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.
Rival App Stores on iPhone Estimated to Have Limited Impact on Apple's Revenue
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This kind of analysing, estimate, court rulings etc.. I am hoping Apple will create this side loading then customers, politicians will start to moan about being ripped off, no refund or takes too long, have been hacked by an app etc then Apple will say told you so and then revert back with some damage done to the Brand..
Cant wait.
Cant wait.
Who buys Office 365 thru App Store? I'm talking about small developers trying to make a buck selling calendar apps etc where QC is not as stringent to be accepted in the App Store. If side loaded apps start causing system issues who will be responsible for fixing them? U can't blame Apple when your phone crashes because of some app u side loaded.
Microsoft, Adobe and Meta has apps in Google Play. I don't know how awful App Store policy should be to migrate developers from most popular store with free promotion to personal distribution. Currently there is no much difference with Google's store, so why it should happen?
The only time i heard about store exit is Fortnite. Never played it, maybe because i'm too lazy to search and install that. Also, since all that Epic drama, small devs now have 15% comission in both stores. Personally, i would prefer more money for useful people with great apps than more convenient way to install something from tech giants.
These large companies would be incentivized to create exclusive app stores once BOTH platforms support it. Apple's App Store generates more revenue and has a larger consumer base willing to purchase apps and services. They can require consumers to download and purchase apps exclusively for both platforms from a single marketplace they control.
Paradoxically, I contend that because Apple didn't allow side loading or alternate app stores, the large developers didn't take their apps off the Google Play Store to develop their own.
My guess is that Apple takes a longer view than these analysts. Just like it was an open question what the App Store would enable when it was brought to iOS 2, it's totally unclear how multiple installation pathways will revolutionize the currently locked down mobile platforms. The best way to grapple with that ambiguity, if you're Apple, is to simply do your best to prevent it.
Control and brand image. An iPhone with tons of flee market stores and weird apps just doesn't feel the same and could hurt the brand.
The majority of iOS users will be oblivious to this. Even I didn't know what exactly side-loading meant until this year and I've used Androids before. I've always just preferred using the Google Play store, having minimal apps, and was cautious of what I downloaded from the Internet. I hated bloat and having multiple apps that serves the same function/purpose.
iPhone users (US-based) don't even bother with WhatsApp or Telegram, so I wouldn't expect people would go the extra mile as native apps serves us just fine. Now if the worst-case scenario happens where a huge company like Meta and Microsoft moves their apps to their own store exclusively, I'm sure there would be an uproar on social media and the backlash would affect them more than Apple.
iPhone users (US-based) don't even bother with WhatsApp or Telegram, so I wouldn't expect people would go the extra mile as native apps serves us just fine. Now if the worst-case scenario happens where a huge company like Meta and Microsoft moves their apps to their own store exclusively, I'm sure there would be an uproar on social media and the backlash would affect them more than Apple.
Because you can’t have a good customer experience unless it comes from Apple’s App Store where they get 15 and 30 percent of the sale?
You considering it "quite realistic" based on your own assumptions doesn't mean that it's not made up. The only real number that we have is the services margin that Apple reports.No actually it is not a made up number. Per their last financial results, the margin for Apple services is around 71%. This includes Apple music, Icloud, Apple tv+ and of course the App store. I am quite sur the margin on the App store is much higher than Apple Tv+ so the number of 78% is quite realistic.
Apple's services slowdown is potential concern for investors focused on profit margins
If Apple's services business continues to show slower growth, investors may reconsider the company's valuation.www.cnbc.com
Yes, we will be fine... but not necessarily for the reasons you seem to assume. The risks associated with sideloading are still real and valid; I think what this story might be missing is an explanation of exactly what Apple is trying to do to mitigate those risks. Of course, those details are currently largely speculative... but here's my own take on what I think is probably going on.
First off, it's important to note that Apple's argument for maintaining a single authoritative iOS App Store has all along been a matter of security. Never once have they veered from that argument. Epic (and others) have consistently maintained that it's only a monopolistic financial blockade which "unfairly" enriches Apple, which is clearly why several governmental entities have been willing to offer them a sympathetic ear. However, if Apple finds a way to retain veto power over what can be loaded onto any given iOS device, regardless of whether it came from Apple's App Store or (for example) Epic's App Store*... then the risk surface doesn't change, even if the impact of the financial blockade ends up being more limited. Therefore, it is clearly in Apple's best interests (politically) to demonstrate the reality of their previous assertions by particularly focusing upon ways to eliminate those security risks in a "multi-App-Store" world that may soon to be our shared reality.
To that end: My suspicion, based upon recent rumors, is that Apple is planning to continue requiring that app developers obtain the digital certificates for development of their apps directly from Apple. This means that regardless of which iOS app store sells a developer's apps, the developer still must maintain a positive relationship with Apple as well, because if a developer is identified as a malware purveyor or some other type of malicious entity, Apple would still have the power to unilaterally revoke that developer's cert, thereby disabling their apps on all iOS devices. Thus, the risk factors only change very minimally from the current state of affairs.
* Mind you, in my hypothetical scenario above, Epic wouldn't actually get to release their own app store -- let alone any other apps -- since they no longer have a positive relationship with Apple... but perhaps that's really only peripherally related to this topic, in spite of the article's header image.
Can be a case, we will see. But i can only understand being tied to pc apps from Microsoft or Adobe/etc, since they are professional standards. But on mobile platforms, everything just seems very replaceable (hard to make unique complicated app on touch device), and mobile users is much lazier to mess around alternative stores, in my opinion.
iPhone users have "long prioritized the security, centralization, and convenience that the App Store brings."
And how have the analysts figured out? It's not like iPhone users ever had a choice. Sure one may refer to Android option but that implies way more tradeoffs than just "App Store security" vs sideloading/third part app store.
Reads more like a statement to calm investors and reassure brokers.
Why fight changes? Control.
Third-party app stores on the iPhone? Does this mean that someday, Steam will sell iOS games?
(and will this hypothetical day come sooner than Half-Life 3? 🤭)
(and will this hypothetical day come sooner than Half-Life 3? 🤭)
Because this was such a legal battle to make it happen, I want the onus to be on developers and alternative app stores. What I mean is, if my iPhone experiences its very first infection from a developer or competing store, they should be fully at fault.
I love the simplicity of iOS. F-ck all these companies that will force me to have 10 separate app stores in a few years.
Yea choice for devs but none for customer except to flip the companies that leave the App Store the bird and cancel. What happens to subs you currently have in App Store. Does it cancel, and you need to resub or do you keep it in Apple until you cancel.
Apple most important asset is its brand. The brand is what produces the revenue. In people’s mind, Apple means “privacy and security” and “children-safe.” If new app stores appear here and there, this will be at risk, damaging consumer’s perception and Apple’s brand. The consequences can be much worse than single-digit loss revenue.