[tambourine_man]

> They're not identical alternatives

Alternatives are not identical, by definition.

You see, in 95-2005 you couldn't compute without Windows. The vast majority of services not only assumed but relied upon you having Windows installed. There were no alternatives. Full stop. It's a completely different situation today.

> We're not discussing monopoly claims.

I am, and so is EU.

> We're discussing why people buy iPhones.

And why they are making a conscious choice, not being hostage by a monopoly.

[lapcat]

> Alternatives are not identical, by definition.

Ok, so if you admit that the alternatives to iMessage and iCloud are not identical, it follows that people may have reasons for specifically preferring iMessage and iCloud to the alternatives, based on the differences that you admit exist. And again, iMessage and iCloud are iPhone-only features, so a preference for those Apple services would naturally make consumers prefer iPhones.

> I am, and so is EU.

By "We're not discussing monopoly claims", I meant specifically "We" as in you and me. I'm not discussing anything with the EU, because the EU doesn't comment on HN. My original reply to you was specifically about why people buy iPhones: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39591038

> And why they are making a conscious choice, not being hostage by a monopoly.

Yes? We're both already in agreement about that. The question is to what extent, if any, vendor lockdown of 3rd party apps drives iPhone sales.

You seem to want to claim that the only relevant difference for consumers between iPhones and Android phones is App Store lockdown, and that's simply not true. There are a bunch of relevant differences.

[tambourine_man]

> Yes? We're both already in agreement about that.

Ah, that wasn't clear to me.

Of course there are differences between the platforms, but not enough to justify legislation, IMO. Comparing current Apple to 95-2005 Microsoft is not useful. Mac and Linux users had to run Windows in one way or another to interoperate with the rest of the world in many situations back then. Not true for Android at all.

[lapcat]

You're avoiding my question. You claimed, "a large percentage of Apple customers are buying iPhones because of those restrictions and not in spite of them", and I requested empirical evidence to support this claim. You've still not provided such evidence. You keep changing the subject to legislation or monopoly or whatever, but I simply want proof that a large percentage of iPhone customers buy iPhones specifically because iPhone prevents them from installing whatever 3rd software they want.

In my view, iPhone is a very complex device with a lot of features, consumers have many different reasons for buying them, and vendor lockdown of 3rd party apps is probably not at the top of most people's lists. I've actually never heard anyone cite that as the main reason. Here's a related question: how many iPhone owners have you heard say that they'll switch to Android if Apple allowed sideloading? How many European iPhone owners are saying it now, with the DMA changes forthcoming?

[tambourine_man]

Of course, no one will answer “yes” to a direct question “do you want more restrictions”. Many, however, will concede that being more secure and stable is more important than side loading, if given a choice. I thought this reasoning was implied.

And the proof you ask for is in the popularity of the device. I've heard many times that even though it is more expensive, security and reliability are important enough to justify the purchase. I'm sure design, life-style brand/marketing play a role as well, but to much lesser extent, in my opinion.

I have actually never heard a non-dev request side loading, for example. I have heard a few younger, more tech savvy users, wanting to go crazy with home screen and skin customizations like you can with Android.

[lapcat]

> Of course, no one will answer “yes” to a direct question “do you want more restrictions”.

I find this admission very interesting. When presented with direct evidence of paternalism, everyone rejects it. Of course. As they should.

> Many, however, will concede that being more secure and stable is more important than side loading, if given a choice. I thought this reasoning was implied.

Where exactly do you think the security and stability are coming from?

For better or worse, iPhone apps are sandboxed. As a developer, I can sideload my own apps onto my own devices using Xcode, but those sideloaded apps are as sandboxed and locked down as any App Store app.

Even on the Mac nowadays, all apps have to go through an automated malware check (notarization) before distribution. And Apple's new distribution methods in the EU also require notarization.

Thus, the alleged advantage of the App Store can come only from manual review by humans. In my experience as an App Store developer, however, reviewers are, frankly, ignorant idiots. They're clueless. They don't know anything.

"In a deposition in the Epic lawsuit, Shoemaker said that the qualifications needed to get hired as an app reviewer were that a person “could breathe [and] could think.”" https://www.wired.com/story/apples-app-store-review-fix-fail...

Even if app reviewers were competent, which they aren't, they wouldn't have the time to do their jobs competently. According to Apple itself, "Every week, over 500 dedicated experts around the world review over 100K apps." https://www.apple.com/app-store/ If you think about it, 500 reviewers doing nothing but reviewing for 40 hours per week could spend no more than 12 minutes per app on average. That's not much of a defense against clever attackers who can intentionally hide things. And after all, Epic Games itself managed to get its non-compliant version of Fortnite through app review (presumably because there was a server-side switch that triggered the new payment system).

The point of app review can't be security. They're no good at security. They're certainly not security experts. In my experience, the point of app review is mainly to enforce Apple's arbitrary rules. The first rule, or commandment, is thou shalt not avoid Apple's revenue cut.

As a natural result of this mediocre at best app review, the App Store is full of scams. These scams cost Apple users a very large amount of money collectively. I'm dubious about whether the App Store is safer than the so-called "wild west" outside the App Store. As far as I can see, the App Store is a honeypot for scammers, because once you make it past app review, you're home free, and you can easily exploit App Store search keywords, buy some of Apple's convenient Search Ads to promote your scam, give your app plenty of fake ratings and reviews, and have Apple collect your payments for you, which Apple happily does after subtracting its cut of the scam. Any anonymous person anywhere in the world with $99 can submit their scam to the App Store, and they do. And Apple tells users that the App Store is safe, which does users a disservice and lowers their guard against the scams.

> And the proof you ask for is in the popularity of the device.

That's not proof. Why would I ask for proof of something that I already know, something that's a verifiable public fact? The iPhone is very popular, of course. Duh.

> I'm sure design, life-style brand/marketing play a role as well, but to much lesser extent, in my opinion.

I wasn't asking for your opinion. I was asking for proof, which you still haven't provided.

> I have actually never heard a non-dev request side loading, for example.

Of course not. They probably don't even understand what sideloading is technically, so they're neither in favor of it nor against it, hence proving my point that people don't buy iPhones because they disallow sideloading. But as you already admitted, nobody wants more restrictions on their own usage, and they might say as much if you could explain the technical issues in a way that they can understand. Moreover, users don't know what they're missing. Literally, they don't know what apps could exist but don't exist, because Apple's arbitrary rules outlaw the existence of those apps. Only the developers know that.

[tambourine_man]

Yes, App review sucks, it's only slightly better than nothing.

> I was asking for proof, which you still haven't provided.

And won't, since that's not public information. The best anyone can do is show that it sells like hot cakes.

Reliability doesn't come from sandboxing or notarization only. But from forbidden behavior, less rope for you to hang yourself with. I think that amounts to a much higher percentage of sales than the cool factor of simply attaching an Apple logo, but the precise amount is everyone's guess, of course.