Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The effect of that curation has been to spare me any number of misadventures along lines of those freely visted upon us back in the bad old days of haphazard distribution of apps by talented devs who had no decent venues in which to showcase their wares. No they don't check code line by line (nor could we in that literal sense either) but they do provide the equivalent of what we once had to do for ourselves in attempting to ensure that the app does no harm and no more what it was pitched to do. That's worth it to me, and I should think our wanting that oversight would be worth it to devs who want us to buy their apps. The 30% is a simpler deal than negotiating some kind of terms --accepting insertion of adware, maybe-- with some middleman site that doesn't even pretend to vet apps from the consumer's standpoint.
 
What evidence do you have that this is true of the Google Play Store? I keep hearing this from Apple fan boys. I've used the Google play store for years and have never once gotten a virus or failed to find quality apps. And there are thousands of crappy apps available in the iOS App Store (I have an iPad, so I also use that all the time). This is the definition of a straw man argument.
Your post is an anecdotal straw-man.:confused:
 
I've been a Spotify user for years. It was the first major player in the streaming market (in the UK at least) and they were offering something new and different. Their rate of development was good and, for me, it's worked out cheaper than buying and owning albums. On a sidenote, I now tend to collect the music I want to own forever on vinyl or CD rather than digital downloads.

I've tried Apple Music a couple of times but I just don't get along with it very well. At the time I tried it, I found it much slower than Spotify in terms of searching and starting to play back the chosen tracks. Basically, I just preferred Spotify.

I'm sure Apple Music has improved over the last couple of years. Tidal was also better than I'd expected (but seems to have a heavy emphasis on genres I'm not interested in.) It appears to me that the competition has caught up to (and, in some cases) surpassed Spotify.

And that's my problem... Spotify are complaining about Apple's App Store and whinging about it being unfair. Well Spotify, why not get back to developing your app and making it the best streaming music platform out there? Their rate of development has slowed to glacial and even relatively simple features, such as an EQ on the Mac desktop app are missing. I'm still a Spotify customer for the time being, but I doubt I'll remain so for very much longer unless they start to add some of the features I feel I'm missing.
 

You can also Google "app store malicious" and also find many articles. Do you have any source about your claim of relative numbers?
 
You can also Google "app store malicious" and also find many articles. Do you have any source about your claim of relative numbers?

Actually, no you can't. Otherwise you would have gladly listed them all to counter my point. Curious why you never bothered.

Over the same time period as those links I posted above, there was only one instance of "malicious" Apps in the App Store - in January Apple pulled 14 Apps were connecting to servers that were also linked to the Golduck malware on Android. there were a few other Apps removed this year due to not following App Store guidelines, but these can hardly be classified as "malicious".

The big difference is all the Apps were doing was communicating with the server to do things like update icons - they didn't actually compromise any devices (like they did on Android) and weren't sending back personal information or uploading malware to the iOS devices. This is due to the differences in architecture between iOS and Android.
 
Yep, I get that, I have a developer account. As I have shown above, this is not what happens and Apple has yet to shut it down. Hardly anti-competitive. Here is a video I have just completed....


Spotify used to have in app purchase. This is a relatively recent development (within a year):

https://www.billboard.com/articles/...lix-bypassing-apple-app-store-billing-charges

It's confusing that Apple approves Spotify linking to Safari for payment. This seems to directly go against what Apple says: "Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase."

It just takes you to a page with info on Spotify premium. There's no direct link to purchase anything on that page – even a tap on the Spotify logo in the upper left corner takes you nowhere. I guess thats the way it has to be done for Apple to approve the Spotify app.

Terrible analogy. No one ever buys a Gillette razor. The razor blade industry is built on the model that you give the razor for free to sell the blades.
[doublepost=1559216408][/doublepost]

This looks like the external link just leads you to a page with information about subscriptions. You would then have to initiate the purchase yourself. So it's not breaking the requirement of not linking to a purchase mechanism.

(BTW the digital chin in iOS is disgusting and probably even worse design than the notch, surprised no one else seems bothered by it.)

Exactly...
Also agree on the "digital chin" – should at least be an option to hide it. While video playback apps tend to hide it automatically when playing a video it can be quite intrusive when gaming, even if some games makes it a bit transparent that's not enough in my opinion.
 
I may have been less than precise in my description. The legal test is whether a hypothetical monopolist (not necessarily Apple) could maintain incrementally higher prices for their products without consumers switching to other products. You suggest that people can switch to Android if they don't like what Apple is doing with iOS apps. It is certainly true that they could do that, but the relevant question is whether they would make such a switch. I'm doubtful that a large number of iOS users would switch to Android if Apple increased the price of all iOS apps by an incremental amount..

No, the legal question is not would they make a switch. What they would do, as long as there is competition in the market which there is in the app market with Android and iOS, is irrelevant.

Apple could raise prices and people not switch because they felt Apple was still a better product and worth more; and that would not not be illegal on Apple's part.

But the whole monopoly discussion is moot because Apple does not control app prices. I also would not classify them as a monopsony either.
 
Does anyone know what the current percentage of subscribed Spotify users are iOS, as opposed to android? The figures I've seen it's only 16% iOS in 2017.
With Spotify's 96+ million subscribers, with (lets say 80%) of them android users, losing 30% of a 20% revenue seems a bit petty. Are Spotify's margins so slim?

Spotify hasn’t made a profit. The real issue is their own problematic business model, and instead of trying to fix that, they have chosen to try and take on Apple.

There’s also the bigger issue that not all customers are made equal. To put it bluntly, users in developed countries like the US are worth more to Spotify because they can charge them more, but these are also the countries with higher iPhone market share (and consequently, higher subscription rates to Apple Music).

Spotify is desperate. It shows in their every action.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smulji
Actually, no you can't. Otherwise you would have gladly listed them all to counter my point. Curious why you never bothered.

Over the same time period as those links I posted above, there was only one instance of "malicious" Apps in the App Store - in January Apple pulled 14 Apps were connecting to servers that were also linked to the Golduck malware on Android. there were a few other Apps removed this year due to not following App Store guidelines, but these can hardly be classified as "malicious".

The big difference is all the Apps were doing was communicating with the server to do things like update icons - they didn't actually compromise any devices (like they did on Android) and weren't sending back personal information or uploading malware to the iOS devices. This is due to the differences in architecture between iOS and Android.

I didn't list them because it's boring

Type "app store malicious" into Google and post a screenshot if you're so sure
 
I didn't list them because it's boring

Type "app store malicious" into Google and post a screenshot if you're so sure

I already did plenty of searching and posted links. I see you still haven’t bothered with your list of links.

Sorry, but I’m not going to waste time in a back and forth with you to prove 2+2=4.
 
Of Course apps outside Apple's own are wanted / needed. And many of those Apps are available in the iOS app store. Apple is not fault-free. The theory is that these apps are being checked for true compatibility. However, I detest that Apple thinks 30% is an "OK" fee, but don't always do a good job at checking out new apps, or change their mind AFTER it has been allowed into the store. The idea of the walled garden store is good because it should provide peace of mind to the app user, but Apple seem to be becoming worse at looking after their store properly.



Not saying that people should NOT be allowed to go elsewhere, just pointing out the consequences - as I wrote, people download Apps from wherever, but if it causes problems, somehow it is always the fault of the OS makers :rolleyes:
It’s no problem. When someone takes their iPhone/iPad in for help they will have them wipe it as a first step anyways. It always annoys me when I’ve actually done that before going in and they want to do it again.
[doublepost=1559254625][/doublepost]
The point is that the iOS App Store model has been as successful as it has in promoting the popularity of apps precisely because users have no choice.

When I can get my apps from only one place, that gets rid of a lot of indecision over where to get my apps from. Do I download from the App Store which might cost more, but is supposedly safer, or from some third party App Store or even directly from the developer, who might offer it cheaper (because they don't have to pay Apple their cut), but security is more dubious?

When my apps are sold via a trusted source who has taken the effort to screen them beforehand, I am more likely to spend on apps, because there is less fear of downloading malware.

The reality is that security and competition will always be at loggerheads. I believe that a centralised App Store model is what results in the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of users. That said, as with any other alternative, there will always be winners and losers. This doesn't make the App Store perfect, but I maintain it's still the best of all the options available.
Again, you are making your choice to use the App Store, but that shouldn’t dictate whether others have to use it. If they opened up letting developers sell directly or through other app stores, then people like you could continue to only trust Apple. It wouldn’t change anything for you.

We paid a lot of money for these computers, and we should be able to run whatever apps on them we want. This also would take care of the censorship issues. I don’t personally care about Alex Jones or white supremacist apps being pulled from the App Store, but it should bother us all that Apple has made a decision that their free speech isn’t allowed. What happens when they pull an app that you do care about, but Apple is making a political stand against it? They shouldn’t be required to host it on their App Store, but there should be a way to get the apps some other way.

I can’t even imagine how this would be received if Microsoft tried to pull this on Windows computers and decided to make decisions based on what apps their competitors make or what their political views are at the time.

We shouldn’t accept less, because it is Apple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jaxemer83
Again, you are making your choice to use the App Store, but that shouldn’t dictate whether others have to use it. If they opened up letting developers sell directly or through other app stores, then people like you could continue to only trust Apple. It wouldn’t change anything for you.

Except we already have an excellent example in the form of Epic opting to release their fortnite game for android through their own third party installer and bypassing the google play store altogether.

On iOS, it’s very straightforward. It doesn’t matter how much you hate the App Store rules. You release your app through the App Store like everyone else.

On android, users who wanted to play fortnite couldn’t get it via the google play store. Instead, they had to install a third party installer which amongst other things, required them to consciously choose to compromise the security of their devices.

And because fortnite is no longer bound by android App Store rules, who knows what else they have done inside their app that users don’t know about.

So we have a very real situation of me being affected (negatively) by someone else’s arbitrary notions of choice and openness.

Third party app developers cannot be trusted to always take into consideration the best interest of their users. Which is why you need someone like Apple to keep them honest via a comprehensive framework of rules of regulations that no one should be allowed to skirt around.

If you want stuff like more app stores, android is that way. I am a (very satisfied) Apple customer precisely because I value what Apple does in helping safeguard my safety and security. And that extends to their App Store decisions.

We paid a lot of money for these computers, and we should be able to run whatever apps on them we want. This also would take care of the censorship issues. I don’t personally care about Alex Jones or white supremacist apps being pulled from the App Store, but it should bother us all that Apple has made a decision that their free speech isn’t allowed. What happens when they pull an app that you do care about, but Apple is making a political stand against it? They shouldn’t be required to host it on their App Store, but there should be a way to get the apps some other way.

I trust Apple to make the right call. This means that yes, even if they do end up pulling an app I do care about, I will accept it.

Plus, there’s always the browser. That the App Store doesn’t allow pornography doesn’t mean I can’t access those websites via safari or chrome, for instance.

It’s a package deal. You can’t expect to have only the pros without any of the cons.

I can’t even imagine how this would be received if Microsoft tried to pull this on Windows computers and decided to make decisions based on what apps their competitors make or what their political views are at the time.

We shouldn’t accept less, because it is Apple.
I am not.

To me, embracing the iOS App Store model, for all its flaws, is to accept more, not less.

More of what I want (better security and peace of mind), less of what I don’t want (bad actors, malware and spyware).

And like I said, there’s always android if you want what Apple does and will not offer.
 
So we have a very real situation of me being affected (negatively) by someone else’s arbitrary notions of choice and openness.

How does someone using an alternative app store to get fortnight negatively affect you when you aren't using alt app stores?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjp1
How does someone using an alternative app store to get fortnight negatively affect you when you aren't using alt app stores?

Because in the case of Fortnite, Epic did not make their app available in the google play store. If I want to play the game, I have to compromise the security of my phone by side loading the app.

That’s how I am affected. If I choose not to use an alternative App Store, I am not getting the game. And Epic is able to do this precisely they have the ability to bypass the App Store. They get more profits, I as a customer have absolutely zero benefit.
 
Last edited:
What evidence do you have that this is true of the Google Play Store? I keep hearing this from Apple fan boys. I've used the Google play store for years and have never once gotten a virus or failed to find quality apps. And there are thousands of crappy apps available in the iOS App Store (I have an iPad, so I also use that all the time). This is the definition of a straw man argument.

While we're talking fallacies and cognitive biases. "I have used the Google Play Store for years and have never once gotten a virus" = Normalcy Bias.....It's never happened to me before so it will never happen to me.

A simple google search away...

http://fortune.com/2017/09/14/google-play-android-malware/
https://www.wired.com/story/google-play-store-malware/
https://uk.norton.com/internetsecur...code-malware-hiding-in-google-play-store.html
https://www.zdnet.com/article/this-...-play-store-infecting-users-in-196-countries/
https://thehackernews.com/2017/04/android-malware-playstore.html

And Google themselves state that Android devices that have software installed from outside of the Google Play store have 8x the amount of Potentially Harmful Applications. Below is the breakdown.

Screen Shot 2019-05-31 at 10.44.04 am.png Screen Shot 2019-05-31 at 10.46.35 am.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Black Magic
Because in the case of Fortnite, Epic did not make their app available in the google play store. If I want to play the game, I have to compromise the security of my phone by side loading the app.

That’s how I am affected. If I choose not to use an alternative App Store, I am not getting the game.

By having apple as the only iOS app store, we don't get many games apple doesn't approve of, adult games, gambling games, emulators, alternate web browser rendering engines, etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjp1
By having apple as the only iOS app store, we don't get many games apple doesn't approve of, adult games, gambling games, emulators, etc.

I never said it was a perfect system, but I maintain that the current ios App Store system results in the greatest amount of benefit for the greatest amount of people.

I guess we can argue till the cows come home about whether 30% is fair or not, but I still believe in the merits of a curated App Store, and I am willing to put up with the downsides as well.

And if you want all that, there’s always Android. So why not switch to Android to get your emulator and adult gaming fix, rather than force iOS to adopt the android model and introduce all the problems which were previously non-issues for the iOS App Store?

As a rule of thumb, I am fundamentally opposed to any solution which requires Apple to give up control of their App Store, or which will allow users to be able to circumvent the App Store and install whatever app they want. Whether Apple gets their cut or not, I don’t really care, since it’s not a decision which directly impacts me (App Store prices are demand-driven anyways). But I am a happy Apple customer because of what Apple does in this regard, not despite it.
 
Last edited:
Microsoft used their monopoly in OS to hurt Firefox. Apple is using their monopoly in iOS app stores to hurt Spotify.

No on is saying apple has a monopoly in the smartphone market. That is a strawman argument you made up so you can tear it down with ease.
[doublepost=1559172075][/doublepost]

Walmart does not prevent Coke from selling in other stores. Walmart doesnt have a monopoly on grocery stores.

Apple prevents iOS devs from selling their app in other iOS app stores. They are forced to sell in Apple's store.


Like many people who are discussing this, You don't understand how this works. Spotify doesn't sell its app! Apple built an ecosystem for Spotify to give away its app and Apple doesn't get a penny for it. Spotify sells its music streaming business. They are free to sell that via streaming service directly to its customers and they do so. But, if they want to use the App store to bill the pre screened lucrative customers that Apple has spent billions bringing in the store, they have to pay a commission.

Spotify has used the App store to become the largest, by far, music streaming business in the world, and now dwarfs Apple in number of listeners by over a 100 MILLION. Apple doesn't get a penny from the vast majority of Spotify's customers, even though Apple subsidizes them for Spotify. Most are using the free tier where Spotify gets 100% of the money, or are signed up and pay Spotify directly, where again Spotify gets 100% of the money. Only a tiny percentage are signed up through the App store and for those Apple gets primarily a 15% commission. Apple is getting screwed:eek:
 
What evidence do you have that this is true of the Google Play Store? I keep hearing this from Apple fan boys. I've used the Google play store for years and have never once gotten a virus or failed to find quality apps. And there are thousands of crappy apps available in the iOS App Store (I have an iPad, so I also use that all the time). This is the definition of a straw man argument.

Googling the issue does wonders but I'm sure you will sweep that under the rug. Here are some links that provides some background story on the problem you willingly ignore:

https://www.lifewire.com/is-google-play-safe-153675

https://www.theinquirer.net/inquire...m-android-play-store-for-address-and-ad-fraud

https://www.techspot.com/news/78563-google-removes-29-malicious-photo-apps-store.html

https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/13/new-android-adware-google-play/

https://blogs.quickheal.com/28-fake...y-store-post-quick-heal-security-lab-reports/

https://mobilesyrup.com/2019/02/11/google-play-store-app-stealing-cryptocurrency/

https://www.zdnet.com/article/googl...pps-that-were-installed-by-millions-of-users/
 
Like many people who are discussing this, You don't understand how this works. Spotify doesn't sell its app! Apple built an ecosystem for Spotify to give away its app and Apple doesn't get a penny for it. Spotify sells its music streaming business. They are free to sell that via streaming service directly to its customers and they do so. But, if they want to use the App store to bill the pre screened lucrative customers that Apple has spent billions bringing in the store, they have to pay a commission.

Take a step back. I think you're looking at the wrong details here. The commission itself is not the core problem, but a red herring. The problem is that Apple discourages competition on their platform by prohibiting 3rd party apps from competing against their 1st party apps. Whether or not it's their store or their platform, it doesn't matter. There are laws that prohibit this type of behavior. Of course the lawyers will duke it out, but there's a legitimate reason here, and it's not as simple as what you're thinking.
 
What evidence do you have that this is true of the Google Play Store? I keep hearing this from Apple fan boys. I've used the Google play store for years and have never once gotten a virus or failed to find quality apps. And there are thousands of crappy apps available in the iOS App Store (I have an iPad, so I also use that all the time). This is the definition of a straw man argument.

You can do a quick search on ars technica as well. Keywords: android malware.

https://arstechnica.com/information...lware-targets-android-users-of-two-companies/

https://arstechnica.com/information...to-infect-android-users-with-windows-malware/

https://arstechnica.com/information...mobile-malware-efforts-because-of-yolo-opsec/

https://arstechnica.com/information...-22-backdoored-apps-with-2-million-downloads/

https://arstechnica.com/information...e-with-never-before-seen-spying-capabilities/

https://arstechnica.com/information...used-phones-motion-sensors-to-conceal-itself/

Just the tip of the iceberg.
 
As a rule of thumb, I am fundamentally opposed to any solution which requires Apple to give up control of their App Store
Not allowing other app stores or direct download of apps is not giving up control of their App Store. It is the customers giving up control of their devices. Who do you think owns the device after purchase?

Imagine if car manufacturers only allowed their cars to be filled up at gas stations they own. They could claim they’ve vetted this gasoline and it’s not potentially dangerous like the other gas stations are selling.

Also, how do you explain all of these apps that Apple has approved that are leaking data to trackers ( https://www.macrumors.com/2019/05/28/background-refresh-apps-sending-data/ )? Looks like Apple isn’t doing such a good job curating apps on their own store anyways! Maybe it is time a 3rd party steps in and delivers an App Store without all this crap that Apple hasn’t delivered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mi7chy
Take a step back. I think you're looking at the wrong details here. The commission itself is not the core problem, but a red herring. The problem is that Apple discourages competition on their platform by prohibiting 3rd party apps from competing against their 1st party apps. Whether or not it's their store or their platform, it doesn't matter. There are laws that prohibit this type of behavior. Of course the lawyers will duke it out, but there's a legitimate reason here, and it's not as simple as what you're thinking.


Again, lots of misunderstanding of how this all works. First, Apple does not prohibit 3rd party apps from competing against Apple apps. You must be aware of Spotify? Amazon? Google Maps?

Secondly, Apple would be free to prohibit competitors apps in it stores, just as it doesn't have to carry Microsoft Surface in its retail stores. You don't have a right to say I want to make a product and then force a company to carry it in their stores. If you decide to create an iOS app, then you go into it knowing the rules are set by Apple. If you don't want to follow those rules, then you can create your own store, only make it for Android, etc., The free market decides, and it would be foolish for Apple to ban apps that their customers want to have on their phones.

Amazon, for example, decided that they weren't going to put Prime App for Apple TV because they didn't want to follow Apple's rules, so they held out until they were able to reach agreement with Apple. If we follow your logic, then Apple wouldn't allow Amazon and all the many streaming apps because Apple they compete with Apple TV App. Also, if we follow your apparent logic, then Apple should be prevented from having a TV app because they have an advantage in pushing their own product and they don't charge themselves any fees.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.