They also have the choice to avoid smartphones altogether. What they want, though, is the ability to use apple hardware and non-apple software. The only reason they can't is because Apple won't let them, unless they pay a 30% commission
The only reason the want to use the Apple hardware is because Apple makes it and comes with Apple software and Apple roadmaps.
If being more open magically offered the same quality all kind of third party open platforms would have flourished.
But even in the semi-closed Android you have 95% of mobile malware according to surveys, devices abandoned without updates after 1-2 releases, tons of crap trojan apps, widespread spyware, and so on...
A third party app store can be fine at first. "You can chose whether to use it or not" after all.
Then some major software only comes for that store, and now you don't have either a unified store, or a way not to use 2 stores (since you need the software).
Then each major vendor (Google, Adobe, Amazon, etc) make their own app stores on the platform. Because, why not?
Oh, and Facebook can demand you get their app from their store, where it comes with all kinds of private API abuse and surveillance (some of this might be solvable with stronger sandboxing, if it's not deemed "anti-competitive" itself).
Then there are all kinds of minor stores, luring your less tech savvy parents, siblings, etc, with BS offers, more malware, pirated versions of software, etc.
Oh, and there are "free" stores, you can just install, all kinds of shady stuff that ocassionally roots your iPhone with 0-days and is not revocable.
Suddenly app developers don't feel so good about this
ability to have multiple stores. They mainly wanted lower Apple rates, but now they have to ship to different stores, track different vendor rules, and so on. And if they stick to a store or two, they're less discoverable. Now you have meta-services that ship your app to many stores and handle the hassle. But they can not do much for the free stores that give pirated copies of your app, or full title+branding+UI rip-offs of your app by small e.g. Chinese devs.
And if one of the big app stores gets popular, they now have control over the platform too. Apple wants to move forward with an API change? Not so fast, the big app store doesn't agree (similar to how Apple was beholden to the goodwill of Microsoft and Adobe back in the day).
Apple owns the marketplace on their platform. When they undermine competing payment systems using their monopoly power then they appear to be acting anticompetitively in a manner that is against the consumers best interest.
This is only an issue when they use their monopoly power to undermine consumer interests.
Exactly, except for Fortnite (very popular ) and other apps tha tApple don't like(Hey,Wordpress) or apps that US does not like ,and the apps that indie developers can't afford to publish(small games that have Win,Mac,Linux and Android version) , and maybe GPL(maybe it changed) apps, but except all those apps consumers can get all the apps they want.
But can you write me a logical phrase about what should happen if a judge declares that Apple can continue locking the phones because there is a duopoly and the next day Google does the exact same thing since now is 100% legal.
IMO consoles are an historic thing, this days I think if you pay full price to a console then you should have all the rights to unlock it, and if Sony wants to limit me then this should only work if I did not buy the product but I have a subscription for it.
Other giant difference between smartphones and consoles is that smartphones and internet are required for a majority of people (banking, messaging/email, COVID apps, 2FA apps ) I can't tell my bank please make an app for this free OS, or my company please make a 2FA app for this free OS and the reverse the company/bank can tell us "use Android because Apple banned our app because the small bug fix update triggered someone"
So you see this smartphones as just different kind of consoles. Maybe you just play games on them but reality is more diverse. For example in real world you are forced to own a smartphone by work or society , like parking,banking, different activities are this days setup for phone users and if you don't own one you are forced to do a lot of extra work.
A few years ago some money exchanges were abusing the users by having large commissions rates, then a law was passed so this commissions will be printed in large fonts outside the exchange, this worked so maybe we can force Apple to print with large fonts on the box "30% of all future transactions go to Apple" (Apple can add with smaller fonts that they have some special exceptions) or "Apple decides what can you install and can change it's mind at any moment".
> PCs only became open due to IBM's failure to keep ownership of their creation
> Since Windows 8 I am a big fan of Windows store app
Do you think it would have been better if PCs were not open (so going through IBM or Microsoft was the only effective way to distribute software)?
In certain ways the freedom that PCs allow is less convenient than having everything go through a central authority, but as one example I don't think web browsers would have been allowed to develop as they did under this model (since forcing more areas of software development to use platform-specific native apps would be more advantageous for the platform owners with market share).
Consumers get their apps for ~40% higher prices than if developers could offer them directly (granted, payment processing isnt free anywhere, but Apple charges an order of magnitude more than the alternatives).
This is like if Apple said that you can't download any other software on your Macbook, unless you paid Apple 30% and bought it from their exclusive store.
Why is this any different from Apple saying that you can't download other software on your Macbook, unless you pay Apple 30% and buy it from their store?
For what it is worth, people actually in the real world do just that: buy property adjacent to a municipal airport and then cause problems for airport users... All the time. (Pilot for almost three decades.)
In developed countries there are laws preventing sale of properties where noise may be so high that it's detrimental to one's health. So if the competition in market is hurting the merchants or consumers, it should be rightfully outlawed.
But if the judge decides that Apple abuses are legal the Google will do it too, then the you will say "Buy a FSF phone if you don't want Silicon Valley abuses, nobody is forcing you to have a phone or Internet"
What abuses? They are doing nothing that game consoles haven't been doing for 40 years now, or mobile stores since J2ME, Brew, Windows CE/Pocket PC locked to the mobile operator.
OK. Let's assume that Apple wins. Smartphones makers can legally completely lock the users so you run only what they approve. In your opinion if Android is locked then is the argument "use Android if you don't like iOS walls" completely obliterated?
I am curious if TikTok gets banned and then will Apple remove the app from existing phones or somehow block it and will they do it for non US citizens (inside and outside US).
Your arguments are ilogical, try thinking more before commenting, is like saying "We could shit behind our homes since generations but the new king is demanding we build toilets and also to wash our hands" - if something was legal in the past for millennia does not mean it should not change.
Consider that there will be a judge and a trial and you can't claim that someone else started it , you need to show the judge that the users are not hurt by Apple businesses and IMO if we are lucky a law will be passed that will also fix console issues too.
I am looking forward for the judge to validate Apple's decision.
People in Bielorussia are being hurt.
Apple is not hurting anyone, beside a couple of people that has been giving money to Apple because they do UNIX, instead of supporting Linux OEMs, and now complain that Apple isn't the hippie they came to expect.
>I am looking forward for the judge to validate Apple's decision.
I will be OK if it is cleared what rights you have on your device, can Apple update the TOS whenever they want? are those pages of TOS you agree when you buy a device enforceable? What is the limit Apple can censor information that user receive from third parties.
When I bought my iPhone I knew that I could only use the AppStore. I actually bought the iPhone because of the AppStore, the strict rules Apple has for developers and I prefer that no side-loading can occur.
If you or any consumer feels lied to, misled or falsely advertised to, they should return their device to Apple.
If enough people choose non-Apple products then Apple might change its position. Until then, buy a different brand.
Exactly! HN is a small subset of Apple customers. The largest piece of the pie don’t care about any of this stuff besides that it works.
I specifically bought Apple vs Android for these reasons. I run my life and business form my phone, I trust Apple to provide me with a working experience and support when needed.
Imagine having to use another App Store outside Apples control, and an app causes my phone to crash. Who will support me? I have to go digging to the app developer, or the App Store developer, or Apple?
Apple went this route to specifically remove the fragmentation of the PC market, and what you see similar in the Android market. The closed system provides better quality. That is why Apple is where it is today.
>Imagine having to use another App Store outside Apple...
Don't use one, install only Apple approved content from Apple approved stores but don't force everyone to do so. If you want to pay 15-30% more for stuff from the Apple Store then you are free to do so. On PC you can use only Steam, if say you want to buy Fallout 3 today and is 75% of on GOG you are not forced to buy it from GOG, you can buy it from Steam and give Valve their cut.
But you should have bought Android if you want freedom ... I think it does not make sense that a judge should decide if somebody is abusing their power should depend on the market share of Andoid and would include a condition like "When Android market share gets under X or when Google locks down Android then the current Apple good abuses become over night bad).
The problem with this logic is that every company is going to set up their own App Store. Microsoft, Epic, etc. Then for every app that I use right now on my iPhone I would have to source from several App Stores. It will make my experience very cumbersome.
I can prove you wrong, how many app stores are on 99% of Android users ? Are Apple,Amazon and Microsoft providing their own shitty Android store to avoid Google and there are no Apple,Amazon and MS apps on Google store?
No, all the websites I seen that offer mobile apps have 2 links, one for Apple and one for Google store . I never seen an app forcing a different store but I know Epic is trying to do that and offer some needed competition.
Why is this any different from Apple saying that you can't download other software on your Macbook, unless you pay Apple 30% and buy it from their exclusive store?
Well, we're not talking about the Macbook here... we're talking about the iPhone.
As far as the MacBook goes, it's a different target market. MacBooks are targeted for professionals that do all sorts of things with them.
Instead they are beefing up the iPad, which has the same target market as the iPhone. That target market doesn't care about all this crap and just wants their tech to work.
