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.
U.S. Supreme Court Appears 'Open' to Allowing App Store Monopoly Lawsuit vs. Apple to Proceed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How is this meme logic so persistent? It should be patently obvious the desire is to have options and choice within iOS.
... and this is coming from an Android phone user.
As a developer since 2011, I have no issue with Apples model. They used to be a bit heavy handed and slow but these days it’s a quick and pain free process. The only time you really tend to see devs complain is when their app gets rejected, often for being very low quality or buggy.
The alternative to the App Store is the Android side of things. Their App Store is full of so much crap, broken buggy apps. I’ll take stability over **** any day.
The alternative to the App Store is the Android side of things. Their App Store is full of so much crap, broken buggy apps. I’ll take stability over **** any day.
The privacy argument is false. Apps sold through the apps store are known to collect and sell user data.
So if I understand this correctly ... the argument is that Apple is a monopoly on the App Store because developers can't sell the app directly to the consumer without Apple's 30% cut? Is that right?
If yes ... how is this different than Walmart marking up prices before selling it to the customer? Walmart marks up everything before selling it, Apple doesn't mark up the price (though it can be implied as part of the cost). If you don't like Walmart's prices, shop at Target. If you don't like Apple's prices, shop on Android or Windows Phone (what's left of it). Am I missing something?
If yes ... how is this different than Walmart marking up prices before selling it to the customer? Walmart marks up everything before selling it, Apple doesn't mark up the price (though it can be implied as part of the cost). If you don't like Walmart's prices, shop at Target. If you don't like Apple's prices, shop on Android or Windows Phone (what's left of it). Am I missing something?
No. It was, for many people, fairly difficult to avoid using Microsoft products in the 1990s. In contrast, it is quite easy to avoid an iPhone: get an Android phone.
You can download multiple different web browsers to compete with safari. You can download Google Maps and Waze to compete with Apple Maps. You can download the Gmail app, or protonmail, or any of another dozen email apps to compete with Mail. You can download Google Calendar, or any number of calendar apps to compete with Apples stock calendar. There seems to be more than ample evidence that Apple is NOT turning down apps because it competes with their stock apps.
I would theoretically welcome a macOS-like Gatekeeper setting allowing sideloading, and I can see a situation where a third party opens up their own store.
However:
This is clearly not true. If it were, an Android app store would exist where the same apps can be had for lower prices than on Apple's App Store.
It's also insulting, because among the many problems of modern consumer apps is that they are too cheap. The race to the bottom has led to unrealistic pricing expectations, and many developers have essentially given up on fair up-front pricing by:
However:
This is clearly not true. If it were, an Android app store would exist where the same apps can be had for lower prices than on Apple's App Store.
It's also insulting, because among the many problems of modern consumer apps is that they are too cheap. The race to the bottom has led to unrealistic pricing expectations, and many developers have essentially given up on fair up-front pricing by:
- giving up altogether
- going ad-based, often while compromising your privacy
- going with in-app purchases, especially with questionable consumables
Until you become big enough that you threaten Apple, hence no use of the NFC chip for Google Pay
Sure it does. "My computer has gotten so slow I need to reinstall" and "I'm afraid to install this piece of software, because I don't know what crap it leaves behind if I don't like it" is a real problem, and plays a huge role in why Apple and Microsoft are moving to sandboxed models.
Why do you think people don't like installing software in Windows?
Unwilling to waste time getting to know the ins and outs of a complicated system doesn't imply dumb. It implies limited time.
[doublepost=1543258006][/doublepost]
How is this meme logic so persistent? It should be patently obvious the desire is to have options and choice within iOS.
... and this is coming from an Android phone user.
Because it's not a meme; it's reality. Don't like iOS? Buy a different phone the next time.
True, but mandatory sandboxing makes this much harder. Apps can't just read your contacts without asking. They can't scan your music library without asking. They basically can't access your file system at all, other than the minuscule part within their own sandbox.
If it weren't for the App Sandbox, privacy nightmares would be far more rampant than they are.
The user base is different... one can argue that you have more personal data on your phone than computer these days. It works on the computer but I can see major issues with the phone and allowing someone with less knowledge of the risk install apps.
Android apps also ask permission for everything they want to access. Android gives warnings about apps using the GPS same as iOS.
Android also gives warning about apps using a lot of power, which isn't so relevant for iOS since it doesn't allow multitasking in the first place.
Yes, because Android also uses a sandbox.
Without the sandbox, those permissions would be meaningless, as an app could simply read the database file as it likes.
This is more or less exactly how Android handles it yet they have been plagued by various malware issues nearly entirely due to third party (i.e., non Play Store) app installs. People disregard disclaimers and warnings when it gets in the way of what they want.
There's a middle way that macOS and iOS have started applying, though: don't just warn the user; make it impossible to complete the task without very explicit intervention on the user's part.
For example, to install an enterprise certificate, you need to manually navigate to Settings, General, Profile, and accept it from there. You can't just have a website prompt you to accept.
It kinda sucks, but it's the reality we live in.
Or Android devices having, shock, Google Apps pre-installed? Seem to recall lots of people on here being happy about Google getting fined for that.
And the argument that "there wasn't a lot of choice OS's other than Microsoft" in the 90's is laughable. It was easy to install other browsers and I did just that. Even if you do allow that flawed argument, it wasn't Microsoft's fault that there wasn't a major alternative. So if Android disappeared tomorrow, would it then be ok to sue Apple? I bet the ADL would still say no.
Of course, I am sure we will get to hear how Google definitely deserved all they got, and how poor old Apple don't.
Last edited:
All Apple needs to do to fix this is have a system setting that allows users to side-load apps. Similar to what Android has. There are alternative sources of repositories for Android such as F-DROID that give you freedom outside the Google Play Store. Of course it also allows people to load malware on their phone if they don't know what they're doing, but that's why it shouldn't be something turned on by default.
Anyone paying that kind of fee for a card transaction didn't do their homework.
5% max or find another processor. Even PayPal is cheaper (3%).
[doublepost=1543260447][/doublepost]
On Android you have to explicitly allow side loading. Starting with Oreo, there is no global setting for it anymore. You have to designate a trusted app to handle the install.It's possible to sideload, *IF* you jailbreak your iPhone.
Gawd, some people want their cake and eat it too. I want my walled garden, but I also want my freedom.
Should Apple be responsible for damages caused by side loaded apps? I say no. If they want the protection of a wall, they need to stay behind it, not in front of it.
The reason I use an Android phone is because I like my freedom. I am willing to give up the safety net. But are iPhone users willing to take a bloody nose now and again to roam outside their walled garden? If they side load, they should be willing to forgo the extra security and privacy afforded by Apple's closed system.