> Companies that monetize user data in exchange for “free” services that abuse your privacy aren’t affected by this [the app store tax], as they don’t process payments through the App Store. However, privacy-first companies that monetize through subscriptions are disproportionately hit by this fee, putting a major barrier toward the adoption of privacy-first business models.
Huh. I’ve never seen it framed this way and it might be the most compelling argument I’ve heard to date. It’s not simply a debate about whether a company should be allowed to be vertically integrated in isolation, but whether that vertical integration allows them to exert unfair distorting pressure on the free markets we are trying to protect.
I have disorganized thoughts about this, but it's not just a debate about vertical isolation vs not.
1. The size of Apple/Alphabet/Samsung makes it difficult to enter the market (see: factories having ridiculous MOQs for small-batch phone manufacturing), pushing everyone else out.
2. The size of the smartphone market makes it impossible to not have to deal with one of the above companies for certification, market penetrance or such. This makes them kingmakers. If a company somehow manages to become Facebook, Netflix, or Amazon, then the phone companies slide them a secret deal under the table. Everyone else gets a market-limiting set of terms that makes sure "tech" stays one of the "top" industries.
Combined, with no entry allowed, and with forces exerted outwards, we see broad social structures orienting /around/ how we use our phones, rather than the other way around, and that includes ad-monetized-absolutely-everything.
Phones and social media, today, are where TVs and broadcasts were in the 1950s/60s. Ubiquity and centralizing forces. If someone told us in the 1950s a TV manufacturer was exerting pressure on our forms of information distribution and was choosing which voices get a seat at the table, we'd rightly call that archaic and wonder why people would accept a technology provider as a market-shaping force. But today we accept it nonetheless. I refuse to believe the argument that the world's largest company can't figure out how to build a secure pipeline without making plenty of my decisions on my behalf...
Exactly. All the free market logic assumes that barriers to entry are low. They are incredibly high and the market is naturally prone to converging on a single solution. There's basically room for two smartphone ecosystems. Microsoft/Nokia couldn't sustain a third. Android-adjacent things like Amazon Fire and Tizen have little market share.
> factories having ridiculous MOQs for small-batch phone manufacturing
Ironically in the contract manufacturing area the market is actually efficient. Small batches just cost more as an intrinsic fact about manufacturing. I guarantee you could get a quote for any quantity of manufacturing above 1, you just wouldn't like it.
The entire business model that monetises user data, where the actual customer is the advertiser, users do not vote with their wallets, and honest competition is impossible because no one can compete with free, should simply not exist and maybe regulated against—especially in social media, where it incentivises algorithms to push aggravating content in the name of engagement and ad views.
Whether Apple should be regulated into reducing the fees they charge for access to their hardware and software ecosystem (the ecosystem they unarguably did a pretty stellar job at) is a debatable matter of its own, but it doesn’t strike me as addressing the issue of ad-supported business and how it messes with the way the market is supposed to work.
It is true that platform fee means this distorted business model is unfairly favoured. However, this is just an extension of the business based on ad/data mining (especially social media) being generally unfair in so many ways, and even with zero platform fees that business won’t stop being unfair and won’t be seriously challenged. To reiterate, no one can honestly compete with free; fee reduction merely tweaks the formula from “free vs. $X” to “free vs. slightly less than $X”.
Furthermore, there is the obvious issue that even if an app or service is paid, it can still be additionally monetising user data. Reducing fees will only favour this doubly shady business.
Perhaps what could actually move the needle a bit and make this model less attractive is if walled gardens somehow found a way charge a big fat fee off the ad/data mining revenue, in conjunction with appropriately reducing fees for regular sales of B2C apps and services. Could this be technically possible without walled gardens additionally owning ad exchanges (which might be a can of worms that shouldn’t be opened)?
It's really the most interesting thing I read in this screed, the rest of which seemed to be clueless BS like, "changes to App Store policies that will improve the state of the internet."
No. Unlike Google, Meta, and Amazon, Apple is not a gatekeeper to the Internet. They are the gatekeeper to one thing: their own app store. It's tiresome to hear the same anti-"big-tech" hysteria aimed at Apple. They aren't a monopoly, period.
But back to this: "The App Store policies hurt privacy"
No, they don't. The plaintiff bases this admittedly novel whine on the fact that Google and its ilk make money on things other than their software. So by that logic, every company that doesn't conduct business through its app hurts every company that does. Give us a break.
> They are the gatekeeper to one thing: their own app store.
They also control the OS and don't allow side-loading or other app stores (without putting absurd obstacles in the way) So in the end they completely control the devices they sell.
Not related directly and not related to subscription — a recent case of Apple’s anticompetitive and user hostile policies is Apple essentially locking down email push notifications and essentially forcing everyone to use fetch. They had given a way via some signing and now they just shut it down or it broke and they didn’t fix it. Now if every mail provider have their own app then they can circumvent via some shenanigans of non mail push notifications and then fetch mail or some circus. My mail provider doesn’t have their own app so I am stuck with third party apps where push stopped working.
We can play technical gymnastics around this but this just sucks!
I'm not an Apple enthusiast—my rarely used iPad mini is my only Apple device—but let me play devil’s advocate.
If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built?
If my pitch is premium, high-speed hardware and intuitive software so user-friendly that a monkey can use it, the trade-off is that you agree to my Terms of Service. There are other options out there.
I think it's specifically anticompetitive for Apple to force app developers to go through Apple Payments (with a 30% fee to Apple) for all purchases, otherwise their app is disallowed from being sold on the App store. There's no technological reason for app developers to be restricted from using other payment processors - it's purely a strategy for increased revenue for Apple.
In antitrust terms, it is a form of Vendor Lock-In[0], and could be seen as a form of Tying[1]:
> Tying is often used when the supplier makes one product that is critical to many customers. By threatening to withhold that key product unless others are also purchased, the supplier can increase sales of less necessary products.
As an example, Apple was sued successfully in the early 200s for selling music in a format that could only be played on iPods. iTunes is a platform Apple controls and invented, yet still it was deemed illegal for them to unfairly lock in customers and prevent them from using competing portable music players.
> There's no technological reason for app developers to be restricted from using other payment processors
But there is a customer experience reason. As an iOS user, I very much appreciate that I can ask Apple to cancel some bullshit subscription that used to otherwise try to lock me in behind a labyrinth of added friction and timewasting.
You are free to pay ~30% extra for your preferred customer experience. The rest of us can leverage discounted pricing. Customer Choice for the win!
Also, thinking that all businesses will lock one in using friction and timewasting is not a rational argument. There are a lot of honest businesses there forced to pay the Apple Mafia's tax.
Exactly. This is the part that I dont get about Apple apologists. If one really likes paying 30% extra to Apple for privacy/security (debatable, but whatever) nobody is stopping you.
But for every one of those, there are many who might want to transact with the business directly.
FWIW, I trust Spotify equally as Apple - so if I get a Spotify subscription, I'm more than happy to get a 30% discount and deal with Spotify directly. Heck, I can do that on my MacOS (another fine product the Cupertino company makes) but when it comes to iOS - OMG, virus, malware, user privacy!!
> You are free to pay ~30% extra for your preferred customer experience. The rest of us can leverage discounted pricing. Customer Choice for the win!
People say this stuff, but recently I re-examined my subscription to a multi-platform VPN service through the App store and found that they priced it cheaper than getting the same package through their website or through their windows client.
I mean, that's pretty flexible. At $17.99 (AUD) per month it could fit into the $1 step model, which starts at $0.99, maxing at $139.99
They charge $19.39 for the same subscription if you buy it direct. By the logic of Apple taking a 30% cut thereby pushing up the price of doing business, you'd think they could charge $12.59 to direct customers and take the same profit out.
I'm not sure if it is still the case after the EU cases, but it at least used to be that Apple prohibited you from charging more for paying through the app store. And that leads to increased prices for everyone, regardless of if you even own an iOS device.
I thought you could charge more (at least now, maybe not in the before times), but you still can't say explicitly that you're charging more because of Apple's 30% fee.
I 100% agree with this. Apple should be allowed to put whatever restrictions they want on apps in the App Store.
The problem is they don't allow apps to come from anywhere else, this is the core of the issue and what everything eventually comes down to.
Make it possible for users to control their own app installation sources on the hardware they own, show them what is happening when they do so, that they are replacing Apple as the source of trust with the developers of the app marketplace or app they are installing, but only do it once, it can't become a nag.
If they do that, then whenever anyone complains about App Store rules Apple can just tell them to do everything themselves instead, no APNS, no convenient installation from a pre-installed App Store, no seal of approval from a partner the user trusts, no free hosting, no infrastructure for app updates, etc.
There is always a customer experience reason. Every anticompetitive company that has ever existed has benefited from the customer experience of everything being in one place and coming from one company. Unfortunately, "my product benefits from being anticompetitive" is not a valid justification for anticompetitive practices.
I'm not a fancy lawyer or some kind of top flight ceo but I feel like "being able to cancel subscriptions" doesn't require a 30% cut off the top for apple.
Also, as a customer, presumably you could choose to use apple's store.
If we unpack this argument we can precisely pinpoint the issue.
In order for this argument to be true, Apple would need to have market power.
Having market power is the thing that makes tying etc. an antitrust violation.
Because it can be used for more than allowing people to cancel subscriptions. Like charging a 30% margin in a market where it's normally 3%, or excluding apps that compete with Apple software or services, or requiring customers to use a specific combination of hardware, operating system, app store and services, even if the customer only wants one of those things and binding them together then eliminates competition from any company that can't supply all of them. Which are exactly the sort of things that antitrust rules are meant to prevent.
So you're saying Apple's artificial stronghold is the only reason why apps are using it. Isnt that super-duper bad look on them?
It is one thing to say "listen, people are using our product even though there's another choice" but it is another to say "if we give them a choice, nobody will use us"
It should be possible to open up the “Cancel Subscription” feature/button to apps using other payment providers. Maybe even keep that in as a requirement for all payment providers?
I feel like that could still be accomplished by allowing multiple payment backends, and charging them a reasonable fee to integrate (to cover the cost of development/maintenance of the APIs and whatever overhead to account for dealing with abuse/fraud).
I partly agree with you - but then you as a consumer should also be willing to expect variable pricing in such cases. If I as a developer offer a subscription for $10, and Apple demands $3 from it, while other payment providers only want $1 or $2 commissions, I should be able to tell you (the consumer) this information transparently and should be able to give you the options to choose between these different payment service providers. (Note that while you, as a paying customer, are an important part of the ecosystem, we developers too add value to the platform by developing apps that people like you want to use. That Apple seeks to exploit both you and me, should piss you off too. After all, one of us has to absorb the higher cost of Apple's services, and that often ends up being you, the consumer.)
i think there are a lot of folks who would be willing to have a 27% discount (allow for ~3% card processing fee) and forego those features.
if apple was saying you had to support their payment processor alongside others (so you could opt into paying +27% and getting easy cancellations), that would be one thing, but they don't allow you to have any other options available in the app, which i think is where the anticompetitive complaints start to feel more valid.
> i think there are a lot of folks who would be willing to have a 27% discount (allow for ~3% card processing fee) and forego those features.
This makes sense because companies are used to making 70%, so obviously when given the choice to make 30% more overnight they will simply lower prices to avoid having to deal with all that extra revenue
Unlike phone platforms, phone apps are a fairly competitive market, and competitive markets have low margins.
Which means that if you remove 30% of revenue as a cost, one of two things happens. Either the price comes down because the suppliers who lower their price get more business, or the customers aren't very price sensitive in which case developers who use the additional money to improve their apps get more of the market and then users get better apps.
Either of those is better for the customer than having the money go into a megacorp's money bin and have them use it for competition-reducing M&A or unrelated empire-building projects or just have them add it to their cash mountain and have the customer paying that money in exchange for nothing.
It's the other way around. The app devs select the nominal price and offer it on platforms that don't take the massive cut - on their website, for example. And when Apple forces them to give up 30% of their revenue, they instead raise the price and pass the extra cost to the consumers.
That is bad enough. But here comes the infuriating part. Many app devs don't want their customers to pay extra. But Apple forbids them from providing an alternative payment interface or even informing the customers that such an option exists. And the icing on the cake is that Apple used to forbid the app developers from even providing an alternative, until the courts forced their hand. Is this an anticompetitive practice or just plain extortion?
But if you ask Apple or their fanbase, they would say that it takes resources to review and host the apps. But that rings hollow when you consider all the other ways in which Apple wrings both app developers and customers dry. Then perhaps allow the users to sideload the apps? Oh no! That will break Apple's perfect safety record. How about just making it slightly hard instead? No! The user must be protected at all costs, including by holding them hostage! At this point, I'm convinced that either Apple is astroturfing, or the fans suffer from an extreme form of Stockholm syndrome, or both.
Perhaps then there should be a subscription API, so Apple could make the nice "see all your subscriptions in one place" UI? Or maybe banks could better offer this as part of online banking for credit cards. Not sure the right place to put this.
Anyhow I do see your point that narrowing user options can lead to better UX - if you actually like all the tradeoffs they make. The problem is if you don't, your SoL. And in this case the trade-off is Apple taking a giant extra cut so... I think it's reasonable that folks don't like that trade-off.
That's just an argument in favour of monopolization. Monopolization kills innovation and hurts the market. Companies are not individuals that should be allowed to do whatever they want just because they have already invested in R&D, thats a nonsensical argument. That's like saying that car companies don't have to put seatbelts in cars because they already invested in R&D for building the car. It doesn't matter what a company have or haven't done! Rules exists for creating a better society.
This isn't about the a consumer's right to buy a different phone. It's about a business's right to do business with customers without Apple in the middle. And it's specifically about Apple's monopoly power over those businesses. No government is going to accept that some company, Apple, gets that kind of control.
You absolutely can. Just google for your “<printer name> compatible cartridges” , and you’ll find tons that are cheaper and work just fine with your printer.
I routinely buy printer toner and ink from companies that are not my printer's manufacturer. Where did you get the idea that it isn't possible to do so?
> Where did you get the idea that it isn't possible to do so?
Not op, but the various "must use our genuine brand printer cartridges!" schemes that printer manufacturers have used over the past, oh, 2 decades might have something to do with it?
edit to clarify: I mean the cartridges with their own chips that HP et al. tried to make happen a while back
Let's consider cars (or vehicles in general) as another mainstream example of completely vertically integrated products which comprise hardware and – now – software.
Toyota Motor Corp., Volkswagen Group (multiple brands), Hyundai Motor Group, GM and Stellantis N.V. are the top 5 largest automakers in the world whose annual output is comparable with that of largest smartphone makers, including Apple (with the adjustment of the scale).
None of the automakers allow anyone outside the vertical(s) they have built to gain a foothold in the verticals. This includes: replacement parts, mandated regular service at an official, brand-certified dealership as the condition of the warranty (for new vehicles), software updates only from the vehicle manufacturer, probably something else. No outsiders are allowed under any circumstances – if one misses a regular service at an official dealership before the warranty period has lapsed, the warranty is automatically voided. Some even extend to chipped/cracked windshields that, if replaced, will void the vehicle warranty, even though there is nothing special about a windshield today.
Vehicle manufacturers are by all definitions stagegate keepers, and they impose expensive services upon their product users without giving them an alternative.
Why are governments allowing this to happen?[0]
[0] I know that it is because of safety regulations as the manufacturer will claim that they can only guarantee the safety of its own vehicle if it has original parts, but let's pretend for a moment that it is not an issue.
At least some of your points are not allowed in the EU. Manufacturers have to provide the manuals on what constitutes a "proper" service or inspection to independent service places and have to accept their work in their warranty requirements.
> If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built?
Once a company becomes massive enough and displays properties of a monopoly, the rules of free commerce change
(that being said, I agree that Apple largely provides users with a high-quality product)
Well, I guess you’d argue that if the ecosystem is so big that it has a social-scale impact, then it should be subject to the whims of society. One such whim is adoption of capitalism as economic policy and a following belief in preserving the free markets that enforce the competition that is required.
Why do we oppress any freedom? When doing so protects the society we are trying to build.
If a company sells me a hardware and software package, that hardware and software is no longer the property of that company once I have exchanged my money for it.
That’s really the crux of the issue. If I must abide by arbitrary rules to use the package at its full functionality, then I didn’t gain ownership of it, did I?
Can't Apple say in this case "I'm selling you this package under the condition that you accept you don't fully own it, and if you're not happy with that, don't buy it".
I don't like this hypothetical (or maybe real) argument from Apple, but can't answer it either.
Because you can't sign away your rights no matter how much some people wish it were true.
It doesn't matter if your gym includes a clause in their contract stating that they are not liable, even through their neglect. If they cause harm through neglect then they are liable.
No, the point is that we should not allow such contractual arrangements. You buy the software, you should own it. Regulations are often required to enforce this.
> Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built?
Because not doing so harms the market and society (the article details how). Governments do not exist solely to enforce contracts and property rights. Ideals (e.g. "a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow") are valuable guides, and worth bearing even significant costs to keep, but they are not to be followed blindly, at any cost.
> There are other options out there.
Law and politics (should) step in when "voting with your feet/wallet" fails. You also ignore Apple's middle-man role - consumers can choose (among the very few) different options, but companies serving Apple's captured market cannot.
The law is complicated, its a living thing, and we're living through one of the nastier episodes of its capture in living memory. So who knows there. Its also breaking sharply on this issue in what was once a fairly high-compatibility regime of US/EU common-ish values.
So then we get to like, why do we have laws, what's the goal? And this is where you get down to brass tacks. Almost everyone will agree on three basis vectors in principle:
- aggregate prosperity
- broad prosperity and security from want
- individual liberty
You've got to grind through a bunch of thought on a spectrum ranging from Das Capital to Atlas Shrugged to make it really tight, but it sort of simplifies down to: pick two. Put differently, for a given raw capability and Gini-like target, you get to allocate so much liberty to which people: if you don't impose punitive taxes on wealth, it centralizes and calcifies into fungibility. Rich people buy laws. This is a super linear process.
So then it becomes about:
- would I want to be rich if it was part of a system that engineers avoidable want
- if yes, could I realistically make it into the rich group
For me the answer to one is no, and so I think we should re-impose the punitive taxes and regulations that break the backs of rich people and megacorps.
But on HN a common if not typical answer to #1 is yes, and so my appeal is: be realistic, you already missed.
> If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it?
You're asking a rhetorical question without providing any argument for why the answer should be yes, which makes it pretty easy to just answer the question with the word no.
> Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built?
The premise of this question is that they have the right to interfere with how other people choose to interact with each other.
Meanwhile the premise of the government-granted copyright monopoly they've used to build their lock-in system is that you build something and in exchange you can charge money for it. Leveraging that into control over markets external to the one you developed is a thing that should be expressly prohibited.
> Go ahead and lock down specific purpose computing devices, like ATMs, fridge, mouse firmware.
There are at least a few grey areas of such a carve-out that I'd like to ask about, but I wonder if it's even necessary. What if there simply weren't any exceptions?
The ATM would still be locked down - the owner would possess the keys. Business as usual.
The fridge and mouse either wouldn't be locked down or the keys might be physically present somewhere on them. Probably either neutral or a win for the consumer depending on the specific circumstances.
Something like a fridge should either be running a proper OS (and thus fully under the control of the user) or else shouldn't be connected to the network in the first place. Unpatchable proprietary network connected black boxes expected to have a service life of well over a decade are a recipe for disaster after all.
> Are you legally prevented from controlling your device
The bar isnt whether it is legal or not. You know that no company can create laws, and either you're saying it out of ignorance, or willful ignorance.
When Walmart drives away mom and pop shops, and dominate a certain town and then hikes the prices for groceries, you cant say "but it isnt illegal to go buy groceries from elsewhere, what did we - Walmart - do wrong?"
Say it with me - monopoly rules are about consumer choice.
This analogy makes no sense because you are not prevented in any way from purchasing the many other devices that provide almost identical functionality. It's like complaining that Walmart hiked their prices but ignoring the fact that the mom and pop stores still exist, at a higher number compared to walmarts, and are selling the same products for cheaper. You have incredible consumer choice for phones, you can't chose to purchase a luxury phone and then complain about it.
It has absolutely zero to do with your choice to purchase a different device. It has everything to do with hundreds of thousands of companies' right to do business with customers without Apple in the middle.
What right does a company have to piggyback off of another company?
Like think about this logically? Should a grocery store be forced to sell my products without receiving any of the profit? Can I force a cafe to let me serve customers on their premises without giving anything in return?
The mom and pop stores in this analogy are the multitude of devices which are not produced by Apple and provide the same features, like Android phones and phones which are trivial to flash your own custom OS and software on. So no, your analogy does not support your conclusions.
And one gives you the control you want over your device ie. sideloading and alternative app stores right? So why not simply purchase devices that use that operating system?
I don't see how the legality question is relevant here. My country is not forbidding me from exercising my ownership rights. This "are you prevented by law" question is fallacious, it implies that Apple can do no wrong, since it can't create laws.
What Apple is taking away is practical control for owners of a class of device that has become essential to my practical participation in society.
I actually desire my country to intervene and change laws forcing Apple give me that control.
Maybe if the iPhone was the only phone available to purchase this argument has merit. But it's not, there are no shortage of other phones that provide the same features which are "essential to (your) practical participation in society)". If anything, you are attempting to remove my ability to purchase a device I want to own. And I don't really like that.
There are many phones which let you flash your own OS and use with complete control. Please just purchase one of those and stop trying to interfere with my ability to purchase a phone that I want.
In my opinion it is perfectly fine for society to order a company to hypothetically limit you on this minor thing (and let's be frank: this is super minor), because opening up iOS would benefit companies, countries, economies and other users of phones.
Your consumer desire ... to impose your own arbitrary wishes on other consumers? Apple opening up their platform would not preclude them from offering users an optional setting that continued to impose the current restrictions. Therefore it does not interfere with your own use of the platform. You have no standing here so to speak.
The difference is that the choice to purchase devices that offer the freedom you want is available, if not the primary option. I don't wish to take that away from you. However you are advocating for the only choice for a locked down device be legislated out of existence. There is a fundamental difference here!
You're right. I wish to take this away from you. To me this is completely fine, morally, philosophically and legally, and a lot of people seem to agree with me.
It's legitimately easier to just buy a UMPC with an LTE card and use VOIP than do that. That's how bad the situation is at this point.
I say this as someone who gets paid to work on open source and used PostMarketOS on my primary cell phone for years. Even technical people really only have two options right now.
Out of genuine curiosity since you mentioned UMPCs, what would be a good UMPC with LTE module support? I've looked into things like the various GPD Pocket devices, but I'm wondering if any of the other alternatives are any good.
And of course, recommendations for LTE modules would be appreciated. Ideally built in, but external modules are also good, all they really need is linux support.
In this case I hope you have sympathy when I state that I dislike when Apple charges 30% on transactions (but also apps), because this cost is also passed to the consumer: me.
And I 100% guarantee that the piece of this 30% pie is way bigger than the effort it would require them to divert their development like you're suggesting.
EDIT: Oh, and I also bet their lawyer bill for fighting this is bigger than that too. :)
Not really, you can chose to purchase other devices with more favourable payment agreements. It's about having that choice, versus not having the ability to purchase a device with a higher level of security.
No. I prefer to contribute to companies and causes trying to make Apple to be forced to open up. I am 100% ok with limiting your choice.
And if the argument has become about security, as others have said, Jailbreak has repeatedly relied on security issues, so the security problems have always been there.
Are sick people legally prevented from becoming healthy again? Are homeless people legally prevented from having a home? Are starving people legally prevented from eating?
I'm sick of people writing off entire classes of problems because "well, it's not illegal". The law doesn't matter until you're actually in court. What matters is practicalities. There are many rights that are impractical to use and there are many laws that are unenforced. Some problems could be solved by law, others probably not. The law is a solution, not a problem. Focus on problems, not solutions.
> If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it?
Do you think the same about printer ink?
Regardless, we need to look at the law - and interoperability has a long history of legal support. Patents protect the product itself, but allow interoperable products. Trade secrets product the product from theft but not reverse engineering.
Even the DMCA has explicit carve-outs for interoperability, though that doesn't stop copyright-abusers from trying to wield it (and sometimes winning due to the money game).
There has been absolutely no legal precedent about those DMCA carve-outs and previous cases that could have rested on them (eg Nintendo vs Yuzu) shouldn’t leave anyone optimistic about their strength.
That's the catch-22, said ecosystem is what they want to use because it's considered "secure", but it's only considered secure because it's closed.
It's the same with all the other stuff like frequent locations, photos, etc. It's a walled garden yes, but one that protects your data from bad actors (like Meta heisting whatever they can get their grubby little hands on), and the price is that you can't let others into your garden, or it's no longer walled.
This continues to be a wild take. People aren't demanding that the app store host every application someone submits, they're asking for apple not to take a cut of things other people sell their own customers.
Also, facebook can already be a "bad actor" right now, they just have to pay apple their 30%.
> shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it?
I suppose you have the legal right to do whatever you're able to up until people notice the problems you're causing and pass laws against it (or enforce existing ones, as is being attempted here).
Why should it be legally permissible to "sell" general purpose computing devices that are locked by the manufacturer or vendor? How does such behavior benefit society? Aren't locked down, effectively unauditable devices anathema to a free and open society? Isn't the current situation evidence enough that their existence is damaging to the concept of a free market?
If you sell me a computer and I don't have a shell on it that's false advertising at best. Doing this en mass with the goal of actually changing people's behavior is even worse IMO. We don't have a word for it because it's not something that could be done before now. Microsoft tried with Windows and IE but the technology at the time meant they couldn't really lock people out of their own devices the way Apple does.
> If you sell me a computer and I don't have a shell on it that's false advertising at best
I believe that's why they're calling it "a phone", or "a tablet". The computer they actually sell has plenty of shells available, and lets you tinker with whatever you like.
A phone is not simply a computer, it's a regulated piece of hardware that must comply with local laws and regulations regarding radio transmissions and other stuff. You can't just peek and poke around anywhere you like in the system.
Besides that, it must be able to talk to carefully tuned 3G/4G/5G cell towers, which sounds easy in theory, but it's not. When I made mobile phones 20 years ago, we had people driving around all countries where we sold it, with a test setup where the phone connected to every cell tower it could "see", and recorded logs and GPS coordinates, and that work (and that of countless others) is partially what became the beginning of A-GPS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_GNSS), which allows you to triangulate your phones location purely from the cell towers it can see.
Of course that's not how it works today, as most carriers these days register their cell towers in a central database with GPS coordinates, so A-GPS these days is simply a database dump (and a whole lot of math).
As a "fun" anecdote, when I wrote software for mobile phones, it was the only place I've ever worked that had a bug category for "potential harm to user". I'm certain companies working in Medicare and other critical industries also has that, but it was the first and only time I ever saw it.
Lol. If phones were actually considered critical devices like this implies Android would have been nuked from orbit.
No. They're computers with a modem peripheral. This is like saying once you plugged your e machine into the phone line it could interfere with 911 calls so they need to be regulated by the FCC. We settled that one over 50 years ago.
Besides the FDA (and similar international counterparts), you're also using your phone for a bunch of other stuff that you probably don't want anyone having root access to.
Wallets are one, banking apps, medical data and devices, password managers, and more.
If you have root access, that means that the apps can also get it, after all the app providing root access is itself an app.
Yes I have my bitcoin-qt wallet, Etrade, my ssh keys, and my password manager on a machine I also have root on. I don't run non-free code on it (and I'm very picky about the open source code I do run.) Also just because I have root access doesn't mean I'm running all my apps as root. That's in insane statement to make. I run administrative tools as root and that's it.
The same thing is happening on your phone, you're just not allowed access to those tools, instead various other companies are and when they do things you don't like your options are: throw out your device and data, or bend over and take it.
Again at the end of the day a computer is a computer regardless of you being administratively locked out of yours.
I don't see people making the same arguments about Steam, Microsoft, Nintendo, etc, etc. Why is Apple special here? Other companies make stores that deliver application and developers don't get to tell them what to do. That's fine apparently, just not for Apple.
Maybe the reason is that the number of Apple users is an order of magnitude higher? Plus, they control both hardware and software. Apple is making very consumer-oriented products, and this comes with it's own downside of having to handle billions of users.
You are not required to use Steam to buy games on any device (even on the Steam Deck it's trivial to install games from other sources). It has big market power because gamers actually like it and actively choose it over alternatives (often even those that come pre-installed with the platform, the Windows store and the XBox app). It does not prevent devs from selling their games on multiple stores. It's dominant position for sure has market effects, but its a lot harder to argue it has the position for any nefarious or abusive reasons. (Although there are some lawsuits ongoing claiming that they did threaten devs over pricing, if those succeed it might change things)
Oh hey I wasn't aware of that lawsuit and (IMO) that's really good news. My only real concern with steam as a platform was the off-platform pricing clause.
I figured it was likely unenforceable if a studio simply released a "steam edition" or whatever artificial version differentiation, but at the same time they can always refuse to do business with you for any reason (or no reason even). So at that point the clause feels like them making a blatant threat.
People usually mix up things: The clear clause in their ToS is about selling Steam keys. A dev on Steam can generate Steam keys and sell them wherever they want, and Steam does not take a cut on those. For those, there is an explicit clause that says that you need to match the pricing on Steam.
For just selling the game elsewhere, there is no such clause, and there are games that e.g. are cheaper on Epic and explicitly say that's because Epic takes lower fees. But there are also devs claiming that Valve pressured them in private to not do that, and that's what the lawsuit is about.
> If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it?
Was that not the sort of rationale Microsoft used to defend its IE shenanigans back in the day?
It was considered to be a violation of antitrust laws then. I don't think Apple would be off the hook now. Especially considering how much more ubiquitous smartphones are in comparison to web browsers back then.
Any argument in this vein must also apply to the Mac. The hardware is mostly the same. The OS is mostly the same. The native apps and services are identical, as is the security story. So why should the Mac not be locked down if the iPhone is? Put another way, what prevents Apple from using the exact same reasoning to lock down my Mac in the future, perhaps under pressure from authoritarian governments? After all, the technology (notarization) is already in place and is actively being abused for iOS app review in the EU.
It's one thing to design and built an iKettle in such a way that every aspect from the water filter to the power cord is well thought out but propitiatory. It's another to refuse to plug in to another "inferior" socket because that cuts into your cut of propitiatory cable sales.
If their stuff is so superior, then people will see that and prefer it. They wouldn't need to make it impossible or deliberately painful to use competitors services.
> shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it?
Does the manufacturer of your refrigerator have the right to control what food you're allowed to put into it? If not, why do you have different standards for computing devices? Why did it ever become okay for Apple to decide what you do with your device after they've sold it to you?
Apple isn't dominant in the market worldwide (Android is), and they are competing against Android. Apple often implements things Android did first. That's how competition works.
Samsung is sitting at 28% of the Western European market share with their Android phones. Should we be worried about anti competitive behavior there as well ?
Explain stifle, or more specifically how Apple is doing that ?
Anybody (possibly except Epic Games) can develop and publish on the App Store. There's a cost associated with it, which in Apples case is 30% (or whatever you negotiate apparently). If you play by the rules, you can keep doing that as long as you like.
If you rent a shop in a shopping mall, there will be costs associated with that as well, and it's almost guaranteed to be more than 30%.
That is essentially what Apple is providing for those 30%, they provide a shopping mall where you can expose your goods, and people can pay for them. They handle the pesky stuff like refunds, (international) taxes, compliance with various government requirements, EU rules, and everything else. They even handle potential lawsuits for you (provided your app wasn't the one breaking laws).
They also vet (mostly automated) apps to ensure they're not using private APIs. That is for your protection. It's not an evil scheme by Apple to keep competitors out, it's for protecting the end user from bad actors like Meta scooping up all your personal data for "backup purposes" via some internal API.
Here in Europe we've had "alternative app stores" for a year or so, and despite living in a country where ~70% of the population uses iPhones, I don't know a single person that has ever used an alternative App Store, just like I don't actually know anybody that has downloaded an alternative keyboard despite those being available for a decade or more.
There is really very little you cannot do on the App Store in terms of features, so for many end users it is not a problem.
You may not like the price associated with it, which is what most of these complaints are about, the fact that Apple scoops up 30% of recurring subscriptions created through the App Store as well. People tend to forget that running your own infrastructure is also not free, especially when you need to handle refunds, legal matters and international compliance.
And that's the core of the problem, most of these companies complaining wants to use Apples built in App Store tools, but they want to direct them to their own App Store for free, ditching the complicated stuff of dealing with users on Apple. They're more than happy with Apple to handle payments and refunds if they do it for free.
Sideloading is usually a very bad idea in this day and age. In northern europe at least, your phone is quickly becoming your most trusted device in matters concerning anything state or municipality, and here we have a national ID app on our phones, along with social security, healthcare, drivers license, micro payments, taxes, childcare, hell, there's even video conferencing with your GP, in an app that has access to your medical records, including bloodwork and various scans. There's literally no way in hell I'm trading the perfectly walled garden for the Wild West outside.
Anecdotally, where I live, most companies don't allow Android phones as company phones as they're considered insecure, and instead mandate iPhones. The more regulated the industry (medical, banking, power, etc), the more certain it is that you'll be getting an iPhone.
> You may not like the price associated with it, which is what most of these complaints are about, the fact that Apple scoops up 30% of recurring subscriptions created through the App Store as well. People tend to forget that running your own infrastructure is also not free, especially when you need to handle refunds, legal matters and international compliance.
Simply having a link in my app to a page where someone pays through Stripe instead of through Apple Payments, costs nothing to Apple and creates no obligation for Apple to do anything.
> Sideloading is usually a very bad idea in this day and age.
> Then don't do it. Who exactly is forcing you to?
The problem is, when the option exists it opens up an attack vector that I need to defend against, as it will surely be exploited by malware at some point, downloading an app when you visit some scam site, and boom you're now infected.
> Simply having a link in my app to a page where someone pays through Stripe instead of through Apple Payments,
But it hardly stifles competition, except alternative payment methods ?
> costs nothing to Apple and creates no obligation for Apple to do anything.
The problem is, when stuff breaks, people will contact Apple support. Yes, one call is negligible, but Apple has 2.2 billion users, and it all adds up.
Provided you provide your app for free and charge subscriptions, that also has a cost to apple, as they're providing downloads for your app (again, potentially 2.2. billion of them), as well as any legal troubles (app contents excluded).
I guess Apple could enforce a alternate subscription model where they require you to charge for your app and they take their 30% cut off of that, and lets you use whatever payment provider you like for recurring payments.
It would of course either cut into sales, as people aren't as likely to buy an app and then subscribe to it, though something with "first month free" could probably lure some people in. Alternatively a developer would have to develop a free app, and if people want to have the full experience they'd have to purchase the full version.
Except, developers don't want that. They want to be able to give away their app and sell subscriptions, and they expect Apple to foot the bill for the infrastructure required to provide downloads.
> The problem is, when the option exists it opens up an attack vector that I need to defend against, as it will surely be exploited by malware at some point, downloading an app when you visit some scam site, and boom you're now infected.
This makes no sense. There is no "boom". You can't accidentally do it. There are a series of very deliberate steps, with numerous warning signs. Even on Android I have to specifically enable an option to even be able to install apps from alternate sources, and it is a separate permission per source, and this option can be locked down on a managed device (e.g. a work phone).
By your logic, there should be no web browsers on iOS, since someone might visit a scam website and give away all their money.
> They want to be able to give away their app and sell subscriptions, and they expect Apple to foot the bill for the infrastructure required to provide downloads.
Nobody expects that. What the EU wants is, simply let another app store compete. That new app store will host the downloads.
You keep shedding tears for the costs to Apple's infrastructure, yet as I keep repeating - what many developers really want is to NOT use Apple's infrastructure. NOT use Apple's payment processor. If the problem is that we're being a burden to Apple, well then I'm in full agreement with you, let's stop doing that!
iOS has functionality for remote control that is commonly used for security and group policies in large organisations. This is a more likely threat vector, as is rogue state affiliated actors like the infamous israeli malware purveyors.
In any case, generally the threat against most people is fraud, not some technical minutiae.
> Sideloading is usually a very bad idea in this day and age.
There is nothing wrong with sideloading applications. Protection against malicious applications is taken care of by the OS through sandboxing and a granular permission model. Malware scanning and app signing also have no dependency on the App Store.
Really all you are missing out on is the App Store review process, which is not worth much from a security perspective anyways.
Because companies compete globally, not just locally?
Apple isn't building features to compete with Samsung only in the US. It's a global dynamic. Local competition is restricted to tiny subsets of features.
And it's only 57-42 for Apple in the US anyways. If it were 90-10 then sure. But 57-42 is what you get with strong competition. Having a majority doesn't mean there's a lack of competition. It just means one company is currently ahead, as one of them usually will be when there are two main players.
Sure if you're an ISP where you're the only choice in a neighborhood.
But I don't see much that's local about Apple vs. Samsung. It's the same phones for sale in the US or in Thailand. Literally as one-size-fits-all global as you can get.
> It's the same phones for sale in the US or in Thailand.
They actually aren't. US iPhones no longer have SIM card slots. Most international phones don't support the same radio bands that US carriers use. This used to be a bigger issue with CDMA, but still an issue with the many 4G/5G bands and VoLTE. That'll be most Xiaomi and Oppo phones in the US. And there's Huawei phones that are banned and not allowed on US carriers; so it makes zero sense to include them into any marketshare calculations for a US consumer.
So even an iPhone 16 Pro has different models: A3293 (International) A3083 (USA) A3292 (Middle East, Canada, Mexico) and A3294 (China, Hong Kong). The A3293 and the A3294 do not support T-mobile's 5G band 71. This isn't uncommon, and Samsung will do similar international vs US models. Samsung is even worse sometimes, having completely different CPUs between regions.
And of course there's software differences too. Chinese iPhones can disable internet permissions for individual apps but not anyone else for some reason. Google Pixel's Gemini isn't available in EU countries. Apple Intelligence did similarly at launch.
While local marketshare isn't the perfect indicator, it's definitely better than using global marketshare.
Apple has around 60% market share. The US does not have global jurisdiction.
Competitive markets have enough similar suppliers that they are forced to adapt to customers instead of the other way around.
This happens to be incompatible with capitalism due to phenomena like the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and fascism (as well as other corporativist ideologies). Capitalism survives and reproduces through monopolies and oligopolies, i.e. undemocratic forms of rent seeking and price cartels.
>> shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it?
Apple can. They can retain ownership of "their" devices. Instead of selling electronics, they can rent iPhones and iPads to users and thereby retain all control over how/when/if they are used. But good luck pitching that to consumers.
Ah finally someone coming to the rescue of criminally underrepresented multi-billion dollar companies and their inevitable tactics of building monopolies, because how else do you 10% revenue growth every year. I hear Shell is also in need of some help, maybe you can find a thread on them? /s
But seriously though: why do people argue that „investing money“ leads to „I can do whatever the hell I want to my client base“? Even if this argument were to hold for all future customers, companies change their TOS all the time. Can I ask for all my money that I paid them back, to exit their ecosystem?..
The point I found myself resonating with a lot is:
>Apple’s App Store policies disproportionately favor the surveillance capitalism business model employed by companies like Meta and Google and therefore entrench an online business model that routinely violates consumers’ personal privacy.
I don't think any big tech company has ever done anything as evil and predatory as Apple walling off iMessage, giving the impression that Apple phones were high technology, and interacting with peasant androids is what made group chats fragment and pictures and videos look like trash.
Few things are more enraging than people being left out of chats with friends and family because they didn't bend over for Apple. Even worse being a teenager and having to endure social shaming for it. It wasn't until the EU signaled it was going to bring down then axe that Apple capitulated to RCS.
- Yes, I know you are part of the domestic US long tail that use signal/telegram with all your friends.
- Yes, I know no one outside the US uses iMessage.
ETA: A note because people are pretty incredulous about "most evil". Tech companies do a lot of evil stuff, no doubt.
But there is something special about putting social connection behind an expensive hardware purchase and walled garden lock in. Every other messaging app I know of is open to anyone on most platforms for little or no cost. Apple on the other hand purposely leveraged social connections in your life to force you into their garden and keep you there. Lets not pretend that Apple couldn't open up iMessage or even charge a nominal fee for outsiders. Instead you get an iphone and just seemlessly slide into iMessage. So seemless that most users don't even know that it is a separate service than sms/mms/rcs. Apple muddies that too.
But they would never do that, because using people's closest social connections to force them into the ecosystem and lock them there is just too juicy. "Oh you don't want an iPhone anymore? Well looks like you have to leave your social circles main discussion hub to do so..."
>I don't think any big tech company has ever done anything as evil and predatory as Apple walling off iMessage
What definition of "evil" and "predatory" are you using? Or perhaps you have a unique definition of "big tech" that excludes Facebook, Amazon, ByteDance, etc.? This is an extremely outlandish statement that I'm really struggling to even begin engaging with seriously.
Can you comment on why iMessage is more evil than, for example, the amount of children being groomed on Discord? Or incentivizing youth to gamble via loot boxes and other gambling mechanics? Just to name two examples out of dozens that I would consider way more harmful (in both amount of harm done per occurance, and the number of people being harmed).
I can sympathize with the people making arguments against iMessage, even if I don't always agree. But... the most evil thing that any big tech company has ever done? I think you need to put forth a much stronger argument than what you've posted.
> For example, when a user purchases an iPhone, the user is steered to use Apple’s default email product, Apple Mail. It is only through a complex labyrinth of settings that a user can change her default email application away from the Apple “Mail” application towards an alternative like Gmail (Google) or Proton Mail.
> At least for mail a user can in theory modify the default setting. On the calendar
front the situation is even worse. A user’s default calendar is Apple Calendar, and the default cannot be modified
That's pretty evil & predatory to me. The fact that it is by design (someone decided it needed to this awful) is why Apple is being evil here. And this is just one example.
There's more
> For example, Apple banned apps from its App Store that
supported Google Voice because Apple sought to advantage its own services over Google’s
That's not what the parent is asking. The OP said it was the most evil ever done.
Big Tech does predatory and evil stuff all the time. That's not what's being claimed. The OP is claiming that this specific thing is the worst, the singular event that is above and beyond all others.
Except that those claims feel like intentional exaggerations and not meaningfully true?
I use both iOS and Android.
> It is only through a complex labyrinth of settings
I have no love for the way iOS settings are done, but calling the setting for this in particular a complex labyrinth is some pretty blatant editorializing.
> A user’s default calendar is Apple Calendar, and the default cannot be modified
I don't think this is a true statement? My default calendar is a Google calendar. Actually switching to instead use my Apple iCloud calendar has been something of a chore.
I mean, does Settings > Apps > Gmail (or whichever other app) > Default Mail App really qualify as “a complex labyrinth”? Sure, it’d be a good thing to add a “Default Apps” section under Settings > General or something, but calling the current route complex almost sounds like an insult to users.
EDIT: Actually, there already is a “Default Apps” section right at the top of the page of Settings > Apps. Yeah, if that’s a “labyrinth” then the assumed level of user intelligence is quite low.
I didn't even know you could change the default mail app on iOS and I’ve used it for the better part of a decade now, as a Proton user too. I’ve endured the frustration because I thought it was fixed. Either being allowed to change it is relatively new, region locked, or yeah it’s a labyrinth.
I've probably used Apple Mail and/or Apple Calendar at some point in my ownership of Apple products but they're both using Google products at the moment on my phone and I have no recollection of setting those up as being complex through a variety of hardware transitions.
It’s also probably worth noting that most of the stock iOS apps are the most service-provider-agnostic in the industry. Mail and Notes work on bog standard IMAP, and Calendar and Contacts are built on CalDAV and CardDAV, respectively. Google services work fine in all of them (though could be better if it weren’t for Google’s crappy IMAP implementation). The only case where they don’t work is with non-standard providers like Proton.
Go try to sign into your open-standards-abiding calendar and notes accounts in the Calendar and Contacts bundled with nearly every Android phone on the planet and see how well that goes.
The "complex labyrinth" is only reinforcing the impression that you and the author of that brief are both cranks. "Email" is the top setting under "Default Apps". My iPhone doesn't even offer Apple's Mail app in that screen, probably because I deleted it, which also was not labyrinthine but actually quite trivial.
Easy if you know where to look. If you end up in the wrong sub menu you might simply search the web for instructions.
Apple provides web pages where they explain how to use the iphone. There is a section called "mail" under "apps" that shows up in the search results. It really wants me to read the help in dutch, the "apps > mail" section has 14 pages that don't talk about changing the default app, in stead they explain how to use the various features of their own mail app (that is also configured by default)
I don't get why the help pages need a different menu structure.
One has to go to "personalize your iphone" which has 18 pages, changing default apps is towards the end.
Searching the Dutch help website for "mail" I get only 3 unhelpful search results. If i change it to US English it immediately redirects to Dutch again. lol?
Using the "English" for Latin America and the Caribbean works. There I get 5 pages worth of results. Changing the default app is on page 3.
Not impossible but it is not a simple prompt on launch of the app "Banana mail is not currently your default email client. Do you want to set Banana mail as your default app for sending email?"
I'm quite dense of course, if they are going to be like that I will NEVER create an email client for this platform.
The web and their TOS is full of good reasons to never create an app for iphone.
In a laps of sanity I created a pwa one time. I've explained to exactly one user how to add the option to add a web app to the home screen to the menu so that they can add a web app to the home screen. It was a really hard sell and it took a long time.
I of course had to laugh at myself for acting against my better judgement.
Imagine someone made a web app email client and tried to compete with the build in client. Then in the middle of the struggle apple jokes about discontinuing PWA.
> Easy if you know where to look. If you end up in the wrong sub menu you might simply search the web for instructions.
Actually, at the very top of the home page of the settings app is a search bar. If you type in anything reasonable (default, email, mail) then one of the first 2-3 results will be “default apps” or “default email”.
No, I don't think it's an understatement at all....
In the difficulty of non-iMessage compatibility, I have had people close to me say "Why don't you just get an iPhone?" with an incredulous tone.
Perhaps tech companies have had more evil things happen on their platforms, that for whatever reason they were slow to react to.
But
"Why don't you just get an iPhone" was a precisely and meticulously engineered line, pure social manipulation, that was intentionally orchestrated to be delivered to me through the mouths of the people I trust most in my life turned unknowing pawns.
That is why I consider it the most evil. Apple is by design purposely exploiting a core human function, close social circle communication, to trap people in their garden.
> No, I don't think it's an understatement at all....
It's interesting how this seems like an incredibly American problem. In Europe everyone either uses WhatsApp or Signal and iMessage is hardly ever used.
I am plugged into the Apple ecosystem daily and shamelessly and yeah I think it’s arguably accurate. What makes it so sinister is how benign it seems yet how devastating the consequences have been.
> I don't think any big tech company has ever done anything as evil and predatory as Apple walling off iMessage
Is that really the worst thing you've seen big-tech do? That's very fortunate.
What about Blackberry Messenger which was the mobile instant-messaging golden standard for years and BB exclusive for as long as it mattered in the market? Was that too long ago to remember?
> and from what I've seen, often act as if that is some sort of mark of superiority.
Feels like you weren't able to have a proper discussion with those people. In many EU countries, using SMS made/makes no sense because SMS was/is super expensive as compared to WhatsApp. And using iMessage makes no sense because most people don't have an iPhone. From their point of view, it actually makes no sense.
Now if you tell them "well, where I come from everybody has an iPhone" or "SMS have always been free", probably they won't say "still, I'm better than you for no apparent reason".
I don't think that it is actually seen as a mark of superiority anywhere in the EU to use WhatsApp. Unlike apparently in some places it is seen as a mark of superiority to have an iPhone vs an Android phone.
If you go in a EU country where SMS were not prohibitively expensive in the beginning of WhatsApp (e.g. France), you'll see that WhatsApp has been less successful (at least in the beginning). WhatsApp was a killer app because it was free SMS, really.
Since when can WhatsApp interact with SMS users? They're so evil and predatory that they have entirely walled themselves off from that method of communication entirely.
WhatsApp gained popularity in Europe when non-early adopters started switching to smartphones (2010-2012 ish). The difference was that, in contrast to iMessage, you could install it on pretty much any smartphone. In the pre-Meta days they even supported many then dying ecosystems like Symbian, Nokia S40, etc.
They had a yearly subscription fee, but most people never got the request to pay it.
Nobody cared that it was incompatible with SMS, because everybody hated SMS because of the insane prices. In 2009 I got an iPhone 3G with an unlimited data plan, but I was still paying something like 0.20 or 0.25 Euro per SMS.
I like how they (just like imessage) allow you to message someone who cant possibly read the message because they have no whatsapp. Then again, I think they cant even deliver the message over sms on iphone? SMS is only available in the apple app if you first force it to send SMS?
I don't think most of US in the EU really mind, or even know what messaging app people in America use. The privacy conscious folk around here do tend to prefer Signal over Whatsapp though.
A lot of people, in Austria at least, have moved to signal in my experience. My communities in the US and Austria have trended toward adoption of Signal with very few holdovers between messages and WhatsApp, some partly due to my pressure but overall it’s just getting away from the BS of the alts
> Even worse being a teenager and having to endure social shaming for it. It wasn't until the EU signaled it was going to bring down then axe that Apple capitulated to RCS.
Regardless of the merits of Apple's actions as regards technical interoperability I feel compelled to point out that this in particular is a cultural problem, not technical malfeasance. RCS users still appear as green bubbles and even if the lack of functionality has been remedied the stigma has not. People at my lunch table 20 years ago were drawing artificial distinctions between "MP3s" (portable DAPs) and iPods because the latter were expensive luxury products and the former were not. The same thing is at work here because owning an iPhone is a proxy for one's socioeconomic stratum. I own an iPhone and as soon as an Android user appears in an iMessage group chat some joker immediately makes a green bubble quip - no degraded picture message required.
People that define themselves by conspicuous consumption don't care about interoperability. They care about brand recognition.
But that's what so insidious about it - by also actively degrading the chat experience it makes excluding non-Apple users not merely social signalling but also a rational decision even if you don't care about conspicuous consumption whatsoever.
So pick your poison, either you exclude them because of in-group signalling/conspicious consumption or exclude them because you want non-potato resolution, with Android users getting the blame for Apple's UX. Either way Tim Cook says the solution is to buy an iPhone.
Yes, but this is precisely the point isn't it? It's blatantly enabling and embracing "othering" for no technical reason as an explicit strategy to exploit social pressures to maximize profit.
The most evil thing a tech company has done is make a proprietary messaging app?
Apple didn't make SMS bad, it just was. Apple has since implemented RCS and it hasn't changed how I communicate with people from my iPhone at all.
Google should probably take most of the blame for repeatedly fumbling messaging on non-Apple platforms for the past 2 decades. Every time they had something that was getting any amount of traction it got quickly replaced with some stupid new, worse messaging app so a PO could get a promotion.
I think the point was that if Google weren't so inept, iMessage wouldn't be such a monopoly
And you know, maybe they have a point. I especially think about Microsoft and MSN Messenger/Skype. How do you fumble away not one but two dominant messaging apps?
OP's point is about Apple intentionally fragmenting communication in social groups as an ecosystem play (trickling down to bullying starting in grade school etc) so Google's messaging marketshare would only be relevant if there was some reason to believe it would have cowed Apple into interoperating.
Actually, iMessage happily harms apple customers all the time.
I know many MANY people who have lost chats with their loved ones (especially deceased ones) because there is no way to export and save their conversations.
I think this should be as easy as saving photos, which apple makes (somewhat) easier to export.
Back to email, it is pretty horrible to set up my local email server on an apple device. You have to go through these dialogs, apple servers have to be contacted (for "redirection"), and I usually barely get it working.
Apple does not owe Android users a superior non-Apple experience. Android a pretty damn huge platform, right? Way bigger than Apple, I hear? Blame Google. Google failed to compete.
> I don't think any big tech company has ever done anything as evil and predatory as Apple walling off iMessage
What a ridiculous statement. Even with your edit it's still an utterly stupid conclusion to come to.
Off the top of my head I can think of way worse things tech companies have done. Cambridge Analytica scandal, Gmail scanning, the Google Shopping lawsuit, Amazon's product clone hijack, Facebooks mood manipulation experiment, Ring doorbell viewing, Uber spying, to name just a few FAR worse things tech companies have done.
This reads like public affairs copy from Meta/Alphabet/et al looking to distract from the real, measurable harm produced against teens by social media and AI products that are either directly (Instagram) or indirectly (character ai) owned.
"I don't understand why people complain about that AT&T telephone company monopoly, when they could just write each other letters. When did people forget how to do that?"
> I don't think any big tech company has ever done anything as evil and predatory as Apple walling off iMessage
I think you might be living in a bubble, if this is the "most evil" thing you have heard of a big tech company doing. Go read up on IBM's history, especially in the 30s and 40s. Or a more contemporary example, read up on Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Or Amazon's mistreatment of workers in both corporate and warehouse settings. Or Meta scraping data off your devices without permission to train AI.
And, though I know some folks here disagree, plenty of people around the world believe what's happening in Gaza is a genocide, and Big Tech has materially contributed to making it happen. Or, if you want another example of human cost, talk about how resources for electronics are mined, or how electronics are manufactured.
Saying, "the most evil thing big tech has ever done is make some chat bubbles blue" puts a whole lot of human lives below the color of some chat bubbles.
You can think Apple did a really bad thing by doing that, that's fine. No complaints. But to call it the most evil thing ever done erases an incalculable amount of human suffering.
> I think you might be living in a bubble, if this is the "most evil" thing you have heard of a big tech company doing. Go read up on IBM's history, especially in the 30s and 40s. Or a more contemporary example, read up on Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Or Amazon's mistreatment of workers in both corporate and warehouse settings. Or Meta scraping data off your devices without permission to train AI.
I wouldn't count the IBM thing because I don't see it as part of the vernacular "big tech" of today; however I do think it's the most evil so far in this thread.
The others? They are mostly aggressive competition, especially the MS stuff, and altogether I don't see them as more evil than Apple's exclusionary UX. What's at the bottom of it for me is that it harms users directly, e.g. what others said about kids getting shamed for having a non-Apple phone. The one thing not mentioned yet that would qualify for me would be Meta's product altogether with its impact on teenagers; and various gambling simulators like Roblox.
Oh, Roblox by far and away is worse than Apple. But also, Facebook is pretty clearly implicated in a genocide in Myanmar. It's difficult for me to put any genocide in a bucket less important than some kids being put into out-groups.
The difference is that those evil things are second order effects. Nobody in the executive suite at FB was saying "Damn, this genocide is super profitable, let's stole the flames".
Nobody at Roblox is saying "We want to have children do nothing else except play Roblox from dawn to dusk, we lobby against schooling and extra-curiculars to increase Roblox time"
Apple however very intentionally made messaging people not on iPhones painful, and purposely made it out like androids were inferior. They purposely make it so you lose your group chats if you leave iPhone.
Thats why it's the most evil. It's a planned system to use peoples social connections as pawns to rope people into Apples ecosystem. This isn't hypothetical, or "C'mon of course they are saying that!". There are court documents that show it.
> Apple walling off iMessage, giving the impression that Apple phones were high technology, and interacting with peasant androids is what made group chats fragment and pictures and videos look like trash.
Which lawsuit PDF related specifically to iMessage interacting with Android was mentioned in this comment? I see a comment about RCS.
Now, maybe you are right, maybe I narrowly interpreted RCS in iMessage to mean chat bubbles, and there's a wider interpretation. Even still, there's no possible way that's the singular most evil thing tech has ever done. The OP is free to be anti-Apple, more power to them, but like, let's be real about levels of evil.
> Also, bringing up IBM, Microsoft or Facebook is "whataboutism".
It's absolutely not whataboutism. The claim the OP made was about Big Tech broadly. Bringing in examples of Big Tech doing evil things is a direct and appropriate rebuttable to the argument that Big Tech doesn't do evil things.
Focusing on the "the most" part is extremely petty.
This whole thread is the complete opposite of "thoughtful and substantive" and the "Converse curiously" from HN guidelines and I regret participating on it.
google with their android anti-fragmentation-agreement is pretty predatory. basically release any/all android devices with google services and pay us cut or release none and use pure aosp. it is some next level shit.
huh. Isnt that what business deals are supposed to be? Two businesses entering into a business relationship, where both parties get something. OEMs get Google services & operating system, or OEMs are free to use open source project.
Are you saying Google should freely give away their products?
> Isnt that what business deals are supposed to be?
To clarify what exactly that agreement does: it prohibits companies from developing competitors. It is nakedly anti-competitive, and no, business deals are not supposed to be that - there's a large body of law, sadly rarely enforced, saying so. Not every business practice is legal just because the directly involved parties agreed.
nice strawman, first google honeypotted the smartphone-os sector with their AOSP (android opensource project). now when they killed every other option except apple & effectively became a monopoly for all smartphone vendors, they are using their monopoly power to prohibit companies from using aosp piecemeal. they are explicitly telling vendors if you make any device with google services then you cannot make an ungoogled device at-all. this is exact opposite of the open source spirit and highlights that they were never interested in opensource, they were doing pretty much what MS did in 90s, release a bundled shitty version of a popular app with OS so you can kill them and maintain dominant monopoly. they just weaponized oss with AOSP to kill off any contenders.
take a moment to think why amazon has no google services on their table and/or an amazon branded basic android smartphone, it would be super easy for them to do it (leave aside firephone .. for reasons).
How is this not monopoly abuse? if Lina Khan had any balls this is what she would have gone after.
First of all, when Apple created iMessage, there was no possible way for them to predict that friend groups would use it as a reason to treat members of their groups poorly due to using Android phones.
Second of all, Apple did not deliberately make interacting with non-iMessage users in group chats "look like trash" in order to exclude them. Apple went out of its way to make it possible for iMessage to interoperate with the ubiquitous (in the US) SMS, with reduced features because SMS did not support the better features. If, instead, Apple had just made iMessage not interoperate with SMS at all, you'd be screaming about that instead.
Third of all, if people are leaving others out of chats, that's not Apple's fault. That's something for those families and friend groups to work out amongst themselves. "Hey, guys, I don't have an iPhone, and don't really have the money to get one, so maybe we could use GroupMe/GChat/WhatsApp/Signal/IRC/email/smoke signals/meeting in person/any of the myriad other ways of communicating instead?" A) "Oh, sure, that shouldn't be a problem!" (everything is solved) B) "What? No, we're not going to change anything just because it makes it impossible to actually include you in stuff. That's a you problem!" (turns out, the problem is your friends are assholes)
Apple cannot by any reasonable standard be held to blame for the way bullying, status-seeking teenagers treat each other.
What Apple could have done, for sake of clarity, sanity, and good practice is to handle SMS using one app, and handle iMessage using another, *separate* app.
The problem is not that iMessage exists, it's that it operates in opaque and unpredictable ways, mixing SMS and iMessage (and now RCS) communication in a way where even more tech-savvy users do not understand how it works (first-hand experience - had to explain to someone why their images are super compressed when they send them to me, but OK when they send them to their friend with an iPhone).
And now it's the same with RCS (Android-iOS). I send person A an image, the conversation switches to RCS. They use the "automatic reply" when I call them, conversation switches back to SMS. With person B, the switching between RCS and SMS is even more unpredictable.
> What Apple could have done, for sake of clarity, sanity, and good practice is to handle SMS using one app, and handle iMessage using another, separate app.
Apple was perfectly right when they did this way back as they were not a dominant platform. Different legal rules applied.
However making an argument that some key aspects of the iPhome were not designed for viral growth is disrespectful to Steve Jobs who, like many of that time, was very familiar with engineering platform growth - probably more and better than most.
>“iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove [an] obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones,” was Federighi’s concern according to the Epic filing.
Among other statements. Apple was very aware of the social effects of iMessage, and leveraged it to force people into getting iphones.
Tech companies have done lots of evil shit. But never, not once, has one ever crossed the line into turning my friends and family against me (however slightly) because I didn't want to lock myself in Apple's cage, however comfortable it is.
Yeah, you can call my friends and family shitty, but the reality is that the are regular non-tech people, explaining the situation to them is impossible, and iMessage Just Works(TM).
I'm sympathetic to the position that Apple could, if they chose, have made a version of iMessage for Android.
But your position that it is somehow uniquely evil just reads as a coping mechanism—a way of not having to blame your friends and family for being shitty for you.
I know plenty of "regular, non-tech people" who understand perfectly well that a) different computer systems do not work properly together, and b) if you choosing to use a particular computer system excludes someone because they do not have access to it, that's rude, discriminatory, and generally shitty behavior.
SMS not having the same features as iMessage is a technical issue, sure.
Apple not providing iMessage on Android was a business decision, no question.
But people being exclusionary and obnoxious to each other over group chats is a social issue, and should be treated as such, and not blamed on either the technical or business side of things.
> We don’t question Apple’s right to act on behalf of authoritarians for the sake of profit, but Apple’s monopoly over iOS app distribution means it can enforce this perverse policy on all app developers, forcing them to also be complicit.
This is probably a controversial opinion but I actually use my iPhone because it's locked down with a curated app marketplace and secure payment system. I don't want alternative payment methods or app stores. So I find it distasteful that other companies are seeking to control Apple's product design through the legal system. They're essentially trying to make it impossible to purchase a product I want, which is more monopolistic than the current status quo. iPhones do not have any sort of monopoly on phones.
If you want that, you can purchase any number of Android devices.
Not very. Plenty of people, including on HN, agree with you.
> but I actually use my iPhone because it's locked down with a curated app marketplace and secure payment system.
Except it’s not. That argument would be much stronger if the App Store weren’t full of scammy predatory apps which regularly top the top grossing charts.
> I don't want alternative payment methods or app stores.
And I don’t want everything to be a subscription, yet here we are. Just like I have to avoid the majority of apps today, you’ll avoid other App Stores if that is what you want.
You’re at a significant advantage because ignoring other stores is much easier, and opening up the iPhone to third-party stores has an effect on the policies of the main App Store. This is plainly demonstrated by the acceptance of the emulator from the creator of an alternative store. So even by not using those third-party ones, you’re benefiting.
> They're essentially trying to make it impossible to purchase a product I want, which is more monopolistic than the current status quo.
That doesn’t make sense. There’s no monopoly on a product which doesn’t exist.
> iPhones do not have any sort of monopoly on phones.
You don’t have to be a monopoly to be harmful to consumers. Companies have realised that long ago and it’s time consumers do too.
if all you want is for your apps to come from Apple's store and your payments to go through Apple's system, you would simply continue to use only those options and allowing other people to have other options would not impact you.
what you actually want is to force all developers to use Apple's distribution and payment systems, so that you can have every app and service from any provider delivered via your chosen mechanisms. that takes away freedom from developers and users who prefer other systems. it eliminates the market for anyone to make or use something better than your chosen options
Developers are not forced into using Apple's distribution and payment systems because there are a multitude of other competing devices (with a higher market share mind you) they can and do develop for.
If users and developers prefer other systems they can simply use those.
Apple is not forced into doing business in Europe, because there are a multitude of other anticompetitive tolerant regions (much larger than Europe mind you) they can do business in.
If Apple prefers anticompetitive practices, it can simply only do business in those regions.
I'm curious what becomes the breaking point for them to pull out of a region. Obviously it's about profit but at what point (if any) does it make profitable sense for them to leave?
Leaving a region means they would give up market share, investments and a lot of staff. This is huge. It's not just about quarterly profit, even if it might sometimes feel like it is.
Presumably, before they take such a drastic measure, they would first spend massive amounts on lobbying, which would most likely succeed.
Never. The Apple bet, the North Star, is that personal computing is both the present and the future. The minute an exception gets carved out, like “personal computing but not in Europe” then Apple enters a death spiral. They’ll deal with each blow that comes their way because it will come for everyone else in the market too, but they’ll still be in the lead.
When there is no more profit and only loss, I reckon. Shareholders would not be happy if they pulled out of a region because they can only make $1 over $10. If that $1 is profit, they'll want it.
Except that developers are forced to use Apple's distribution and payment systems to reach users with a native experience on Apple devices. This ability to limit or control competition within a market is called market capture, a key consideration of antitrust.
If it was actually stifling competition we would see many more good apps for Android that don’t exist for iOS. That’s not the case. If anything most companies I know develop first for iOS and then for Android if they have sufficient resources. Why? Because accessing Apple’s user base, even with the Apple Tax, is more lucrative than developing for Android.
It's not controversial, you can still have your walled garden as-is.
The point of this is so that there is the possibility of escaping that walled garden, arguably welcoming more users into the ecosystem.
Nothing would change for you. Just like android users can keep using all things Google, they have the possibility of installing apps from other sources.
Things would actually change—developers would instead choose to distribute via the alternate means instead of the App Store.
So, you see, it doesn’t matter whether Apple has the walled garden or the third-party devs have the walled garden. Either way, users will be forced to accept someone’s distribution policy. But the difference really lies in the trust on Apple and its security and privacy practices, which is a choice that will be robbed from people buying iPhones to use apps exactly for this purpose.
> developers would instead choose to distribute via the alternate means instead of the App Store
Would they? I imagine they would distribute via all available, at different price points. At least that's what I would do. Why would I want to forgo access to customers who prefer every last detail to be handled via Apple's infrastructure?
That said, if there were actually a dichotomy between "force developers to distribute via my preferred means" and "permit developers to choose whether or not to use my platform of choice" the former seems obviously immoral and the latter obviously the correct course of action. Why should you get to dictate how developers must do things? That's simply valuing your own preference over everyone else's (both developers and users) right to choose.
Oh devs would absolutely avoid distributing through the App Store if they want to run any code that would fail App Store Review, such as the abuse of private low-level APIs to gather more user data than the app needs, which all businesses have a profit incentive to do.
There are many other possible scenarios: devs forcing users to authenticate with unsecure methods, gather and unsecurely store credit card information, gather passwords, upload contacts, read SMSes, etc. The value that a third-party dev can derive from private user info is far greater than alternately offering a different version of the app that will pass App Store reviews.
Distribution via alternative stores does not mean there’s no review and moderation. Junk stores may have their fans, but competitive alternatives to App Store will inevitably introduce some controls to maintain reputation and remain compliant. Their advantage will be price, not presence of junk apps. That’s how free market with consumer protection laws works: regulation defines parameters of new equilibrium and eventually all start playing by the same rules to the benefit of the consumer.
If my apps are changing, yes it is changing for me.
Right now I can manage all of my app subscriptions from the Subscriptions screen in the Settings app of my devices. If they open up to other payment methods, my subscriptions are no longer centralized, I have to give my credit card information to more parties of variable trustworthiness, I have to worry about subscription renewal policies for every individual app, I have to figure out different methods of cancelling which could be a more difficult process than hitting "cancel" and trusting Apple will stop the payments, etc.
I think those problems are largely also due to anti competitive and anti consumer behaviors.
We need to craft legislation saying software vendors have to support some kind of standardized payment system with easy cancellation built in to it rather than relying on Apples good will.
sound like an opportunity for a service that provides the conveniences you enjoy without the lock in and high taxes that Apple requires. imagine an app store that was curated more carefully, where every app was hand tested and with a guarantee of safety that Apple has not provided. a subscription manager with even better UI, lower fees, etc. a payment processor that offered better terms than Apple does.
but we cannot have these until the lock in is removed
Whenever I want a subscription I want inside an app, I actually take the effort to go to their website and buy it from them directly, because it's cheaper (not that they're allowed to tell me this in their app though).
When I want to stop paying for the subscription, I cancel it and I'm done. At least in the EU, this is always an easy thing to do.
Except implementing the functionality to optionally open up your device to the world inherently makes it less secure. I now have no ability to purchase the phone that I want. It's actually decreasing consumer choice.
Or you end up with companies (like Wal-mart) that decide that they don’t want to accept Apple Pay and become payment processors themselves, requiring you to install their app to do phone/watch payments. Congrats, you now need a whole boquet of payment apps and we’re back to it being easier to use physical credit cards. For some of these things, the consolidation was the whole point.
Since Walmart keeps popping up in other comments, I'll do devil's advocate using the exact same argument other people used:
If you don't want to buy on Walmart and their custom payment system, then just go to a competitor.
With that said: this is an unrealistic scenario. Walmart doesn't pay the famous 30% to ApplePay, only a regular CC-like fee (probably less). Also, physically they can just accept contact payments where they don't interact with Apple but it still works with the iPhone wallet. Online, they can just use credit cards instead of ApplePay, which iPhones have autofill for, and probably not lose much.
That only works if competitors aren’t doing the same exact thing.
There’s also situations where you don’t have a choice. In many parts of the US the only reasonably accessible store (and sometimes grocery store) is a Walmart.
HN's time-honored scapegoat. "Corporations can't be trusted - that's why I trust Apple to fight them" is a ridiculous pretense to support consolidation. If Apple uses their de-facto position of privilege to demand people use their products as a solution, then they have become the problem. The exact same problem as Wal-mart insisting you download their wallet app.
There is a real solution to this, where we codify our social limits through legislation and open standards to prevent these horrible "leopards ate my face" scenarios that everyone seems to hate so much. Or we could keep trusting Apple, and see how many F1 advertisements that nets us in the long-run.
Legislation would be better, no question. Have you seen US politics, though? Not just lately, but for the past couple of decades. Electing knowledgable politicians who are willing to stay properly abreast of technology and work for the interests of their constituents is nigh impossible.
The ones that get into office are most often out of touch and in someone’s pocket because they grandstand on polarizing topics that information-deficient and single-issue voters flock to. I try to vote for candidates who I think will do good that way, and it makes some impact on the micro scale, but on the national scale it’s like trying to drain the Pacific Ocean with a thimble.
Conversely, we can _not_ open up our bootloaders in Android because banking apps then refuse to run on an "insecure" OS. Of course we'd have to put aside the fact that our computers can access the same banking features through a web browser.
Exactly. Jailbreaking is WAI for the folks who want the “Android experience” on an iPhone. Much of this drama is merely corporations vying to “get theirs” from the ecosystem, without understanding that the extant nature of the ecosystem is why it is the most valuable platform by user spend (that is to say, they care little for the consumer).
Shouting "monopoly" from the rooftops is not enough to affect real change. If I wish not to pay property taxes, my options include moving to another state, but courts do not recognize a general right to challenge tax liability on the grounds of personal preference or disagreement with taxation. Perhaps it's worth sparing a thought as to why, and who ultimately empowered that stance.
Plus, this is often the “if I can’t have it no one can” line of thought, sometimes from companies engaging in anticompetitive practices themselves (like Epic Games).
I'm all for corporations "trying to get theirs" if it benefits the rest of society.
iPhones are a premium product and they don't have a natural right to 30% of transactions going through it if the participants don't want Apple to know about it.
> It’s the “if I can’t have it no one can” line of thought
That describes what you and _benton are advocating. "If I can't have the phone be the way I want, no one can".
That's exactly backwards. I have no desire to limit the types of phones you can purchase, and you have an enormous amount of choices in phones outside Apple that provide essentially the same functionality, and can be as open as you wish. You wish to limit my ability to access a device that I want. I want a locked down phone, and third parties wish to intervene on a transaction between me and Apple so they can illegitimately get a piece of the pie.
How about people who want a Mac (which is still "open" to the extent that it makes a difference), and therefore would also like an iPhone because of the propitiatory APIs Apple makes available solely to the iPhone?
I don't particularly like my iPhone, in fact I see as a worse device in many ways to my old Android phone, but the interoperability with my Mac makes the trade-off worth it. So ironically, the only reason I want it is because of even _more_ anticompetitive practices.
And yes, the day the Mac is as closed off as the iPhone, there will be zero Apple devices in this house.
> You wish to limit my ability to access a device that I want. I want a locked down phone
As others have repeatedly said, you can still opt to not use any other kind of app from outside the AppStore.
But as I asked on another thread, as a thought experiment: What about we meet in the middle and governments force Apple to only "open" 50% of the phones, for the same price. Would that satisfy you?
> third parties wish to intervene on a transaction between me and Apple so they can illegitimately get a piece of the pie.
It's actually Apple that wants to intervene in transactions where I don't want them to be a part of. I don't want to pay 10 euros and give 3 to them.
Never seen WAI before, all I can come up with is Works As Intended or Web Accessibility Initiative?
Anyways- jail breaking requires being or remaining on certain iOS versions on certain specific hardware models. You can’t “just jailbreak” your apple device that you daily drive/use regularly. If you’re not on an old version on the right hardware already, you’re fucked. And waiting for a new jailbreak exploit is a (anecdotally, for me at least) nondeterministic amount of time on the order of O(years), with a significant probability that it will not be relevant for whatever device you’re waiting on.
Same here. I don’t want to hack around with my phone like I do my computer. I want it to just work and be as feee as possible from malware etc. Other considerations are a distant second.
Controversial maybe, but we have to suffer through this exact same incredibly odd opinion in every thread that makes contact with this issue. No one is asking you to leave your walled garden.
every developer knows safari is the new ie6 but we all just shrug and build native apps anyway because what else are you gonna do. leave 50% of your users on the table. classic embrace extend extinguish but in reverse. embrace web standards then purposely not extend them so you can extinguish competition
Every colleague in my company only targets and tests against Chrome because they honestly considers _everything_ and anything Chrome does as the standard.
As a FF user it hurts me because even if Apple and Mozilla has implemented some feature according to spec these people ignore that in favour of the Chrome way of doing things.
Calling Safari the new ie6 is ignorant of reality.
IE6 was stagnant and not standards compliant. Safari at least complies with standards. Chrome is the polar opposite of IE6. Turns out it doesn't really matter what you do, if one party controls too much of any market it's bad news for end users one way or another.
That’s not exactly accurate as standards for new web technologies didn’t exist back when IE6 was dominant. The WHATWG had to be founded and the standards made post facto before IE6 was non-compliant.
To remedy Apple’s unlawful unreasonable restraints of trade, monopolization, attemptedmonopolization, and unfair competition, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter injunctive relief,including but not limited to the following:
(a) Enjoin Apple from conditioning any payment, revenue share, or access toany Apple product or service on an agreement by an app developer to launch an app first orexclusively on the Apple App Store;
(b) Enjoin Apple from conditioning any payment, revenue share, or access toany Apple product or service on an agreement by an app developer not to launch a version of theapp with enhanced or differentiated features on a third-party iOS app distribution platform orstore;
(c) Enjoin Apple from conditioning any payment, revenue share, or access toany Apple product or service on an agreement with an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)or carrier not to preinstall an iOS app distribution platform or store other than the Apple AppStore;
(d) Require Apple to provide rival iOS app stores with access to the App Storecatalog to ensure interoperability and to facilitate consumer choice;
(e) Require Apple to permit the distribution of rival iOS app stores through theApple App Store on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms;
(f) Enjoin Apple from requiring developers to use Apple’s IAP system as acondition of offering subscriptions, digital goods, or other IAPs;
(g) Require that third-party application developers be given functionality andaccess to iOS application programming interfaces on terms no worse than the terms Apple allowsfor its first-party applications;
(h) Require Apple to allow developers to fully disable Apple’s IAP system;
Apple and Proton are two companies that I personally like, but the claim that the internet descended into surveillance capitalism because of the walled garden approach of the App Store is an argument in bad faith. Even if Apple allowed other app stores or payment methods, that would not have stopped Facebook and Google from capitalizing on user data to sell ads and manipulate public opinion. They would give their product away for free and spy on their users anyway.
I never really understood the monopolistic argument against Apple. In the first place, there are very clear legal criteria that define what a monopoly is and what anti-competitive behaviors are, and it’s not even the case that majority of the world runs on iOS. It is actually Android that is the most popular OS globally by a wide margin, though the split is somewhat equal in the US.
But the core of my contention is that: if you make the platform that others run on and which creates entirely new economies and allows businesses to thrive, don’t you get to define the constraints that you want since it’s _your_ platform? What’s effectively happening here is that companies are using the courts to force the design of OSes in a certain way: That only open OSes can ever be made, not closed ones.
Note that the businesses who are lobbying against Apple are operating on the very same capitalist, profit-optimizing interests that drove Apple to choose a walled-garden approach. They are not doing this to make the world a better place, and the vast majority of smartphone users do not even care about this “issue”.
> But the core of my contention is that: if you make the platform that others run on and which creates entirely new economies and allows businesses to thrive, don’t you get to define the constraints that you want since it’s _your_ platform? What’s effectively happening here is that companies are using the courts to force the design of OSes in a certain way: That only open OSes can ever be made, not closed ones.
Huh, the __user__ paid for the product, so they own it. After the user handed over their money, Apple has nothing to say about who I do business with on that product, or what the conditions are.
You can say "platform" as much as you like, but that's just Apple's way of forcing their way into the argument.
Someone has to make the platform. If they want recognition for that or compensation, maybe they should apply for government funding. Don't bother the consumer with it.
And if you don't like a government regulating a market, then you haven't seen a company regulate one.
> Huh, the __user__ paid for the product, so they own it. After the user handed over their money, Apple has nothing to say about who I do business with on that product, or what the conditions are.
But this is already the case. You own the device, you can do whatever you want with it (legally ofc). If I buy a fridge without a freezer, the fact that I can't freeze food with it doesn't mean I don't own the fridge.
Furthermore I don't appreciate other companies using the legal system to profit by forcing Apple to design their products in a specific way.
If you pay for a product and it is tied to a vendor, then you should be able to completely break all ties with that vendor and switch to a different service provider, and still be able to use the product as advertised.
Otherwise you don't own the product.
This basic premise doesn't hold for Apple products.
And by the way, I think consumer rights are more important than rights of companies to do whatever they want.
> Aww, does it hurt when your favorite multi-trillion dollar company is taken to court?
Please don't sneer or mock like this on HN. It's not what HN is for and it destroys what it is for. Please read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them in future.
This is a needlessly escalatory and inflammatory comment, and not the kind of comment that's welcome on HN. It's fine to disagree and counter someone else's comment, but not by breaking the guidelines like this.
This seems like a bad faith argument. But if you're being serious, I can buy non-nike shoes in the same way you can buy non-Apple phones. If anything, the people complaining about Apple would be upset by the lawsuit because they want to buy an iPhone despite other options being available. And in that case, the alternatives are cheaper not more expensive in the case of ethically made shoes.
The user can hack the product, install a different OS, Strike it with a hammer, or throw it away. Apple hasn't violated their rights in any way. Sure hacking it or installing a different OS are hard but rights are not meant to guarantee something is easy. I never bought the argument that user rights should dictate how a product hardware or software should be manufactured.
> I never bought the argument that user rights should dictate how a product hardware or software should be manufactured
Probably you meant it differently, but guaranties and warranties exist exactly due to this. Users have right to expect their device performs as advertised and in a reasonable manner.
I think those are more about ensuring that the user is buying what they think they are buying. They don't dictate exactly what is sold they merely offer protection to the user that what they bought is what was on the tin.
In some philosophical views, rights are meant to guarantee that things are easy. You can see that exact dynamic play out in US states regarding voter ID laws.
> I never bought the argument that user rights should dictate how a product hardware or software should be manufactured.
How do you feel about user rights (of wheelchair users) dictating how a product hardware (such as public property and public and private spaces and structures open to the general public) should be manufactured (to include wheelchair ramps and and other amenities such as elevators and accessible restrooms)?
> But the core of my contention is that: if you make the platform that others run on and which creates entirely new economies and allows businesses to thrive, don’t you get to define the constraints that you want since it’s _your_ platform?
This question has already been asked to the United States Court of Appeals, and the answer was "no"[1]
When your platform becomes a dominant market it becomes a market and markets are regulated to prevent market abuse, this is what's happening now.
And while Facebook and Google would still be hoarding data, there are a huge amount of games and apps I'd rather pay 5 for that are now ad-fueled invasive crapps and "pay to remove ads" costs 15 instead of 5.
When a significant percentage of the population uses your products and services, expect regulators to prevent you from abusing that significant group.
The capitalism idea that "markets solve all issues" only works when it's regulated so market players play on even-ish odds and the players don't have control of the market. (And even then it doesn't seem to work for public utilities really).
The naive idea that "Apple makes the product let them decide" would fly well for a device with millions of units, but billions is 1000x more and it comes with responsibility, sometimes the responsibility comes late because regulators are slow bureaucrats.
"With power comes responsibility" used to be a thing, now it's "With power responsibility might knock on your doorstep eventually if you abuse it to an extreme level like imposing a third of all REVENUE transacted through their forced store"
Companies should not be regulated just because they are successful. Apple built a really successful app platform. It's theirs to maintain or burn to the ground.
I didn't double check this, but according to a quick search 60% of the adult US population owns an iPhone, you're saying that even though you're operating where more than 50% of your target market has your products you should not be held accountable for predatory behavior?
The thing with this 30% tax the private company Apple imposes on a majority of US adults is reasonable?
When you're "competing" with the government (30% tax sounds pretty government like to a Swede, we have 25% VAT) the government will get involved because you're operating a "shadow government" eventually (you set all the rules and set the tax rate, you're now a government).
Supporting Apple here is unreasonable, sure they should be able to take a margin on the app store, but not allowing other stores OR allowing external payment methods to be advertised is definitely predatory behavior and the government already has a monopoly on that.
And the "core fee" response was entirely unreasonable, it is unreasonably expensive. If Apple were operating like Sony on the Playstation where the console is a loss leader for much of it's lifetime then you ofc deserve a cut from developers since you enable them to build profitable games for your platform which markets the game for you and stuff. But Apple makes a profit of iPhones, they make a profit on iCloud, they make profit on App Store... They make a profit everywhere. It's predatory and I don't know how to agree with them here.
Apple is held accountable by people choosing not to use their device. If iPhone is too expensive for the value it provides people won't use them.
>The thing with this 30% tax the private company Apple imposes on a majority of US adults is reasonable?
By this logic grocery stores have been applying a 30+% tax to all of America since the country was founded.
>but not allowing other stores OR allowing external payment methods to be advertised is definitely predatory behavior
Again comparing to a grocery store I think it is fair for them to prohibit unauthorized sellers to sell within their premises. This is a standard because it can undermine the business model of the business.
>But Apple makes a profit of iPhones, they make a profit on iCloud, they make profit on App Store... They make a profit everywhere.
And that's why Apple is worth 3 trillion and Sony isn't. Apple has created a successful business with large profit margins that people are willing to pay. It's not predatory if people are willing to pay for it.
It might not seem predatory to the end user, but to all developers who want to access these people it's another thing. They can't deliver a mobile app to 60% of Americans without going through Apples little LARP government where they set the tax to 30% and arbitrary rules they see fit to increase their profits.
And in the end that affects the end users because more things become useless adfilled crap because it's more profitable, and everything is more expensive.
I don't even get how you're comparing grocery stores (which do NOT have a 30% profit, maybe 4-6) to Apple passively making 30% off anyone who wants access to "modern day people". Grocery stores don't scale like virtual markets, when you buy something you cost the store money, when i buy whatever through App Store it costs Apple virtually nothing and they make 30% because they like it.
Obviously regulators seem to agree with me and at the end of the day they make the rules, and I agree with the regulators in this case and I don't think many people think what Apple is doing is good and appreciate it. People are forced into the iOS ecosystem because that's what everyone uses in some profitable parts of the world too.
Apple has no choice, now. Their shareholders demand one thing - squeeze money from an audience with no alternative.
If the iPhone's App Store has competition, equivalent to how MacOS already works in America, then Apple has to choose between maintenance or abandonment. In the status quo, Apple is enabled to neglect their platform and users while almost singularly harming developers.
> But the core of my contention is that: if you make the platform that others run on and which creates entirely new economies and allows businesses to thrive, don’t you get to define the constraints that you want since it’s _your_ platform?
Not if you effectively have a monopoly. If there were plenty of (relevant) other app stores, Apple wouldn't be able to tax 30% on every app. The only reason they can is that developers don't have a choice: there are far too many Apple users to ignore, and the only way to sell them an app is through the Apple Store.
I find the platform should be separate from the device. Google Play is a platform, but the device can run whatever. iPhones, the platform is the device, unnecessarily.
> if you make the platform that others run on and which creates entirely new economies and allows businesses to thrive, don’t you get to define the constraints that you want since it’s _your_ platform?
Intuitively, this feels right to me, but I think that in this case my intuition fails, because I think of this "right" from the perspective of a person. "They made that thing, it's theirs, they have the right to decide what to do with it."
I don't think the same right applies to a company, though. Especially one so big that it has a significant impact on society, and so big that it's entirely driven by the incentives of capitalism (and not, for example, by a founder's ideals).
In this context I see companies as amoral automata whose only goal is maximizing profits, regardless of the wider consequences of their actions. This seems to produce very good results for the societies in which these companies operate, but it also comes with some side effects. By putting constraints on what companies can do, we can reap most of the benefits and avoid most of the side effects.
> the claim that the internet descended into surveillance capitalism because of the walled garden approach of the App Store
I did not read this claim. I read the claim that Apple's approach unevenly benefits companies that engage in surveillance capitalism. No one's ad revenue, for instance, must pay a 30% cut of their revenue.
You are making an argument (and then arguing against it) that Proton did not make, as far as I can read.
> if you make the platform that others run on and which creates entirely new economies and allows businesses to thrive, don’t you get to define the constraints that you want since it’s _your_ platform?
I don't think you do. We constrain what companies are permitted to do all the time. Apple must abide by regulatory constraints first, and then they can add the additional constraints they like.
A simple test -- could Apple say, "Everyone is allowed to use Messages, except Hindus"? It's their platform, don't you get to define the constraints because it's your platform? No, we've collectively decided that kicking some people out based on certain characteristics is generally bad.
Yes, the advertising industry seems like it’s the more relevant institution in this particular case. Apple’s culpability has mostly to do with doing nothing to mitigate the runaway race to the bottom in during the App Store’s earliest days, but that would've happened even if they hadn’t taken the walled garden approach. Surveillance capitalism is the inevitable end state where on the web and in apps, ads are the most readily accessible, consistent, and sometimes lucrative form of monetization.
> Note that the businesses who are lobbying against Apple are operating on the very same capitalist, profit-optimizing interests that drove Apple to choose a walled-garden approach. They are not doing this to make the world a better place, and the vast majority of smartphone users do not even care about this “issue”.
They’re all blatantly self-interested, but Spotify is perhaps the biggest hypocrite among them. They’re continuously bolstering their dominance in the streaming music space at the cost of both users and artists, and when Apple gives them features they’ve asked for they refuse to use them because that’d weaken their case. They only care because if it weren’t for Apple Music they’d for all practical purposes have a monopoly.
Oh thank you, I totally missed it. Hyperlinking sentences or the nouns or phrases themselves seems to have mostly gone out of style in these sorts of posts these days.
I was curious about the suit by proton because I'm a user until I read authoritarian this democracy that .
Proton wants us to believe that corporations should be above nation states and national interests.
If country X deems a certain App as a security risk, it is not the work of apple or some vague state department funded organization to protest .
Living in the US, I trust Apple with securing my communications (I don't have high security needs). I don't exactly trust third party developers. So, three no need for me to use something outside of Apple's apps, unless its something that don't provide. If these apps could prove they were better, id consider them, but all these lawsuits just sound like inferior products trying to force themselves onto a platform they should be on.
> We believe that Apple’s conduct, as detailed in the complaint we filed, constitutes further violations of US antitrust law.
It's not a question of what you like, it's a question of antitrust laws. You can disagree with them of course, but it is their right to sue Apple if they think Apple is breaking laws.
But isnt Apple forcing an inferior product (Subscriptions API) to make more money themselves (and serving copious amounts of kool-aid for people to drink up?).
Lets be honest here - Netflix, Spotify et al are perfectly capable of running their on subscription business. They dont NEED Apple's crappy payment provider, and yet are forced to use it.
Isnt that how the system is supposed to work, unless you think Apple would be always benevolent? I think HNers make a mistake (and believe Apple's marketing) that Apple always stands for users, cares about design, pushing the boundary, "think different" etc.
It is painfully obvious, but Apple's singular goal is to make money (profit for shareholders) and THAT IS A GOOD THING. They'll cut corners, test the boundaries in pursuit of that, and sometimes cross over it.
Suing them is the right way to fix those behaviors.
I agree with you that companies are profit-maximising machines. And regulations set the framework into which companies can optimise.
The problem we have with quasi-monopolies is that they have too much power and don't have to care about regulations.
> Suing them is the right way to fix those behaviors.
The problem is that it doesn't work. I am still waiting for Apple or one of the other TooBigTech to get a fine that really, actually hurts. But nobody will do that: the US like monopolies (as long as they are US companies of course) and others (like the EU) don't dare regulating US companies because... well because the US governement won't accept it.
In this case they don't seem to be wanting it AT ALL:
"We don’t question Apple’s right to act on behalf of authoritarians for the sake of profit, but Apple’s monopoly over iOS app distribution means it can enforce this perverse policy on all app developers, forcing them to also be complicit"
> Earlier today, Proton filed court papers in the US District Court for the Northern District of California to join an existing class-action lawsuit against Apple. Proton is a plaintiff in the case, but we are representing and suing on behalf of a class of similarly situated developers. Challenging one of the most powerful corporations in the history of capitalism is not a decision we make lightly, but Proton has long championed online freedom, privacy, and security, and we believe this action is necessary to ensure the internet of the future lives up to its potential.
Challenging one of the most powerful corporations in history, god I feel so much safer already. Sounds like PR campaign speak. I trust Proton as much as I trust Microsoft.
Apple can do anything it wants with its software. Just as any person decides who comes into his house, a corporation decides on what terms others can use its software.
I totally agree and this has always been my problem with the iPad. It’s a great peace of hardware that to this day I can’t fully use for development. I have to resort to _crappy_ solutions like running a VM with code-server and SSH in order to do some work on a device perfectly capable of running stuff on its own, but walled off.
I detest Apple and would happily switch to a timeline where they never existed.
That said, I do not think this is the way to fight them. Just do not make apps for iPhone, or pass the 30% Apple tax to the Apple fanboys. They enjoy being submissive to walled garden overlords and paying for the privilege, so give them what they want.
These are perfectly valid options. Create value for more open ecosystems if you want to hurt the closed ones.
There is a lot I hate about building apps and releasing them on the App Store, and I'd be happy for there to be alternatives. But that said, I don't understand how its a monopoly. There is no requirement to build an app for iOS devices. There are other devices and means for software delivery out there. What makes their control of their own ecosystem monopolistic? As someone who has paid the apple tax for digital sales, it sucks but I'm also choosing to try to capture that market and that's the cost of doing business.
I'm not smart enough to get into the politics of other parts of the world, but just because the EU found something illegal doesn't mean its the basis of a good lawsuit under the US rules. Will be interesting to see how this unfolds.
Microsoft was hit with monopoly on browser even though you can install anything or go buy a Mac.
But when you control a huge portion of the PC market, and you put it in by default, you are cascading your monopolistic benefits down to installed software.
Apple does not have complete domination of smartphone across all demographics, but they do have domination in many segments.
For example, it is estimated that around 88% of teenagers have iPhones. Apple makes it very hard to leave their ecosystem because of iMessage, Facetime, and ALL of your digital purchases being tied to their ecosystem. So, what happens when all those teens grow up? Do we really think they will leave Apple ecosystem?
What cascades from that is a long term digital domination strategy, and when you have that only one digital store option, now you have a monopoly argument.
> Buying an iPhone and then demanding that it has to work
Buying something used to mean something. If you're still beholden by company rules of a product you _bought_, you have been leasing/renting it.
If I buy a house from a builder, and it came with a requirement that you can only use Amazon Ring cameras, or builder-approved groceries - you'd be pretty pissed.
That's not a valid analogy. There isn't a "requirement" that you only use vanilla Apple software on an iPhone. More accurate would be that the house is set up for ring cameras and the builder doesn't support implementing any other type of camera system.
The house is set up for ring cameras and makes it either impossible or painful to use anything else. Not because of technical limitations, but in order to steer you away from competitors. Building something with it working in a particular way is fine, but building it in a particular way _in order_ for it not to work with competitors hurts everyone. I get the argument it's just because it makes their products work better, and call bullshit.
i see you’ve never purchased a condo or lived within an HOA community.
Furthermore, in the US (and some other countries), you don’t _actually_ own a house or it’s land. you own the rights to that house (a deed) as long as you continue paying your property taxes. see what happens when you stop paying uncle sam… it’s kind of like a subscription lol.
The problem is that app developers can't ignore iOS because the market is too big. Therefore Apple can do whatever they want and developer have to accept their condition.
As a developer, there is no choice. Apple should not be able to abuse their dominant position.
The problem with this is in the very definition of what it means to be an "app" developer. You say "app" and most people immediately understand you mean the iPhone or Android kind, with all that entails.
These companies have been dominating the landscape for decades now, most likely for longer than most app developers have been app developers. As a developer, there's definitely a choice: don't make an iPhone app; don't make an app at all. Make something else.
If you say you want access to the walled garden because that's where the people are, then consider that they are in there because they like the walls. From this point of view, you don't have a right to demand that the walled garden have free entrance.
> - You agree to the letter of the ToS when you click "I Agree" when you set up the iPhone,
I reject that argument.
For start ToS may have unenforceable claims (if someone puts that I agree to give all things I own to them into ToS it has zero effect).
Also, at this point I dispute that ToS clickery should be treated as agreeing to them. "I have read and agree with ToS" is a blatant lie in at least in the first half.
Apple also blocks any web browser on their mobile devices except their web browser. Chrome, Firefox, and any other browser on IOS is using Safari under the hood.
Now why would Apple do this? Because they have hobbled Safari so that it does not have modern web APIs which would allow web developers to create web-apps that use APIs that are only allowed on App-store apps on IOS devices.
This forces developers to either make an app for the App-store, or don't have any IOS users.
This is one of many reasons Apple is being sued by the DOJ - because they won't allow any other browser engines on IOS, at least not in the US, the EU slapped them on the wrist and now it's allowed there.
Safari is the current worst web browser in terms of features and bugs, and Apple wants to keep it this way for no better reason but greed. They want to push people to make App-store apps, which they can extract 30% revenue from.
That is anti-competitive, and monopolistic behavior.
Yeah I hadn't thought about the browser being intentionally bad to push actual apps. That's been the reason for about half of the apps that I've made. The next is also somewhat anti-competitive, and its how bad the web services notifications are compared to the app-based notifications.
If tomorrow, Tesla insisted that their cars will only accepted Tesla branded tires, would you be ok with it?
Sure it's their car and they can do whatever they want with it, but consumers are losing choices - which is what anti-monopoly rules are for. Say, Michelin or Pirelli tires are strictly better but Tesla doing this harms consumer choice and that's why it is bad.
Imagine if this were extended to Tesla branded chargers. Or Tesla branded paint. It's your damn car so you should be allowed to do whatever you want with it.
if tesla mandated tesla-only tires since day one (2012?), and they claimed it’s a perk/feature of the car, AND i bought the car anyway. Did i as a consumer not sign up for that?? There is more than 1 car manufacture after all.
None of the ios consumers are hoodwinked and apple offers free returns within 2 week in the US. The locked-down app store has been apples way since (almost) day one. Consumers voted with their wallets to not buy an android phone. I think that’s the difference?
IF android didn’t exist it wound be a different story, and it would also be a missing opportunity in the phone market.
> There is no requirement to build an app for iOS devices
By this logic, there is also no requirement for one to eat and breathe, anyone can simply stop. The problem is the consequences.
Building an iOS app is requirement if you want to provide lots of services and compete on lots of market. The mobile phone OS landscape has become a duopoly, and society is free to impose certain obligations on those companies.
> Companies that monetize user data in exchange for “free” services that abuse your privacy aren’t affected by this [the app store tax], as they don’t process payments through the App Store. However, privacy-first companies that monetize through subscriptions are disproportionately hit by this fee, putting a major barrier toward the adoption of privacy-first business models.
Huh. I’ve never seen it framed this way and it might be the most compelling argument I’ve heard to date. It’s not simply a debate about whether a company should be allowed to be vertically integrated in isolation, but whether that vertical integration allows them to exert unfair distorting pressure on the free markets we are trying to protect.
I have disorganized thoughts about this, but it's not just a debate about vertical isolation vs not.
1. The size of Apple/Alphabet/Samsung makes it difficult to enter the market (see: factories having ridiculous MOQs for small-batch phone manufacturing), pushing everyone else out.
2. The size of the smartphone market makes it impossible to not have to deal with one of the above companies for certification, market penetrance or such. This makes them kingmakers. If a company somehow manages to become Facebook, Netflix, or Amazon, then the phone companies slide them a secret deal under the table. Everyone else gets a market-limiting set of terms that makes sure "tech" stays one of the "top" industries.
Combined, with no entry allowed, and with forces exerted outwards, we see broad social structures orienting /around/ how we use our phones, rather than the other way around, and that includes ad-monetized-absolutely-everything.
Phones and social media, today, are where TVs and broadcasts were in the 1950s/60s. Ubiquity and centralizing forces. If someone told us in the 1950s a TV manufacturer was exerting pressure on our forms of information distribution and was choosing which voices get a seat at the table, we'd rightly call that archaic and wonder why people would accept a technology provider as a market-shaping force. But today we accept it nonetheless. I refuse to believe the argument that the world's largest company can't figure out how to build a secure pipeline without making plenty of my decisions on my behalf...
Exactly. All the free market logic assumes that barriers to entry are low. They are incredibly high and the market is naturally prone to converging on a single solution. There's basically room for two smartphone ecosystems. Microsoft/Nokia couldn't sustain a third. Android-adjacent things like Amazon Fire and Tizen have little market share.
> factories having ridiculous MOQs for small-batch phone manufacturing
Ironically in the contract manufacturing area the market is actually efficient. Small batches just cost more as an intrinsic fact about manufacturing. I guarantee you could get a quote for any quantity of manufacturing above 1, you just wouldn't like it.
The entire business model that monetises user data, where the actual customer is the advertiser, users do not vote with their wallets, and honest competition is impossible because no one can compete with free, should simply not exist and maybe regulated against—especially in social media, where it incentivises algorithms to push aggravating content in the name of engagement and ad views.
Whether Apple should be regulated into reducing the fees they charge for access to their hardware and software ecosystem (the ecosystem they unarguably did a pretty stellar job at) is a debatable matter of its own, but it doesn’t strike me as addressing the issue of ad-supported business and how it messes with the way the market is supposed to work.
It is true that platform fee means this distorted business model is unfairly favoured. However, this is just an extension of the business based on ad/data mining (especially social media) being generally unfair in so many ways, and even with zero platform fees that business won’t stop being unfair and won’t be seriously challenged. To reiterate, no one can honestly compete with free; fee reduction merely tweaks the formula from “free vs. $X” to “free vs. slightly less than $X”.
Furthermore, there is the obvious issue that even if an app or service is paid, it can still be additionally monetising user data. Reducing fees will only favour this doubly shady business.
Perhaps what could actually move the needle a bit and make this model less attractive is if walled gardens somehow found a way charge a big fat fee off the ad/data mining revenue, in conjunction with appropriately reducing fees for regular sales of B2C apps and services. Could this be technically possible without walled gardens additionally owning ad exchanges (which might be a can of worms that shouldn’t be opened)?
It's really the most interesting thing I read in this screed, the rest of which seemed to be clueless BS like, "changes to App Store policies that will improve the state of the internet."
No. Unlike Google, Meta, and Amazon, Apple is not a gatekeeper to the Internet. They are the gatekeeper to one thing: their own app store. It's tiresome to hear the same anti-"big-tech" hysteria aimed at Apple. They aren't a monopoly, period.
But back to this: "The App Store policies hurt privacy"
No, they don't. The plaintiff bases this admittedly novel whine on the fact that Google and its ilk make money on things other than their software. So by that logic, every company that doesn't conduct business through its app hurts every company that does. Give us a break.
> They are the gatekeeper to one thing: their own app store.
They also control the OS and don't allow side-loading or other app stores (without putting absurd obstacles in the way) So in the end they completely control the devices they sell.
Not related directly and not related to subscription — a recent case of Apple’s anticompetitive and user hostile policies is Apple essentially locking down email push notifications and essentially forcing everyone to use fetch. They had given a way via some signing and now they just shut it down or it broke and they didn’t fix it. Now if every mail provider have their own app then they can circumvent via some shenanigans of non mail push notifications and then fetch mail or some circus. My mail provider doesn’t have their own app so I am stuck with third party apps where push stopped working.
We can play technical gymnastics around this but this just sucks!
I'm not an Apple enthusiast—my rarely used iPad mini is my only Apple device—but let me play devil’s advocate.
If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built?
If my pitch is premium, high-speed hardware and intuitive software so user-friendly that a monkey can use it, the trade-off is that you agree to my Terms of Service. There are other options out there.
I think it's specifically anticompetitive for Apple to force app developers to go through Apple Payments (with a 30% fee to Apple) for all purchases, otherwise their app is disallowed from being sold on the App store. There's no technological reason for app developers to be restricted from using other payment processors - it's purely a strategy for increased revenue for Apple.
In antitrust terms, it is a form of Vendor Lock-In[0], and could be seen as a form of Tying[1]:
> Tying is often used when the supplier makes one product that is critical to many customers. By threatening to withhold that key product unless others are also purchased, the supplier can increase sales of less necessary products.
As an example, Apple was sued successfully in the early 200s for selling music in a format that could only be played on iPods. iTunes is a platform Apple controls and invented, yet still it was deemed illegal for them to unfairly lock in customers and prevent them from using competing portable music players.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
> There's no technological reason for app developers to be restricted from using other payment processors
But there is a customer experience reason. As an iOS user, I very much appreciate that I can ask Apple to cancel some bullshit subscription that used to otherwise try to lock me in behind a labyrinth of added friction and timewasting.
Not every problem is technological.
You are free to pay ~30% extra for your preferred customer experience. The rest of us can leverage discounted pricing. Customer Choice for the win!
Also, thinking that all businesses will lock one in using friction and timewasting is not a rational argument. There are a lot of honest businesses there forced to pay the Apple Mafia's tax.
Exactly. This is the part that I dont get about Apple apologists. If one really likes paying 30% extra to Apple for privacy/security (debatable, but whatever) nobody is stopping you.
But for every one of those, there are many who might want to transact with the business directly.
FWIW, I trust Spotify equally as Apple - so if I get a Spotify subscription, I'm more than happy to get a 30% discount and deal with Spotify directly. Heck, I can do that on my MacOS (another fine product the Cupertino company makes) but when it comes to iOS - OMG, virus, malware, user privacy!!
If businesses don't have to offer the more consumer friendly option, they won't offer it.
> You are free to pay ~30% extra for your preferred customer experience. The rest of us can leverage discounted pricing. Customer Choice for the win!
People say this stuff, but recently I re-examined my subscription to a multi-platform VPN service through the App store and found that they priced it cheaper than getting the same package through their website or through their windows client.
No idea why.
You can’t just stamp a price tag on your app. Apple have price tiers and you must choose a pre-defined price tier.
Edit: Not sure if up to date but for example: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/App-Store-Pricing-Update...
I mean, that's pretty flexible. At $17.99 (AUD) per month it could fit into the $1 step model, which starts at $0.99, maxing at $139.99
They charge $19.39 for the same subscription if you buy it direct. By the logic of Apple taking a 30% cut thereby pushing up the price of doing business, you'd think they could charge $12.59 to direct customers and take the same profit out.
(This is month by month subscriptions to NordVPN)
I'm not sure if it is still the case after the EU cases, but it at least used to be that Apple prohibited you from charging more for paying through the app store. And that leads to increased prices for everyone, regardless of if you even own an iOS device.
I thought you could charge more (at least now, maybe not in the before times), but you still can't say explicitly that you're charging more because of Apple's 30% fee.
Is that the norm or just an outlier?
I don't know, it's the only data point I have!
I would presume an outlier as it seems to make poor business sense.
I 100% agree with this. Apple should be allowed to put whatever restrictions they want on apps in the App Store.
The problem is they don't allow apps to come from anywhere else, this is the core of the issue and what everything eventually comes down to.
Make it possible for users to control their own app installation sources on the hardware they own, show them what is happening when they do so, that they are replacing Apple as the source of trust with the developers of the app marketplace or app they are installing, but only do it once, it can't become a nag.
If they do that, then whenever anyone complains about App Store rules Apple can just tell them to do everything themselves instead, no APNS, no convenient installation from a pre-installed App Store, no seal of approval from a partner the user trusts, no free hosting, no infrastructure for app updates, etc.
There is always a customer experience reason. Every anticompetitive company that has ever existed has benefited from the customer experience of everything being in one place and coming from one company. Unfortunately, "my product benefits from being anticompetitive" is not a valid justification for anticompetitive practices.
I'm not a fancy lawyer or some kind of top flight ceo but I feel like "being able to cancel subscriptions" doesn't require a 30% cut off the top for apple.
Also, as a customer, presumably you could choose to use apple's store.
Some vital apps will stop using apple’s store entirely if they could, it’ll proliferate
If we unpack this argument we can precisely pinpoint the issue.
In order for this argument to be true, Apple would need to have market power.
Having market power is the thing that makes tying etc. an antitrust violation.
Because it can be used for more than allowing people to cancel subscriptions. Like charging a 30% margin in a market where it's normally 3%, or excluding apps that compete with Apple software or services, or requiring customers to use a specific combination of hardware, operating system, app store and services, even if the customer only wants one of those things and binding them together then eliminates competition from any company that can't supply all of them. Which are exactly the sort of things that antitrust rules are meant to prevent.
So you're saying Apple's artificial stronghold is the only reason why apps are using it. Isnt that super-duper bad look on them?
It is one thing to say "listen, people are using our product even though there's another choice" but it is another to say "if we give them a choice, nobody will use us"
It should be possible to open up the “Cancel Subscription” feature/button to apps using other payment providers. Maybe even keep that in as a requirement for all payment providers?
I think that is better solved with regulations, but I'm not from the US.
I feel like that could still be accomplished by allowing multiple payment backends, and charging them a reasonable fee to integrate (to cover the cost of development/maintenance of the APIs and whatever overhead to account for dealing with abuse/fraud).
I partly agree with you - but then you as a consumer should also be willing to expect variable pricing in such cases. If I as a developer offer a subscription for $10, and Apple demands $3 from it, while other payment providers only want $1 or $2 commissions, I should be able to tell you (the consumer) this information transparently and should be able to give you the options to choose between these different payment service providers. (Note that while you, as a paying customer, are an important part of the ecosystem, we developers too add value to the platform by developing apps that people like you want to use. That Apple seeks to exploit both you and me, should piss you off too. After all, one of us has to absorb the higher cost of Apple's services, and that often ends up being you, the consumer.)
i think there are a lot of folks who would be willing to have a 27% discount (allow for ~3% card processing fee) and forego those features.
if apple was saying you had to support their payment processor alongside others (so you could opt into paying +27% and getting easy cancellations), that would be one thing, but they don't allow you to have any other options available in the app, which i think is where the anticompetitive complaints start to feel more valid.
> i think there are a lot of folks who would be willing to have a 27% discount (allow for ~3% card processing fee) and forego those features.
This makes sense because companies are used to making 70%, so obviously when given the choice to make 30% more overnight they will simply lower prices to avoid having to deal with all that extra revenue
Unlike phone platforms, phone apps are a fairly competitive market, and competitive markets have low margins.
Which means that if you remove 30% of revenue as a cost, one of two things happens. Either the price comes down because the suppliers who lower their price get more business, or the customers aren't very price sensitive in which case developers who use the additional money to improve their apps get more of the market and then users get better apps.
Either of those is better for the customer than having the money go into a megacorp's money bin and have them use it for competition-reducing M&A or unrelated empire-building projects or just have them add it to their cash mountain and have the customer paying that money in exchange for nothing.
It's the other way around. The app devs select the nominal price and offer it on platforms that don't take the massive cut - on their website, for example. And when Apple forces them to give up 30% of their revenue, they instead raise the price and pass the extra cost to the consumers.
That is bad enough. But here comes the infuriating part. Many app devs don't want their customers to pay extra. But Apple forbids them from providing an alternative payment interface or even informing the customers that such an option exists. And the icing on the cake is that Apple used to forbid the app developers from even providing an alternative, until the courts forced their hand. Is this an anticompetitive practice or just plain extortion?
But if you ask Apple or their fanbase, they would say that it takes resources to review and host the apps. But that rings hollow when you consider all the other ways in which Apple wrings both app developers and customers dry. Then perhaps allow the users to sideload the apps? Oh no! That will break Apple's perfect safety record. How about just making it slightly hard instead? No! The user must be protected at all costs, including by holding them hostage! At this point, I'm convinced that either Apple is astroturfing, or the fans suffer from an extreme form of Stockholm syndrome, or both.
Perhaps then there should be a subscription API, so Apple could make the nice "see all your subscriptions in one place" UI? Or maybe banks could better offer this as part of online banking for credit cards. Not sure the right place to put this.
Anyhow I do see your point that narrowing user options can lead to better UX - if you actually like all the tradeoffs they make. The problem is if you don't, your SoL. And in this case the trade-off is Apple taking a giant extra cut so... I think it's reasonable that folks don't like that trade-off.
Indian banks already allow this for some payment methods.
That's just an argument in favour of monopolization. Monopolization kills innovation and hurts the market. Companies are not individuals that should be allowed to do whatever they want just because they have already invested in R&D, thats a nonsensical argument. That's like saying that car companies don't have to put seatbelts in cars because they already invested in R&D for building the car. It doesn't matter what a company have or haven't done! Rules exists for creating a better society.
> There are other options out there.
This isn't about the a consumer's right to buy a different phone. It's about a business's right to do business with customers without Apple in the middle. And it's specifically about Apple's monopoly power over those businesses. No government is going to accept that some company, Apple, gets that kind of control.
so then i should be able to use any ink in my printer then...
Yes, you absolutely should be able to, and printer companies should not be allowed to try and stop it.
> so then i should be able to use any ink in my printer then...
Well, yes.
You absolutely can. Just google for your “<printer name> compatible cartridges” , and you’ll find tons that are cheaper and work just fine with your printer.
You can jailbreak your phone too
Can you? I'd love to see a jailbreak for anything more recent that 5y ago.
For the ink, I just buy it elsewhere online.
I routinely buy printer toner and ink from companies that are not my printer's manufacturer. Where did you get the idea that it isn't possible to do so?
> Where did you get the idea that it isn't possible to do so?
Not op, but the various "must use our genuine brand printer cartridges!" schemes that printer manufacturers have used over the past, oh, 2 decades might have something to do with it?
edit to clarify: I mean the cartridges with their own chips that HP et al. tried to make happen a while back
Don't forget about the refrigerators with chips in the water filter cartridges. And the barcoded coffee pods. And ...
https://gizmodo.com/hp-printers-drm-update-block-third-party...
Are there only two printer manufacturers in the world ? Do they set a 30% tax on when you wish to print a page from a website ?
Let's consider cars (or vehicles in general) as another mainstream example of completely vertically integrated products which comprise hardware and – now – software.
Toyota Motor Corp., Volkswagen Group (multiple brands), Hyundai Motor Group, GM and Stellantis N.V. are the top 5 largest automakers in the world whose annual output is comparable with that of largest smartphone makers, including Apple (with the adjustment of the scale).
None of the automakers allow anyone outside the vertical(s) they have built to gain a foothold in the verticals. This includes: replacement parts, mandated regular service at an official, brand-certified dealership as the condition of the warranty (for new vehicles), software updates only from the vehicle manufacturer, probably something else. No outsiders are allowed under any circumstances – if one misses a regular service at an official dealership before the warranty period has lapsed, the warranty is automatically voided. Some even extend to chipped/cracked windshields that, if replaced, will void the vehicle warranty, even though there is nothing special about a windshield today.
Vehicle manufacturers are by all definitions stagegate keepers, and they impose expensive services upon their product users without giving them an alternative.
Why are governments allowing this to happen?[0]
[0] I know that it is because of safety regulations as the manufacturer will claim that they can only guarantee the safety of its own vehicle if it has original parts, but let's pretend for a moment that it is not an issue.
At least some of your points are not allowed in the EU. Manufacturers have to provide the manuals on what constitutes a "proper" service or inspection to independent service places and have to accept their work in their warranty requirements.
> If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built?
Once a company becomes massive enough and displays properties of a monopoly, the rules of free commerce change
(that being said, I agree that Apple largely provides users with a high-quality product)
Well, I guess you’d argue that if the ecosystem is so big that it has a social-scale impact, then it should be subject to the whims of society. One such whim is adoption of capitalism as economic policy and a following belief in preserving the free markets that enforce the competition that is required.
Why do we oppress any freedom? When doing so protects the society we are trying to build.
If a company sells me a hardware and software package, that hardware and software is no longer the property of that company once I have exchanged my money for it.
That’s really the crux of the issue. If I must abide by arbitrary rules to use the package at its full functionality, then I didn’t gain ownership of it, did I?
Can't Apple say in this case "I'm selling you this package under the condition that you accept you don't fully own it, and if you're not happy with that, don't buy it".
I don't like this hypothetical (or maybe real) argument from Apple, but can't answer it either.
Update; well, here's the answer to that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44427725
Because you can't sign away your rights no matter how much some people wish it were true.
It doesn't matter if your gym includes a clause in their contract stating that they are not liable, even through their neglect. If they cause harm through neglect then they are liable.
No, the point is that we should not allow such contractual arrangements. You buy the software, you should own it. Regulations are often required to enforce this.
> Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built?
Because not doing so harms the market and society (the article details how). Governments do not exist solely to enforce contracts and property rights. Ideals (e.g. "a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow") are valuable guides, and worth bearing even significant costs to keep, but they are not to be followed blindly, at any cost.
> There are other options out there.
Law and politics (should) step in when "voting with your feet/wallet" fails. You also ignore Apple's middle-man role - consumers can choose (among the very few) different options, but companies serving Apple's captured market cannot.
The law is complicated, its a living thing, and we're living through one of the nastier episodes of its capture in living memory. So who knows there. Its also breaking sharply on this issue in what was once a fairly high-compatibility regime of US/EU common-ish values.
So then we get to like, why do we have laws, what's the goal? And this is where you get down to brass tacks. Almost everyone will agree on three basis vectors in principle:
- aggregate prosperity - broad prosperity and security from want - individual liberty
You've got to grind through a bunch of thought on a spectrum ranging from Das Capital to Atlas Shrugged to make it really tight, but it sort of simplifies down to: pick two. Put differently, for a given raw capability and Gini-like target, you get to allocate so much liberty to which people: if you don't impose punitive taxes on wealth, it centralizes and calcifies into fungibility. Rich people buy laws. This is a super linear process.
So then it becomes about:
- would I want to be rich if it was part of a system that engineers avoidable want
- if yes, could I realistically make it into the rich group
For me the answer to one is no, and so I think we should re-impose the punitive taxes and regulations that break the backs of rich people and megacorps.
But on HN a common if not typical answer to #1 is yes, and so my appeal is: be realistic, you already missed.
> If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it?
You're asking a rhetorical question without providing any argument for why the answer should be yes, which makes it pretty easy to just answer the question with the word no.
> Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built?
The premise of this question is that they have the right to interfere with how other people choose to interact with each other.
Meanwhile the premise of the government-granted copyright monopoly they've used to build their lock-in system is that you build something and in exchange you can charge money for it. Leveraging that into control over markets external to the one you developed is a thing that should be expressly prohibited.
> Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built?
I think general purpose computing devices should be open.
This is a moralistic argument, putting legal and business reasons to the side.
Go ahead and lock down specific purpose computing devices, like ATMs, fridge, mouse firmware.
The practice of setting up fiefdoms to become the landlord is an abhorrent practice.
> Go ahead and lock down specific purpose computing devices, like ATMs, fridge, mouse firmware.
There are at least a few grey areas of such a carve-out that I'd like to ask about, but I wonder if it's even necessary. What if there simply weren't any exceptions?
The ATM would still be locked down - the owner would possess the keys. Business as usual.
The fridge and mouse either wouldn't be locked down or the keys might be physically present somewhere on them. Probably either neutral or a win for the consumer depending on the specific circumstances.
Something like a fridge should either be running a proper OS (and thus fully under the control of the user) or else shouldn't be connected to the network in the first place. Unpatchable proprietary network connected black boxes expected to have a service life of well over a decade are a recipe for disaster after all.
> shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it?
In their own machines they can do whatever they want.
Once they sell it to you, not anymore.
Are you legally prevented from controlling your device in any way you wish after purchase?
I think people are conflating ease of modification from legally being able to do so. If it's legal, then Apple retains no control over the device.
> Are you legally prevented from controlling your device
The bar isnt whether it is legal or not. You know that no company can create laws, and either you're saying it out of ignorance, or willful ignorance.
When Walmart drives away mom and pop shops, and dominate a certain town and then hikes the prices for groceries, you cant say "but it isnt illegal to go buy groceries from elsewhere, what did we - Walmart - do wrong?"
Say it with me - monopoly rules are about consumer choice.
This analogy makes no sense because you are not prevented in any way from purchasing the many other devices that provide almost identical functionality. It's like complaining that Walmart hiked their prices but ignoring the fact that the mom and pop stores still exist, at a higher number compared to walmarts, and are selling the same products for cheaper. You have incredible consumer choice for phones, you can't chose to purchase a luxury phone and then complain about it.
It has absolutely zero to do with your choice to purchase a different device. It has everything to do with hundreds of thousands of companies' right to do business with customers without Apple in the middle.
What right does a company have to piggyback off of another company?
Like think about this logically? Should a grocery store be forced to sell my products without receiving any of the profit? Can I force a cafe to let me serve customers on their premises without giving anything in return?
They're not piggybacking off another company if they use alternative distribution networks.
Should the construction company that built the grocery store be able to take a cut off grocery profits and have a say in what the store is selling?
> What right does a company have to piggyback off of another company?
Apple has no right to piggybacking off of another company's business. Therefore the 30% must go.
You're wrong. It's like complaining that Walmart hiked their prices after they drove away all Mom and Pop stores.
> I think it's perfectly fine to prevent you from having this
Yes I can, legally and morally.
The mom and pop stores in this analogy are the multitude of devices which are not produced by Apple and provide the same features, like Android phones and phones which are trivial to flash your own custom OS and software on. So no, your analogy does not support your conclusions.
It is not about devices, but rather about mobile OSs. There are only two really viable ones for practical use.
And one gives you the control you want over your device ie. sideloading and alternative app stores right? So why not simply purchase devices that use that operating system?
Because I have other interests and preferences when purchasing a device.
You agree with ATT that they should never have been forced to allow other people to plug their phones in?
You can always just build your own phone network if you don't like it!
You are on the wrong side of history.
You state it is trivial to use Android as an alternative.
How is the data checkout working on iOS to migrate to Android?
I don't see how the legality question is relevant here. My country is not forbidding me from exercising my ownership rights. This "are you prevented by law" question is fallacious, it implies that Apple can do no wrong, since it can't create laws.
What Apple is taking away is practical control for owners of a class of device that has become essential to my practical participation in society.
I actually desire my country to intervene and change laws forcing Apple give me that control.
Maybe if the iPhone was the only phone available to purchase this argument has merit. But it's not, there are no shortage of other phones that provide the same features which are "essential to (your) practical participation in society)". If anything, you are attempting to remove my ability to purchase a device I want to own. And I don't really like that.
There are only two viable phone OSs and both have problems.
"Vote with your wallet" is a BS argument in such a duopoly, because people care about other stuff.
There are many phones which let you flash your own OS and use with complete control. Please just purchase one of those and stop trying to interfere with my ability to purchase a phone that I want.
No.
In my opinion it is perfectly fine for society to order a company to hypothetically limit you on this minor thing (and let's be frank: this is super minor), because opening up iOS would benefit companies, countries, economies and other users of phones.
Who are you to claim that my consumer desires are irrelevant?
Your consumer desire ... to impose your own arbitrary wishes on other consumers? Apple opening up their platform would not preclude them from offering users an optional setting that continued to impose the current restrictions. Therefore it does not interfere with your own use of the platform. You have no standing here so to speak.
Compared to major interests of "companies, countries, economies and other users of phones", this is inarguably small.
Especially in the light of the only real complaint being that "there is a possibility of loss of security".
The difference is that the choice to purchase devices that offer the freedom you want is available, if not the primary option. I don't wish to take that away from you. However you are advocating for the only choice for a locked down device be legislated out of existence. There is a fundamental difference here!
Feel free to lock down your device. Stick to the Apple Store. You have that freedom. The rest of us want our freedom too.
You're right. I wish to take this away from you. To me this is completely fine, morally, philosophically and legally, and a lot of people seem to agree with me.
> However you are advocating for the only choice for a locked down device be legislated out of existence
Why would you make up something like this? What's the benefit to you?
Lol.
It's legitimately easier to just buy a UMPC with an LTE card and use VOIP than do that. That's how bad the situation is at this point.
I say this as someone who gets paid to work on open source and used PostMarketOS on my primary cell phone for years. Even technical people really only have two options right now.
Out of genuine curiosity since you mentioned UMPCs, what would be a good UMPC with LTE module support? I've looked into things like the various GPD Pocket devices, but I'm wondering if any of the other alternatives are any good.
And of course, recommendations for LTE modules would be appreciated. Ideally built in, but external modules are also good, all they really need is linux support.
Google has been trying to do the same with Android.
On one side it's called jailbreaking, on the other it's called rooting. It's really the same thing you're fighting against.
> If anything, you are attempting to remove my ability to purchase a device I want to own.
What about we meet in the middle and governments force Apple to only open 50% of the phones, for the same price. Would that satisfy you?
No, because that requires the development and maintenance of two different operating systems, the cost of which is then passed to the consumer (me).
In this case I hope you have sympathy when I state that I dislike when Apple charges 30% on transactions (but also apps), because this cost is also passed to the consumer: me.
And I 100% guarantee that the piece of this 30% pie is way bigger than the effort it would require them to divert their development like you're suggesting.
EDIT: Oh, and I also bet their lawyer bill for fighting this is bigger than that too. :)
Not really, you can chose to purchase other devices with more favourable payment agreements. It's about having that choice, versus not having the ability to purchase a device with a higher level of security.
No. I prefer to contribute to companies and causes trying to make Apple to be forced to open up. I am 100% ok with limiting your choice.
And if the argument has become about security, as others have said, Jailbreak has repeatedly relied on security issues, so the security problems have always been there.
I dont think anyone is arguing you shouldn't be allowed to pay 1000% markups on payment processing to Apple if you'd like to.
But making the argument that Apple is the only company to solve secure payments on the internet is silly.
I think people see phones like Android, they like the things they can do with it but like the iPhone better and want Apple to do it with iPhone.
Are sick people legally prevented from becoming healthy again? Are homeless people legally prevented from having a home? Are starving people legally prevented from eating?
I'm sick of people writing off entire classes of problems because "well, it's not illegal". The law doesn't matter until you're actually in court. What matters is practicalities. There are many rights that are impractical to use and there are many laws that are unenforced. Some problems could be solved by law, others probably not. The law is a solution, not a problem. Focus on problems, not solutions.
> If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it?
Do you think the same about printer ink?
Regardless, we need to look at the law - and interoperability has a long history of legal support. Patents protect the product itself, but allow interoperable products. Trade secrets product the product from theft but not reverse engineering.
Even the DMCA has explicit carve-outs for interoperability, though that doesn't stop copyright-abusers from trying to wield it (and sometimes winning due to the money game).
There has been absolutely no legal precedent about those DMCA carve-outs and previous cases that could have rested on them (eg Nintendo vs Yuzu) shouldn’t leave anyone optimistic about their strength.
> There are other options out there.
That's the catch-22, said ecosystem is what they want to use because it's considered "secure", but it's only considered secure because it's closed.
It's the same with all the other stuff like frequent locations, photos, etc. It's a walled garden yes, but one that protects your data from bad actors (like Meta heisting whatever they can get their grubby little hands on), and the price is that you can't let others into your garden, or it's no longer walled.
This continues to be a wild take. People aren't demanding that the app store host every application someone submits, they're asking for apple not to take a cut of things other people sell their own customers.
Also, facebook can already be a "bad actor" right now, they just have to pay apple their 30%.
> shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it?
If they wanted that right they shouldn't have sold the computer.
Sssh. Coming soon: "Leases, by Apple"
> shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it?
I suppose you have the legal right to do whatever you're able to up until people notice the problems you're causing and pass laws against it (or enforce existing ones, as is being attempted here).
Why should it be legally permissible to "sell" general purpose computing devices that are locked by the manufacturer or vendor? How does such behavior benefit society? Aren't locked down, effectively unauditable devices anathema to a free and open society? Isn't the current situation evidence enough that their existence is damaging to the concept of a free market?
If you sell me a computer and I don't have a shell on it that's false advertising at best. Doing this en mass with the goal of actually changing people's behavior is even worse IMO. We don't have a word for it because it's not something that could be done before now. Microsoft tried with Windows and IE but the technology at the time meant they couldn't really lock people out of their own devices the way Apple does.
> If you sell me a computer and I don't have a shell on it that's false advertising at best
I believe that's why they're calling it "a phone", or "a tablet". The computer they actually sell has plenty of shells available, and lets you tinker with whatever you like.
A phone is not simply a computer, it's a regulated piece of hardware that must comply with local laws and regulations regarding radio transmissions and other stuff. You can't just peek and poke around anywhere you like in the system.
Besides that, it must be able to talk to carefully tuned 3G/4G/5G cell towers, which sounds easy in theory, but it's not. When I made mobile phones 20 years ago, we had people driving around all countries where we sold it, with a test setup where the phone connected to every cell tower it could "see", and recorded logs and GPS coordinates, and that work (and that of countless others) is partially what became the beginning of A-GPS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_GNSS), which allows you to triangulate your phones location purely from the cell towers it can see.
Of course that's not how it works today, as most carriers these days register their cell towers in a central database with GPS coordinates, so A-GPS these days is simply a database dump (and a whole lot of math).
As a "fun" anecdote, when I wrote software for mobile phones, it was the only place I've ever worked that had a bug category for "potential harm to user". I'm certain companies working in Medicare and other critical industries also has that, but it was the first and only time I ever saw it.
Lol. If phones were actually considered critical devices like this implies Android would have been nuked from orbit.
No. They're computers with a modem peripheral. This is like saying once you plugged your e machine into the phone line it could interfere with 911 calls so they need to be regulated by the FCC. We settled that one over 50 years ago.
Let me put it another way.
Besides the FDA (and similar international counterparts), you're also using your phone for a bunch of other stuff that you probably don't want anyone having root access to. Wallets are one, banking apps, medical data and devices, password managers, and more.
If you have root access, that means that the apps can also get it, after all the app providing root access is itself an app.
Don't tell me what I want.
Yes I have my bitcoin-qt wallet, Etrade, my ssh keys, and my password manager on a machine I also have root on. I don't run non-free code on it (and I'm very picky about the open source code I do run.) Also just because I have root access doesn't mean I'm running all my apps as root. That's in insane statement to make. I run administrative tools as root and that's it.
The same thing is happening on your phone, you're just not allowed access to those tools, instead various other companies are and when they do things you don't like your options are: throw out your device and data, or bend over and take it.
Again at the end of the day a computer is a computer regardless of you being administratively locked out of yours.
I don't see people making the same arguments about Steam, Microsoft, Nintendo, etc, etc. Why is Apple special here? Other companies make stores that deliver application and developers don't get to tell them what to do. That's fine apparently, just not for Apple.
Maybe the reason is that the number of Apple users is an order of magnitude higher? Plus, they control both hardware and software. Apple is making very consumer-oriented products, and this comes with it's own downside of having to handle billions of users.
Steam has a near total monopoly on PC gaming and has an equivalent cut.
You are not required to use Steam to buy games on any device (even on the Steam Deck it's trivial to install games from other sources). It has big market power because gamers actually like it and actively choose it over alternatives (often even those that come pre-installed with the platform, the Windows store and the XBox app). It does not prevent devs from selling their games on multiple stores. It's dominant position for sure has market effects, but its a lot harder to argue it has the position for any nefarious or abusive reasons. (Although there are some lawsuits ongoing claiming that they did threaten devs over pricing, if those succeed it might change things)
Oh hey I wasn't aware of that lawsuit and (IMO) that's really good news. My only real concern with steam as a platform was the off-platform pricing clause.
I figured it was likely unenforceable if a studio simply released a "steam edition" or whatever artificial version differentiation, but at the same time they can always refuse to do business with you for any reason (or no reason even). So at that point the clause feels like them making a blatant threat.
People usually mix up things: The clear clause in their ToS is about selling Steam keys. A dev on Steam can generate Steam keys and sell them wherever they want, and Steam does not take a cut on those. For those, there is an explicit clause that says that you need to match the pricing on Steam.
For just selling the game elsewhere, there is no such clause, and there are games that e.g. are cheaper on Epic and explicitly say that's because Epic takes lower fees. But there are also devs claiming that Valve pressured them in private to not do that, and that's what the lawsuit is about.
Steam is not making basically impossible to install games on PC in other ways, unlike Apple does for their devices.
Steam is not even controlling PCs as their fief so they cannot do this even if they would want to do it.
> I don't see people making the same arguments about Steam, Microsoft, Nintendo, etc, etc. Why is Apple special here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v_European_Com...
BTW, I wonder have they paid that €860 million in the end - and how can I check this.
> Other companies make stores that deliver application and developers don't get to tell them what to do.
AFAIK Microsoft users can install software not using Microsoft store, however it is called.
> If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it?
Was that not the sort of rationale Microsoft used to defend its IE shenanigans back in the day?
It was considered to be a violation of antitrust laws then. I don't think Apple would be off the hook now. Especially considering how much more ubiquitous smartphones are in comparison to web browsers back then.
Microsoft had >90% of the desktop computer market share back then. Apple has <30% of the smartphone market share now.
While I am not a specialist on the matter, I don't think Antitrust regulations have anything to do with market share.
It's whether you are engaging in anticompetitive behavior or not.
> shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it?
Yes, except when they use that control to stifle competition. Competition is good, so we want to promote it.
That is sort of the basis for all anti trust law, to my layman’s understanding at least.
Competition law exists for a reason, and it doesn't matter how much Apple invested, it's not negating that reason.
If anything, it's the opposite - the bigger Apple is, the worse is the damage they cause.
Any argument in this vein must also apply to the Mac. The hardware is mostly the same. The OS is mostly the same. The native apps and services are identical, as is the security story. So why should the Mac not be locked down if the iPhone is? Put another way, what prevents Apple from using the exact same reasoning to lock down my Mac in the future, perhaps under pressure from authoritarian governments? After all, the technology (notarization) is already in place and is actively being abused for iOS app review in the EU.
No, people should not be able to control other people.
To an extent, yes.
It's one thing to design and built an iKettle in such a way that every aspect from the water filter to the power cord is well thought out but propitiatory. It's another to refuse to plug in to another "inferior" socket because that cuts into your cut of propitiatory cable sales.
If their stuff is so superior, then people will see that and prefer it. They wouldn't need to make it impossible or deliberately painful to use competitors services.
> shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it?
Does the manufacturer of your refrigerator have the right to control what food you're allowed to put into it? If not, why do you have different standards for computing devices? Why did it ever become okay for Apple to decide what you do with your device after they've sold it to you?
Why would any of these factors outweigh their dominant position in the market and the value of market competition?
Why wouldn't they?
Apple isn't dominant in the market worldwide (Android is), and they are competing against Android. Apple often implements things Android did first. That's how competition works.
Apple's global marketshare is 30% or just under.
30% is a pretty big chunk of a market. There is no reason we have to wait until a company has 99% of the market to address anticompetitive behavior.
Samsung is sitting at 28% of the Western European market share with their Android phones. Should we be worried about anti competitive behavior there as well ?
If Samsung is using their market position to stifle competitors, then by all means yes.
Explain stifle, or more specifically how Apple is doing that ?
Anybody (possibly except Epic Games) can develop and publish on the App Store. There's a cost associated with it, which in Apples case is 30% (or whatever you negotiate apparently). If you play by the rules, you can keep doing that as long as you like.
If you rent a shop in a shopping mall, there will be costs associated with that as well, and it's almost guaranteed to be more than 30%.
That is essentially what Apple is providing for those 30%, they provide a shopping mall where you can expose your goods, and people can pay for them. They handle the pesky stuff like refunds, (international) taxes, compliance with various government requirements, EU rules, and everything else. They even handle potential lawsuits for you (provided your app wasn't the one breaking laws).
They also vet (mostly automated) apps to ensure they're not using private APIs. That is for your protection. It's not an evil scheme by Apple to keep competitors out, it's for protecting the end user from bad actors like Meta scooping up all your personal data for "backup purposes" via some internal API.
Here in Europe we've had "alternative app stores" for a year or so, and despite living in a country where ~70% of the population uses iPhones, I don't know a single person that has ever used an alternative App Store, just like I don't actually know anybody that has downloaded an alternative keyboard despite those being available for a decade or more.
There is really very little you cannot do on the App Store in terms of features, so for many end users it is not a problem.
You may not like the price associated with it, which is what most of these complaints are about, the fact that Apple scoops up 30% of recurring subscriptions created through the App Store as well. People tend to forget that running your own infrastructure is also not free, especially when you need to handle refunds, legal matters and international compliance.
And that's the core of the problem, most of these companies complaining wants to use Apples built in App Store tools, but they want to direct them to their own App Store for free, ditching the complicated stuff of dealing with users on Apple. They're more than happy with Apple to handle payments and refunds if they do it for free.
Sideloading is usually a very bad idea in this day and age. In northern europe at least, your phone is quickly becoming your most trusted device in matters concerning anything state or municipality, and here we have a national ID app on our phones, along with social security, healthcare, drivers license, micro payments, taxes, childcare, hell, there's even video conferencing with your GP, in an app that has access to your medical records, including bloodwork and various scans. There's literally no way in hell I'm trading the perfectly walled garden for the Wild West outside.
Anecdotally, where I live, most companies don't allow Android phones as company phones as they're considered insecure, and instead mandate iPhones. The more regulated the industry (medical, banking, power, etc), the more certain it is that you'll be getting an iPhone.
> Explain stifle, or more specifically how Apple is doing that ?
I wrote a comment about that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44426128#44427725
> You may not like the price associated with it, which is what most of these complaints are about, the fact that Apple scoops up 30% of recurring subscriptions created through the App Store as well. People tend to forget that running your own infrastructure is also not free, especially when you need to handle refunds, legal matters and international compliance.
Simply having a link in my app to a page where someone pays through Stripe instead of through Apple Payments, costs nothing to Apple and creates no obligation for Apple to do anything.
> Sideloading is usually a very bad idea in this day and age.
Then don't do it. Who exactly is forcing you to?
> Then don't do it. Who exactly is forcing you to?
The problem is, when the option exists it opens up an attack vector that I need to defend against, as it will surely be exploited by malware at some point, downloading an app when you visit some scam site, and boom you're now infected.
> Simply having a link in my app to a page where someone pays through Stripe instead of through Apple Payments,
But it hardly stifles competition, except alternative payment methods ?
> costs nothing to Apple and creates no obligation for Apple to do anything.
The problem is, when stuff breaks, people will contact Apple support. Yes, one call is negligible, but Apple has 2.2 billion users, and it all adds up.
Provided you provide your app for free and charge subscriptions, that also has a cost to apple, as they're providing downloads for your app (again, potentially 2.2. billion of them), as well as any legal troubles (app contents excluded).
I guess Apple could enforce a alternate subscription model where they require you to charge for your app and they take their 30% cut off of that, and lets you use whatever payment provider you like for recurring payments.
It would of course either cut into sales, as people aren't as likely to buy an app and then subscribe to it, though something with "first month free" could probably lure some people in. Alternatively a developer would have to develop a free app, and if people want to have the full experience they'd have to purchase the full version.
Except, developers don't want that. They want to be able to give away their app and sell subscriptions, and they expect Apple to foot the bill for the infrastructure required to provide downloads.
> The problem is, when the option exists it opens up an attack vector that I need to defend against, as it will surely be exploited by malware at some point, downloading an app when you visit some scam site, and boom you're now infected.
This makes no sense. There is no "boom". You can't accidentally do it. There are a series of very deliberate steps, with numerous warning signs. Even on Android I have to specifically enable an option to even be able to install apps from alternate sources, and it is a separate permission per source, and this option can be locked down on a managed device (e.g. a work phone).
By your logic, there should be no web browsers on iOS, since someone might visit a scam website and give away all their money.
> They want to be able to give away their app and sell subscriptions, and they expect Apple to foot the bill for the infrastructure required to provide downloads.
Nobody expects that. What the EU wants is, simply let another app store compete. That new app store will host the downloads.
You keep shedding tears for the costs to Apple's infrastructure, yet as I keep repeating - what many developers really want is to NOT use Apple's infrastructure. NOT use Apple's payment processor. If the problem is that we're being a burden to Apple, well then I'm in full agreement with you, let's stop doing that!
iOS has functionality for remote control that is commonly used for security and group policies in large organisations. This is a more likely threat vector, as is rogue state affiliated actors like the infamous israeli malware purveyors.
In any case, generally the threat against most people is fraud, not some technical minutiae.
> Sideloading is usually a very bad idea in this day and age.
There is nothing wrong with sideloading applications. Protection against malicious applications is taken care of by the OS through sandboxing and a granular permission model. Malware scanning and app signing also have no dependency on the App Store.
Really all you are missing out on is the App Store review process, which is not worth much from a security perspective anyways.
Of course
Why does Apple's global marketshare matter when the suit is being brought to US courts where Apple holds the majority of the market
Because companies compete globally, not just locally?
Apple isn't building features to compete with Samsung only in the US. It's a global dynamic. Local competition is restricted to tiny subsets of features.
And it's only 57-42 for Apple in the US anyways. If it were 90-10 then sure. But 57-42 is what you get with strong competition. Having a majority doesn't mean there's a lack of competition. It just means one company is currently ahead, as one of them usually will be when there are two main players.
Companies may be global, but individual consumers are not. Anti-trust is about consumer harm. So that's why local markets matter.
Sure if you're an ISP where you're the only choice in a neighborhood.
But I don't see much that's local about Apple vs. Samsung. It's the same phones for sale in the US or in Thailand. Literally as one-size-fits-all global as you can get.
> It's the same phones for sale in the US or in Thailand.
They actually aren't. US iPhones no longer have SIM card slots. Most international phones don't support the same radio bands that US carriers use. This used to be a bigger issue with CDMA, but still an issue with the many 4G/5G bands and VoLTE. That'll be most Xiaomi and Oppo phones in the US. And there's Huawei phones that are banned and not allowed on US carriers; so it makes zero sense to include them into any marketshare calculations for a US consumer.
So even an iPhone 16 Pro has different models: A3293 (International) A3083 (USA) A3292 (Middle East, Canada, Mexico) and A3294 (China, Hong Kong). The A3293 and the A3294 do not support T-mobile's 5G band 71. This isn't uncommon, and Samsung will do similar international vs US models. Samsung is even worse sometimes, having completely different CPUs between regions.
And of course there's software differences too. Chinese iPhones can disable internet permissions for individual apps but not anyone else for some reason. Google Pixel's Gemini isn't available in EU countries. Apple Intelligence did similarly at launch.
While local marketshare isn't the perfect indicator, it's definitely better than using global marketshare.
Apple has around 60% market share. The US does not have global jurisdiction.
Competitive markets have enough similar suppliers that they are forced to adapt to customers instead of the other way around.
This happens to be incompatible with capitalism due to phenomena like the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and fascism (as well as other corporativist ideologies). Capitalism survives and reproduces through monopolies and oligopolies, i.e. undemocratic forms of rent seeking and price cartels.
>> shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it?
Apple can. They can retain ownership of "their" devices. Instead of selling electronics, they can rent iPhones and iPads to users and thereby retain all control over how/when/if they are used. But good luck pitching that to consumers.
Ah finally someone coming to the rescue of criminally underrepresented multi-billion dollar companies and their inevitable tactics of building monopolies, because how else do you 10% revenue growth every year. I hear Shell is also in need of some help, maybe you can find a thread on them? /s
But seriously though: why do people argue that „investing money“ leads to „I can do whatever the hell I want to my client base“? Even if this argument were to hold for all future customers, companies change their TOS all the time. Can I ask for all my money that I paid them back, to exit their ecosystem?..
You pays your money and you makes your choice
[dead]
[dead]
The point I found myself resonating with a lot is:
>Apple’s App Store policies disproportionately favor the surveillance capitalism business model employed by companies like Meta and Google and therefore entrench an online business model that routinely violates consumers’ personal privacy.
Spot on.
I don't think any big tech company has ever done anything as evil and predatory as Apple walling off iMessage, giving the impression that Apple phones were high technology, and interacting with peasant androids is what made group chats fragment and pictures and videos look like trash.
Few things are more enraging than people being left out of chats with friends and family because they didn't bend over for Apple. Even worse being a teenager and having to endure social shaming for it. It wasn't until the EU signaled it was going to bring down then axe that Apple capitulated to RCS.
- Yes, I know you are part of the domestic US long tail that use signal/telegram with all your friends.
- Yes, I know no one outside the US uses iMessage.
ETA: A note because people are pretty incredulous about "most evil". Tech companies do a lot of evil stuff, no doubt.
But there is something special about putting social connection behind an expensive hardware purchase and walled garden lock in. Every other messaging app I know of is open to anyone on most platforms for little or no cost. Apple on the other hand purposely leveraged social connections in your life to force you into their garden and keep you there. Lets not pretend that Apple couldn't open up iMessage or even charge a nominal fee for outsiders. Instead you get an iphone and just seemlessly slide into iMessage. So seemless that most users don't even know that it is a separate service than sms/mms/rcs. Apple muddies that too.
But they would never do that, because using people's closest social connections to force them into the ecosystem and lock them there is just too juicy. "Oh you don't want an iPhone anymore? Well looks like you have to leave your social circles main discussion hub to do so..."
It's just evil on another level.
>I don't think any big tech company has ever done anything as evil and predatory as Apple walling off iMessage
What definition of "evil" and "predatory" are you using? Or perhaps you have a unique definition of "big tech" that excludes Facebook, Amazon, ByteDance, etc.? This is an extremely outlandish statement that I'm really struggling to even begin engaging with seriously.
Can you comment on why iMessage is more evil than, for example, the amount of children being groomed on Discord? Or incentivizing youth to gamble via loot boxes and other gambling mechanics? Just to name two examples out of dozens that I would consider way more harmful (in both amount of harm done per occurance, and the number of people being harmed).
I can sympathize with the people making arguments against iMessage, even if I don't always agree. But... the most evil thing that any big tech company has ever done? I think you need to put forth a much stronger argument than what you've posted.
> I don't think any big tech company has ever done anything as evil and predatory
Don't you think this is _maybe_ an overstatement? I was annoyed about this for years but reading your take is borderline satirical.
From the lawsuit
> For example, when a user purchases an iPhone, the user is steered to use Apple’s default email product, Apple Mail. It is only through a complex labyrinth of settings that a user can change her default email application away from the Apple “Mail” application towards an alternative like Gmail (Google) or Proton Mail.
> At least for mail a user can in theory modify the default setting. On the calendar front the situation is even worse. A user’s default calendar is Apple Calendar, and the default cannot be modified
That's pretty evil & predatory to me. The fact that it is by design (someone decided it needed to this awful) is why Apple is being evil here. And this is just one example.
There's more
> For example, Apple banned apps from its App Store that supported Google Voice because Apple sought to advantage its own services over Google’s
> That's pretty evil & predatory to me.
That's not what the parent is asking. The OP said it was the most evil ever done.
Big Tech does predatory and evil stuff all the time. That's not what's being claimed. The OP is claiming that this specific thing is the worst, the singular event that is above and beyond all others.
Except that those claims feel like intentional exaggerations and not meaningfully true?
I use both iOS and Android.
> It is only through a complex labyrinth of settings
I have no love for the way iOS settings are done, but calling the setting for this in particular a complex labyrinth is some pretty blatant editorializing.
> A user’s default calendar is Apple Calendar, and the default cannot be modified
I don't think this is a true statement? My default calendar is a Google calendar. Actually switching to instead use my Apple iCloud calendar has been something of a chore.
I mean, does Settings > Apps > Gmail (or whichever other app) > Default Mail App really qualify as “a complex labyrinth”? Sure, it’d be a good thing to add a “Default Apps” section under Settings > General or something, but calling the current route complex almost sounds like an insult to users.
EDIT: Actually, there already is a “Default Apps” section right at the top of the page of Settings > Apps. Yeah, if that’s a “labyrinth” then the assumed level of user intelligence is quite low.
I didn't even know you could change the default mail app on iOS and I’ve used it for the better part of a decade now, as a Proton user too. I’ve endured the frustration because I thought it was fixed. Either being allowed to change it is relatively new, region locked, or yeah it’s a labyrinth.
> Either being allowed to change it is relatively new, region locked, or yeah it’s a labyrinth.
It's about 5 years old by now. Not having looked for something in a couple of years and being bummed out by that doesn't make Apple the bad guy.
I've probably used Apple Mail and/or Apple Calendar at some point in my ownership of Apple products but they're both using Google products at the moment on my phone and I have no recollection of setting those up as being complex through a variety of hardware transitions.
It’s also probably worth noting that most of the stock iOS apps are the most service-provider-agnostic in the industry. Mail and Notes work on bog standard IMAP, and Calendar and Contacts are built on CalDAV and CardDAV, respectively. Google services work fine in all of them (though could be better if it weren’t for Google’s crappy IMAP implementation). The only case where they don’t work is with non-standard providers like Proton.
Go try to sign into your open-standards-abiding calendar and notes accounts in the Calendar and Contacts bundled with nearly every Android phone on the planet and see how well that goes.
> I mean, does Settings > Apps > Gmail (or whichever other app) > Default Mail App really qualify as “a complex labyrinth”?
Compared to Android?
Yes.
I have no idea why iPhone users put up with this shit.
See my edit. I have two Android devices sitting right in front of me, and they’re identical to iOS in this regard: Settings > Apps > Default apps.
The "complex labyrinth" is only reinforcing the impression that you and the author of that brief are both cranks. "Email" is the top setting under "Default Apps". My iPhone doesn't even offer Apple's Mail app in that screen, probably because I deleted it, which also was not labyrinthine but actually quite trivial.
home screen > settings > default apps > email
Easy if you know where to look. If you end up in the wrong sub menu you might simply search the web for instructions.
Apple provides web pages where they explain how to use the iphone. There is a section called "mail" under "apps" that shows up in the search results. It really wants me to read the help in dutch, the "apps > mail" section has 14 pages that don't talk about changing the default app, in stead they explain how to use the various features of their own mail app (that is also configured by default)
I don't get why the help pages need a different menu structure.
One has to go to "personalize your iphone" which has 18 pages, changing default apps is towards the end.
Searching the Dutch help website for "mail" I get only 3 unhelpful search results. If i change it to US English it immediately redirects to Dutch again. lol?
Using the "English" for Latin America and the Caribbean works. There I get 5 pages worth of results. Changing the default app is on page 3.
Not impossible but it is not a simple prompt on launch of the app "Banana mail is not currently your default email client. Do you want to set Banana mail as your default app for sending email?"
I'm quite dense of course, if they are going to be like that I will NEVER create an email client for this platform.
The web and their TOS is full of good reasons to never create an app for iphone.
In a laps of sanity I created a pwa one time. I've explained to exactly one user how to add the option to add a web app to the home screen to the menu so that they can add a web app to the home screen. It was a really hard sell and it took a long time.
I of course had to laugh at myself for acting against my better judgement.
Imagine someone made a web app email client and tried to compete with the build in client. Then in the middle of the struggle apple jokes about discontinuing PWA.
Seems a pretty level playing field?
> Easy if you know where to look. If you end up in the wrong sub menu you might simply search the web for instructions.
Actually, at the very top of the home page of the settings app is a search bar. If you type in anything reasonable (default, email, mail) then one of the first 2-3 results will be “default apps” or “default email”.
8/10 people in my family circle do not know this bar exists. I know it’s not necessarily Apple‘s fault, but not everyone is a tech-proficient.
No, I don't think it's an understatement at all....
In the difficulty of non-iMessage compatibility, I have had people close to me say "Why don't you just get an iPhone?" with an incredulous tone.
Perhaps tech companies have had more evil things happen on their platforms, that for whatever reason they were slow to react to.
But
"Why don't you just get an iPhone" was a precisely and meticulously engineered line, pure social manipulation, that was intentionally orchestrated to be delivered to me through the mouths of the people I trust most in my life turned unknowing pawns.
That is why I consider it the most evil. Apple is by design purposely exploiting a core human function, close social circle communication, to trap people in their garden.
> No, I don't think it's an understatement at all....
It's interesting how this seems like an incredibly American problem. In Europe everyone either uses WhatsApp or Signal and iMessage is hardly ever used.
Reminds me of "Consuming kids" where the marketeers conclude the children in the family decide which car brand dad will buy.
I remember many years ago when I realized this is what they were doing with iMessage. It’s really truly brilliant.
I went all in; for years I paid 100% to replace phones of friends or lovers who were still sending archaic SMS.
It’s the implicit camraderie between the speaker and listener in “A computer for the rest of us…”
Today, I don’t even have iMessage enabled on my disposable carrier number. It’s off off.
Considering how much it's messing up with kids and young people's social circles, this is seriously very fucked up even for big tech standards.
I am plugged into the Apple ecosystem daily and shamelessly and yeah I think it’s arguably accurate. What makes it so sinister is how benign it seems yet how devastating the consequences have been.
> I don't think any big tech company has ever done anything as evil and predatory as Apple walling off iMessage
Is that really the worst thing you've seen big-tech do? That's very fortunate.
What about Blackberry Messenger which was the mobile instant-messaging golden standard for years and BB exclusive for as long as it mattered in the market? Was that too long ago to remember?
my understanding is that BBM was different because there was nothing to interoperate with at the time
Apple refusing RCS integration is a very clear example of hurting everyone in pursuit of profit
it's likely not the most evil, but I do think it qualifies as evil. it stands out by being inarguably willful, and having a very broad impact
I find harming hundreds of millions (probably billions) of friendships to be quite evil
Android didn't introduce RCS support until 2019, 8 years after the introduction of iMessage.
Windows Mobile? iOS absolutely existed alongside BBM as well.
Apple didn't integrate with RCS because RCS was a fragmented pile of garbage. It still is, but it's I suppose less fragmented now.
None of that "harmed" friendships, certainly not any real ones.
> - Yes, I know no one outside the US uses iMessage.
Yes, people in the EU use WhatsApp, by Meta & Zuckerberg, and from what I've seen, often act as if that is some sort of mark of superiority.
>often act as if that is some sort of mark of superiority
Well, you could argue that it's morally superior to be reachable by everyone, regardless of what brand of phone they use.
The ability to install a 3rd party messaging app also shows some technical skill.
> and from what I've seen, often act as if that is some sort of mark of superiority.
Feels like you weren't able to have a proper discussion with those people. In many EU countries, using SMS made/makes no sense because SMS was/is super expensive as compared to WhatsApp. And using iMessage makes no sense because most people don't have an iPhone. From their point of view, it actually makes no sense.
Now if you tell them "well, where I come from everybody has an iPhone" or "SMS have always been free", probably they won't say "still, I'm better than you for no apparent reason".
I don't think that it is actually seen as a mark of superiority anywhere in the EU to use WhatsApp. Unlike apparently in some places it is seen as a mark of superiority to have an iPhone vs an Android phone.
If you go in a EU country where SMS were not prohibitively expensive in the beginning of WhatsApp (e.g. France), you'll see that WhatsApp has been less successful (at least in the beginning). WhatsApp was a killer app because it was free SMS, really.
>because it was free SMS, really.
Since when can WhatsApp interact with SMS users? They're so evil and predatory that they have entirely walled themselves off from that method of communication entirely.
WhatsApp gained popularity in Europe when non-early adopters started switching to smartphones (2010-2012 ish). The difference was that, in contrast to iMessage, you could install it on pretty much any smartphone. In the pre-Meta days they even supported many then dying ecosystems like Symbian, Nokia S40, etc.
They had a yearly subscription fee, but most people never got the request to pay it.
Nobody cared that it was incompatible with SMS, because everybody hated SMS because of the insane prices. In 2009 I got an iPhone 3G with an unlimited data plan, but I was still paying something like 0.20 or 0.25 Euro per SMS.
I like how they (just like imessage) allow you to message someone who cant possibly read the message because they have no whatsapp. Then again, I think they cant even deliver the message over sms on iphone? SMS is only available in the apple app if you first force it to send SMS?
There's always that one Facebook mom that refuses to use anything but FB Messenger, then get's upset why nobody reads her messenges.
I don't think most of US in the EU really mind, or even know what messaging app people in America use. The privacy conscious folk around here do tend to prefer Signal over Whatsapp though.
I never had problems telling people: "oh I use this other one" and they probably have it alongside whatsapp.
A lot of people, in Austria at least, have moved to signal in my experience. My communities in the US and Austria have trended toward adoption of Signal with very few holdovers between messages and WhatsApp, some partly due to my pressure but overall it’s just getting away from the BS of the alts
> Even worse being a teenager and having to endure social shaming for it. It wasn't until the EU signaled it was going to bring down then axe that Apple capitulated to RCS.
Regardless of the merits of Apple's actions as regards technical interoperability I feel compelled to point out that this in particular is a cultural problem, not technical malfeasance. RCS users still appear as green bubbles and even if the lack of functionality has been remedied the stigma has not. People at my lunch table 20 years ago were drawing artificial distinctions between "MP3s" (portable DAPs) and iPods because the latter were expensive luxury products and the former were not. The same thing is at work here because owning an iPhone is a proxy for one's socioeconomic stratum. I own an iPhone and as soon as an Android user appears in an iMessage group chat some joker immediately makes a green bubble quip - no degraded picture message required.
People that define themselves by conspicuous consumption don't care about interoperability. They care about brand recognition.
But that's what so insidious about it - by also actively degrading the chat experience it makes excluding non-Apple users not merely social signalling but also a rational decision even if you don't care about conspicuous consumption whatsoever.
So pick your poison, either you exclude them because of in-group signalling/conspicious consumption or exclude them because you want non-potato resolution, with Android users getting the blame for Apple's UX. Either way Tim Cook says the solution is to buy an iPhone.
Yes, but this is precisely the point isn't it? It's blatantly enabling and embracing "othering" for no technical reason as an explicit strategy to exploit social pressures to maximize profit.
The most evil thing a tech company has done is make a proprietary messaging app?
Apple didn't make SMS bad, it just was. Apple has since implemented RCS and it hasn't changed how I communicate with people from my iPhone at all.
Google should probably take most of the blame for repeatedly fumbling messaging on non-Apple platforms for the past 2 decades. Every time they had something that was getting any amount of traction it got quickly replaced with some stupid new, worse messaging app so a PO could get a promotion.
How did you manage to shift the conversation to Google in a thread about Apple?
I think the point was that if Google weren't so inept, iMessage wouldn't be such a monopoly
And you know, maybe they have a point. I especially think about Microsoft and MSN Messenger/Skype. How do you fumble away not one but two dominant messaging apps?
OP's point is about Apple intentionally fragmenting communication in social groups as an ecosystem play (trickling down to bullying starting in grade school etc) so Google's messaging marketshare would only be relevant if there was some reason to believe it would have cowed Apple into interoperating.
Actually, iMessage happily harms apple customers all the time.
I know many MANY people who have lost chats with their loved ones (especially deceased ones) because there is no way to export and save their conversations.
I think this should be as easy as saving photos, which apple makes (somewhat) easier to export.
Back to email, it is pretty horrible to set up my local email server on an apple device. You have to go through these dialogs, apple servers have to be contacted (for "redirection"), and I usually barely get it working.
[flagged]
> No dumb hacks to deal with some retarded Cupertino PM's idea of how computing should work
You can't comment like this on Hacker News, no matter how right you are or think you are. It's not what HN is for and it destroys what it is for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This drives me crazy on iPad! Such a missed opportunity to dominate personal laptop market is given up buy horrible UX.
There's something uniquely dystopian about tying emotional/social exclusion to a hardware upgrade
Apple does not owe Android users a superior non-Apple experience. Android a pretty damn huge platform, right? Way bigger than Apple, I hear? Blame Google. Google failed to compete.
> I don't think any big tech company has ever done anything as evil and predatory as Apple walling off iMessage
What a ridiculous statement. Even with your edit it's still an utterly stupid conclusion to come to.
Off the top of my head I can think of way worse things tech companies have done. Cambridge Analytica scandal, Gmail scanning, the Google Shopping lawsuit, Amazon's product clone hijack, Facebooks mood manipulation experiment, Ring doorbell viewing, Uber spying, to name just a few FAR worse things tech companies have done.
This reads like public affairs copy from Meta/Alphabet/et al looking to distract from the real, measurable harm produced against teens by social media and AI products that are either directly (Instagram) or indirectly (character ai) owned.
Or you could use an actual program on a desktop computer to do it. When did everyone forget how that works?
Use a program on a desktop computer to do what exactly?
To communicate with friends and family.
"I don't understand why people complain about that AT&T telephone company monopoly, when they could just write each other letters. When did people forget how to do that?"
Apple users had/have plenty of other options - WhatsApp Signal Skype (back in the day) Line WeChat etc etc. So not really a big deal
> I don't think any big tech company has ever done anything as evil and predatory as Apple walling off iMessage
I think you might be living in a bubble, if this is the "most evil" thing you have heard of a big tech company doing. Go read up on IBM's history, especially in the 30s and 40s. Or a more contemporary example, read up on Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Or Amazon's mistreatment of workers in both corporate and warehouse settings. Or Meta scraping data off your devices without permission to train AI.
And, though I know some folks here disagree, plenty of people around the world believe what's happening in Gaza is a genocide, and Big Tech has materially contributed to making it happen. Or, if you want another example of human cost, talk about how resources for electronics are mined, or how electronics are manufactured.
Saying, "the most evil thing big tech has ever done is make some chat bubbles blue" puts a whole lot of human lives below the color of some chat bubbles.
You can think Apple did a really bad thing by doing that, that's fine. No complaints. But to call it the most evil thing ever done erases an incalculable amount of human suffering.
> I think you might be living in a bubble, if this is the "most evil" thing you have heard of a big tech company doing. Go read up on IBM's history, especially in the 30s and 40s. Or a more contemporary example, read up on Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Or Amazon's mistreatment of workers in both corporate and warehouse settings. Or Meta scraping data off your devices without permission to train AI.
I wouldn't count the IBM thing because I don't see it as part of the vernacular "big tech" of today; however I do think it's the most evil so far in this thread.
The others? They are mostly aggressive competition, especially the MS stuff, and altogether I don't see them as more evil than Apple's exclusionary UX. What's at the bottom of it for me is that it harms users directly, e.g. what others said about kids getting shamed for having a non-Apple phone. The one thing not mentioned yet that would qualify for me would be Meta's product altogether with its impact on teenagers; and various gambling simulators like Roblox.
Oh, Roblox by far and away is worse than Apple. But also, Facebook is pretty clearly implicated in a genocide in Myanmar. It's difficult for me to put any genocide in a bucket less important than some kids being put into out-groups.
The difference is that those evil things are second order effects. Nobody in the executive suite at FB was saying "Damn, this genocide is super profitable, let's stole the flames".
Nobody at Roblox is saying "We want to have children do nothing else except play Roblox from dawn to dusk, we lobby against schooling and extra-curiculars to increase Roblox time"
Apple however very intentionally made messaging people not on iPhones painful, and purposely made it out like androids were inferior. They purposely make it so you lose your group chats if you leave iPhone.
Thats why it's the most evil. It's a planned system to use peoples social connections as pawns to rope people into Apples ecosystem. This isn't hypothetical, or "C'mon of course they are saying that!". There are court documents that show it.
[flagged]
> Apple walling off iMessage, giving the impression that Apple phones were high technology, and interacting with peasant androids is what made group chats fragment and pictures and videos look like trash.
Which lawsuit PDF related specifically to iMessage interacting with Android was mentioned in this comment? I see a comment about RCS.
Now, maybe you are right, maybe I narrowly interpreted RCS in iMessage to mean chat bubbles, and there's a wider interpretation. Even still, there's no possible way that's the singular most evil thing tech has ever done. The OP is free to be anti-Apple, more power to them, but like, let's be real about levels of evil.
> Also, bringing up IBM, Microsoft or Facebook is "whataboutism".
It's absolutely not whataboutism. The claim the OP made was about Big Tech broadly. Bringing in examples of Big Tech doing evil things is a direct and appropriate rebuttable to the argument that Big Tech doesn't do evil things.
Focusing on the "the most" part is extremely petty.
This whole thread is the complete opposite of "thoughtful and substantive" and the "Converse curiously" from HN guidelines and I regret participating on it.
Really?
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...
google with their android anti-fragmentation-agreement is pretty predatory. basically release any/all android devices with google services and pay us cut or release none and use pure aosp. it is some next level shit.
huh. Isnt that what business deals are supposed to be? Two businesses entering into a business relationship, where both parties get something. OEMs get Google services & operating system, or OEMs are free to use open source project.
Are you saying Google should freely give away their products?
> Isnt that what business deals are supposed to be?
To clarify what exactly that agreement does: it prohibits companies from developing competitors. It is nakedly anti-competitive, and no, business deals are not supposed to be that - there's a large body of law, sadly rarely enforced, saying so. Not every business practice is legal just because the directly involved parties agreed.
nice strawman, first google honeypotted the smartphone-os sector with their AOSP (android opensource project). now when they killed every other option except apple & effectively became a monopoly for all smartphone vendors, they are using their monopoly power to prohibit companies from using aosp piecemeal. they are explicitly telling vendors if you make any device with google services then you cannot make an ungoogled device at-all. this is exact opposite of the open source spirit and highlights that they were never interested in opensource, they were doing pretty much what MS did in 90s, release a bundled shitty version of a popular app with OS so you can kill them and maintain dominant monopoly. they just weaponized oss with AOSP to kill off any contenders.
take a moment to think why amazon has no google services on their table and/or an amazon branded basic android smartphone, it would be super easy for them to do it (leave aside firephone .. for reasons).
How is this not monopoly abuse? if Lina Khan had any balls this is what she would have gone after.
edit: chatgpt explanation: https://chatgpt.com/share/686350ce-47dc-8008-8c30-14c6298d75...
This is hopelessly exaggerated and bad-faith.
First of all, when Apple created iMessage, there was no possible way for them to predict that friend groups would use it as a reason to treat members of their groups poorly due to using Android phones.
Second of all, Apple did not deliberately make interacting with non-iMessage users in group chats "look like trash" in order to exclude them. Apple went out of its way to make it possible for iMessage to interoperate with the ubiquitous (in the US) SMS, with reduced features because SMS did not support the better features. If, instead, Apple had just made iMessage not interoperate with SMS at all, you'd be screaming about that instead.
Third of all, if people are leaving others out of chats, that's not Apple's fault. That's something for those families and friend groups to work out amongst themselves. "Hey, guys, I don't have an iPhone, and don't really have the money to get one, so maybe we could use GroupMe/GChat/WhatsApp/Signal/IRC/email/smoke signals/meeting in person/any of the myriad other ways of communicating instead?" A) "Oh, sure, that shouldn't be a problem!" (everything is solved) B) "What? No, we're not going to change anything just because it makes it impossible to actually include you in stuff. That's a you problem!" (turns out, the problem is your friends are assholes)
Apple cannot by any reasonable standard be held to blame for the way bullying, status-seeking teenagers treat each other.
What Apple could have done, for sake of clarity, sanity, and good practice is to handle SMS using one app, and handle iMessage using another, *separate* app.
The problem is not that iMessage exists, it's that it operates in opaque and unpredictable ways, mixing SMS and iMessage (and now RCS) communication in a way where even more tech-savvy users do not understand how it works (first-hand experience - had to explain to someone why their images are super compressed when they send them to me, but OK when they send them to their friend with an iPhone).
And now it's the same with RCS (Android-iOS). I send person A an image, the conversation switches to RCS. They use the "automatic reply" when I call them, conversation switches back to SMS. With person B, the switching between RCS and SMS is even more unpredictable.
> What Apple could have done, for sake of clarity, sanity, and good practice is to handle SMS using one app, and handle iMessage using another, separate app.
That sounds like a terrible user experience ?
I'm in a frequently-used group chat in which some people apparently have Android phones and others use iPhones. It works perfectly well.
If some teenagers see green bubbles as some sort of challenge to their identities, it's probably a useful life lesson.
Apple was perfectly right when they did this way back as they were not a dominant platform. Different legal rules applied.
However making an argument that some key aspects of the iPhome were not designed for viral growth is disrespectful to Steve Jobs who, like many of that time, was very familiar with engineering platform growth - probably more and better than most.
http://theverge.com/2021/4/9/22375128/apple-imessage-android...
>“iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove [an] obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones,” was Federighi’s concern according to the Epic filing.
Among other statements. Apple was very aware of the social effects of iMessage, and leveraged it to force people into getting iphones.
Tech companies have done lots of evil shit. But never, not once, has one ever crossed the line into turning my friends and family against me (however slightly) because I didn't want to lock myself in Apple's cage, however comfortable it is.
Yeah, you can call my friends and family shitty, but the reality is that the are regular non-tech people, explaining the situation to them is impossible, and iMessage Just Works(TM).
I'm sympathetic to the position that Apple could, if they chose, have made a version of iMessage for Android.
But your position that it is somehow uniquely evil just reads as a coping mechanism—a way of not having to blame your friends and family for being shitty for you.
I know plenty of "regular, non-tech people" who understand perfectly well that a) different computer systems do not work properly together, and b) if you choosing to use a particular computer system excludes someone because they do not have access to it, that's rude, discriminatory, and generally shitty behavior.
SMS not having the same features as iMessage is a technical issue, sure.
Apple not providing iMessage on Android was a business decision, no question.
But people being exclusionary and obnoxious to each other over group chats is a social issue, and should be treated as such, and not blamed on either the technical or business side of things.
> We don’t question Apple’s right to act on behalf of authoritarians for the sake of profit, but Apple’s monopoly over iOS app distribution means it can enforce this perverse policy on all app developers, forcing them to also be complicit.
Ouch. Those are some fighting words.
We are living in the wrong timeline.
[flagged]
It's a comment intended for the court of public opinion, not one of the law.
[flagged]
The line between law and politics is not as iron-clad as you think.
It's hard to deny that the App Store rules have created a massively uneven playing field
This is probably a controversial opinion but I actually use my iPhone because it's locked down with a curated app marketplace and secure payment system. I don't want alternative payment methods or app stores. So I find it distasteful that other companies are seeking to control Apple's product design through the legal system. They're essentially trying to make it impossible to purchase a product I want, which is more monopolistic than the current status quo. iPhones do not have any sort of monopoly on phones.
If you want that, you can purchase any number of Android devices.
> This is probably a controversial opinion
Not very. Plenty of people, including on HN, agree with you.
> but I actually use my iPhone because it's locked down with a curated app marketplace and secure payment system.
Except it’s not. That argument would be much stronger if the App Store weren’t full of scammy predatory apps which regularly top the top grossing charts.
> I don't want alternative payment methods or app stores.
And I don’t want everything to be a subscription, yet here we are. Just like I have to avoid the majority of apps today, you’ll avoid other App Stores if that is what you want.
You’re at a significant advantage because ignoring other stores is much easier, and opening up the iPhone to third-party stores has an effect on the policies of the main App Store. This is plainly demonstrated by the acceptance of the emulator from the creator of an alternative store. So even by not using those third-party ones, you’re benefiting.
> They're essentially trying to make it impossible to purchase a product I want, which is more monopolistic than the current status quo.
That doesn’t make sense. There’s no monopoly on a product which doesn’t exist.
> iPhones do not have any sort of monopoly on phones.
You don’t have to be a monopoly to be harmful to consumers. Companies have realised that long ago and it’s time consumers do too.
if all you want is for your apps to come from Apple's store and your payments to go through Apple's system, you would simply continue to use only those options and allowing other people to have other options would not impact you.
what you actually want is to force all developers to use Apple's distribution and payment systems, so that you can have every app and service from any provider delivered via your chosen mechanisms. that takes away freedom from developers and users who prefer other systems. it eliminates the market for anyone to make or use something better than your chosen options
Developers are not forced into using Apple's distribution and payment systems because there are a multitude of other competing devices (with a higher market share mind you) they can and do develop for.
If users and developers prefer other systems they can simply use those.
Apple is not forced into doing business in Europe, because there are a multitude of other anticompetitive tolerant regions (much larger than Europe mind you) they can do business in.
If Apple prefers anticompetitive practices, it can simply only do business in those regions.
I'm curious what becomes the breaking point for them to pull out of a region. Obviously it's about profit but at what point (if any) does it make profitable sense for them to leave?
Leaving a region means they would give up market share, investments and a lot of staff. This is huge. It's not just about quarterly profit, even if it might sometimes feel like it is.
Presumably, before they take such a drastic measure, they would first spend massive amounts on lobbying, which would most likely succeed.
Never. The Apple bet, the North Star, is that personal computing is both the present and the future. The minute an exception gets carved out, like “personal computing but not in Europe” then Apple enters a death spiral. They’ll deal with each blow that comes their way because it will come for everyone else in the market too, but they’ll still be in the lead.
When there is no more profit and only loss, I reckon. Shareholders would not be happy if they pulled out of a region because they can only make $1 over $10. If that $1 is profit, they'll want it.
Except that developers are forced to use Apple's distribution and payment systems to reach users with a native experience on Apple devices. This ability to limit or control competition within a market is called market capture, a key consideration of antitrust.
It's not a market, it's a product within a market.
> multitude of other competing devices
You mean, the Google system that collects 20 times more telemetry than the iPhones? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261
If it was actually stifling competition we would see many more good apps for Android that don’t exist for iOS. That’s not the case. If anything most companies I know develop first for iOS and then for Android if they have sufficient resources. Why? Because accessing Apple’s user base, even with the Apple Tax, is more lucrative than developing for Android.
It's not controversial, you can still have your walled garden as-is.
The point of this is so that there is the possibility of escaping that walled garden, arguably welcoming more users into the ecosystem.
Nothing would change for you. Just like android users can keep using all things Google, they have the possibility of installing apps from other sources.
Things would actually change—developers would instead choose to distribute via the alternate means instead of the App Store.
So, you see, it doesn’t matter whether Apple has the walled garden or the third-party devs have the walled garden. Either way, users will be forced to accept someone’s distribution policy. But the difference really lies in the trust on Apple and its security and privacy practices, which is a choice that will be robbed from people buying iPhones to use apps exactly for this purpose.
> developers would instead choose to distribute via the alternate means instead of the App Store
Would they? I imagine they would distribute via all available, at different price points. At least that's what I would do. Why would I want to forgo access to customers who prefer every last detail to be handled via Apple's infrastructure?
That said, if there were actually a dichotomy between "force developers to distribute via my preferred means" and "permit developers to choose whether or not to use my platform of choice" the former seems obviously immoral and the latter obviously the correct course of action. Why should you get to dictate how developers must do things? That's simply valuing your own preference over everyone else's (both developers and users) right to choose.
Oh devs would absolutely avoid distributing through the App Store if they want to run any code that would fail App Store Review, such as the abuse of private low-level APIs to gather more user data than the app needs, which all businesses have a profit incentive to do.
There are many other possible scenarios: devs forcing users to authenticate with unsecure methods, gather and unsecurely store credit card information, gather passwords, upload contacts, read SMSes, etc. The value that a third-party dev can derive from private user info is far greater than alternately offering a different version of the app that will pass App Store reviews.
Distribution via alternative stores does not mean there’s no review and moderation. Junk stores may have their fans, but competitive alternatives to App Store will inevitably introduce some controls to maintain reputation and remain compliant. Their advantage will be price, not presence of junk apps. That’s how free market with consumer protection laws works: regulation defines parameters of new equilibrium and eventually all start playing by the same rules to the benefit of the consumer.
> Nothing would change for you.
If my apps are changing, yes it is changing for me.
Right now I can manage all of my app subscriptions from the Subscriptions screen in the Settings app of my devices. If they open up to other payment methods, my subscriptions are no longer centralized, I have to give my credit card information to more parties of variable trustworthiness, I have to worry about subscription renewal policies for every individual app, I have to figure out different methods of cancelling which could be a more difficult process than hitting "cancel" and trusting Apple will stop the payments, etc.
I think those problems are largely also due to anti competitive and anti consumer behaviors.
We need to craft legislation saying software vendors have to support some kind of standardized payment system with easy cancellation built in to it rather than relying on Apples good will.
sound like an opportunity for a service that provides the conveniences you enjoy without the lock in and high taxes that Apple requires. imagine an app store that was curated more carefully, where every app was hand tested and with a guarantee of safety that Apple has not provided. a subscription manager with even better UI, lower fees, etc. a payment processor that offered better terms than Apple does.
but we cannot have these until the lock in is removed
It's really not as scary as you think it is.
Whenever I want a subscription I want inside an app, I actually take the effort to go to their website and buy it from them directly, because it's cheaper (not that they're allowed to tell me this in their app though).
When I want to stop paying for the subscription, I cancel it and I'm done. At least in the EU, this is always an easy thing to do.
Except implementing the functionality to optionally open up your device to the world inherently makes it less secure. I now have no ability to purchase the phone that I want. It's actually decreasing consumer choice.
I'm sure you won't have to worry.
If apple is incompetent and makes it less secure, I'm sure they'll fix it.
Are there any versions of iOS without jailbreak exploits in them? The security was always theatre.
I think all recent iOS versions have no public jailbreak exploits.
You're free to keep your own device locked down yourself and to only use Apple's own app store if you want.
Until your employer or government requires a side-loaded app for you to do something that you need to do.
Your employer can already require you install an app that isn’t from the App Store, through the enterprise developer program.
Or you end up with companies (like Wal-mart) that decide that they don’t want to accept Apple Pay and become payment processors themselves, requiring you to install their app to do phone/watch payments. Congrats, you now need a whole boquet of payment apps and we’re back to it being easier to use physical credit cards. For some of these things, the consolidation was the whole point.
Since Walmart keeps popping up in other comments, I'll do devil's advocate using the exact same argument other people used:
If you don't want to buy on Walmart and their custom payment system, then just go to a competitor.
With that said: this is an unrealistic scenario. Walmart doesn't pay the famous 30% to ApplePay, only a regular CC-like fee (probably less). Also, physically they can just accept contact payments where they don't interact with Apple but it still works with the iPhone wallet. Online, they can just use credit cards instead of ApplePay, which iPhones have autofill for, and probably not lose much.
That only works if competitors aren’t doing the same exact thing.
There’s also situations where you don’t have a choice. In many parts of the US the only reasonably accessible store (and sometimes grocery store) is a Walmart.
HN's time-honored scapegoat. "Corporations can't be trusted - that's why I trust Apple to fight them" is a ridiculous pretense to support consolidation. If Apple uses their de-facto position of privilege to demand people use their products as a solution, then they have become the problem. The exact same problem as Wal-mart insisting you download their wallet app.
There is a real solution to this, where we codify our social limits through legislation and open standards to prevent these horrible "leopards ate my face" scenarios that everyone seems to hate so much. Or we could keep trusting Apple, and see how many F1 advertisements that nets us in the long-run.
Legislation would be better, no question. Have you seen US politics, though? Not just lately, but for the past couple of decades. Electing knowledgable politicians who are willing to stay properly abreast of technology and work for the interests of their constituents is nigh impossible.
The ones that get into office are most often out of touch and in someone’s pocket because they grandstand on polarizing topics that information-deficient and single-issue voters flock to. I try to vote for candidates who I think will do good that way, and it makes some impact on the micro scale, but on the national scale it’s like trying to drain the Pacific Ocean with a thimble.
Conversely, we can _not_ open up our bootloaders in Android because banking apps then refuse to run on an "insecure" OS. Of course we'd have to put aside the fact that our computers can access the same banking features through a web browser.
If they have to make changes in software to allow an "unlocked" device that makes it inherently less secure.
Exactly. Jailbreaking is WAI for the folks who want the “Android experience” on an iPhone. Much of this drama is merely corporations vying to “get theirs” from the ecosystem, without understanding that the extant nature of the ecosystem is why it is the most valuable platform by user spend (that is to say, they care little for the consumer).
Shouting "monopoly" from the rooftops is not enough to affect real change. If I wish not to pay property taxes, my options include moving to another state, but courts do not recognize a general right to challenge tax liability on the grounds of personal preference or disagreement with taxation. Perhaps it's worth sparing a thought as to why, and who ultimately empowered that stance.
Plus, this is often the “if I can’t have it no one can” line of thought, sometimes from companies engaging in anticompetitive practices themselves (like Epic Games).
Edit:
WAI stands for working as intended
I'm all for corporations "trying to get theirs" if it benefits the rest of society.
iPhones are a premium product and they don't have a natural right to 30% of transactions going through it if the participants don't want Apple to know about it.
> It’s the “if I can’t have it no one can” line of thought
That describes what you and _benton are advocating. "If I can't have the phone be the way I want, no one can".
That's exactly backwards. I have no desire to limit the types of phones you can purchase, and you have an enormous amount of choices in phones outside Apple that provide essentially the same functionality, and can be as open as you wish. You wish to limit my ability to access a device that I want. I want a locked down phone, and third parties wish to intervene on a transaction between me and Apple so they can illegitimately get a piece of the pie.
How about people who want a Mac (which is still "open" to the extent that it makes a difference), and therefore would also like an iPhone because of the propitiatory APIs Apple makes available solely to the iPhone?
I don't particularly like my iPhone, in fact I see as a worse device in many ways to my old Android phone, but the interoperability with my Mac makes the trade-off worth it. So ironically, the only reason I want it is because of even _more_ anticompetitive practices.
And yes, the day the Mac is as closed off as the iPhone, there will be zero Apple devices in this house.
Same. Considering the Mac is my work device, it's not even out of principle but purely because it would be a useless brick.
> You wish to limit my ability to access a device that I want. I want a locked down phone
As others have repeatedly said, you can still opt to not use any other kind of app from outside the AppStore.
But as I asked on another thread, as a thought experiment: What about we meet in the middle and governments force Apple to only "open" 50% of the phones, for the same price. Would that satisfy you?
> third parties wish to intervene on a transaction between me and Apple so they can illegitimately get a piece of the pie.
It's actually Apple that wants to intervene in transactions where I don't want them to be a part of. I don't want to pay 10 euros and give 3 to them.
Never seen WAI before, all I can come up with is Works As Intended or Web Accessibility Initiative?
Anyways- jail breaking requires being or remaining on certain iOS versions on certain specific hardware models. You can’t “just jailbreak” your apple device that you daily drive/use regularly. If you’re not on an old version on the right hardware already, you’re fucked. And waiting for a new jailbreak exploit is a (anecdotally, for me at least) nondeterministic amount of time on the order of O(years), with a significant probability that it will not be relevant for whatever device you’re waiting on.
That's not how choice works.
Same here. I don’t want to hack around with my phone like I do my computer. I want it to just work and be as feee as possible from malware etc. Other considerations are a distant second.
Controversial maybe, but we have to suffer through this exact same incredibly odd opinion in every thread that makes contact with this issue. No one is asking you to leave your walled garden.
every developer knows safari is the new ie6 but we all just shrug and build native apps anyway because what else are you gonna do. leave 50% of your users on the table. classic embrace extend extinguish but in reverse. embrace web standards then purposely not extend them so you can extinguish competition
> every developer knows safari is the new ie6
Every colleague in my company only targets and tests against Chrome because they honestly considers _everything_ and anything Chrome does as the standard.
As a FF user it hurts me because even if Apple and Mozilla has implemented some feature according to spec these people ignore that in favour of the Chrome way of doing things.
Calling Safari the new ie6 is ignorant of reality.
Chrome is the new IE6 if anything. Tons of websites fail to work on safari.
IE6 was stagnant and not standards compliant. Safari at least complies with standards. Chrome is the polar opposite of IE6. Turns out it doesn't really matter what you do, if one party controls too much of any market it's bad news for end users one way or another.
That’s not exactly accurate as standards for new web technologies didn’t exist back when IE6 was dominant. The WHATWG had to be founded and the standards made post facto before IE6 was non-compliant.
Different eras. The "IE6" here is the IE6 in 2009 that stubbornly refused to die.
Maybe because Safari isnt funded by Apple, and would rather pump that money into extracting rent from App Store?
The few engineers that Safari has are top-top notch, but they wouldnt let them grow the teams and would much rather drag their feet.
Is that so? I develop primarily in Safari and don't have too many complaints.
I also use Safari as my main browser on the Mac. However, for YouTube and dev I go with Chrome atm.
Lots of explicitly anti freedom takes here, not surprising for HN I guess
What remedies is proton mail seeking exactly?
last few pages: https://res.cloudinary.com/dbulfrlrz/images/v1751299117/wp-p...
REQUESTED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
To remedy Apple’s unlawful unreasonable restraints of trade, monopolization, attemptedmonopolization, and unfair competition, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter injunctive relief,including but not limited to the following:
(a) Enjoin Apple from conditioning any payment, revenue share, or access toany Apple product or service on an agreement by an app developer to launch an app first orexclusively on the Apple App Store;
(b) Enjoin Apple from conditioning any payment, revenue share, or access toany Apple product or service on an agreement by an app developer not to launch a version of theapp with enhanced or differentiated features on a third-party iOS app distribution platform orstore;
(c) Enjoin Apple from conditioning any payment, revenue share, or access toany Apple product or service on an agreement with an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)or carrier not to preinstall an iOS app distribution platform or store other than the Apple AppStore;
(d) Require Apple to provide rival iOS app stores with access to the App Storecatalog to ensure interoperability and to facilitate consumer choice;
(e) Require Apple to permit the distribution of rival iOS app stores through theApple App Store on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms;
(f) Enjoin Apple from requiring developers to use Apple’s IAP system as acondition of offering subscriptions, digital goods, or other IAPs;
(g) Require that third-party application developers be given functionality andaccess to iOS application programming interfaces on terms no worse than the terms Apple allowsfor its first-party applications;
(h) Require Apple to allow developers to fully disable Apple’s IAP system;
...
among other things
Apple and Proton are two companies that I personally like, but the claim that the internet descended into surveillance capitalism because of the walled garden approach of the App Store is an argument in bad faith. Even if Apple allowed other app stores or payment methods, that would not have stopped Facebook and Google from capitalizing on user data to sell ads and manipulate public opinion. They would give their product away for free and spy on their users anyway.
I never really understood the monopolistic argument against Apple. In the first place, there are very clear legal criteria that define what a monopoly is and what anti-competitive behaviors are, and it’s not even the case that majority of the world runs on iOS. It is actually Android that is the most popular OS globally by a wide margin, though the split is somewhat equal in the US.
But the core of my contention is that: if you make the platform that others run on and which creates entirely new economies and allows businesses to thrive, don’t you get to define the constraints that you want since it’s _your_ platform? What’s effectively happening here is that companies are using the courts to force the design of OSes in a certain way: That only open OSes can ever be made, not closed ones.
Note that the businesses who are lobbying against Apple are operating on the very same capitalist, profit-optimizing interests that drove Apple to choose a walled-garden approach. They are not doing this to make the world a better place, and the vast majority of smartphone users do not even care about this “issue”.
> But the core of my contention is that: if you make the platform that others run on and which creates entirely new economies and allows businesses to thrive, don’t you get to define the constraints that you want since it’s _your_ platform? What’s effectively happening here is that companies are using the courts to force the design of OSes in a certain way: That only open OSes can ever be made, not closed ones.
Huh, the __user__ paid for the product, so they own it. After the user handed over their money, Apple has nothing to say about who I do business with on that product, or what the conditions are.
You can say "platform" as much as you like, but that's just Apple's way of forcing their way into the argument.
Someone has to make the platform. If they want recognition for that or compensation, maybe they should apply for government funding. Don't bother the consumer with it.
And if you don't like a government regulating a market, then you haven't seen a company regulate one.
> Huh, the __user__ paid for the product, so they own it. After the user handed over their money, Apple has nothing to say about who I do business with on that product, or what the conditions are.
But this is already the case. You own the device, you can do whatever you want with it (legally ofc). If I buy a fridge without a freezer, the fact that I can't freeze food with it doesn't mean I don't own the fridge.
Furthermore I don't appreciate other companies using the legal system to profit by forcing Apple to design their products in a specific way.
If you pay for a product and it is tied to a vendor, then you should be able to completely break all ties with that vendor and switch to a different service provider, and still be able to use the product as advertised.
Otherwise you don't own the product.
This basic premise doesn't hold for Apple products.
And by the way, I think consumer rights are more important than rights of companies to do whatever they want.
[flagged]
> Aww, does it hurt when your favorite multi-trillion dollar company is taken to court?
Please don't sneer or mock like this on HN. It's not what HN is for and it destroys what it is for. Please read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them in future.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It does hurt when I can no longer purchase a product that I want because other corporations wish to use the legal system to make more money, yes.
[flagged]
This is a needlessly escalatory and inflammatory comment, and not the kind of comment that's welcome on HN. It's fine to disagree and counter someone else's comment, but not by breaking the guidelines like this.
This seems like a bad faith argument. But if you're being serious, I can buy non-nike shoes in the same way you can buy non-Apple phones. If anything, the people complaining about Apple would be upset by the lawsuit because they want to buy an iPhone despite other options being available. And in that case, the alternatives are cheaper not more expensive in the case of ethically made shoes.
When the analogy obscures more than it reveals, it ceases to be a reasoning aid, and becomes a red herring.
The user can hack the product, install a different OS, Strike it with a hammer, or throw it away. Apple hasn't violated their rights in any way. Sure hacking it or installing a different OS are hard but rights are not meant to guarantee something is easy. I never bought the argument that user rights should dictate how a product hardware or software should be manufactured.
> I never bought the argument that user rights should dictate how a product hardware or software should be manufactured
Probably you meant it differently, but guaranties and warranties exist exactly due to this. Users have right to expect their device performs as advertised and in a reasonable manner.
I think those are more about ensuring that the user is buying what they think they are buying. They don't dictate exactly what is sold they merely offer protection to the user that what they bought is what was on the tin.
In some philosophical views, rights are meant to guarantee that things are easy. You can see that exact dynamic play out in US states regarding voter ID laws.
Perhaps, but I disagree with those views.
> I never bought the argument that user rights should dictate how a product hardware or software should be manufactured.
How do you feel about user rights (of wheelchair users) dictating how a product hardware (such as public property and public and private spaces and structures open to the general public) should be manufactured (to include wheelchair ramps and and other amenities such as elevators and accessible restrooms)?
> But the core of my contention is that: if you make the platform that others run on and which creates entirely new economies and allows businesses to thrive, don’t you get to define the constraints that you want since it’s _your_ platform?
This question has already been asked to the United States Court of Appeals, and the answer was "no"[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
It's only no in certain instances. Try and apply that ruling to Brother or Ford or in fact, MS itself.
When your platform becomes a dominant market it becomes a market and markets are regulated to prevent market abuse, this is what's happening now.
And while Facebook and Google would still be hoarding data, there are a huge amount of games and apps I'd rather pay 5 for that are now ad-fueled invasive crapps and "pay to remove ads" costs 15 instead of 5.
When a significant percentage of the population uses your products and services, expect regulators to prevent you from abusing that significant group.
The capitalism idea that "markets solve all issues" only works when it's regulated so market players play on even-ish odds and the players don't have control of the market. (And even then it doesn't seem to work for public utilities really).
The naive idea that "Apple makes the product let them decide" would fly well for a device with millions of units, but billions is 1000x more and it comes with responsibility, sometimes the responsibility comes late because regulators are slow bureaucrats.
"With power comes responsibility" used to be a thing, now it's "With power responsibility might knock on your doorstep eventually if you abuse it to an extreme level like imposing a third of all REVENUE transacted through their forced store"
Companies should not be regulated just because they are successful. Apple built a really successful app platform. It's theirs to maintain or burn to the ground.
I didn't double check this, but according to a quick search 60% of the adult US population owns an iPhone, you're saying that even though you're operating where more than 50% of your target market has your products you should not be held accountable for predatory behavior?
The thing with this 30% tax the private company Apple imposes on a majority of US adults is reasonable?
When you're "competing" with the government (30% tax sounds pretty government like to a Swede, we have 25% VAT) the government will get involved because you're operating a "shadow government" eventually (you set all the rules and set the tax rate, you're now a government).
Supporting Apple here is unreasonable, sure they should be able to take a margin on the app store, but not allowing other stores OR allowing external payment methods to be advertised is definitely predatory behavior and the government already has a monopoly on that.
And the "core fee" response was entirely unreasonable, it is unreasonably expensive. If Apple were operating like Sony on the Playstation where the console is a loss leader for much of it's lifetime then you ofc deserve a cut from developers since you enable them to build profitable games for your platform which markets the game for you and stuff. But Apple makes a profit of iPhones, they make a profit on iCloud, they make profit on App Store... They make a profit everywhere. It's predatory and I don't know how to agree with them here.
>held accountable for predatory behavior?
Apple is held accountable by people choosing not to use their device. If iPhone is too expensive for the value it provides people won't use them.
>The thing with this 30% tax the private company Apple imposes on a majority of US adults is reasonable?
By this logic grocery stores have been applying a 30+% tax to all of America since the country was founded.
>but not allowing other stores OR allowing external payment methods to be advertised is definitely predatory behavior
Again comparing to a grocery store I think it is fair for them to prohibit unauthorized sellers to sell within their premises. This is a standard because it can undermine the business model of the business.
>But Apple makes a profit of iPhones, they make a profit on iCloud, they make profit on App Store... They make a profit everywhere.
And that's why Apple is worth 3 trillion and Sony isn't. Apple has created a successful business with large profit margins that people are willing to pay. It's not predatory if people are willing to pay for it.
It might not seem predatory to the end user, but to all developers who want to access these people it's another thing. They can't deliver a mobile app to 60% of Americans without going through Apples little LARP government where they set the tax to 30% and arbitrary rules they see fit to increase their profits.
And in the end that affects the end users because more things become useless adfilled crap because it's more profitable, and everything is more expensive.
I don't even get how you're comparing grocery stores (which do NOT have a 30% profit, maybe 4-6) to Apple passively making 30% off anyone who wants access to "modern day people". Grocery stores don't scale like virtual markets, when you buy something you cost the store money, when i buy whatever through App Store it costs Apple virtually nothing and they make 30% because they like it.
Obviously regulators seem to agree with me and at the end of the day they make the rules, and I agree with the regulators in this case and I don't think many people think what Apple is doing is good and appreciate it. People are forced into the iOS ecosystem because that's what everyone uses in some profitable parts of the world too.
Apple has no choice, now. Their shareholders demand one thing - squeeze money from an audience with no alternative.
If the iPhone's App Store has competition, equivalent to how MacOS already works in America, then Apple has to choose between maintenance or abandonment. In the status quo, Apple is enabled to neglect their platform and users while almost singularly harming developers.
> But the core of my contention is that: if you make the platform that others run on and which creates entirely new economies and allows businesses to thrive, don’t you get to define the constraints that you want since it’s _your_ platform?
Not if you effectively have a monopoly. If there were plenty of (relevant) other app stores, Apple wouldn't be able to tax 30% on every app. The only reason they can is that developers don't have a choice: there are far too many Apple users to ignore, and the only way to sell them an app is through the Apple Store.
I find the platform should be separate from the device. Google Play is a platform, but the device can run whatever. iPhones, the platform is the device, unnecessarily.
> if you make the platform that others run on and which creates entirely new economies and allows businesses to thrive, don’t you get to define the constraints that you want since it’s _your_ platform?
Intuitively, this feels right to me, but I think that in this case my intuition fails, because I think of this "right" from the perspective of a person. "They made that thing, it's theirs, they have the right to decide what to do with it."
I don't think the same right applies to a company, though. Especially one so big that it has a significant impact on society, and so big that it's entirely driven by the incentives of capitalism (and not, for example, by a founder's ideals).
In this context I see companies as amoral automata whose only goal is maximizing profits, regardless of the wider consequences of their actions. This seems to produce very good results for the societies in which these companies operate, but it also comes with some side effects. By putting constraints on what companies can do, we can reap most of the benefits and avoid most of the side effects.
</couch-economist>
> the claim that the internet descended into surveillance capitalism because of the walled garden approach of the App Store
I did not read this claim. I read the claim that Apple's approach unevenly benefits companies that engage in surveillance capitalism. No one's ad revenue, for instance, must pay a 30% cut of their revenue.
You are making an argument (and then arguing against it) that Proton did not make, as far as I can read.
> if you make the platform that others run on and which creates entirely new economies and allows businesses to thrive, don’t you get to define the constraints that you want since it’s _your_ platform?
I don't think you do. We constrain what companies are permitted to do all the time. Apple must abide by regulatory constraints first, and then they can add the additional constraints they like.
A simple test -- could Apple say, "Everyone is allowed to use Messages, except Hindus"? It's their platform, don't you get to define the constraints because it's your platform? No, we've collectively decided that kicking some people out based on certain characteristics is generally bad.
Yes, the advertising industry seems like it’s the more relevant institution in this particular case. Apple’s culpability has mostly to do with doing nothing to mitigate the runaway race to the bottom in during the App Store’s earliest days, but that would've happened even if they hadn’t taken the walled garden approach. Surveillance capitalism is the inevitable end state where on the web and in apps, ads are the most readily accessible, consistent, and sometimes lucrative form of monetization.
> Note that the businesses who are lobbying against Apple are operating on the very same capitalist, profit-optimizing interests that drove Apple to choose a walled-garden approach. They are not doing this to make the world a better place, and the vast majority of smartphone users do not even care about this “issue”.
They’re all blatantly self-interested, but Spotify is perhaps the biggest hypocrite among them. They’re continuously bolstering their dominance in the streaming music space at the cost of both users and artists, and when Apple gives them features they’ve asked for they refuse to use them because that’d weaken their case. They only care because if it weren’t for Apple Music they’d for all practical purposes have a monopoly.
Mozilla should join it too, Apple banned Firefox in iOS for decades.
[dead]
Can we have links to the actual class action? Case number?
It is linked at the bottom of the article.
https://res.cloudinary.com/dbulfrlrz/images/v1751299117/wp-p...
Oh thank you, I totally missed it. Hyperlinking sentences or the nouns or phrases themselves seems to have mostly gone out of style in these sorts of posts these days.
I was curious about the suit by proton because I'm a user until I read authoritarian this democracy that . Proton wants us to believe that corporations should be above nation states and national interests. If country X deems a certain App as a security risk, it is not the work of apple or some vague state department funded organization to protest .
Living in the US, I trust Apple with securing my communications (I don't have high security needs). I don't exactly trust third party developers. So, three no need for me to use something outside of Apple's apps, unless its something that don't provide. If these apps could prove they were better, id consider them, but all these lawsuits just sound like inferior products trying to force themselves onto a platform they should be on.
> We believe that Apple’s conduct, as detailed in the complaint we filed, constitutes further violations of US antitrust law.
It's not a question of what you like, it's a question of antitrust laws. You can disagree with them of course, but it is their right to sue Apple if they think Apple is breaking laws.
This is exactly what it is. They're trying to force Apple to design an inferior (imo) product so they can make more money.
But isnt Apple forcing an inferior product (Subscriptions API) to make more money themselves (and serving copious amounts of kool-aid for people to drink up?).
Lets be honest here - Netflix, Spotify et al are perfectly capable of running their on subscription business. They dont NEED Apple's crappy payment provider, and yet are forced to use it.
As a user you should be enraged, but here we are.
[flagged]
Isnt that how the system is supposed to work, unless you think Apple would be always benevolent? I think HNers make a mistake (and believe Apple's marketing) that Apple always stands for users, cares about design, pushing the boundary, "think different" etc.
It is painfully obvious, but Apple's singular goal is to make money (profit for shareholders) and THAT IS A GOOD THING. They'll cut corners, test the boundaries in pursuit of that, and sometimes cross over it.
Suing them is the right way to fix those behaviors.
>Suing them is the right way to fix those behaviors.
Is it really though?
It requires money. Regular people can't to this.
How many spare billions you have for a lawsuit against trillion dollar companies
I agree with you that companies are profit-maximising machines. And regulations set the framework into which companies can optimise.
The problem we have with quasi-monopolies is that they have too much power and don't have to care about regulations.
> Suing them is the right way to fix those behaviors.
The problem is that it doesn't work. I am still waiting for Apple or one of the other TooBigTech to get a fine that really, actually hurts. But nobody will do that: the US like monopolies (as long as they are US companies of course) and others (like the EU) don't dare regulating US companies because... well because the US governement won't accept it.
And what if you lose? Or your lawsuit has no real impact?
Different countries have different laws.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Even if this were true it doesn't change their argument.
This is simply not true. I've just checked
Paid sub for year and years.
I have no banner or any advertising, at all.
Untrue.
I don't see anything of the sort.
What is the logic behind everyone wanting Apple to be champion of democracy in authoritarian countries?
In this case they don't seem to be wanting it AT ALL:
"We don’t question Apple’s right to act on behalf of authoritarians for the sake of profit, but Apple’s monopoly over iOS app distribution means it can enforce this perverse policy on all app developers, forcing them to also be complicit"
Ideally we want all companies to be champions again authoritarianism, surely?
> Earlier today, Proton filed court papers in the US District Court for the Northern District of California to join an existing class-action lawsuit against Apple. Proton is a plaintiff in the case, but we are representing and suing on behalf of a class of similarly situated developers. Challenging one of the most powerful corporations in the history of capitalism is not a decision we make lightly, but Proton has long championed online freedom, privacy, and security, and we believe this action is necessary to ensure the internet of the future lives up to its potential.
Challenging one of the most powerful corporations in history, god I feel so much safer already. Sounds like PR campaign speak. I trust Proton as much as I trust Microsoft.
Are you seriously suggesting that Apple is too big to fail/be questioned/be scrutinized, or worse - can do no wrong?
Apple can do anything it wants with its software. Just as any person decides who comes into his house, a corporation decides on what terms others can use its software.
The law disagrees with your opinion. And that's a good thing.
Can a person cut your leg off in his house as part of "terms of service"?
If I buy it and fully own it, I should be able to do anything I want with it.
I totally agree and this has always been my problem with the iPad. It’s a great peace of hardware that to this day I can’t fully use for development. I have to resort to _crappy_ solutions like running a VM with code-server and SSH in order to do some work on a device perfectly capable of running stuff on its own, but walled off.
I detest Apple and would happily switch to a timeline where they never existed.
That said, I do not think this is the way to fight them. Just do not make apps for iPhone, or pass the 30% Apple tax to the Apple fanboys. They enjoy being submissive to walled garden overlords and paying for the privilege, so give them what they want.
These are perfectly valid options. Create value for more open ecosystems if you want to hurt the closed ones.
There is a lot I hate about building apps and releasing them on the App Store, and I'd be happy for there to be alternatives. But that said, I don't understand how its a monopoly. There is no requirement to build an app for iOS devices. There are other devices and means for software delivery out there. What makes their control of their own ecosystem monopolistic? As someone who has paid the apple tax for digital sales, it sucks but I'm also choosing to try to capture that market and that's the cost of doing business.
I'm not smart enough to get into the politics of other parts of the world, but just because the EU found something illegal doesn't mean its the basis of a good lawsuit under the US rules. Will be interesting to see how this unfolds.
Monopoly effects can be cascading.
Microsoft was hit with monopoly on browser even though you can install anything or go buy a Mac.
But when you control a huge portion of the PC market, and you put it in by default, you are cascading your monopolistic benefits down to installed software.
Apple does not have complete domination of smartphone across all demographics, but they do have domination in many segments.
For example, it is estimated that around 88% of teenagers have iPhones. Apple makes it very hard to leave their ecosystem because of iMessage, Facetime, and ALL of your digital purchases being tied to their ecosystem. So, what happens when all those teens grow up? Do we really think they will leave Apple ecosystem?
What cascades from that is a long term digital domination strategy, and when you have that only one digital store option, now you have a monopoly argument.
Not at all comparable. Windows had 90%+ of the PC market. Mac was 2-3%.
Apple has about half the phone OS market, with Android the other half.
Maybe in US (which is about 4% of world population). Worldwide, iOS is around 27% [1].
[1] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide
Their ecosystem is your phone. As long as you cannot install anything on your phone without going through their app store, it's a monopoly
If you define the scope narrow enough, everything is a monopoly.
- You don't need to have an iPhone
- You agree to the letter of the ToS when you click "I Agree" when you set up the iPhone,
- You also already agree to the spirit of the App Store when you buy it. After all, it's not some big secret
- You can get by with webapps for the most part anyway
- You can buy an Android, a flip phone, or pull a power move and have no phone
Buying an iPhone and then demanding that it has to work differently is acting in bad faith IMO.
> Buying an iPhone and then demanding that it has to work
Buying something used to mean something. If you're still beholden by company rules of a product you _bought_, you have been leasing/renting it.
If I buy a house from a builder, and it came with a requirement that you can only use Amazon Ring cameras, or builder-approved groceries - you'd be pretty pissed.
That's not a valid analogy. There isn't a "requirement" that you only use vanilla Apple software on an iPhone. More accurate would be that the house is set up for ring cameras and the builder doesn't support implementing any other type of camera system.
The house is set up for ring cameras and makes it either impossible or painful to use anything else. Not because of technical limitations, but in order to steer you away from competitors. Building something with it working in a particular way is fine, but building it in a particular way _in order_ for it not to work with competitors hurts everyone. I get the argument it's just because it makes their products work better, and call bullshit.
Then why not buy one of the multitude of houses that exist with alternative and open camera systems, that are also cheaper and more ubiquitous?
No, I just wouldn't buy that house.
But you're right, maybe we should invent a new word for a purchase that is encumbered by legal agreements or subscriptions.
i see you’ve never purchased a condo or lived within an HOA community.
Furthermore, in the US (and some other countries), you don’t _actually_ own a house or it’s land. you own the rights to that house (a deed) as long as you continue paying your property taxes. see what happens when you stop paying uncle sam… it’s kind of like a subscription lol.
Civilization-as-a-service
The problem is that app developers can't ignore iOS because the market is too big. Therefore Apple can do whatever they want and developer have to accept their condition.
As a developer, there is no choice. Apple should not be able to abuse their dominant position.
The problem with this is in the very definition of what it means to be an "app" developer. You say "app" and most people immediately understand you mean the iPhone or Android kind, with all that entails.
These companies have been dominating the landscape for decades now, most likely for longer than most app developers have been app developers. As a developer, there's definitely a choice: don't make an iPhone app; don't make an app at all. Make something else.
If you say you want access to the walled garden because that's where the people are, then consider that they are in there because they like the walls. From this point of view, you don't have a right to demand that the walled garden have free entrance.
> From this point of view, you don't have a right to demand that the walled garden have free entrance.
there are other points of view, including one that monopolies should be illegal
> - You agree to the letter of the ToS when you click "I Agree" when you set up the iPhone,
I reject that argument.
For start ToS may have unenforceable claims (if someone puts that I agree to give all things I own to them into ToS it has zero effect).
Also, at this point I dispute that ToS clickery should be treated as agreeing to them. "I have read and agree with ToS" is a blatant lie in at least in the first half.
> But that said, I don't understand how its a monopoly.
Because you've redefined the market.
Which part of this article quote don't you understand?
> but Apple’s monopoly over iOS app distribution means
> There is no requirement to build an app for iOS devices.
Either this is bad faith, or you are uninformed.
> that's the cost of doing business.
All the question is there. Is that the cost of doing business, or is Apple abusing their dominant position?
Apple also blocks any web browser on their mobile devices except their web browser. Chrome, Firefox, and any other browser on IOS is using Safari under the hood.
Now why would Apple do this? Because they have hobbled Safari so that it does not have modern web APIs which would allow web developers to create web-apps that use APIs that are only allowed on App-store apps on IOS devices.
This forces developers to either make an app for the App-store, or don't have any IOS users.
This is one of many reasons Apple is being sued by the DOJ - because they won't allow any other browser engines on IOS, at least not in the US, the EU slapped them on the wrist and now it's allowed there.
Safari is the current worst web browser in terms of features and bugs, and Apple wants to keep it this way for no better reason but greed. They want to push people to make App-store apps, which they can extract 30% revenue from.
That is anti-competitive, and monopolistic behavior.
Yeah I hadn't thought about the browser being intentionally bad to push actual apps. That's been the reason for about half of the apps that I've made. The next is also somewhat anti-competitive, and its how bad the web services notifications are compared to the app-based notifications.
If tomorrow, Tesla insisted that their cars will only accepted Tesla branded tires, would you be ok with it?
Sure it's their car and they can do whatever they want with it, but consumers are losing choices - which is what anti-monopoly rules are for. Say, Michelin or Pirelli tires are strictly better but Tesla doing this harms consumer choice and that's why it is bad.
Imagine if this were extended to Tesla branded chargers. Or Tesla branded paint. It's your damn car so you should be allowed to do whatever you want with it.
If this happened tomorrow, you'd have every right to be outraged.
But if someone then bought a Tesla the day after, they'd have far less right to be outraged.
And if the new tires & paint were integral to fundamental value-add of the car (the analogy breaks down here), then there's just zero grounds for it.
A better analogy might be:
if tesla mandated tesla-only tires since day one (2012?), and they claimed it’s a perk/feature of the car, AND i bought the car anyway. Did i as a consumer not sign up for that?? There is more than 1 car manufacture after all.
None of the ios consumers are hoodwinked and apple offers free returns within 2 week in the US. The locked-down app store has been apples way since (almost) day one. Consumers voted with their wallets to not buy an android phone. I think that’s the difference?
IF android didn’t exist it wound be a different story, and it would also be a missing opportunity in the phone market.
They don't sell parts to shops, so effectively they have a lock on repairs.
> There is no requirement to build an app for iOS devices
By this logic, there is also no requirement for one to eat and breathe, anyone can simply stop. The problem is the consequences.
Building an iOS app is requirement if you want to provide lots of services and compete on lots of market. The mobile phone OS landscape has become a duopoly, and society is free to impose certain obligations on those companies.