Apple Calls Facebook-Commissioned Study on Preinstalled App Usage 'Seriously Flawed'

[draig]

Go get ‘em apologists! Tell them all how Apple can do no wrong! Stand up for your walled garden before it gets knocked down.

My gardens here at home are walled (fenced). If they weren't, the wild pigs that live in this remote area would eat everything I plant.

 

[KrispE00]

I suspect that these numbers do not reflect the time spent in each app but rather the percentage of device owners that have used said app in a certain time window. It's a weird way to present the data but it makes sense if you want it to support Facebook's agenda.

This is exactly the problem. From the sounds of it, it’s a self-reporting survey. And if the question is quoted correctly here, it’s asking about default apps. So of course people will report using those apps. Come on.

You can make data show any conclusion you want; especially if you don’t release the research methodology or the raw data. Without the exact methods used to collect and analyze the data, this study means nothing.

 

[draig]

with first party apps clearly being the most dominant apps on each platform (and there's valid reasons for that case), it does show that for competition to Apple's apps, it's an uphil battle, where apple (and even google) have a competitive advantage at the Application level and monetization of those.

As an example of what the data points to:

Lets say you're trying to start up a new music streaming service. not only are you competing directly against Apple's pre-installed first party App, but you're also automatically at a financial disadvantage due to 30%/15% payment processor requirement. A new upstart might need to charge 12.99 or more for break even, or profitability, while Apple's pre-isntalled first party app they directly advertise and recommend only costs 9.99, with 100% of the proceeds going to Apple.

Doesn't Spotify have more users than Apple Music?

 

[genovelle]

So wait, they are talking about apps that predate the App Store and the reason people decided to move to a smart phone instead of blackberry in the first place. If anything all the other apps on the App Store and especially in these areas are fortunate to be able to be able to offer these. This was not an option on the previous leaders.

 

[draig]

The problem is most users don't use "the best app" most of the time. They use whats already there and in their face for convenience.

if a user wants to sign up for a music streaming service, buys and iPhone and Apple music is already pre-installed, on their homescreen, with a "free trial" already built in. the majority of users will not go out of their way to find alternative solutions.

This is what FaceBook is trying to prove. Similar to the Anti-Trust cases against microsoft in the 90's early 00's over IE's bundling in Windows.

For me, I don't care what the best app is. In most cases I am totally fine with any simple, free app that doesn't advertise at me. I don't need 'the best clock app'. The one that comes with my iPhone is entirely sufficient to my needs.

On the other hand, I never use FaceTime or Apple's Messages. I use Telegram, Signal, WhatsApp. When I want something non-Apple, it is easy to go get it.

 

[Krizoitz]

These “analogies” are disingenuous. I take it you’ve never jailbroken your phone, so you’re not aware of the possibilities of customizing the springboard. Many of the UI enhancements that Apple has added to the springboard over the years actually were inspired by jailbreak tweaks. Speaking of jail breaking, the iPhone ecosystem isn’t any less secure, even with the existence of the Cydia App Store…

Adding alternative app stores to the iPhone is NOT akin to walmart adding Target checkout machines, it is simply giving users the ability to get Apps from alternative locations, just like Apple users can on the Mac. The iPhone OS is based on the macOS kernel, and if macOS is safe enough to tolerate side loading, why is iPhone OS, that is based on macOS, not? It’s all about profit, alternative app stores would negatively affect Apple’s profits, that is the long and short of it.

No, those analogies are accurate.

Second, just because something CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be done. I am fully aware of the possibility to customize the springboard. I'm also fully aware Apple could release an entirely different OS for the iPhone. Or it could allow a third party to do so. Just because something is technically possible doesn't mean it should be forced on someone/some company OR that its a good idea. As an example I'm sure you would be opposed if your bank decided to transfer all your money into my accounts. It is after all a possibility and something that CAN be done.

And actually yes, the existence of the Cydia App Store did compromise the security of the devices it was installed on, just as Jailbreaking compromised the security. By its very nature thats what Jailbreaking is, compromising the security.

Finally, regarding your straw man argument about the macOS kernel, no one has ever argued its not technically possible for iOS to operate the way macOS does in regards to app distribution, so I'm not sure why people like you continuously bring it up. This isn't an argument about what's technically possible, its about Apple being forced to change its platform to suit the needs of a bunch of selfish whiners. That Apple doesn't take the same approach on MacOS is dictated by two things, one, the long history of MacOS being a more open operating system anyway, and two, Apple treating its Mac line and its iDevice line as different types of devices with different capabilities and different tradeoffs. Could Apple add side loading to iOS just like macOS? Of course, no one is debating that. They could also add touch support to macOS. Its not a question of can, its a question of want.

Apple doesn't WANT to make iOS an open platform, and, as long as it is upfront about that (it is) AND it is not a monopoly (it isn't) it should be allowed to. People should have the following options:
1. Buy an Android devices and get side loading like they claim they want
2. Buy an iPhone and deal with living without side loading
3. Complain about it
4. Try and convince Apple to change their mind

What they should NOT get to do is FORCE Apple to change its model, robbing those of us who prefer the Apple approach from the choice between two different phone platforms, and flattening it into one style. The ones who are against choice are people like yourself who want to compel a company and its users to give you everything you want. You are free and always have been to choose a device that has, from the beginning allowed side loading and alternate app stores. If you don't like Android despite that, well tough luck, you can't always get what you want and again you shouldn't be allowed to force someone else to give it to you just because you selfishly demand it.

 

[draig]

Spotify was probably not the best as they were around pre-apple music really. but given the prevelance of Apple music as the default of choice, the argument itself could still apply.

But we could apply the argument to a lot of the third party apps these days on our phones. This is one of those places that it's not exclusively Apple behaving in an Anti-trust behaviour way.

the more pre-installed, first party bundled apps and services that we get already provided to us, while somewhat convenient, IS a problem as it is an anti-competitive setup.

Now, there's always the argument to be made that those app developers could always just, leave iOS. But as users of iOS, is that really in our best interest?

In most cases, I don't care about competition. I care about simplicity and my own ease of use and the security of my phone.

App developers will never leave iOS. Apple doesn't want that to happen and it is not in their interest for that to happen.

Facebook doesn't give a crap about this... they just want a way to bypass Apples new approach to tracking. Any other companies complaining about it also don't care about it. It's just about money.

Personally, I think it is all working just fine. I never have any trouble downloading apps from other developers. I certainly don't want other app stores and I think the calls for that, and the complaints about stifling competition and anti-trust arguments are all driven by monetary interest and the talk about protecting users is bs.

 

[draig]

One of the reasons I buy an iPhone is for the pre-installed apps, including a pre-installed App Store which is unlikely to infect my phone with malware. I realize there's an analogy to Windows pre-installing software in the past - but I think many Apple customers want the total package with their devices. Arguably we are paying for the very thing many are now saying is a "problem"...

That is exactly what I am paying for when buying an iPhone. I specifically want a 'walled garden'. The more walled the better. Security is by far my #1 concern. I do my banking and investing through my phone. I already feel a bit nervous about it but it is useful and convenient. Any other consideration is a far distant second.

If Apple were forced to allow 3rd party app stores, my security would be less. Even if it is just a small additional risk, that is more risk than I want. Really, when it comes down to it, nothing else matters to me.

 

[draig]

I actually agree that Apple/Google are squeezing out app developers bit by bit. You can’t even write an alarm app on iOS. Their own apps are first class citizens, pre-installed and always free. Apple/Google are getting too big. They are hampering innovation. FB is also part of the problem.

I just searched the App Store for Alarm Clocks and there are a bunch of them.

Actually, I don't care about innovation. My phone already does more than I will ever need. The one area of my iPhone I want to see keep getting better, is the camera... but that is primarily hardware.

 

[falkon-engine]

No, those analogies are accurate.

Second, just because something CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be done. I am fully aware of the possibility to customize the springboard. I'm also fully aware Apple could release an entirely different OS for the iPhone. Or it could allow a third party to do so. Just because something is technically possible doesn't mean it should be forced on someone/some company OR that its a good idea. As an example I'm sure you would be opposed if your bank decided to transfer all your money into my accounts. It is after all a possibility and something that CAN be done.

And actually yes, the existence of the Cydia App Store did compromise the security of the devices it was installed on, just as Jailbreaking compromised the security. By its very nature thats what Jailbreaking is, compromising the security.

Finally, regarding your straw man argument about the macOS kernel, no one has ever argued its not technically possible for iOS to operate the way macOS does in regards to app distribution, so I'm not sure why people like you continuously bring it up. This isn't an argument about what's technically possible, its about Apple being forced to change its platform to suit the needs of a bunch of selfish whiners. That Apple doesn't take the same approach on MacOS is dictated by two things, one, the long history of MacOS being a more open operating system anyway, and two, Apple treating its Mac line and its iDevice line as different types of devices with different capabilities and different tradeoffs. Could Apple add side loading to iOS just like macOS? Of course, no one is debating that. They could also add touch support to macOS. Its not a question of can, its a question of want.

Apple doesn't WANT to make iOS an open platform, and, as long as it is upfront about that (it is) AND it is not a monopoly (it isn't) it should be allowed to. People should have the following options:
1. Buy an Android devices and get side loading like they claim they want
2. Buy an iPhone and deal with living without side loading
3. Complain about it
4. Try and convince Apple to change their mind

What they should NOT get to do is FORCE Apple to change its model, robbing those of us who prefer the Apple approach from the choice between two different phone platforms, and flattening it into one style. The ones who are against choice are people like yourself who want to compel a company and its users to give you everything you want. You are free and always have been to choose a device that has, from the beginning allowed side loading and alternate app stores. If you don't like Android despite that, well tough luck, you can't always get what you want and again you shouldn't be allowed to force someone else to give it to you just because you selfishly demand it.

It’s just a matter of time before the hammer drops. Like it or not the tide is changing. Choice is coming. Good luck to you.

 

[draig]

If Apple had real competition, the End User wins BIG time !

What does the end user win?

Besides the monthly service cost, which I pay to Verizon, not Apple, my phone costs me next to nothing to operate. It takes amazing photos and videos. I talk to friends around the world, basically for free. The phone already does everything I need it to. There is nothing to win.

 

[draig]

May have missed the point but, I think these numbers don’t include users worldwide?
My impression is if they include countries outside of U.S.A. the numbers would probably be very different.
Example: Just solely on comparing iMessage to other messaging app . The Japanese uses Line app, most of south east Asia uses WhatsApp, I’m in australia and most of anyone I meet uses Facebook Messenger. Until recently, India uses WhatsApp. In fact, we can call using those apps, I barely use the included phone app.

I may be wrong and this is just my opinion but these numbers are skewed.

I only infrequently call on the phone app... I mainly use Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp (none of them Apple apps)

 

[Puonti]

If you come to my house for dinner I have as much power over what you eat.

Presumably you would still inquire about and take into consideration your guest's allergies and special dietary needs (low-carb, vegan, celiac's, deathly allergic to shellfish, etc), because that's just being a good host and you'd want your guest to come over again some time because you appreciate their company. I'm assuming the guest's not coming over uninvited, and you didn't invite them just so you could offend or potentially kill them.

So, yes... it's your house and your dinner, but the guest is still very much a part of the equation.

The analogy still works, mind you - it's just not quite so onesided as you made it sound. They expect you to take their (reasonable) needs into consideration, and you're going to ask them to leave their shoes at the door and not hide listening devices all over the place as a common courtesy. If they get drunk and leave a mess in the bathroom you'll probably not invite them again. On the other hand they might prefer to keep their shoes on because they're self-conscious about their foot hygiene, and politely decline your invitation.

If so, they probably shouldn't go making lists about how often other people in your shared social circles get to eat at your table compared to them. Let alone how often your own family members do.

 

[draig]

Adding alternative app stores to the iPhone is NOT akin to walmart adding Target checkout machines, it is simply giving users the ability to get Apps from alternative locations, just like Apple users can on the Mac. The iPhone OS is based on the macOS kernel, and if macOS is safe enough to tolerate side loading, why is iPhone OS, that is based on macOS, not? It’s all about profit, alternative app stores would negatively affect Apple’s profits, that is the long and short of it.

The App Store on iOS is so much more convenient than the Mac situation where I have lots of apps from different places... all with their own passwords, different copy protections and so on. I must spend 1/10th the time keeping the iPhone updated as I do on the Mac.

I am also much more careful about downloading stuff for the Mac.

I am also not carry my Mac around with me all the time. My phone is usually with me and so it needs to be more secure.

 

[draig]

So... Apple has an App Store where you can download alternatives to nearly every Apple-supplied app that comes on the phone. You can download Google Maps to use instead of Apple Maps... Overcast instead of Apple Podcasts... Fantastical instead of Apple Calendar... etc.

But that's not good enough.

Now people want alternative app stores, too.

Sheesh... it never ends!

Personally, I think the argument has no merit whatsoever

 

[DeepIn2U]

Why shouldn't Apple apps rank up there on App Discovery? It's THEIR platform. For the same reason ABC doesn't advertise CBS prime time shows and why CBS doesn't allow prime-time shows from NBC to advertise and draw viewers away to another network. Apple did not spend a ton of money and time developing an App Store so everyone else can make money but somehow Apple isn't allowed to feature their apps (which most work way better than other crap in the App Store).

If Apple wants to feature their apps and set rules that are so crazy that other developers leave, then so be it. Developers have a choice to stay or go but they MUST play by the rules. Why don't developers leave? Because the customers who spend money are on iPhone. Most Android users are happy with free subpar apps. It's why many are on Android to begin with; many can't afford iPhones. That's why they are crying and whining. If Apple is so unfair and your apps are so great, show Apple and take your app development to their competitors. But developers won't because Apple is and always will be where the money is.

Nicely put.
It’s not just Apple but as you’ve stated US, the end users. We WANT and EXPECT quality (Thank you Forstall for using the diamond binacle for viewing App Store icons from App creators for BEST quality visually) - we’ve seen that since system 5 onwards so of course we wanted that on iOS.

We’re willing, within reason to PAY for quality apps that involve QUALITY support. Sure a few useless, blatant rip-off apps exist and many from developers that really use other development tools or just don’t care.

 

[ikramerica]

”This Facebook-financed survey from December 2020 was narrowly tailored to give the false impression that there's little competition on the App Store. In truth, third-party apps compete with Apple's apps across every category and enjoy large scale success.”

There may well be competition in the App Store, but there’s no alternative phone app in the App Store, the App Store itself has no competition, and there’s also no alternative springboard/launcher. There may be some competition on the iPhone, but many aspects of the phone are indeed off limits to any competition at all.

That being said, Apple develops good Apps. I like Safari, Apple Mail, FaceTime, messages, and so forth.

I have magicjack and there is an app that lets you call out from that number on your iphone via VOIP. You can also receive calls. So, yes there is.

 

[ikramerica]

The problem is most users don't use "the best app" most of the time. They use whats already there and in their face for convenience.

if a user wants to sign up for a music streaming service, buys and iPhone and Apple music is already pre-installed, on their homescreen, with a "free trial" already built in. the majority of users will not go out of their way to find alternative solutions.

This is what FaceBook is trying to prove. Similar to the Anti-Trust cases against microsoft in the 90's early 00's over IE's bundling in Windows.

The Music argument is a very strong one. Bundling free trials of your vertically integrated services is probably anti-competitive. Combining Music into iTunes was not only annoying for us non-subscribers, but also likely anti-competitive.

 

[Termy]

Everytime they tell me that there are no lobbyists in consumer forums I just open this thread and we all have a good laugh

 

[MacBH928]

Facebook's brainwashing media methods techniques are not working here.

 

[cupcakes2000]

The Music argument is a very strong one. Bundling free trials of your vertically integrated services is probably anti-competitive. Combining Music into iTunes was not only annoying for us non-subscribers, but also likely anti-competitive.

Is it though? There is nothing at all stopping you from downloading spotify, which is a more popular service than Apple Music in the first place. There is nothing stopping you setting Spotify up as a default app. There is nothing stopping you from subscribing to spotify from outside the App Store. spotify form many many people has a much better app, different selection, a free tier.. it goes on and on.

Just because Apple Music is pre installed (- obviously, no? The iPhone is essentially part iPod) doesn’t change the above facts. Offering a free trial with it is also not exactly consumer unfriendly now is it.

If they forced Apple Music to be the only possibly way of listening to music, and they forced the subscription without an opportunity to test it, and if they barred all other music apps from the AppStore, then you may have a point. But it’s not the case, so you don’t.

 

[One2Grift]

next would be why Apple uses only their Apple chips. Unfair competition.

That’s a good one! They’ll probable try to use that. They may even insist government makes the A/M chips be easily removed for replacement at Bob’s Repair Shack.

 

[One2Grift]

In most cases, I don't care about competition. I care about simplicity and my own ease of use and the security of my phone.

App developers will never leave iOS. Apple doesn't want that to happen and it is not in their interest for that to happen.

Facebook doesn't give a crap about this... they just want a way to bypass Apples new approach to tracking. Any other companies complaining about it also don't care about it. It's just about money.

Personally, I think it is all working just fine. I never have any trouble downloading apps from other developers. I certainly don't want other app stores and I think the calls for that, and the complaints about stifling competition and anti-trust arguments are all driven by monetary interest and the talk about protecting users is bs.

Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner. Facebook wants their Surveillance Retail data back. Everything else is a sideshow.

When Facebook is someone’s source, you are losing.

 

[One2Grift]

The Music argument is a very strong one. Bundling free trials of your vertically integrated services is probably anti-competitive. Combining Music into iTunes was not only annoying for us non-subscribers, but also likely anti-competitive.

This is a sticky wicket you suggest.

Hypothetically, what if the first time you launch Apple Music it prompts with “Spotify is available in the App Store. It likely offers a free trial, click ok”. That is all that is needed?
But isn’t it intrinsically odd that the minority player in music has to announce the product of the majority music service? (Kind of killing the idea that Apple’s app pre installed is hurting competition).
Next, what about Pandora? What about Amazon Music? Others? Should Apple include them all in the message? Can Apple charge for them to get their name in their? What if one is too small to offer 3 months free but Apple and Spotify can. Then no free trial or hard limit of one month because that all one of the competitors can afford?

 

[quarkysg]

Speaking of jail breaking, the iPhone ecosystem isn’t any less secure, even with the existence of the Cydia App Store…

It is the insecure bits that made Cydia possible.