[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.

[joemi]

Allow me to explain what is implied: More options for ways to get apps won't make app developers more money. This is shown by the difference between profits developers get by developing apps for iOS vs Android. Android has a larger user base, but it's still more profitable to develop for iOS. That's how it affects devs.

Less money to be made means devs are less incentivized to put as much quality into their apps. Some still will, of course, but others won't, and some will simply stop developing for the platform, so average app quality goes down. And less restrictions mean more crappy apps out there. This is how it affects users.

I'm not saying either system is better. I fully sympathize with the hurt of the 30% cut that Apple takes. And I sympathize also with wanting a more open platform. All that I'm pointing out is that by opening up Apple's platform in the way you're proposing, it will indeed affect everyone in some negative ways. There will be positive ways, too, of course. Such is the nature of change.