Apple Now Faces App Store Challenges in China, Too

[Numbah One]

Does anyone have stats on how many/percentage of users in the EU and other places that have forced third party app store access have installed anything from one? Most users probably won't since it's not the most straightforward process to add a third-party App Store and will default to the Apple app store.

 

[quietstormSD]

We need a challenge in the US for this. The days for the need of a walled garden for iOS has long passed. They are acting like AOL now.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

It should be noted that the major App Stores in China (which vastly outnumber Apple’s in sales) charge 50% or more per transaction. This is a group of people that have found a profitable pocket of folks they can sell to and want to get a better deal for themselves (because they literally can’t get a better deal anywhere else).

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Even Apple (because they made our app a "reader app") forced me so I could not allow new signups within the app. They deserve 100% of the crap coming to them because of their asinine rules.

You could allow new signups, you just don’t want to, and that’s ok.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Does anyone have stats on how many/percentage of users in the EU and other places that have forced third party app store access have installed anything from one? Most users probably won't since it's not the most straightforward process to add a third-party App Store and will default to the Apple app store.

Not zero, but, in the grand scheme of things, effectively zero. Which really isn’t Epic’s end goal anyway. Epic’s goal is to get as many regions to say that “developers effectively don’t owe anything to platform owners”. They’ll use that precedent to push their way onto Steam, the Switch and anywhere else that they’d have to pay a commission to otherwise.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

We need a challenge in the US for this. The days for the need of a walled garden for iOS has long passed. They are acting like AOL now.

If they want to act like AOL and people begin to resent them and the platform shrinks and disappears leaving Android, where’s the downside?

 

[turbineseaplane]

We need a challenge in the US for this. The days for the need of a walled garden for iOS has long passed. They are acting like AOL now.

Always On Lockdown
😂

 

[nt5672]

("The filing alleges that Bill's Flower Gardens maintains a monopoly over flower distribution via his flower shop")

Let me fix that for you.

"The filing alleges that Bill's Flower Gardens maintains a monopoly over flower distribution via his flower shop, which, by a shady contract, is the only flower shop that can sell the flowers that the user's want."

 

[Starfia]

Let me fix that for you.

"The filing alleges that Bill's Flower Gardens maintains a monopoly over flower distribution via his flower shop, which, by a shady contract, is the only flower shop that can sell the flowers that the user's want."

Thanks for inserting the definition of a successful business as opposed to the definition of a monopoly.

(Oh, and please allow me.)

("… That the users want.")

 

[Starfia]

Does anyone have stats on how many/percentage of users in the EU and other places that have forced third party app store access have installed anything from one?

I've appreciated the occasional piece of input here from users in Europe, since I'd love to know. (Is it mainly just Fortnite and Delta users and people who want the one pornography app? Or are those users mainly the creators of those apps? To this point I haven't noted any such user on the forum or social media apart from them.)

 

[Starfia]

Apple did this to themselves when they decided to charge 30% and 100% lock out any alternative.

We need a challenge in the US for this. The days for the need of a walled garden for iOS has long passed. They are acting like AOL now.

No one seems to be mentioning Web apps either. I've heard developers express that iOS should have even better Web app support, and I'm certainly with them on that, particularly since Jobs made special mention of Apple's strong support for "two platforms" at WWDC 2010.

But Web apps for iOS still:

• Are easy to distribute
• Are not curated by Apple at all
• Don't require a commission to Apple of any kind
• Presumably support any payment method the Web does
• Have plenty of high-quality support for graphics, sound and media

And Apple still sinks plenty of time and energy into supporting any developer who wants to make them, release them, and make money from them, to potentially every user, without asking for a cent.

It's almost enough to make one wonder why this broader issue was ever controversial.

 

[Hajj.david]

You could allow new signups, you just don’t want to, and that’s ok.

Not for reader apps under the old rules. I will gladly send you the screenshots of the communication between Apple and myself regarding this issue when I get home from work if you insist.

Why would I NOT want users to sign up within the app? I had to REMOVE signing up (meaning we offered it before). Yes apple did change the rules to allow signups (for reader apps) with extremely strict and stringent requirements but only recently. This is all publicly available information.

 

[Hajj.david]

No one seems to be mentioning Web apps either. I've heard developers express that iOS should have even better Web app support, and I'm certainly with them on that, particularly since Jobs made special mention of Apple's strong support for "two platforms" at WWDC 2010.

But Web apps for iOS still:

• Are easy to distribute
• Are not curated by Apple at all
• Don't require a commission to Apple of any kind
• Presumably support any payment method the Web does
• Have plenty of high-quality support for graphics, sound and media

And Apple still sinks plenty of time and energy into supporting any developer who wants to make them, release them, and make money from them, to potentially every user, without asking for a cent.

It's almost enough to make one wonder why this broader issue was ever controversial.

There are several limitations to PWAs:

• Storage of offline files limited to 50mb.
• Limited USB/Bluetooth functionality.
• No access to advanced payment integrations (Apple Pay does work).
• No Face ID, Touch ID, ARKit (Augmented Reality).
• No background sync.
• No integration with Siri.
• No ability to prompt users to install it on their home screen
• No where near the performance of a native app. Safari severely limits RAM and CPU usage.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Not for reader apps under the old rules. I will gladly send you the screenshots of the communication between Apple and myself regarding this issue when I get home from work if you insist.

Why would I NOT want users to sign up within the app? I had to REMOVE signing up (meaning we offered it before). Yes apple did change the rules to allow signups (for reader apps) with extremely strict and stringent requirements but only recently. This is all publicly available information.

Today, there’s no option for you to allow a user to download your app and pay for it via an IAP? If that’s the case, I concede, but there are reader apps I use today where the subscription is charged via the App Store. It just seems odd purchasing within the app is available to me but not an option for you to provide.

 

[Starfia]

There are several limitations to PWAs:

• Storage of offline files limited to 50mb.
• Limited USB/Bluetooth functionality.
• No access to advanced payment integrations (Apple Pay does work).
• No Face ID, Touch ID, ARKit (Augmented Reality).
• No background sync.
• No integration with Siri.
• No ability to prompt users to install it on their home screen
• No where near the performance of a native app. Safari severely limits RAM and CPU usage.

That's a good breakdown of some of the specific differences, and I can think of others. (That's why I opened by saying I empathize with people who think Apple should do this in a way that attracts even more developers.)

Depending on what you mean, I might disagree with "no background sync" (you can, of course, keep state consistent between devices with the aid of your web server's own version of what happens with iCloud or whatever else), and of course a Web app can know whether it's running as an "app" and choose to tell the user that it's possible. And to agree with you, a bigger part of an iOS app these days is its presence across the system, like in widgets, shortcuts, Siri's knowledge of it, and so on – and Web apps aren't really iOS apps in that sense.

But I've gained the impression that largely, the developers who are unhappy with iOS's App Store just want to have apps in the traditional sense across platforms – iOS, Android and possibly "other" – and that many of these would be totally viable as Web apps in today's environment.

And here I'm just responding to people who are saying developers are forced to release iOS native apps on the App Store because there's no other option.

 

[Hajj.david]

Today, there’s no option for you to allow a user to download your app and pay for it via an IAP? If that’s the case, I concede, but there are reader apps I use today where the subscription is charged via the App Store. It just seems odd purchasing within the app is available to me but not an option for you to provide.

My app is an EHR (electronic health record) app. Apple classified it as a "reader app" despite not having any movies, news, etc. Why? because our licensing scheme is per MEDICAL FACILITY, where as in app purchases are per USER. IAP do not support this type of licensing at all. Thats the problem, and its a problem that Apple has refused to help us with for over a decade.

So for example lets say you work at "Dr Bobs Clinic", Dr Bob pays me for a license, and has 5 staff members including you. With IAP since each apple device would have a different apple id each person would have to pay to use it. Whereas the system we have now he pays me for the license and he can add whatever staff he wants and they just download and use the app free of charge.

Thats why Apple classified our app as a reader app since an external license is handling the locking or unlocking of features. IAP do not make sense for our type of license so either we COMPLETELY redo how our licensing has worked for over a decade and charge per user via IAP or we have to use external payments, which thank God, Apple had to concede to recently in court.

 

[Hajj.david]

That's a good breakdown of some of the specific differences, and I can think of others. (That's why I opened by saying I empathize with people who think Apple should do this in a way that attracts even more developers.)

Depending on what you mean, I might disagree with "no background sync" (you can, of course, keep state consistent between devices with the aid of your web server's own version of what happens with iCloud or whatever else), and of course a Web app can know whether it's running as an "app" and choose to tell the user that it's possible. And to agree with you, a bigger part of an iOS app these days is its presence across the system, like in widgets, shortcuts, Siri's knowledge of it, and so on – and Web apps aren't really iOS apps in that sense.

But I've gained the impression that largely, the developers who are unhappy with iOS's App Store just want to have apps in the traditional sense across platforms – iOS, Android and possibly "other" – and that many of these would be totally viable as Web apps in today's environment.

And here I'm just responding to people who are saying developers are forced to release iOS native apps on the App Store because there's no other option.

I get what you are saying, but at least from my perspective I WANT to only make apps for the various apple platforms. I want to use Swift and widgets, etc etc etc. But sometimes Apple makes really really bad calls on rules and restrictions that just make it such a PITA to deal with sometimes.

We want a BETTER app store, not to leave it completely. For the record our company used to also release Android apps but the play store is so much worse and Google is such a PITA to deal with (sometimes it takes MONTHS to get updates approved, I wish I was exaggerating) and they randomly change their rules so often its impossible to follow. We completely pulled from the android store this year. Not worth the time and energy and Android users barely paid us anything anyways.

 

[Starfia]

I get what you are saying, but at least from my perspective I WANT to only make apps for the various apple platforms. I want to use Swift and widgets, etc etc etc. But sometimes Apple makes really really bad calls on rules and restrictions that just make it such a PITA to deal with sometimes.

Me too! I've done apps for the Web and for Apple platforms, and my (seemingly luxurious) choice is usually based on platform-appropriateness. For example, if I know I want an app to be available for most any user, I'll aim for a Web app. (And I can presumably reach Android users too – Android apparently has good support for Web apps as well, and even seems to emphasize them more to users, I think I've noticed. I've never heard a first-hand report on developing for the Play Store like that, so thank you. I'd have thought that with all the criticism Apple gets about App Store headaches, the overall experience of developing natively for Android would generally be seen as the same or better.)

If I didn't have the choice between HTML5 and native iOS, I don't think I'd find myself feeling like I couldn't forge ahead.

When choosing Apple platforms, I haven't personally found myself objecting to the App Store in the ways I see others doing. Maybe if my business model really clashed like cross spears against the structure Apple has designed, but I figure that if I'm developing for any platform, I should aim to develop "for that platform" – not in some way that seems incongruous with it from the outset.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

My app is an EHR (electronic health record) app. Apple classified it as a "reader app" despite not having any movies, news, etc. Why? because our licensing scheme is per MEDICAL FACILITY, where as in app purchases are per USER. IAP do not support this type of licensing at all. Thats the problem, and its a problem that Apple has refused to help us with for over a decade.

So for example lets say you work at "Dr Bobs Clinic", Dr Bob pays me for a license, and has 5 staff members including you. With IAP since each apple device would have a different apple id each person would have to pay to use it. Whereas the system we have now he pays me for the license and he can add whatever staff he wants and they just download and use the app free of charge.

Thats why Apple classified our app as a reader app since an external license is handling the locking or unlocking of features. IAP do not make sense for our type of license so either we COMPLETELY redo how our licensing has worked for over a decade and charge per user via IAP or we have to use external payments, which thank God, Apple had to concede to recently in court.

Get it now. I was just reading Apple’s External Link Account Entitlement document and I saw that part about the external license handling the locking/unlocking of features. A company I worked with had a reader app that was attached to physical devices and those were loaned out for the folks that needed access to them.