Yawn, if macOS is mystical to you, then you may as well have bought an iPad instead. Yeah, I am fully condescending when it's earned.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Defends Ecosystem in Australia as Antitrust Firefighting Around the World Continues
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Again, the bigger companies (Microsoft, Adobe, etc) will not need to be on the platform at all. They already have means in which to sell their stuff, world wide. With the resources and name recognition that people trust going direct to them. Games will move to cloud streaming (mostly AAA). And the smaller developers will be split between the Appstore, if they find the value worth it vs going it alone (side load or web app). Or 3rd party store hopping. Whichever gives them the best deal (not you the consumer). Which leaves the consumer looking for their app as it was their yesterday on the AppStore now its on EPIC Store, then on Steam Store, or Cheap-O-Beep-O 3rd party store, and so on.
This does leave room for competition in those spaces though no? I mean, I'm ok with calendar and mail and not so much with Files (Its not Finder, since its a phone and not a desktop computer) or the photo's app since again its a phone and a bit harder to edit with compared with a full computer. This does leave room for competition in those spaces that dare to make an app that can do more.
I suppose Apple could just make all the apps one would need for 90% of the consumer population and maybe still be successful enough.
Come now, dude. You're just being wilfully ignorant here.
Switching from iOS to Android means spending another $1k+ to buy another phone and then try to purchase/replace apps that I might already have invested in.
The cost of you switching one or two apps that stop being served up by Apple's store would cost you little to nothing.
You can buy an Android phone for less than that.
Your right, it will cost "me" less to switch apps than others on this site I'm sure. However, none of us have to switch just yet. And we don't want to if we don't have to. Same as you not wanting to switch devices if you don't have to.
But, you may have purchased an iPhone. And now don't like the system in which it works under. You can purchase when your ready, a new phone (not an iPhone clearly) at that time and get what you want.
Maybe what you should be looking for here is that developers allow your purchases from one store to be valid for another platform. Boom..
Well, of course your opinion may vary but I feel I have been putting forth legit concerns about how I feel the consumer experience will be impacted and doing nothing but inviting conversation. Unfortunately not many people here seem willing to discuss those concerns but only seem interested in condescension.
Let's try this, assuming that some apps will leave the Apple App Store for either their own or for a competing store, how exactly, and please be specific, is the user experience enhanced by:
- Having to web search for apps and being shown mostly just the "boosted" web results versus visiting a single store to see all apps presented in a way that meant for apps and not just generic web search results?
- Having to create accounts on the store or web site for each individual app that leaves the Apple store and providing all of my personal and payment information to each.
- Having to update each app individually versus just going to the Apple App Store app and updating all of ones apps at once.
- Losing the privacy score cards that Apple forces on devs.
Sounds like you are the one that was willfully ignorant when you bought a $1k+ device that didn't allow you to do what you wanted with it, buyers remorse much? If you wait until your normal upgrade time then the cost of the device is a wash and I would think that any costs you incur for apps that allow you the freedom you seek will be money well spent.
Based on what precedent? Exactly zero of those currently host their Android apps on their own sites, even though the option has been available for them to do so for years. They will host their apps in exactly the place where it makes the most sense for them and their users, and right now, even with all these changes coming down the pipe, that will probably be the Apple store, barring Apple getting stupid with their hosting fees.
Why don't you like it? Personally, I have absolutely no problem paying Microsoft directly for my O365 subscription, Netflix for that subscription, Roku for the other channels I subscribe to, etc. There has been absolutely nothing that makes me trust Apple with my payment information any more than any of these other providers. Apple is very much like the TSA - good at giving the illusion of security, but most of it is theatre meant to make you feel comfortable handing over your credit card.
Now, as far as buying indie-developed apps from a company that clearly does not have the desire or ability to tie their system into a proper PCI-DSS compliant payment provider, sure, I'm never giving my payment info to those companies. I will gladly buy those apps from a store run by Apple or Google.. or any of a number of competent app store operators. Again, this is where Apple can either innovate and provide some actual value, or they can GTF out of the way and let someone who doesn't just rely on obscurity to ensure their customers' security.
Of course I don't. Do you only ever shop at Wal Mart so that you can avoid using your credit card at other stores for so-called "security" reasons? Didn't think so. It's almost like having multiple retailers, each accepting of various electronic payment methods have been a thing for so long that people don't even think about how paranoid you'd have to be to patronize multiple stores.
Because it's not. It's a huge consumer disadvantage because it eliminates avenues of competition. You only have to look at your own examples to see that in practice. There's a reason why many AAA games constantly go on sale (or are even often given away for free) on competitive game stores such as Steam and Epic.
About the only "advantage" the consumer gains with app store lock-in is the convenience of One-Click shopping (hello, Amazon) and the illusion of security (as already explained above).
Microsoft is probably the worst company you could have used for this example. Microsoft is far more concerned with ensuring that their apps are visible to as many users as possible than they are about the remote possibility that some random competitor's app lures a significant number of potential paid Office users away. Above all else, MS want to make it as easy as possible for users to download their core apps, and even with competing stores existing, that would be by continuing to host those apps on Apple's flagship app store.
Adobe may have been a better example, given that there are viable alternatives to some of their mobile apps, but even in that case, if I were Adobe, I would host my apps wherever they get the most visibility, as my major goal isn't to sell a $2.99 photo filter - it is to sign more people up to my $70/mo application suite.
Only if they are a manufacturer/dev that has little confidence in their app competing in the marketplace.
Yes, I agree.
In a competitive market, Apple is absolutely free to set their terms on that deal. The problem is that, today, that market isn't competitive, so Apple's cut is extortionate.
How about you stop with stupid analogies that have absolutely no bearing on what we're talking about. Apple's relative cost to host an app is a fraction of a fraction of the cost of a supermarket's cost in selling milk. Seriously, the fact that you have to come up with such a ridiculous scenario to try to illustrate your argument only serves to prove how ridiculous your argument is in the first place. Just stop.
Sure. Microsoft and Amazon have made a deal to sell Office for a given price, and with a given amount of margin given to Amazon. I can also go to Staples or Costco to buy a 1-year subscription. Or I can do what I'm doing now and pay for it directly to Microsoft.
Again, that's called "competition". Microsoft isn't limited to selling subscriptions through one retailer, and Amazon is not limited to selling Microsoft products.
These both are pretty much the same searching model. Apple shows you paid ad results up top, just as Google does. You're being pretty disingenuous when you say that you only see paid results on Google - that has literally never been the case, and it is just as easy to identify paid results on Google's searches.
However, of course, you do have other search engines you can use - you don't necessarily have to limit yourself to Google. It's just the one most people use because they've generally had good results with that one.
This is a red herring. There will never be a situation where you can't pay for any of those 100 random apps from some storefront employing a competent payment provider. As I alluded to above, anyone who is that concerned with limiting how many stores with their "god knows who" payment providers transact with your credit card, you would never go to restaurants, never shop at multiple retailers, or even *gasp* dare enter a mall. I mean geezuz - how many different places do you swipe your card on a single day if you're out on a shopping trip?
There is no technical reason why Apple couldn't design the update functionality in iOS to work with third-party stores or software providers. Multiple-source updates has been a thing in the Linux world for longer than iOS has even existed. The loss of this functionality, would be due to Apple choosing not to support that functionality or build it into the OS.
Another red herring. Apple already controls access to data within the phone via their API, and they hold the encryption keys. Where an app is hosted has absolutely zero bearing on whether that app can bypass the APIs in iOS.
By your standards, I would think that most iPhone purchases are "wilfully ignorant" then. Despite what the vocal iFanatics on a website like this one would have you believe, Apple's walled garden is pretty low on the list of reasons why most iPhone buyers choose an iPhone. The fact that so many world governments are now acting on Apple's anti-competitive practices should clue you in that there are probably a lot of people who are exactly in the same boat as me when it comes to "buyers remorse".
You have no idea how regulators can do something they've been doing since literally the beginning of time? Okay.
My iPhone is used as a work device while Android is my personal / consulting device. There is a lot to be liked by both however the restrictions on iOS are why Android is my main. If they “unlock” iOS that would be a far tougher decision. Even allowing to default all apps would do that
Last edited:
Which apps do you think would pull from the App Store and disappear from billions of iOS devices?
EU, heh? Didn’t you see the bipartisan storm winding up on the US coast?
Apple will get a finishing move with fatality in the US. It’s just a matter of time till they hear “Get over here…”, get pierced by an arrow in their cold heart and get dragged to court. Antitrust Laws wins, flawless victory…🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸
U.S. Government to Investigate Sideloading and Web App Restrictions on iOS
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has launched an investigation into competition in mobile app ecosystems. On...
www.macrumors.com
U.S. Senate Panel Approves Antitrust Bill That Would Allow Sideloading
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee today approved the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, which means it will now move on to the Senate floor...
www.macrumors.com
Last edited:
1) maybe, who could know
2) secure compared to what? Secure is a relative term because nothing is absolutely secure. It would absolutely be less secure than it is now because macOS is less secure. But macOS is for a different user than iOS, and iOS devices need to be more secure than macOS devices due to being much more personal, therefore the ramifications of security breach are more serious.
Opening the ecosystem is not a win for all consumers, it’s a win for all devs. There will be consumers who lose if they want all their apps to be governed by Apple in the App Store and even one app that they need leaves the App Store, which is near inevitable. So what you’re actually talking about here is simply what one consumer (presumably you are talking from a consumer perspective, not dev) wants (open) vs what another consumer wants (closed). The only question then is, why should the law be on the side of one consumer and not the other? If no laws are broken, the law should stay out of it, the market should decide.
Boo to the Anti Consumer Care C. When ever an Australian Government department imposes regulation it only harms consumers like myself. For Apple to meet their increased regulations, it will cost them more and that cost will be passed onto the purchaser. If ACCC breaks a safe closed ecosystem then I will be exposed to more viruses and the less astute product owners will unwittingly try to pass their viruses via e-mail, iMessage and AirDrop to me. Once again this pitiful little department tries to justify their existence. Can all the workers here, like myself, have their income tax reduced by .5% and disband a department that actually does harm to consumers?
Same here- I would have chosen a different headline! “Ecosystem” and “firefighting” in Australia?!When I first read the headline I thought Apple was donating to wildfire suppression given the massive wildfires they had in Australia before.
I was very confused about how that would be subject to antitrust.
That's where I'm at today.
No, selling access to the platform is really about selling access to the platform. If I developed a new platform, I'm perfectly within my rights to sell access to developers to create apps on my platform. Happens all the time.
Except that most people switch phones every 2-3 years and most apps are either free, supscription-based, or require purchasing a new version every few years. The cost to switch is minimal.
Apple is having a tough time with the regulations in different regions!!
I suspect either Apple determines a way to be more flexible or they will be forced into that flexibility.
So why all the fuss about making Apple more open? I mean, if at the end of the day the direct competition doesn't have any more users/dev's leaving the Google Play Store. Why force this on Apple? How does it make anything better if literally not many others are using this method on the other platform that is also larger than Apple's? Seems like a massive waste of time no?
So it's all just an illusion? I could just walk past those security check points and walk on to any plane (no ticket/boarding pass) and go anywhere in the world (luggage included) and ignore those check points? That could save me a boat load of money for my next vacation.
All of which you avoid having to do on the current AppStore. But, you believe most of that is an illusion so...
We also have the choice as consumers which stores to visit and spend our money in. But, none of us expect to walk into a Walmart or Target and purchase at another register specific to the manufacture of the items we bought. We expect to pay Target or Walmart. We in many cases can go direct to the manufacture. Instead for convenience we go to these stores. Which is what Apple and Google provide with their respective stores. Customer convenience. You bought this device with our software on it. We or others we license made this device. We designed the hardware and software (Apple, and in some cases Google) to work a certain way and function a certain way. You can choose Apple or Google devices/OS. If you don't like the garden, you can leave. If you don't like Google or any of their devices, you can leave.
But, it's not being used much on Android (like I stated above). So why are we doing this again? If we have enough research information to make that determination. That it is used very little on the largest platform. Why are we going through all this?
Again, as stated above. No stated benefit other than the illusion of more competition and no change in the illusionary security you don't really have today.
They are like the 3rd most valuable company on earth. They sell world wide, and have all the infrastructure they need to do app distribution themselves. They are the one of the best examples.
Microsoft is anything but easy. Try installing Edge on a 2016-2019 server.
Again, they don't need to use Apple's store. They don't need to use the middle-man. They are big enough to advertise and get you (the customer) to go directly to them. Where, they can also show you all the other things they can do for you "directly". They don't need to maintain anything on Apple's App Store anymore. They can eliminate that cost, and so will others that can do it themselves. Why wait for Apple's new rules on hosting fee's and such. When they can just provide directly to consumer?
Same answer as above. They don't have to be on the store . Big enough to get people to go direct to them.
But, it's the same cut. So because there is no competition on the platform owned by Apple. It's extortion. But, if another store was on the platform it isn't anymore? Why isn't Google Play competition to the AppStore? Just because it's not on Apple's Platform? So my previous example of shopping at Target but paying at the manufactures register. Which would make no sense in the real world. Should that not be the same thing here? I'm on Apple's platform. Just like if I walked into Apple's physical store. I pay Apple for goods and or services in the store. I don't pay Adobe or Microsoft or another manufacture. I pay Apple.
Apple has to pay for electricity costs just like a supermarket. Got to keep them servers and "milk" cold.
Both have to pay staff to keep the infrastructure working (IT staff for the DC and employees for the grocery store).
How do you know how much it costs Apple to maintain the store? Or a how much it costs a grocery store to maintain itself? Rent, Lease, power, staff, network & hardware cost, etc.?
I have an iPad, and I downloaded an used the Cloud Gaming app Microsoft made. It's a web app, and it is NOT on the Appstore. Can't find it. Only way to get it is via Microsoft website directly.
But neither is required nor would they advertise that it's cheaper someplace else within their store. Microsoft can't state their product or service is cheaper on their own website or another store (physical or virtual).
And as I stated above. A developer can create a WebApp if they don't wish to be on the store paying Apple's extortionist cuts of money.
why should they have to build it? should they not have the right to choose whether or not to do something to their products?
EPIC's Fortnite game was updated to allow direct payment to EPIC for DLC. So yes, the hosting of the App has no bearing on whether it can bypass the API's in iOS. Which means all 3rd party app stores or side-loading can bypass the restrictions Apple has placed on iOS.
Yeah, talk is cheap. It needs to happen and not be overturned by the Supreme Court.EU, heh? Didn’t you see the bipartisan storm winding up on the US coast?
Apple will get a finishing move with fatality in the US. It’s just a matter of time till they hear “Get over here…”, get pierced by an arrow in their cold heart and get dragged to court. Antitrust Laws wins, flawless victory…🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸
U.S. Government to Investigate Sideloading and Web App Restrictions on iOS
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has launched an investigation into competition in mobile app ecosystems. On...
U.S. Senate Panel Approves Antitrust Bill That Would Allow Sideloading
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee today approved the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, which means it will now move on to the Senate floor...