Perhaps you’re forgetting that Apple’s control over the App Store has great consumer benefits in removing vectors of attack from bad actors in the world. I remember the free for all when Windows became a cesspool of malware and popup windows to trick you into sending money. Or keyloggers that would just allow these scummy people to login and drain your accounts.
The App Store review removes that entire class of rotten software from our iPhones and iPads and makes it much more enjoyable to use for the vast majority of non-tech power users.
And they were able to turn into a huge marketing campaign. “A new calendar, all the tech sites won’t even make a blurb about it. How do we get everyone to remember we exist? How about an angry blog post about how Apple is keeping us down?”
Sure, I guess, but since all of these corporations are doing it, so it’s hard to get too upset about it. I am not going to get upset about a company playing patent games or trying to hire employees. It’s not worth getting upset about. What are you going to do, vote with your dollars and use Google products instead? They do the exact same thing. As does Microsoft, etc.
I get what you’re saying here, but I’m not sure this entirely true. Software is freely distributed over the web for instance. In a lot of ways I think the App Store should be treated as a retailer. We don’t tell Starbucks that they should have to sell Pete’s coffee.
And while I do agree that 30% markup is high in some retail categories I don’t think it is for software. Software margins are INSANE. That’s why the big tech/hyper-scalers are so valuable. (Yes, I know indie developers, etc.)
I think there’s a middle ground here. The iMessage thing is just dumb. As long as Apple is preventing/blocking other messaging services I don’t see a problem. Definitely room for improvement with the App Store, but I think many are speaking from a position of ignorance regarding the business aspects of the App Store.
Until recently the cost of “zero days” for iOS was much higher than Android. There’s a reason for that. Google has done a good job improving the security of Android devices.
I buy a Starbucks coffee mug. I can fill this mug with Peat’s coffee. Starbucks does not control how coffee gets into the mug. Thus you are correct, no monopoly in this case.
I buy an iPhone. I can only fill the iPhone with apps from the Apple controlled App Store. Apple has a monopoly on the distribution of iPhone apps. That is the difference here.
In that case there is only one retailer that can sell iOS software. That seems like a monopoly to me.
Apple controls over half of the US smartphone market, and allows no one else to sell apps and key services to owners of any of those mobile devices without paying whatever Apple chooses to charge them and obeying its often absurd, arbitrary, and unequally applied rules.
Requiring Apple to allow alternative app stores and sideloading would benefit all Apple users, including the majority who’d likely still continue to stick to the App Store, by putting downward pressure on pricing and the ridiculously high percentage Apple currently charges developers.
Android isn’t sufficient competition. Despite all the hardware makers, the OS itself is controlled by a single company that makes its billions primarily by spying on its users to serve them targeted advertising. Apple and Google regularly collaborate overtly and tacitly to maintain their dominance.
And “not buying a phone that I carry on my person” is simply not a realistic option in 2024. A smartphone is a necessity for most people now.
At this point the barriers to entry for a third mobile operating system to become competitive are so high that Apple and Google have a duopoly. Even a deep-pocketed big-five tech company like Microsoft couldn’t break through.
It is funny though, at least for me. On a computer, I don’t use the official stores, I go straight to the developers to buy software. On my Google Pixel Tablet, I never do that (and I think @svsmailus is overstating it, most stuff just tells you to go to the Play store to download it, I am not sure I have found anything yet that told me I could direct download to the Pixel).
I was thinking about why that was and my conclusion is that on a Mac or Windows machine I only use trusted software 99% of the time. I don’t buy software on computers that doesn’t have a good reputation. On a phone/tablet I am much more likely to download/buy something from some random developer and I look for Apple and Google to at least sort of let me know someone checked it out. With the huge amounts of phone apps, I like the stores, even if they are a bit of a mess.
Google does allow side loading, but everyone still just uses the Play Store. I think the same will happen with Apple.
So, you would not have a problem if tomorrow Apple announces that only apps purchased through the Mac App Store will be allowed to run on Macintosh computers?
That’s overblown. Most people would still use the App Store even if competing stores and sideloading are allowed.
macOS never became a cesspool of malware, and neither did desktop Linux, despite users having the freedom to install software from multiple sources.
Windows became a cesspool of malware for a number of reasons, including the fundamental insecurity of the OS (especially earlier versions) combined with its huge user base.
Things never got nearly as bad on Android, even with Google’s sometimes lax oversight over the Play Store and the huge percentage of users running obsolete, unpatched versions of the OS.
I stand corrected. Really the only reason I know about them at all is because their CEO likes to complain about Apple. I thought Basecamp (the program) was bigger than it is apparently. (Edit: actually I think I first heard of them when MacSparky mentioned them years ago.)
This statement is confusing to me. How can you be a fan of a company if you don’t use their product? You just like their CEO’s decision that had no affect on you.
I was referring to the fact that every few weeks there is a developer that gets an app rejected, that developer goes public and a few weeks later, the app is back on the App Store. This process is tiring at least from my perspective.
I agree in concept, but I think your analogy is off. You can only fill your mug with a Caramel Macchiato (App Store App) or some other foolishly named drink. If you want to fill it with your own coffee (Browser or Open Web) then have at it.
Apple created a platform that is vertically integrated. This is what made the user experience so good compared to what was there prior.
Maybe we need to distinguish a computer from a phone and consider a phone more of an appliance (not sure if that holds water). If it’s an appliance or “not a computer” do the same rules apply?
I agree that change needs to happen; just don’t think it’s as monopolistic as being portrayed.
Good points. The only thing I’ll disagree with is the Microsoft point. They tried; it was their well documented arrogance that got them in trouble. They absolutely have to resources to pull something like this off.
They no doubt made mistakes, but the biggest issue was that even though they paid devs to offer Win Mobile versions of their apps, they couldn’t reach a critical mass, and on mobile it’s all about the available apps.
And of course Google did everything they could to stand in the way of making its dominant services like Gmail and YouTube equally useable there.
