Apple CEO Tim Cook: 'We Want to Get Every App We Can on the Store, Not Keep Them Off'

[I7guy]

...
But people here are seriously advocating for continuing to not allow (sandboxed) outside apps on iOS, and I am honestly flummoxed by it....

Why? IMO, this system works best for the consumer. There are reasons for and there are reasons against. With hundreds of millions of Apple customers and a board full of opinionated MR posters...there are guarantees many opinions won't intersect.

 

[mrcloaked]

Don't see the loss.

 

[Naraxus]

You just contradicted your position with this reply. No need to wait for Tim to reply with what appears to be a double-standard.

So you refuse to answer a very simple question. Ok. Discussion with you over.

 

[garylapointe]

If Netflix offered a one-time $500 lifetime subscription, and acquired that customer through the App Store, why would that be any different than retaining a customer for 4 years paying monthly?

But then we have something like Disney+ offering a 3-year subscription for $140 before the app was even out, which makes that dodge giving Apple a cut completely.

 

[Naraxus]

or Apps for my Xbox,PS4 or Switch ? Walled gardens there too.....

I can get games for my Xbox, PS4 or Switch anyplace.

Where can I get apps for my iPhone? Answer please.

 

[thealkimist]

The Ars article is good, but misses a few key points IMHO.

1. The legal definition of monopoly for software services and platforms was set by Intel v Intergraph in the Ninth Circuit some 15+ years ago, and was referenced in the antitrust filings against Microsoft soon thereafter. The Court there ruled that an x86 customer that bought Intel CPUs was therefore bound to software that was Intel-compatible. Other CPU instruction sets, and their binaries, can’t run on Intel x86 architectures. Therefore, the court reasoned, end-users with Intel processors were subject to an Intel monopoly and by virtue of a network effect, the monopoly of Software Developers that made software that conformed with Intel’s x86 instruction set.

iOS end-users have a single store to acquire software from; it is run by Apple, and Apple sets all the rules. An iOS user has no choice but to submit to the systems and regulations of AppStore behavior Apple chooses to impose upon developers, including choice of apps to support and content choices and payment methods permitted. When the regulation of the store tends to benefit the store owner unfairly (by using network effects of hardware and software compatibility to force end-users to enrich Apple, devoid of competition), it is anti-trust prima facie.

2. There are a wealth of other similar 30% systems in the world — from Amazon to PlayStation to Xbox and so on. Even Target and Wal-Mart qualify, but have physical goods to contend with. Ars cannot, for the life of me, show me that an app store has higher costs of unit economics than a physically-stocked store, but Target and Wal-Mart only take around 20%. While I appreciate the cost and energy and innovative prowess required to conceive of iPhone and the AppStore, Apple is prohibited from tying software to hardware and limiting consumer choice in a way that in the majority of cases benefits themselves. A store is a store, whether physical or virtual, and many UCC rules about products and conformity and fitness and merchantability still apply. I have no issue with Apple charging a fair percentage for the use of the store and transacting fees and BOBO (billing on behalf of), and more. I do have an issue where AppReview cannot forge a clear and convincing method for when 30% applies and when it does not and that such rules change over time; more damningly, that app developers may not build competing apps to Apple’s own.

3. Lastly, I wish Ars had compared the iOS / Android state of the market in the US with the state of the market in China, where iOS is far from dominant and there is no Google presence. Android in China has *flourished* with (what feels like) hundreds of app stores in competition with each other for app developer attention. This has resulted in far more choice, price competition, deeper app compatibility with various Android OS builds, with app stores working in concert with carriers for billing, customer service, and deployment issues.


I think buy-in is very good for any consumer to perform, caveat emptor. BUT: I caution that software network effects are HARD for anyone, let alone your average consumer, to fully understand and think through. How would a consumer know that an app like Hey could be developed, made available, and offered for sale at a price 30% higher than if Apple permitted a web-store transaction to effectuate payment? They wouldn’t, unless they read gobs of news articles. It’s the volume of information that your average consumer has to digest to make truly informed choices that prevents consumers from the kind of buy-in I would want them to have. As a result, I think consumers are harmed when there’s a lack of transparency and more so when coupled to a lack of competition.

My $0.02.

I appreciate your response here.

1. You're forgetting that Intel's market share in 1995, around the time that Intergraph decided to pull out of the microprocessor game, was over 85%. This does not equate to the iOS US market share today (45%). I think Ars did an excellent job focusing in on the real problem with Apple's behavior; their failure to be transparent enough and executing those rules inconsistently.

2. I believe Ars did. It's a lot more than just setting up a server for a store.

3. I'm not too familiar with the Chinese market on mobile software so I can't say too much. But I would bet that the trade offs you'd see there would be violations of privacy and much more pervasive and invisible dark patterns.

I agree with you that there is a problem with a lack of transparency. But I like to think that we're reaching into the realm where appraising technological innovation will become much harder to do because it grows disproportionately to what we can see and understand.

 

[Jimmy James]

I like choice. In this case the choice to have the most secure mobile platform available.

 

[alien3dx]

I like choice. In this case the choice to have the most secure mobile platform available.

nope. it will introduce more hacker only.

 

[mrcloaked]

Apple is secure.

 

[Ethosik]

Yeah it's hard to trust Apple with security, my Macs have been compromised so many times over the two decades I've been using them.

Are you just an Apple hater or something? Not trying to be mean, just curious. How have your computers been compromised so many times? Have you tried it in the Windows world? And you get no compromised systems?

 

[Jimmy James]

nope. it will introduce more hacker only.

Keeping it locked down will introduce more hackers? You may have misinterpreted my point.

If 🍎 opens up iOS we no longer have a secure mobile option. I want to retain that choice by keeping it locked.

 

[mrcloaked]

Things should change.

 

[MacBH928]

'We Want to Get Every App We Can on the Store, Not Keep Them Off'

Thats actually a very nice rebattle since they will make the cut and give more options for the iOS user attracting consumers. Always remember "developers 👏🏼developers 👏🏼developers 👏🏼"

Cook is right about that.

Not exactly, while yes there are many options hardware wise, software wise its just 2 platforms-Android and iOS and Android is even worse than iOS.

The current system is better than anything that existed before. You don't like it? No one is forcing you to consume or develop iOS apps...move on to Android or Windows, or a different career field. You can't force Apple to run their company a certain way, or reduce their fees, or stop advertising for their own apps. It's their store. They thought of it, developed it, invested the $$ and made it happen; therefore they get to set the pricing, just like any store owner. If people don't like it they will vote with their wallets and Apple will adjust (or fail). Why is this concept so hard for people to understand. It's called Capitalism.

You are not wrong, but... there is flaw in capitalism. In late stage capitalism, few companies grow too big to control the life of others. See how corporations worldwide are dependent on MS Office, or that Amazon(AWS) runs 40% of the web, Google has the only video website online, intel with the x86 architecture and ARM for mobile. We don't want to go there and that is why I believe they broke down Rockefeller oil empire because it was one company that controlled all the oil.

What if MacOS had the same restrictions in regards installing apps?

To be consistent, I think Apple should hold MacOS to the same standard.

I think a nice middle ground would be that Apple should allow people to install apps OFF iOS store but that would break any guarantees by Apple. So if you get a virus, hacked, bricked your phone... you are on your own as they advised you not to install anything outside the official store.

I wouldn't like Apple to control apps on my computer on the opposite of my phone, the computer is just so much more versatile and more capable platform. iOS is closer to a gadget.

 

[throAU]

Of course we want every app on the store... So we can get thirty percent of the profit...

There's that angle sure, but the App Store does implement proper code signing, vetting, and security. It's actually mostly trustworthy, as opposed to google's total cluster**** where they've got apps with millions of downloads hosting malware.

You think software publishers doing boxed software don't pay for retail sales costs? This is no different. Boxed software would easily lose 30% to the distribution chain (wholesaler takes a cut, retailer takes a cut, shipping company takes a cut, packaging manufacturer takes a cut, etc.).

 

[alien3dx]

Keeping it locked down will introduce more hackers? You may have misinterpreted my point.

If 🍎 opens up iOS we no longer have a secure mobile option. I want to retain that choice by keeping it locked.

the bigger market and secure the more hacker would try and brag. "I have hack this".
[automerge]1596070281[/automerge]

There's that angle sure, but the App Store does implement proper code signing, vetting, and security. It's actually mostly trustworthy, as opposed to google's total cluster**** where they've got apps with millions of downloads hosting malware.

You think software publishers doing boxed software don't pay for retail sales costs? This is no different. Boxed software would easily lose 30% to the distribution chain (wholesaler takes a cut, retailer takes a cut, shipping company takes a cut, packaging manufacturer takes a cut, etc.).

Google also have code signing. If you install unsign mostly wouldn't install. The only part diff google and apple is apple need to paid enterprise license for distribute ad-hoc between staff/company and google didn't need to.

 

[mrcloaked]

iOS is big.

 

[Wildkraut]

They should be looking at Windows 10S, where you cna only download apps from Microsoft store.

Haha sorry, but you can switch over to Windows 10 Pro for free, which allows you to install Apps from anywhere.

Open the Settings App
Go to Update and Security - Activation
Click Go to Store.

That will take you to a "Switch to Windows 10 Pro" page

Click the install button, labeled "Free," to begin the installation process.
[automerge]1596098809[/automerge]

Yeah it's hard to trust Apple with security, my Macs have been compromised so many times over the two decades I've been using them.

/s

I don’t trust anybody, not even myself, why should i trust a company or some guy which i dont even know personally, just because he plays the savior infront of the press. His answers were very thin and avoidant.

 

[mrochester]

When an international mega corporation with tens of billions of dollars at its disposal, decades of experience and the ability to attract world class developers throws in the towel on trying to do just that, what hope does "some upstart" have?

None.

There are some situations that are impossible to overcome. No serious person, no venture capitalist on the planet will fund the literally billions it would require to even try to compete with Android/iOS. It's over. Without the ability to raise those billions, it cannot happen. The scale of such a project is unfathomably big.

There is no conceivable way to disrupt the duopoly without legal government enforcement. To claim otherwise is utterly naive about the realities of such a task.

So if the problem is that an iOS app developer only has 1 other platform to choose from when it comes to selling apps, surely the actual solution is to ensure that there are multiple platforms and operating systems available, which actually means regulating google and android?

These problems Apple face ALL stem from the fact that google engages in hugely anti-competitive business practices resulting in there being a duopoly.
[automerge]1596099292[/automerge]

Okay, reasons against it. Go. Nothing so impotent as "it works best for the consumer", give specifics.

Less secure? Mac handles outside apps fine, and apps in iOS are completely sandboxed. Apple can't control the experience? That's the whole point, more freedom from an iron grip. A rogue process might eat up all the battery? Then Apple hasn't built their checks in iOS robustly enough. Will result in too much fragmentation? That's Apple's job to market their App Store as the one-stop shop then, for those that want the integrated approach.

I don't see what you lose. Windows and Mac have already proven (via capitalism, it should be stressed) that people prefer open to closed.

But hasn’t the same capitalism also shown that people also like Apple’s way of doing things? Why should that be regulated away and the free choice removed?

 

[Wildkraut]

They should simply enforce side loading, and free SDK availability. Just like macOS, and close the case. And then start hunting down other platforms like Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo, etc. , too. They are all not long term humanity friendly, and setup some general law that prohibits hardware manufacturers to jail users into their eco systems. And since they already got their hands dirty, also generally enforce the right to repair.
Security does not require jailing.

 

[deckard666]

I can get games for my Xbox, PS4 or Switch anyplace.

Where can I get apps for my iPhone? Answer please.

Where you can you APPS for those systems ? Only within their walled stores...

 

[Abazigal]

Back in the boxed software days, software publishers offered mail order as an alternative to skirt the retail cut.

I reiterate: iOS is the only major platform that offers zero alternative purchase path. None. They have an iron fist grip on the 30% cut, and they don't want to let it go. The cut itself is fine, it's reasonable even, but not when there's no choice. It's their platform? It was, but now it's our platform. iOS has grown too big for that excuse. It's an enormous platform critically relied on by the masses all around the world. There's only one reason Apple doesn't want to do it, and you already know what shameful thing that is. That's what regulations are all about.

The thing is that US anticompetitive law focuses on whether harm has been done to the consumer, and all the arguments I have seen so far have not demonstrated anything of the sort apart from the inability to use your own preferred payment mode and some airy fairy ideal about “freedom of choice”.

Yes, maybe the developer can earn more by using another payment mode, and maybe he gets a more direct relationship with his customers and some other perks, and maybe they may face unfair competition from Apple denying them certain permissions and APIs, and none of them are relevant as far as this current hearing is concerned.

Just as none of them are relevant to the mass consumer who just wants his device to just work without having to worry about scams or malware.

The more I follow the whole hearing, the more it seems that the regulators have their knives out mainly for Facebook, google and amazon and Apple is going to escape largely (or entirety) unscathed.

 

[mrcloaked]

We're all users.

 

[I7guy]

I felt harmed when Apple originally denied Steam Link for what was incredibly obvious anti-competitive reasoning. I literally felt sick to my stomach that they stooped that low. In the past they also denied apps from musicians that I'm interested in, on the grounds that the content was objectionable. It's censorship, plain and simple.

People probably don't want to pay $12.99 for a $9.99 subscription. So now everyone goes in Safari to do the workaround. Sounds like pain to me. We could just have an outside app that has the payment system built right in.

And by the way, developers are users of the platform, they are just as much a participant as consumers in the app economy.

Airy fairy is a neat little quip, but do you exclusively install apps only from the Mac App Store and/or Windows Store and truly live that highly idealized integrated life? I really doubt it.

It's not difficult with hundreds of millions of Apple customers to find someone who disagrees with the company's policies.

Censorship vs. free speech is not a given in private enterprise. So it's not censorship, simply. Some people have stated on MR(although I will not be able to find those posts) that *some* apps may cost more, they find that consolidated statements of billing from the app store and imo, safety of their cc information outweigh the alternatives.

 

[Naraxus]

Where you can you APPS for those systems ? Only within their walled stores...

Nice dodge but I'll play along.

I get apps from them sure. I can get games from anywhere.

Now, answer the question, Where can I get games for my iPhone?

I await your answer

 

[alien3dx]

you have to break prison -jail brake .