Oh no, no choice to choose monopoly! Let me find my small violin before you say anything else.
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.
Illinois Floats Bill That Would Let Developers Skirt Apple's In-App Purchase Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It doesn't matter if it was a 100%. Tell me 1 store that is forced to have a separate register for specific goods and or services or all for that matter. There are none. We all go past the same check-out which belongs to the store your in. Again, success is not a crime here.
This changes everything however. It's not as simple as what you describe. Which is why folks say, leave it alone. If you want open, you have Android. If you like the iPhone the way it is, you stick with iOS.
This is the definition of having a choice. I don't suspect Apple will be better at creating an open ecosystem (fully) than Google has already done. While still providing the same level of security and privacy protections they currently do today. Which isn't perfect, but "walled" off from much worse due to its inability to be accessed by any an all means.
Apple is not interested nor should they be in supporting (in all ways) every 3rd party store that wants to work in their iOS. Apple is very well known for making abrupt changes that can break software (Adobe, AVID, OpenGL come to mind) with just their desktop OS patches/upgrades. They have the ability, unlike microsoft. To change very quickly and when needed. Apple just switched (yes over 2 years) from intel to their own CPU/GPU/SOC. Microsoft with all their resources would not do this. They may support both ARM and x86. But, we know they wouldn't do it well. Apple will support x86 until they no longer want to. NO OS updates or new OS's in 5 years for intel. This is how they roll. They don't wait for anyone else to get their act together (Adobe!) and make the changes quickly to keep up. Apple provides Rosetta to keep old software working "long enough" to get customers/developer's over the hump. Then, Apple will remove Rosetta (it's bloat in the OS they don't need), and that's that. And in 10 or 15 years, we get another revolution in processing. Maybe we switch back to x86 or whatever it is then if they catch up to Apple's chip. Maybe a brand new company comes up with something revolutionary and Apple wants to go that way. Whatever it maybe, they can do so. While not being tided down to some 3rd party legacy/lazy/poorly written app/store. Not the super fragmented world of Android. If you want that, go with Google.
Again you are trying to pretend that somehow you are being forced. In the current situation there is no one being forced into anything, not in the actual sense of the word which is why the argument is so incredibly pointless.
There are two completely different options out there for customers. If like you prefer an open end platform where you can install whatever you want and have the control you feel Apple is oppressing, then clearly despite like of hardware Apple is not for you if that is your primary motivating factor. It is like there are plenty of people that prefer sportscars, but their life and usage requirements make it completely impractical and they would be miserable if they were forced to have one as their only option.
App developers are equally free to decide if the cost of doing business on the Apple platform is worth the costs. This has been a core concept of the free market system since the beginning. If a developer wants access to the customer base that Apple has cultivated, they make that decision for themselves, which is why there are thousands of apps that are not available. Again a developer has the free choice to determine whether the market is strong enough to support them being there, and if it is not, then the app developer is the one to blame for making the poor choice and not researching their market and honestly it is better for everyone that those developers fail. It opens the market up to new developers with potentially more business savy instead of artificially propping up those that do not know their customer base or how to properly gauge a market. There are tons of very successful app and software developers that do not nor ever will make an iOS application. They know their user base and they go where that user base is. Would they like to have the Apple user base too? sure, but they know it is not worth it and have smartly focused their efforts where they will get the most return.
The argument that somehow the government must intervene is 90% of the time driven by someone that has a very unique usage requirement and wants to use Apple but can't and feels that the rest of the world should be forced to change just so they can have the device they want cater to them personally and usually pushed by people who do not have the understanding of the technical side, and assume that change is a simple toggle somewhere in the menu, when in fact is a very core system change and one that would affect every single user, not just those that feel they want that added freedom.
Again forcing both systems to be basically mirrors of each other on slightly different hardware does not benefit the larger public. It stifles change and innovation because it means both systems have to do things in the same manner. It removes choice from millions of people that prefer it the way it is now, and removes the freedom and choice of the company creating it to be free to target their niche and operate in their own business philosophy.
Currently the system in place is what offers the most freedom and choice to the largest groups of people, app developers and the hardware/os manufacturers. The user can make a choice from one system to the other depending on what they prioritize, open environment or more secure closed. The App developer can chose to target one market, or the other, or if they feel it is in their own best interests they can target both. Android and Apple both get the freedom to develop and focus on the customer base they have cultivated.
Your post has no relevance. It does not matter if 70% of scamming was done in that manner. That is like saying a seat belt wont save everyone all the time so lets just stop including them. There is no 100% secure system out there, and there never will be. Programming is a level playing ground. Apple can write the best security software out there and some kid in russia for example could write a key to get past it with enough effort, that is simply the way software works, there will always be someone able to eventually write their way around someone elses code. So we should just accept that we can not be perfect and give up?
Apple's approach is the most secure available, again by limiting the number of access points they do make it harder for bad actors to get in, even though as many with any sense of intelligence will admit Apple is not flawless. As I have stated if you take a phone and think of it as a building, if you have only 1 door, that building will always be more secure than one with 2 or 3 doors, because it is much easier to guard and monitor 1 door than 3. That is not saying Apple is better than Android, it is simply a question of logic.
For a vast majority of Apple customers, they have no need of a second set of stores and even presented with the option the majority of that majority will continue to do things the way they have been all along. It is only a small minority of people that are truly affected by this "lack of choice" that some try and claim (despite having exactly the environment they want available to them in a different format, Android).
This insane push to get the government to mandate change for a small group of very vocal users is really not the route anyone should be supporting, it does not lead to better products because it only benefits very small groups with very specific usage needs.
It does matter, however you refuse to recognize that the situation Apple is in is very different from your average retailer. Your talk of separate registers is completely irrelevant.
I think you need to look up the definition of monopoly. In no market is Apple a monopoly. The majority of phones are android and the majority of personal computers are running Windows. At one time they had the majority of tablets but I’m not even sure if that’s the case anymore. Even if it was and they had for example a 70% market share of tablets that’s still not a monopoly.
See what the post was saying that I replied to. The argument was Apple has approved "bad". Opening up iOS will not improve this, it will be incredibly worse because now it does NEED Apple approval.
I here your concern however many, including myself feel is is overblown and leans toward fear-mongering.
That would make a lot of sense. I think people have no clue as to what it costs to run/support a data center...especially of the size of AWS or Google. I am not sure if Apple has it's own data centers or uses something like Google.
Telling folks that they shouldn’t give their house keys and address to strangers in the bus station because they may break into their house is also fear-mongering. Sure, using a search engine may show many instances where this was actually the case, but those may have all been written by other fear-mongerers!
Once someone is of the opinion that “everything scary that I hear is simply fear-mongering, not a concern at all! As a result, I shall ignore any information that provides details on the actual risks,” then there’s nothing more to be said.
For anyone that likes to understand real risks real people are exposed to, see this link.
This 'tech support' scam is stealing million from seniors, including my mom
A new version of the old 'tech support' scam has surfaced. Here are some warning signs and what to do if you have fallen victim.
www.usatoday.com
Last edited:
Absolutely! They buy it due to Apple advertising, peer pressure, the look, the reputation, etc…. I have never heard outside of this forum “I’m buying an iPhone for the walled garden!”.
If you could download an app from a website... couldn't the app download updates from that same website?
We have Windows/Mac applications that can update themselves in-place. So it is possible.
As for subscription renewals... I don't see why those couldn't be handled in the app too. Or you might have to go to a website.
Isn't that what is expected by all these people who want sideloading? They don't want an app store handling all this stuff. They want to do it themselves.
I was just showing what it might look like with sideloading.
I have a number of “apps” for my MB and Windows PC (Linux now also) that send me an email when an update is available. A couple advise me of an update on launch.
It works.
Not seeing why the “OMG!!! It’s Dangerous!!” rhetoric about iOS doing something similar.
People buy an iPhone, imo, for apples’ reputation. For those people who believe that apple doesn’t have a good reputation, advertising and peer pressure is meaningless. I have heard people say they buy an an iPhone for the App Store.
I agree it changes things. And yes, it is far from simple.
On that aspect we differ. I don’t see Apple longer as creating that security/privacy leading system that has been marketed and alluded to.
In regards for supporting 3rd party stores … why would they? That would be the responsibility of the 3rd party. Just like most apps today, if it breaks on an OS update, it is the app creator who (in most cases) who has to come up with a fix. Not Apple.
End of the day, if sideloading is forced on Apple, or if they adopt a version of it voluntarily, it is up to the user to use it or not. Most won’t. Some will.
What I find disheartening, is your apparent understanding of the Android world. Superfragmented is not a result of sideloading or payment systems. Why you attempt to use this to support your argument makes that plain.
Same old. Same old.
Forced Is your interpretation? Not sure where you get that from but ooookay. Customer like me? I use both Android and iOS/iPadOS. Chuckle. Looking forward to the Tesla Phone. This could be really cool.
What I find comical, is that sideloading on iOS would make it a mirror of Android. How naive. There are many ways Apple could do this. How this single feature would make it into Android escapes me. Please explain how adding this one feature does this.
And that sideloading would remove choice? If you firmly believe that adding sideloading turns iOS into Android, or a flavor of Android, okay. Not seeing how it does this.
For your argument, claim, that the current system offers the most freedom. Seriously? Apple should radically change iOS tomorrow, make it into Android2, PearOS, AlienOS, or something else (even iOS with sideloading) and it doesn’t change the “freedom” folks have in procuring their device of choice.
It has relevance when scamming, phishing, etc, are alluded to being the biggest threat if sideloading was allowed. It would be a minor blip if that.
I‘ll grant you that is possible. Wasn’t what I took from it, but okay. I can see your point.
Awesome!! App Store yes. The fact it is a walled garden? No. Most consumers likely have no real clue what “walled garden” means in this reference.
Folks I have heard refer to the App Store is based on selection/choice. Not walled.
Maybe I’ve forgotten it since it’s been awhile since I reviewed the particulars of the case, but did Apple’s lawyers bring up the fact that Walmart, Best Buy, etc. don’t have to have alternate registers in their stores? If they didn’t, the judge wouldn’t have even had the opportunity to make the retort I had stated and thus has zero bearing on whether she’s a good judge. If Apple’s lawyers did in fact bring up Best Buy and others lack of other payment systems and she didn’t drill down further on those claims from Apple, I would indeed say that was an oversight on her part.
Last edited:
I wouldn't expect these kinds of state level efforts to go anywhere. Such laws would likely face significant legal challenges even if they were enacted. Providing for copyrights is one of the enumerated powers which the Constitution grants the federal government. States attempting to substantially abrogate federal copyrights would raise Supremacy Clause issues.
Maybe they could ultimately get away with imposing some minor limitations on the conditions that, e.g., Apple places on the use of its IP. But they surely couldn't, e.g., prohibit Apple from collecting royalties based on the use of its IP by developers - whether or not certain apps were distributed through the App Store. And the more those royalties are separated from other conditions imposed by Apple (e.g., using the App Store for distribution or using Apple to process IAPs), the freer Apple would be (i.e. without raising antitrust issues) to charge whatever it wanted for the use of its IP.
These kinds of limits on IP rights would need to come at the federal level. But I doubt even Congress would abrogate copyrights so far as to prohibit, e.g., Apple from collecting royalties from app developers in exchange for allowing them to use its IP.
Maybe they could ultimately get away with imposing some minor limitations on the conditions that, e.g., Apple places on the use of its IP. But they surely couldn't, e.g., prohibit Apple from collecting royalties based on the use of its IP by developers - whether or not certain apps were distributed through the App Store. And the more those royalties are separated from other conditions imposed by Apple (e.g., using the App Store for distribution or using Apple to process IAPs), the freer Apple would be (i.e. without raising antitrust issues) to charge whatever it wanted for the use of its IP.
These kinds of limits on IP rights would need to come at the federal level. But I doubt even Congress would abrogate copyrights so far as to prohibit, e.g., Apple from collecting royalties from app developers in exchange for allowing them to use its IP.
In Illinois, where these laws would take effect, iPhones are almost certainly the majority of phones. About 60% of consumers in the U.S. use an iPhone. Unless Illinois is a major outlier, that would apply to them as well. As far as your 70% figure for iPads go, that figure itself would not dictate whether or not Apple is a monopoly. Generally under 50% would automatically mean no and over 75% would automatically mean yes. In between is a gray area and would be in need of further analysis.