Beyond the security of not giving our credit cards, and the convenience of not having 8 different game updater/launcher clients, Apple’s App Store policies also limit 3rd party software’s ability to fuck up my devices in a myriad of ways.
If they’re forced to open up to 3rd party stores, I hope they can do it in a way that prevents Adobe from running 8 background processes to make sure my license is current and there aren’t any font updates to download and to make Reader launch faster by keeping it in memory all the time, or whatever it is they do with their Creative Cloud client stuff.
An operating system that actually empowered you would give you the tools and options to prevent that, while also letting you run whatever software you desired.
I will never understand people's desire to be handcuffed by Apple. Give me control over my own device god damn it.
If you want to work on your ultimate phone environment as a hobby, there is Android. If you want things to work just the way they are with the fewest surprises and least amount of finagling use Apple.
I use macOS instead of Linux for this reason: last time I tried updating the production packages on a Linux box it took me hours to clean up the mess that X11 left behind.
Don’t criticise my walled garden just because you want to experiment with weed salad in your community garden.
Whether you take out your own garbage or Apple does it it’s still garbage for you to clean up. Some people want to throw money at Apple to take care of the garbage for them.
If you give apps the right not to do things like AppleID they’ll take it and the App Store would be a highly inconsistent experience for people who want to do no thinking about how their device works. There ought to be some middle ground but consumers are the ones who will have their boundaries encroached unless an entity ruthlessly minds the border...
For the degree of opening you leave companies will extract that much concession from your users.
Rest assured that despite the somehow surprisingly recent blind support for Apple here, there are people too that want to own our devices.
I can just hope that the EU is successful in stopping all of Apple's trickeries ranging from 2.5mm headset jacks, ports, OS slow downs, mysterious battery underperformance, app store, the list just goes on.
You want the EU to regulate whether a company wants to put a headphone jack in their devices?
> OS slow downs
iOS has gotten faster over time [1].
> mysterious battery underperformance
It's common knowledge that this was an honest engineering mistake because as a phone ages, the battery cannot support the max voltage of the processor. Apple now lets you enable full performance with the understanding that your phone might shut down on you when you need it most.
> app store
Which we've determined not to be a monopoly as Apple is a minority player in the mobile device space.
> the list just goes on.
So you've suggested 4 things, 3 of which don't apply and 1 of which (headphone jacks) would be gross governmental overreach.
It seems to me that you just want the company to burn and you want the EU to regulate the hell out of everything in your life.
For example, deciding whether I want to put a headphone jack on my next device is my choice, not the EU's choice, and it would be tyrannical and innovation-stifling to let them have a say over something like that.
It is very reasonable for you to just buy something else if you don't like an Apple device, since Apple is not a monopoly in the mobile space. However, neither you nor the government should have the right to force Apple to develop a product you like. Apple does not exist to satisfy your whims.
The problem with the battery thing is then Apple can give the appearance that their phones have some speed profile when in reality it’s more complicated, even if the complications are in their sum a calculated benefit to the consumer.
However, I’m not really sure that other companies are contextually more honest to consumers in their advertising, or that such standards in communication even exist for the American marketplace. It’s hard to criticize Apple for the details when the bigger story is their great relationship with customers.
I never said so. In any case, I don't need you to tell me what to do.
I vote with my wallet and I don't buy Apple products anymore.
The government does not need to regulate it, the market itself will do it just like it did with Microsoft. On the meantime, I'll let you keep finding excuses for Apple's shady practices.
In your first source: letting the EU regulate the charging cable would have been provably dumb and absurd. Lightning was years ahead of Micro-USB when it was released and served as inspiration for USB-C. Just another example of how government overregulation would harm innovation and industries.
The second source is Tile complaining about the privacy warnings in iOS 13. It’s laughable. Customers are turning off abusive always-on surveillance thanks to iOS 13 notifications and this is hurting Tile. Working as intended.
Regardless of the prudence of the EU regulating the cable, the very fact that they have weighed in on the subject shows that hardware decisions are within the court's purview, and so would headphone jacks, presumably. One's opinion of said prudence is up for debate, certainly.
The Tile situation is TBD, pending Apple's release of AirTags. Will iOS user location notifications pop up as frequently in Apple's first party Find My app as it does in Tile's app? Stay tuned!
Also, the letter mentions the matter of Apple removing their previous Tile store presence (presumably in favor of AirTags), which is within their power but brings up the matter of Sherlocking. Sure, Sherlocking is legal- but is it ethical? Is it right when Facebook scouts other apps to duplicate it in their app? Is it right when Apple does the same to preexisting apps in its App Store? At the very least, these legal cases- whether you think them prudent or not- bring them before the public for examination and discussion.
> I can just hope that the EU is successful in stopping all of Apple's trickeries ranging from 2.5mm headset jacks, ports, OS slow downs, mysterious battery underperformance
2.5mm jacks exist but iOS devices have never used them. I think some feature phones did that back in the day.
Personally I've only encountered them on a pair of headphones where they're a step up from a soldered on cable, but more annoying than a standard jack would be. It's also recessed really far in with a very narrow twist-lock connector, so isn't compatible with any cables except the special one it comes with.
I appreciate that iOS does not allow software to require this.
Yes you can avoid the giant mess of 3rd party launchers on Mac, but only by writing off huge swaths of the software market. Want to run Photoshop? You get to have the Creative Cloud client.
The current state of iOS software is that I never have to go into Task Manager and see what junk has inserted itself as a startup item, whether anything will break if I don't want its update/license client running in the background, or worry about whether it really quits when I quit it or tries to stay resident in the system tray.
Okay, and why is it your fundamental right to be able to do either of those? On what basis should a company be compelled to implement that functionality?
You can always buy a device that allows you to do those things, after all. It's not like Apple is the only device vendor out there, or even a majority device vendor.
Because if I own the device, manufacturer should not decide what kind of apps I can run.
See: a user in China owns the iPhone and wants to run the app.
Apps developer wants a user to run the app.
And only Apple doesn't let it happen, on the device that it doesn't own anymore.
Regarding your argument, "do not buy it", of course I don't buy it! But that doesn't make this position of Apple right, and I'm glad that lawmakers might put an end to this malicious practice.
Returning your argument, if Apple wants to control what users do with the iPhones, perhaps they shouldn't give up their ownership of devices and shouldn't sell them.
Then don't download apps from a hypothetical secondary iOS App Store. You literally have the same option as people in this thread who say "just don't buy Apple."
I'm aware that I can avoid installing a second store and not run any software that comes from it. The issue I'm pointing out is that software that's currently available through the App Store could move exclusively to alternatives if given the option.
Like that time when Epic Games said "We don't want to use the Google Play Store, so if you want to play Fortnite you have to install it from the Fortnite Installer". And then we immediately had this: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/112630336?pli=1
> This vulnerability allows an app on the device to hijack the Fortnite Installer to instead install a fake APK with any permissions that would normally require user disclosure.
If they could switch to Fortnite Installer on iOS I assume they would. Would it have security holes? Would it do other annoying things that the App Store doesn't let them do?
Repeat those questions for a hypothetical Microsoft iOS Store, Google iOS Store, Amazon iOS Store, Steam iOS Store, Ubisoft iOS Store, EA iOS Store, Pokemon GO Installer, Nintendo iOS Store, iOS Minecraft Launcher, and I'd expect to see more security vulnerabilities and/or hostile behaviors that Apple doesn't allow.
It's a tradeoff. I know the current system isn't perfect, but I worry that forcing Apple to allow other stores to do their own thing will be worse in a variety of ways.
But then, simply don't run that software. Vote with your wallet. Use a competitor that remains on the App Store. Why deprive others of the choice, in favor of a single entity in charge- a single point of failure? I thought it was a truism in tech that monocultures are a bad thing?
I'm voting with my wallet to have an iPhone where there's no Fortnite Installer instead of Android where there is.
Believe it or not I had an Android phone before and decided I like Apple's system better.
If it were my only computing device and I needed to run a bittorrent client I acknowledge it would be a problem, but like I said elsewhere in the comments, it's a trade-off.
I agree there's a tradeoff. And that in the scenario where Apple allows alternate app stores, there would also be tradeoffs. But I disagree with your view that it would have to resemble the situation on Android. I feel that the Apple brand and the inherent security features of the iOS environment- which aren't simply the exclusivity of the App Store and the App Store Review process- could lead to secondary stores that are carefully curated and have a higher bar of security than the ones you see on Android. In fact, one could very well imagine companies entering into a new market and providing secure app markets that try to beat Apple at their own game (such as searchability). For one thing, there's more money to be made with iOS apps, and perhaps that could lead to greater investment and higher quality stores.
I view the dismissals of "secondary app markets will just be like insecure shoddy secondary Android app stores" to be both pessimistic and lacking in imagination at the potential for new businesses and innovation to be created if Apple just gives up a little bit of its dominating power.
Oh but see then third parties who's software _I_ want so badly and would sacrifice my ethical position to acquire might choose not to distribute on Apple's app store because it's anti-competitive. Well shit.
the convenience of not having 8 different game updater/launcher clients
Obligatory glance over at Steam goes here.
Apple’s App Store policies also limit 3rd party software’s ability to fuck up my devices in a myriad of ways.
It would be a much safer solution if Apple's operating system limited 3rd party software's ability to do things it shouldn't. Trying to filter malware at the app store level might improve your odds, but it's not a robust, scalable solution to malware and it never has been.
So why not build a standard mechanism to install and update 3rd party software into the OS? It's hardly a radical idea. There are plenty of solutions to that problem that don't involve monopolising the distribution of all software on the platform.
I agree in principle that this would be OK, except part of Apple's vetting processes is making sure apps aren't accessing private APIs.
I don't want to download a game and find out that it's secretly spinning up a background spyware process to monitor the screenbuffer and sending the screenshots off to god knows where.
Surely the solution to that is not to have your OS expose "private" APIs that allow abusive behaviour? It's not as if they aren't widely exploited even on the official app store today.
Once again, trying to filter malware at the app store level is not a viable strategy for robust, reliable security, and it never has been.
Presently, security researchers are already finding both major apps doing this on the Apple App Store (Facebook accessing the camera on the News Feed), and spyware apps happening on secondary Android stores (also on the official Play Store). Sounds like an opportunity for more security watchdog businesses.
The recent camera and clipboard things aren't private APIs, so the review process isn't looking for them being used in sneaky ways. I do appreciate iOS 14 adding a user-facing indication so we can tell when it's being abused though.
Most people are naive about how applications will coerce them into doing things against their best interest when given the ability, such as a request while installing, requesting access to parts of the system that reveal PII. Most people do not have the knowledge to evaluate how these things play out. Apple via the app store at least does some work to mitigate this and when they do fail, are able to fix it.
You are making the case for the app store to exist, not for it to have no competitors.
Let's suppose that Apple's store is infallible. Well then the availability of other stores won't matter, will it? Apple will approve everything good and reject everything bad and you'll know that anything not in their store is bad and have no reason to ever look at another store even if they exist.
But suppose they're not infallible. They reject something good when they ought not to. Well now you gain something from the other store, because now you have the option to install it anyway. You don't have to -- you only would if the other store has a sufficient reputation for not distributing bad things -- but you could. Or you could still continue to refuse anything not in Apple's store. It only gives you a choice.
And the existence of the choice creates competitive pressure. It makes it in Apple's interest to do a better job for you, because they don't want customers turning to other stores because they've rejected something they shouldn't have, or because they're charging monopoly rents to developers etc. So they spend more resources to reject only what's bad and not what's good. They charge lower fees, so that more money goes to developers and you get better apps. And then even if you still don't want to use the other stores, their existence makes Apple's store better for you.
I don't see this playing out on Android where other stores exist. And lets take this to the brick and mortar model. 30 ish% of the end user price is not a lot, when many products are at least 100% markup.
But first, we know the App store isn't infallible, but it has an incentive to have more false negatives than positives. It is able to correct past mistakes and does do so.
But as far as competitive pressure, that argument is mute as long as there is no way for the "normal" owner/user of a device to evaluate the market. By the time the bad actor is exposed, it is often too late. The other side is that one only has to look at the Play store to see that there are so many copies of original apps that it is obfuscating them. One cannot find the legitimate app. So until most people are able to be informed and evaluate the apps, it isn't in their favor to want alternative stores.
Also, one has a choice, buy or don't buy the device. Apple does not have a majority of sales in phones, not even close. Also, you can side load any softare you want. It's a service that is paid for , but for free it's 7 days per install.
There is a massive difference between 30% on sale price and 100% markup. The more important point is there is competition in regards to markup. The 30% is obligatory.
But the Play Store is a lot less likely to reject things it shouldn't, it doesn't try to extract a percentage of third party revenue from services like Spotify or Netflix, and there are useful and trustworthy third party stores like F-Droid. It's better.
> And lets take this to the brick and mortar model. 30 ish% of the end user price is not a lot, when many products are at least 100% markup.
Brick and mortar stores have expenses for in-town real estate and sales clerks that Apple doesn't, which is where that margin goes. It's unavoidable for that sales model, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing -- and it's the exact reason why online retailers like Amazon have been kicking their butts by cutting that margin down. And even they still have significant warehousing and shipping expenses for physical products that the digital products Apple distributes don't.
Margins like that are costs to be eliminated where possible, not excuses to impose the same costs where they don't otherwise even exist.
> It is able to correct past mistakes and does do so.
Right, so can you point me to the best BitTorrent app in Apple's store?
> But as far as competitive pressure, that argument is mute as long as there is no way for the "normal" owner/user of a device to evaluate the market.
If this were true then it wouldn't do you any good because then people would have no way to know not to buy an Android phone and enable a shady Russian app store full of malware. Fortunately it isn't (and people doing that is quite uncommon), because we have all the normal mechanisms to determine whether a store is trustworthy -- the reputation of the store operator, third party reviews, opinions from savvy relatives or your company's IT staff etc. And the store itself is still curated by the operator, so you only have to do this for the store operator when enabling one, not every individual app. And you would still have the option to use none but Apple's, if you like.
> The other side is that one only has to look at the Play store to see that there are so many copies of original apps that it is obfuscating them. One cannot find the legitimate app.
So the Play Store doesn't always do a great job. This is a pretty good argument that the level of competition there is pretty weak too -- other stores exist but not many people use them. Still, what stops Apple from doing better than that, competition or not? There is no consumer demand or competitive pressure to approve duplicate garbage apps that nobody actually wants, and Google only does it out of laziness.
> So until most people are able to be informed and evaluate the apps, it isn't in their favor to want alternative stores.
They still wouldn't be evaluating the other apps, only the other stores. It might be reasonable to consider F-Droid (and therefore the apps it distributes) trustworthy but not some store nobody has ever heard of operated by anonymous second world foreign nationals.
> Also, one has a choice, buy or don't buy the device.
That isn't a choice, it's more than one choice, anti-competitively required to be made together. I could want to use iOS on Apple hardware but install an app which is only in the Play Store, and that choice doesn't currently exist.
> Also, you can side load any softare you want. It's a service that is paid for , but for free it's 7 days per install.
This is obviously not a viable alternative or your entire premise would disintegrate because it would be a vector for malware, and then what's the point of excluding other app stores?
But why Mac OS still allows competent users to buypass the security restrictions? Is it because they can't screw over MacOS users ? Or for some reasons the people that use Mac OS can be trusted but when you give the same user an iPhone his IQ drops and we can't trust him.
Come on, let's be honest this is in the first place in Apple interest, if Apple needs to sell in China then they made sure they handed over Chinese users data to the government, now if they want to sell in EU they would need to also put a bit of effort into it(I have no idea if EU market is smaller but money is money)
The same could be said the other way around. Why force a private company to open its system? Apple built the entire ecosystem and you want to force them to open it up to your desire. Why is that ok?
How is Apple a monopoly? They own a system and manage the rules around it, that is not a monopoly. Will you force car manufacturers to let you install any system in the car? Why can't I install any app on my car?
Because it is acting against the interests of the users.
Would you still support Apple's position if, say, Apple would roll out update to iOS with new EULA, which would require you to give up your firstborn son for a Satan sacrifice?
Of course, you can refuse, but the device that you supposedly "own" would effectively stop functioning (obsoleted iOS devices lose their usefulness very fast: try doing anything with iPhone 5).
I would sell it and buy a new phone. Do you think Apple competitors would not pay you or accept the phone as part of payment if Apple did that? The problem is people think they are smarter than everybody and can tell you how to manage things. The market is smarter than anybody or any group of people. You cannot force a private company to cater to your beliefs of how a system should work. People buy iPhones knowing there is only one app store. And, as an iPhone user, is an advantage. I know that my grandparents and parents using an iPhone will not screw it up, or at least the possibility is smaller compared to the alternatives.
But that's how you get from one to the other. By refusing to use something else, the developer would have to sell through Apple in order to get your business. If they want your business, that's what they'll do.
Meanwhile other people may choose to do something else, e.g. because they would rather that more of what they pay go to the developer (where it's plausible that it be used to improve the software) than to Apple (which can't productively use any more money than it already has). And who are you or Apple to get in the way of this transaction between two independent and consenting third parties?
What happens when an app you use leaves the App Store? Now you’re stuck between purchasing it with a third party payment processor or not using the app. When every app must be on the App Store, this isn’t an issue.
Many apps, if not a large majority, would start doing this. That destroys the convenience and user experience. If every app does this there isn't any consumer choice about it.
Perhaps, but Apple would still have an edge on tight integration with the OS resulting in a quick and frictionless user experience. If that wouldn't cut it for some developers, so they would bother themselves building a separate processing, well, then Apple would probably have to lower their fees.
Personally for me, as a developer of applications, I could care less about 30% fee. I find it reasonable. What I DO care about is restrictions on owning the device and users' inability to run any app they need - even if it is not vetted by Apple. In part it is because I happen to live in an authoritarian country which government loves to block apps in the AppStore.
Anyone can get a developer license and run whatever stupid apps they want. That seems like sufficient opt-in that you are likely competent to assess the risk of the apps you're installing.
So you are suggesting users in China apply for a developer license and build their own build of Signal and Protonmail apps? Really?
And how would said users receive push notifications for their apps from Signal?
UPD: oh boy, and I forgot to mention that such users would also have to buy Macs - you can't build a 'stupid app' for iOS without XCode, which runs only on Macs that support the latest version of macOS.
What makes you think I'm suggesting that? I was simply ridiculing the idea of forcing users to acquire developers license.
The right way, of course, is to allow third party appstores and app sideloading. Just like we have it on macOS - and it doesn't look like someone was made unhappy because he can run Steam and buy Sketch directly from the developer.
Not forcing people to be a developer to sideload apps isn't addressing the elephant in the room that you need to have a Mac ($800+) to build them. Your solution would best be 'allow downloading and installing .app packages from websites'.
I don't quite understand why you are addressing this to me. I believe I was quite clearly against forcing users to build apps and to allow them installing apps from everywhere.
Exactly. Apple's market power derives from the consumers that trust it to represent them in negotiations with publishers. The decision to "not give every app your credit card" is made by consumers when they purchase an iPhone.
Purchasing an iPhone is an act of collective bargaining by consumers against publishers that otherwise would hoover up their private data. "If you don't like it, you can always live like it's 2004, before smart phones" is not an answer iPhone customers accept.
If you don't want to give random apps your credit card, don't give it to them. Why do you oppose other people's right to do that, if they need it?