Apple Does Deep Dive Into Security Protections and Risks With Alternative App Marketplaces

[aj_niner]

But they side-load apps on Mac.

Side-loading isn't bad. Competition (different stores) isn't bad... unless you're an AAPL shareholder, of course.

Why do we need a "whitepaper" for a basic feature that every other popular modern OS supports (excluding iPadOS lol) ?

Nice try Apple.

The difference of the iPhone & Mac is how attractive Macs are to malware & virus coders

Some stats on active users worldwide:

- As of Jan 2024 there are >1.46 billion active iPhone users

- As of Dec 2023 there are >3.3 billion active Android users

- As of Apr 2022 there are >1.4 billion active Win10 & Win11 users

- As of May 2023 there are >0.1 billion active Mac users

iPhone to Windows users are nearly a 1:1 ratiio. Making iPhone users a tempting target due to large population size that can afford $429-1599 devices every 3 years or so.

Android to iPhones are nearly 2:1.

Due to inertia & satisfaction with the Apple App Store I believe SetApp & Epic Games will get no more than 20% EU market share by year 10.

 

[MilaM]

Because it’s the manufacturer that’s paying google to use their operating system.

And Microsoft has a dominant position in some categories but some pc manufacturers offer multiple operating system choices.

I'm sorry. I can't follow your logic. It does not make sense to me.

PC manufacturers also pay Microsoft for Windows. And Windows still has a dominant position in this market. Consequently Windows was also designated as a gatekeeper, in the same category as Android and iOS.

 

[I7guy]

I'm sorry. I can't follow your logic. It does not make sense to me.

PC manufacturers also pay Microsoft for Windows. And Windows still has a dominant position in this market. Consequently Windows was also designated as a gatekeeper, in the same category as Android and iOS.

I can’t understand why people say the smartphone market is a dupoly when when clearly manufacturers elect to use android. This isnt a forced supply where entrants and incumbents can’t use whatever they choose.

In the same way pc makers elect to pay ms but also install Linux and red hat. Some like Samsung developed tizen.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I just don’t understand why people on this forum who moan about Apple hardware not being up to snuff every September and complain about bugs in iOS and swear by the Google Play store and demand side loading don’t just simply buy a Pixel or Galaxy

I'm fine with Apple hardware and I don't suffer from many bugs.

I mean, it’s like going into a restaurant and ordering a Coca-Cola, then complaining about it being sugary and carbonated and lacking the rich smell of coffee. Why not just order coffee, if that is what you wanted in the first place.

It's like going into a restaurant and be offered the choice of Coca-Cola or 7up. And that's the only choice of beverages. In all restaurants and supermarket in town - no, nationwide. Although some establishments will offer Starry or Sprite instead of the 7 Up (like, you know, slight variations of Android from different manufacturers.

👉 That's not enough choice. I'd call upon governments to regulate the market for beverages to provide more consumer choice.

But they do have a choice.

Not enough choice (see above)

Just as people here are saying that I will have a choice once the stores fragment. You can't have it both ways.

You still have a choice of different apps - hardly market for any specific type of app is so concentrated like the one for mobile operating systems.

So apparently a users choice of
A) Android and has all of this that you want
or
B) Apple and Walled garden
Is not a choice that people are capable of making?

They are - but it's not enough choice - and doesn't allow for enough competition without government intervention.
Not to confuse that with mobile device themselves - there's certainly competition among smartphone makers (as opposed to the duopoly of OS and their App Stores.)

You don't say that Microsoft does not have a dominant position in PC OSs just because there is Dell, Lenovo and all the other PC manufacturers.

They do - and they've been investigated for antitrust and regulated before.
Then again, I don't Microsoft has never dug its heels in as much as Apple.
They're even cooperating with Linux vendors to enable secure boot for alternative operating systems on PC hardware.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I can’t understand why people say the smartphone market is a dupoly when when clearly manufacturers elect to use android.

I can't understand why still you can't understand it. (Haven't I've told you multiple times on different threads?)

👉 There is no duopoly in the market for smartphones. Far from it. There's fierce competition among manufacturers.

👉 There is a duopoly in the (developed world) market for smartphone operating systems.

This isnt a forced supply where entrants and incumbents can’t use whatever they choose.

Yes it is. Selling smartphones without Android isn't a viable business in developed markets (such as the EU, US or Japan), given that iOS is exclusive to Apple.

However good your hardware is, nobody will buy your smartphone if you can't download and install apps from either Android (and more specifically the Play Store) or iOS.

The choice of an alternative, "third" operating system is merely a theoretical possibility - but not a commercially viable one.

Whatever you think about the DMA (and some of its complicated, vague, or misunderstandable wording), it's a law that regulates based on the de facto state of the market.

 

[aj_niner]

I can’t understand why people say the smartphone market is a dupoly when when clearly manufacturers elect to use android. This isnt a forced supply where entrants and incumbents can’t use whatever they choose.

In the same way pc makers elect to pay ms but also install Linux and red hat. Some like Samsung developed tizen.

There is only 1 manufacturer for iPhone/iOS that is used by nearly 3 of 10 active smartphone users worldwide.

Android platform had a peak of 720+ active Android brands. As of this year it consolidated to 250+ active Android brands.

Because of US sanctions Huawei decided to develop their own platform.

 

[Abazigal]

I can’t understand why people say the smartphone market is a dupoly when when clearly manufacturers elect to use android. This isnt a forced supply where entrants and incumbents can’t use whatever they choose.

In the same way pc makers elect to pay ms but also install Linux and red hat. Some like Samsung developed tizen.

Funniest part is, the App Store is a monopoly regardless of whether Apple has sold 1 iPhone or 1 billion phones.

So there would be a duopoly even if android has 99% market share and the iPhone has just 1% of the market.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Because of US sanctions Huawei decided to develop their own platform.

...which was a fork of Android. Probably still is.

 

[I7guy]

I can't understand why still you can't understand it. (Haven't I've told you multiple times on different threads?)

👉 There is no duopoly in the market for smartphones. Far from it. There's fierce competition among manufacturers.

👉 There is a duopoly in the (developed world) market for smartphone operating systems.

The fact that smartphone manufacturers pay google $1 to use an operating system is not a concern of apple, which is why this is a false duopoly. It’s not like other regulated companies that are really duopoly’s due to regulations.

Yes it is. Selling smartphones without Android isn't a viable business in developed markets (such as the EU, US or Japan), given that iOS is exclusive to Apple.

That’s not apples problem. That’s a manufacturer problem.

However good your hardware is, nobody will buy your smartphone if you can't download and install apps from either Android (and more specifically the Play Store) or iOS.

That’s a manufacturer problem that they don’t want to invest in software r&d and would rather pay for their r&d.

The choice of an alternative, "third" operating system is merely a theoretical possibility - but not a commercially viable one.

That’s not an apple problem.

Whatever you think about the DMA (and some of its complicated, vague, or misunderstandable wording), it's a law that regulates based on the de facto state of the market.

Yes, it’s terrible legislation.

 

[wbeasley]

You do not understand the concept of consumer protection. If you want to buy a smartphone, you just have two option. Either Apple's walled garden or Google which sells your private data. So you have the choice between two evils. It is the job of consumer protection to convert that into the choice between two good options. So Apple has to be stopped from locking consumers in and at the same time Google's power to sell private data has to be restricted.

and it took the EU 16 years to suddenly decide to protect consumers? please, give me a break.
this is about Spotify and Epic complaining and lobbying for better deals - no commissions - not consumers.

 

[avz]

and it took the EU 16 years to suddenly decide to protect consumers? please, give me a break.

Obviously the main battle for Apple is in Washington DC. EU is an object and not a subject. In other words EU is "on the table" and not "at the table". The British played this game long enough to figure this out and therefore decided to Brexit.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The fact that smartphone manufacturers pay google $1 to use an operating system is not a concern of apple, which is why this is a false duopoly.

Again: the market for smartphone (as in devices) is relatively competitive. The market for operating systems isn’t - it’s a natural duopoly: Developers and consumers converge on the use of very few (in this case two) operating systems. And depending in how much control the OS developer’s exerts, it becomes an issue for third-party developers.

That’s not apples problem. That’s a manufacturer problem.

So?

Maybe, maybe not - it’s not important in the context here. What matters (and stifles competition) is the level of control the OS developers exert on their platform - and the fact that they (Apple and Google) compete in services with them, rather than just create an OS. It’s primarily an issue for software developers. And the DMA mitigates that to create a more level playing field.

That’s not an apple problem.

It obviously isn’t. It may not even be their fault.
It’s an issue for third-party developers, given how much control Apple exerts.

 

[AppliedMicro]

and it took the EU 16 years to suddenly decide to protect consumers? please, give me a break.

Legislation and regulation of competition may be slow.
But obviously they couldn’t anticipate how important and big a business the market for mobile apps would become.

this is about Spotify and Epic complaining and lobbying for better deals - no commissions - not consumers.

Better deals for Spotify and Epic allow for better deals for consumers.
If you’re going they’ll just pocket it their better deals as pure profit, that’s nothing more than your unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[mrochester]

Again: the market for smartphone (as in devices) is relatively competitive. The market for operating systems isn’t - it’s a natural duopoly: Developers and consumers converge on the use of very few (in this case two) operating systems. And depending in how much control the OS developer’s exerts, it becomes an issue for third-party developers.

So?

Maybe, maybe not - it’s not important in the context here. What matters (and stifles competition) is the level of control the OS developers exert on their platform - and the fact that they (Apple and Google) compete in services with them, rather than just create an OS. It’s primarily an issue for software developers. And the DMA mitigates that to create a more level playing field.

It obviously isn’t. It may not even be their fault.
It’s an issue for third-party developers, given how much control Apple exerts.

So it sounds like a more useful piece of legislation would be to target the creation of new operating systems in the market instead of forcibly changing the existing options for consumers.

 

[AppliedMicro]

So it sounds like a more useful piece of legislation would be to target the creation of new operating systems in the market

There‘s a limited number of competing systems a market will bear. Too much fragmentation isn’t in the interest of consumers nor developers.

But what would that entail? Forcing Apple to make their developer tools put out apps for other systems? Forcing developers to develop the same apps for a new operating system that they’re developing for iOS? Prohibiting sales of third-party applications unless they’re developed for all of the three OS.

It’s a chicken and egg problem:
No consumer will buy a phone or be willing to use its new operating system without a rich ecosystem of third-party apps.
No developer will develop apps for such a new system without an established customer base to make money from.

 

[mrochester]

…like what?

There‘s a limited number of competing systems a market will bear. Too much fragmentation isn’t in the interest of consumers nor developers.

More competition is definitely in consumer‘s interest. Developers I’m not really bothered about, but they’d be subject to regulation too so that they couldn’t preference any one platform.

 

[AppliedMicro]

More competition is definitely in consumer‘s interest

I agree that a third, maybe a fourth OS may be in consumer’s interest. A similar number to the number of mobile cellular carriers in most countries.

but they’d be subject to regulation too so that they couldn’t preference any one platform.

It’s an even greater mess of regulatory effort to regulate all third-party app developers (compared to just the few gatekeepers that the DMA regulates).

 

[mrochester]

I agree that a third, maybe a fourth OS may be in consumer’s interest. A similar number to the number of mobile cellular carriers in most countries.

It’s an even greater mess of regulatory effort to regulate and third-party app developer (compared to just the few gatekeepers that the DMA regulates),

It would result in better outcomes for consumers in comparison to the DMA, which is what I am more concerned with.

The rule would be very simple. If you want to make an iOS app, you make it for all the mobile operating systems. Job done.

It’s the power of app developers that need regulating. Just look at Windows Phone, it was app developers that killed the platform by not supporting it.

 

[wbeasley]

...which was a fork of Android. Probably still is.

oh look, three OSes... well there goes the duopoly... and didnt need any laws to make it happen.

all problems solved.
consumers will see huge competitive gains now with the extra choice.
prices will fall.

world peace next...

 

[Jamie0003]

Then you should have no problem providing a source then, correct? Remember...the EU tried to classify it as a monopoly but instead had to use the word "gatekeeper" because "monopoly" didn't stick. They couldn't find a way to legally call a platform that has such a small percentage of the user base in the region a "monopoly".

Full of it buddy.

EU Fines Apple $2 Billion for Anti-Competitive Behavior Toward Spotify

The European Commission today fined Apple €1.8 billion ($1.95 billion) for anti-competitive conduct against rival music streaming services. In a...

www.macrumors.com

 

[Nuno Lopes]

And Apple lets you readily track your subscriptions and manage them all in one place, as well as request for a refund from their webpage.

So you don’t deny it that the predatory pricing non applicable to the products served by the App Store. Stating otherwise as Apple does is Mambo Jambo

Any good digital service lets you readly track your subscriptions and ask for a refund if things aren’t as expected. Even more cost intensive retail services such as Amazon have a good return policy.

In fact there is a law in the EU regarding refunds on products bought online for that matter.

 

[I7guy]

Again: the market for smartphone (as in devices) is relatively competitive. The market for operating systems isn’t - it’s a natural duopoly: Developers and consumers converge on the use of very few (in this case two) operating systems. And depending in how much control the OS developer’s exerts, it becomes an issue for third-party developers.

So?

Maybe, maybe not - it’s not important in the context here. What matters (and stifles competition) is the level of control the OS developers exert on their platform - and the fact that they (Apple and Google) compete in services with them, rather than just create an OS. It’s primarily an issue for software developers. And the DMA mitigates that to create a more level playing field.

It obviously isn’t. It may not even be their fault.
It’s an issue for third-party developers, given how much control Apple exerts.

It’s a false duopoly because there is no tying of the hardware to the software. The manufacturers elect to buy their operating system instread of $$$ for r&d. There is no legal restriction that any other vendor has to use a particular operating system.

 

[mrochester]

It’s a false duopoly because there is no tying of the hardware to the software. The manufacturers elect to buy their operating system instread of $$$ for r&d. There is no legal restriction that any other vendor has to use a particular operating system.

We should have a regulation that states it is illegal to use anything other than your own operating system when making a smartphone. That would stop Android from being the only other choice to iOS as a result of lazy phone manufactures not creating their own.

Then we would have many different operating systems available, and app developers would be required to make their apps available on all platforms.

Huge consumer win

I've said it before and I'll say it again, we need lots of vertically integatred companies just like Apple for a competitive market. Horizontal integration kills competition.

 

[AppliedMicro]

oh look, three OSes... well there goes the duopoly

It’s not. It’s a variation of Android.
Probably will be for the foreseeable future, though they’re trying their best to obfuscate it.

and didnt need any laws to make it happen.

Not laws but U.S. government sanctions. So government interference.

 

[AppliedMicro]

It’s a false duopoly because there is no tying of the hardware to the software. The manufacturers elect to buy their operating system instread of $$$ for r&d. There is no legal restriction that any other vendor has to use a particular operating system.

Monopolies or duopolies don’t require legal restrictions or tying.