Apple Privacy Chief: North Dakota Bill 'Threatens to Destroy the iPhone as You Know It'

[Abazigal]

Or maybe he's just unhappy that Apple charge monopoly rents, 30% is not reasonable for hosting and payment processing.

The Apple Store offers a lot more value than that, IMO.

What I feel Apple could and should do a better job of doing is explain how the App Store helps grow the whole pie. Apple has aggregated the best customers thanks to the iPhone. When you develop an iOS app and publish it on the App Store, you are automatically marketing it to a user base that is on average more open to spending compared to Android. A user base that Apple has spent the better part of 10 years accumulating.

There is value in using iTunes for payment processing, just as there is value integrating biometrics into their payment system to make the whole process more seamless and secure, and there is also value in the App Store being a trusted marketplace for users that makes them more open to purchasing apps compared to the online web.

This is the value add that Apple brings, moreso than a company like Epic or even Microsoft, whose App Store is available to anyone and everyone. Even after taking their 30%, developers are going to earn more with their 70% cut compared to being able to keep 100% on another less lucrative platform like Android.

Yet developers like Epic and DHH would tell you that they are absolutely entitled to access this user base for free, and should be allowed to keep every last cent. I guess it is hard to make someone understand a particular concept when their fortunes depend on them not seeing it.

 

[The Phazer]

Walled Gardens should be a criminal offence to operate.

They are far, far, far too dangerous to be allowed to exist on a societal level - a single authority that controls if device may run code or not is simply far too open to abuse by governments (inevitably, as we have seen Apple in China literally get people killed because of the App Store). They embed sexual discrimination. They are toxic.

The notion you should "think of others" when desiring to run other code? We are. You're not.

Good on North Dakota.

 

[Rob_2811]

The Apple Store offers a lot more value than that, IMO.

What I feel Apple could and should do a better job of doing is explain how the App Store helps grow the whole pie. Apple has aggregated the best customers thanks to the iPhone. When you develop an iOS app and publish it on the App Store, you are automatically marketing it to a user base that is on average more open to spending compared to Android. A user base that Apple has spent the better part of 10 years accumulating.

There is value in using iTunes for payment processing, just as there is value integrating biometrics into their payment system to make the whole process more seamless and secure, and there is also value in the App Store being a trusted marketplace for users that makes them more open to purchasing apps compared to the online web.

This is the value add that Apple brings, moreso than a company like Epic or even Microsoft, whose App Store is available to anyone and everyone. Even after taking their 30%, developers are going to earn more with their 70% cut compared to being able to keep 100% on another less lucrative platform like Android.

Yet developers like Epic and DHH would tell you that they are absolutely entitled to access this user base for free, and should be allowed to keep every last cent. I guess it is hard to make someone understand a particular concept when their fortunes depend on them not seeing it.

Can you point me to where Tim Sweeney/Epic or DHH have said they want access for free?

 

[IG88]

Epic Games pointedly told Apple that it wants to run its own app store, with all of the same capabilities that Apple's App Store has on iOS. It would be a parallel app marketplace, and based on Epic's past history, there's no reason to assume that the company wouldn't try to entice other developers into its fold, promising lucrative deals in exchange for them selling their apps exclusively on Epic's store. Others would undoubtedly follow suit, and suddenly finding apps and keeping them updated would potentially involve having a half-dozen or more "app stores" installed on your devices.

I see what you're saying. You're making good points, but I still am going to refer to the long history of other major operating systems existing just fine without a single App Store controlled by the OS developer.

If Apple doesn't want to lose developers to a competing App Store, perhaps Apple should take a hard look at that 30% cut they've been demanding since it's inception (Yes I realize they recently reduced the cut below $1M revenue).

If Microsoft tried pulling this **** with Windows, we'd see their HQ in Redmond engulfed in a raging inferno. But Apple does it with iOS, and not only are people OK with it, we actually have people actively pushing fear mongering to defend it.

 

[gregmancuso]

At what price that freedom though. What is the cost of giving users that added freedom?

For example, I have explained how lower App Store revenue may compel Apple to raise the annual developer fees to cover the cost of running the App Store, which would penalise smaller developers.

When all apps have to go through the App Store, they are subject to Apple’s terms, and consumers are largely spared the behind-the-scenes drama. I don’t see having to navigate multiple app stores or contemplating which App Store to download an app from as being better for the end user.

It's even worse than simply a potential increase to the Developer Program fees or the related impact to the smaller developers. It is also likely to cause significant ecosystem issues.

A competing store will likely not do any reviews, not perform consistent billing and tax reporting, nor not provide an open search facility. This would cause issues not just with the users, but also with developers. Especially the smaller ones who must now do much more around billings, as well as tax withholding, payment, and reporting. But, these competing stores will most likely charge less of a percentage. This will have no benefit to the user as the developer would most assuredly not pass the savings on through a reduction in purchase price. Further, these developers will likely only use the off-brand, discount stores thereby reducing the app choices for the majority of us who do not want this.

 

[WiseAJ]

Except that nobody is doing that

That’s exactly what people are doing when they demand Apple open up iOS. They want an open system they need to go to Android or ****.

 

[Abazigal]

Can you point me to where Tim Sweeney/Epic or DHH have said they want access for free?

They have been championing to be able to use any payment service they want, which means being able to circumvent Apple's 30/15% cut.

Epic's endgame is to be able to run their own App Store on iOS, where they would not only get to keep 100% of the profits for themselves (minus any payment processing fees), but also host other apps and charge those developers a fraction of their proceeds.

DHH runs a business, and simply feels entitled to every last cent. He's been tweeting about wanting to be able to use stripe for payment processing for a while now (can't locate it because it's many months old). Which is precisely the whole issue. Stripe is able to charge so little because they just process payments; they don't run or curate an App Store the way Apple does.

 

[ignatius345]

That's a load of crap. I am a car guy and have always worked on and modified cars and nothing fits or works like an OEM factory part!

True about cars, but we're not talking about OEM software Apple makes. Going off what you're saying, Word will never work as well as Apple software like Pages (debatable). I get why you wouldn't buy an off-brand clutch assembly or camshaft, but how would you feel if you couldn't use store brand wiper fluid? Or had to buy your tires directly from the dealer? Because that's what we're talking about. Nothing you can run on iOS can be obtained from anywhere but the gateway run by the company who takes upwards of 30% off the top.

And that percent off the top isn't just paid by developers, it's paid by the end user in the form of higher prices or the kind of software rental (sorry, "subscription") crap that developers have to resort to to make up for Apple's take.

On my Mac, I can download Setapp if I want, or I can just go to Omni Group or Rogue Amoeba or any of a huge number of indie developers and buy their software directly from them. I buy stuff on the App Store, and I buy stuff independently, and my Mac isn't exactly bursting into flames over here. I just fail to see why iOS or iPadOS can't function safely with more access to software obtained from other sources.

 

[Rob_2811]

They have been championing to be able to use any payment service they want, which means being able to circumvent Apple's 30/15% cut.

Epic's endgame is to be able to run their own App Store on iOS, where they would not only get to keep 100% of the profits for themselves (minus any payment processing fees), but also host other apps and charge those developers a fraction of their proceeds.

DHH runs a business, and simply feels entitled to every last cent. He's been tweeting about wanting to be able to use stripe for payment processing for a while now (can't locate it because it's many months old). Which is precisely the whole issue. Stripe is able to charge so little because they just process payments; they don't run or curate an App Store the way Apple does.

I think he refered to Apple insistance that Basecamp add an in app purchase to the Hey app as a 'shakedown'. Which it was.

 

[ignatius345]

That’s exactly what people are doing when they demand Apple open up iOS. They want an open system they need to go to Android or ****.

Oh wow, people are demanding that you personally sideload software? Or are you somehow threatened by other people running non-App Store software on their phones?

Do you communicate with people? Do those people have your name? Your email? Your address? Photos of yours? Files of yours?
Give it a little thought, and try to realize that even if you never go to those alternate app stores, people you communicate with may. What do those people know about you that you would not want being compromised? (If you have ever received an email from a friend that came from their email address to yours... and had some link in it to click... but you knew it wasn’t from them because the message made no sense... this is a great example. Someone obtained access to that friends contact list... and was spamming links that likely led to malware... etc)

I have terrible news for you. I hope you're sitting down. Ready?

As it turns out, people have been running software from all kinds of sources on their Macs since the 1980s. 😱

Better run for the hills!

 

[jdawgnoonan]

I very well do. However, you don’t seem to understand what malicious apps are capable of doing. You do understand that with side loading one can use vulnerabilities to circumvent sand boxing and in some cases encryption. You do understand that third party app stores and side loading is nothing short of jailbreaking. One can use private API’s etc. which would never be accepted on Apple App Store.

There is quite a difference between side-loading and alternate app stores that would have their own app review processes, as is what would be the likely outcome of this.

 

[WiseAJ]

Oh wow, people are demanding that you personally sideload software? Or are you somehow threatened by other people running non-App Store software on their phones? I have terrible news for you: people have been doing that on their computers for decades now. 😱

Yes it personally affects the security of my device because opening up one iPhone opens up them all. There is no going back once Pandora’s box is opened.

computers are not your cell phone. Cell phone contains more sensitive personal data than a computer and thus need to be more protected.

also it’s too late to backtrack and close down macOS. It’s not too late to keep iOS protected and safe until Android lovers force there demands upon Apple.

 

[subi257]

True about cars, but we're not talking about OEM software Apple makes. Going off what you're saying, Word will never work as well as Apple software like Pages (debatable). I get why you wouldn't buy an off-brand clutch assembly or camshaft, but how would you feel if you couldn't use store brand wiper fluid? Or had to buy your tires directly from the dealer? Because that's what we're talking about. Nothing you can run on iOS can be obtained from anywhere but the gateway run by the company who takes upwards of 30% off the top.

And that percent off the top isn't just paid by developers, it's paid by the end user in the form of higher prices or the kind of software rental (sorry, "subscription") crap that developers have to resort to to make up for Apple's take.

On my Mac, I can download Setapp if I want, or I can just go to Omni Group or Rogue Amoeba or any of a huge number of indie developers and buy their software directly from them. I buy stuff on the App Store, and I buy stuff independently, and my Mac isn't exactly bursting into flames over here. I just fail to see why iOS or iPadOS can't function safely with more access to software obtained from other sources.

 

[Ethosik]

It really isn't. It's your point.
Sadly many are trying to push this "claim" of security. It's all about $$$ and control of that $$$.

Apple can, set for example: all apps sold have to be licensed, reviewed, and certified by Apple before they can be loaded onto a device.

Every single business is about the money. Even hospitals. But it is still invalid to say some hospitals actually care about their patients? Why is it IMPOSSIBLE for Apple to care about privacy and security? "Its only about $$$$". Uh that is the definition of a business.

 

[Ethosik]

Only for people who decide to install alternate App Stores!

Until a flaw is discovered with the "Allow third party apps" setting where hackers can get around it.

 

[gavroche]

Ah I see. So apparently you don't communicate / collaborate / share files with Windows, Linux, or Mac users.

Of course i do. But just because i know that some compromises happen doesnt mean i willingly dont care if it gets even easier. Given the large iOS user base, adding all those users to potential risk will undoubteldy result in a lot more abuse. So your argument is that if some wrong already happens, give up and open the doors wide open? That would be like saying that if someone broke in your back window and robbed your house last week, you might as well stop locking all the doors.
We should always strive to be as secure as possible, not just give up and accept the security of the weakest commom denominator.

 

[Abazigal]

If Microsoft tried pulling this **** with Windows, we'd see their HQ in Redmond engulfed in a raging inferno. But Apple does it with iOS, and not only are people OK with it, we actually have people actively pushing fear mongering to defend it.

To me, it's not a question of whether there is a cut or not, but what the company is doing to justify that cut.

Apple does a lot of stuff for the App Store. They release APIs that developers can incorporate into their apps to improve the functionality for their users. They integrate biometrics into their payments. They vet the apps on their platform (I recognise this isn't perfect, and acknowledge the existence of problems like subscription scams, but it's still a step up compared to Android where malware is rife). They have recently added stuff like being able to view and manage my subscriptions all in one place. Apple's adding a lot of value to the equation that other payment providers can't and don't.

So to me as a consumer, Apple being paid a commission that will never affect me seems perfectly reasonable. I say this because apps, being software, mostly have no marginal costs. As such, they are likely priced to maximise revenue, and even if Apple reduces their cut, I am not likely to see a corresponding drop in app pricing. Developers will simply pocket the difference, because that's what they have deemed is the optimal price for said app.

The end result for me as a consumer is that it's extremely convenient for me to purchase and download apps from the iOS App Store, and I have been able to benefit from numerous apps that are exclusive to the iOS platform, from notability to Apollo, because again, that's where the money is. I just renewed my subscription for Tweetbot, and I intend to do so for Fantastical as well later in May. All this is processed through iTunes.

Microsoft hasn't demonstrated that they are willing to invest an equivalent amount of resources into managing their app store the same way Apple has. So if you do less (or worse, nothing), then you deserve less of a cut.

This is what I fear will end up being compromised were the App Store be opened up - its vitality and viability. This may be one area where consumers and developers ultimately want very different outcomes, and if the story of King Solomon has taught us anything, it's that when people meet in the middle, the baby dies.

I sympathise with the developers' plight in this regard, and this is one area I absolutely will not capitulate in, were it up to me or if I were in any position to vote or otherwise make a difference.

 

[subjonas]

If Apple is forced to do this I hope they implement it as an option to the user when they setup their new device.

Agreed. I love the App Store but I wouldn’t be opposed to having the option of installing apps that aren’t available/allowed in the App Store. If it’s acceptable for macOS it should be the same for iOS, and especially for iPadOS.

I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic. 😅 To be clear: sure, I’ll promise!

I just want the option, on my own iPhone that I bought and paid for. Other people will decide to stick with the App Store for everything, and that’s great for them!

Option is usually good, but not in this case. The problem with even providing the option of non-app store apps is that developers would have the choice to make whatever app they want, however they want, and not pay Apple anything -OR- they can choose to obey Apple’s strict rules and guidelines (for quality, privacy, no shady practices) while paying Apple a big cut. The former is too enticing. Many many apps will start migrating their way out of the App Store, including major apps that we need to use. The selection of apps in the App Store will dwindle, and customers will be forced to roll the dice with unregulated apps to get the functionality that they had before. This is ultimately a very negative impact on the customer. Great for the developer though.
So this wouldn’t ultimately be giving the customer the choice, it would be giving developers the choice, and we the customers would be subject to their whims.

(Macs are somewhat of a different situation. Mac applications require more flexibility, especially for enterprise, so it would be harder to regulate.)

 

[Ethosik]

Walled Gardens should be a criminal offence to operate.

They are far, far, far too dangerous to be allowed to exist on a societal level - a single authority that controls if device may run code or not is simply far too open to abuse by governments (inevitably, as we have seen Apple in China literally get people killed because of the App Store). They embed sexual discrimination. They are toxic.

The notion you should "think of others" when desiring to run other code? We are. You're not.

Good on North Dakota.

Are you also for requiring Xbox, Playstation and Switch to open up? I would absolutely LOVE to create an Xbox game and just release it on my website, but that is not possible.

For the people that are cheering for this, is it just because its Apple? Or do you want Xbox, Playstation and Switch to be required to change too? While I am severely against this, IF Apple is required to change, we need to play fair and force the game consoles to change too.

 

[Ethosik]

I see what you're saying. You're making good points, but I still am going to refer to the long history of other major operating systems existing just fine without a single App Store controlled by the OS developer.

How have they operated just fine? Malware has been a massive issue for years, taking down several companies. Most recently is CD Projekt Red:

Cyberpunk and Witcher hackers auction off stolen source code for millions of dollars

Cyberpunk 2077 source code is for sale.

www.theverge.com

More:

Several hospitals targeted in new wave of ransomware attacks

Several hospitals across the United States have been targeted in ransomware attacks in what appears to be an escalation and expansion of similar attacks previously launched on other hospitals and medical facilities.

www.cnn.com

So how are operating systems existing "just fine"? One bad email and it is GAME OVER. I worked in a managed services provider. And ONE SINGLE EMAIL caused the entire company to shut down until we restored the backups. It infected terabytes of their data. It took a very long time to restore the backups.

Malware Statistics & Trends Report | AV-TEST

Provides visualizations of malware statistics that have happened in the last year, 2 years, 5 years, and 10 year time period.

www.av-test.org

Yeah, things are JUST GREAT with Windows, Mac and Linux. I don't want to see this type of graph on phones....ANY phone.

 

[Ethosik]

If Microsoft tried pulling this **** with Windows, we'd see their HQ in Redmond engulfed in a raging inferno. But Apple does it with iOS, and not only are people OK with it, we actually have people actively pushing fear mongering to defend it.

Have you heard about Windows 10 S? Something that we specifically purchased for my Grandma for the locked down environment.

 

[subi257]

Even if they make arraignments for it to come through a third party...maybe some kind of bulk rate....it's NOT going on my iPhone unless it still passes through Apple's vetting process. My other thought, is...if some malware gets loaded on and iPhone that might be side loaded, if that user backs up to the Apple cloud servers...could it corrupt/hack the cloud server? My iOS devices have much more sensitive data that my computer does not. All of my finance/credit card/medical stuff that is in my "wallet" is not on my computer. Also, I run "Little Snitch" on my computer and monitor where everything is going. I buy most apps through Apple app store because it's easier to buy and update.

As far as the software rental ("subscription") crap....that developer ******** that they are all doing all the way to top level....You can't "buy" Adobe products any more as with Microsloth and Quicken, etc.....I will not pay Adobe an annual fee to use a product once or twice a week. They are all getting too greedy. I used to buy it and not always upgrade because it still worked and did what I needed. Now I just use the free apps that Apple gives. the Apple app store is the vehicle that created to need/viability for all these developers and if the Apple app store shutdown over night almost all of the app developers would most likely go out of business. There's a 30% fee, because there is the expense of running the store running and maintaining all of that backend is enormous. Any store that will sell your wares as a producer of product will take what rats they want, tell you where it goes, how much shelf space you get and most likely display "house brand" product more prominently.

I do understand what you are saying, however, I think that the overall bulk of iOS users actually use it because of, security of product (there is a very low chance you will get malware, or viruses, etc) ecosystem...pictures, iMessages, calendar, contacts, etc can be created on any device and appear on all devices, ease if use. I think that there are different genre of people using the device at different levels, I bet half of the people using iOS devices are not using anywhere near half of the capability of the device.....they are too worried about what it looks like....oh this new one is ugly....oh the notch, I want the newest tech...wait why did they take away the decades old analog headphone jack......Then you have the hacker/tweake/geek that want to change everything...because they can?

 

[Rob_2811]

To me, it's not a question of whether there is a cut or not, but what the company is doing to justify that cut.

Apple does a lot of stuff for the App Store. They release APIs that developers can incorporate into their apps to improve the functionality for their users. They integrate biometrics into their payments. They vet the apps on their platform (I recognise this isn't perfect, and acknowledge the existence of problems like subscription scams, but it's still a step up compared to Android where malware is rife). They have recently added stuff like being able to view and manage my subscriptions all in one place. Apple's adding a lot of value to the equation that other payment providers can't and don't.

So to me as a consumer, Apple being paid a commission that will never affect me seems perfectly reasonable. I say this because apps, being software, mostly have no marginal costs. As such, they are likely priced to maximise revenue, and even if Apple reduces their cut, I am not likely to see a corresponding drop in app pricing. Developers will simply pocket the difference, because that's what they have deemed is the optimal price for said app.

The end result for me as a consumer is that it's extremely convenient for me to purchase and download apps from the iOS App Store, and I have been able to benefit from numerous apps that are exclusive to the iOS platform, from notability to Apollo, because again, that's where the money is. I just renewed my subscription for Tweetbot, and I intend to do so for Fantastical as well later in May. All this is processed through iTunes.

Microsoft hasn't demonstrated that they are willing to invest an equivalent amount of resources into managing their app store the same way Apple has. So if you do less (or worse, nothing), then you deserve less of a cut.

This is what I fear will end up being compromised were the App Store be opened up - its vitality and viability. This may be one area where consumers and developers ultimately want very different outcomes, and if the story of King Solomon has taught us anything, it's that when people meet in the middle, the baby dies.

I sympathise with the developers' plight in this regard, and this is one area I absolutely will not capitulate in, were it up to me or if I were in any position to vote or otherwise make a difference.

Most of this is meaningless to someone running a business, there is nowhere close to enough value provided to justify giving away 15% and certainly not 30%

Netflix was giving up $250 million a year in App Store tax to Apple, do you really think they were getting value for that?

 

[Abazigal]

Most of this is meaningless to someone running a business, there is nowhere close to enough value provided to justify giving away 15% and certainly not 30%

Netflix was giving up $250 million a year in App Store tax to Apple, do you really think they were getting value for that?

At the start yes, because they were able to gain access to the entirety of Apple’s user base. Which I believe is what helped them initially grow as quickly as they did. Granted, it’s practically household name at this point and Netflix probably doesn’t need Apple any more at this point, but I do believe that Apple was absolutely instrumental to their growth at one point.

Which also brings me to my earlier point - Apple helps grow the pie and lead to more consumers paying for apps that they otherwise would have. It’s not unlike paying more to rent a shop in a prime location with access to a more lucrative clientele. For example, here’s an old article about the disparity in earnings on an app between iOS and android.

Monument Valley: a clear example of why developing for iOS is more profitable than Android ⋆ MatruDEV

The developers of the great game Monument Valley showing the figures: nearly 6 million dollars in revenue almost 90% corresponds to iOS. A clear example that develop in the App Store is still more profitable than Google Play or Amazon.

www.matrudev.com

Do you really think these developers made it big on the App Store solely on their merit and the ecosystem that Apple so painstakingly built up played absolutely no role in enabling this?

 

[I7guy]

Most of this is meaningless to someone running a business, there is nowhere close to enough value provided to justify giving away 15% and certainly not 30%

Netflix was giving up $250 million a year in App Store tax to Apple, do you really think they were getting value for that?

Absolutely imo they were getting value. If they were paying that much, what were they raking in? $850M.

I do not think you can speak for netflix in determining if they were getting value or not.