[tc]

Here's the thing. Even if you're OK with Apple (or whoever) controlling what you can run on your computers, this is a centralization of power that will be co-opted.

Let's say that Australia wants to ban consumer encryption. This would currently be difficult to enforce for PC software. But on mobile, this is easy. Just make Apple and Google enforce it! Make them ban such apps from their stores. Now you've achieved perfect enforcement on Apple hardware. Even on Android, where people could in theory side-load the banned apps, this would prevent those apps from achieving any scale or network effect.

That's what I think people are missing here. No matter how much you trust Apple, once the mechanisms for this kind of power are in place, you won't be able to control what happens next.

[izacus]

Apple already actively censors political content in apps and actively works with Chinese government to censor content on Chinese AppStore.

A private company is already put themselves in plate to control software content that reaches millions of people without those people having the ability to choose anything else on their pocket computers.

[wayneftw]

> Apple already actively censors political content in apps...

This is true, which is why I surprised the other day when I found this app called "BLMovement" when I was looking around to see if anyone was making a completely distasteful joke...

https://apps.apple.com/uy/app/blmovement/id1517754969

As a "resource directory", it's not purely political but surely it skirts the line.

I'm certain that if some political movement had popular support Apple would forget the rules though.

(Although, I doubt they'd let this same app in the store if it was called AntifaMovement, QAnonMovement or NationalSocialistMovement.)

[ucarion]

Lest your comment suggest the author of this article isn't aware of this point, he has made this argument precisely:

> Whereas China needed to control country-wide Internet access to achieve its censorship goals, Apple and Google have helpfully provided the Indian government with a one-stop shop. This also, for better or worse, gives a roadmap for how the U.S. government could respond to TikTok, if it chose to: there is no need to build a great firewall — simply give the order to Apple and Google. Centralization, at least from a central government’s perspective, has its uses.

https://stratechery.com/2020/india-bans-chinese-apps-the-app...

[darkwizard42]

I don't think you are using two points that are similar enough.

If Australia bans encryption, you as a consumer who resides in Australia has a high switching cost (moving, new job, residence, etc.) and thus the consumer loses out.

If Apple starts to use that power badly... you can switch to a number of competitor feature phones with largely the same feature and app capabilities (Android being the most obvious)

In a market with 2+ competitors and where its low switching costs (moving contacts is quite easy these days, not a lot of deep 2-year contracts for phones/providers) this point doesn't hold true

[ohazi]

The points are not supposed to be similar... you're missing the part of the parent's argument where one is used as a tool to enforce the other, when otherwise it would be difficult/impossible to enforce.

There is only one real competitor: Android. Google would very much like to have the same degree of control that Apple does over their ecosystem, but they're holding back for now so that they can point to Apple as being worse when the congressional inquiries heat up.

Feature phones are not real competitors to smartphones.

[sudosysgen]

I'd argue there is a third competitor in the form of Huawei/Xiaomi. Despite fears of spying by the Chinese, which might be justified, their phones tend to have better prices all the way to the ultra market, and due to the fact that they want to allow you to sideload GsmCore and Play Services, will never be locked down.

[simion314]

>If Australia bans encryption, you as a consumer who resides in Australia has a high switching cost (moving, new job, residence, etc.) and thus the consumer loses out.

>If Apple starts to use that power badly... you can switch to a number of competitor feature phones with largely the same feature and app capabilities (Android being the most obvious)

It depends, network are effects are strong on Apple (iMessage) and maybe you already bought tons of apps and software that you can't transfer to Android or Windows.

[hhjinks]

I don't think getting a new phone necessarily has that low a switching cost for many people.

[kevingadd]

"you can switch to a number of competitor feature phones with largely the same feature and app capabilities"

How much does that cost? How does it work if the apps you rely on are iOS only? How do I transfer my app and subscription purchases to my new Android phone?

[newyorker2]

I feel like the core point of several arguments ITT skew towards the age old anti-trust laws without explicitly referring to it per se.

[perryizgr8]

> But on mobile, this is easy. Just make Apple and Google enforce it!

This is exactly how Indian government has banned tiktok. They are never able to ban websites because the web is open. But apps they can ban easily because if Apple/Google say no, they will be squeezed.

[arvinsim]

Yep, I am really surprised about people demonising Google but apologising for Apple. They both constitute a duopoly in the mobile space.

But then again, I shouldn't be surprised since there are incentives to act this way.

[tantalor]

> ban such apps from their stores

You could always use a website instead. Why is an app necessary?

[zepto]

This is a good argument for enforcing open hardware at the boot loader level and requiring open driver specifications for the hardware.

It is a strong counter argument for requiring openness at the App store level.

[paulmd]

As part of selling on Apple's app store, you agree to follow the ToS. The ToS are very clear that you don't set up your own marketplace inside your app where Apple doesn't get a cut. This reaction (terminating Epic's account) was eminently foreseeable and completely justified. You do not fuck with Apple's cut. Don't like it, don't sell on the app store.

Epic thought they were big enough and valuable enough that they could bully their way through ToS violations. All the hip thinkpieces were saying that no matter what happens here Epic comes out on top, because Apple has everything to lose and blah blah.

Turns out nope, Epic's customers do need the app store after all, so Apple has the leverage here after all.