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.
Report: Sideloading in Europe Will Still Involve App Review and Fees
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly.
Multiple lawsuits laid open that the App Store was de facto never planned as it came out. Eddy Cue talked into Jobs to abandon the idea of open web apps which was the course they developed together with Google. Then they went for the proprietary, all-control and maximum margins App Store.
Literally Jobs words on the subject:
Jobs' original vision for the iPhone: No third-party native apps - 9to5Mac
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vq993Td6ys] Remember back in 2007 when Apple first told developers that to develop for the iPhone, they’d need to build...
9to5mac.com
MR covered this too, I’ll track down the links later
The only reason it's being discussed in this way in the first place is because folks often go "but what about consoles though!!!1!11" even though their profitability largely relies on a different business model than smartphones, does not exist as a monopoly or duopoly, and does not have as wide an impact on the market as smartphones. I also think you missed other reasons Apple shouldn't be charging 30% outside of selling the hardware for huge profits.
Consoles (under the current model) are sold at a loss initially and then as costs come down the price eventually exceeds the cost to manufacture.
I was not trying to void your argument, I was merely trying to say that you can already do plenty more with non-App Store apps which are signed.
As an example, I will not work on a machine which doesn't give me the features of Little Snitch which also is a signed developer's app.
Your argument still holds.
And they were very much pushed to release it as a response to things like Installer.app and later Cydia.
It’s amazing how easy people forget
There is little reason to believe that they don't know about it imo. It just doesn't help their argument.
Some don't know that Installer.app and Cydia actually predate the official App Store.
Legacy expectation. Meaning what the consumer expects when they buy the product. Desktop computers had already established an expectation for how software distribution worked. The iPhone didn't follow that model and consumers were fine with it.
It also doesn't really matter what Apple talked about internally when developing the iPhone or what they initially said to developers. What matters is how it appeared on the market. It was never oriented around web apps. It was never oriented around desktop style software distribution expectations. The 1st party App Store was launched in 2008.
Harmonyos has about 3-4 percent global share. Even windows phone had a higher market share so yes it is highly irrelevant. Its success mainly is from china and that makes sense. I’m not downplaying the OS. I’m stating facts. Android and iPhone still have higher market share presently than harmony.
And, as I mentioned, Jobs never wanted native third party apps. Not only was that how he pitched the phone in 2007 (web apps only) but as others have mentioned it’s been confirmed in court documents since that he was dead set against it *even after the iPhone launched*
Installer.app came out in 2007 and kinda forced apples hand, turning an internal tech demo into something pitched to Jobs by other execs.
Cydia predates the app store with its own full store too, built by saurik on top of the groundwork done by Installer.app, and pushed Apple to release the store earlier than intended even after Jobs *had* greenlit it
Know the history of this before you comment, eh?
Because I find the EU being bullied and apple paying the fine and continuing to do as they wish. I mean they break the law and pay? Or are you mad that if apple wanted to continue doing it their way and paying fines, they could ?
Yes that would impress me for them to take on government bullies. Especially a government that doesn’t even represent me lmao. Because I don’t want my iPhone being anything remotely related or similar to android devices.
If it matters to people then it isn't. Apps were announced as free and openly available and they backpedaled because shareholders.
I think you're confusing the victim and the offender here, The EU is not bullying anyone here. Just because Apple can't sh** in every corner of the world like they do at home doesn't mean that we're bullies.
Max margins? The iOS App Store provided more abilities and charged a lower fee than any other store or platform licensing fee at the time. Developers cheered when the store, ability to bypass the carrier, and 30% fee was announced. Also, Apple's version of 'all-control' gave developers more control than they had ever had on phones (or consoles) up to that point.
This thread is a pretty good indication of how people think - especially those who claim to represent the EU, imo.
Don't see how the comments on Cydia are supported. Apple announced the SDK in Oct 2007 and said it would be available in Feb 2008. It was. Cydia was release Feb 28, 2008, according to Wikipedia. App Store was released a few weeks after WWDC on July 10, 2008. I don't see any evidence that the release was pushed up.
Jobs also wanted the iPhone to use an Intel processor until one of the top iPhone execs threatened to quit if it didn't use ARM. Ultimately, those things are irrelevant to anything beyond a discussion about how corporate product development doesn't always follow a single, straight path. You can have things concurrently in development. You can have management change their minds about strategy etc.
I really have no idea why people think the web app thing refutes anything I've said. Desktop computers certainly weren't oriented around web apps and neither were consoles. So even if Apple had launched the iPhone with a total determination to use web apps for third party developers it still would have been different from legacy desktop expectations.
Cydia's release predates the App Store release, not sure when its design started and whether that predates Apple's SDK announcement.
Installer.app was released in August 2007 and that predates even Apple's SDK announcement.
I don't know whether Apple "pushed up" anything, but it's clear they realized pretty quickly their original vision of only third-party WebApplications was the wrong approach.
Okay? I supplied the dates in my post.
Obviously, since they announced the SDK only 3.5 months after the iPhone was released.
I just don't buy @seek3r claims of direct causation.
From what I understand part of the development team wanted third-party native apps at launch, but Steve Jobs was opposed to it. After launch, Steve Jobs' opinion started to shift and I guess it was a sum of multiple factors, both internal and external, that ultimately tipped the balance and made him reconsider.
well, this has aged like a prostitute with a crack addiction
I represent myself being part of it, and the EU represents me and others as a whole. I don't see anyone else here representing it even in part while being against it.
Also, news already broke and I guess this article was merely used to identify leakers.