[Feolkin]

Any app can prompt you to install another app without root on Android (since Android supports installing app packages outside of the Play Store). So if somebody wants to make an app store, they just need to publish an app that provides downloads to other apps and that's it. New app store. It doesn't affect how individual apps are sandboxed either. How apps are installed doesn't change the security model of the OS. Now, Google's position is still problematic because they clearly use their position to push the Play Store on everybody, but it shows that separating the store from the OS actually is quite possible.

And seriously, Apple is a hundred billion dollar company. I'm sure they can handle this if push comes to shove. People need to stop defending these companies as if they need the protection.

[graeme]

But how is that separate app store a business? The original proposal I replied to was:

> Better if the App Store gets broken up into its own independent company.

It sounds like the actual proposal would be “make apple allow the installation of arbitrary app packages without review”, since that would allow the app model from android you’re talking about.

That isn’t making the app store a business, but rather changing os permissions. It’s not clear to me “the apple app store” is a business separate from apple.

Btw, got an example of one of those android app store apps? I’d be interested in looking at one. I’m assuming google doesn’t review the apps you can install with those?

> Apple is a hundred billion dollar company.

A nit, but they’re near two trillion actually

[Feolkin]

I'm not sure how it couldn't be a business. The App Store currently takes a 30% cut of every purchase. The business is running and developing an app store and we already know where its revenue would come from. It wouldn't be any different from Valve running Steam.

F-Droid is an open source alternative. Amazon has the Amazon Appstore. Samsung has the Galaxy Store. A more complete list here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Android_app_stores

Google has nothing to do with the curation of any of these alternative stores, since they're owned and run by completely separate third-parties and Android as currently designed doesn't prevent a user from installing arbitrary app packages (apk's).

[graeme]

The app store has the 30% commission because apple runs it. Really not obvious thry could have that if independent.

F droid isn’t a business, it’s a non profit. The amazon app store is mostly for fire devices. On non-fire devices:

> The Amazon App Store is not limited to just Fire devices. While it takes a bit of work, the App Store can be installed on most Android devices and provide users with an alternative to the Google Play Store. However, the process requires you to enable the ability to install apps from unknown sources, which is highly discouraged by Google.

https://www.businessofapps.com/news/amazon-app-store-vs-goog...

I’m sure the Samsung app store is a similar story on non-samsung devices.

Outside of games, there aren’t really any app stores on mac/pc, because you can install anything you want. It is the security model of phones that makes app stores a thing in the first place.

A proposal to allow multiple app stores seems like a proposal to make apple alter its security model. Alternate app stores on android involve circumventing android’s default security model.

[drusepth]

I'm not the guy you're responding to, but to be clear, yes: Apple would need to alter its security model to allow third-party app stores to exist, as they cannot exist with its current their-apps-only model.

The app store could have a 99% commission "because Apple runs it". That's part of the problem. If a developer wants to target iOS users, they have to go through Apple's store and agree to anything Apple says.

But, of course, that's totally legal and fine. That's not why people are advocating breaking up the App Store. The real problem is that Apple has free reign to remove, ban, or hinder adoption (in basically unlimited ways) any app they want, which often equates to "apps that compete with anything Apple wants to do as a company". Does your music streaming company want an app on iPhones? Too bad, Apple can simply say "no" because they have Apple Music. Want to let people buy books through your company's app? Too bad, Apple can just say no because they have Apple Books. Want to let your existing customers access their existing Stadia purchases on an iOS device they own? Too bad.

It's pretty basic anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior under the guise of needing to "review" all apps, coupled with the idea that only reviewed apps can be installed on your phone (a paradigm that doesn't exist on other widespread operating systems, mind you!). There's benefit in reviewing apps, for sure, but when you, as a company, have the means and the motive to screw over your competitors, it's often in everyone else's best interest to remove either the means (separating the app store from Apple) or the motivation (removing Apple's apps from the app store).

Apple's not alone in this, and they're not the only one politicians like Warren are going after. It's not really any different from e.g. Amazon siphoning up data on purchase patterns and then producing their own products that they can then promote instead of their competitors on their own store.

Having third-party app stores lets Apple continue to play in their own store, but arguably removes the means to screw over competitors by giving them an alternate way to get their app to a user's phone and frees them from having to agree to literally-anything-Apple-says to play on customer devices that Apple doesn't own.