Who said remove them? Access to other app stores could just as easily let you pick one with more control and review instead of less. That should be up to the user. Not you, me or Apple.
> That should be up to the user. Not you, me or Apple.
It’s pretty obvious why this is flawed: a lot of people will end up being sold on scammy or privacy invading stores.
You’ll be able to blame them for making the wrong choice, but it won’t actually be their fault. It will be the fault of those who prevented Apple from offering a curated environment.
> It’s pretty obvious why this is flawed: a lot of people will end up being sold on scammy or privacy invading stores.
Why? The vast majority will continue to use the App Store. Apple could also manage this situation to both educate users and frame the situation in such a way so that only power users would leave the safety of the App Store to seek out sideloading or alternative stores.
The dichotomy of walled garden vs. the Wild West is a false one and a failure of imagination that ignores the possibility of a middle ground. If you believe Apple can truly build a good walled garden, you can also believe that Apple can lift restrictions and allow third party stores in a sensible, well-managed way without sacrificing product quality.
> It will be the fault of those who prevented Apple from offering a curated environment.
Actually, it would be the fault of the scammers and privacy-invaders in question.
> The vast majority will continue to use the App Store.
Definitely not true. Most people will be forced to install alternative stores because those stores will pay for exclusives on key apps. Players like Facebook and Google will open stores and only make their products available within them.
> Apple could also manage this situation to both educate users and frame the situation in such a way so that only power users would leave the safety of the App Store to seek out sideloading or alternative stores.
Not true. If Apple is forced to allow alternative store, anti-trust regulators will prevent Apple from portraying their own store as safer or from framing the situation.
> The dichotomy of walled garden vs. the Wild West is a false one and a failure of imagination that ignores the possibility of a middle ground. If you believe Apple can truly build a good walled garden, you can also believe that Apple can lift restrictions and allow third party stores in a sensible, well-managed way without sacrificing product quality.
Not true. Apple obviously cannot manage the behavior of third parties who they are forced to allow to build stores.
> It will be the fault of those who prevented Apple from offering a curated environment.
> Actually, it would be the fault of the scammers and privacy-invaders in question.
Clearly false. We know the scammers and privacy invaders will act, but are currently limited in their ability to do so.
Forcing Apple to reduce protections will be the proximate cause of their customers being vulnerable.
> Definitely not true. Most people will be forced to install alternative stores because those stores will pay for exclusives on key apps. Players like Facebook and Google will open stores and only make their products available within them.
That is debatable, and discussed throughout this thread, including in my own comments:
Furthermore, there is clear evidence that what you are describing is not inevitable. Most Android users use the Google Play Store. Most MacOS users use the Mac App Store, and if they get their apps from elsewhere, it is not from competing app stores, unless you include game stores such as Steam or those run by Epic/EA/UbiSoft.
Facebook does not run their own separate Android app store, even though they could. Amazon has one, largely to service their own unique Android Kindle devices, and they are not popular outside of them, nor do they have exclusivity over Amazon apps. Your doomsday scenario of myriads of exclusive app stores flies in the face of both existing trends, and market dynamics. As pointed out elsewhere, network effects prevents everyone from starting their own app store; users do not want to deal with dozens of accounts, and will just use Apple's built-in apps if you present too high a bar to getting your own.
> Not true. If Apple is forced to allow alternative store, anti-trust regulators will prevent Apple from portraying their own store as safer or from framing the situation.
Antitrust regulators have down little so far, making your fear-mongering claim even more dubious. Additionally, Apple is a master of dark patterns and social engineering, and can easily convey the safety of the App Store without stooping to heavy-handedness that would trigger regulators.
> Not true. Apple obviously cannot manage the behavior of third parties who they are forced to allow to build stores.
I find your lack of faith in Apple to be most disturbing. It's easily imaginable for Apple to re-frame the entire game so that they are the ones who are encouraging third parties to build stores, using official Apple App Store SDKs/APIs that come with Apple security standards built in.
> Clearly false. We know the scammers and privacy invaders will act, but are currently limited in their ability to do so.
You are refusing to acknowledge that when someone is scammed, the scammer is the one who holds the greatest fault for doing so. By doing so, you are passing the buck up the the responsibility chain.
And, clearly not enough, as the OP demonstrates. Apple's App Store enforcement standards have been slipping compared to previous years. Its clear that scammers are far less limited than back when Apple was more diligent at stopping malicious apps from being on their own platform.
> Forcing Apple to reduce protections will be the proximate cause of their customers being vulnerable.
No one is forcing Apple to host scammy apps on their own platform. And you seem to be the only one who believes that Apple cannot extend protections even to hypothetical Apple-powered third party app stores. At the end of the day, they control the operating system. They would always have ultimate control.
Finally, the original statement you are responding to is talking about the possibility of third party app stores that are more secure than the Apple App Store. Given the App Store's huge size and apparently slipping safety standards, it's certainly possible for new entrants to provide competition and offer an even better curated and secure experience than the one Apple provides. By preventing Apple from allowing the creation of such third party app stores, you are in effect the one forcing Apple to reduce protections, making their customers vulnerable.
This as you must be aware, is because first class alternative stores are not possible on Android.
> Facebook does not run their own separate Android app store, even though they could
This as you must be aware, is because first class alternative stores are not possible on Android.
> Apple is a master of dark patterns and social engineering, and can easily convey the safety of the App Store without stooping to heavy-handedness that would trigger regulators.
This is made up and has no validity.
> I find your lack of faith in Apple to be most disturbing. It's easily imaginable for Apple to re-frame the entire game so that they are the ones who are encouraging third parties...
More fantasy. After years of public statements to the contrary this is not realistic.
> You are refusing to acknowledge that when someone is scammed, the scammer is the one who holds the greatest fault for doing so. By doing so, you are passing the buck up the the responsibility chain.
They may hold the greatest fault, but facilitating scammers and then blaming them is kinda silly.
Apple is taking responsibility for reducing scams. Let’s not stop them.
> Apple's App Store enforcement standards have been slipping compared to previous years.
A claim with zero evidence.
> Its clear that scammers are far less limited than back when Apple was more diligent at stopping malicious apps from being on their own platform.
A false conclusion. There can be simply more scams being attempted and so more slipping through. Indeed this would be expected in a growing market.
> And you seem to be the only one who believes that Apple cannot extend protections even to hypothetical Apple-powered third party app stores.
The only one along with everyone else who understands computer science.
> At the end of the day, they control the operating system. They would always have ultimate control.
Obviously not, for two reasons.
1. Nobody in history has ever produced a perfectly secure operating system.
2. No anti-trust regulator would allow Apple to block apps installed by other stores.
> Finally, the original statement you are responding to is talking about the possibility of third party app stores that are more secure than the Apple App Store. Given the App Store's huge size and apparently slipping safety standards, it's certainly possible for new entrants to provide competition and offer an even better curated and secure experience than the one Apple provides. By preventing Apple from allowing the creation of such third party app stores, you are in effect the one forcing Apple to reduce protections, making their customers vulnerable.
This is of course nonsense.
Stores won’t compete on security. They’ll compete for customers using all the usual mechanisms - buying exclusives, tying their stores to other services and products, heavy marketing, and discrediting their competitors.
Even if a store did exist that was less scammy than Apple’s, it simply wouldn’t have everything a customer wanted anyway.
> This as you must be aware, is because first class alternative stores are not possible on Android.
No one is mandating first class alternative stores on iOS, merely the ability to download apps from third party stores or to sideload .ipa files.
> This is made up and has no validity.
Your Apple bashing is baseless and has no place in a reasoned discussion such as this.
> More fantasy. After years of public statements to the contrary this is not realistic.
Your lack of sources and petty commentary debases this conversation and discredits your own position.
> They may hold the greatest fault, but facilitating scammers and then blaming them is kinda silly.
Allowing alternative app stores is no more facilitating scammers than the present situation of Apple failing to enforce its own app store's promises and failing to prosecute existing scammers.
> Apple is taking responsibility for reducing scams. Let’s not stop them.
A claim with zero evidence.
> A claim with zero evidence.
How many scam apps with annual revenue of $5m were on the App Store in 2010?
> There can be simply more scams being attempted and so more slipping through. Indeed this would be expected in a growing market.
A claim with zero evidence.
> The only one along with everyone else who understands computer science.
This is made up and has no validity.
> Nobody in history has ever produced a perfectly secure operating system.
It is clear from this discussion that you are not a fan of Apple. Please seek to reduce your own bias when attempting to have a serious conversation.
> No anti-trust regulator would allow Apple to block apps installed by other stores.
When was the last time any regulator acted against Apple in a substantiative way, in the United States?
> This is of course nonsense.
A claim with zero evidence.
> Stores won’t compete on security. They’ll compete for customers using all the usual mechanisms - buying exclusives, tying their stores to other services and products, heavy marketing, and discrediting their competitors.
Not only does that ignore the popular niche of security- or privacy-oriented technology (e.g. the Tor browser, the Blackphone, Telegram, Signal, the entire following article,
It also ignores that projects in the smartphone space such as F-Droid, or even Librem Purism or Pinephone, all revolve around business models that are not based on the sort of cutthroat commercialism you believe is ubiquitous. Certainly it is behavior that Apple does not indulge in.
> Even if a store did exist that was less scammy than Apple’s, it simply wouldn’t have everything a customer wanted anyway.
> No one is mandating first class alternative stores on iOS
That’s exactly what Epic, for example is asking for.
>> Nobody in history has ever produced a perfectly secure operating system.
> It is clear from this discussion that you are not a fan of Apple. Please seek to reduce your own bias when attempting to have a serious conversation.
If I was wrong, you’d have been able to respond with an example.
> When was the last time any regulator acted against Apple in a substantiative way, in the United States?
Last time was the EBook settlement.
I guess you aren’t aware of Epic’s case.
> Not only does that ignore the popular niche of security- or privacy-oriented technology (e.g.
Erm, you do realize that these technologies have nothing to do with preventing scam apps in stores, right?
>> Even if a store did exist that was less scammy than Apple’s, it simply wouldn’t have everything a customer wanted anyway.
> A claim with zero evidence.
No evidence because we are talking about something in the future, but irrelevant because this is just a logical truth that flows from your premise.
The counterclaim, that a single scam free store would have all of the apps in it is obviously false because the premise is a future with multiple stores.
> That’s exactly what Epic, for example is asking for.
And most would be satisfied with less.
> If I was wrong, you’d have been able to respond with an example.
Qubes OS.
> Last time was the EBook settlement.
That was over five years ago.
> I guess you aren’t aware of Epic’s case.
Epic's case isn't getting very far and it's quite possible that it would not have arisen at all if Apple had shown any interest at all at managing it's own opening rather than putting itself at risk of being opened by others.
> Erm, you do realize that these technologies have nothing to do with preventing scam apps in stores, right?
Sure they do. They are all examples of products that are differentiated from others in the same space by their focus on security. Thus, in the realm of competing app stores, there could be stores that exist that focus on secure, privacy-focused apps, just as there are already app stores such as F-Droid that differentiate themselves by focusing on FOSS apps.
One could reasonably expect that if iOS supported multiple app stores, there would be stores that tried to focus on the luxury high-end aspect of the platform by offering carefully curation. Third-party app curation services already exist.
> The counterclaim, that a single scam free store would have all of the apps in it is obviously false because the premise is a future with multiple stores.
Actually, the simplest counterclaim is to point at the current and past existence of alternate app stores such as Cydia or the Altstore, which do in fact contain apps that customers want anyway.
>> That’s exactly what Epic, for example is asking for.
>And most would be satisfied with less.
So you lied when you said ‘no one is asking for this’.
> If I was wrong, you’d have been able to respond with an example.
> Qubes OS.
You do realize that isn’t completely secure.
> Last time was the EBook settlement.
That was over five years ago.
So what?
> I guess you aren’t aware of Epic’s case.
Epic's case isn't getting very far
Complete bullshit. Their case is proceeding as they planned and oral arguments are to be heard soon.
> and it's quite possible that it would not have arisen at all if Apple had shown any interest at all at managing it's own opening rather than putting itself at risk of being opened by others.
You do realize that doing something because otherwise you’ll be forced to, is the same as being forced to?
Also, that paragraph is an amazing piece of Orwellian writing. Have you considered writing for an authoritarian politburo?
> Erm, you do realize that these technologies have nothing to do with preventing scam apps in stores, right?
Sure they do. They are all examples of products that are differentiated from others in the same space by their focus on security. Thus, in the realm of competing app stores, there could be stores that exist that focus on secure, privacy-focused apps, just as there are already app stores such as F-Droid that differentiate themselves by focusing on FOSS apps.
One could reasonably expect that if iOS supported multiple app stores, there would be stores that tried to focus on the luxury high-end aspect of the platform by offering carefully curation. Third-party app curation services already exist.
So you expect users to choose between thousands of stores?
> The counterclaim, that a single scam free store would have all of the apps in it is obviously false because the premise is a future with multiple stores.
Actually, the simplest counterclaim is to point at the current and past existence of alternate app stores such as Cydia or the Altstore, which do in fact contain apps that customers want anyway.
They don’t have all the apps and they aren’t scam free.
Also they are tiny experiments used by enthusiasts and are completely unrepresentative of what will happen when several billion dollar corporations and VC backed plays open stores.
> So you lied when you said ‘no one is asking for this’.
I have literally never written "no one is asking for this" until now.
> You do realize that isn’t completely secure.
Source?
> Their case is proceeding as they planned and oral arguments are to be heard soon.
So what?
> Have you considered writing for an authoritarian politburo?
Have you considered trying to have a conversation without making a personal attack?
> So you expect users to choose between thousands of stores?
There would not be thousands of stores. Already on Android, there is a handful of stores and most stick to the Google Play Store. There aren't even thousands of stores on PC.
> They don’t have all the apps and they aren’t scam free.
But they don't need to have all of the apps. If anything, that previous line of conversation is talking about third party stores that would differentiate on greater security/privacy than the App Store, which would necessitate them having fewer apps.
> Also they are tiny experiments used by enthusiasts and are completely unrepresentative of what will happen when several billion dollar corporations and VC backed plays open stores.
Which is unlikely to happen, based on previous points already made, which you have repeatedly refused engaged in, opting instead to debase yourself and your position with personal attacks instead of substantiative points.
>> So you lied when you said ‘no one is asking for this’.
> I have literally never written "no one is asking for this" until now.
Not literally, but it was still a lie:
> No one is mandating first class alternative stores on iOS
>> Their case is proceeding as they planned and oral arguments are to be heard soon.
> So what?
>> Have you considered writing for an authoritarian politburo?
> Have you considered trying to have a conversation without making a personal attack?
I’m sorry you feel attacked. I was genuinely impressed.
The suggestion that Apple should choose to do something if they want to avoid being forced to do it, is impressively authoritarian doublethink. A clever gambit.
> If anything, that previous line of conversation is talking about third party stores that would differentiate on greater security/privacy than the App Store, which would necessitate them having fewer apps.
Right, which means that users would be forced to use a range of stores, so the fact that some security focused stores might exist is moot.
> Which is unlikely to happen, based on previous points already made, which you have repeatedly refused engaged in,
If there was a point I’d refused to engage, you’d be able to provide an example.
> opting instead to debase yourself and your position with personal attacks instead of substantiative points.
I haven’t made any personal attacks. I have commented on what you said, not who you are.
For a moment I considered that you might be being disingenuous, but I don’t think you are. I believe that what you have written reflects your way of thinking.
Very well, I can actually admit fault, unlike others in this conversation, and I was indeed mistaken when I claimed that no one is mandating it.
That said, this entire conversation was only tangentially related to Epic, there are people beyond them who want third party app stores on iOS, and not all of them want them to be first class alternatives, nor is Epic's case the alpha or the omega on this subject. Epic does not get to shape this conversation, even if they are the ones pushing the court case. If anything, Apple willingly ceding some power to non-first class third party stores could potentially defang Epic's complaints, as it could increase both developer and consumer goodwill and expose Epic for the power-hungry empire builders they really are.
> I’m sorry you feel attacked. I was genuinely impressed.
Passing off an insult as a compliment? Have you considered writing for an authoritarian politburo?
> which means that users would be forced to use a range of stores
This point is unsubstantiated and does not match current reality in other software markets.
> so the fact that some security focused stores might exist is moot
It really doesn't, as users can choose to use those security focused stores if they want to. Similar to how users who value security or privacy may choose iOS over Android already, users can choose security-focused stores over the App Store in the future.
> you’d be able to provide an example
I did.
>That is debatable, and discussed throughout this thread, including in my own comments:
> Not literally, but it was still a lie:
Very well, I can actually admit fault, unlike others in this conversation, and I was indeed mistaken when I claimed that no one is mandating it.
Are you saying you weren’t familiar with Epic’s case?
> If anything, Apple willingly ceding some power to non-first class third party stores could potentially defang Epic's complaints,
This is a restatement of the Orwellian
argument that if Apple doesn’t want to be forced to open their store, they must open their store.
Also it seems like although you downplay Epic’s role, you have deployed this argument repeatedly now, and it relies on there being someone to force Apple, such as Epic or an Antitrust authority.
> as it could increase both developer and consumer goodwill
It could, or it could do a great deal of harm to the market. Perhaps Apple simply doesn’t agree with your assessment.
> I’m sorry you feel attacked. I was genuinely impressed.
Passing off an insult as a compliment? Have you considered writing for an authoritarian politburo?
Yes. When I was a teenager I was enamored with communism. I grew out of that phase.
> which means that users would be forced to use a range of stores
This point is unsubstantiated and does not match current reality in other software markets.
What other markets do you have in mind?
> so the fact that some security focused stores might exist is moot
It really doesn't, as users can choose to use those security focused stores if they want to.
Not if they want commonly used Apps that are not in those stores.
> Similar to how users who value security or privacy may choose iOS over Android already,
No, it’s not similar because the iOS store does have all the apps.
> users can choose security-focused stores over the App Store in the future.
No, because then they wouldn’t have access to the wide range of apps.
All you say that seems relevant in those links is:
“ Really hard to say what would happen in a hypothetical situation where Apple allowed iOS alternative app stores. Maybe the overwhelming majority of users will continue to download only on the App Store, with a tiny minority of power users going to alternatives.”
Linking to somewhere else where you have expressed the same opinion doesn’t do anything to strengthen your position, except perhaps in the minds of people who don’t follow the link.
>> I think you fully stand behind what you are saying.
> I think assigning personal motivations and intentions is not conducive to proper conversation.
Are you suggesting you do not stand behind what you are saying?
> Are you saying you weren’t familiar with Epic’s case?
Epic's case is irrelevant to the larger debate at hand. They are not the only ones who want Apple to open up their platform, and not everyone who wants them to cares for third party stores to be "first-class App Store alternatives." You are arguing against a strawman if you insist that Epic's demands be the only metric for debate. Go take it up with Sweeney.
> This is a restatement of the Orwellian argument that if Apple doesn’t want to be forced to open their store, they must open their store.
That is reductionist interpretation of the situation. Apple can continue to fight the calls to open their store, not just from Epic but from the developer community and power users at large. And that is most likely what they will do. However, they would engender much more praise and respect if they were to do a partial opening. Instead they have chosen to persist in being Big Brother and not heed calls to open.
> Also it seems like although you downplay Epic’s role, you have deployed this argument repeatedly now, and it relies on there being someone to force Apple, such as Epic or an Antitrust authority.
Not really, the ultimate force is community goodwill and Doing the Right Thing. Apple could choose to satisfy unhappy developers and users by allowing more consumer choice. Even if the case was to be thrown out today and regulators to all look elsewhere, this groundswell of grassroots dissatisfaction will remain unless Apple deigns to Do the Right Thing.
> It could, or it could do a great deal of harm to the market.
Says you. It's a debatable point. We have been debating it, or at least attempting to, but you seem to have many tangents for us to quibble over instead.
> Perhaps Apple simply doesn’t agree with your assessment.
Apple is choosing the path of least resistance in holding on to the status quo. They usually choose this path. It's possible that they have not actually considered any alternative assessments.
> Yes. When I was a teenager I was enamored with communism. I grew out of that phase.
And yet you choose to unquestionably shackle yourself to a different monolith. Curious.
> What other markets do you have in mind?
Android. Desktop PC. Mac OS itself. These examples have been trotted out already.
> Not if they want commonly used Apps that are not in those stores.
Then they can default to using the App Store. No one is taking away the App Store in this scenario.
> No, it’s not similar because the iOS store does have all the apps.
It also has a lot of malware, which these third party app stores might not have.
> No, because then they wouldn’t have access to the wide range of apps.
> No you didn’t.
Those links also mention the networks effects issue, that it is unlikely for every single major publisher to create their own app store platform. Can you imagine all of the effort and resources it would take to do that? There is no Uber or Twitter only app stores on Android. Amazon, Samsung, other OEMs may have Android app markets, because they're OEMs. Unless we're talking about the special case of the Chinese market, or maybe PC games, you're going to have to do better than that in terms of justifying why a corporation of the size of Facebook or Microsoft would choose to go through the bother of building their own iOS app store, when they're already refraining from doing so on Android!
Not to mention, where's the Amazon app store for PC or Mac OS? Why would iOS be the only platform where you see dozens of app stores? Do you even have any idea of how the mobile app industry works? Can you give a business justification for this? Just because they "could", doesn't mean these companies would. Especially since the "could" isn't only barred by Apple's technical restrictions, but by real-world business decisions. So what, is Amazon just going to create an entire store for its Kindle and Alexa apps? Is Facebook going to build an entire store for its seven or eight apps? Are they going to add unnecessary restrictions when the majority of non-power users would be using the App Store anyway? Please.
This whole anti-third party app store/sideloading scenario seems to be a slippery slope argument constructed by wild speculative points:
1. Major developers both established or new hot new unicorn startups would build their own app stores, and make their apps exclusively available on those stores.
2. These stores will be a significant source of malware, because apparently only Apple is capable of decent curation. (And yet you deny that they're capable of creating a secure operating system.)
3. The ability to use third party stores or sideload apps would be readily available to iOS users, and not properly gated in such a way for Apple so that only power users would take advantage of this ability. (Or, as I theorize elsewhere, Apple wouldn't build in UX patterns so that users are stigmatized against non-App Store origin apps, as they already do on macOS via Gatekeeper towards unidentified developers.)
3.5. In the situation where they had to support non-App Store apps, Apple wouldn't simply build a Gatekeeper-type system for iOS anyway. Or otherwise devise other ingenious solutions to potential third-party app store security vulnerabilities. Or, as others have pointed out in this thread, restrict sideloading of apps only to those that have been properly code-signed/notarized.
4. The existence of third party app stores/sideloading would inevitably lead iOS to become more insecure, because for some reason a significant number of users will stop using the App Store and seek out insecure apps instead. And the existence of those insecure apps will also somehow impact users who continue exclusively using the App Store.
5. Perhaps a rehash of several of the previous points, but the assumption that the main source of security of iOS is the App Store review process itself, and not security features baked into iOS.
6. That all of this will actually significantly impact Apple's market share.
?. If we were to look at both PC and Mac desktop software, why would users even need to go to alternate third party app stores to get software? Couldn't they simply purchase software directly from publisher's sites, and download the .ipa's through there? Which could be a vector for insecurity, but in those cases it would be more of a per-publisher site basis, and not a question about shady third party app stores.
When crafting a hypothetical, it is important to remain objective. Worst-case scenarios about iOS opening up often lack the objectivity in seeing both the possible advantages and opportunities, choosing to focus on only disadvantages and threats. In doing so, they ironically often downplay the existing strengths of iOS, which go beyond the (aforementioned slipping) App Store review system. These arguments also fail to actually present a technical security threat model explaining how exactly would iOS be adversely affected.
As such, they are often fear-mongering and do not withstand close inspection. It would be nice if there were more of these arguments that attempted to provide evidence at a higher level, though.
> Are you suggesting you do not stand behind what you are saying?
It's important to remain objective in these discussions and not assign personal motivations.
> It's important to remain objective in these discussions and not assign personal motivations.
Do you claim to be objective?
> Not really, the ultimate force is community goodwill and Doing the Right Thing. Apple could choose to satisfy unhappy developers and users by allowing more consumer choice. Even if the case was to be thrown out today and regulators to all look elsewhere, this groundswell of grassroots dissatisfaction will remain unless Apple deigns to Do the Right Thing.
There is nothing objective about this. It’s just you saying what you think is right. The fact that a small number of developers are vocal about it doesn’t change that.
You list a series of numbered points which are a strawman of the case against Apple being forced to allow sideloading or alternative stores. However suffice it to say that you dismiss a lot of stuff as speculative and unlikely, with only your own speculation as the counterargument.
I’m not going to bother to comment on every part of it, but a couple of points stand out:
> 6. That all of this will actually significantly impact Apple's market share.
My turn to say ‘nobody is saying this’. Possibly someone is, but I haven’t seen it and it’s ceerainly not part of any argument I am making. I don’t care about Apple’s market share.
There is a good chance it would actually go up in if they were forced to allow alternative stores.
> Not to mention, where's the Amazon app store for PC or Mac OS? Why would iOS be the only platform where you see dozens of app stores?
> Do you even have any idea of how the mobile app industry works?
Are you aware of how much money Facebook makes from ads for Apps? Can you see that they would make more if thet could take the 30% for themselves?
Are you aware that Google operates a search engine, and would be able to take a margin for themselves if they were able to complete App installs on their own store?
> Can you give a business justification for this?
Yes.
> So what, is Amazon just going to create an entire store for its Kindle and Alexa apps?
No, but are you aware thar Amazon search is starting to rival Google because people go straight there when searching for products? Getting to sell apps and take 30% would be an obvious complement to their department store mode.
This is the essence of the argument you keep repeating. You just claim that nobody serious would bother to create alternative stores.
The business cases are fairly obvious, and the dollar amounts are in the billions. I’m surprised you don’t see this.
>> Are you saying you weren’t familiar with Epic’s case?
> Epic's case is irrelevant to the larger debate at hand. They are not the only ones who want Apple to open up their platform, and not everyone who wants them to cares for third party stores to be "first-class App Store alternatives." You are arguing against a strawman if you insist that Epic's demands be the only metric for debate. Go take it up with Sweeney.
Ok, but this indicates you knew about the case and intentionally lied - it wasn’t just a ‘mistake’ as you claimed earlier.
I don't know of the specifics of Epic's case to that there's this pedantic distinction of "first-class vs. non-first class" third party App Store alternatives. So I suppose I lied about knowing about the case, because I am clearly ignorant of its specifics. Which reinforces my point that Epic is irrelevant to this discussion, because I don't care about the details of what they're arguing for, merely the principle that "Apple should open up and allow third party app stores."
So yes, perhaps I lied, but you are wrong about what lie, because I honestly do not care about Epic to examine their case in detail, merely that they escalated the debate about Apple's openness into the realm of legal scrutiny. If I was wrong in claiming that "no one is arguing for this" and I was wrong because Epic is in fact doing so, and then you accuse me of lying of being aware of the existence of Epic's lawsuit but not of its specifics, then call me a liar for all of the good it does to your position.
> The fact that a small number of developers are vocal about it doesn’t change that.
The fact that it's a small number of developers- which is a debatable claim- doesn't make it wrong.
> You list a series of numbered points which are a strawman of the case against Apple being forced to allow sideloading or alternative stores.
It's not a strawman when they are arguments used by those who are against third party stores or sideloading. Some of which are your own.
> However suffice it to say that you dismiss a lot of stuff as speculative and unlikely, with only your own speculation as the counterargument.
Everything at this point is wild speculation, including your own points. It's good for both sides to acknowledge at this point that this is a whole lot of hypothesizing. I have provided evidence culled from real world examples of other software markets, which is at least less hypothesis.
> I’m not going to bother to comment on every part of it,
Then you forfeit those points on the basis of disengagement.
> Possibly someone is, but I haven’t seen it and it’s ceerainly not part of any argument I am making. I don’t care about Apple’s market share.
"It could, or it could do a great deal of harm to the market. Perhaps Apple simply doesn’t agree with your assessment."
> Can you see that they would make more if thet could take the 30% for themselves?
That wouldn't motivate them to create their own app market. They haven't done so on Android to get around Play Store regulations. They've attempted their own independent attempts at both an Android app launcher (Facebook Home) and their own Android phone (HTC First), both to overwhelming consumer apathy and lack of success.
An attempt by Facebook to try to challenge Apple or Google at their own game by doing something as blatant as opening their own app store will likely prove to be as fruitless; this is not baseless speculation - this is based on actual product history. This also extends to challenging Apple and Google by creating their own smartphones, see the failure of the Amazon Fire Phone or the lack of success of Tizen.
And again, network effects would hamstring Facebook, or Amazon, or even Google from opening their own iOS app markets; users don't want to deviate from something as comprehensive as the App Store to get these basic "utility" apps.
A more likely scenario would be game publishers such as Epic (and EA, Ubisoft, Steam, etc.) from creating their own game app stores, which would be a different story. Or if you want to come up with something even more interesting, ByteDance, which is a Chinese company and so might have more legal incentives to break free of Apple, creating its own app store centered around TikTok which is the hot new social network flavor of this time, unlike stodgy Facebook. Or WeChat - though the current lack of political obstacles have removed their incentive to be free of both the App Store or the Play Store for now. Not to mention, WeChat Mini apps show that you don't even need to build a whole damn third party app store when you can turn the app itself into a platform for other apps.
> Are you aware that Google operates a search engine, and would be able to take a margin for themselves if they were able to complete App installs on their own store?
Given the poor reputation of the Play Store, just because Google has the resources to make a competing app store doesn't mean they have the product, design talent, or organizational will to make it any good, nor compelling enough to seduce App Store users away from their existing store of choice.
So I reiterate- Facebook, Google, and Amazon are all technically capable of building app stores, but there are immense forces both within their organizations and without (network effects) that would prevent them from effectively creating alternative app stores that are worth their while. You can already see this on Android, PC, and macOS, where such alternate stores don't even exist.
Furthermore, you haven't even given a clear example of why users would flock to these stores in the first place. To get the Google Maps app or the Gmail app? If anything, this could irritate users and cause them to resist adoption, similar to situations where users are forced to use also-ran products, such as when Microsoft forces Edge users to use Bing. Or Google+ integration in everything. Or Facebook login. Why would these companies forcing users to leave the App Store be seen as anything less invasive or desperate? Where is the consumer-side demand for these alternative app stores run by other corporate giants whose bread and butter aren't apps?
Your entire scenario is based on fear-mongering that depicts Apple, in its infinite cash reserves and product/brand mastery, as helpless while all the other corporations in their product fecklessness somehow have superiority. It doesn't add up, and is a disproportionate reaction to the prospect of Apple allowing third-party app markets and sideloading.
If you can give an actual example of an analogous situation where any of your bogeymen have successfully exploited openness to cause this harmful situation you are decrying, then you have a point. But so far all you have are pointed at the snowball of possible motivations without justifying the avalanche you are claiming is inevitable.
> Yes.
You've clearly failed at it.
> No, but are you aware thar Amazon search is starting to rival Google because people go straight there when searching for products? Getting to sell apps and take 30% would be an obvious complement to their department store mode.
Tell it to the Fire Phone. I can see Alexa being a threat to Siri/the HomePod, but strength in IoT doesn't automatically translate to strength in smartphone software. What is the incentive for consumers to switch to an Amazon market? And if this exists, explain why the Amazon Android App Store is such a dud, useful only on Kindle?
Clearly these large corporations don't find it as compelling as you seem think they should.
> You just claim that nobody serious would bother to create alternative stores.
And now I've laid out why similar initiatives in the past have failed, and why creating an alternative store that people actually use would be very difficult for these large companies.
> I’m surprised you don’t see this.
Execution is what matters. You've provided a vague destination with no road map whatsoever, and I've laid out why previous expeditions have ended in failure.
