[AriaMinaei]

Classic antitrust maneuver; divide and conquer, this time from Apple. Antitrust activists shouldn't let this dull their pencil.

The main issue is not the exorbitant commission rate. Apple is hurting the consumers via its anti-competitive behavior with regards to what apps people are and are not allowed to install on a device that they've paid for. They are blocking value creation up and down the stack in a manner that "if we can't extract it, you're not allowed to create it."

[kqvamxurcagg]

I have to agree you.

It's intolerable that Apple has been allowed to lockdown their device for 10 years, completely control the market for apps and when it looks like regulators will take action they reduce their price and claim to be acting in the interest of small business.

Third party app stores must be allowed. Apple should not be allowed to dictate what software I can and cannot have on my device.

[nlh]

I have to respectfully disagree with you. I think Apple controlling the App Store is one of the best decision that's ever been made for 95% of consumers.

My 82-year-old mom's desktop computer is riddled with spyware, browser toolbars, and other garbage. Her iPhone is pristine and works as well as it did the day she got it. That's because Apple refuses to allow that garbage to make it to the App Store.

Yes, there's some collateral damage for us nerds. And perhaps there should be an easier way to - for those who really care - install more low-level tools and apps. But it shouldn't be easy, and it shouldn't put the majority of users at risk.

[koyote]

Apple is free to control their app store just like Google controls its app store. But they shouldn't be able to block you from running other app stores or sideloading applications.

Your 82-year-old mum's iphone wouldn't behave any differently but other people will be able to go into the developer settings and tick an option that will allow them to install non-app store apps. That's how it works on Android.

[LdSGSgvupDV]

Is there any reference for 95%? Just curious. Normally, would it be something like 80%?

[graeme]

Why not get another device? Third party app stores break the security model for regular users.

Smartphones have seen explosive growth because normal people can use them safely.

[AriaMinaei]

> Why not get another device?

This advice would work for clothes/home appliances/furniture and other competitive markets, but not to mobile OSes.

Mobile OSes are natural monopoly/duopolies. There isn't enough room in the world for 100 OSes for us to get a competitive market. There isn't even room for 3. There is barely room for 2 with great downside. Companies spend a lot of money developing an app for one OS and basically re-creating it for the other.

I'm looking at my phone's home screen. Most of these apps are available in the other OS too, with almost the exact same functionality, but completely different codebases. Each of these duplicate efforts represent anything from X×100K $ to X×10M $ of development cost. This is just part of the cost of having more OSes. And the consumer ultimately pays for these costs.

[toyg]

> not to mobile OSes

Arguably not to OSes in general. Each platform type (desktop, server, mobile) effectively has only a couple of realistic choices when it comes to the OS. The network effects are very strong and winners take all.

[vineyardmike]

Platform effects

[jonatanheyman]

> Smartphones have seen explosive growth because normal people can use them safely.

Can you back this claim with a source? How do you explain that Android smartphones has grown even more than iOS, despite the fact that they allow you to install whatever apps you choose?

[vineyardmike]

Can't back their claim, but..

> How do you explain that Android smartphones has grown even more than iOS, despite the fact that they allow you to install whatever apps you choose?

1. Android is free for OEMs, iOS is unavailable. If you want to make a phone then its a great choice, and a free one. 2. Most flavors have a dominant store built in (android store, amazon store, Chinese-oem stores like Xiaomi) that are "safe" or offer that illusion. The important thing here is the built-in-trust of the default settings 3. Piggy-backing off point 1, cheap phone OS means people can make cheap phones -> Cheaper leads to more available for more people, and most of the world is poor compared to US iPhone users

[jeromenerf]

"Normal people" doesn’t have to refer to the whole population and I would risk that apple iPhone was a imminent proponent to the whole "smartphone" craze.

I don’t particularly like it but the "trickle down theory" non marginally applies to fashionable or otherwise luxury items. iPhone creating a desire later satisfied by a cheaper option. Or something like that.

[satya71]

I don't think it breaks the security model. There could be a strict but fair standard for qualifying as an app store. Then I could choose an app store that imposes an even stricter security/privacy model.

[beagle3]

Regulators and authorities really like locked down devices. Not the FTC, but everyone else (FCC, NSA, SEC, FBI). It’s not going to change, unfortunately.

Practically speaking, the only big thing a web app can’t do on an iPhone that most app writers would like to do is notifications. Most other locked down things like call recording aren’t available to App Store approved apps either (and APIs are being removed from Android)

[GloriousKoji]

One could argue that it's pro-consumer since curation of apps supposedly protects them from apps with malicious intentions (yes, the execution of this isn't perfect). It also guarantees a level of software quality associated with their devices.

But what's obviously anti-consumer to me is the in app payment system. They take their 30% cut and forbid you from even hinting at alternative means to pay for something to use in an app.

[threeseed]

I love that Apple controls the payment system.

It means I have one place to manage subscriptions, one place with my credit card details, one place to manage family payments and all of it is from a company that can be trusted to do things in a secure and private way.

Do you really want the likes of PayPal or Epic to dominate mobile App Store payments ?

[psahgal]

The web has a wide variety of payment processors, but that doesn't seem to slow down online purchasing.

[threeseed]

No one is saying that it would slow down purchasing.

Only that it is user-hostile which services like Paypal absolutely are.

[psahgal]

I'm surprised you find Paypal to be a user-hostile service! I've never had major issues with it. Would you like to elaborate?

[disown]

> It means I have one place to manage subscriptions, one place with my credit card details, one place to manage family payments

You are right. Choices and options just are messy. We should just have one company that does everything. Lets just merge everything together.

> all of it is from a company that can be trusted to do things in a secure and private way.

Are you for real? Apple is one of the greediest immoral and anti-competitive companies in the world. Not just in terms of tax avoidance via offshore shenanigans or slave labor in china, but their overall ethos of closed platform. But trust Saint Apple if you must.

> Do you really want the likes of PayPal or Epic to dominate mobile App Store payments?

What's wrong with nobody dominating anything and having competition?

[bsaul]

Absolutely agreeing as well. It’s a nice gesture from apple towards independant developers, but it doesn’t solve the fundamental issues stated over and over. I hope they won’t get away with it, especially now that laptop and desktop are closer than ever to live the same fate.