make contracts willingly, if it hurts not any third party.

As a consumer, I think apple is doing the right thing, and I totally agree on their terms. We both, Apple and I, agree on what an ipnone is and how it works.

If you don't like it, there is a plethora of other OS: sailfish, mer, postmarket, android, use them.

As for apple, yes it asks for 30% fee, and it builds a walled garden. But they also offer what others don't: 8 years of support. I'm totally agree to have a walled garden (convenient enough for me), if I could use my phone for 8 years instead of 2-3 as in the Android case.

One of the reasons they support their devices for so long is that the earn on the ecosystem. With the laws you propose they would be incentivized to sell more phones supporting them less, turning iphone into another short term phone, like any android one.

Hence you would significantly diminish the choice, hurting me, the consumer.

If Apple allowed sideloading then you're experience would be 100% identical. You would have the freedom to continue using the App Store just like you do today and have a nice curated experience. Contracts would continue to work just like they do today. The thing is, the rest of us would have -more- freedom as we could, optionally and of our own accord, use apps outside of the App Store as well. Nobody is harmed and everyone is happy. Everyone either has the same amount of or more freedom and safety.

1) Apple allows sideloading, you still can use Cydia, they just don't help you with that.

2) No, because read my post carefully:

> As for apple, yes it asks for 30% fee, and it builds a walled garden. But they also offer what others don't: 8 years of support. I'm totally agree to have a walled garden (convenient enough for me), if I could use my phone for 8 years instead of 2-3 as in the Android case.

> Nobody is harmed and everyone is happy.

No. Learn how incentives work.

Though you could easily upload your soft by simply paying $99 for a dev profile.

Alternative web engines are a nice thought, but the reality is that the browser engine cannot be packaged as an "app", it is a new type of application sandboxing environment. Safari (and WebKit and JavaScriptCore) use significant elevated entitlements to be able to do things like control prompts to hardware features like ___location and NFC, JIT compile code, etc. The reality is that Chrome and Firefox have technical and security limitations which are much harder to overcome than Apple's platform guidelines.

Is this not one of the most common refrains among major decision-makers of this era, whether it be business or politics?

In this case, Apple has judged that the consumer doesn't care enough, or doesn't have enough power, to change this calculus. Are they right?

* 30% fee if app featured by apple or install initiated from app store search

* 20% provision if user landed in app store from direct app store app link

* provide accredited 3rd payment processors (e.g. paypal, stripe). Provide them API and guidelines that they have to comply with. In app store search apps that will go through apple payment processor will have label e.g. 'fulfillment by apple' similar to what amazon uses. Such app would have fee: 15% to apple + x% whatever paypal/stripe will charge. If app installed from direct link and using 3rd party processor then 10% to apple + x% to payment processor

* remove ads inside app store - I consider them unfair or indie devs

* iOS Safari WebView that is not crippled and catches up to latest web standards (Web Notifiations, Fullscreen API on iOS, Shared Web Workers just to name a few)

[edit] formatting

In the hypothetical scenario where iOS permits active side loading of applications, then there should be, in my opinion, two separate brands. Brand 1: iOS (classic), Brand 2: Generic Brand. Let’s call it Epic mobile brand.

While in principle I want to install any software on any hardware. In practice if an issue comes up on non-iOS brand, let’s call it Epic Mobile OS, the fast solution is to reinstall the OS. I want these to be clearly demarcated , so that I avoid the onslaught of crappy apps in the second category requiring re-installation.

And I am old to consistently reinstall OSes.

It’s like people complaining that you can’t change the battery in a iPhone and saying that it infringes on their rights, but of cause you can actually replace it, it’s just difficult, not impossible. But Apple will void warranty on diy repairs, but is that really such a bad thing? Why should they psi if I screw up my repair of the product?

Batch exporting text messages is an wholly different thing from simply accessing them. The only confusion about the meaning of the word “access” seems to be on your end. You appear to intend it to mean something like “having all the features that I personally want in order to best facilitate the activities I desire to do with the highest priority, disregarding the popular use cases entirely” which frankly is an insane definition of the word “access”, and deserves probably a much harsher tone than it’s been given thus far. The fact that you still appear to be standing by it as a serious definition is even more shocking.

Maybe we will lose some Apple support or risk of hacking / payment issue around those apps. But as long as we are informed about those risks before installing the apps.

iOS App Store is so big like Facebook / Google. If Google / Facebook block something based on similar reasons I would be against them too (also I hate AMP).

BTW you might want to take a look at https://altstore.io/ for sideloading iOS apps. There are some limitations but still better than nothing.

For one thing, that is how you get viruses. This is amusingly similar to the mask refusal arguments.

> People would get bad software on their phones, but last I checked, this is happening already

"My proposal would lead to bad things, but there already are bad things" is a terrible argument.

If a website can convince someone to download a "new version of the Flash Player", those same websites will convince someone to "side-load this application to protect against identity theft!"

Looking a bit further down the line toward a society with more prevalent and powerful AI there will need to be some kind of certification that the software you are running is safe. It will be almost impossible to enforce this without the help of device manufacturers who will be mandated to only run safe software.

I don’t like that there is currently no way to get Apple to reduce its cut due to competitive pressure but mandating a right to run any kind of software people like is very short sighted move that would likely need to be reversed in time if we don’t want to sink into chaos as a society.

What I could imagine as a solution in the long run is a consortium type governing body for the certification of software that is made up of companies, specialists, and government reps. This would allow something like sideloading of approved apps to take place in a controlled way. Question would still be who would pay for this? Do they also take a cut? Do you pay a one time fee? Is it subsidized by taxes? Also could a consortium do this better than the manufacturer itself?

Maybe we end up with sideloading of apps that still need to be approved but for a one time fee rather than a revenue sharing model?

And despite all of its flaws it's the most successful software deployment platform the world has ever seen, to the point where even Apple can't afford to not include it on their platforms when we all know they'd rather not, because it's simply too valuable to consumers and would make their devices obsolete if they didn't include it.

There's no central gatekeeper for the web, and sure, it has its dark corners, but it has not devolved into absolute chaos as you so adamantly suggest all such ecosystems would, and continues to deliver such an incredible amount value to consumers and businesses alike.

The web was only possible because it was developed in an era before everybody was using closed down devices where the manufacturer dictates what software you can run on it. And at this rate, if the web ever falls out of favor (and Apple for one is doing everything it can to make sure it does), you can definitely be sure that nothing like it will ever be allowed to exist again.

As a community of founders and makers, I'm sure we can all imagine what a sad world it would be to live in if we had to first convince some platform gatekeeper that our idea is worthwhile and make sure our ideas don't conflict with their interests before being allowed to turn our ideas into reality and deliver them to users, let alone having to pay a cut of our revenues to them for the privilege.

Following the idea you present, Epic should just start making browser games with in-game purchases just over a credit card. Why doesn't it then? What's wrong with the web that Epic couldn't just publish on playfortnite.com and that'd be it?

> There's no central gatekeeper for the web, and sure, it has its dark corners, but it has not devolved into absolute chaos as you so adamantly suggest all such ecosystems would, and continues to deliver such an incredible amount value to consumers and businesses alike.

I never stated that all open systems would turn into chaos. What I suggested is that systems with unchecked advanced AI capabilities probably will. Technology is changing and old paradigms are not guaranteed to work in the future.

You seem to be looking only at the present and there I find your sentiment somewhat reasonable. However, looking at the future, safety will become much more important. If the software you are deploying has the potential to (unintentionally) kill people, shut down cities, or otherwise wrack havoc because you haven’t completely mastered the art of training machine intelligence in a safe way... you simply don’t want this to be openly sold, same as you don’t want to buy medicine or medical technology from a 5 year old kid you just met on the subway. You also don’t have the right to hurt people to fulfill your desire to make things.

I know what I am referring to requires some looking down the road but we will get there in due time. More regulation is (hopefully) inevitable.

What I still think is open for discussion are the exact terms of such vetting/control. It might very well be that terms will get less onerous. That there will be requirements for gate keepers to implement. However, freedom from control is not going to be the long term solution and this is not a bad thing!

I won‘t argue about the rest of your comment about AI, as I think this leads to discussing castles in the air.

If you want to stay with personal computing equipment (whatever that may mean exactly) the point still holds if you look a little bit down the line. You want someone responsible for harm that is created by harmful software and as a user you want an easy way to get save software. Both is much easier with an entity curating and signing vetted software.

What is interesting in this case is the question who would be responsible for this and what are the rules that would need to be followed?

I think it is difficult to untangle the vetting position from manufacturing because the manufacturer is likely the best expert on the computing platform. But other arrangements could be tried out. In terms of rules to follow I am sympathetic to some general rules that vetting should follow but much thought would need to be put into what those rules should be. My prime concern would be safety and minimization of great harm. But how does one go about this? Even external payment providers could be argued to be a potential source of harm if they are not vetted and certified. It‘s tricky!

I think a possible solution would be to make costs and revenue for app stores transparent and stipulate that margins should remain reasonable. Maybe set up a developer board that has a voice in the app store policy making similar to how employee representatives have a seat on the board in many German companies.

But rejecting simply because it lets someone pay in an alternate manner crosses a line.

The argument goes, if I'm not mistaken, that by enforcing their payment gateway, they're assuring that users aren't handing over credit card info and other PPI in an insecure manner.

Whether you buy that or not is up to you, but this is definitely a defence I've heard.

Doesn't Apple specifically have a deal with Amazon to ignore the 30% cut for them?

Duh, yes. It's like asking if i can drive my (human-driven) car anywhere. Just because it's "technology" doesnt mean all human agency goes out the window.

If all of the construction would be modularized with open interfaces, I could imagine something like this working... So, I must admit that it seems theoretically possible to set something like this up but we are currently nowhere near this. Every car is a black box that only the manufacturer really knows. Same for software. What you demand would require all software modules to be “standardized” (think API with safety requirements and guarantees) so that automatic verification could take place.

But what are appropriate “module” sizes? Do we regulate every function call? Just applications? What if Apple sells the iphone plus software as one application? What are generic rules you could use to decide what is the “right” application to regulate? By what mechanisms can we come to good decisions around this?

It’s an interesting vision... but also totally different from the world we live in today. It’s not as simple as you make it sound.

I don’t see how we can’t get to a point where we have something similar for iOS. They can limit the APIs they have access to and the User has the choice.