Apple Starts Letting Developers Add Alternative App Marketplaces to App Store Connect

[TracerAnalog]

Yeah, Steam is the biggest game store by far, having many more games than any Apple App store (or at last more good games). So the “look how fragmented PC gaming is!” isn’t a good argument. No app store or platform has all games, so the choice is between a platform with a single limited store, or a platform with a somewhat fragmented set of stores, but where the biggest one is better than the App Store (for games).

Ah I wasn’t deflecting, just sharing my frustration with Windows gaming. I don’t mind different stores, but I despise that a lot of games require their store app to run before I can start the game. I’m looking at you EA Games. The other day their server was down for a few hours, so I could not start my games. Mind you, those were single player games (Crysis 1-3) that do not require an internet connection. I don’t need that nonsense on my mobile devices…
/rant

 

[Jensend]

Ah I wasn’t deflecting, just sharing my frustration with Windows gaming. I don’t mind different stores, but I despise that a lot of games require their store app to run before I can start the game. I’m looking at you EA Games. The other day their server was down for a few hours, so I could not start my games. Mind you, those were single player games (Crysis 1-3) that do not require an internet connection. I don’t need that nonsense on my mobile devices…
/rant

Oh, haha, didn't see you were the one I initially replied to. And I guess I didn't factor in that some games on Steam also require a 3rd party launcher.

 

[hans1972]

Microsoft doesn’t need to bring their App Store they will just add the feature to install their apps from their “Start App” and so will Netflix with its Games. The whole closed box approach to app install is so restrictive because no other platform does this on mobile or desktop.

But that's a great thing which other platforms should mimic.

 

[hans1972]

EU citizen here. I don't understand why people are against this. This gives more options, and hopefully we will see some of all the apps that Apple does not want in the App Store. For example emulators.

We don't want more options. We want simplicity. Simplicity means limited options.

 

[hans1972]

Why are so many people against this? The Mac didn’t even have an App Store for a very long time, and things have been fine.

Because the iOS model is even better.

On macOS I have to go several places to get the software I need, need to register several places and enter payment info several places. And there is no single source for all software you can search.

 

[hans1972]

It should not close the possibility for all the people who want the freedom to buy their apps wherever they want.

Yes it should. iOS should treat people who are technical or wants freedom as second class citizens.

 

[hans1972]

Is macOS like windows?

macOS is much more similar to Windows and Linux than it is iOS in how it works for an end-user.

iOS shouldn't have to adapt to macOS or Windows.

 

[djphat2000]

Nobody is gonna run an alternative app store under the current conditions. 50 cents per user, per year, for the privilege of competing with Apple? C'mon. It is obvious to everyone that the policy was designed to make competition extremely difficult.

EU regulators will be examining the policy next month, and hopefully we end up in a much better situation soon.

From my perspecive. This forces any other company that wishes to develop an alternative store to Apple. To be a big company already. This would make sense for say, Amazon, Microsoft, Google to do. As they have the money pay for this and infrastructure already established. However, they also don't have any desire to create or distribute bad or "free" apps. If they offer an app via their store. It will be a pay for app. As the incentive to give it away for Ad payments or IAP will not be worth it.

Another alternative for those other stores would be to have it subscription based. Amazon can include it with Prime. Microsoft with Xbox or Office 365 subscriptions. Google with any of their existing services. Or they can have new plans for those without any of their existing services. This would then cover the costs for the per download (.50 euros).

This is NOT for some independent no reputation or bad reputation company to just do whatever they want however they want when ever they want. You have to have skin in the game and be trusted. You have to have the infrastructure, and deep pockets.

If you want the wild west. Get an Android.

 

[hans1972]

How many specifically factor in the lack of ability to sideload into the "positives" column when weighing their decision to go with an iPhone?

I do. I want a locked down system which is simple to use and have uniformity. I really dislike diversity. I consider developers to be evil until proven otherwise. I want Apple to work as a shield between me and the developer. I don't want the developer to have any power at all.

When I need to do "advanced" stuff I use my Mac.

 

[hans1972]

Why is it OK for the Mac to run arbitrary code but not the iPhone?

Because Apple doesn't have the power to force all developers to use the Mac App Store.
It would have been much better if the Mac had just one store for all software.

 

[mcnallym]

Buy your kid an Android device. Or a Raspberry Pi. Or an Arduino kit.

Seriously, kids that want to tinker have so many cool options that I didn't have as a kid in the 70ies.

Not possible, people HAVE to buy Apple kit. Perish the thought that everything that people banging on about is possible on other platforms but for some reason these people have to buy Apple gear instead and then complain about that they cannot do what they could on other platforms.

 

[mcnallym]

How many specifically factor in the lack of ability to sideload into the "positives" column when weighing their decision to go with an iPhone?

Me. I specifically buy iPhones because of the walled garden. Thankfully living in UK then don't have to put up with this crap from the EU. And I voted remain so wasn't in favour in Brexit.

If Apps have to be downloaded from App Store then less likely that someone can install an App in the background via sideloading.

 

[Jamie0003]

Because the iOS model is even better.

On macOS I have to go several places to get the software I need, need to register several places and enter payment info several places. And there is no single source for all software you can search.

Well that’s not changing on iOS is it? The alternative AppStores will be downloaded from the usual place

 

[Jamie0003]

I don’t think you understand my comment.

Mac and PC were “open” from the start. iPhone has never been open. Also, do you have a response to people’s concerns about apps being *exclusively* behind an app marketplace? Something like “In order to download Microsoft Word, you must download the Microsoft Store marketplace on your iPhone.”?

Microsoft won’t make an AppStore. Is this genuinely an issue on android? As far as I’m aware it’s not so why would it be on iOS?

 

[brofkand]

Because Apple doesn't have the power to force all developers to use the Mac App Store.
It would have been much better if the Mac had just one store for all software.

Why don't they have that power? They own the entire widget. They could close down the Mac today if they wanted to.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Apple App Store V2 😂

 

[Shirasaki]

So now the new never ending bickering between people who hates alternative App Store and people who loves alternative App Store. Me? I see Apple’s malicious compliance as a small win for EU citizens, better than denial at the very least, because they know their claims are baseless.

I still wish government around the world can pressure Apple even harder. Tech giants like Apple being way too powerful is no secret nowadays.

 

[Shirasaki]

Why don't they have that power? They own the entire widget. They could close down the Mac today if they wanted to.

You mean remotely brick as many Mac as Apple can at will?

 

[Shirasaki]

Right, so you expect that basically the alternative app stores are a niche thing and will be used by a relatively small number of users? In other words, this change that was forced upon Apple was essentially unnecessary for most of us...

Apparently that “small number of users” voice is loud and impactful enough that EU forces Apple to change their rules. If that’s the case, it’s not a “small number”. It’s not like one user shouting “I support sideloading” and EU would spend time to draft these new legislations.

Don’t forget, devs are also involved in this and their impacts are far more than customers would feel.

 

[Shirasaki]

I really doubt a single app will get submitted. The €0.50 cost per install over a million could end up pricing almost all companies out of business. Because it’s an annual payment as well, even if they make you pay a fee to download the app, how will they make sure they continue collecting €0.50 per person each year after this? No way any company will agree to this ever. Dead on arrival

Hence malicious compliance. Trust me, Apple has a million ways to find out the answer of who when where what and how questions. Apple just doesn’t want to make alternative App Store competitive at all, especially since free app cannot be exempt from paying that ridiculous CTF.

 

[Abazigal]

Why don't they have that power? They own the entire widget. They could close down the Mac today if they wanted to.

That's not how antitrust legislation works (in the US at least).

The reason why Epic lost their lawsuit against Apple is because Apple had always been selling an integrated product (the iPhone) right from the start. In this case, because the iOS App Store had been closed right from the start, it can be argued that customers knew what they were getting into when they bought an iPhone. Therefore, so long as the rules foreclosing competition are consistent, then there is no harm. This means that Apple is, under US law at least, allowed to control the market for iOS apps, because customers already know this, and if they don't like it, they can buy another phone.

Of course, there's the whole other argument about Epic violating the App Store rules first, but the general idea is that so long as Apple doesn't try to change the terms of the App Store for the worse (eg: raising their commission to 50%), they are not really breaking any laws in the US (unless the laws themselves change).

It's the opposite for the Mac App Store. People bought a Mac expecting to be able to download apps from the web, and if Apple were to block this feature tomorrow, that can be grounds for a lawsuit because Apple is changing the rules.

This is why Windows remains open despite having a majority market share. Not because Microsoft doesn't want to operate a closed App Store, but because they legally can't. Conversely, Microsoft could release Windows RT with the App Store as the sole source of software because it's a new OS, and they are therefore free to dictate the terms of engagement with the customer at the time of said product being released.

 

[djphat2000]

Why don't they have that power? They own the entire widget. They could close down the Mac today if they wanted to.

Different starting point. Mac's historically was more open. As it is now. iPhones never were open.

 

[Abazigal]

Thanks for directly pointing out the uncompetitiveness of these provisions.

Then maybe the EU needs to come out and state explicitly, bullet point for bullet point, just what exactly they want Apple to do, instead of wording their legislature in such vague terms that it apparently gives Apple so much wriggle room to comply in the worst way possible.

If you think Apple must allow users to be able to freely download apps from the web, then state so in no uncertain terms. If you think Apple cannot be allowed to charge developers a single cent, then state so in no uncertain terms. If Apple must allow third party browser engines and not do away with existing functionality like the ability to save webpages as PWAs, then state so in no uncertain terms.

The fact that we are here even arguing whether Apple's terms will be accepted by the EU or not just proves that the DMA is not a good piece of legislation at all, and it's not as ironclad as the critics here initially claimed. For some reason, so many people here seemed so certain that Apple would be forced to capitulate in a manner that was most disadvantageous to their bottom line, and it would spell the end of the profitability of the App Store. There is no room for alternative interpretations, everyone here said. Any moment now, Apple would be taught their place by the EU and reduced to a snivelling shell of its former self, everyone said.

And yet here we are. 1 month before the DMA is set to go into full force. Apple has unveiled terms that flies in the face of conventional wisdom of pretty much every critic, and it's still up in the air as to whether it will be cleared by the EU or not.

I have been dreaming of this scene for about a week now. Whether it applies to Apple or the EU, I guess we will know soon enough.

 

[Luis Ortega]

Until the apps that used to be available in the App Store start moving to alternative app stores.

So what? Are you forced to buy any app not on the app store?
All the scaremongering from Apple has to do with loss of profits, nothing more.

 

[Abazigal]

So what? Are you forced to buy any app not on the app store?
All the scaremongering from Apple has to do with loss of profits, nothing more.

No, but it does refute the argument that I can choose to ignore the presence of third party app stores and continue using the iOS App Store and won’t be negatively impacted in any way.

This is what I have always found disingenuous about all these arguments. You all make it sound like it’s pure upside and that users won’t be inconvenienced in the slightest but then when I point out certain possible drawbacks, I am suddenly told to just suck it.

You all can’t even be honest and upfront about the potential ramifications here.