Yup, people can have different wants. Crazy, huh?
I think the standard should actually be demonstrating harm to the consumer. People aren't always aware of what they want or need — see that famous quote about people asking for a faster horse.
👎👎
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.
Proton Sues Apple Over 'Artificial and Arbitrary' App Store Fees
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I fully support Proton and anyone else in this antitrust lawsuit against Apple.
Hope this succeeds in giving users the choice to simply just being able to install Apps directly from the web or alternate stores worldwide if they desire and developers and digital service providers the freedom to choose where and how to offer their services on iOS and iPadOS devices.
Hope this succeeds in giving users the choice to simply just being able to install Apps directly from the web or alternate stores worldwide if they desire and developers and digital service providers the freedom to choose where and how to offer their services on iOS and iPadOS devices.
A company worth 3 trillion valuation has implications that many have voted with their wallets that what they are producing is better than the competition. In this case, it's Android that's the competition.
Absurd is subjective. If I built a company that mimics everything that Nvidia/AWS/Apple/Google does at half the price, $4 trillion isn't absurd from my point of view. I just made a bunch of desirable products for half the cost of what people usually pay for.
You'd need statistical analysis to provide objective points of view.
So why would it be ok for 100 million users to be constrained to a "monopoly" store, but if it's a billion, it's not ok? If Apple's failure in AI plays suddenly reduces their active users to 900 million and their market cap to 800 billion, does it become ok to run the App Store the way they are now?
Why not argue on principle rather than laws based on arbitrary thresholds?
Well, see above.
You're the one making an arbitrary distinction based on size of market and/or valuation size, I'm not. Therefore it would be pointless to provide a statistical analysis on valuation size/market size/unit size for something I'm not claiming or doing.
I'm arguing on principle, regardless of size.
Literally your responsibility to back up your arbitrary size argument.
Last edited:
Like many wanting a closed platform without the ability to sideload to keep things simple. Love how that works.
I can demonstrate how being forced to sideload an app that was once part of the App Store can be very harmful to the user.
👍👍👍
There's no evidence that any apps would leave the App Store unless forced to do so by Apple, but either way, go on then, let's see it.
Last edited:
Plenty of Mac Apps left the App Store. Kaleidoscope was one. To continue getting Kaleidoscope 3 updates, you'd need to download the version directly served from the developer.
Let's go back to basics. How do you define a market? What is competition? Don't reference iOS or Android. I'm asking for a literal definition to make sure we're on the same page with what words mean.
1. We were talking about the iOS App Store. The Mac App Store is not relevant here. At least use Android, so it's a like-for-like device comparison.
2. You said you were going to demonstrate harm. I have yet to see the harm.
3. Kaleidoscope stated that they were essentially forced to leave the App Store to improve the user experience, as App Store restrictions made it hard to get the app working as it should, and fighting app review time and again was hurting them significantly. The user experience actually got better by leaving.
I expect you'll respond with some form of "Nuh-uh" but frankly I don't want to hear it. Your points all boil down to "I'm happy, so everyone else should be" and you don't really seem interested in dealing with what’s actually being said.
Sure it is relevant. iOS opening up to sideloading ends up becoming very close to the Mac App Store.
"There's no evidence that any apps would leave the App Store unless forced to do so by Apple, but either way, go on then, let's see it."
You just asked for evidence which is pretty broad. Now that you've seen evidence, you're now changing the requirements. You don't get to limit the scope after the fact and then say "I expect you to say Nuh-uh". 🤣
Lol, regardless, your example was still bad. It supported my argument more than it did yours.
Your argument was that there is no evidence to show apps would leave an App Store.
I pointed to one incident leaving an App Store and now you're saying "well it supported my argument"
🤣 alright good night.
You cherrypicked a power user tool that has no need to be on the app store on a platform where the app store is barely even a relevant way to distribute apps.
You said you were going to demonstrate harm, and instead demonstrated benefit.
I'll give you another shot if you want, but my guess is that if you had a better example you would have used it.
The EU has alternative app stores for the iPhone (the platform we're actually discussing), there was nothing from there that felt more relevant to you?
Market - buyers (ex: users and developers) and sellers (ex: mobile platform providers) interact to exchange goods.
Competition - rivalry between sellers to attract buyers.
Certainly not.
Apple has, time and again, only opened to the absolute minimum legally required - or below that (which is why they were fined in the EU and basically punished by the order ultimately brought on by Epic).
Every little crumb of (malicious) compliance by Apple has been and will be limited to the minimum extent they hope to get away with. And mired in new restrictions, fees etc., to make it unfeasible as possible for developers to benefits. Example: making up new rules for dating apps (only), and only in one country.
👉 Apple always choose the most anticompetitive option available to pretend compliance.
There seem to be only three ways to achieve that and get them to play fair and reasonably open:
- New laws
- App Store being spun off from their business
- Inundating them with legal action and fines for violation
…or…
…which demonstrates that it benefits users.
Last edited:
I had to delete the Mac App Store version. Then download the side loaded version. But wait, I was supposed to use the Mac App Store version to verify with the developer that I own this product by using their website. So I deleted the side loaded version, find the Mac App Store version, but wait, it's no longer listed. So I have to go in my "purchased" section, scroll down until I find it (there's no search). Then install Mac App Store version. Drag and drop onto the website to verify I own the app, get a key. Then download the sideload version. Install with the key. Now I am back to where I was before.
Not to mention I'm required to give them my email and zip code before I can pay to "keep [my] payment secure".
Zero benefit but all the harm. Sorry.
Negligible, compared to the harm (to many users) in not getting functionality the App Store restricts.
I once migrated from an App Store app to a new license, and it took literally two or three minutes.
Benefit is getting functionality the App Store doesn’t allow.
Other, more customer-friendly stores have a search function for past purchases. Easy-peasy?
Only goes to show that a monopoly operator (or in this case, one with a substantial extrinsic advantage, such as being bundled with the operating system) can get away with mediocrity in their offerings - thereby harming customers.
Agree to disagree.
And then you're bombarded with a separate updater service (wasting cpu cycles/memory/battery) or a popup asking to update when you launch. Waste of time. Wasting a user's time is harmful.
Kaleidoscope worked the same.
I've never needed to use past purchase section for other than to being forced to sideload.
Same as for apps from the App Store.
Today alone, I received two such notifications for App Store apps.
If you bought an app a while ago and didn’t install it on a new Mac (or deleted it, due to Apple‘s meagre storage capacity offered), it comes very handy.
The usefulness is by no means restricted to migrating to other licensing.
The bottom line is they need to open up mobile devices to other app stores, all these problems will be resolved overnight. And they need to halt Apple in their quest to lock down MacOS, making it harder and harder to install and run applications and extensions from "unknown developers", which is a developer that doesn't use their app store.
you're pointing out that having all of your apps purchased from one place to redownload from is amazing instead of manually remembering and navigating to different individual websites that you side loaded from so thanks...??
Last edited: