[Wowfunhappy]

I can use Google Chrome, and still use a non-Google search engine. I can use a Kindle, and still read DRM-Free epubs.

Yes, all the major tech companies are engaged in rent seeking. But Apple is the only one that says users must either must pay rent or throw away their hardware.

The App Store and its policies are not the problem. The App Store is Apple's store, just like Amazon.com is Amazon's store. But the App Store shouldn't be the only way to get software on my phone. And no, reinstalling apps from a computer every seven days doesn't count.

(The semi-exceptions are game consoles. I don't like that either, but since they're single-purpose devices I find it much less bad.)

[roenxi]

These things are true; and also a significant component of Apple's value proposition. An Apple customer can be sure they will:

1) Never need to learn what a "sideload" is

2) Never be exposed to Apps that havn't been vetted by a trustworthy party (in this case Apple)

Apple is taking the opportunity to milk app developers, but they've done an effective job of positioning the milking process so that it is done in the user's interests. It is quite possible that things like this 30% App Store tax are one of the reasons why iPhones remain so prominent.

[grawprog]

>2) Never be exposed to Apps that havn't been vetted by a trustworthy party (in this case Apple)

And yet, even after being vetted malware still gets in

https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/apple-battles-app-store-mal...

I see this a lot, and to be honest, this 'Apple products are free from malware' meme has been carried on as long as I can remember in one form or another since the early Mac days. The amount of people that used to say they used Macs because 'they didn't have viruses' is about the same as the people who say 'I use iphones because Apple makes sure I'm safe'.

It's been Apple's marketing strategy for a long time, despite being slightly exaggerated, early Macs did have viruses and yes, malware makes its way onto the app store.

But Apple's marketing strategy sure has been working a long time.

[reaperducer]

And yet, even after being vetted malware still gets in

I don't remember ever seeing Apple promise that 100% of apps will be 100% safe 100% of the time. Can you provide a link?

Apple's review process is done by people. People make mistakes. Things get through when bad people are trying to hide that they're doing bad things. But I'll take Apple's 1-in-a-million mistake environment over the anything goes Android environment.

[acituan]

> These things are true; and also a significant component of Apple's value proposition

You're describing the value of an app store, not the App Store. So the problem is not the value proposition, the problem is Apple's monopoly on this value proposition. It is why we can't have a Google iOS App Store, Microsoft iOS App store etc. list from which the user can pick, which would completely satisfy the convenience and peace of mind criterion, would increase competition regarding the cuts, vetting quality, curation quality etc.

[OpieCunningham]

a Cydia App Store

[Wowfunhappy]

> An Apple customer can be sure they will: (1) Never need to learn what a "sideload" is, and (2) never be exposed to Apps that haven't been vetted by a trustworthy party.

But Apple customers can be sure of that anyway--just don't sideload apps. Anything essential is going to want to be in the App Store, in order to reach customers.

[roenxi]

> But Apple customers can be sure of that anyway--just don't sideload apps.

Well, no. At some point they'd need to know what it is to decide if they wanted it or not. At some point they'd encounter an App that isn't in the App store and have to figure out sideloading. We've got a whole heap of people commenting here today who give off a distinct "I want to bypass the App Store" vibe. User hat on, I'd rather they were forced to use it.

I don't think there is enough reflecting here on just how critical a phone is. At the extremes, the US government sometimes targets predator drones based on phone GPS. I suspect an enormous number of phones contain compromising pictures. Phones contain detailed logs of where I am, who I'm talking to, and potentially access to actual records of what was said.

I really don't want to be in a situation where 'Wowfunhappy' is executing arbitrary unknown code on a phone owned by me or my family. I don't want Google and Facebook browsing through and indexing this stuff either. Apple isn't even a good gatekeeper, but they are much better than nothing.

[Wowfunhappy]

> I don't think there is enough reflecting here on just how critical a phone is.

But see, I'm think that's exactly what I'm doing--the app store gives China an easy way to take safety apps from protestors. A phone is too important for it to be out of the user's control.

I understand the security implications, but when I weigh the societal issues, Apple's model seems much more dangerous.

[darkerside]

So the solution to not making people want to sideload is to not let anybody sideload? I hate solving problems by destroying value. It's like solving the real problem of wealth inequality by taking billions from the rich and dropping it in the ocean.

[salawat]

Maybe... Just putting this out there. Just maybe... Instead of having your phone double as an ad delivery platform, and actually fully embracing Open hardware/software standards, and making sure the innards of your phone's operating principles are absolutely visible to you, you wouldn't have to trust your safety to people that look at you like cattle.

Imagine a world, where your Telco or anyone else for that matter can't remotely tell your phone to turn on. A world where you and only you have ultimate control over your phone, and where instead of millions of engineer hours going into making your phone convenient for developers to utilize, it is instead made easier for the user to actually understand.

That is the world I want to see. Hell I want to be part of making. I'll be damned if I can figure out how to make it work with our Market's current optimization function.

[twicetwice]

I mean, I agree with you. I'm right there with you. But you and I both know that that model won't work for most people. They'll be in the same place they are today—having to trust when other people tell them their phone is safe.

Incidentally, to the last paragraph, you can help make it work—go work on Linux mobile UX/UI. Things like the PinePhone and the Purism Librem 5 exist, and there's a market for them, they're just missing a polished user experience.

[wrkronmiller]

> Anything essential is going to want to be in the App Store, in order to reach customers.

The logical extension of that argument is that the Hey app would still be in the App Store and still be facing this exact problem.

[Wowfunhappy]

Hey is a tiny app used by a few people; it's not essential.

If Hey became a cultural phenomenon, I'd bet that Apple would magically reinterpret their rules. This is exactly the purpose of having competition.

[alasdair_]

>If they became a cultural phenomenon I'd bet that Apple would magically reinterpret their rules.

Please trust me on this but, even if your app is far and away the #1 grossing app on the app store and hundreds of media outlets have literally used the term "cultural phenomenon" to describe it, Apple is still a huge stickler on the rules and it still takes forever (and a lot of stress) to get approved, every single update.

This applies even if your CEO has Tim Cook's personal cellphone number and talked to him about the issues with app store approval a week before, in person.

[Wowfunhappy]

Yes, but Apple would have a lot less power if developers could threaten (even theoretically) to go around the App Store.

Even now, major apps do have power. Unlike Hey, Netflix and Amazon are at least still in the App Store, and Amazon is even allowed to sell video rentals through their app without going through Apple's payment system: https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203294/amazon-prime-vide...

Edit: My posts probably read like contradictions. I see it like this: (1) The safe and vetted App Store is a part of the iPhone's appeal, which (2) Apple is currently enforcing through anti-competitive tactics. If Apple wants to maintain the App Store as a product differentiator (which of course they do), they should have to do the work to keep developers happy. Where "keep happy" means very basic things like not taking a full 30% of their revenue.

[brodock]

It's not the developers that are being milked up, it's the consumers. The 30% tax is transferred over to you by having a higher price when buying from the IAP.

No one "eats up" that loss.

[Shared404]

> 2) Never be exposed to Apps that havn't been vetted by a trustworthy party (in this case Apple)

My understanding is that neither major mobile app store has done a great job of vetting.

[jzoch]

The app store is quite a bit better at it...neither is perfect but its no comparison.

[amelius]

Yes,

https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2020/04/fleeceware-a...

[sukilot]

iOS is the minority phone OS. It's prominent because it's not been intentionally commoditized as Android was.

[monadic2]

I wonder what people think Apple vets apps for.

[dexterdog]

I assume they vet the apps to make sure there is no other revenue inside the app that Apple is not getting its tax on.

[monadic2]

Well it’s ultimately rather arbitrary isn’t it?

[tathougies]

Apple should then rent their hardware out then or provide long-term leasing. If Apple is selling devices for ownership, then the device should truly be owned. I would rather they be honest, and lease the device out (even for a fixed sum for an unlimited period of time), than to claim ownership.

[woadwarrior01]

They’ve been doing that[1] with iPhones for a while now.

[1]: https://www.apple.com/shop/iphone/iphone-upgrade-program

[baddox]

I don’t agree with that explanation of the gaming console exception. Modern consoles are actually quite similar to smartphones in the breadth of their functionality. To be consistent I think you’d need to include consoles, most smart TVs and media streamers, and even tech-heavy cars.

[Wowfunhappy]

My concern with phones isn't really that they're general-purpose per se, but that they're many people's primary computer--if not their only computer. Game consoles don't have that level of importance in our lives.

[echelon]

Gaming consoles aren't general purpose computers. You're not going to do banking, email your boss, find a lover, or order groceries from them. They're unnecessary leisure commodities.

There are also three major consoles, PC, Steam, and a ton of other ways to distribute games. It's a highly competitive landscape. If you want a phone, you've got only two options.

DOJ, burn the Apple and Google monopolies to the ground.

[kllrnohj]

> If you want a phone, you've got only two options.

That's not true at all. There's 2 primary OS choices, but on the Android side there's dozens of manufacturers, all with their take on things. Android is not a single option, it's hundreds. You even have choice of app stores. There's even options that have zero Google at all - like the Huawei P40 Pro. Or for an older take, silent cirlce's Blackphone or Amazon's Fire Phone. And even if you are in the very small minority that actually buys a Google phone, they even provide instructions on how to unlock the bootloader & flash a different OS: https://source.android.com/setup/build/running#unlocking-rec...

[rydre]

Android if Google as far as I am concerned, for now. Lets hope Huawei gets it's store off the ground fast. But for now: no Google Play Service, and Android is a brick.

[baddox]

I think gaming consoles are general purpose computers. You listed a few things that probably aren't done very often on consoles (although you likely can do them, since consoles have web browsers). But it's also easy to list things that are much better-suited to be done on a gaming console than a smartphone.

[echelon]

> I think gaming consoles are general purpose computers.

This is a contrived point of view, and I'm sure the product managers at Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Apple, and Google would all strongly disagree.

Remember when the PS3 used to be used for super computing? Sony quietly ended that program when they realized that wasn't the business they wanted to be in.

[baddox]

I don't mean that consoles are the best device to do any computing task. Of course they aren't, and of course smartphones also are not. I'm also not making some technical claim, like that they are Turing complete (of course they are, but that's not really relevant). What I mean is that I do not consider modern consoles to be "single-purpose computers." They're more like "the computer for your living room," and they can and often do handle all sorts of media/entertainment and communication/socializing (which, let's be honest, is a huge part of what smartphones do). They can also handle home automation. If you consider "anything you would want to do on your living room TV" to be a single purpose, then sure, but you could construct the same definition for a smartphone.

[fredophile]

Consoles are very different from phones. Consoles sell at a loss and make the money back in sales. The 30% cut to the console makers goes towards paying for the lower price of hardware. Google and Apple do not sell phones below cost.

The certification process for consoles is also a lot tougher and more expensive.

[ric2b]

Games for consoles are sold in many different stores, I don't know why that's even being brought up.

[baddox]

I think the point is that console game’s code has to be signed by the console manufacturer or the console simply won’t run the code at all.

[posterboy]

Webapps, period. (I agree that resource heavy games are the exception; given that I consider music production a form of play, the difference is fleeting, incidently consoles are famous in this space, too; contrast that with your basic map, analogue to sheet music, lol).

No, I don't want to install your lousy app that's only a front-end to your web service anyway. Of course it gives you more control and opportunity for certain features. This only means that web browsers still have a long way to go. If apps were reasonably small, maybe I could install more of them, but as it is, it's just impossible.

Either way the back-end providers profit.

[m3kw9]

That’s a different argument, not related to the current issue.

[jpttsn]

I can’t relate to this. Some vendors sell me hardware, and I can bring my own software. Apple sells me more expensive hardware with the software only from their “partners”, which is “curated” and subject to a steep 30% distribution cut. Apple never tricked me into an iPhone believing I could run any random software. I know what I signed up for. Why should I feel entitled to anything else?

[RonanTheGrey]

> I know what I signed up for. Why should I feel entitled to anything else?

It's interesting you'd say that because it's actually not true (I am not accusing you of lying at all - I take your statement at face value!)

What I mean is the following:

When I buy a phone - no matter the maker - I have deep within me a default assumption that if I want some app, some provider, some service, some feature, on my phone - that it will be, that it can be, and if someone thinks it up it'll be there shortly. I DO NOT assume that because Apple wants to steal people's work, some apps will never appear there.

Do you remember the early days of the app store and the saying "There's an app for that" (usually referring to things like fart generators and TV quotes).

Nowadays you'd NEVER think to say such a thing because Apple is ensuring it cannot be true - and more and more developers and platforms are choosing not to use it.

It's pretty plainly clear to me that Apple ONLY wants large, rich, well-known companies publishing apps; they grudgingly publish apps for small or individual developers, but really deep down wish they didn't have to.

Stuff like what we are seeing now with Hey is their endgame to finally get everyone except their exclusive club off the list.

[TedDoesntTalk]

> I know what I signed up for. Why should I feel entitled to anything else?

I bought an iPhone and had no idea bit torrent clients were banned

[jpttsn]

Did you return it, or did it not matter enough to change the purchase decision?

[TedDoesntTalk]

Fortunately i still have an Android phone and Android tablet where such things still exist (and i use them regularly). So I kept the iPhone because I also develop for the platform now.

[jpttsn]

Apple is not tricking people into buying iPhones, believing every app is available. “There’s an app for that” doesn’t mean “every single app for that is available”. It means there are many apps, all of which found 30% to be acceptable.

If Apple had promised customers that Age of Empires runs on Macs, then they would have a hard time getting Microsoft to give them 30%. But Apple has made not such promise to consumers.

Besides, there’s an email client for the iPhone. If there wasn’t, consumers might complain. If Hey was the only game in town, I’m sure they’d be given a sweeter deal.

[RonanTheGrey]

I never said they're tricking anyone. Although, "There's an app for that" was actually a thing, or would you rather not remember that?

The POINT that I'm making is that people their phone is theirs and they can install what they want on it. Even if that thing comes from the app store. EVEN NOW when I want to do something I go looking for an app. I don't assume my phone can't do it. And I certainly don't assume it can't do it thanks to shenanigans on Apple's part.

The reality however is far different and there are LOTS of things Apple doesn't allow and they are not above using their platform to stifle competition.

[chipotle_coyote]

> If Apple had promised customers that Age of Empires runs on Macs, then they would have a hard time getting Microsoft to give them 30%. But Apple has made not such promise to consumers.

Given that Age of Empires has actually had Mac versions, I'm not sure this is the comparison you're looking for here. :)

[jpttsn]

Off topic but okay, let’s specify Definitive Edition.

[TedDoesntTalk]

Why should software makers share their revenue with Apple? We don’t do it on android, Windows, macOS, linux, or anything else.

The only value added by Apple is some kind of vetting (they don’t do code review, they just check that the app meets their recommendations... and they are called RECOMMENDATIONS not REQUIEMENTS).

My app was recently rejected because i refused to sell in-app purchases and want to keep purchases only on my website.

[pdonis]

> Why should software makers share their revenue with Apple?

Why should Apple care what software makers want?

I get that it's a pain to develop software for the iPhone and then have to pay rent to Apple to get it to users; but that's not Apple's problem unless enough users either complain or switch hardware to cut into Apple's revenue. That doesn't seem to be happening. Sure, there are plenty of users (I'm one of them) who refuse to buy an Apple device precisely because of limitations like this, but there are plenty more users who don't seem to care; whatever they are getting through Apple's curated app store appears to satisfy their needs. As long as that remains true, Apple has no incentive to change its policies, and that's just a business reality that any software developer contemplating making an app for the iPhone is going to have to deal with.

[TedDoesntTalk]

Yeah, it’s a little like the Mafia used to do: give us a monthly payment or we’ll, ya know, make sure you’re of business.

And you’re defending that?

[kd913]

I don't think he is defending it, I think he is correctly rationalising that this is the effect of devs and users buying into Apple's walled Garden. This is what devs and users caused by supporting the Google Apple duopoly. You bought in you play by their rules.

Personally I think devs should just pass the 30% to consumers or withdraw their apps. That is how you get leverage.

[pdonis]

> it’s a little like the Mafia

The Mafia didn't build things. It just came in and took over things others had built.

Apple built its app store. It built the iPhone. It got its users fair and square, by providing a product that users want. If you think that's the same as the Mafia, you have a very skewed view of business.

[TedDoesntTalk]

But they also prevent other stores from being built. And they prevent sideloading. It's their store or nothing. They created a marketplace and ban other marketplaces. wtf?

[paulcole]

Why does the pet store down the street from my apartment have a storefront on Amazon? Because they want access to Amazon’s customer base and are willing to pay for it.

[ratww]

> ...or anything else.

I'll bring it up again: game consoles. Steam. And no, they don't deserve a pass.

[Wowfunhappy]

I do think game consoles kind of deserve a pass [1], but okay, I can see where you're coming from with that.

Why Steam? No one ever has to use Steam--you can install whatever you want on your PC. Steam isn't even installed by default in 99% of cases.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23579943

[ratww]

GP asked "why software makers should share their revenue with Apple" and said "nothing else" is like that. I was just pointing examples of things that were exactly like that.

As for the why: I'm thinking from the point of view of a developer. For me it's all the same. Paying 30% to Apple is the same as paying 30% to Steam or x% to console makers. In practice it doesn't matter if the appliance the user runs my software is essential or not, or if the store is exclusive, or comes preinstalled or not. I'm still paying a percentage to someone.

Sucks in all cases.

[twicetwice]

Well, I don't think paying 30% to Apple is the same as paying 30% to Steam. The former is mandatory, the latter is not. If you don't want to be on Steam, you can put your game in the Windows store/etc, or sell directly from your website. If you don't want to be on Apple's app store, well, too bad, it's the only way to reach 50+% of your potential customers (in the US).

[ilikehurdles]

A store owner is not obligated to give you free placement on their shelves.

[brandon272]

What stores take 30% lifetime subscription royalties for products sold on their shelves?

Can you imagine if Best Buy required Apple to add "Best Buy Payments" to MacOS so that Best Buy could collect a 30% fee on top of any services subscription that Apple sells to that MacBook user? All for the privilege of selling their products through the BB stores.

Apple isn't marking up a product for resale in it's retail environments. It is, in many cases, forcing its developers (who provide their valuable products to Apple for free, after paying Apple an annual fee) to completely rearrange their business models in order for Apple to collect a huge portion of their revenues, entirely on their terms.

[ilikehurdles]

It doesn’t matter. These are the terms of the store. If Walmart makes clear an expectation that you have to have an office in Arkansas in order to sell an item in their store, then you shouldn’t be surprised when your item is rejected from their store if you don’t build that office. There’s no expectation that you’d have free placement, certainly.

As for your Best Buy example, Best Buy can make that demand, but Best Buy would lose more from not having Apple’s products than Apple would from not being placed on Best Buy’s shelves.

[brandon272]

I agree completely - Apple can have whatever terms it wants within the bounds of the law. And app developers have every right to complain about those terms, loudly and in a sustained fashion, if they wish.

The second part there is what a lot of people seem to have difficulty accepting.

[stdgy]

And customers aren't required to only shop at a single store. If the store doesn't have what I want, I should be able to go to another store.

[ilikehurdles]

And you have that option.

Your Apple hardware is your Costco Membership Card. You aren’t able to buy Sam’s Club products using your Costco membership, and Costco’s under no expectation to make them available to you.

[stdgy]

Nonsense. The App Store is the Store. For god's sake, it's literally called a store. This couldn't be clearer.

You don't need to muddy the waters by making a ridiculous analogy that somehow equates a computer to a membership card (of all things!).

The computer is a computer. Full stop. There is a store on the computer. There should be other stores on the computer but they're not allowed because the people that make the computer are partaking in anti-competitive, anti-consumer shenanigans.

[Wowfunhappy]

But I can buy a fridge at Costco, buy food from Sam's Club, and still store my food in my fridge. I don't have to throw out Costco's fridge in order to buy food elsewhere.

[TedDoesntTalk]

This store owner bans other stores (markets). That's anti-competitive and would never be tolerated in meat space.

[jpttsn]

It’s totally optional; if you don’t want to participate, don’t. Sell your software any way you want outside their store. Take out ads in local papers or something.

[5Qn8mNbc2FNCiVV]

That's the issue, you can't. Simple as that, you cannot get your software onto an iPhone without paying the 30% (or offloading it to your customers)

[jpttsn]

So don’t sell iPhone versions. Sell software for platforms that support arbitrary software. Or pay Apple for distribution in their walled garden. It’s totally up to you.

The parameters have been clear for over a decade, and it’s really time to stop whining that the iPhone is not an open platform. Apple is the only iPhone app distribution channel and they make the rules. If you don’t want that, don’t buy an iPhone/don’t make iPhone apps. If you make iPhone apps, own it.

[TedDoesntTalk]

And the other alternative is that governments get involved to force apple to allow other markets on their phones. Ones that charge 5% or ones that are even free.

Instead of, you know, just accepting bad things because they've been bad for a decade. Slavery was around in the US for more than 100 years. Did that make it right? Maybe slave owners said similar things to Abolitionists, "but it's been this way for ages!!"

[scq]

Apparently not: https://www.protocol.com/hey-email-app-store-rejection

According to Apple, if your app is not a "reader" app it must allow subscribing in-app.

[jpttsn]

Only if you want them to carry it in their store. But you don’t want to do that, or at least not pay for it, so don’t. Make a web app or something.

[kennywinker]

Remember when their slogan was “there’s an app for that”? Implication being - whatever you want, it’s there.

[jpttsn]

Implication being “there’s an app for” a number of needs, but not that “there’s every app” for every need.

When the case in point is an email client this argument seems especially facetious. Is any customer really being defrauded because “there’s not an app for email”?

[simion314]

>I know what I signed up for. Why should I feel entitled to anything else?

Maybe you are happy with one of the 2 shitty choices, but there might be people that would prefer to not be forced to chose what shit taste better, it is live you live in place and you have only 2 drinking water choices, both contain different poisons but you have a choice, why should people complain and try to fix a bad situation when you could chose your poison? I seen lots complaining that there is not enough competiotion in X or Y market (like mobile or ISPs ) but Apple fans don't want more competition on the iOS, you wouild thinkt he average Apple user would have been already scammed 100 times on their Macbooks because of the missing walls , this is how hard the security excuse is mentioned.

[thrwn_frthr_awy]

I haven't found a way to sign in to YouTube without being signed into Chrome.

[sroussey]

Easily done by using Firefox. ;)

[wldlyinaccurate]

Doesn't Android have the same problem? If your app isn't in the Play Store, it may as well not exist.

[Wowfunhappy]

No, because you can sideload Android apps. Fortnite for Android isn't in the Play Store, and it definitely exists.

[jackvalentine]

They capitulated and it’s now on the Play Store.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.epicgames....

[Wowfunhappy]

Whoops, thanks, guess I was out of date! Still, Fortnite was sideload-only for a while, and that's a major game.

[jackvalentine]

Yeah I think we can draw a bit of a line from they were a major game not on the Play Store and now they're a major game on the Play Store - my guess is barely anyone sideloaded it.

[Wowfunhappy]

Well, or that because the game was being sideloaded a lot, Google offered Epic a special deal.

[flobosg]

There are alternative software repositories, such as F-Droid.

[IanCal]

I think they've faced antitrust things around the dominance of the app store, however do they actually do the same thing as apple here? I can find a story online of tinder switching to asking users to enter their credit card details in the app.

[dylz]

A large part of the world (China) runs their own app stores for Android.

[SpaceRaccoon]

You can download alternative app stores. For example, here is the Yandex app store: https://store.yandex.com/

[jacobwilliamroy]

It's easier to share android apps. I dont need any extra tools to run non-playstore apps on an android.