[bnj]

I used to think of this in terms of, “it doesn’t hurt me if other people can install whatever they like on their phones.”

However, when I thought it out, I realized that if the App Store wasn’t the one and only distribution model for apps, then profit motives would push companies to use those other mechanisms—presumably competing app stores like steam, or just installation of apps ala carte.

I realized that I’m not even completely in control of which apps I need, because if there’s an app I need for a car, or I need to install something for work, I’m just not always in a position to decide NOT to install something.

So even though I like the idea of keeping my App Store and letting anyone else do what they want… isn’t there some truth to the idea that if there were ways around the App Store then it would create a wedge that effectively forced a lot of fracturing?

[smoldesu]

Correction: profit motives would push Apple to fix the App Store, since it would no longer be competitive with the offerings smaller companies can build for themselves. Which is a good thing - Apple admit the 30% cut was excessive and reluctantly dropped the cut for select users. The long-term solution is forcing them to compete with the rest of the industry, which is what will foster healthy relationships with developers instead of Apple holding their users and developers in a Mexican standoff.

[Lewton]

Both bnj's point and yours can be true at the same time

[ohgodplsno]

Nope. See Android, where Facebook is available on the play store, and so is every app, because you simply cannot afford to not be there. Apps like Telegram offer both a play store version, and a self-managed APK that offers other features that Google refuses in the play store.