See my edit.
As for “fallacious” you didn’t address the complexity of the iOS ecosystem compared to the original iPhone.
Try again.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
EU Antitrust Chief Warns Apple About App Store Fees and Safety Warnings
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As for “fallacious” you didn’t address the complexity of the iOS ecosystem compared to the original iPhone.
Try again.
Apple didn't have to market security for it being a reason the App Store was successful. Just think about it logically. If people kept hearing from their friends about how apps hosed their phones, or they downloaded an app that sent spam emails to all of their contacts, or their credit card number got stolen after paying for an app normal users would stop downloading apps pretty quickly.
Making the App Store a safe space 100% was a significant reason it succeeded. I'd argue the most significant, but will give you that all of the reasons you state were important too.
Now that phones have so much data on us, it is even MORE important that they are kept safe and secure. And the reason a lot of us are so angry about the EU doing this is it will make all of us less secure. (Yes, even those of us who do not download third party app stores will be impacted, just because you say "don't like it, don't download one - won't be impacted" doesn't make it true).
Replying to your edit now:
I actually mostly agree with you on this, I think Apple is highly incentivized by the money they make from the App Store to improve iOS at a faster rate than macOS. For this reason I think that CTF in some form could be a good idea. People here (and places like ATP and Gruber) like to complain about the progress macOS has made vs iOS but I think they miss out on the incentives and the way in which that extra money can be poured into API development.
I do think it's current form the CTF will likely be struck down but I think some version could be approved and would be a benefit to continued pace of iOS development.
I think that the complexity has changed, but again, to claim today's complexity is what allows iOS to succeed vs its rivals is what is fallacious.
microsoft was dealt with when they were a monopoly and look at windows marketshare today compared to 90's. until Apple achieves windows-like marketshare in the 90's, they should be free to do whatever they want. for now, android has dominant global marketshare and will continue to do so for a while.
Maybe, the Services intake will look a bit less in the future, but Apple doesn't need a commission on subscriptions or alternative payments. They're not making either happen, so they need to leave it alone.
On the other hand, if they're hosting, advertising, or somehow promoting software, and being the payment processor, they should get something.
They've probably thought about what they could do to make things right and they look at the numbers and push against that, even though it will make them look much better in public view.
On the other hand, if they're hosting, advertising, or somehow promoting software, and being the payment processor, they should get something.
They've probably thought about what they could do to make things right and they look at the numbers and push against that, even though it will make them look much better in public view.
So what is it that allows iOS to succeed if not superior APIs, OS or its “walled garden”?
Why are devs making 2x with 1/3 the users?
Do you think it’s all down to the original better UX and APIs from 15 years ago?
That would seem to be quite a stretch as Android has had plenty of time to catch up.
Edit: And I never said “complexity” was the reason for iOS success. I said iOS complexity requires more $ and resources to support, which is provided by the closed model.
Aren’t third-party apps the very definition of an “open” system? Apple allows third-parties to write code that is executed during the runtime of their code.
Closed would mean that only Apple software could run within iOS.
I honestly think it’s Apple you should have the beef with here. If the AppStore wasn’t so locked down, it wouldn’t be necessary to download apps from outside the store. Personally I’m looking forward to finally being able to make my iPhone / iPad (if it also is opened) do stuff iOS can’t do, like run terminal and format drives.
Again, if Apple wasn’t so restrictive this wouldn’t be a thing but…here we are
The iPhone hardware drove a good chunk of iOS’s success. Look at devices pre-iPhone. Cheap plastic with garbage resistive touchscreens. Even after Apple gave device makers a template they were still failing. Look at the BlackBerry Storm released at the end of 2008. RIM finally went to a mostly full screen device, but the screen mechanically clicked. The Palm Pre from 2009 still hadn’t gotten it right, coming with a physical keyboard. Phone makers took a long time to catch up on the hardware. Like Steve said in the keynote, the iPhone was 5 years ahead of its rivals and he was damn near right. The original Samsung Galaxy didn’t come out until mid-2010. Even then if you compare that to the iconic iPhone 4 that came out that year and it’s clear that while manufacturers were closing the gap, they were still unquestionably behind.
Last edited:
It depends if you are talking about why iOS outlasted Blackberry and Palm (the original topic) or whether you are talking about iOS's competitive advantage with developers today in comparison to Android.
You keep trying to bring it back to today but the point of this conversation started talking about why iOS succeeded back before iOS was as complex and before the App Store behemoth came into being.
I think iOS success today is down to dozens of factors, the closed model is but one among many factors of equal or greater importance.
Just one for example is the fact the iPhone is a premium device while most Android phones sold are not premium phones, that changes the app market and drives more premium apps to the iPhone.
I don't think you can say for certain that Apple's incentive to invest in iOS is due to the closed part of the model. Rather I think it is the fact that Apple is monetizing the platform more directly (rather than just through hardware sales) and thus has a larger budget to spend on API development.
To put it another way, you're trying to tie two things together that I'm not sure you can reasonably do, first, the monetization of the platform (via the CTF or a commission on IAP and up front sales) and second, whether or not the platform is closed or open to app distribution outside of the store.
I think the monetization of the platform has more to do with the pace of development than the closed nature of the platform.
Having the platform be closed is certainly one way to ensure you maximize monetization of the platform but simply charging for API access via the CTF is another way that Apple should be able to tune to work just as well.
Okay, that was 15 years ago.
For at least the last 10 years I’ve heard non-stop that Android phones were superior and that the iPhone was just “copying” Android phone features.
So now it’s the hardware that was the differentiator all along? Hmmm 🤔
A convenient turn of events!
Except for the entire App Store itself.
It's only a monopoly if the iPhone is the only smartphone. Is it?
Who said Android phones are superior because it certainly wasn’t me. Apple did copy some Android features but the reverse happened as well. Nor do I care anyway as it benefitted all consumers. “Good artists copy. Great artists steal.”
If Apple wants to charge for App Store hosting fees they can do that directly, they shouldn't try and wrap it up and hide it in other fees.
Closed is how Apple chose to monetize their IP. It’s been very successful for devs and users.
The vast majority of developers have no problem with it as they understand the benefits of the ecosystem.
Of course there are other ways Apple could have gone, but the one they chose seems to have worked fine.
So bottom line — Apple monetizing their IP create a virtuous cycle of improving the platform for users and devs.
The EU seems hellbent on breaking that virtuous cycle to benefit their own. Like a mobster, the EU makes Apple offers they can’t refuse.
Isolation of user data between apps is important. But it's a feature of the operating system, not the app store. Why would Apple need to weaken the security of the OS for alternative app stores? This is a weak argument in my opinion.
Closed is not how Apple is monetizing, it just makes it easier for Apple to enforcing their monetization mechanisms. For example, right now Apple is trying to collect 12-27% off commission off of purchases made on the websites of companies when that transaction originated from a link in an app. This commission does not depend on the closed platform since it is actually occurring via a transaction on the web, the enforcement of the commission is aided by the closed platform.
This difference matters if what we're arguing bout is what is providing for continued iOS success. Again I highlighted that the price of an iPhone vs Android phone helps drive developers to Apple's platform, this is not dependent upon the platform being closed but on the price of hardware.
If what matters is the funding then so long as Apple is able to continue the same level of monetization (I think the CTF could do this easily) the closed nature doesn't matter to future success nor was past success dependent upon it being closed. Rather past success is dependent upon the monetization (which was easier because it was closed).
While we aren't inside Apple and as such have no way of conducting any tests if we wanted to determine the factors that impacted iOS success we wouldn't just say, its because it is closed that is the most important thing!
We would do a regression analysis and try and figure out what the largest contributors are, price of phone (more premium customers), UX polish, higher funding of new features, closed ecosystem, these are all factors contributing to the iPhone's success and they all contributed at different levels.
This is out of scope for a conversation about the reasons for iPhone's success.
There are problems with the way Apple monetizes its IP. These problems are out of scope for this conversation.
The EU isn't trying to prevent Apple from monetizing its IP, they are trying to ensure they do so in a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory manner.
Not exactly. BlackBerry had made a product desirable to vendors and developers too. Its decline had more to do with their inability or unwillingness to change with the marketplace including the rapid shift away from physical keyboard to touchscreen devices and the growth of the consumer market where things like cameras, social media, video, music, gaming, etc. became much more of a focus.
Safari’s regulation is largely tied to Apple’s dominance in mobile OS. Safari itself has decent share as the #2 mobile browser in the EU, and Apple had blocked user and developer options regarding alternative browser engines on iOS. Both Google (with Android) and Apple (with iOS) should have to follow the same rules when it comes to browsers and browser/browser engine access, default options, etc.
As defined by the EU mob, a completely neutral 3rd party.
I think this shift was harder for Blackberry than Apple because while iOS is based on OS X (which had decades as a robust App Platform) Blackberry OS was a newer OS and had never been focussed on being built out as a robust App platform.
Only the EU mob can do something about the Apple mafia. And I'm happy they did.
Apparently, the EU is now saying Apple can't require apps to be notarized. So there is no way Apple can confirm an app isn't behaving maliciously unless the developer agrees to be notarized. I'm sure all the developers of the scam and malicious apps will get right on that.
This is what they were planning to do, but now have (apparently) been told they cannot require:
This is How Notarization Will Work for iOS Apps Distributed Through Alternative App Stores
Apps that are distributed through alternative app stores in EU countries will need to submit to a notarization process that's similar to the...
www.macrumors.com
Additionally, any additional complexity is bound to introduce bugs, unintended behavior, and potential security exploits. This is upending 15+ years of "how third-party apps on iOS work" that is at the core of the OS. There will be unintended consequences, bugs will be exploited, etc. As Apple explains in their "Complying with DMA" document (which everyone commenting here should really read in its entirety) Emphasis mine.
Apple was the beneficiary of, and partially created, the shift I was referring to. Unlike BlackBerry, Apple had both a touchscreen phone and a focus on the consumer market right out of the gate. Apple also benefited from a large, loyal consumer customer base who had been using Macs and iPods for years. Over 45 million iPods were sold in the 12 months prior to the release of the iPhone.
The key is in three parts,
1: they must justify it, and as it seems they haven’t been able to justify a blanket notarization requirement that is payed with a commission.
2: And the fact it’s a requirement going against point 43 and 44.
3: it treats their notarizing service favorably over potential competitors as again they post it as the only thing for other to use.
5. The gatekeeper shall not treat more favourably, in ranking and related indexing and crawling, services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself than similar services or products of a third party. The gatekeeper shall apply transparent, fair and non-discriminatory conditions to such ranking.
As a side note The fact Apple also say the CTF is to pay for the functionality of the Os also directly contradicts article 5 clause 7 and 8, as well with article 6 clause 7
| (43) | Certain services provided together with, or in support of, relevant core platform services of the gatekeeper, such as identification services, web browser engines, payment services or technical services that support the provision of payment services, such as payment systems for in-app purchases, are crucial for business users to conduct their business and allow them to optimise services.…Gatekeepers should therefore not use their position to require their dependent business users to use any of the services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services by the gatekeeper itself as part of the provision of services or products by those business users. In order to avoid a situation in which gatekeepers indirectly impose on business users their own services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, gatekeepers should also be prohibited from requiring end users to use such services, when that requirement would be imposed in the context of the service provided to end users by the business user using the core platform service of the gatekeeper. That prohibition aims to protect the freedom of the business user to choose alternative services to the ones of the gatekeeper, but should not be construed as obliging the business user to offer such alternatives to its end users. |
| (44) | The conduct of requiring business users or end users to subscribe to, or register with, any other core platform services of gatekeepers listed in the designation decision or which meet the thresholds of active end users and business users set out in this Regulation, as a condition for using, accessing, signing up for or registering with a core platform service gives the gatekeepers a means of capturing and locking-in new business users and end users for their core platform services by ensuring that business users cannot access one core platform service without also at least registering or creating an account for the purposes of receiving a second core platform service. That conduct also gives gatekeepers a potential advantage in terms of accumulation of data. As such, this conduct is liable to raise barriers to entry and should be prohibited. |
Indeed I do agree with that, the difference is I want the competition to provide the best store to use. As long as Apple prevents alternative stores we will never get steam or or better options.
Before the DMA steam couldn’t replace the AppStore, after the DMA steam might offer iOS games and that is what I would want to use instead of the terrible iOS AppStore
So you will want to hold a gun to the developers head and force them to stay within the AppStore instead?
Don’t you see the irony of that? Because a developer chose to leave what they think is an unprofitable or even bad platform, but because somehow consumers could be forced to use alternative stores against their will if they want to continue using said app we must shackle them to the AppStore…
What is the purpose of a fine to you? A slap on the wrist and just the cost of doing businesses? Would it make it better for you if the fine was max 150% of EU revenue instead? The end result is the same anyway.
If Apple doesn’t want to be fined they should not break the law. That’s the point of high fines as they are to discourage. The fine being 10-20% of global revenue is just to prevent a fine from being too high.