|
|
|
|
|
by valuearb
2118 days ago
|
|
Jail breaking is so difficult that it’s always been a tiny percent of the installed base, esp since iOS 7. It’s night and day between it and what would happen if other app stores were allowed to install unvetted Apps. Having a significant percentage of your installed base with malware is bad for them, bad for Apple, and bad for other devs. Apple could enable side loading and alternate app stores in exchange for a revenue share right now without costing them any profits. They don’t because they truly believe the benefits of the walled garden are hugely important to their customers. Who should I believe? The company that spends all their time trying to understand their customer needs, or a bunch of developers frustrated with the revenue share percentage? |
|
I don't see it, and I'm more skeptical because this statement treats speculation as fact.
Anecdotally, I'm a potential (and once!) Apple customer that will never consider using an iPhone or iPad solely because Apple has created and enforced rules that elevate their judgment over mine when it comes to what software I am allowed to install on a device I purchased. That is just completely unacceptable to me. The argument that restricting what I can do with my device somehow has value to their other customers with a similar model of device seems far-fetched. I suspect it has value to Apple because they want the 30% cut, not because they think customers would leave if they offered it.
I agree with you that Apple disallows other stores because they truly believe in their walled garden. But I believe in giving customers the ability to choose for themselves, knowing that some customers will make bad decisions, but also knowing some customers will do amazing stuff because they were given the freedom to do so. Perhaps I'm just not a customer that Apple cares about serving. It's a shame, because it leaves me stuck with Android and Google's ever-invasive Google Play Services.