Imagine the amount of hatred, disdain, and horrific things people would say on these forums if Microsoft required all purchases utilizing the Windows OS to give MS a 30% cut.
No, if MS did this, they’d just watch Windows decline in the consumer space even more. MS does, however, use a similar storefront policy on Xbox where their position is much stronger. Besides, hating on MS is as old as the hills, and while Windows is still huge, MS’s threat to computing is far more deminished that it was in the 90s. MS has even taken its main software cross-platform—and built a smartphone that runs on Android—because they know Windows is less popular in the consumer market now more than ever. Office365 subscriptions on someone’s iPad is still better than no Office365 subscription at all.
And while hating Apple is also as old as the hills, there is much concern being thrown at the empire they have created with iOS, largely with the same old Appstore purchase policy. Apple has always functioned as a small share of a larger market, but what burns people up is that Apple lands the customers that are willing to spend more money.
Market data shows that iOS customers are far more likely to pay vs Android customers. iOS is where the money is, and the big developers know this and want more of it. No doubt, Apple’s policies need scrutiny and to be challenged, but that is true of all companies.
As long as you can sideload Android apps, this situation is entirely different from what's happening on iOS.
If Spotify doesn't want to give Google a cut, they can tell customers to download an apk directly from their website. Frankly, this whole thing could easily backfire on Google, because the more software that's distributed directly, the more users become used to sideloading, and the less reason developers have to use the Play Store to begin with.
I mean, at least the iOS App Store offers fairly substantial safety guarantees for users. If sideloading was possible on iOS—as it should be—I'd still download most software from the App Store, because I'd know those apps were safe. The Play Store has a lot more malware, and I don't see many reasons to use it.
I would challenge this sideloading with a simple question—how many people are actually willing to get and maintain their software in this way? Most people I know want simple, fast, and easy on their phones. If it isn’t that, they aren’t messing with it. It also opens the door to scams and malware. Want that hot app people are talking about? Well, if you fat-finger the URL, no doubt you’ll get redirected to a site that looks authentic, but is a malware app just seeking your personal data. There is no policing of this stuff, and it takes its toll on the less-savy users. Windows was once such a minefield, and it left most people intimidated. What Appstore and Play do is reduce the threats and eliminate the intimidation, which opens up more wallets.
And while I could maybe trust big companies with my payment data, I would not trust the little guys, so such an approach only exacerbates the plight of the little guy and gives more advantage to the dominant players. It’s no coincidence that these coalitions of anti-appstore companies are mega-corps. They can afford to invest in reaching their customers in other ways, and it only harms the competition if it diminishes people’s use of the Appstore. It makes it less of a free-market, because now some companies can play by different rules because they have more money. There can really not be a truly ”free market,” but what is being attempted is a level playing field that is now reaching a tipping point as we have companies making millions of dollars in these markets.
Don’t get me wrong, Apple has some policies that probably need to be changed, but unrestricted downloads would only harm the rest of the market, and likely many users. It’s that simplicity that made these systems rise to where they are—just like with game consoles.
