[maxclark]

I wonder - assuming an alternate App Store or payment mechanisms what is the appropriate billing from Apple?

Things like:

- Developer onboarding and review (Legal and KYC) - App submission and review (standard, priority, exposure, etc) - App distribution (origin storage and download) - Push notifications

I believe that Apple should be forced to change, I just don’t know what we all should expect

[amluto]

> - Developer onboarding and review (Legal and KYC)

Don’t do it at all? On Android, you can just run an app with no involvement whatsoever from Google. There is no customer to “know”.

- App submission and review (standard, priority, exposure, etc)

F-droid apps are neither submitted to nor reviewed by Google.

- App distribution (origin storage and download)

That would be the alternative app store’s job, no?

- Push notifications

This is genuinely tricky due to battery life and data usage considerations.

[rekoil]

> This is genuinely tricky due to battery life and data usage considerations.

Which isn't really any of Apples business if I want to make that sacrifice, but rather something they can promote as a win by using their solution if it turns out that alternative push notification services implement it poorly.

[johannes1234321]

If I take Apple's goodwill (which in this specific case to me is plausible, but whatever ...) the issue with alternate notification channels is that it's quite tough to attribute for users if there are 10 push daemons doing it their way. But the bad press about bad battery life time hits Apple.

Especially if Apple allows others to move it from application layer to system layer (by providing a Kernel interface?) which is required for being really energy efficient.

[rekoil]

They already have annoying modals that pop up when apps are using my location in the background, they could easily make these hypothetical "NotificationServiceKit apps" spawn similar modals when they take up a lot of CPU time, memory, or other energy intensive metrics.

[TylerE]

Having sane, common sense defaults is pretty much exactly Apples business.

The path you propose inevitably leads to the exact enshittification we’re trying to avoid.

[rekoil]

But it's optional enshittification. I should have the option of messing up my device. Apple are free to scare me away from doing so, but the choice needs to be mine as the owner.

[TylerE]

Then buy an android if android is what you want.

Stop trying to turn the system WE want into what WE don't. WE don't want android or else we would already be using it.

As soon as you fracture the ecosystem the positive network effects start to fade.

[HDThoreaun]

How do I get iMessage on android? If you want the locked down system just dont install 3rd party app stores.

[galbar]

>Push notifications

It is far fetched that it will get any industry wide traction, but unifiedpush.org/ provides a solution

[mvdtnz]

That's like asking what monthly fee I should pay Subaru when I fit a bike rack to my car. They have nothing to do with my bike rack.

[redwall_hp]

What kind of chaotic world would we live in if you could put third party paper in your Smith Corona typewriter? Think of the security risk and how much it would confuse people! And it's their platform...they deserve a cut of any commerce performed using it. /s

[chihuahua]

This is why I find the idea of Apple making an electric car so intriguing. It opens up a whole world of possibilities for things that Apple can take a 30% cut of: anything you buy at the supermarket, any clothes you buy, etc. If any store doesn't allow Apple to audit their sales and pay the tax, your Apple car simply won't go allow you to go that store anymore.

[notac23]

We've largely accepted this with ink.

[jncfhnb]

And it’s bad. We should stop it

[COGlory]

We should expect to be able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own.

[JumpCrisscross]

> We should expect to be able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own

Were I Apple's lobbyist, I would be thrilled for this to be the counterargument. Because while noble, it's practically unworkable, generally unpopular and a flytrap for technologists who might otherwise be swayed to a moderate position.

[arrrg]

It‘s not at all practically unworkable. I don’t really get why you think it is?

It would be perfectly sensible to force large platform vendors to let you install arbitrary software. No problem at all. Doesn’t mean that also has to apply to, I don’t know, refrigerators with WiFi. Or cars.

[JumpCrisscross]

> It‘s not at all practically unworkable. I don’t really get why you think it is

General-purpose computing is workable. General-purpose computing on any hardware you own is not. Government regulations prohibit tampering with most emissive hardware, for instance.

[rekoil]

General-purpose computing on devices marketed as general-purpose computing devices should be a no-brainer for regulators.

Cars, electric scooters, boats, anything where there's other conflicting safety regulations I fully agree that a manufacturer doesn't need to provide the general public with full software access. I still think even in those cases there needs to be some regulation that ensures manufacturers allow independent, qualified, repair shops to effectively repair broken tech.

[kolinko]

I would consider a phone as damgerous as a scooter, if not more - considering the amount of private information in it and the access to bank accounts it grants. The damage that can be incurred by malware in a phone can ne greater than a medium speed accident on a scooter.

(At least me, personally, I’d prefer to hit a wall with my car at 60-70kmph than to have a malware on my phone. And I said that after being in more than one serious car accident)

[JumpCrisscross]

> General-purpose computing on devices marketed as general-purpose computing devices should be a no-brainer for regulators

Since when have iPhones been marketed as such? Apple goes out of its way to promote its walled garden.

> Cars, electric scooters, boats, anything where there's other conflicting safety regulations I fully agree that a manufacturer doesn't need to provide the general public with full software access

Delineating this is hard. iPhones contain modem chips, for instance.

Again, I'm not arguing against the principle in general nor even specifically when it comes to Apple. Just the framing of being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own."

[arrrg]

You don’t have to go down any of those definition rabbit holes. It doesn’t matter because you can count the platforms that really have an impact on probably one hand.

Windows, macOS, iOS, iPadOS, Android. I’m up for including game consoles on this list.

Let everybody else be all closed and only require them to open up when they become more important/widespread.

[CaptainFever]

Can't those cases simply be exempted from the requirement?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Can't those cases simply be exempted from the requirement?

Congratulations, you've turned a discussion about Apple's anticompetitive actions into a multi-industry free-for-all demanding and drafting exemptions. Hence why I said this is lobbyist-of-the-year material.

[wvenable]

Why not WiFi refrigerators or cars? I would love to tweak the software in my car -- it's hopelessly out of date.

[rekoil]

Conflicting regulations when it comes to cars, and for WiFi refrigerators (meaning any gadget that runs some sort of OS) I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think it makes sense to make different regulation for general-purpose computing devices and purpose-specific devices.

Though if you ask me, software should be covered by right-to-repair. I should have everything I need to technically be able to support my own device when the manufacturer throws in the towel. Unlockable bootloader, source code for device bring-up, drivers, but not necessarily an OS, just the device specific stuff.

[wtallis]

How would you classify a PlayStation: general-purpose computing that should be required to be open, or purpose-specific that can be allowed looser regulations?

[itg]

>it's practically unworkable

I'm able to install whatever software I want on my mac, windows, linux, and android device. What exactly about it is "unworkable"?

[JumpCrisscross]

> I'm able to install whatever software I want on my mac, windows, linux, and android device. What exactly about it is "unworkable"?

The unworkable bit is the breadth. Being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own" means every computer is a general computer. That includes the one in your cable box, on your cellular modem chip, in your car.

[rekoil]

Not if those devices aren't marketed as "being able to install new software".

[JumpCrisscross]

> Not if those devices aren't marketed as "being able to install new software"

What does that mean, though? My thermostat updates itself OTA. So does my modem chip. And I can configure, to a degree, optional add-ons on my Subaru.

This is the problem with changing the argument to being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own." It's unworkable not because it's fundamentally flawed, but because its edges are fractally messy. You can absorb an infinite amount of time into delineating it. In the meantime, the thing you were actually going for--a competitive App Store--is forgotten.

[COGlory]

"the hardware" in this case clearly refers to Apple products (namely iPhone)

[realusername]

> it's practically unworkable

That's how almost everything worked before the user hostile mobile takeover, not sure why it's not possible anymore. It's the previous state of affair and worked fine.

[mvdtnz]

Gosh I guess general purpose computers have never existed seeing as installing software is so "practically unworkable".

[rekoil]

This is certainly one of the takes of all time.

I want some of what you're smoking mate.

[kj99]

Yeah - that could be solved by a one way fuse that unlocks the bootloader but prevents you from ever reinstalling iOS. I’m not actually kidding. I’d be quite happy to be able to install Linux on my old iOS devices that Apple no longer supports so that I can repurpose them as hobby devices.

[wvenable]

Why does reinstalling iOS need to be prevented?

[rekoil]

I think they are referring to like a really simple scorched-earth solution that Apple could make which would scare off literally 99% of users but would technically be fully compliant.

Unlockable bootloader should 100% be a thing, but I doubt it'll happen, and in its absence Apple will probably need to open up their walled garden more to actually be DMA compliant.

[kj99]

There are all kinds of poor customer experience edge cases that arise if people can go back and forth, and Apple wants to protect the customer experience and brand from that. Whether you agree with their reasoning or not, it is what it is.

On the other hand I understand why people (myself being one of them) want to use the hardware they bought for something other than running iOS. This seems especially important once Apple drops support for the device.

My solution is meant to solve for this situation.

[causi]

Even doing it on Android is a minefield of trying to pick the right device with the right compatibilities.

[b112]

I agree, but...

That can also mean "wipe the device of the OS, and install your own".

Ownership of hardware, has never implied ownership of software. Usage rights, with first sale in most countries, but not ownership of the software.

But where do usage rights end, and where does "right to use the device as purchased" start? Certainly, Apple advertises the security, safety of their locked down ecosystem.

I suspect Apple's next move might be disabling their apps, and ecosystem, leaving a bare OS, if you move to a competing app store.

Or maybe leaving core apps, and prohibiting installation of other apps while removing their app store.

They might have a case for that. And Google for the longest time, will not allow the play store in a legit way, unless the OS is validated by them. So in this Apple wouldn't be an outlier.

[adrian_b]

> Apple advertises the security, safety of their locked down ecosystem

Unfortunately this advertisement is just an illusion designed to lure naive customers, as has been amply proven by the long list of CVE's revealed at the end of 2023, due to which the Apple devices have been completely insecure against those who had known them many years before the public.

After such a precedent, any argument that Apple prevents third party applications for the benefit of the customers has become completely baseless.

[b112]

After such a precedent, any argument that Apple prevents third party applications for the benefit of the customers has become completely baseless

This isn't a legit argument. Sadly, like it or not, no software on the planet escapes CVEs. You'd never successfully argue what you're suggesting in court.

[AlexandrB]

Forget CVEs. The App Store itself is a hive of scum and villainy[1]. How this stuff gets past review while email and calendar apps have to raise a public stink[2] to get in is beyond me.

[1] https://daringfireball.net/2017/06/in-app_purchase_scams_in_...

[2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/apples-response-hey-sh...

[b112]

This isn't relevant for the legal premise of what the goal is. And more importantly, what people are told, and their expectations when purchasing.

Apple can easily argue that people full well know its ecosystem is a walled garden, and that it is a selling point.

[simion314]

Apple can allow users to download apps from a website their trust, no Apple bandwidth or low paid workers will be used.

But what about security? Apple developers should handle that, they are well paid to implemnt sandboxing and other safety stuff.

[andersa]

The appropriate billing from Apple is none whatsoever. How do people keep coming up with this nonsense?

[015a]

I've thought a tremendous amount about this. Its important to note, we're speaking from an ethical/moral angle, not a legal one. Apple isn't doing anything that courts have been found to be illegal.

First, on what Apple calls their "Core Technology Fee" in Europe.

Ethically, I believe its really obvious that this fee is something that is paid by users. When I buy an iPhone, I am buying the operating system, which includes the core technology that iPhone ships with. Apple absolutely charges users for this; they also double-charge developers for it, as its part of their 30% fee structure.

Apple has also made the argument that the 30% fee structure also includes App Store marketing services. This is a more-reasonable argument from Apple, specifically in the situation where the sale is DIRECTLY attributable to an action within the App Store application (e.g. searching for an app to buy, home page marketing, etc). This differentiation is not a new idea: the Windows app store formalizes this model by taking a larger cut of sales that came from the store channel versus external channels [1].

However, Apple's cut is universal, regardless of channel. In their infinite ability to double-dip, they also charge for advertising services within the App Store; so, developers may pay for a click-through within the App Store home page or search results, then also pay the 30% cut when that ad converts into a sale.

A few years ago, Apple reduced their cut on subscription revenue to, effectively, 15%. This is still extremely high for the level of service Apple is providing to justify that 15%; but it makes sense from the perspective that what Apple definitely and obviously isn't doing is any kind of customer support or marketing to maintain that customer. Apple has never been willing to admit that the same thing holds true for any piecemeal purchase where the primary marketing channel is the app itself, and not the App Store. If I buy an audiobook on Spotify, Apple did nothing to push that sale forward, similar to how they did nothing to convince me to renew my Spotify subscription. Yet, they would in theory get an additional 15% of the sale.

All of this is also, please do not forget, in addition to the $99/year fee Apple charges all developers. Its not a lot, especially for companies like Spotify. But, that supposedly includes things like the core technology license; so in some sense Apple is actually triple-dipping on these sales.

Oh, and also: A some of these numbers are different and worse for games. Why? Because I guess games are, just, different? For some reason. Unclear. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Apple is the world's largest gaming company by revenue.

Here's what I strongly feel is ethical:

- Apple can charge whatever percentage they want for IAP. Its their product, do what you will.

- Apple can require applications distributed through the App Store to only leverage Apple IAP. Its their App Store, do what you will.

- Apple must allow the installation of applications via a web browser outside of the App Store channel. Apple may elect to scan these applications with some kind of on-device threat classification, and present the results of that scan to the user. Apple may also elect to change the wording of this installation prompt to account for whether the app is signed by Apple, and the developer is within the Apple Developer program. All of these protection systems must be user-overrideable, point in time, without any additional navigation or payment from the user.

Here's the thing: I think, under a system like this, Spotify still doesn't change. I think most major apps don't change.

[1] https://appetiser.com.au/blog/microsoft-store-revenue-now-gi...