[t-writescode]

For what it's worth, I'm one of the people that's doing both. I want the store monopolies to be greatly reduced for my benefit as the consumer - and yes, I will continue to acquire and purchase things through the app store, in general, because I trust their system a lot; BUT, I also applaud them and primarily purchase their hardware because I appreciate their privacy.

It's possible to have nuance in these positions.

[slver]

The mistake that many people do is requesting a systematic change, and then ignoring the systematic effects of it.

Maybe in theory "more stores" sounds like "more good" to you as a consumer.

But the large mass of consumers are not in a position to judge things like safety, performance, reliability, sustainability. They're only in position to judge things like "$3 is less than $4".

So the systematic effect of multiple stores will be that everyone will flock to the cheapest stores, which won't have the means or motivation to do what Apple does. Many of those stores will also be offering pirated applications.

So this will destroy many developers who will lose a lot more than 15% or 30% of their potential revenue to piracy, and it will also end up destroying Apple's own store.

This is what "be careful what you wish for" means. Eating fast food every day is cheaper and tastes better than whole foods, for you as a consumer. By the time your body is destroyed, it'll be too late to have some important realizations.

[emptysongglass]

Except that we already know what that landscape looks like on Android and... it's fine. Everyone still uses the Play Store.

[slver]

App Store has double the revenue of Play Store despite Play Store serving a much bigger audience (more Android phones) and having the same 15%/30% cut as the App Store. This directly means the Play Store is a lot less used by its users. They buy way less from it relative to App Store.

You can attribute this to less trust, or more piracy, more likely both.

In part because of this, Play Store is less funded, and less regulated and has way more malware than the App Store.

Also, despite 13% of known app installs come outside the Play Store, 33% of known malware comes outside the Play Store, clearly confirming that non-Play Store installs are way more likely to be malware than Play Store apps.

So in short, Play Stores gets way less sales, gets way more malware, and there's EVEN MORE malware outside the Play Store.

The situation is not fine at all. All of the effects I mentioned are exhibited by Android's ecosystem.

Of course, we probably have different tolerance for what "fine" is. Maybe you don't care that developers do several times less sales per user on Android than on iOS. Maybe you don't care about the malware, and think you can teach everyone you care about to just "be careful" or something.

But if Android is fine, then Android is all yours. It's the majority of phones. So use that. Why do we HAVE to destroy everything that's different and make it like the rest? Why should iOS be Android? Let Apple do Apple. They're clearly doing something right if their parameters are way better than the Play Store.

[emptysongglass]

> App Store has double the revenue of Play Store despite Play Store serving a much bigger audience (more Android phones) and having the same 15%/30% cut as the App Store. This directly means the Play Store is a lot less used by its users. They buy way less from it relative to App Store. > You can attribute this to less trust, or more piracy, more likely both.

I don't attribute it to either: it's pure demographics. Apple users are wealthier.

Nobody is asking for the destruction of anything, that's pure hyperbole. Opening up a marketplace in which you are both a participant and controller is not "destruction". It's what's fair for everyone.

[slver]

> Nobody is asking for the destruction of anything, that's pure hyperbole. Opening up a marketplace in which you are both a participant and controller is not "destruction". It's what's fair for everyone.

Apple creates the hardware and the OS. No matter what they do, even if you crucify Tim Cook, they'll never be considered equal to some random guy with a Mac who submits their app to the store, for as long as they made the hardware and the OS. Which they have to do. So this "it needs to be fair" argument is simply a backdoor for Apple to make greater and greater concessions over their control of the ecosystem, until there's no control over the ecosystem.

But the ecosystem needs control. Countries need governments. Employees need bosses. And so on. Fair doesn't mean everyone is the same. We can't all be the same. Systems don't work this way.

"Fairness" is always contextual, and it's always a deliberate decision. It's not a default. Apple has created a system that's fair in some aspects, to some people, in the interest of the whole.

So you need to find another argument here.

[procombo]

As a consumer and shareholder I expect Apple to provide both security and choice.

Apple regularly uses security to justify eliminating choice. Which if you're paying attention isn't always true in every circumstance --so then I'd assert the motivation isn't coming from a place wholesome to the consumer.

Apple says I bought their device so I should follow their patterns. I disagree. Think Different.

Having additional marketplaces available for me doesn't affect you.

[joemi]

> Having additional marketplaces available for me doesn't affect you.

The comment you said this in reply to talked about how it affects _everyone_ both using the platform and developing for the platform.

[procombo]

You mean the bit about pirated software? Nope. Just a classic feeder line Apple gives to developers as a scare tactic. 30% is likely a heck of a lot more than what a canned c&d letter costs to get a pirated app removed from a trusted/authenticated app store variant.

Truth is Apple doesn't want competition for their large cut of "advertising/distribution" revenue.

If I develop an app for my existing customers and I want to support their device (Apple in this case) I have to agree to give Apple a 30% cut. Apple wouldn't have provided any direct service here for an unlisted app. I'm willing to host it and provide any merchant and billing support for it. I told my customer how to install my app. Apple's App Store wouldn't be providing any "distribution" services as it were (which as I understand is where historically the 30% rate originated --for that they should be paying for all my hosting and logistics).

I want to pay $100/year for Apple to verify my identity and make sure I'm not malware. That's all. In this universe I really don't even have an interest in using their closed-source compiler, or have to keep up with their programming language, but I do it cause it makes the numbers work.

[naresh_xai]

If revenue was more in a non-Apple ecosystem, would it not be the case that devs would all move to a non-Apple ecosystem.

Android also has the problem that users are far less likely to be as educated (since target audience is not white collar but blue collar) and far less likely to report problems, issues or malware. So I'd even take the reported values to be lower than what the actual case is.

[SilverRed]

With the exception of FOSS/privacy nuts who use f-droid. And everyone is happy in the end. I think the only mainstream sideload app is Youtube Vanced which removes ads.

I switched to an iphone but I still keep an android phone around to run a couple of sideload only apps which violate the App Store and Google Play guidelines like the app that loads the hack payload on to my Nintendo switch on boot.

[procombo]

I've seen this approach go over people's heads far too many times over the years. I'm a huge Apple fan/advocate. I'm also a huge critic. It's not even nuance --it's just the way it needs to be.