Spotify on Apple's Response to App Store Dispute: 'Every Monopolist Will Suggest They Have Done Nothing Wrong'

[Bytor65]

The problem with evidence in your eyes and others is you literally want Apple to say it. If they don’t say it, then it can’t possibly be accurate. The inherent problem with this thought is you take the “innocent till first party accepts guilt approach”.

I don’t think you are wrong, but without that experience it’s difficult for ppl like me to convey to ppl like you without spending an enormous amount of time crafting a carefully worded message with tons of proof and posts to share.

On a side note, Bytor has stated he had limited experience with Cydia. I already linked an article of a timeline and that was paraphrased from several sources. So the purpose of proving my point is nonsensical as now I have to dig up historical posts on all sorts of places back to 2008 to explain my point.

Having no experience with Cydia, doesn't mean, not aware of it, and not aware that they did things before Apple or did things Apple never did at all. I am a tech nerd and follow most technology closely.

I remember lots of things that Cydia apps did first. I remember they added a feature still lacking for iPad that I want, Mouse support.

BUT that doesn't mean, Apple would not have done those features, without Cydia.

That doesn't necessarily follow, and in the case of Apple I made an argument why Apple, especially under Steve Jobs (Cydia's peak), was very slow to add features, even though they would have been vetted internally.

It's actually more likely the opposite, that Apple under Steve Jobs, rejected so many features, that it allowed Cydia some room to differentiate itself, to gain a following.

You need a very strong example of something truly novel that Cydia did, to make the case that Cydia was influencing Apple, and I haven't really seen it. It's more just a case of obvious things that Apple rejected for a while and eventually did.

 

[ipponrg]

My record was 2.5 hours spent crafting a single response here at Macrumours (looking up info, wording and rewording my response to make it sound more coherent), for whatever that is worth. I know my words are worth crap in some of your eyes, but to me, since I choose to respond, that means that each and every one of you here is deemed a member worthy of my time and respect. And that means making the effort to craft a response that I am proud of before hitting that "post" button. Maybe some will roll their eyes and scroll right past it, and that's perfectly okay.

And I have come to see this as short-term pain for long-term gain. One observation I have made is that the arguments here at Macrumours tend to repeat themselves after a while (yes, even I acknowledge that I am guilty of this, for those tired of how many times I mention how I love using my iPad, Apple Pencil, AirPods and Apple Watch). So the hardest response to compose to is always that first one, but afterwards, it gets much easier when you need to reiterate or rehash a similar argument again in another thread sometime later in the future (and believe me, you will).

I usually timebox my responses to 15 minutes. There are diminishing returns when you spend too much time on these forums trying to present a point.

Your words are not crap as you put it, but you tend to share interesting viewpoints that seem very disconnected. I do enjoy reading it (despite whatever tone I convey in my posts) because it helps me with dealing with my team and cross org interactions in my day to day work

 

[MEJHarrison]

But of course, that has to be the only explanation. When I disagree with you on something (or vice versa), it must be due to my alleged lack of knowledge and experience. Nothing else. How convenient.

You have more perseverance than I do. The guy proposes a ridiculous theory. He presents an article as proof. The article not only doesn't prove his point, it even disproves it slightly. Rather than finding more evidence to support the theory, or discussing the problems with the first article, he instead attacks the very people he's arguing with in an effort to discredit them, thereby (in his own mind) proving his point. This is such classic behavior. It the tool of a weak-minded fool who can't put forth a valid argument. That's why I jumped off the merry-go-round.

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

My record was 2.5 hours spent crafting a single response here at Macrumours (looking up info, wording and rewording my response to make it sound more coherent), for whatever that is worth. I know my words are worth crap in some of your eyes, but to me, since I choose to respond, that means that each and every one of you here is deemed a member worthy of my time and respect. And that means making the effort to craft a response that I am proud of before hitting that "post" button. Maybe some will roll their eyes and scroll right past it, and that's perfectly okay.

And I have come to see this as short-term pain for long-term gain. One observation I have made is that the arguments here at Macrumours tend to repeat themselves after a while (yes, even I acknowledge that I am guilty of this, for those tired of how many times I mention how I love using my iPad, Apple Pencil, AirPods and Apple Watch). So the hardest response to compose to is always that first one, but afterwards, it gets much easier when you need to reiterate or rehash a similar argument again in another thread sometime later in the future (and believe me, you will).

Abazigal's Law - "The arguments here at any Forums tend to repeat themselves after a while."

 

[nt5672]

It will eventually.

Because it would drastically increase piracy, which will negatively affect developers, which in the long run will trickle down to consumers.

Then there would be lucrative defections from the app store, by developers looking to deny Apple a cut.

Both of the above would be less income and likely less spending on maintaining/improving the App store.

Basically the closed nature of the platform is directly responsible for much of the differences between the Android/Apple ecosystems.

If you prefer the way Android ecosystem works, you should vote with your dollars and buy Android devices, not try to get Apple to follow that path.

I think you fail to understand how capitalism works in the real world. Sure a minority of developers might do this. But in the end, if Apple holds up the trust component, then the Apple tax will settle at a reasonable value and people will then fairly value Apple's contribution. Everyone supporting a monopoly cry doom and gloom if the monopoly is busted, but that result rarely happens.

 

[Bytor65]

I think you fail to understand how capitalism works in the real world. Sure a minority of developers might do this. But in the end, if Apple holds up the trust component, then the Apple tax will settle at a reasonable value and people will then fairly value Apple's contribution. Everyone supporting a monopoly cry doom and gloom if the monopoly is busted, but that result rarely happens.

I think you fail to realize we have a real world example. The Android ecosystem.

The differences between the ecosystem are largely a result of Google being more open to side-loading, and alternate stores, and thus a lot of top shelf developers just don't bother with Android because piracy kills sales, so you end up with a pile of ad-based and micro-transaction based product, but very little high quality software to purchase.

I will never get why some people want iOS to be like Android? Why not just choose Android in the first place. Let the people who prefer Apples walled garden, have the choice of which way they want an ecosystem, not force everything into the Android mold.

And of course Apple is NOT a monopoly. See Android.

 

[nt5672]

I think you fail to realize we have a real world example. The Android ecosystem.

The differences between the ecosystem are largely a result of Google being more open to side-loading, and alternate stores, and thus a lot of top shelf developers just don't bother with Android because piracy kills sales, so you end up with a pile of ad-based and micro-transaction based product, but very little high quality software to purchase.

I will never get why some people want iOS to be like Android? Why not just choose Android in the first place. Let the people who prefer Apples walled garden, have the choice of which way they want an ecosystem, not force everything into the Android mold.

And of course Apple is NOT a monopoly. See Android.

I just don't understand your view at all. The two are nothing alike, all apps in the Apple system are sandboxed side loaded or not. There is no need to load any side loaded app if you don't want to. If you do they don't effect any thing else you have loaded.

Developers don't develop for Android because they have to develop for 6 or 8 different version of Android operating system since the device suppliers never provide update paths for users. The highest adoption is for Nougat and that is only 28% across two API versions and its not even the current OS. Apple is currently around 81% for the latest OS, with only one API version.

Android users don't pay for stuff. It's not about the developers, it's about the users. Scammers develop for Android because the users will only install free stuff. Free means that you want to give up your privacy and personal details in order to use the free software. Low and behold that is Google's model also.

Android is not sandboxed the way Apple devices are (because Google would then not have the access it needs), so even if you only used the Android store versions you are still vulnerable. In fact there are many unsavory apps in the Android store. With Apple you would not be vulnerable.

Users decide what developers do, because developers go where the money is. Developers don't care about the Apple tax as long as users are willing to pay. It would not matter if an Apple developer decided to move to side loading to get around the Apple tax, because that developer either develops good apps or not.

Your argument ignores reality. Have you ever developed an App for either Android or Apple?

 

[Bytor65]

Android users don't pay for stuff. It's not about the developers, it's about the users. Scammers develop for Android because the users will only install free stuff. Free means that you want to give up your privacy and personal details in order to use the free software. Low and behold that is Google's model also.

Users only install free stuff, because they can just visit pirate sites for everything that isn't free, and get it for free, and easily install it.

If you could sideload and have alternate iOS apps stores, why wouldn't the same thing happen?

Android Apps are theoretically sandboxed:
https://securityboulevard.com/2018/...-hackers-bypass-android-app-sandbox-security/

Apple apps are all better sandboxed, because they are all approved by Apple, and Apple enforces sandboxing. Once there are alternate App stores, Apple is no longer approving apps, and there is no enforcement of sandboxing.

It will result for less money for developers and less for Apple, and less incentive for Apple to put effort into the appstore, and less incentive for developers to do high quality paid apps that are just going to be mostly pirated.

There are negative implications for the free-for-all and it is precisely those downsides that Android suffer.

You don't get to choose a fantasy where sideloading/alternate stores don't undermine the iOS ecosystem, the same way it undermines the Android ecosystem.

Similar inputs results in similar outputs. We are seeing the pros/cons of tight control vs lose control. If you switch iOS ecosystem to loose control, you get the same rot you see in Android.

 

[nt5672]

. . .
Apple apps are all better sandboxed, because they are all approved by Apple, and Apple enforces sandboxing. Once there are alternate App stores, Apple is no longer approving apps, and there is no enforcement of sandboxing. . . . .

Wrong! Apple sandboxing does not work based on their approval process in iOS, it is enforced by the APIs (software interface). An application in iOS, for example, cannot access the users contacts without the user approving it. Period. There is no way to get around it. No way for a side loaded app to fake their way to the users contacts. Same for location, same for heath info, etc. You really don't seem to understand how this stuff works today (the last year or so). Of course in Android, it does NOT work this way.

And it does not work this way in macOS, which has been fine for years and years in spite of the open approach. There is simply no real reason to limit iOS today to only Apple approved. When iOS was immature Apple probably needed this limitation, since no apps were sandboxed, but today it's simply for unreasonable, free speech limiting, monopolistic reasons.

 

[Bytor65]

Wrong! Apple sandboxing does not work based on their approval process in iOS, it is enforced by the APIs (software interface). An application in iOS, for example, cannot access the users contacts without the user approving it. Period. There is no way to get around it. No way for a side loaded app to fake their way to the users contacts. Same for location, same for heath info, etc. You really don't seem to understand how this stuff works today (the last year or so). Of course in Android, it does NOT work this way.

And it does not work this way in macOS, which has been fine for years and years in spite of the open approach. There is simply no real reason to limit iOS today to only Apple approved. When iOS was immature Apple probably needed this limitation, since no apps were sandboxed, but today it's simply for unreasonable, free speech limiting, monopolistic reasons.

There are other APIs which are verboten, to app store apps, when you don't have to deal with Apple approva,l you don't have to live within Apples API limitations. And of course, there can and will be straight up malware in the Apps users sideload.

Once you let developers use any API and install anything, including malware, there will be no safeguards.

Funny you should bring up the Mac App Store, when Sandboxing is a reason some Apps are staying outside the Mac App store. Because again, in the MAS sandboxing is enforced, when you stay outside the MAS, and you can install anything, it really can't be enforced.

It should be obvious that when you allow the installation of any unvetted software at will, the attack vectors go up exponentially.

 

[nt5672]

There are other APIs which are verboten, to app store apps, when you don't have to deal with Apple approva,l you don't have to live within Apples API limitations. And of course, there can and will be straight up malware in the Apps users sideload. . . .

Please give an example of an API which is allowed to developer but forbidden to App Store apps. You might be thinking of private APIs, which is how iOS originally worked. Originally, App developers could not use non-public APIs, but with improvements in sandboxing and Swift (which required significant changes to Apple's objective-c libs), Apple has tightened these down to the point that there are not any APIs that access personal data that can be accessed without going through Apple's protections (both software and hardware).

Have you developed an Apple app in the last year?

 

[Bytor65]

Please give an example of an API which is allowed to developer but forbidden to App Store apps. You might be thinking of private APIs, which is how iOS originally worked. Originally, App developers could not use non-public APIs, but with improvements in sandboxing and Swift (which required significant changes to Apple's objective-c libs), Apple has tightened these down to the point that there are not any APIs that access personal data that can be accessed without going through Apple's protections (both software and hardware).

Have you developed an Apple app in the last year?

Just because there isn't a API directly targeting user data, doesn't mean that hackers using Obj-C accessing the fullest array of APIs public and private, with no oversight, won't figure out how to compromise user data.

Only the naive think any OS is hack proof when there is No Oversight on what is installed.

I notice you conveniently focus on one minutia of an issue, while ignoring the damage increased piracy, would have on the ecosystem.

 

[macfacts]

And of course Apple is NOT a monopoly. See Android.

No one is saying apple has a smartphone marketshare monopoly.

Wrong! Apple sandboxing does not work based on their approval process in iOS, it is enforced by the APIs (software interface). ... Of course in Android, it does NOT work this way.

You obviously haven't used a android device before in your life.

 

[nt5672]

Just because there isn't a API directly targeting user data, doesn't mean that hackers using Obj-C accessing the fullest array of APIs public and private, with no oversight, won't figure out how to compromise user data.

Only the naive think any OS is hack proof when there is No Oversight on what is installed. . . .

It means exactly the opposite of your post, sandboxing employs memory barriers that do exactly what you claim is NOT done. It does not sound like you have any development experience with the Apple ecosystem.

As to 'hack proof', of course no system is absolutely and completely hack proof, but linux and macOS seem to do just fine without the nanny'isms (oversight) you want employed. Two or three years ago, was oversight and important part of the process, yes, but not today. You should update your knowledge.

There would be no increased piracy, so no need to consider it. There is not any increased piracy in macOS and its sandboxing is way less than iOS. There is not increased piracy in linux which often has sandboxing (secure linux) turned off.

So to summarize, today there is absolutely no need for the same oversight in iOS that was present years ago when iOS was immature. Even back then Apple's oversight was limited in what they caught. They mostly caught developers after the fact. The reason it did not work well back then is there were too many ways to obfuscate the code. That is why we have Apple sandboxing today.

Sandboxing means the Apple approval process does not need to catch these issues. Apple had to do this because, let me repeat, the Apple Approval process was not able to catch developers mis-using Apple's devices. By and large it was marketing and scare tactics that kept developers honest. Sure, Apple scanned the developers code, but that scanning was easy to defeat and only relative unknowledgeable developers got caught.

Even today, I can get all kinds of code past the review process, but I cannot violate the sandboxed memory barriers (at least without NSA level knowledge).
[doublepost=1553790448][/doublepost]

You obviously haven't used a android device before in your life.

Probably should have said "Of course in Android, it does NOT, IMO, work as well as iOS." The problem with Android is that there are so many OS and API versions in the wild that don't have security updates applied or can't be updated, because the device manufacturers don't bother.

For example, Android 6 SDK 24 and below (my quick count is 46.8 % of active devices) defaulted to allowing all apps read permission on all data from other apps for the given user. But get this, even after the default was changed in SDK 24 the app could override it. This is why there are so many hacks in Android that don't appear in iOS. About 83% of iOS devices are on the current version of iOS, 12% are one version back, that is 95% are getting iOS security updates.

Android 9 SDK 28 or better has much stronger security, forcing each app to run in its own sandbox. The problem is that very few people in the real world are actually running Android 9 SDK 28, event though it was launched August 2018. When adopted this version should be pretty secure. I could not quickly find any adoption numbers today. the latest version with stats is Android 8.1 SDK 27 with only a 7.5% adoption (released December 2017). What does that tell you?

Technically Apple's current sandboxing may be inferior to Android 9, SDK 28, which BTW is using SELinux. But, Apple is better at making sure all devices can run the latest software. Once Android 9 SDK 28 or better is rolled out I don't think I would have a problem with Android security and will probably switch, provided that Google has not added a bunch of back doors to support its selling of user data.

So the Android world is completely different for a number of reasons, but none of them have anything to do with the relative approval processes. Android users are 5 to 10 years behind the Apple users in adopting good security measures. That is the difference. Note that I did NOT say the Android OS was so far behind.

 

[Bytor65]

As to 'hack proof', of course no system is absolutely and completely hack proof, but linux and macOS seem to do just fine without the nanny'isms (oversight) you want employed. Two or three years ago, was oversight and important part of the process, yes, but not today. You should update your knowledge.

Linux isn't a serious target since it commands about 1% of desktop users and they tend to be very security aware.

MacOS doing fine?
Warning as Mac malware exploits climb 270%

Also I don't want anything employed, I just want Apple to continuing to keep tight control over iOS, as it does today.

There would be no increased piracy, so no need to consider it. There is not any increased piracy in macOS and its sandboxing is way less than iOS. There is not increased piracy in linux which often has sandboxing (secure linux) turned off.

Based on what? Where piracy is easy it has been prevalent since the dawn of computing.
Piracy has nothing to do with sandboxing. Piracy has to do with easy side-loading and alternate app stores.

If you give users the ability to easily side-load or allow alternate app stores, there will be sites full of iOS pirate SW (with some nice malware mixed in), making for both increased piracy and malware proliferation. It's obvious cause and effect that has been part of the computer experience on nearly every computing platform in existence.

 

[bastoshaq]

This type of response is exemplary of totally misunderstanding the problem.

The problem isn't the app store, and sweat-of-the-brow has nothing to do with anything here.

The problem is twofold: (1) the App Store is half of a very powerful duopoly that must be used to distribute mobile software, there is no way around it, no choice, and (2) Apple competed on their own App Store with third parties, but Apple bends the rules such that they have a distinct advantage over third parties on the App Store. On their own, (1) or (2) aren't problems. It's only a problem when you get (1) and (2) together at the same time. Thus, Apple uses their platform (App Store) to unfairly advantage their other business (Apple Music).

It's akin to Rockefeller: He bought the railroad companies so that only he would control distribution of oil. At the time, rail was pretty much the only way to distribute oil. His oil was then distributed nearly for free, while he charged competing oil companies a huge premium to distribute. The other companies couldn't compete, because their oil was always more expensive than his due to how much he charged them for distribution. Thus, he used his monopoly platform (railroads) to unfairly advantage his other business (oil).

I like your example: but there is a bit more to it. Regardless of where the client would buy the oil from the other companies, the other companies would have to pay the railroad company to carry the oil.
But in this case, Apple does not charge to deliver the oil - they charge if the client goes to the "railroad depo", own by the railroad company (Apple) and buys oil from the other companies. For this Apple is charging a cut! But if the client buys the oil from "the other companies depo", apple does not charge a thing and delivers it for free (ie Netflix)

The other companies want to use Apple's depo to sell oil and not pay for it. And I think it is fair that inside of Apple's depo, they don't let any sort of advert from the other companies to bypass Apple's depo. But nothing stops the other companies to put adverts across town advertising to go to their depo to buy the oil.

It is not like that there is only one way to deliver oil (ie iOS/iPhones). The other companies could say that they will no longer deliver oil via Apple's railroads and if clients want the other companies oil, they have to buy another railroad access (ie andriod or Spotify's own railroads - if they would build a phone).

If Spotify would remove their app from the App Store, it would be a power play. And you would have to wait and see what would happen to the marked: would clients change to other railroads or would clients not use the other companies oil and use Apple's oil?

 

[Abazigal]

If Spotify would remove their app from the App Store, it would be a power play.

And I would argue that just the threat of Spotify or any other app company possibly withholding their app from the App Store as a form of leverage is justification enough for Apple to invest in their own competing service.

Without Apple Music, Apple might be at the mercy of Spotify as this might risk users defecting to Android.

But with Apple Music as a hedge, Apple is probably like "Go ahead, and thanks for all the free customers you just sent our way."

As a consumer, I don't see how one would not support the latter as it helps keep app developers honest, and incentivised to keep updating their apps to ensure that it always remain better than the preinstalled default apps. We have seen this happen with Google Maps, so in a way, you actually have Apple to thank (when they replaced google maps on iOS with their own mapping service) for getting a way better google maps app on your phone.

 

[Substance90]

Only if they act in concert, which doesn't seem to be the case with iOS and Android. I'd hesitate to call them a duopoly because Android is partially open source and forks such as Amazon's Fire OS.

I think you're mixing up a "duopoly" and a "cartel". iOS and Android definitely are a duopoly in the mobile OS market. They are not a cartel because they do try to compete with each other.

 

[jlc1978]

I think you're mixing up a "duopoly" and a "cartel". iOS and Android definitely are a duopoly in the mobile OS market. They are not a cartel because they do try to compete with each other.

While I appreciate what you are saying I did mean duopoly since Android is not a single OS but rather a mix of variants used by different companies; with a combination of open/closed source models. Amazon even has its own fork in FireOS. I do not consider them a classic duopoly as they are not able to control the market and erect high barriers to entry; if they were a duopoly you'd only see the iPhone and Pixel dominating the market. If anything, Androids open source approach helps lower barriers to entry.

YMMV HAND

 

[Abazigal]

https://9to5mac.com/2019/04/09/spotify-losing-artists-apple-music/

Sure sheds light on the timing of Spotify’s appeal in the EU. Increasingly looks like Spotify isn’t the grunty little upstart they would like everyone to believe.