Apple Says App Store 'Welcomes Competition' Following Criticism From Spotify and Others

[Abazigal]

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.

You knew what you were signing up for when you bought an Apple device. I don’t see why users are suddenly turning around and complaining about something which always been the case since day one.

Second, I thought Steve Jobs said it best during his D8 interview. This is what we customers pay Apple to do - make the tough decisions for us so we don’t have to. And part of this includes (implicitly) consenting to having all apps go through a central App Store managed by Apple. Apple makes the rules that all developers have to abide by so as to offer us, the end users, a better experience in the form of lesser piracy, better security, improved confidence and ease of payment and software updates.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Between security and competition, I choose security, especially since I am not convinced that opening up the App Store would offer me a better user experience at the end of the day.

At least, it wouldn’t be better in the areas that I care about and specifically joined the Apple ecosystem to enjoy.

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.

I can bet my last dollar that third party app stores are not going to be as invested in maintaining their App Store compared to Apple.

These apps are using third party SDKs, which Apple has little control over. If you want Apple to ban all these apps, then people complain of Apple being a monopoly. If Apple cuts off developer’s access to user data altogether, can you imagine the lawsuits that would be levelled their way?

One suggestion is to use as many of Apple’s first party apps as possible, such as maps over google maps, and Apple Music over spotify.

Apple’s not perfect, but let’s not kid ourselves here. No one else is going to have any incentive to address the issue of apps tracking users besides Apple.

 

[mariusignorello]

If they really welcome competition, they will allow other app stores onto iOS for users and developers to decide what to use or what is safe.

Average users don’t know what is safe. They have absolutely no clue. Tech forum readers are not average users, for the record.

All it takes is a malicious app “bricking” the device and Apple Support will be clogged up.
[doublepost=1559282569][/doublepost]Let’s be real here, this isn’t about choice or freedom of market. It’s about the 30% commission. Nobody would be complaining if Apple didn’t take a cut of app sales. Money is at the root of the issue here.

If you use someone’s resources to sell your product then you pay a fee. That’s basic business practice. Case closed.

 

[SSDGUY]

You probably never had a playlist with 600+ songs—it ain't fun.
If Apple Music is similar, then they too should find a way to more easily scroll through playlists.

Isn't the idea of a playlist to pull from a larger library by genres, favorites, etc? If you've got 600 songs in one playlist that's going to be tough to manage with any app.

 

[gmarm]

Not having the ability to set third party apps as default apps, by default gives Apple an unfair advantage.

They could have implemented this so many years ago but have explicitly chosen not to in order to maintain this advantage.

Apple is being very pretentious here.

 

[Winni]

Walmart doesn't let you shop at Costco inside a Walmart store. *shrug*

So the iPhone is a store? Because that's what you are saying.

 

[icloudUser]

This was a really good read, very eye opening actually, thanks for sharing that.

Yes eye opening indeed.

So after reading it I think spotify is the bully here

It wants to be on iOS app store and use IAS but pay 0$ to the ecosystem host. It wants to be on apple watch and homepod, and wants Siri integration etc. - still wants to pay absolutely nothing (i bet even the 100$ yearly is unfair for Spotify) and since it is made to pay - Apple is anti-competitive - yeah right!

And its already informing the user in app where to get info about subscriptions - so you can click and visit a page to get the info and subscribe using their own payment system.

Now thats unfair, right.

 

[ipponrg]

First, Apple does not prohibit 3rd party apps from competing against Apple apps. You must be aware of Spotify? Amazon? Google Maps?

If Apple disallows you setting default maps or music to 3rd parties, how do you interpret that?

 

[Abazigal]

If Apple disallows you setting default maps or music to 3rd parties, how do you interpret that?

Remind me again why Apple is somehow obligated to accord third party apps the same benefits and permissions it grants its own apps?

 

[cube]

When you buy an app at Amazon, you can use it in multiple OSes.

 

[icloudUser]

If Apple disallows you setting default maps or music to 3rd parties, how do you interpret that?

My 2 cents as an iOS user, I use whatever app suits my needs maps etc as I see fit. Just launch the app I want.

So in that way Apple is definitely NOT disallowing me. It might be making it slightly inconvenient by not providing a configuration for certain category of apps like messages from iMessage to xYZ but at the same time this is very subjective as I do not find it inconvenient.

Everyone uses the phone and os differently so each to their own but this is most definitely NOT deal breaker or anti - competitive IMHO.

Edit- also there is this wonderful Siri shortcuts feature that I should use more often

 

[ipponrg]

My 2 cents as an iOS user, I use whatever app suits my needs maps etc as I see fit. Just launch the app I want.

So in that way Apple is definitely NOT disallowing me. It might be making it slightly inconvenient by not providing a configuration for certain category of apps like messages from iMessage to xYZ but at the same time this is very subjective as I do not find it inconvenient.

Everyone uses the phone and os differently so each to their own but this is most definitely NOT deal breaker or anti - competitive IMHO.

I agree it’s not a deal breaker, and I use my phone in the same way you do

But you can argue in court that it’s discouraging competition. It’s a very grey area that can be perceived as plausible

 

[truthertech]

If Apple disallows you setting default maps or music to 3rd parties, how do you interpret that?

I would interpret it as the information you had was incorrect and Apple does not prevent 3rd party apps from competing against it, although they certainly have the option to. Apple subsidizes Google Maps and and Spotify and a million others allows them to access about 1.5 BILLION devices for FREE (well OK, Apple does get $100 a year developer fee from them) for which both companies rake in billions of dollars that Apple doesn't get one penny!

 

[rgbrock1]

If you're an artist and rely on royalties from Apple Music / Pandora / Spotify / etc as your main source of income, you might want to reconsider your career

You're not in the music industry, obviously. There are plenty of independent artists who do indeed rely on those royalties to some degree. And they should be paid for their artistry.

 

[smulji]

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.

"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."

There is a solution Apple has to that => Bring the Mac's GateKeeper feature to iOS. That way developers who want to distribute apps outside of the App Store can do so, so long as they have their Apps notarized & authenticated by Apple. It's worked great for the Mac. No reason why it can't work for iOS.
[doublepost=1559335620][/doublepost]

Remind me again why Apple is somehow obligated to accord third party apps the same benefits and permissions it grants its own apps?

Don't agree. By that same logic, Apple should disallow default 3rd party apps on the Mac. That won't go over well. Allowing default 3rd party apps is great for the user in terms of user experience and for competition since it forces Apple to ensure that their own first-party apps get better & remain high-quality. Unless Apple is afraid of competition. If Apple can guarantee a great user experience on the Mac allowing default 3rd party apps, I see no reason they cannot do the same for iOS.

 

[Abazigal]

"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."

There is a solution Apple has to that => Bring the Mac's GateKeeper feature to iOS. That way developers who want to distribute apps outside of the App Store can do so, so long as they have their Apps notarized & authenticated by Apple. It's worked great for the Mac. No reason why it can't work for iOS.

Gatekeeper is rubbish. I can basically bypass it by going into the security section of the settings menu.

And any security feature which can be circumvented by clicking a checkbox may as well not exist.

Don't agree. By that same logic, Apple should disallow default 3rd party apps on the Mac. That won't go over well. Allowing default 3rd party apps is great for the user in terms of user experience and for competition since it forces Apple to ensure that their own first-party apps get better & remain high-quality. Unless Apple is afraid of competition. If Apple can guarantee a great user experience on the Mac allowing default 3rd party apps, I see no reason they cannot do the same for iOS.

I think Apple is playing it exactly right: Make a good stock app that suffices for the majority of their users. Leave a broad space where Pro-feature apps like Overcast and Spark can have far more opinionated and niche feature-sets that appeal to their respective demographics.

Apple serves the majority because of default-advantage and the fact that it works for 60-80% of people and indie developers still have enough room in the space to make money from building apps.

In this way, Apple still allows for competition by making their apps “good enough but not too good”, while still serving as a minimum baseline (if your app is somehow worse than Apple’s own stock apps, then it deserves to fail because nobody is going to use it over the preinstalled default.

 

[Marshall73]

Apple, Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft all control their platforms. You can’t put an app or game on these platforms without it being passed by the platform owner. On These platforms you have the option of buying physical media but these are still authorised by Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft and a % of the title is still paid to them. Apple offer a digital only marketplace but they could offer physical codes you could purchase from stores but they will still be taking a cut like the other platforms do (they do offer vouchers which can be bought at discount from retailers)

iOS devices are in the minority of mobile devices so you cannot even state that Apple are a monopoly, if you did then that would apply to Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo etc as they monopolise their own platforms, which is frankly a retarded idea.

 

[ipponrg]

You're not in the music industry, obviously. There are plenty of independent artists who do indeed rely on those royalties to some degree. And they should be paid for their artistry.

Im not in the music industry for those reasons. I realized when I was pursuing, you need to sell merch and tour to promote. Any smart musician will also use these services as promotional tools. If you rely only on royalties, then let Darwinism and luck do its job.

 

[Defthand]

Gatekeeper is rubbish. I can basically bypass it by going into the security section of the settings menu.

And any security feature which can be circumvented by clicking a checkbox may as well not exist.



I think Apple is playing it exactly right: Make a good stock app that suffices for the majority of their users. Leave a broad space where Pro-feature apps like Overcast and Spark can have far more opinionated and niche feature-sets that appeal to their respective demographics.

Apple serves the majority because of default-advantage and the fact that it works for 60-80% of people and indie developers still have enough room in the space to make money from building apps.

In this way, Apple still allows for competition by making their apps “good enough but not too good”, while still serving as a minimum baseline (if your app is somehow worse than Apple’s own stock apps, then it deserves to fail because nobody is going to use it over the preinstalled default.

Aside from dictators, I have never heard someone argue for less individual freedom, and champion mediocrity for the sake of conformity.

 

[Abazigal]

Aside from dictators, I have never heard someone argue for less individual freedom, and champion mediocrity for the sake of conformity.

You are not the first person to raise this point, and frankly, I still don’t see the relevance.

This isn’t politics we are talking about, nor is it a way of life. We are discussing about the best way to offer a great user experience for apple users, and I stand by everything I said.

This goes all the way back to the realisation that Apple doesn’t sell you a product. It sells you an experience, made possible by its control over hardware, software and services. Part of that user experience comes from a locked-down App Store which makes it extremely safe and easy for users to purchase apps. We pay Apple to make the hard choices for us so that we don’t have to.

I look at all the problems with the google play store and I am scratching my head as to why anyone would want to wish all these issues on the ios App Store. Issues that have largely been solved precisely because of the tight control Apple exerts over it.

For instance, because users can’t sideload apps, most end up having to purchase apps the legit way. This makes it profitable for developers, who can then offer their apps at a cheaper price than they otherwise would because they know the buying numbers will be there. This in turn incentivises developers to release their apps for ios first (or exclusively), and keep them updated regularly. Back to my initial example, Fortnite came for ios first despite it being locked down (because that’s where the money was), with the android version only being released many months later (and even then, users had to manually sideload an app if they wanted to access it).

So while opening up the App Store and offering alternatives might mean more competition, I don’t see it as necessarily offering a better experience for me. Which is ultimately what I buy Apple products for. An integrated experience which just works right out of the box. Not someone else’s arbitrary notion of freedom and choice.

 

[Defthand]

You are not the first person to raise this point, and frankly, I still don’t see the relevance.

This isn’t politics we are talking about, nor is it a way of life. We are discussing about the best way to offer a great user experience for apple users, and I stand by everything I said.

This goes all the way back to the realisation that Apple doesn’t sell you a product. It sells you an experience, made possible by its control over hardware, software and services. Part of that user experience comes from a locked-down App Store which makes it extremely safe and easy for users to purchase apps. We pay Apple to make the hard choices for us so that we don’t have to.

I look at all the problems with the google play store and I am scratching my head as to why anyone would want to wish all these issues on the ios App Store. Issues that have largely been solved precisely because of the tight control Apple exerts over it.

For instance, because users can’t sideload apps, most end up having to purchase apps the legit way. This makes it profitable for developers, who can then offer their apps at a cheaper price than they otherwise would because they know the buying numbers will be there. This in turn incentivises developers to release their apps for ios first (or exclusively), and keep them updated regularly. Back to my initial example, Fortnite came for ios first despite it being locked down (because that’s where the money was), with the android version only being released many months later (and even then, users had to manually sideload an app if they wanted to access it).

So while opening up the App Store and offering alternatives might mean more competition, I don’t see it as necessarily offering a better experience for me. Which is ultimately what I buy Apple products for. An integrated experience which just works right out of the box. Not someone else’s arbitrary notion of freedom and choice.

Excellent explanation.

My only rebuttal is that when Steve Jobs spoke of selling "an experience", he was not speaking of today's ecosystem—it did not exist. The context at the time was the complexity of operating and maintaining a PC, and the art-less personality of the Windows platform. You could literally take a new Mac out of its box, plug it in, flip the power switch, and it was ready to perform. Apple exemplified elegance. However, the difference then was that Apple's signature elegance didn't gimp third party contributions to the platform. The platform actually improved in response to the needs of third party softwares like those from Adobe/Aldus/Macromedia. Today, Apple engineers its hardwares for its purposes and treats third party products as leeches.

Frankly, I can't imagine that SJ would approve of a closed ecosystem if it made it fiscally difficult for partners to thrive, and discouraged experimentation. The "walled garden" was not coined for Apple's ecosystem. It was a metaphor for Apple's Unix security features.

 

[Abazigal]

Excellent explanation.

My only rebuttal is that when Steve Jobs spoke of selling "an experience", he was not speaking of today's ecosystem—it did not exist. The context at the time was the complexity of operating and maintaining a PC, and the art-less personality of the Windows platform. You could literally take a new Mac out of its box, plug it in, flip the power switch, and it was ready to perform. Apple exemplified elegance. However, the difference then was that Apple's signature elegance didn't gimp third party contributions to the platform. The platform actually improved in response to the needs of third party softwares like those from Adobe/Aldus/Macromedia. Today, Apple engineers its hardwares for its purposes and treats third party products as leeches.

Frankly, I can't imagine that SJ would approve of a closed ecosystem if it made it fiscally difficult for partners to thrive, and discouraged experimentation. The "walled garden" was not coined for Apple's ecosystem. It was a metaphor for Apple's Unix security features.

I appreciate the history lesson, which was a most enlightening read for someone as new to the Apple ecosystem as myself (got my first Apple product - a 27” imac in 2011).

However, I see it a different way. I acknowledge that it doesn’t really address the points it raised, because I ultimately don’t really think that it is relevant today.

Apple has aggregated the best customers. The chief reason why Apple has significant share in the premium segment of the smartphone market is precisely because iphone users by and large prefer the walled-garden approach that Apple employs. Apple’s stance on privacy and security resonates with us. Issues like viruses and malware are so minor in the Apple ecosystem that they are barely worth a mention.

Then, we have companies accusing Apple of monopolistic practices by not allowing apps or other app stores on iOS devices. To them, Apple is using the App Store as a means of propping up its own ecosystem at the expense of these other companies.

I am still not convinced that multiple app stores would actually benefit consumers, which is what any decision by the courts should ultimately consider. The App Store does not exist for developers (alone); it exists for us consumers first and foremost.

After some reflecting, I am of the opinion that Apple is facing so much heat of late not because it has a monopoly over the App Store, but because it has a monopoly on smartphone profits. Apple has successfully garnered control over a small but extremely lucrative segment of the smartphone market. One that everyone is chasing and wants a share of thanks to its superior economics.

That’s why we are seeing Spotify mounting an all-out offence now. I am betting that it’s really now or never for Spotify. The people at Spotify must be feeling the heat from Apple Music in developed countries like the US, and I have a sneaking suspicion that Spotify may not be long for this world, though that is probably another discussion for another day.

I think what Apple might end up doing is gradually decrease its cut of subscription revenue over time. For example, 30% in the first year, 15% in the 2nd, then maybe 5% (for covering payment processing fees) henceforth.

I don’t really have a response to your point about Apple making it hard for the competition to thrive. In my opinion, Apple has already done enough by making their apps only “good enough”, so developers can still offer a noticeably differentiated product that appeals to audiences who find Apple’s own apps lacking. Apple could very well copy Overcast feature for feature, but it doesn’t, because that would be overserving its users and potentially complicating the user experience for them. This in turn allows Marco Arment (the developer of Overcast) to customise the experience of his podcast app with features like smart speed, thereby appealing to a niche audience and still be very successful financially for it.

So it is possible for app developers to succeed. They are complaining that Apple isn’t making it as easy for them as they would like to and frankly, I don’t think that Apple is obligated to.

 

[ipponrg]

The chief reason why Apple has significant share in the premium segment of the smartphone market is precisely because iphone users by and large prefer the walled-garden approach that Apple employs. Apple’s stance on privacy and security resonates with us. Issues like viruses and malware are so minor in the Apple ecosystem that they are barely worth a mention.

I actually think this is a red herring you continue to pursue. Perhaps, the security and walled garden approach is the preference anecdotally, but I personally think Apple's stance on privacy and security is a rhetoric that they are using to try to convince the opposition why their ecosystem is worth it and to make the certain select individuals "feel" safer. I truly think viruses and malware are minor because (according to 9to5 mac), there's not a significant reason for people to target Apple MacOS when Windows 10 alone has at least 4x the amount of users as MacOS users. This doesn't count the fact that there are a ton of computers in various companies not using Windows 10 that are still prone to attacks. The sheer scale of Windows vs MacOS availability makes targeting Macs an unworthy effort.

After some reflecting, I am of the opinion that Apple is facing so much heat of late not because it has a monopoly over the App Store, but because it has a monopoly on smartphone profits. Apple has successfully garnered control over a small but extremely lucrative segment of the smartphone market. One that everyone is chasing and wants a share of thanks to its superior economics.

Although I agree that Apple has a garnered control over a significant amount of domestic smartphone market households, I think the real reason the heat is coming on is because of their questionable tactics of where they publicly say one thing, but their actions say another. Keep in mind, the only reason Apple's smartphone ecosystem is successful is due to third parties. Their stock apps have never been decent (until recently?), so they now have a reason to put those front and center now.

The people at Spotify must be feeling the heat from Apple Music in developed countries like the US, and I have a sneaking suspicion that Spotify may not be long for this world, though that is probably another discussion for another day.

I have a different feeling from Spotify employees and other countries such as Brazil.

 

[stonekirby]

Isn't the idea of a playlist to pull from a larger library by genres, favorites, etc? If you've got 600 songs in one playlist that's going to be tough to manage with any app.

The idea of a playlist isn't set in stone, it's personal for everyone; even with your explanation—such a list could easily grow over 600 songs long.

If otherwise; why allow such lengthy lists then?

The issue I have isn't about an explicit length of a list, rather with the navigation inside a list.
Saying it's tough to manage could be true, but not impossible to think (or at least offer) solutions for.

 

[Abazigal]

The idea of a playlist isn't set in stone, it's personal for everyone; even with your explanation—such a list could easily grow over 600 songs long.

If otherwise; why allow such lengthy lists then?

The issue I have isn't about an explicit length of a list, rather with the navigation inside a list.
Saying it's tough to manage could be true, but not impossible to think (or at least offer) solutions for.

My guess is that it’s not so much the developers allowed such lengthy playlists, but that they didn’t explicitly limit them.

That’s why you don’t see many viable options for managing playlists of such a length - because again, most people are not running around with that many songs.

 

[stonekirby]

My guess is that it’s not so much the developers allowed such lengthy playlists, but that they didn’t explicitly limit them.

That’s why you don’t see many viable options for managing playlists of such a length - because again, most people are not running around with that many songs.

Except that there is a growing list of users which are troubled by it.

I'm not saying that it has a top priority, but as an issue with a record dating back to 2016 I think people like me—people with more than a handful of songs in playlist—could be serviced once in a while.

But hey, just a matter of opinion.