North Dakota Senate Shoots Down App Store Bill Apple Said Would 'Destroy the iPhone'

[Abazigal]

I think it’s increasingly clear that the people pushing to open up the App Store are not doing it to empower other developers and users. They simply want more power, and they will not hesitate to burn the current App Store model to the ground to get it.

I also think it’s one thing to want to sell a $100/year email subscription, and it’s another to feel entitled enough to want to do so while leveraging Apple’s ecosystem and consumer base, and arguing that you deserve every last cent of the profits and Apple has contributed absolutely nothing of value add to the equation.

I get that some of these developers may feel like they are fighting for their own survival, but I haven’t really seen a compelling case as to why I as a consumer ought to care about the changes they wish to bring about. I am trying very hard to emphasise with these developers, but the more I think about it sometimes, the more I am convinced that there is a growing gulf between what developers want from a business perspective, vs the convenience and security I have come to expect as a (very satisfied) iOS user.

Will there come a time when the relationship between developers and customers get more adversarial? Who knows.

 

[hot-gril]

The way it is going, I believe Apple will soon block the slideloading on macOS too.
As present Apple is always suggesting Mac App-Store to the developers and the end-users.

I call it highly unlikely. Too many would leave. If I'm wrong, I'll be gone at least.

 

[MauiPa]

How about a law that requires third party purchase options on Amazon. Now that would be great!

 

[Homme]

There is no possible way to have a safe open mobile OS 👏

If you had an open mobile OS and sideloading your phone will be full of malware 👏👏

And Apple will not be liable to protect you 👏👏👏

Your data will be stolen, you will be tracked by many companies, if you step out of line with your opinions they will sell your data to regimes, politicians and companies who will send a hit man to kill you 👎

Because you won’t be able to protect your privacy, or location or the identities of your most closest family 👈👈👈

Don’t be fooled by what these people want. They want data and they want to sell it. They are ultra rightwing Qtard type of parasites.

and your post.... is exactly what Epic wants for iOS/iPadOS users

Epic is nothing but low life parasites,

 

[Gregor Erdmann]

You don't expect to Burger King or Taco Bell via a mini stall within a Mc Donalds, so why does Apple need to support 3rd party stores?!

 

[QuiteSure]

I just want iOS to be as open as macOS. I don’t understand why so many people think it’s ok that iOS is locked down but that locking down macOS to the same degree would be catastrophic.

The problem is that the Mac started out without an App Store and gradually introduced that. If you forced all developers to sell through the Mac App Store it would hurt the established base of developers who grew up without the Mac App Store.

OTOH the iPhone has ALWAYS had an iOS App Store. Developers were aware of all the rules, commissions, etc. when they signed up to develop for the iPhone. It's not unfair to keep that system in place.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Epic loses again 🤣

Everyone but short term Apple shareholders loses again.

 

[kmm333]

Third party app store options are already available and getting more powerful each year.

For example.

1. Tap Safari
2. Navigate to the Starbucks App
   1. https://app.starbucks.com
3. Add to Home Screen
4. Tap newly installed Starbucks "app" (actually a PWA )
   1. Notice the fullscreen effect
   2. Even handles offline modestly well.

You now have a fully functioning progressive web app installed on your device.
You can even install it as a complete application using Chrome or Brave.

1. Same story, navigate to https://app.starbucks.com
2. Click the settings hamburger bar ( top right Brave )
3. Install Starbucks
4. Starbucks 'app' now available within Mac App Launcher

Been writing software this way for 5+ years now (started this sort of work late 2016).

You make a good point, though I imagine some functionality is not available and/or performance is impacted relative to a native app. That said, I still think alternate app stores are a bad idea for security reasons. Also, I think the first million in revenue should be free to protect smaller developers, but otherwise Apple’s fee is perfectly legitimate.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

I just want iOS to be as open as macOS. I don’t understand why so many people think it’s ok that iOS is locked down but that locking down macOS to the same degree would be catastrophic.

Different platforms with different uses. iOS and (maybe sooner) iPadOS may evolve over time but currently a lot of Apps have a considerably lower barrier to entry than desktop applications (both in the effort required to create them and the effort/cost to acquire). In a walled garden App Store I'm willing to take a swing at a lot of small apps that I otherwise wouldn't touch due to lack of information and not being worth my time to research a $5 purchase. Just the fact that I have a couple hundred apps on my phone and tablet but drastically fewer on my laptops/desktop shows the difference. If there isn't a review process and walls put up by Apple I'd buy many fewer apps; only those that are put out by well known developers with established reputations. Ultimately that would hurt the small app developer for the benefit of the likes of Epic as they'll continue to be able to attract the market but no longer pay the fees while indie apps will be passed over.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

You don't expect to Burger King or Taco Bell via a mini stall within a Mc Donalds, so why does Apple need to support 3rd party stores?!

Because this is about my property, not McDonald's or Apple's property.

A proper analogy would be if you bought a new home from a builder and were told that it could only be furnished with items from a store that the builder owns. That would make absolutely no sense - it's your home and you can furnish it with items from whatever store you want.

Apple built a phone and they sold it to me. It should now be my right to put whatever apps I'd like on it, from wherever I want.

 

[HiRez]

The app store mostly gives assurances of quality, security and consistency. It is a sefeguard against dodgy apps infecting the apple ecosystem.

However, bills like that are mostly an apple self inflicted problem where apple tries to squeeze as much money it can out of that. The 30% margin, even for large corps is somewhat abusive and many times it is to the detriment of the consumers. If apple had more comprehensive tiering on their blanket massive slice, less people/oganisations would complain and the ecosystem would more likely be preserved for the benefit of everyone.

Yeah, I'm wondering if they just reduced the fee to 10% (they aren't going to lose money on that) wouldn't make all the howling stop. I'm a developer and even 15% sounds entirely reasonable to me (fortunately they are implementing that tier for non-huge developers). 30% can still work but it's a little rough.

 

[QCassidy352]

Because this is about my property, not McDonald's or Apple's property.

A proper analogy would be if you bought a new home from a builder and were told that it could only be furnished with items from a store that the builder owns. That would make absolutely no sense - it's your home and you can furnish it with items from whatever store you want.

Apple built a phone and they sold it to me. It should now be my right to put whatever apps I'd like on it, from wherever I want.

In the context of your analogy, it would be important to note that the builder told you about the limitations on furnishings before you bought the house.

Some people want to own ”historic homes” (and pay a premium to do so!) even though there are pretty limiting restrictions on what you can do to renovate/modify a home like that. Buyers acquire those properties and move in with eyes wide open regarding the restrictions. People who don’t want those constraints don’t house hunt for historic homes.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I just want iOS to be as open as macOS. I don’t understand why so many people think it’s ok that iOS is locked down but that locking down macOS to the same degree would be catastrophic.

Because people speak not with reason but with what they are told. It’s that M1 is ok with side loading on macOS. It’s actually incentivated ... homebrew ... I guess its no good system when it comes to Privacy and Security.

 

[Polaroid]

I just want iOS to be as open as macOS. I don’t understand why so many people think it’s ok that iOS is locked down but that locking down macOS to the same degree would be catastrophic.

Privacy, security… to name a few.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

In the context of your analogy, it would be important to note that the builder told you about the limitations on furnishings before you bought the house.

True. But actually, that would be and illegal contract. You cannot sell something and still own it in anything but the digital world. People are indeed being devoided of property by financial algorithms and clever ...

There is a scary growing patten of thought that freedom of choice, including democracy, should be something that only people able to use reason should be given. The rest ,should be fully managed.

This thing is not so clear cut.

 

[QCassidy352]

True. But actually, that would be and illegal contract. You cannot sell something and still own it in anything but the digital world. People are indeed being devoided of property.

You’re right, but the reality is that the whole analogy doesn’t really work. Because while the iPhone may be yours once you purchase it, iOS decidedly is not. It’s software that Apple owns and provides for your use subject to a EULA, which includes the restriction that apps can only be loaded through the App Store. There’s no equivalent to an operating system with a home purchase.

Also, non-digital things absolutely can be sold subject to restrictions, and a historic home is a good example of that. Yes the buyer “owns” it, but no, they don’t have total freedom to do anything whatsoever with it.

 

[jayducharme]

I just want iOS to be as open as macOS. I don’t understand why so many people think it’s ok that iOS is locked down but that locking down macOS to the same degree would be catastrophic.

Perhaps Apple is more protective of iOS because it's not a traditional computer; it's primarily a communications device that needs to work reliably. Perhaps they want to ensure that, and they fear inexperienced people might install all sorts of unapproved apps that could crash the phone when you need it most.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Five groups showed up to argue against the bill:

1. TechNet
2. NetChoice
3. Apple
4. The App Association
5. Americans for Prosperity

Eleven groups showed up to argue for the bill:

1. North Dakota Newspaper Association
2. Coalition for App Fairness
3. Fargo Moorhead West Fargo Chamber
4. Onsharp
5. DAWA Solutions Group
6. Also Creative
7. Tile
8. Basecamp
9. Epic Games
10. AMENDMENT
11. Technology Council of ND

Here's the link to my source for that: https://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/67-2021/bill-testimony/bt2333.html

The 11 people who voted for it were:
Bekkedahl; Conley; Davison; Heitkamp; Hogan; Larsen, D.; Oban; Patten; Schaible; Weber; Wobbema

The 36 who voted against it were:
Anderson; Bakke; Bell; Burckhard; Clemens; Dever; Dwyer; Elkin; Erbele; Fors; Heckaman; Hogue; Holmberg; Kannianen; Klein; Krebsbach; Kreun; Larsen, O.; Larson, D.; Lee; Lemm; Luick; Marcellais; Mathern; Meyer; Myrdal; Oehlke; Piepkorn; Poolman; Roers, J.; Roers, K.; Rust; Sorvaag; Vedaa; Wanzek; Wardner

Here's the link for that information (about 75% of the way down page 561): https://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/67-2021/journals/sr-dailyjnl-29.pdf#Page561

The ND Senate currently has 40 Republicans and 7 Democrats.

Republicans had 9 votes for and 31 votes against (22.5% for)
Democrats had 2 votes for and 5 votes against (29% for)

Doesn't appear to be a partisan issue. Maybe looking into campaign donations would show something but I've spent enough time writing up a comment with way too much detail that nobody will ever look at.

 

[chucker23n1]

No matter how you feel about the particular issue of side loading apps onto iPhones, 50 state legislatures each independently trying to regulate big tech wouldn't end well.

Yes, but you gotta get the ball rolling somehow.

There will probably be more bills like this, like maybe one in the EU soon.

I just want iOS to be as open as macOS. I don’t understand why so many people think it’s ok that iOS is locked down but that locking down macOS to the same degree would be catastrophic.

Part of it is that, if macOS were designed today, it might be more like iOS.

Another part, however, is that iPhones are far more likely to carry around your life. They act as two-factor tokens, they have your contacts, e-mail/voicemail/messages, etc.

I don’t think that locking down macOS would be catastrophic. I hear some arguments that an open platform is necessary to developing new software, and that’s a compromise I am willing to make. That the heaviness of the Mac is what allows iOS to be as lightweight as it is.

It's not just development. It is nerdier use cases, but those have in the past trickled down to general-purpose ones.

Earlier today, I remembered that I used to have a tool called Afloat on my Mac way back in the day; it let me turn any window topmost (or not), and set its opacity. Unfortunately, this kind of thing has gotten much harder to write for macOS. It is virtually impossible to do for iOS.

 

[Eorlas]

I just want iOS to be as open as macOS. I don’t understand why so many people think it’s ok that iOS is locked down but that locking down macOS to the same degree would be catastrophic.

because you're in a forum that makes some of the dumbest comments everytime a post about jailbreaking happens:

"people still jailbreak!?"

"WHAT use does jailbreaking even have? don't we have everything the iphone needs now?"

"kids cant hack their phones anymore LOL"

"idiots exploiting iphone vulnerabilities are gonna break their phones"

you are absolutely right about your point of view, but the average tech IQ around here doesn't seem to be high enough to understand this.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Yeah, I'm wondering if they just reduced the fee to 10% (they aren't going to lose money on that) wouldn't make all the howling stop. I'm a developer and even 15% sounds entirely reasonable to me (fortunately they are implementing that tier for non-huge developers). 30% can still work but it's a little rough.

At least Apple doesn't take their cut until after you sell an app. Apple doesn't get paid unless you get paid. You're not exactly "losing" money... you're just getting what's left over after Apple takes their cut.

A lot of people mention the mall analogy... where a store has to pay rent in the mall before they can even think about making money for themselves. And if your sales are slow this month... you still have to pay your rent.

So imagine if you had to pay $5,000 a month to even be in the App Store. That would be a huge barrier to entry and hardly anyone would even bother making apps. Only major corporations could afford to be in the App Store... not indie developers.

Suddenly... the percentage is a lot more reasonable.

 

[jmgregory1]

Exactly. 30% may seem like alot but I doubt any indie developer could stomach the AWS bills when their app takes off. By making it a flat percentage it's far easier, and what would probably happen is an independent app store would crop up, charge 30% to do all the things Apple does.

Also yes, as someone who works for a large international retailer who creates products and operates stores, our desired margin on all products is 67%. That doesn't mean we're screwing the company that's actually making the product, it's just how the industry works, and if there wasn't that big margin, I assume there'd be way fewer of us with jobs because they couldn't afford the salaries, Macs, offices, warehouses, delivery trucks etc.
The money has to come from somewhere.

Totally understand the margin requirements large legacy retailers have used, as I’ve worked for consumer product manufacturers selling into mass retail for 30 years. My point was more about how big tech, Apple in particular, gets a lot of grief for their margin requirements for the App Store, but legacy retailers with MUCH higher margins never come up as being an issue for consumers.

I’ll date myself here with the below that I’m sure many of you young whippersnappers will give me an eye-roll for sharing.

Imagine if we went back to having to buy apps (or programs as they were called) from retailers and app developers, most of whom are individuals or small teams with limited or zero experience selling consumer products. Not only would they have to figure out how to make the physical parts (CD, card, tape, etc.) to carry their program, not to mention the packaging and logistics to move of each product, but then had to sell the product to retailers with limited shelf space, limited purchasing budgets, limited time to talk, etc. And as a consumer, you’d go to one store hoping to buy a program, only to find that they don’t have it in stock, or have the wrong version you need for your system, forcing you to go to multiple stores trying to find what you want and need.

It’s crazy to me to think that there are generations of people who don’t even realize how things used to be [in retail]. It’s funny because just today I went back to look at a photo of the downtown of my childhood, because I was trying to find an image of an old pharmacy with a lunch counter I would go to with my grandma (for a future project I’m working on). Right in a row, there was a JCPenney store, next to it on one corner was a Ben Franklin and across the street was a Woolworth’s (which also had a lunch counter). Back then (in the 60’s and 70’s), shopping was what you did to find products and I would go with my mom or grandma, and eventually by myself, from store to store checking out what they had on shelf.

That exploration in the physical world has for so many of us now become an all digital experience. Even when we go to the store, we can know ahead of time if they have the particular item we’re looking for and the price (and how it compares to other retailers). Or we entirely skip going into the physical world and order online and have the product delivered.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk...

 

[turbineseaplane]

I just want iOS to be as open as macOS. I don’t understand why so many people think it’s ok that iOS is locked down but that locking down macOS to the same degree would be catastrophic.

The people you are referring to aren't thinking it through and/or are just 110% in the bag for Apple.

 

[turbineseaplane]

DHH and Tim Sweeney have to keep throwing their tantrums or people will forget who they are again.

I had never even heard of either of them before they start whining about Apple.

That reflects poorly on you and your grasp of tech history, not them.

 

[robco74]

Yeah, I'm wondering if they just reduced the fee to 10% (they aren't going to lose money on that) wouldn't make all the howling stop. I'm a developer and even 15% sounds entirely reasonable to me (fortunately they are implementing that tier for non-huge developers). 30% can still work but it's a little rough.

Back in the day, keeping 70% was a bargain. Most users had to purchase from carrier operated stores. Markups were huge. Just getting a hold of an SDK involved cost and a lot of paperwork.

Right now, iOS and tvOS users have one trusted place to go for apps and updates. But if Epic gets their way, they'll do what they're doing to Steam and pulling in exclusives that are only available through their store. Others may follow suit. You'll then have something akin to what we're seeing now in the streaming market, with different providers all launching their own services with their own exclusives, trying to keep more of the revenue for themselves.

Make no mistake, Epic doesn't care about other app developers. They want to be the ones charging a cut. Right now, they're willing to bleed money to build up a library of exclusives. They're doing this on the PC, they want expand to Android and iOS, and I assume, if they get a win, to consoles as well.

Android allows other app stores, but none, not even Amazon's have gained much traction. Epic is suing them too. This isn't about charging a cut, this is about who collects. Epic would very much like to become the distributor collecting fees, while contributing nothing back to the platforms.