> The difference is that you are demanding other people to make personal changes
And now you are demanding that other people make personal changes by losing the benefits of the iOS ecosystem (Apple Pay, privacy enforcement, app standards, etc.).
> Others aren't obligated to follow your demands, which is why it's not your place to demand them to act against their own wishes.
Stop demanding that I act against my wishes then? My wishes are one App Store owned and controlled by Apple. Stop bothering me. This works both ways.
> You don't get to gatekeep who can be an iOS user, because nobody else is obligated to listen to you.
This is pathetic. I’m gatekeeping? Ok nobody is obligated to listen to me. I’m not obligated to listen to them. So I guess we keep things as they are then. Or am I now obligated to listen to you?
> Most iOS users will continue to get apps from Apple's App Store even if sideloading were allowed. Google allows sideloading on Android with restrictions, and almost all users get apps from the Play Store in regions where it is available. There is little reason to believe that the situation would be different on iOS.
Ok then no reason to change a great service for the majority of users to satisfy a tiny minority of use… I mean developers who want better margins.
> Having said that, I have yet to see any high-profile Android app pull out from the Play Store without returning soon after
Because Google is a fox in the hen house. They have the same privacy-invading business model. Of course they don’t care.
> I will continue to note that Apple's iOS restrictions are anti-competitive, because they prevent other app stores from competing with Apple's App Store on iOS. Walmart is not selling homes that require the homeowner to buy all of their groceries and appliances from Walmart. Also, Walmart and Kroger don't have a duopoly in any country, while Apple and Google do in many countries. Duopolies and other uncompetitive markets are not free markets, and they don't accurately reflect consumer preferences.
Duopolies naturally occur in free markets. In fact, monopolies do too. It’s not a big deal and a duopoly frothing into existence does not de facto necessitate anti-competitive behavior. (Just as multiple companies can have anti-competitive behaviors. Remember Tech salary collusion amongst the major players?) This is even more true in the case of Apple where consumers benefit because of Apple’s ability to collectively bargain against developers on behalf of users. Should ASML be forced to dissolve or create a competitor since they’re the only ones who can make the machines they do? That’s a monopoly.
Your “re-analogy” of the situation with Wal-Mart and Kroger falls flat because if Wal-Mart did sell a house and as part of the sale required or just outfitted the house with all Wal-Mart products nobody would consider that anti-competitive behavior. The grocery example just doesn’t make sense at all unless you wanted to maybe talk about calling Kroger for groceries and then demanding they go pick up from Wal-Mart. Instead a better analogy is looking at Kroger and the products they sell at Kroger as the market. Kroger enforces some standards like POS systems, one or two types of carts, employees who stock shelves or whatever and then Kroger takes margin on the products they sell. To continue, the analogy would be a company saying Kroger should allow them to set up their own shop inside Kroger, and then sell products in that shop and not give Kroger a cut. You’d walk in and there would be multiple POS systems, you’d have different employees some who could help you and some who can only help you in the sub-store. You’d have different carts, and some of the sub-stores would install security cameras and tracking devices. Kroger customer service couldn’t help you. It’s just a nightmare.
But hey now I can download Signal as a Chinese person except that if there are any legit other app stores they’ll just comply with CCP demands anyway and we’re back to just sideloading apps.
But hey Netflix got a better commission instead of Apple and now my life is worse. Sounds great!
Nobody is demanding that you make a personal change. If you are currently using Apple's App Store for all of your purchases, you can continue to do that regardless of whether sideloading is available. Your existing choice would still available to you even if sideloading were an option, so you would not be making a change, because you are not being asked to take any action. On the other hand, you are demanding others to make a change by switching ecosystems, an action that others are not inclined to take due to the costs of switching. Your demand is gatekeeping because you are arguing that people should be iOS users only if they are against sideloading, which is not an opinion that all iOS users agree with.
Lawmakers are elected to pass laws that represent the interests of their country's citizens, such as the Open App Markets Act[1] in the U.S., which would prevent Apple from enforcing its anti-competitive restriction against sideloading on iOS. Duopolies and uncompetitive markets like Apple's and Google's duopoly on mobile app stores result in deadweight loss,[2] which limits economic growth. This and the fact that restrictions against sideloading limit consumer choice are why there is momentum for passing new antitrust laws that curb Apple's and Google's anti-competitive behavior, including Apple's prohibition against competing app stores on iOS. You are free to wish otherwise and to petition lawmakers to support Apple's monopoly/duopoly, but the momentum of legislation is going against your wishes.
Your store analogy is flawed because when someone owns an iPhone, that phone is the user's property, not Apple's property. On the other hand, Walmart stores, Kroger stores, and Apple's App Store belong to Walmart, Kroger, and Apple, not their customers. Apple imposing anti-competitive restrictions on phones that do not belong to them is completely different from Apple imposing restrictions on their own App Store. Sideloading does not involve Apple or Apple's App Store at all, it only involves the user and the source that the user chooses to obtain the app from. You can choose to shop exclusively at Apple, Walmart, or Kroger, and the existence of other separate stores would not prevent you from continuing to do so.
App stores available to users in China do not have to be hosted in China. Sideloading combined with a VPN would allow iOS users in China to download, install, and use any iOS app published in any country.
> Nobody is demanding that you make a personal change.
Then in that case I am not demanding that anyone else make a personal change. So you can stop suggesting that I am. Thanks.
> Your existing choice would still available to you even if sideloading were an option, so you would not be making a change, because you are not being asked to take any action. On the other hand, you are demanding others to make a change by switching ecosystems, an action that others are not inclined to take due to the costs of switching. Your demand is gatekeeping because you are arguing that people should be iOS users only if they are against sideloading, which is not an opinion that all iOS users agree with.
One at a time:
> Your existing choice would still available to you even if sideloading were an option, so you would not be making a change, because you are not being asked to take any action
Your premise is that the app store is just a single isolated app that has no effect on the ecosystem. This is a faulty premise. If additional app stores are introduced it unequivocally changes the ecosystem. I've already explained the reasons I believe this is negative.
> On the other hand, you are demanding others to make a change by switching ecosystems
They don't have to change ecosystems. Just keep the same one as it is.
> an action that others are not inclined to take due to the costs of switching.
They could have not bought an iPhone from the start. All features have costs and trade-offs. If I buy a BMW I can't go off roading in it like I can in a Jeep. I can't then demand that all BMWs come with off-road tires and a lift kit and then claim that others are causing me to incur switching costs. Your suggestion here is a non-sequitur.
> Your demand is gatekeeping because you are arguing that people should be iOS users only if they are against sideloading, which is not an opinion that all iOS users agree with.
Ok, then equivalently you are gatekeeping by limiting my access to the Apple ecosystem as is. If you want to use the term like that, then fine.
> you are arguing that people should be iOS users only if they are against sideloading, which is not an opinion that all iOS users agree with.
Ok then not all iOS users agree with gatekeeping around the ecosystem as is. Stop gatekeeping.
> Lawmakers are elected to pass laws that represent the interests of their country's citizens, such as the Open App Markets Act[1] in the U.S., which would prevent Apple from enforcing its anti-competitive restriction against sideloading on iOS.
Yes, lawmakers can pass any law they want, whether or not its in the interest of their country's citizens. For example, requiring that Apple let 3rd-party App Stores on the iPhone would be against the interest of citizens.
Apple's model is not anti-competitive.
> Duopolies and uncompetitive markets like Apple's and Google's duopoly on mobile app stores result in deadweight loss,[2] which limits economic growth.
Your implication is that economic growth for the sake of economic growth should be pursued. Environmental regulations can create deadweight loss and limit economic growth as well yet we still pursue those.
Restricting Apple's ability to bargain on behalf of users creates negative externalities (previously highlighted) whose costs outweigh any deadweight loss. And again, markets aren't completely efficient, duopolies naturally exist in markets, and they can have minimal deadweight loss such that the presence of the duopoly is more beneficial than introducing competitors.
Also, where you claim Duopoly remember that Apple competes with many companies, such as Huawei, Samsung, Google (both Android and Pixel), and others.
> This and the fact that restrictions against sideloading limit consumer choice are why there is momentum for passing new antitrust laws that curb Apple's and Google's anti-competitive behavior, including Apple's prohibition against competing app stores on iOS.
Limiting consumer choice is perfectly fine. Happens all the time and should continue to happen where it makes sense to do so, such as here.
> You are free to wish otherwise and to petition lawmakers to support Apple's monopoly/duopoly, but the momentum of legislation is going against your wishes.
Ah the ole' love it or leave it sentiment.
> Your store analogy is flawed because when someone owns an iPhone, that phone is the user's property, not Apple's property. On the other hand, Walmart stores, Kroger stores, and Apple's App Store belong to Walmart, Kroger, and Apple, not their customers. Apple imposing restrictions on phones that do not belong to them is completely different from Apple imposing restrictions on their own App Store.
It's not flawed because the question of ownership isn't what's at stake here. Introducing that would change the scenario. Instead what was being discussed was Apple's distribution model for iOS applications. You can think of each shopper as an individual iPhone/iPhone user.
> Sideloading does not involve Apple or Apple's App Store at all, it only involves the user and the source that the user chooses to obtain the app from.
And just for the sake of clarity since you're now using the term sideloading I'm interpreting that to mean 3rd-party app store. Idk why we've switched but w/e.
Of course you can do anything you want to your iPhone. It's your property. You can install any app, you can throw it off a bridge. Anything really. You can even install 3rd-party App Stores. Just figure out how to do it.
> You can choose to shop exclusively at Apple, Walmart, or Kroger, and the existence of other separate stores would not prevent you from continuing to do so.
Yes, but this isn't about switching stores, that would change what's happening and so we'd have to build a meta store on top of these stores just to get back to what the model looks like. Instead what you're discussing here would be switching between Android and iOS. (Wal-Mart and Kroger or w/e). Once inside we're back to the correct analogy.
> App stores available to users in China do not have to be hosted in China.
They'll just pass a law to make them hosted in China then or whatever they'd need to have the exact same leverage here that they would on Apple, Google, or any other provider. All the same stuff.
> Sideloading combined with a VPN would allow iOS users in China to download, install, and use any iOS app published in any country.
Great. Then just sideload apps (as opposed to 3rd-party app stores) as you normally do and we'll just keep the single App Store that Apple maintains.
When you demand iOS users with a different opinion than you to "just buy the Android phone that supports the features you want"[1] and "just buy an Android phone with the features you want",[2] you are demanding others to make a personal change regardless of whether you want people to call you out for it. That is gatekeeping ("To limit another party's participation in a collective identity or activity, usually due to undue resentment or overprotectiveness")[3] because you are saying that people who support sideloading (an opinion that you disagree with) should not be iOS users. I have never told you to refrain from being an iOS or Android user for any reason, so I have not done likewise for you.
An iOS user who prefers to be able to sideload but also wants to, for example, stick with iPhone hardware is perfectly within their right to stay on iOS and take advantage of the benefits provided by changes to the regulatory environment. The momentum of legislation suggests that these iOS users will eventually get what they want without needing to switch ecosystems. Allowing iOS users to sideload by removing Apple's anti-competitive restrictions increases consumer choice, and benefits everyone except a minority of people in any country (Apple employees, those who have a significant ownership stake in Apple, and those who strongly identify with Apple's profitability as a company). Lawmakers are correct to prioritize the economic growth of their country and the consumer choice of the population at large over the interests of a small minority of individuals vested in Apple.
There are no significant negative externalities to allowing sideloading for iOS users, because only the people who want the feature will go out of their way to enable it, as user behavior on Android shows. There are significant positive externalities to enabling sideloading for iOS users, because removing Apple's anti-competitive restrictions would spur the development of free and open source apps that improve the experience for all iOS users who choose to use them, which increases the value of iOS as a platform and the value of iPhones and iPads as products. Developers have always had the right to "change the ecosystem" by pulling out from Apple's App Store whenever they wanted. It is their choice whether they want to have a business arrangement with Apple, not your choice or mine. Apple retains the right to impose restrictions on apps in their App Store, which they can continue to make the default app store on iOS. There has been no "collective bargaining" regarding Apple's App Store since Apple is a single company with monopoly/duopoly power, and we have not yet seen multiple developers (together) negotiate with Apple. Apple and Google do have duopolies in the mobile operating system market (iOS and Android) and the mobile app store market (App Store and Play Store), because their combined market shares make up most of both markets.
Many iOS users in China who want to use iOS apps that are not in Apple's App Store selection for China would definitely sideload these iOS apps once Apple's anti-competitive sideloading restrictions are removed from iOS.
And now you are demanding that other people make personal changes by losing the benefits of the iOS ecosystem (Apple Pay, privacy enforcement, app standards, etc.).
> Others aren't obligated to follow your demands, which is why it's not your place to demand them to act against their own wishes.
Stop demanding that I act against my wishes then? My wishes are one App Store owned and controlled by Apple. Stop bothering me. This works both ways.
> You don't get to gatekeep who can be an iOS user, because nobody else is obligated to listen to you.
This is pathetic. I’m gatekeeping? Ok nobody is obligated to listen to me. I’m not obligated to listen to them. So I guess we keep things as they are then. Or am I now obligated to listen to you?
> Most iOS users will continue to get apps from Apple's App Store even if sideloading were allowed. Google allows sideloading on Android with restrictions, and almost all users get apps from the Play Store in regions where it is available. There is little reason to believe that the situation would be different on iOS.
Ok then no reason to change a great service for the majority of users to satisfy a tiny minority of use… I mean developers who want better margins.
> Having said that, I have yet to see any high-profile Android app pull out from the Play Store without returning soon after
Because Google is a fox in the hen house. They have the same privacy-invading business model. Of course they don’t care.
> I will continue to note that Apple's iOS restrictions are anti-competitive, because they prevent other app stores from competing with Apple's App Store on iOS. Walmart is not selling homes that require the homeowner to buy all of their groceries and appliances from Walmart. Also, Walmart and Kroger don't have a duopoly in any country, while Apple and Google do in many countries. Duopolies and other uncompetitive markets are not free markets, and they don't accurately reflect consumer preferences.
Duopolies naturally occur in free markets. In fact, monopolies do too. It’s not a big deal and a duopoly frothing into existence does not de facto necessitate anti-competitive behavior. (Just as multiple companies can have anti-competitive behaviors. Remember Tech salary collusion amongst the major players?) This is even more true in the case of Apple where consumers benefit because of Apple’s ability to collectively bargain against developers on behalf of users. Should ASML be forced to dissolve or create a competitor since they’re the only ones who can make the machines they do? That’s a monopoly.
Your “re-analogy” of the situation with Wal-Mart and Kroger falls flat because if Wal-Mart did sell a house and as part of the sale required or just outfitted the house with all Wal-Mart products nobody would consider that anti-competitive behavior. The grocery example just doesn’t make sense at all unless you wanted to maybe talk about calling Kroger for groceries and then demanding they go pick up from Wal-Mart. Instead a better analogy is looking at Kroger and the products they sell at Kroger as the market. Kroger enforces some standards like POS systems, one or two types of carts, employees who stock shelves or whatever and then Kroger takes margin on the products they sell. To continue, the analogy would be a company saying Kroger should allow them to set up their own shop inside Kroger, and then sell products in that shop and not give Kroger a cut. You’d walk in and there would be multiple POS systems, you’d have different employees some who could help you and some who can only help you in the sub-store. You’d have different carts, and some of the sub-stores would install security cameras and tracking devices. Kroger customer service couldn’t help you. It’s just a nightmare.
But hey now I can download Signal as a Chinese person except that if there are any legit other app stores they’ll just comply with CCP demands anyway and we’re back to just sideloading apps.
But hey Netflix got a better commission instead of Apple and now my life is worse. Sounds great!