[FlownScepter]

A quick Google says iOS' market share is 14%.

I don't understand this position at all. Google is by far and away the market leader. Their ecosystem is free and you can do just about anything in it. Their Play store's standards are utterly bare bones. The devices are cheaper. If what you want is an open source (ish) platform that you can hack on, modify, install software yourself, whatever, all of that is available to you, at a lower price, over there. This feels to be the ultimate first world problem, to pay a handsome premium for a top-tier device, then to complain about it's shortcomings. So take it back! Nobody made you buy one.

It's not like there aren't Android handsets that do all the stuff iOS ones do, occasionally even better, for similar prices. The main reason I stick to iOS is precisely for the locked down OS, and the curated App Store, so to see so many people complaining that they purchased the device when those things are like, the most obvious part of what comprises an iOS device, then complain about those things, is utter madness to me.

Why the fuck must Apple also do that, with a higher priced device, that everyone claims is inferior to Android handsets with their quad core processors and is "just a fashion item?" Android users seem unhealthily obsessed with turning iOS into Android. Just let us do our own thing over here for fuck's sake.

Yet again and again on here and elsewhere, iOS is constantly positioned as this MONOLITH of anti-consumer anti-developer DOOM, absolutely RUINING the mobile market. Again, FOUR. TEEN. PERCENT.

[KillahBhyte]

THIS! Say it a little louder for those in the back. I work in IT. I do not want to have a mini IT project in my pocket that I have to fiddle with. I want a device that is dependable above all else that I don't have to work on for my everyday driver. This is the same answer I provide every time someone at work ask my why I carry an Apple phone. To me the curation is part of the draw. I know that this phone will require the least amount of my attention to keep it working day in, day out. That is the feature I wanted most.

But every iOS post I read is along the lines of make it like android, and I have the same prevailing thought. Why?? I would not own a MacOS machine, I wouldn't like it. But I don't feel the need to get on every Mac discussion complaining it should be more like Linux. The fact the differences exist is a good thing.

[dkonofalski]

Exactly. It's the same reason rich people hire people to do their accounting and cleaning and all the other stuff they don't want to do. I want to pick up my phone and use it not mess with it every 3 days because there's something slightly off or there's a bug with the latest mod I installed.

[kbenson]

Allowing competition doesn't mean you need to use that competition. Don't install any other stores and don't toggle the flag to allow alternate stores, and you would have and iPhone exactly as it is now.

There's no reason to expect it will be exactly like a PC, which is coming from a completely open past to a future which allows more locking down. The iPhone is locked down now, it's a bit ridiculous to assume they would immediately go straight to allowing anything and everything to be installed without any hoops jumped through.

Even Android requires you to allow unsafe sources to isntall third party packages. Why would anyone expect the iPhone to go farther than this when they're fighting tooth and nail to not even do this much?

[KillahBhyte]

Honestly my fear isn't rogue developers. That's always a concern but not one that is going to show up with any consistency. My real fear is what carriers will do with this ruling, as they have the institutional power and collusion ability to force Apple's hand if they really wanted. I'm thinking shovelware and apps that can't be deleted becoming part and parcel with providing a phone service through a carrier.

I'm also considering the transition in the Steam marketplace as a recent example. Their opening from curation started with Greenlight, a fast track program with some but minimal curation. There were a few turds but by and large the games that came through were of some general quality. Enter phase 2, Early Access. The minimal barriers were removed except "will it run", adult content allowed, and a smaller hosting fee used. And in came the parade of low effort hot garbage. Recommendations in their platform are hard to come by now. Random impulse buy while scrolling rarely happens for me now as discovery of actual good games for me is much lower and I feel like the platform as a whole has suffered for it. I could see a similar trajectory for the app store albeit with my value of the services being placed in different categories.

[kbenson]

> I'm thinking shovelware and apps that can't be deleted becoming part and parcel with providing a phone service through a carrier.

I would think anything that required Apple to open up the OS would apply equally as well to carriers. Who cares if the carriers put crap on your phone if you can easily wipe what they provide with a clean copy? It's slightly more complicated than Windows in that the carrier is also providing drivers, but not entirely without precedent (much of Dell system innards are their own design, and they re-brand or develop their own drivers for chipsets to better suit their systems). That would be another differentiator to open the market though. IF X provider is hostile to replacing their OS and makes the experience suck, the market can deal with that. At least it's a small chunk of the stack, and not everything from the base hardware to web services all locking you in to one choice.

As for Early Access and opening up Steam, i've actually not found it to be a problem. Some of my favorite games and experiences started out as (and in some cases still are) Early Access. And even the ones that started strong and went to shit, I count 6-12 months of a fun game as well worth the $20-$30 an Early Access game generally costs.

I've also found the Steam ratings, and the reviews people put in that generate it to be extremely useful and accurate. You just have to zero in on the reviews that relate it to existing experiences that you're familiar with so you get a good idea of what it is like. Worst case you find some streamer on Twitch or YouTube to watch for a bit to get a feel for it.

[Betelgeuse90]

But the existence of competition or lack thereof can have its own effects, some of which are actually desirable and make the iPhone have the draw that it does.

If Facebook had a worthy competitor for example, surely you'll agree Facebook would be a considerably different product now. You might say that doesn't help my case, because it would actually be a better product, but it's not an inevitable outcome in every comparable scenario.

[kbenson]

> If Facebook had a worthy competitor for example, surely you'll agree Facebook would be a considerably different product now.

No, I don't think I would. The vast majority of people are not going to leave facebook as long as they can't take their social contacts with them, and Facebook knows this. They'll let you have your pictures and videos, but the graph? No way, and they know most people won't leave entirely because recreating all those links is a large undertaking for most people. Even young people that originally shun Facebook as their parent's social network eventually join because the network effect is too large to ignore.

The fact that Facebook very quickly buys anything that looks like it might have a draw that could possibly affect this in any way doesn't help it. Neither does that they blatantly lied to congress about things they would/wouldn't do with some of these acquisitions when asked about it.

[ApolloFortyNine]

>I do not want to have a mini IT project in my pocket that I have to fiddle with.

Having the ability to install apps not available on the app store does not make your entire phone something you 'have to fiddle with'. If you want to live in the walled garden, you of course can do so, just as many people do on Android.

>But I don't feel the need to get on every Mac discussion complaining it should be more like Linux.

This is an interesting take, seeing how a big reason Macs are so popular amongst developers is the similarity to Linux (which the vast majority of us are going to be deploying to).

[KillahBhyte]

>If you want to live in the walled garden, you of course can do so, just as many people do on Android.

I've had both device types through the years. I've had to support both device types in different form factors. As a developer I love Android. I've learned to code some Java and lightweight game development for Android due to that openness of the platform. But the pros of the walled garden concept do not shine through on Android as they do with Apple due to the lack of how tightly integrated and compatible the hardware & software are from being developed together and approved by a sole source.

As a purchaser of an Apple product, I feel fairly confident that I am Apple's customer. With Android, the customer is the manufacturer\carrier combo that runs my phone, and I am their customer. That distinction carries an important difference and it shows through the development tracts of both companies and how they deal with issues.

Let's be honest here. If this goes through to force Apple to allow competitors to their app store, that decision will go further than developer sideloading (which is already possible). It will not happen in a vacuum and as soon as the courts hand down such a decision the carriers will be next in line to shovel as much horse manure down the line as possible.

I've never purchased an Apple phone with pre-loaded software as part of a deal with a carrier, aka Bloatware. I have from Android manufacturers on several occasions. Lower standards of entry from 3rd party sources often mean lower standards for bugs, resource usage, and privacy concerns. Higher risk of malware. Lower chance of software to OS compatibility. Apple phones with whole disk encryption made the news when the feds couldn't break it as easily as Android devices.

>Macs are so popular amongst developers is the similarity to Linux

Then I rescind the poor choice of analogy and go straight to fundamentals. These two different tools are purpose built for different things from different principles and that is ok. Homogenizing the mobile space in a way that would detract from those differences would be a net negative in my opinion.

[filoleg]

> I've never purchased an Apple phone with pre-loaded software as part of a deal with a carrier, aka Bloatware. I have from Android manufacturers on several occasions.

I am fully in agreement with your position, but it is really funny that you mention this specific detail, as it hits much closer to reality than most people realize.

Mostly because as a part of the anti-trust settlement that MSFT had to enter back in the day, they were forced to allow laptop manufacturers to preload bloatware on windows laptops. And I would definitely hate to see that on iPhones, as that was one of the major reasons I ended up switching from Androids (yes, I know, you can root your Android device, install custom Android distro, and get rid of the carrier bloatware, but not having to deal with all of that is precisely why I switched).

[oarsinsync]

The big difference between MSFT and AAPL is that MSFT licensed their software to integrators. MSFT didn't have the option to simply stop selling to those integrators and go it alone.

AAPL can relatively (compared to MSFT back in the day) easily decide to be the sole retailer of their own hardware and software stack, and cease to sell their phones through carriers.

AAPL already offers direct financing solutions, and trade in solutions, through their own retail channels. SIM-only plans tend to be cheaper as the carriers can no longer hide behind hardware costs to obfuscate their plans.

Who loses in this equation? AAPL might, through reduced sales. The carriers might, through reduced margins. Is either of those things bad to the consumer?

Doesn't AAPL already sell carrier plans as part of their iPhone retail experience?

When did MSFT sell hardware as part of their software licensing retail experience in the 90s?

[KillahBhyte]

Also a good point and not something I had considered. Thanks for that. I agree this wouldn't hurt my feeling either and would make the most sense. Problem being when it goes before the court as it appears it will soon, there is no telling where regulation might fall especially with this kind of money involved. Hopefully a rational outcome like you've stated will prevail.

[KillahBhyte]

This is a very good and poignant point and probably my biggest overarching fear of the fallout from this decision. My post was already thick and didn't want to get into setting context for this but you are exactly right. I am surprised more folks here don't realize that about the MS antitrust stuff. Except the carriers in this case have the ability to remain as gatekeepers of these requirements where the laptop manufacturers were much more limited in scope once the device left their buildings.

[Daho0n]

Do you also support cars only being allowed to be repaired at specific dealers, only using tires sold through the manufacturer with a 30 % cut? Luckily this is illegal in most of the world. In the EU I can change the battery, tires and oil and the manufacturer can't deny it or remove the warranty. With an iPhone i can't even have a pro technician work on my phone without Apple taking away warranty from me and calling the cops on the technician's shop for importing refurbished Apple parts. They will be either forced to open up or they will be split up in tiny unrecognisable pieces.

[KillahBhyte]

You are stretching equivalencies here pretty hard with regards to capital investment of a product vs. expectations but I'll play along.

If I was told this plainly and openly up front then I wouldn't buy the car to begin with -IF- that is what I value in that specific vehicle. My car? Not a chance, I like my sports car and working on it is part of the fun I get from it. My wife's people carrier? If those repairs are close in line with other repair shops even after the 30% AND they'll come pick it up or tow it so I don't even have to mess with it? Absolutely, where do I sign up? Different tools have different uses and value propositions.

[greedo]

A better analogy is a resort. It's got beautiful beaches, gets the top acts to perform at the club, and the food is Michelin 3 star. The resort has armed security, so no one needs to worry about being mugged, or having their rooms robbed while they're out clubbing. The resort decides who can sell food, who can perform at the clubs, and who can teach you how to surf at the beach.

[mbreese]

I would be interested to know what would happen if Apple said “sure — install whatever you want, but your warranty is now void.” How many people (especially the EU) would have a problem with that?

I mean, that’s effectively where this whole argument leads. You could imagine a scenario where using external software could damage things like your battery, so now the user is on their own.

I don’t think that’s a tenable option either.

This is effectively what Google does with Chromebooks and developer mode. But if you’ve enabled developer mode, can’t you go back? But when you get into trouble, you can revert back to the base install (and lose all other data). Again, that’s not a good option either as people would complain about that too.

[kaba0]

There is absolutely no reason behind it. Running arbitrary code in user space has absolutely no bearing on the actual hardware, if it can cause harm than it is a hardware bug (eg, a javascript engine vuln. than could brick the phone)

Why is it a bad thing for you that other’s get to use their phones have they see it fit after paying for it quite a bit, while the whole thing won’t case any difference to you?

[mbreese]

User-space code can definitely have effects on the hardware.

A program that phones home often with tracking data, thus keeping a data connection open and the processor from sleeping would absolutely have an impact on battery life and longevity. This would be code that Apple would normally block at the AppStore level.

And we saw how mad people were when Apple slowed down processing speeds to extend battery life. Can you imagine the outrage if Apple suddenly said that your battery is no longer under warranty because you installed the Facebook app directly from Facebook?

[kaba0]

Ios has a great API and sandbox for apps, and will kill apps in the background unless they explicitly ask for permission to do additional work. It has nothing to do with sideloading apps, this security is the bare minimum for even trusted code.

[bee_rider]

The ability to run arbitrary software on a computer is not required to call it bug-free. You can't safely run whatever software you want on the computers in your car, for example.

[kaba0]

I replied by the logic that forfeiting guarantee is unreasonable since sideloaded apps can only break as much as existing apps can.

There are good reasons to disallow any third party applications on some platforms like cars, but apple allows it and they only have a quick look at applications. The real security is in their sandbox/API.

[heavyset_go]

People share and distribute modified firmware dumps and load them on their automotive ECUs. It's actually quite common.

[kaba0]

Why is it hard to understand that a goddamn hidden “enable side loading apps” button for those who want it will not cause any sort of regression in your use of the phone.

[hug]

But it will, which is the exact problem: Let's pretend for a second that I want the Facebook app, as a lot of people apparently do. At the moment, if Facebook wants to be able to run on iOS devices (which they do), they're forced to go through the app store and all that entails. They're forced by Apple to play ball and do things they most assuredly do not want to do. Tracking notifications, permissions notifications, no using 'private APIs' to get around those restrictions, etc.

If there's a viable third party app store without these restrictions, Facebook will immediately jump on it, and immediately start tracking users with no notifications in probably the most invasive way they can get away with.

The upshot is that thanks to this hidden "enable side loading apps" button if I wanted to use the Facebook app, I would have to use the scummy privacy invading version, and that's most definitely a regression.

[kaba0]

Ios has a pretty good security API and it should be done at that layer. Also, “pay” with your wallet and don’t download facebook.fileExtension from their own site (and frankly, if facebook wants to be afloat they should put it on the main App Store, because most people will not bother)

Apple is really great at UX, they will find a way to make it hard for the general audience, so that my mother won’t install random malware because for it she would have to go through 3 pages in settings she knows nothing about, and I can run whatever I want on my phone.

[rrdharan]

> Apple is really great at UX, they will find a way to make it hard for the general audience, so that my mother won’t install random malware because for it she would have to go through 3 pages in settings she knows nothing about, and I can run whatever I want on my phone.

Many of us believe they will not find such a way and that in fact no one will and it is impossible. That's the crux of the disagreement here. You believe this is a possible UX to build. I believe it is not possible to build such a UX.

As many folks have noted, Android does have a number of steps required to sideload. They also have a much more serious and active malware problem despite all the extra steps:

https://lifehacker.com/be-careful-about-sideloading-popular-...

[KillahBhyte]

I have no goddamn problem with that. Please do. But that isn't what the article in question is discussing. It's about Epic suing Apple under anti trust and the implications of that decision. For more reading just check out what happened to MS after their anti trust with regards to laptop manufacture bloatware. Except understand that the carriers will hold much more power.

[easton]

Except that the carriers hold no power in this relationship anymore. They need the iPhone more than the iPhone needs them. And if every carrier in the service area says "we want bloatware on the phone or we won't sell it", then Apple can just start selling the phones via their retail network (which they already have set up to do everything including interest-free loans).

[40four]

What makes you think Android is a 'mini-IT' project? I have an iPhone now, but I used Android for years. It was always great. It always just worked, no 'fiddling' required. The idea that you have to do work to keep a Android running daily is odd to me.

Now that I've had an iPhone for a couple years, I can't think of single time where the app store 'curation' has benefited me. I'm not even sure what that means. I've released apps on both Google Play and iOS, and sure, it's a little more difficult to get an iOS app passed by Apple. But what does that really get us in the end? Maybe a little more protection from malicious actors, but not much more in my opinion.

I really think the idea that the iOS app store 'curation' is a feature that we benefit from as users is a myth Apple has made us all believe. It's mostly marketing speak & a 'placebo' effect for the end user, and a huge headache for the app developers. As a developer, app reviews take no less than a day or two to clear. And you have to sit there and hope they don't send it back rejected for some vague reason, or some random contractor in China doesn't reject it because they typed in the demo account password wrong (Yes, we had this happen at my job multiple times, and it wasted many days of our time).

I think app store 'curation' and the 'walled garden' get conflated sometimes. In the walled garden, where they have full control over the hardware & the OS, they have chosen to not allow any other method of distributing apps except through them. The idea that this is somehow making my life better I will never get. Either way, that in and of itself doesn't really bother me. What does bother me is that they think they are entitled to 3/10ths of every apps business in the walled garden. There is no way that makes sense.

They charge a yearly fee for developer accounts. I think this yearly fee system is how it should be handled. If their argument is that they are providing the servers and infrastructure and manpower to provide the app store service, then they could make more tiers. For bigger customers like Epic who use more of those resources they could charge more to cover the cost. But there is no way I'll ever be convinced that a 30% fee on every transaction across the board is fair or equitable.

[KillahBhyte]

> What makes you think Android is a 'mini-IT' project?

My first one. HTC when 4G first got hot. It was a horrible shitshow and soured my taste ever since. I can see that was a combo of manufacturer, Sprint as my carrier, and early Android OS but that spoke a lot to my understanding of the ecosystem and how incentives were set up. My follow up experience with phones for my kids or staff has been better but I've never gave them the chance for daily driver again. It's a system I tinker with but not depend on. I understand that's anecdotal and YMMV, but then again I'm not looking for validation of my opinion. Is what it is, just stating what colored my purchasing decision.

30% is crazy. I've said the same about Steam for years and you'll get no arguments from me there. Does it makes sense from the standpoint of the developer? Not at all but my opinion there doesn't matter as I don't develop for iOS nor am I very concerned with 3rd party apps. As a customer, I don't care. The idea of curation may be placebo but even the placebo effect is measurable. It may dissuade malware developers from the platform at first principles. That 30% may serve as a soft barrier to entry from race to the bottom competitors even if that isn't its intended purpose. I can admit Play Store has cleaned up its act a good bit since its inception but first impressions are hard to get around.

End of day the reason for me buying an Apple phone as my daily was for reliability. I can't remember the last time I had to restart or tinker with my iPhone to get it to work, but I can't say the same for my kids various Android phones. It wasn't for the robustness of the platform or marketplace cause I would've just bought an Android. Also see my other argument in this thread about being the actual customer and a few other points. Fair payment doesn't really factor in for me, that is a business decision for someone else to make. For me and the choices that I have in front of me, this seems like the best one for my goals even if those differences are limited in scope. The fact that we can choose between them on these differences is a good thing. To get back to GPs point, if this doesn't work for you then don't buy it and let the free market do its thing.

[40four]

That’s fair. Maybe I tend forget a lot of the issues older Android versions had.

I always had Samsungs, never remember any issues with them getting hot, maybe that was an HTC problem? I think my first android was a Samsung Galaxy S3. Now that I think about it, I do remember a lot of weird bugs and restarts to fix some issue.

After that I had a Note 4 & 5, and I really have high opinions of those. I kept the 5 for over 3 years I think it roped out at Android v8.x and it was pretty good, but still not as reliable a iOS at the time I’m sure. I recently got one of those cheap Samsung tablets & I must say I’m impressed with Android v10.

I switched to iPhone a couple years ago out of curiosity mostly. It’s fine. Doesn’t blow me away, but you’re right. Super reliable. There are things I miss about my Note, and things it did better, but also things about the iPhone I would miss if I went back. Mostly the seamless and sync between my MacBook Pro/ iMac, and effortless wireless file sharing with airdrop are amazing.

As a dev, I do like to use a Linux box for daily use so I’m with you there :)

[40four]

Also fair that I probably ranted and rambled about points you weren’t making. It’s easy to get lost sometimes haha

[KillahBhyte]

No worries friend. Point of debate for me is learning about and refining a viewpoint through rigorous defense. Doesn't all have to be topic at hand so long as we're working toward this goal in good faith.

[FlownScepter]

I actually have a Mac too, but I also have Bootcamp configured because Mac doesn't do everything I need. I'm just like, what do I need to do right now, and what's the most reliable tool for that job?

My phone, ultimately, is communications and quick research. I need it to make calls, send messages, send emails, and use the browser. And off-duty, I use the camera to capture memories. I got the big one because I wanted the bigger screen (though ultimately I miss the smaller size one I had before, so that will likely change whenever I get around to replacing it.)

And I also do projects. I build 3D printers, I play with Pi's, I build PC's. I do all kinds of tinkering shit. I just don't feel the need to do it on my phone, and therefore what are cited as "limitations" of it are just irrelevant to me. It does everything I need it to do, and more.

Android and iOS in my mind aren't really even in competition. They're two very similar products that should appeal to two entirely different userbases. They're pickups and sportscars, both great for what they do, but utlimately trying to have a pickup that's also a sportscar just means it's probably going to be lousy at both.

[KillahBhyte]

Agreed on most but.. C'mon man. El Caminos are awesome! =)

[HideousKojima]

14% is worldwide, in the US it's roughly 50%

[FlownScepter]

That's still nothing close to a monopoly.

[stale2002]

Anti trust law does not require a monopoly.

[FlownScepter]

Anti-trust law is entirely irrelevant despite how often it gets brought up in this discussion. Entering into the restrictions of an iPhone is 100% voluntary. You do not currently have the right to run whatever code you want on anything you own.

This fails every commonly held definition of a monopoly. We're not even talking like, cable company monopoly here that's entered into by virtue of buying or renting property in a given space, which at least you have a lot of friction there to claim "I can't reasonably be expected to go elsewhere just to buy from a different cable provider." You literally just buy an Android phone, and you're free of the restrictions imposed by Apple, immediately.

[stale2002]

I would recommend that you read up on anti-trust law.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

Here is the government released statement on these types of topics. "Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power"

That is from the US government. For any other further comments you have on the topic of anti-trust law, or market power, please read this government statement first and see how it applies to your statement.

> Entering into the restrictions of an iPhone is 100% voluntary.

If a company has significant market power, then anti-trust law can apply.

> This fails every commonly held definition of a monopoly

Anti trust law does not require a literal monopoly. So I am not sure why you are bringing that up. Anti-trust law only requires significant market power. And Apple has 50% of the US smartphone market, which is within the realm of what courts have considered to be significant market power.

> You literally just buy an Android phone, and you're free of the restrictions imposed by Apple, immediately.

Apple still has 50% of the US market. That can be significant market power, as the courts have ruled in the past.

[munk-a]

In the late 90s Microsoft was IMO, pretty clearly a monopoly while Apple survived as a beacon of "See guys - we're not technically a monopoly" - having a competitor isn't enough to not be participating in an anti-competitive market, the manner in which Android and Apple have a complete dominance of the market is pretty insane and it makes both of their business decisions fair game for anti-trust arguments.

[xxs]

The article is about the EU and 'monopoly' is not relevant for anti-competitive practices.

[jedberg]

You're looking at this backwards. While their market share might be 14%, they control 66% of app revenue.

As a developer I'm restricted from accessing that 66%. THAT is why I want an open platform. Access to those consumers.

That has nothing to do with my choice of platform. It has to do with access to a large market which I am being restricted from.

[zepto]

> It has to do with access to a large market which I am being restricted from.

Wait - what App do you want to sell that won’t allow?

[jedberg]

There are ton of apps they won't allow. Firefox and Chrome are two big ones (with their own render engines). A python interpreter. Anything with porn.

Basically, go to the Cydia store and look at any app in there. Why can't the Cydia store be allowed?

[zepto]

So you don’t actually have an app you want to publish?

As for the Cydia store, that allows apps to to run on jailbroken phones, I.e. with security protections removed.

It should be obvious why users want to buy a platform that is as secure as Apple can make it.

[jedberg]

I have apps I want to publish, but why would I even begin to work on them knowing that Apple could pull the plug on me at any time?

And yes, the Cydia store is for jailbroken phones because that's the only way to load your own software onto your phone, but there are plenty of useful apps on there that aren't security issues and are only there to get around app store restrictions.

Apple doesn't have to restrict which apps I run to keep it secure. They do just fine securing MacOS, which allows one to install whatever they want.

[zepto]

> why would I even begin to work on them knowing that Apple could pull the plug on me at any time?

Perhaps it’s simply not true that Apple pulls the plug on apps at any time.

Billions of dollars paid to developers suggest that you are just wrong about that.

[benibela]

I made an app to show the books you have lend at a public library

And to make sure it can be used with all existing libraries web sites and all opacs, you can enter any url and an xpath expressions, and then it runs the xpath expressions each day and shows the result as list of books.

And since I wrote it 15 years ago, there were no tech libraries for headless browsers available. So I wrote half of my own browser, and an XPath interpreter. (Modern XPath is actually Turing-complete, and with the EXPath file module, it can read and write to any file)

So, if the store does not allow custom browsers or Python interpreters, those are two reasons it would not allow my app.

[zepto]

Nothing you have described would be disallowed.

Often the ideas about restrictions are simply false beliefs.

[Daho0n]

Why do you repeat market share? It is completely irrelevant and unless you understand this it is no wonder you are confused. Abuse of market position has nothing to do with monopoly. You can abuse your position without having a monopoly. Even if Apple had 1% they could still abuse their position. You can disagree that it is a problem but talking about market share is missing the point.

>Just let us do our own thing over here for fuck's sake.

No one is forcing you to do anything. There can be 10 app stores and you could still use one the one. Just like many PC gamers have done for decades. I own hundreds of games and I only use GOG and Steam. Pretending you are forced to do anything is disingenuous. People have more right to use their bought hardware than you and Apple have to deny it. It's not a matter of if but when Apple will be forced to allow people to own their owned hardware.