[Apocryphon]

Speaking as someone on this community ostensibly for hackers, it would be nice simply to have an F-Droid for iOS. (Or the late XDA Labs.) It would be neat if Apple allowed such a community of tinkerers, tech-heads, FOSS enthusiasts, and hobbyists their own little platform to curate apps. Just having the option for such a subculture to exist on iOS would be nice, in this present where both web and native feel like big box stores.

For a long time now, the official App Store itself has been overrun not only by scammy apps, see Kosta Eleftheriou's excellent investigatory work into top-selling fraudulent apps, but also by poor discoverability with outdated UX and obtrusive search ads. If the platform was opened, just a little, one could imagine boutique third party specialized app stores hosting curated apps for curated purposes, which would help with app discoverability greatly. (Apple has banned app discovery tools from their App Store, see the 2013 removal of AppGratis.) It would be a little like the return to the web of GeoCities and Angelfire, when websites had more free expression and control, except on native. A legitimized Cydia, perhaps.

It didn't have to be like this, all regulatory pressure and billion dollar fines. Apple could have chosen to open up the App Store on its own terms, issuing a privacy-hardened AppStoreKit that third party app stores would use, providing mandatory security scan APIs a la macOS notarization, going through reliability processes that Apple approves, heading regulators off at the pass. Apple already has authorized third party resellers and service and repair providers, why not app stores? Apple could have allowed the flourishing of an ecosystem where they are still in control, but as delegated as the code in their apps. Instead they tried to do it all themselves, making themselves the singular point of failure.

> what do we gain?

The freedom of possibility.

[ericmay]

> Speaking as someone on this community ostensibly for hackers...

Yea so why not just use Android for that instead of trying to put a square peg into a round hole? That's what I don't understand. You can do anything you want with Android or any number of manufacturers but no you have to do it on iPhone and iOS...?

I think this is just an admittance that iPhone and iOS are superior to all alternatives and that the "closed" model is better than open source software. If that weren't the case, you wouldn't be here trying to use Apple's products when you have multiple options and FOSS readily available.

> For a long time now, the official App Store itself has been overrun not only by scammy apps

Ok sure. So if this is a problem then it's not one that more app stores solve. It just makes the problem worse. So can you not use this as discussion point? Either you haven't thought about this much or you're being disingenuous.

> The freedom of possibility.

Yea, for a very vocal minority of people. Now I lose privacy regulations, apps, convenience, having a phone that just works, and so many other things just so a specific community of greedy, selfish people can do things they can already do now via jailbreaking their iPhone. And once this all comes to pass, it'll just be the same group of people doing stuff that can do it now except all other users will have a worse experience on their behalf. Thanks man

[Apocryphon]

> You can do anything you want with Android or any number of manufacturers but no you have to do it on iPhone and iOS...?

Because I prefer the iOS user experience and Apple hardware irrespective of their management of the App Store? Because I would like to see the platform innovate and provide more interesting opportunities than widgets? Not to mention, even while Apple does not have a majority share of the smartphone OS market, it does have exclusive control over its platform in such a way that antitrust arguments are still arguably applicable?

> It just makes the problem worse. So can you not use this as discussion point? Either you haven't thought about this much or you're being disingenuous.

If more app stores were allowed to exist, they can compete with one another, leading to improvements in quality. There can be app stores and communities built around ensuring security, with even more exclusive standards for the sake of curation. Especially in the case of stores focused on FOSS apps where the code is open for all to review. Making Apple be the sole gatekeeper promotes a single source of failure and security via obscurity. Not to mention, because Apple has control over the underlying OS, they can mandate 3rd app stores use safeguards that transcend individual app stores, like they already do on macOS via notarization.

> If that weren't the case, you wouldn't be here trying to use Apple's products when you have multiple options and FOSS readily available.

What if I have an underlying heart condition or other preexisting condition where I must rely upon the Apple Watch to save my life, as Apple claims their products can do via their own marketing?

https://www.macrumors.com/2018/12/06/apple-watch-real-storie...

https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/1/22862543/apple-watch-911-a...

> Now I lose privacy regulations, apps, convenience, having a phone that just works,

If you like those things, you can still have them. Just don't use another app store. Like the majority of users wouldn't.

> all other users will have a worse experience on their behalf

This all-or-nothing emotional argument is very puzzling. It seems to reduce the Apple today, the most profitable company in the history of the world since the Dutch East India Company, to the shell on the verge the bankruptcy it was in the '90s. You insult and demean Apple by accusing them of being unable to handle an open platform. That all of their engineering, product, and design prowess is unable to square the circle, that all of their resources are for naught. You do not present an argument, you do not present a debate, all you do is insult Apple and say they are incapable and helpless. That is very far and away removed from present real-world conditions. Somehow, that is even more offensive than your insults towards the hacker community.

[ericmay]

> Because I prefer the iOS user experience and Apple hardware irrespective of their management of the App Store?

Well, that's the trade-off, right? I don't buy a sports car and get mad when it doesn't have the utility of a pickup truck.

Different products have different features. For example, Motorola released a phone that was modular at one point. Samsung has a phone with two screens. There are companies that make de-Googled phones with Android that are targeted toward FOSS. Apple sells a different product with different features. The iPhone lacks the feature of "multiple app stores" but has the best platform and operating system.

> Not to mention, even while Apple does not have a majority share of the smartphone OS market, it does have exclusive control over its platform in such a way that antitrust arguments are still arguably applicable?

That doesn't make any sense because plenty of companies have control over their own platform and that's normal and acceptable.

> If more app stores were allowed to exist, they can compete with one another, leading to improvements in quality. There can be app stores and communities built around ensuring security, with even more exclusive standards for the sake of curation. Especially in the case of stores focused on FOSS apps where the code is open for all to review. Making Apple be the sole gatekeeper promotes a single source of failure and security via obscurity. Not to mention, because Apple has control over the underlying OS, they can mandate 3rd app stores use safeguards that transcend individual app stores, like they already do on macOS via notarization.

But you said major companies won't create their own app stores or leave Apple's App Store. So who will be these companies? Who are they for? A small, vocal minority of users?

Will I have to download 3 versions of Instagram? The neutered App Store version, the version on the Meta store, and the privacy focused version?

> What if I have an underlying heart condition or other preexisting condition where I must rely upon the Apple Watch to save my life, as Apple claims their products can do via their own marketing?

Then don't use the product? I don't know what you're talking about here. Do you want third-party app stores without anyone working with the FDA to monitor your Apple Watch?

> If you like those things, you can still have them. Just don't use another app store. Like the majority of users wouldn't.

Please re-read the posts where I've discussed Apple's collective bargaining on behalf of users against developers as it relates to the App Store. I think once you understand how that works (as I've explained it) you'll see why your comment here is incorrect.

> You insult and demean Apple by accusing them of being unable to handle an open platform.

No, I said that it will make my personal experience much worse and I think that it will make the experience for most people worse as well and it will only benefit a small, vocal minority of people. I'm sure Apple can "handle" third-party app stores. That doesn't mean the user experience won't be degraded for the vast majority of people who just want to pick up their phone and use it.

[Apocryphon]

> That doesn't make any sense because plenty of companies have control over their own platform and that's normal and acceptable.

The regulators disagree.

> So who will be these companies? Who are they for? A small, vocal minority of users?

Startups! App discovery companies like AppGratis and Chomp, which were killed off by App Store guidelines. A potential industry for app discoverability, curated app experiences, app lists for specialists. There is potential there for entirely new industries to be built for the iOS app ecosystem, for dynamic change and new frontiers!

> Will I have to download 3 versions of Instagram? The neutered App Store version, the version on the Meta store, and the privacy focused version?

Most people will use the App Store version. Few die-hards will bother to migrate to the Meta store, as such purists most likely already view as the Facebook acquisition and subsequent ad/brands push as compromising the indie nature of Instagram. Certainly some savvy power users may opt for the privacy-focused version, just as people already do with alternatives to the official Twitter or Reddit clients. It is fine to stick to the default option; let people have choice.

> I don't know what you're talking about here.

If Apple is making claims that go as far that its devices are life-saving, then they are not some minor player who is beyond the purview of regulators and antitrust legislation. Thus you cannot claim that "just use Android" is a valid dodge to prevent Apple from having its power checked.

> Apple's collective bargaining on behalf of users against developers as it relates to the App Store

Your arguments still relies on hypotheticals about Facebook or Google, companies who have clearly questionable abilities to launch new compelling products and platforms, being able to steal users away. Again, I find that to be dubious, especially when you examine the modern state of the industry, and the increasing sclerosis of these companies from a product perspective. I find the "data funnel 3rd party app store" threat vector to be debatable and worth examining in detail, before we base our entire policy upon this hypothetical scenario.

Basically, you are saying that Apple is protecting us from giants, when they are actually windmills.

> That doesn't mean the user experience won't be degraded for the vast majority of people who just want to pick up their phone and use it.

I disagree. I believe if Apple embraces a partial opening up, they can manage it with minimal degrading of UX, and in fact will open up many new potential to breathe freshness into iOS and smartphones in general. All of this FUD is really just covert anti-Apple skepticism.

[ericmay]

> The regulators disagree.

Sure but that's not a good argument. When it comes to technology so far regulators don't have a great track record IMO. Even if they did, that's still not a good argument.

> Startups! App discovery companies like AppGratis and Chomp, which were killed off by App Store guidelines. A potential industry for app discoverability, curated app experiences, app lists for specialists. There is potential there for entirely new industries to be built for the iOS app ecosystem, for dynamic change and new frontiers!

I don't find this compelling enough to give up everything I enjoy about the iPhone. I'd rather these startups just never exist, or they can exist on Android and prove their business model successful.

> Most people will use the App Store version. Few die-hards will bother to migrate to the Meta store, as such purists most likely already view as the Facebook acquisition and subsequent ad/brands push as compromising the indie nature of Instagram. Certainly some savvy power users may opt for the privacy-focused version, just as people already do with alternatives to the official Twitter or Reddit clients. It is fine to stick to the default option; let people have choice.

Or so you think. Most likely scenario is that people will have 2-5 app stores installed because these companies have enough pull that they can get a user to click through a few buttons. You can see these kinds of user-hostile patterns all over the place where companies will interact with you initially and then stop. Take Affirm. Payment processing. They send you an email when you have an upcoming payment and then you click the email, each link takes you to an app download. Eventually users just give in and download the app because they make it hard to view payments on the web. No reason to think that a company such as Meta won't/can't transition all of their products to their own App Store even if they maintain a neutered version on Apple's App Store that constantly bothers users to switch stores. Companies such as Spotify or Netflix will move to a third-party store so they don't have to pay Apple for using the platform. So now Apple has less incentive to improve software because if they make gains then other mega corporations like Netflix will be able to access those gains without any sort of payment - in other words, they get access to the users and platform without having to pay anything to do so. You might believe that to be fair, but I don't think that's up to regulators to decide and should be left to the mega corporations to fight it out amongst themselves.

> If Apple is making claims that go as far that its devices are life-saving, then they are not some minor player who is beyond the purview of regulators and antitrust legislation. Thus you cannot claim that "just use Android" is a valid dodge to prevent Apple from having its power checked.

I think you're confused.

First, I have never stated that Apple was a minor player. You can safely retract that thought.

Second, creating "life saving devices" isn't relevant here. Medical manufacturers create life saving devices too. Seatbelts save lives. So what?

Finally, you can just use Android because there are lots of mega corporations such as Google and Samsung that manufacture phones that compete with the iPhone, and you can use various distributions of Android including completely free and open source versions.

There's a very healthy and competitive marketplace. Open-source software and the Android + manufacturer business model has turned out to be less competitive and weaker than Apple's approach. In fact, Apple's model of locked-down software and tight integration is so superior to open source software that even you use the iPhone.

> Your arguments

Look I've already explained it. You don't have to accept it but there's nothing else for me to say here. I've described the mechanics in a satisfactory way as it pertains to these conversations and it's impossible to change my mind on it and I'm not interested in discussing it further because there's no new information being presented that I haven't already considered.

> I disagree. I believe if Apple embraces a partial opening up, they can manage it with minimal degrading of UX, and in fact will open up many new potential to breathe freshness into iOS and smartphones in general. All of this FUD is really just covert anti-Apple skepticism.

Nothing stops this on Android now. If third-party stores were a breath of fresh air you wouldn't be here complaining that you need them on yet another device. It's like someone who burns down a house playing with matches and shows up to someone else's house with matches.

[Apocryphon]

> Even if they did, that's still not a good argument.

It is not argument; it is the reality on the ground.

> I don't find this compelling enough to give up everything I enjoy about the iPhone.

I don't believe you will have to give up anything on your iPhone. We will just have to agree to disagree, until this future comes to pass, if at all.

> Most likely scenario is that people will have 2-5 app stores installed because these companies have enough pull that they can get a user to click through a few buttons.

I disagree. It's far more involved to get someone to sign up for another platform and to manage another user account, than it is to simply download an app for the platform they are already on. Seems like we are at an impasse until we actually see what third party app stores are like and how popular they are.

Also, this regulation doesn't mean that Apple can't make activating third party app store/sideloading behavior a guarded one with multiple hoops to jump through. It would definitely not be as seamless as you claim.

> Companies such as Spotify or Netflix will move to a third-party store so they don't have to pay Apple for using the platform.

Not if Apple keeps cutting sweetheart deals with them, as they and Google already have. They have not shifted to third party/independent app stores on Android. Furthermore, you are once again overlooking how difficult it is to herd users off of existing platforms for no good reason. Even in the arena of games, where gamers are used to platform exclusivity, there is a lot of friction against the proliferation of new games stores from the likes of EA, UbiSoft, Epic, etc. Store runners have to woo players with free or discounted content.

Netflix and Spotify, curiously enough, are also platforms facing issues with user growth and retention. So along with Facebook, these are three platforms you've cited that have less capacity to lure users to a third party app store than it would seem. If anything this would be good news for Apple Music and Apple TV+, as users switch over rather than deal with another app store.

> You might believe that to be fair

I don't believe that is fair. I believe that is a complete slippery slope worst-case doomsday scenario that is far less probable than it is held up to be.

> I have never stated that Apple was a minor player.

Then you agree that their behavior is worth subjecting to antitrust investigation. Thank you.

> In fact, Apple's model of locked-down software and tight integration is so superior to open source software that even you use the iPhone.

I'm not actually a FOSS advocate. I use Safari on macOS not only because of past and present professional obligations, but because I am comfortable with it. But I also believe that FOSS folks and other hobbyists deserve to be accorded the ability to tinker on iOS, as they have historically done so with other Apple products. Because it is right. And because it is interesting.

> If third-party stores were a breath of fresh air you wouldn't be here complaining that you need them on yet another device.

F-Droid exists on Android, which is great. What is wrong wanting one for iOS?

> I'm not interested in discussing it further because there's no new information being presented that I haven't already considered.

Very well. I have made my case and you have made yours. You have advanced hypotheticals that I have found wanting, hurled calumny that I have endured; now let reality take its course.