> I don’t want Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc to be able to do an end run around App Store controls. If they moved to a ‘freedom store’ I’d probably have to use it and I’d lose the oversight Apple gives me.
This is the central conflict here, because only one of two things can be true. Either:
A) iOS is so big that companies can't afford not to target it, and that they're forced to follow Apple's rules, even if they don't like those rules.
or
B) the smartphone market is open, and companies can just decide not to target iOS, in which case there really isn't a way to force Facebook to give you a privacy-respecting app.
If B is true, then having 3rd-party app stores on the iPhone would change almost nothing. If A is true, then it would change everything.
----
Often, the pro/anti-Apple arguments boil down to one side saying, "just develop for Android if you don't want Apple's restrictions", and the other side saying, "just don't install a 3rd-party app store if you don't want one."
But both of those responses miss the point. The point is that Apple users want a monopoly. They want to be part of a restricted platform that is so big that Facebook and Google and Microsoft can't afford not to develop for it. Meanwhile, people like me want Apple's walled garden to be small enough that it can be ignored.
In that debate, it doesn't matter where you draw the lines around Apple's walled garden. "No one is forcing you to use iOS" and "no one is forcing you to install an app store" are basically the exact same argument; the only difference is whether they define Apple's walled garden as encompassing the hardware or the software. But the reason why Facebook can't abandon iOS is the same reason why Apple can be considered anti-competitive. It doesn't matter whether Apple's walled-garden is a device or a store, the question is whether or not companies are forced to enter it in order to remain competitive on the market.
On some level, we all know this -- that's why on the anti-Apple side we recognize that "just go to Android" isn't really a good argument. But that's also why the pro-Apple side doesn't accept "just use the official app store" as a solution to their problems. Because what they want is the complete opposite of what software-freedom advocates want. They want developers to be forced to target the walled garden. That's the conflict.
I have a locked down Linux box that only pulls software from a few sources. The difference between my Linux box and an iPhone is not the security, or the privacy, or anything like that -- the difference between my Linux box and an iPhone is that companies like Facebook do not feel obligated to write software for my Linux box.
----
And honestly, I don't know that there's a way around that conflict. Either you economically force Facebook to target iOS's walled garden, or you don't. The best middle ground I can think of is something like the Web, an aggressively sandboxed runtime that companies are economically forced to target the same way that they are forced to target iOS, but that is not controlled by a single corporation and that approaches security in a more equitable way. But even on the web, this conflict still exists a little bit. The web being an Open platform means that outside of the platform-level restrictions, I still can't force companies to build their websites/service exactly the way I want them to. At best I can use the Web platform itself to circumvent their services, block ads, etc...
> If you want a system that works they way Android does, use Android and leave me alone.
So what all of this boils down to is: I strongly suspect that if Android development was as economically viable as iOS development, and if it was genuinely possible for large companies to just stop supporting iOS and to "leave iOS users alone", that iOS users would be very unhappy with that outcome. You don't really want to be left alone, you want Facebook, Google, etc to be forced to build apps for you inside of your walled garden.
Yes exactly, nailed it. Fortunately for me I’m not alone and a large number of people feel the same way. Collectively we have enough market power that FaceGoogle can’t ignore us, and have to bite the bullet and be on the App Store. That’s a privileged position for sure, but large swathes of iOS users are not hapless victims of Apple gatekeeping. We’re consciously in league with Apple on this.
Apple saved us not just from crappy phones, they didn’t just invent the modern smartphone and make this whole app industry happen, they also saved us from carriers owning phone platforms. If phones had stayed on their old trajectory, we’d be arguing about whether carriers should still be dictating which apps went on their networks and instead of Apple gate keeping it would be AT&T and such. I will be forever grateful to them for killing that future.
I do accept that this puts Apple in a powerful position that could be abused. In fact I think there is a case that some of their policies are over-reach. This is a legitimate area for scrutiny and maybe even legislation. However I think those areas are relatively marginal and legislation must be done in the interests of users, and the freedom maximalist position does not properly take into account the vital interest of many, quite possibly most users on iOS.
Can you address the third option and forth option? (C) That Apple lowers its fees to a more reasonable level. Or (D) That they allow third party payment processors (but not third party stores)?
I'm a very happy Apple user. I just have a problem with them taking a 30% cut on everything I do, even after I've already paid $1200 for a phone. I just don't think 30% fairly represents the value they are providing for the "service" of vetting the store. I am willing to pay for that service. Just like I pay for Apple Music, iCloud storage and Apple Arcade.
The whole "third party store" thing is a distraction IMHO. Solve the Apple 30% tax issue and the case for it is pretty much lost. Even better: also require Apple to properly implement PWA's so users can (sort-of) sideload non App Store Apps (as you touched on).
> (C) That Apple lowers its fees to a more reasonable level. Or (D) That they allow third party payment processors (but not third party stores)?
To me, both of those fall under A. They're adjustments to Apple's existing moderation policy, they are not changes to how much control Apple has (Well, maybe D is a little, but not much). I would sum up both of those ideas as "the smartphone market remains closed, but Apple gets nicer about it."
I do think there's a segment of users who are basically happy with companies being forced into Apple's policies, they just want Apple's policies to be a bit better than they are today. Or they think it's fine for Apple to exert control, just not in a couple of specific anti-competitive ways.
> properly implement PWA's so users can (sort-of) sideload non App Store Apps
Yeah, the web is interesting. This would be Apple giving up control over their platform, but they would be giving up control to another platform that also has very good sandboxing. I would love to be targeting phones with progressive web apps now. It sort of works today, but there are problems.
I also really don't like how little control over data people have on the web. The only really safe way to store data in a webapp is to store it serverside, which imo is bad for users and for developers. There are efforts going on to make this better, but I don't know if Apple will be interested in implementing them, and it's a tricky problem in general to solve securely, so I don't think any of the browser manufactures are eager to rush it and introduce security holes into browsers.
Keep in mind that the demand for access to iOS users can be met through more traditional means such as the world-wide web.
Apple has much less of a right to make demands of others there than it does on the hardware and software platform that they built, themselves.
Similarly, since you are attempting to speak on my behalf, as an Apple consumer, I feel the need to correct you: I do not want Facebook to build an iOS app. They can keep that crap to themselves.
> I feel the need to correct you: I do not want Facebook to build an iOS app. They can keep that crap to themselves.
So are you OK with Facebook moving their app to a 3rd-party app store?
The downside of having sideloading on an iPhone is purely that companies would not be forced to target Apple's app store and that they might not release their apps on the official store. There's some very minor other concerns, but that's the big one. If you're OK with abandoning apps like Facebook and Fortnite, then you should be fine with sideloading being allowed.
> can be met through more traditional means such as the world-wide web.
iOS is lagging on the web right now, but I agree that putting more attention on Safari and making the web more capable would go a long way towards eliminating my concerns.
Note that there is some irony in me championing the web, because the web works the same way. It's a platform that guarantees certain user freedoms and sandboxing, but that is so big that companies can't ignore it. And I'm very happy with that "monopoly". The only real difference is that the web's restrictions are more reasonable to me, that the web doesn't moderate content itself, that it's less controlled by a single company, it has more stakeholders and more input, and that it approaches security through different mechanisms that I think are superior to iOS's.
But it's still a platform that I want companies to be forced to target, so I get where iOS users are coming from on this. I just disagree with the platform they want to win.
> If you're OK with abandoning apps like Facebook and Fortnite, then you should be fine with sideloading being allowed.
I don’t follow that line of reasoning.
Why should I be fine with increasing the security attack surface for my phone because I am fine with Facebook or Fortnite being ejected from the App Store if they ever violated App Store rules?
> Why should I be fine with increasing the security attack surface for my phone
Because you don't have to. The only reason why you would need to increase your attack surface is if you wanted to turn sideloading on for your phone, and the only reason you need to do that is if there are apps outside of the App Store that you aren't willing to ignore.
If Facebook leaves the iOS app store and moves to a 3rd-party, and if you're willing to ignore Facebook, then you leave 3rd-party stores disabled and continue using your iPhone the same way you're using it today.
The only reason this would matter is if there were apps outside of the App Store that you want/need.
> there are apps outside of the App Store that you aren't willing to ignore.
Seems to be that the tables need to be turned: if there are apps that I can’t ignore, then they need to be required to be available on a common, accessible platform like the web, and not locked to any proprietary platform whatsoever.
I want the Web to be a first-class app platform for mobile phones as much as anyone.
Currently iOS is lagging on this front, and their lack of support for multiple browser engines is a problem, but honestly -- given the choice between sideloading on iOS or Apple devoting the resources into making their browser engine more capable, supporting things like push notifications, Bluetooth/NFC... I think I'd rather the Web just win.
I'm not opposed to native, I write native software occasionally, and there are some very real problems with the web. But in terms of sandboxing, privacy, the controls baked into browsers are imo just a lot better than most native platforms, including iOS. So in the absence of a better alternative, I'm inclined to say that yeah, more apps should be moved out of the app store and onto the Web. I think a lot of it is just a matter of getting the Web to parity with the capabilities that native platforms provide.
The big issues off the top of my head:
- the lack of background scheduling/tasks. It's tough to make a website play a song in the background (even Android would occasionally just shut down the app last time I checked), or to do things like set alarms/notifications.
- installation UX.
- the lack of good, reliable offline storage. A major weakness of the web is that it is inherently tied very heavily to serverside code. This encourages every website to have user accounts, your data needs to be stored on some server someplace. It's a major step backwards. So we want to get filesystem support, and we want to get that in a form that the user can easily inspect and modify and copy files into an out of. And obviously we want that to be heavily sandboxed from the rest of the filesystem. We also want to lean more heavily into offline access for websites, and we want better user controls about managing what websites are cached, not just a button buried in browser settings. We want users to be able to do things like control when an offline website updates, or even whether it's allowed to connect to the Internet at all.
- the lack of just general integration with things like intents, subscriptions, etc... Apple users want to be able to continue to use the same tools to manage things like subscriptions, parental restrictions, so it would be good to allow them to continue to do that with web apps.
- the lack of just general access to phone features like NFC/Bluetooth.
There's probably one or two other things I'm missing. I think iOS is supporting WASM now, so dealing with Javascript should become less of a problem for people in the future. Timer accuracy is still a problem as far as I know, which makes developing games pretty annoying, but not unsolveable.
> I want the Web to be a first-class app platform for mobile phones as much as anyone.
So did Apple. But a massive amount of developers wanted native apps - a lot of them here. Don't forget that, at the time, Apple wasn't the behemoth it is today - far from it. I'm guessing it was an either/or descision at the time.
Your point may have been true around the late 2000's and early 2010's. But there's no way Apple of today lacks the resources to make Safari better.
That's what's so frustrating. It's very obviously a conscious decision to let it languish in order to push people towards native (and Apple's 30% cut).
Because the open web is possibly mankind's greatest advancement in the last 30 (or so) years. Intentionally crippling its continued advancement in the interest of greed is repugnant.
Yeah I know, its a moral argument not a business one. But, Apple does market itself as a highly moral, socially conscious, and highly progressive company.
Maybe one day they will do the right thing. A guy can dream.
> So are you OK with Facebook moving their app to a 3rd-party app store?
I am not ok with using legal force to induce Apple to allow a third party App Store, no.
In the court of law, it might be able to be argued that there is no actual harm being caused by Apple having sole proprietorship over their custom development guidelines.
So you must love China and CCP. China is very safe, you don't get gunned on the street (or in schools for that matter), and you don't fear absurd medical bills. The government runs a walled garden and the corporations have to cooperate due to the market size.
This is the central conflict here, because only one of two things can be true. Either:
A) iOS is so big that companies can't afford not to target it, and that they're forced to follow Apple's rules, even if they don't like those rules.
or
B) the smartphone market is open, and companies can just decide not to target iOS, in which case there really isn't a way to force Facebook to give you a privacy-respecting app.
If B is true, then having 3rd-party app stores on the iPhone would change almost nothing. If A is true, then it would change everything.
----
Often, the pro/anti-Apple arguments boil down to one side saying, "just develop for Android if you don't want Apple's restrictions", and the other side saying, "just don't install a 3rd-party app store if you don't want one."
But both of those responses miss the point. The point is that Apple users want a monopoly. They want to be part of a restricted platform that is so big that Facebook and Google and Microsoft can't afford not to develop for it. Meanwhile, people like me want Apple's walled garden to be small enough that it can be ignored.
In that debate, it doesn't matter where you draw the lines around Apple's walled garden. "No one is forcing you to use iOS" and "no one is forcing you to install an app store" are basically the exact same argument; the only difference is whether they define Apple's walled garden as encompassing the hardware or the software. But the reason why Facebook can't abandon iOS is the same reason why Apple can be considered anti-competitive. It doesn't matter whether Apple's walled-garden is a device or a store, the question is whether or not companies are forced to enter it in order to remain competitive on the market.
On some level, we all know this -- that's why on the anti-Apple side we recognize that "just go to Android" isn't really a good argument. But that's also why the pro-Apple side doesn't accept "just use the official app store" as a solution to their problems. Because what they want is the complete opposite of what software-freedom advocates want. They want developers to be forced to target the walled garden. That's the conflict.
I have a locked down Linux box that only pulls software from a few sources. The difference between my Linux box and an iPhone is not the security, or the privacy, or anything like that -- the difference between my Linux box and an iPhone is that companies like Facebook do not feel obligated to write software for my Linux box.
----
And honestly, I don't know that there's a way around that conflict. Either you economically force Facebook to target iOS's walled garden, or you don't. The best middle ground I can think of is something like the Web, an aggressively sandboxed runtime that companies are economically forced to target the same way that they are forced to target iOS, but that is not controlled by a single corporation and that approaches security in a more equitable way. But even on the web, this conflict still exists a little bit. The web being an Open platform means that outside of the platform-level restrictions, I still can't force companies to build their websites/service exactly the way I want them to. At best I can use the Web platform itself to circumvent their services, block ads, etc...
> If you want a system that works they way Android does, use Android and leave me alone.
So what all of this boils down to is: I strongly suspect that if Android development was as economically viable as iOS development, and if it was genuinely possible for large companies to just stop supporting iOS and to "leave iOS users alone", that iOS users would be very unhappy with that outcome. You don't really want to be left alone, you want Facebook, Google, etc to be forced to build apps for you inside of your walled garden.