EU Competition Chief Tells Apple Not to Use Privacy as a Shield Against Competition

[Ubuntu]

There were certainly App Stores, unless you’re insisting that the first smartphone that EVER ran applications was the iPhone. In addition there was sideloading. Folks who had an opportunity to buy devices that allows sideloading of apps or use of an app store intentionally bought the device that promised ZERO of each. The hardware, again, that the developers want free access to, was THAT good.

It wasn’t users that wanted an App Store, they were fine with the devices as is, as shown by the far greater than expected sales (Apple’s target was ONLY 1% marketshare in the first year, that beat that several times). It was DEVELOPERS that wanted a way to make money. Apple, having already invested millions into the effort of just making the hardware and OS, invested millions more to create a compromise where Apple could continue to protect their TRULY massive investment while also allowing developers to offer their software on this protected platform. That solution was the App Store.

Basic respect is what devs have. They’ve had it for years. Basic respect is improving the tools, listening to “reasonable” feedback, implementing changes to the review process, etc. Everything with an eye towards protecting their investment while providing a platform for developers. What (some) developers want now is the ability to erode Apple’s protections of their investment.

Apple knows how to create a platform that people like and want to use AND most importantly want to spend money on. If ANY developer had the same skills, they could very well do the same thing. But they don’t, they DO know how to create their little app that piggy backs on someone else’s video hardware, audio hardware, cameras, motion detectors, GPS, Wi-fi, Bluetooth, NFC, security infrastructure, etc. to make some money. Further, I would BET you that if ANY developer were to go through the arduous effort to invest and create their own massively popular, successful and world class hardware, you can BET those developers would fight like heck to protect that investment.

No, that's what I meant by the conventional sense. The app stores back in those days weren't comparable in my experience (because they were literally a list of handpicked apps by the phone carrier here).

If users didn't want an App Store then how did it succeed? If it was just developers surely there'd be no demand for the supply?

I completely disagree with the rest of this. I don't know about your experience with the App Store team but most of mine has been bad. I had one time where they literally wasted 3 weeks of our time, rejecting an app update when everything was ready to go because they had an internet issue with the app we couldn't reproduce. We tried time after time to reproduce it, even creating a dedicated Ipv6 network (as this is what they had) and no luck. I even asked them to try other devices, reset the network settings and we didn't even get a "Yes, we tried this". After week 3 they finally let us have a phone call where I asked the employee to try a different device and it turns out that was actually the issue. No apology, just an app approval like nothing had happened. That is not respect.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

No, that's what I meant by the conventional sense. The app stores back in those days weren't comparable in my experience (because they were literally a list of handpicked apps by the phone carrier here).

No, they weren’t comparable. And, Apple realized this as well. They understood that ‘relying on what came before’ would be insufficient for the customers they were going after. So, rather than going to the phone carriers or other handset makers, they created something new that would allow them to protect their investment, provide developers a safe/secure way to release their code, and thirdly, made purchasing an activity that customers might actually like. They were absolutely there, and they were bad. Apple invested time and money into creating something tolerable, at least better than whatever else was out there at the time.

If users didn't want an App Store then how did it succeed? If it was just developers surely there'd be no demand for the supply?

Be assured, if the iPhone was not selling in unimaginable numbers, it doesn’t matter how good the App Store was, no developer would have been interested in it! The App Store succeeded because Apple created the hardware/OS that people desired. With those numbers in the wild, new systems being sold at a good clip, ANNNND the tools that Apple spent money on making available, developers were able to captalize on that. And, let’s say this, too. There were OTHER systems available, almost all allowed some form of sideloading, giving developers the control they wanted. YET, developers flocked to Apple’s hardware.

I completely disagree with the rest of this. I don't know about your experience with the App Store team but most of mine has been bad. I had one time where they literally wasted 3 weeks of our time, rejecting an app update when everything was ready to go because they had an internet issue with the app we couldn't reproduce.
…
That is not respect.

Rejected an update? I’m SURE it’s worse than that, right? Is the reality that they routinely reject a majority of updates, each of which wastes 3 weeks of your time? Like, 80-90% of the time your updates are delayed by 3 weeks? I’m assuming this was very likely the case when you had any issues with Xcode that you needed assistance with, and probably there was a HUGE delay just getting your App on the store?

You’re right, that is NOT respect. Respect is providing the Tools and API’s and hardware that allow you to do something great. That is, as I mentioned previously, protecting the HUGE investment they have made in creating this hardware/OS combination that folks seem to like pretty well. And, by this time, they’re protecting not only THEIR investment, but the investment millions of other developers, customers, and third party vendors have made in this platform. If it ever comes down to respecting a developer and protecting their investment, you can bet protecting their investment will always come first.

I’d assume that‘s true for you, too. If you opened your API’s to me and, during integration testing, it appeared I was doing something I wasn’t supposed to be doing, if I said, “NAH, everything’s working fine on my end, just go ahead and put it in” I’m not sure you’d be as trusting as you want Apple to be Or, is it just that they didn’t say, “We’re sorry?” or something like that?

 

[Ubuntu]

No, they weren’t comparable. And, Apple realized this as well. They understood that ‘relying on what came before’ would be insufficient for the customers they were going after. So, rather than going to the phone carriers or other handset makers, they created something new that would allow them to protect their investment, provide developers a safe/secure way to release their code, and thirdly, made purchasing an activity that customers might actually like. They were absolutely there, and they were bad. Apple invested time and money into creating something tolerable, at least better than whatever else was out there at the time.


Be assured, if the iPhone was not selling in unimaginable numbers, it doesn’t matter how good the App Store was, no developer would have been interested in it! The App Store succeeded because Apple created the hardware/OS that people desired. With those numbers in the wild, new systems being sold at a good clip, ANNNND the tools that Apple spent money on making available, developers were able to captalize on that. And, let’s say this, too. There were OTHER systems available, almost all allowed some form of sideloading, giving developers the control they wanted. YET, developers flocked to Apple’s hardware.


Rejected an update? I’m SURE it’s worse than that, right? Is the reality that they routinely reject a majority of updates, each of which wastes 3 weeks of your time? Like, 80-90% of the time your updates are delayed by 3 weeks? I’m assuming this was very likely the case when you had any issues with Xcode that you needed assistance with, and probably there was a HUGE delay just getting your App on the store?

You’re right, that is NOT respect. Respect is providing the Tools and API’s and hardware that allow you to do something great. That is, as I mentioned previously, protecting the HUGE investment they have made in creating this hardware/OS combination that folks seem to like pretty well. And, by this time, they’re protecting not only THEIR investment, but the investment millions of other developers, customers, and third party vendors have made in this platform. If it ever comes down to respecting a developer and protecting their investment, you can bet protecting their investment will always come first.

I’d assume that‘s true for you, too. If you opened your API’s to me and, during integration testing, it appeared I was doing something I wasn’t supposed to be doing, if I said, “NAH, everything’s working fine on my end, just go ahead and put it in” I’m not sure you’d be as trusting as you want Apple to be Or, is it just that they didn’t say, “We’re sorry?” or something like that?

1. Yup, and while they found the perfect balance I think it was a matter of time. If Apple instead went down the web app route like Steve wanted and then another company came forward with native apps I think Apple would have been forced to do the same (even though now web apps are making a bit of a comeback).

2. The App Store succeeded for those reasons but also because of the developers. The reason developers flocked to iOS is because iOS users are more willing to pay for apps

3. Rejecting an update when you have the marketing lined up, partners who are also marketing the release etc only to tell them it'll be late is embarrassing and a waste of money and time. There's nothing wrong with them protecting their investment but I don't think they should be the gatekeeper because I think they've taken it to the point where they're killing off innovation, especially when they're inconsistent about it. It's one thing to know upfront "Ok, this idea I have will probably not be accepted by Apple" but to have it out of the blue, even for a minor update as we've seen many developers experience recently, for reasons that amount to bullying (e.g. free apps having to have IAPs so Apple can get their cut)? It's bullying, it's rent-seeking and it's anti-competitive, imo.

In that scenario you gave, if it turned out the mistake was on my end a simple apology would do. That's the most basic form of respect but to me it shows that Apple doesn't care.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

1. Yup, and while they found the perfect balance I think it was a matter of time.

Not exactly. If the phone was selling a few hundred units per week because no one wanted it, a store would never have been created because it would have failed spectacularly well before they expended the effort on a store.

2. The App Store succeeded for those reasons but also because of the developers. The reason developers flocked to iOS is because iOS users are more willing to pay for apps

I’m not leaving out the developers, they’re important. However, they are at the end of a VERY large amount of effort that was focused on “How do we get as many of these in folk’s hands as quickly as possible?” Third party developers even come after, say, accessory makers.

There's nothing wrong with them protecting their investment but I don't think they should be the gatekeeper

If anyone’s protecting their investment, they’re involved in gatekeeping by default. I’m not going to use a painfully bad analogy because, as a developer, you’re well aware of how the gatekeeping you’ve done benefits you. That’s a given. You can’t protect your investment if you’re letting anyone do whatever they want WITH your investment.

free apps having to have IAPs so Apple can get their cut

Ok, this is me speaking as a consumer. If there’s a subscription I WANT the option to pay for it in-app. Because, I can subscribe, and, immediately after, go into settings and unsubscribe and not have to worry about a mysterious charge at the end of the month. If I try to use it at the end of the month and am annoyed that I no longer have those features, then it’s a subscription worth keeping. If I never notice it, not a problem at all. Apple absolutely gets their cut, no denying or hiding that. But, if a free app is a front end to a subscription service, you could also see that as Apple saying “Our customers want the option, please provide it.”

That's the most basic form of respect but to me it shows that Apple doesn't care.

When I look at all Apple makes available to developers, I just can’t come to the conclusion that Apple doesn’t care. Apple doesn’t care to train their review crew to say “I’m sorry”? Absolutely. However, if your App IS still on the App Store and you’ve had many successful releases SINCE then, then there’s a lot of work Apple’s doing for you as a developer every day to help keep you goin. That does NOT absolve the fact that they didn’t say they were sorry for not testing on MULTIPLE devices (which, I would HOPE is in place now due to your issue), though.

 

[KevinN206]

There's probably more malware and scam in the Play Store and App Store than people intentionally side-loading a bad app.