Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I'm glad to see Apple opening up their walled garden, even if it is by force. That being said, no way in hell am I downloading any software to my iPhone from outside the App Store...
 
Lower selling costs brought on by more app access competition could lower prices for some users and/or create other benefits to customers (developers and users). When Spotify premium subscriptions were offered through the App Store, they were available at a lower price through Spotify's website. Therefore, if new app access competition (sideloading, alternative app stores) pushed Apple to lower commissions it could in fact mean a lower price for users choosing to subscribe through the App Store.
Every other subscription app will just absorb any cost savings into revenue/profit. User will get jack $$$$$
 
It has worked like that on Mac since forever and it has been just fine.
What are your benchmarks for saying it has worked "just fine" I wonder? I look at the number of people who download apps on the App Store vs apps for Mac. I also look at the older people in my life that have NEVER downloaded an app on their Mac computer but routinely download apps on their iPhone. If you are limiting your scope to just not-old tech-ish people than there are probably a lot of similarities that would make it much less of an issue. However, the demographics of who use an iPhone don't match that pattern and the comment you are dismissing has a lot more merit than you are giving it credit for. It also might be a little heavy on the "sky is falling" but likely just to make a point. Still, you went hard the other way and dismissed the large chunk of iOS users in the process.
 
When Spotify premium subscriptions were offered through the App Store, they were available at a lower price through Spotify's website. Therefore, if new app access competition (sideloading, alternative app stores) pushed Apple to lower commissions it could in fact mean a lower price for users choosing to subscribe through the App Store.
Spotify's use of IAP in the App Store was the exception and not the rule. That only happened for two years. The other 13 years involved iOS subscribers using Spotify's web site to pay. So $9.99 with zero commission for Apple was really the standard for Spotify on iOS. It's always been a poor example when it comes to pricing.
 
And, solidifying Apple’s marketshare in the EU. :) Fortunately for Apple, their growing share of the EU market is set to get even larger. Is this what they meant by increasing competition?
I've been an Android user for many years, in part because I like the openness of the platform. By no means would I say that this change alone would tempt me back to iOS but it's one less tick in the 'cons' list. Sounds like competition working well to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victor Mortimer
Why doesn’t the core technology apply to MacOS? I mean if it’s right and proper why only apply it to iOS?
 
  • Wow
Reactions: freedomlinux
sounds like a massive fail for the user experience

"hey you want our app?"

"yeah but I don't see it on the App Store"

"nah you gotta go to the website and download because we want more money"

"terrible"

"oh and type it correctly or else you might go to a scam site"

this is so stupid
So basically you’re saying people are too stupid to use Google.

Get over it. Third party stores are happening.
 
Few things like this are ever "100 percent" but allowing sideloading and alternative app stores opens the door for more app access competition in a major segment (iOS) of the mobile OS market.
On somebody else’s dime. Competition by government regulation as I’ve said repeatedly…..
In what way do you feel the DMA gives Google more power in search?
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Victor Mortimer
Can we have the same on the Mac ? Please Apple !! I mean restricting macOS app downloads from the web of course. That would be a huge progress to be able to do less.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Victor Mortimer
What are your benchmarks for saying it has worked "just fine" I wonder? I look at the number of people who download apps on the App Store vs apps for Mac. I also look at the older people in my life that have NEVER downloaded an app on their Mac computer but routinely download apps on their iPhone. If you are limiting your scope to just not-old tech-ish people than there are probably a lot of similarities that would make it much less of an issue. However, the demographics of who use an iPhone don't match that pattern and the comment you are dismissing has a lot more merit than you are giving it credit for. It also might be a little heavy on the "sky is falling" but likely just to make a point. Still, you went hard the other way and dismissed the large chunk of iOS users in the process.
These people don’t think they are arguing that since it was like this at the dawn of computing and subsequently internet then it has to be just fine now. Let’s ignore the fact that the landscape is very different now (decades Later). The most accessible and readily available device for most people is a phone and to say that it was fine ( by the way it wasn’t, I was there) 3 decades ago and that’s how we did things back then and that’s why it will be the same today is ignorance in its purest form.
 
You didn't read the article did you. Shame on you spreading FUD.
It's not FUD. I did read it. The fact that Apple is notarizing the apps is not going to prevent malware on third-party sites. On the contrary, it's going to be a lot easier to spread. You gotta think outside the box.
Perhaps you forgot to read this article:

Regardless, a fake website could setup a point of "sale front", and even if the process fails, gather credit cards and personal information form those who are less alert.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Victor Mortimer
It's not FUD. I did read it. The fact that Apple is notarizing the apps is not going to prevent malware on third-party sites. On the contrary, it's going to be a lot easier to spread. You gotta think outside the box.
Perhaps you forgot to read this article:

Regardless, a fake website could setup a point of "sale front", and even if the process fails, gather credit cards and personal information form those who are less alert.

So you think a malware company can keep their Developer account in good standing for at least two years, and get at least a million installs in the EU on the app store - before launching their malicious app on their website. I don't think you are serious.
 
sounds like a massive fail for the user experience

"hey you want our app?"

"yeah but I don't see it on the App Store"

"nah you gotta go to the website and download because we want more money"

"terrible"

"oh and type it correctly or else you might go to a scam site"

this is so stupid
Have you heard of a Mac or windows PC? Literally the same process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victor Mortimer
People will downvote you but the reality for most users is anything that isn't nearly automatic will cause most people to freeze and not take the extra step to complete. I see this day in and out for 1000's of users for the most simplest of tasks. Anyone posting here does not understand the success of the app store is in this simplicity.
Ever heard of windows? Doing just fine and has this exact process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victor Mortimer
Every other subscription app will just absorb any cost savings into revenue/profit. User will get jack $$$$$

Maybe, maybe not. Competition will push Apple and other potential stores to compete for users in a major and lucrative segment (iOS) of the mobile OS market that had been closed to app access competition. This competition can lead to lower costs, lower prices, or other things to attract/keep customers (developers and users).
 
So you think a malware company can keep their Developer account in good standing for at least two years, and get at least a million installs in the EU on the app store - before launching their malicious app on their website. I don't think you are serious.
2 years + 1000000 downloads should mean that dev exists long enough and the app is popular enough and most likely monetised to be profitable so in that case dev can offer it from the website. If there is no qualification I imagine scammers are going to have a field day from the start. Wouldn’t you agree?
 
Spotify's use of IAP in the App Store was the exception and not the rule. That only happened for two years. The other 13 years involved iOS subscribers using Spotify's web site to pay. So $9.99 with zero commission for Apple was really the standard for Spotify on iOS. It's always been a poor example when it comes to pricing.

Competition will push Apple and other potential stores to compete for users in a major and lucrative segment (iOS) of the mobile OS market that had been closed to app access competition. This competition can lead to lower costs, lower prices, or other things to attract/keep customers (developers and users).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victor Mortimer
Competition will push Apple and other potential stores to compete for users in a major and lucrative segment (iOS) of the mobile OS market that had been closed to app access competition. This competition can lead to lower costs, lower prices, or other things to attract/keep customers (developers and users).
There is no competition and there is no choice.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Victor Mortimer
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.