Phil Schiller: App Store Levels Playing Field and Supports Developers

[Naaaaak]

Apple is trying to control all app distribution and get a cut of it.

They are pretending apps didn't exist outside of retail and it was only the App Store that made digital distribution possible.

As other commenters noted, the App Store is not a level playing field and Schiller is full of it.
[automerge]1595962745[/automerge]

Let people sideload apps like Android. Problem solved. If someone installs an app that isn't done through Apple, then they assume the risk for payment/data breaches.

Users assume the risk for payment/data breaches even if done through Apple. Didn't you read the 60 page TOS?

 

[McKodiak]

You are not buying an iPhone, iOS, Mac, MacOS, iPad, iPadOS, Apple Watch, WatchOS etc..., you are buying an Apple experience. Apple does many things do ensure an Apple experience. There's a reason they lock down so much in their ecosystem. It's to protect the experience. And yes, if you don't like that experience, you can go take part in some other experience. The frustrating thing for developers is that the Apple experience is in fact very popular. It's impossible to ignore the people that have chosen to partake in the Apple ecosystem and experience. Apple is mobilizing their user base to monetize their App store and services.Other companies choose to do this with advertising. Apple is trying to protect the customer. Developers could choose to boycott the app store making people choose between the iOS experience and their app. In reality, Apple could charge more. At what percentage would a developer opt not to include their app in the App store and ignore the iOS users? 40%? 50%? 60%?

 

[agffth]

Devs want in the garden to make money but don't want to pay for the maintenance and upkeep of that garden that attracts people into it.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

some words

No, quite literally it’s “Here is a thing. There are rules to the usage of the thing. IF you want to use the thing, you have to go by the rules”
Any analogy that doesn’t include the fact any limitations are known upfront is just being provided by someone who doesn’t like the idea of rules or being limited in general.

 

[[AUT] Thomas]

One of the things we came up with is, we're going to treat all apps in the ‌App Store‌ the same.

That's easy to say when Apple is releasing their apps outside the app store, like as part of iOS while others are bound by the rules and limitations of the iOS sandbox.

Translation: We treat everyone equal... except we treat ourselves more equal...

 

[I7guy]

That's easy to say when Apple is releasing their apps outside the app store, like as part of iOS while others are bound by the rules and limitations of the iOS sandbox.

Translation: We treat everyone equal... except we treat ourselves more equal...

Which apps are being released outside of the app store that aren't core IOS apps?

 

[hans1972]

Then explain why Netflix and Amazon get special exemptions but the small guys can’t.

Explain why video game streaming services aren’t allowed into the App Store (Xcloud) or had to fight for over a year to get in (Steam).

My understanding is they made an exception rules which applies to everyone including small players.

The main reason Apple would not allow video game streaming is that it is an ingenious way to avoid paying Apple money for gaming.
[automerge]1595964822[/automerge]

Schiller, are you insane? Apple did not invent a unique and indiscriminate app store system.

And furthermore, Apple did NOT even create the system you described. The App Store certainly has both special terms and requires special code. For example, adult content is banned (these are special terms, see "App Store Review Guidelines" section 1.1.4). For another example, all code must be packaged and submitted from the Xcode developer environment (this is special code, see "App Store Review Guidelines" section 2.4.5.ii).

I think Schiller's argument is that the rules applies to everyone. So the special code applies to all, not just to a few.

 

[T-R-S]

If you need to reach customers who happen to use an Apple device, you are forced to go through the App Store.

I have 200 apps on my devices I do NOT WANT to give out my CC number to 200 different companies - NO WAY am I going to do that.
Plus any subscriptions I need to edit are all in ONE place
The Apple developer model has created millions of jobs and generated billions of economic activity for developers like myself - without Apple I would still be slave to my former corporate employers .....

 

[Unregistered 4U]

The same way they refuse to raise iCloud storage so they can have 20 million people pay $1 each month for what Google offers for free.

Should the government also force Apple to offer features that match whatever the lowest price is in the market? Or, should they be free to charge what the market will bear and if that means they lose some customers (to whom price is of tantamount importance), then oh well?

Saying that if you don't like it you should do your own thing is like saying that if you don't like working for/with Amazon you should open you own store.

But, the thing is, that’s quite literally how some businesses are formed. Amazon was pretty much started from not liking how things were done and wanting to do better.

I expect that some day soon, some developer that REALLY doesn’t like the App Store (and not just using “raising a stink with Apple” as part of their marketing plan) will come out with their own app based phone and ecosystem. It won’t be based on Android, but something new and that developers will love to develop on. Apps will be able to be sideloaded and even acquired for free (if you have a friend with the install package)... no, not likely. I mean they COULD do this, but they wouldn’t be able to make any money at it and would fail.

 

[hans1972]

Because once Apple sells the device Apple no longer owns it. So why can't the device owner load whatever software they want? Simple to understand really.

It's like buying a car and only being able to drive it to certain businesses.

The device owner can't do it because the product bought doesn't have the functionality. It has nothing do with ownership.

 

[Wildkraut]

Because once Apple sells the device Apple no longer owns it. So why can't the device owner load whatever software they want? Simple to understand really.

It's like buying a car and only being able to drive it to certain businesses.

Hehe, just to highlight “you don’t own it”, you can’t even get it running without their activation servers.
If Apple suddenly disappears, few million phones becomes useless bricks.
People paid 1000EUR+, to be allowed to use it. I hope they get slammed from all sides.
Their “playing the innocents and good guys” play script is $*@! me off, with every interview they give.
[automerge]1595965887[/automerge]

Should the government also force Apple to offer features that match whatever the lowest price is in the market?

No, they should force them to alternatively allow installing Apps from outside the Appstore, just like macOS, Android, Windows, etc. and let them charge whatever they want for this additional minimal more comfortable and saver Appstore installation path.

 

[Appleman3546]

Competition is a good thing, let us download apps from a browser like on a computer

 

[thedocbwarren]

Simple truth, it will get blamed on Apple. I know people that scream at their laptops because of a chrome defect. It's going to happen. Also, why can't Apple own their ecosystem? It's really end-user agreed or not. If it were an opensource app store or similar (like for instance the Ubuntu snap store) it's a wild west that is kind of hit or miss.
[automerge]1595966776[/automerge]
PWA does in fact work if you have one (not installed on device but works as a webview just fine.)

Competition is a good thing, let us download apps from a browser like on a computer

 

[rjp1]

Here's what I don't get. If you don't like the business deal one person offers, you do business with another person instead. If you don't like the price of a hotel, you choose another hotel. If you don't like the wages from your job, you hustle and get a promotion or get another job that pays more. So why does that logic suddenly disappear when it comes to (some) app developers? Apple forces absolutely no one to use their app store or their ecosystem. If you don't like Apple's percentages, don't publish your apps on the App Store. It's simple.

Not even Apple goes by that logic.

Remember when they were upset with the amount Qualcomm was charging them?

 

[Wildkraut]

There's one thing people are missing with this argument, and that is that iOS apps are single-source. .......

Finally somebody in here that grasps it, nice to meet you.

 

[I7guy]

Hehe, just to highlight “you don’t own it”, you can’t even get it running without their activation servers.
If Apple suddenly disappears, few million phones becomes useless bricks.
People paid 1000EUR+, to be allowed to use it. I hope they get slammed from all sides.
Their “playing the innocents and good guys” play script is $*@! me off, with every interview they give.
[automerge]1595965887[/automerge]

No, they should force them to alternatively allow installing Apps from outside the Appstore, just like macOS, Android, Windows, etc. and let them charge whatever they want for this additional minimal more comfortable and saver Appstore installation path.

You may have your views, but I don't see how this benefits the consumer in the least.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Let people sideload apps like Android. Problem solved. If someone installs an app that isn't done through Apple, then they assume the risk for payment/data breaches.

terrible idea. big apps would force a majority of apple's users to sideload because they want 100% of the cut. this means less revenue for apple -> less investments in developer tools and services -> less resources for small app developers -> less variety of apps.

and, more importantly, this also means a bad experience for users since each app would run its own updater service in the background (killing battery) or have to manually update each app.

Apple starts at the user experience first, then works backwards. you're approaching it from a money-making perspective.

 

[McScooby]

Do folk not really remember what a clusterfcsk mobiles were before iPhone & the App Store?

I could get this if in the last 12 years Apple had jacked up the App Store prices & cut the developer cut to match inflation, but they haven’t.

When the App Store was introduced it was considered a good deal, not the worst or best, but good.

Giving developers a level playing field to get their apps to a worldwide audience (well App Store country available presence) quickly, efficiently & easily scalable was the goal & apple has pretty much achieved that & handled all the back end billing, app delivery

Now we’re in a position where either politicians don’t like the bucks Apple are making & want an easy slice of the pie (remember this may have a knock on effect for customers i.e. you & me with prices increasing/developers fees cut) or a couple of disgruntled companies jealous that Apple has built a successful business that in their interests can’t be easily replicated (although to a point it can, if they adapt their business models)

Next I read today that Google want to revert to the bag of hurt that was web apps, sure the world/tech’s moved on, but I for one don’t want to return there.

As for folk concerned that Apple own the iPhone & you never really do, either u buy into the Apple model (it is what it is) or don’t, just don’t whinge about it, move on.

Nobody has the customer or developer in mind, it boils down to cold hard cash, yours & mine & how fast they can get it.

 

[McKodiak]

Should be an interesting hearing tomorrow.

 

[Wildkraut]

Here's what I don't get. If you don't like the business deal one person offers, you do business with another person instead. If you don't like the price of a hotel, you choose another hotel. If you don't like the wages from your job, you hustle and get a promotion or get another job that pays more. So why does that logic suddenly disappear when it comes to (some) app developers? Apple forces absolutely no one to use their app store or their ecosystem. If you don't like Apple's percentages, don't publish your apps on the App Store. It's simple.

Apple simply reached a critical mass, and have a single app source installation path, they need to get somewhat under control. I see even their forced device activation very critical. Anyway, it started with innovation, great, but slowly moved to unfair tactics, with shady tax circumventions, and devs & users bossing. And their marketing is so good, that most people simply can’t see the whole thing from within their fictive apple bubble bubble world.

 

[dewilded]

Because once Apple sells the device Apple no longer owns it. So why can't the device owner load whatever software they want? Simple to understand really.

It's like buying a car and only being able to drive it to certain businesses.

Actually, it is like buying a car and only being able to have the dealer maintain it. Only being able to put accessories offered Or approved by the manufacturer onto your car.
[automerge]1595970115[/automerge]
People know about these restrictions before they buy a phone these says, so buy an android if you don’t want the restrictions. Problem solved.

 

[falainber]

Here's what I don't get. If you don't like the business deal one person offers, you do business with another person instead. If you don't like the price of a hotel, you choose another hotel. If you don't like the wages from your job, you hustle and get a promotion or get another job that pays more. So why does that logic suddenly disappear when it comes to (some) app developers? Apple forces absolutely no one to use their app store or their ecosystem. If you don't like Apple's percentages, don't publish your apps on the App Store. It's simple.

And congress should help developers go this route by enabling alternative app stores for both iOS and Android (as well as a way for free app installation).
[automerge]1595970324[/automerge]

Actually, it is like buying a car and only being able to have the dealer maintain it. Only being able to put accessories offered Or approved by the manufacturer onto your car.
[automerge]1595970115[/automerge]
People know about these restrictions before they buy a phone these says, so buy an android if you don’t want the restrictions. Problem solved.

Another bad car analogy. Once you bought a car you can install anything on it. Warranty is a separate issue which does not apply to software ("unauthorized" apps can't break Apple hardware).

 

[826317]

Here's what I don't get. If you don't like the business deal one person offers, you do business with another person instead. If you don't like the price of a hotel, you choose another hotel. If you don't like the wages from your job, you hustle and get a promotion or get another job that pays more. So why does that logic suddenly disappear when it comes to (some) app developers? Apple forces absolutely no one to use their app store or their ecosystem. If you don't like Apple's percentages, don't publish your apps on the App Store. It's simple.

That would only make sense if there was actual competition. In reality, pulling this number out of my rear, 75% or more of ALL AirBnB or Netflix's customers are on iPhones. Companies who publish apps on the app store are not there to make a "business deal", they are there so that their customers can use the app that they developed for them, on the devices that their customers own. Netflix didn't get popular through the app store or the play store. So for Apple to insist on a financial benefit on an app that they did not help become popular is ridiculous.

A possible solution is to allow apps to be installed from outside of the app store and do some on-device scanning of the binary-to-be-installed to see if it looks suspicious.

 

[thedocbwarren]

Scanning outside wouldn't cover a lot of basis if Apple is interested in handling privacy, security, etc. This simply would not work. Only solution from a legal stance would be to cut your phone/device off from the App store and iCloud, etc.

That would only make sense if there was actual competition. In reality, pulling this number out of my rear, 75% or more of ALL AirBnB or Netflix's customers are on iPhones. Companies who publish apps on the app store are not there to make a "business deal", they are there so that their customers can use the app that they developed for them, on the devices that their customers own. Netflix didn't get popular through the app store or the play store. So for Apple to insist on a financial benefit on an app that they did not help become popular is ridiculous.

A possible solution is to allow apps to be installed from outside of the app store and do some on-device scanning of the binary-to-be-installed to see if it looks suspicious.

 

[ryecoke]

Here's what I don't get. If you don't like the business deal one person offers, you do business with another person instead. If you don't like the price of a hotel, you choose another hotel. If you don't like the wages from your job, you hustle and get a promotion or get another job that pays more. So why does that logic suddenly disappear when it comes to (some) app developers? Apple forces absolutely no one to use their app store or their ecosystem. If you don't like Apple's percentages, don't publish your apps on the App Store. It's simple.

yeah you’re right... alienate 25%+ of your potential market if you don’t like apples policies. It’s a no brainer choice!