Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Clashes With UK Regulator in Fierce Response to Warning That Could Require It to 'Redesign the iPhone'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
...because they conflict with Apple business goals also
Folks -- this is about money and almost nothing else.
Apple simply wants to protect their App distribution and IAP revenue monopoly here.
They are throwing up every possible excuse and distraction they can think of, and too many folks are taking that bait and making Apple's bogus arguments for them.
It is not as simple as you put it.
right now if I install FB app from Apple App Store it has to ask my permission to access content.
once apple allows other companies to allow to create their own app stores then FB will create its own App Store and won't publish app in Apple App Store so that FB can gobble up all my personal information.
there is a reason why Mac OS App Store is full of garbage and no useable apps because any one can install anything from anywhere why would any one take the effort to create and manage apps in Mac OS App Store.
if Apple allows other developers to have their own App Store then iPhone App Store will look like Mac OS App Store.
you don't have to purchase through apple anymore right ? like Spotify subscription can be done on web now.
Can I sell my games on Xbox or Playstation for free ?
macOS App Store is full of crap because Apple has neutered everything useful that Apps and their users want and need to do.
(and Apple naturally wants an unjustified cut of revenue from Apps distributed there also)
You're actually highlighting the hypocrisy of the current Apple iOS App Store situation.
Many companies have carve outs because they have power and leverage over Apple.
It's a really bad situation right now on that front.
Why can’t the politicians just stay out of a well designed and run eco system. No one is being forced to buy Apple products. We make a choice.
Would Apple's App Store and it's policies not be better for both consumers and developers if they were forced to compete on the merits of their Store offering?
(it's a trick question - the answer is of course yes...)
Dude we get it you want to side load sketchy apps from Chinese and Russian sources and are comfortable doing so, but the rest of us don't want it. You have an Android platform to use for those needs so why bother the vast majority with your wants?
Last edited by a moderator:
No. I don't need or want an alternative App Store.
Part of the beauty of iOS is that the apps are vetted by Apple. I have absolutely no desire to have to use an antivirus for my iPhone and iPad (and presumably AppleTV) like you need to do with Android. It seems like every other week I come across a headline that's telling you to remove an app or three because they're riddled with spyware.
If people want alternatives, they can get an Android. No one is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to get an Apple device. I choose (for several reasons) to stick with my iPhone because their walled garden is a feature, not a bug.
And there is nothing wrong with that. They built the hardware, software, and distribution model, and pay for the storage, bandwidth, servers, and pay the necessary fees that make the App Store work. Why shouldn't they be compensated for that?
Sycophantic rhetoric aside, it's all about money and shareholder return.
Ah yes, the ill-conceived slippery slope argument.
It's all about money and shareholder return.
Metallica said it in song Nothing Else Matters.
I think you’ll find your objections here are because the GPL is a restrictive viral license, not because of the App Store. This is up to the vendor to decide which license they use.
My own open source contributions are under the 3-clause BSD license which is entirely compatible with the App Store.
The sandbox is why the device is as secure as it is. Anything which bridges secure and insecure domains risks the entire system. I don’t want that.
I worked at CompUSA from 93-94 and 80% of the back of the store was PCs and the left hand back side was this tiny 400-500 sq ft of dedicated Apple space. It was nothing for me to cross the linoleum to sell Windows PCs, but the PC guys rarely came the other way. The Windows hegemony back then, Windows 3.1, completely dominated everything while Apple floundered with Michael Spindler at the helm. Product was hard to get.
Flash to today and I don’t think anyone understands how dominate Microsoft was back then and how Apple struggled to carve out any sort of market share. It only got worse when Windows 95 was released. Apple users were looked at like animals in a zoo. Sure, we had the zeitgeist despite the lack of marketshare but Windows PCs had Strike Commander and that was all that mattered to the people walking into the CompUSA. That and a cheap Compaq Presario.
I'm trying to think of another company, where everyone else seems to think they have the right to tell the company how to make their product and also then tells the users how they have to use that product too. Anyone?...
I know it's more complex than "If you don't like it; don't buy it" but I kind of feel it shouldn't be some how?
I know it's more complex than "If you don't like it; don't buy it" but I kind of feel it shouldn't be some how?
Customers aren't complaining, developers are complaining. Developers don't like the commissions Apple collects on paid apps and IAPs, nor do they care for the privacy protections that prevent them from gaining more ad revenue by sucking up user data. Android is an alternative, but a much less profitable one. Apple users are far more likely to purchase apps, IAPs, and subscriptions. On the ad side, Apple users are also more lucrative, with advertisers willing to pay more to get their ads in front of those users. If you want to make money in mobile, being on Apple's platforms really isn't a choice. While Apple doesn't have a majority of marketshare, they do have the more profitable users.
While Apple has done much to enable developers, they have also stood up for users as well, trying to find a balance between protecting user privacy and having customer-friendly policies, while also allowing developers to make money from being on their platforms. These reforms would tilt the balance more toward developers.
While Apple has done much to enable developers, they have also stood up for users as well, trying to find a balance between protecting user privacy and having customer-friendly policies, while also allowing developers to make money from being on their platforms. These reforms would tilt the balance more toward developers.
Apple is very restrictive on what developer apps can run on iOS, it has gotten better over the years but you are still very limited.
I can respect this. This is the sort of response Apple would give during Jobs' lifetime, and it's the right call imo.
Which is fine with me as I don’t trust developers rummaging through my data to inundate me with “personalized” ads while they sell scraped data to Google to pester me with their bilge. I pay a premium for an iPhone and I don’t want unscrupulous developers having access to my information. I’d prefer they raise their prices on their apps and subscriptions.
I had a skim through Apple's full response, searching for the word WebKit.
It essentially demolishes the CMA's arguments, lock, stock and barrel. Whilst I was feverishly defending Apple's WebKit stance in a recent thread, Apple's response really hammers the argument home in considerable detail.
It essentially demolishes the CMA's arguments, lock, stock and barrel. Whilst I was feverishly defending Apple's WebKit stance in a recent thread, Apple's response really hammers the argument home in considerable detail.
No matter the reason the GPL is incompatible with the Mac App Store and that makes the Mac App Store unsuitable to distribute those applications. I'm not placing any blame to the App Store or the application license and I have no interest in such a discussion: I'm merely stating a matter-of-fact situation.
That's why for the general use-case it's a very good thing, but it's also clear that some specific use-cases legitimately require more powerful capabilities which are unavailable to App Store applications.
They're not that old. But they do have form for ignoring technical arguments and legislating by gut reaction. Like, for example, the Snooper's Charter that requires ISPs to spy on all customers and retain their browsing history for a considerable period of time. I watched the Select Committee meetings on that matter, and numerous experts pointed out that finding needles in haystacks is very hard, and a targeted approach is much better. But think of the children always wins the day.
As Apple say, millions of apps also use Apple's WebKit to display web content. Fixing WebKit in an OS update fixes all browsers as well as those countless other apps. That's a better place to be.
No. macOS is dangerously insecure, and Apple know it. Extending this option to iPhone-owning mall rats would be asking for trouble.