Tim Cook says that disaster will befall us if Apple is forced to allow users to download apps that aren't sold through Apple's official App Store:
“Taking away a more secure option will leave users with less choice—not more,” Mr. Cook said Tuesday during a speech at the International Association of Privacy Professionals’ summit in Washington, D.C. “And when companies decide to leave the App Store because they want to exploit user data, it could put significant pressure on people to engage with alternate app stores—app stores where their privacy and security may not be protected.”
....“Apple believes in competition,” Mr. Cook said. “But if we are forced to let unvetted apps on to iPhone, the unintended consequences will be profound and when we see that we feel an obligation to speak up and ask policy makers to work with us to advance goals that I truly believe we share without undermining privacy in the process.”
Nice try, Tim, but no one is buying this tale of woe. If you really think that Apple's vetting is the cornerstone of the App Store, all you have to do is cut your commission from 30% to, say, 5%. That would remove any pressure to create new, unvetted stores.
Of course, Apple would make a lot less money if you did that. But if vetting is really so important to you, maybe that's a price you're willing to pay.
But probably not, right?
Kevin I suppose you want to all retailers to sell products at wholesale prices? Android OS phones are the competetive platform and have a larger market share.
Based on his post, it would appear Kevin would be perfectly happy to see Apple continue to charge its high margin commission if iPhone users were free to buy software from any source they desire. That would be win-win, right?
But Apple isn't content with that, of course. They want high margins and they want monopoly. Like the rapacious capitalists they are!
I use both an iPhone and a Mac laptop, for what it's worth, and I'm quite happy with both.
happy to see Apple continue to charge its high margin commission if iPhone users were free to buy software from any source they desire.
To state the obvious, Apple could continue to try and charge their high commissions if iPhone users were free to buy apps from whatever source they wish. In all probability this would be more difficult in such an environment. Competition erodes monopoly rents.
It's the same commission that Steam charges on the PC.
...and the most malware in the Play store.
Kevin - why do you want iPhone users to have dodgy apps on their phones and tablets?-)
"Freedumb"? Caveat emptor?
(side note: i'm always reminded of Rhett Butler's suggestion to Scarlett O'Hara on what she ought to name her new general store: The Caveat Emptorium. Which she had all made up and painted, ready to go, until somebody more educated told her what it meant.)
> f you really think that Apple's vetting is the cornerstone of the App Store, all you have to do is cut your commission from 30% to, say, 5%. That would remove any pressure to create new, unvetted stores.
This is incorrect. It isn't only about the money.
It is also about the gatekeeping function. Apple exerts a heavy, although mostly unseen, hand in shaping who gets to offer what sorts of things. They are definitely shaping the app market in some categories, and simply refuse to allow a whole bunch of types of applications.
(It also abuses the hell out of smaller developers with inconsistent and sometimes nonsensical rejections. This is mostly about enforcing rules they refuse to articulate, but is sometimes just weirdness or incompetence. But I assume nobody, least of all regulators, cares about that.)
I don't have an economic stake in this. (My employer does have iPhone apps which save us customer calls, but we don't generate revenue with them.) But I do dislike stagnant platforms, and that's where we're headed with Apple playing kingmaker in the market.
And I personally resent spending $1k for a multisensor, multiradio device that could do all sorts of cool things, if only Apple would let developers built the tools.
Apple is super-easy to develop for, Which is probably why your employer uses them. Much more consistent hardware support than on Android.
It really isn't. (I'm a systems engineer, I don't write front-end code, but I write code for a living.) I mean, iOS/MacOS aren't super difficult to write for, but it is still a lot of work.
Android is a minefield of shitty hardware, it is true. But for simple apps like ours (native views that just call remote endpoints for doing anything), it is pretty much a wash.
The difficulties, though, have almost nothing to do with writing code. What I am talking about is the gatekeepers in the app store. It isn't about development so much as who you are, and that's an awful thing for almost everyone.
So....if there is a bad app on the Apple Store, you can sue Apple for every penny???
Is Tim Apple really saying that?
My $200 Moto does everything I could ever possibly want a smart phone to do. And I have access to the whole Android universe without Tim Cook as mediator. And if I break or lose it, I just buy a new one.
Why I would ever want to pay four times as much for an Apple phone is totally beyond me.
More secure, no spamware, more than twice as fast, better cameras, bigger screen... more durable, etc.
Of course, you don't have to soend 4x more to get an iPhone. You can buy a refurbished iPhone with stats (and still supported by Apple software) for the same price.
It's no different than people might buy a Galaxy or a Pixel. They want better features.
My moto has a great camera - far better than any I have ever owned (I'm not doing professional photography). It is a fast as I could ever possible need. I doubt an Apple is more durable (the Moto I have now is doing fine after three years) , but I would have to weigh that against the fact that I could buy four Motos for the cost of one comparable Apple.
If you've got to have the biggest, fastest, shiniest of everything, that's your choice. For me, good enough is good enough.
That's great, and that is the point. There is choice in the marketplace. If you don't like the way Apple runs things then buy something else.
I will, but it has nothing to do with my opinion of how Apple is running things. It's a simple matter of where you get the best value for money.
After I read your previous article on kids not tying their shoes, all of a sudden I start seeing shoe ads on my sites.
Maybe you should think some more on privacy issues.
I don't understand this argument at all.
If I want to pay more to Apple in return for them aggressively keeping scam artists off my phone, shouldn't I have that choice?
If I love interacting with scammers, I can always buy an Android phone and spend my own time interacting with them. Right?
If I want to pay more to Apple in return for them aggressively keeping scam artists off my phone, shouldn't I have that choice?
Sure. Maybe Apple should charge $200 more for iPhones that are blocked from non App-Store apps. That would be your choice!
And those of us who are willing to take our chances can A) save two hundred bucks, and, B) download from third party sources to our heart's content.
So true. I have used Android phones for years and all I do all day is interact with scammers, just like all the millions of other Android users around the world. Apple fanboi fantasies are 100% accurate. /s
Are there apps worth the effort? A couple of games? I really don't see the point of letting them hoover up even more info about me so if Apple prevents some of that, good for them! Keep out the riff raff.
I understand the desire allow more choice as to what you put on your Apple phone, but Tim Cook is right about one thing. The average consumer is an idiot when it comes to security. I use an Android, but people I know who use iPhones do believe and tout the fact that their phones are more "secure," even if they can't say why. I suspect that it is a very important marketing factor in iPhone choice--people actually like the idea that they are being protected from the big, bad Internet, even if they are probably no safer than using an Android phone.
It's kind of amazing to me that Apple gets to position itself as the world's best protector of privacy and security. It was only about five or six years ago that the highest profile privacy breech in history happened and a bunch of private nude photos of celebrities were stolen from Apple's cloud platform by hackers and spread around the world. And the celebrities in question didn't even know their private photos had been uploaded to Apple's servers. They got basically zero blame. Truly astounding.
That happened because the perps were able to get their passwords. It wasn't because their iPhones were hacked.
I'm always kind of astounded at how many presumably smart people rail on and on about Apple constricting customer choice seem to forget the biggest factor at all: You are perfectly free to not buy an iPhone. It's not like Android phones are hard to find or don't have a developer community and an app market. You'd think folks would be glad they have two very large phone ecosystems to choose from based on what their personal preferences in a platform are. ????♂️
Also, there's plenty of debate even within the Apple community about whether the App Store should be charging a 30% commission or not, but across the board for other software and gaming platforms that's not a particularly unusual value.
I'm always kind of astounded at how many presumably smart people rail on and on about Apple constricting customer choice...
I'm always kind of astounded at how many presumably smart people don't realize there are decades of research demonstrating that excessively monopolistic practices and market concentration can harm consumer welfare and the overall health of the economy.
(Having a grand total of two options in terms of operating system isn't something most people would associate with a highly competitive market!)
As I wrote above in this thread, I'm a satisfied Apple customer myself. I like my iPhone just find (XS) and I'm in love with my still newish rose/gold-colored Macbook (using it now). But at the end of the day they're like any other rapacious firm. They're out to maximize profits. And sometimes that quest leads firms to do dodgy things. I think of Apple as being not much different from the outfits run by the Koch family or Zuckerberg. They're just a heck of a lot better at it than those pikers.
Monopolies are certainly not good and even as someone all-in on the Apple ecosystem (iPhone, iPad, iMac, Watch, etc.) I'm all for keeping an eye on the company and calling them out on bad stuff. (As I said, 30% is not unusual but also very arguable.)
Software platforms do exist in a very weird space, though … There has to be a large enough user base to justify developers making software for any given platform, and if there are too many platforms developers will naturally devote resources to the largest, most profitable ones. (Where are WindowsPhone and PalmOS today? Or any of the various proposed Linux phone systems?) Things could be better but market forces being what they are, it's almost a miracle we've ended up with two dominant mobile platforms with very different philosophies to choose between.
Anyway. Watching Apple and keeping them in check is well and good but I do get the sense that some people have a peculiar axe to grind with Apple when there are many, many, many more monopolies out there doing far more damage to society and the world that these same critics don't seem particularly bothered by. ????♂️
here are many, many, many more monopolies out there doing far more damage to society and the world that these same critics don't seem particularly bothered</i<
I seriously doubt it's the case that there are "many firms" doing more economic damage than Apple. The firm is probably the single most powerful technology company in the word as well as the richest and most profitable. They come in for massive scrutiny because they're um, massive.
As I wrote below I have zero problem with Apple exerting as much control as it deems necessary with respect to its own app retail outlet. And it should charge whatever it wants. Charge 90%. That's fine!
BUT Apple also makes buying software from another source non-viable for most people because of its phone lock policy.
That's the rub: trying to use its dominant position in hardware to carve out monopoly profits in software retailing. It's blatantly monopolistic behavior, and it's not a positive for consumers or developers. Using a dominant position in one sector to go on and dominate others is a textook example of excessive, economically-damaging corporate power.
FWIW I think many other firms should come in for similar scrutiny, starting with Amazon (another company I do a lot of business with).
Basically people don't like paying a premium price for a better product. Or actually a lot of us do, but people who don't want to pay the price will try to use the government to force the product to be sold for less.
The problem with naive solutions is the app store model is based upon a monopoly intentionally. Free and small app developers are having the cost of the infrastructure needed to supply their apps subsidized by the larger companies. That is by design. There are other models that could work but that's not what is being used. It is like when congress people say Google's ad business and search business need to be separated. There can be some disentanglement but fundamentally the search business is zero revenue and can't stand on its own and many apps on the app store cost Apple more to provide than the revenue they generate from sales.
I want my phone to be an appliance that is as reliable as possible. It is only used for communication and some entertainment. For that use case the IOS App store is a net win for me. On the other hand with my computer that is used for many different things, I need low-level access. For that reason I almost never buy things from the Mac App store and Apple does not make me do so.
Apple should charge developers, up front, what it costs them to evaluate and approve apps and app updates. And then add a commission that is specifically for overhead and profit, say 5 or 10 percent. And continue to lock down what can be downloaded to the App Store.
That would (a) continue to provide the best security for users of Apple products; (b) incentivize developers to minimize what they want apps to be able to access [the less the access, the less the cost of testing and approval], (c) reduce Apple's obscene profits.
And yes, Apple should offer a warranty - if a product that they approve has security issues, Apple will pay compensation. That would incentivize Apple to do more than a cursory review.
The fee for thorough testing is probably going to be too high for a lot of app developers, particularly for copy-cat apps trying to get a small piece of a large pie. That's fine. There could be exceptions (low or no-fee) for apps created for/by non-profits, and for apps that are completely free (no in-app purchases) and do not duplicate existing completely free apps. [Use an advisory group.]
In short, there are choices other than (1) Apple continues to do what it now does, or (2) any user can download any app from any site.
First off, Apple does not charge a blanket 30% to developers. For smaller developers it is 15%. For subscription services it is 15% after the first year. This is less than is charged by almost every other platform: Playstation, Xbox, etc.
The App Store is completely free to developers if they don't charge. So for millions of developers the App Store is free. Think of churches, schools, nonprofits, governments or even companies that want to supply something to complement a physical product.
I like the idea that Apple is a gate keeper for the App Store. It means I don't worry about my 90+ mom downloading some sort of weird crap to her iPad that will offend her or rob her.
I don't get why the App Store offends some people so much. Would they advocate for Warner Bros. to be able to go to Disneyland and sell Bugs Bunny dolls? Why don't they complain about Safeway branded items? Or Costco's house brand? Or the way CVS relentlessly copies products and places their house brand next to name brands on the shelf? Something about Apple really irritates some people.
Amy Klobuchar is making a name for herself attacking Apple, I guess because she doesn't dare try to cut subsidies for fossil fuels, or try to repeal the second amendment, or do something useful about climate change.
I don't get why the App Store offends some people so much.
It's not the App Store. It's the App Store + phone lock-up.
I have zero problem with Apple exerting as much control as it deems necessary with respect to its own app retail outlet. And it should charge whatever it wants. Charge 90%. That's fine!
BUT Apple also makes buying software from another source non-viable for most people. That's the rub: trying to use its dominant position in hardware to carve out monopoly profits in software retailing. It's blatantly monopolistic behavior, and it's not a positive for consumers or developers.
Apple is trying to offer fool-proof security for large values of fool. Side-loading creates a whole set of problems. There's a new attack surface, new performance issues, and a whole new class of phishing problems, but the big issue is that of support. Apple is noted for its hand-holding online, by phone and in its stores. They don't want people to install software that hasn't been vetted and approved, and they don't want people sticking in hardware that hasn't been vetted and approved. You know for a fact that if a side-loaded program doesn't work as advertised, Apple is going to wind up having to hand-hold their customer who may merely be disappointed but also may have been scammed. Apple doesn't like it when it involves an approved app, but users aren't going to make a distinction when they call for help.
One of the reasons I bought an iPhone was because it limited what could be loaded into it. If I download something with a Fedex trademark on it, odds are it is something released by Fedex. Judging from the comments here, I am not alone. If I really must side-load something, I can pony up $100, grab the source, fire up Xcode and side-load it. Going through this would mean that I really want to side-load that app and that I know what I'm doing.