[HN Gopher] Cydia, the original app store, sues Apple on antitru...
___________________________________________________________________
Cydia, the original app store, sues Apple on antitrust grounds
Author : saurik
Score : 170 points
Date : 2020-12-10 17:00 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com)
| saurik wrote:
| Here is a copy of the actual complaint (which, of course,
| includes the legal theory and argument, for those who are mostly
| interested in that angle) --
| https://cache.saurik.com/lawsuit/complaint.pdf -- which maybe
| people here will find more elucidating, particularly given that
| the article is behind a paywall :(.
| timhigins wrote:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20201210220357if_/https://www.wa...
| newbie578 wrote:
| Ehh, no matter how much I dislike Apple and hate everything they
| stand for, I must stand with them in this particular case (with
| the information the article gave).
|
| They are suing Apple, yet the only thing Apple did in regards to
| them was make jailbreaking more difficult?
|
| I don't see a real case here... If anyone has more insight,
| please do share.
| chungus_khan wrote:
| All the Bell Telephone company did was prevent other
| products/services from working with their system.
| macjohnmcc wrote:
| In a time that you could only get phone service from Bell.
| Now you have many vendors that sell Android based phones that
| you can choose if you want a wide open market.
| echelon wrote:
| The same market where Apple controls 50% under tight lock
| and key?
|
| And access to those consumers is controlled by a non-
| government entity for everything they do? All commerce
| impacting their entire life up and down the stack?
|
| Apple is the biggest monopoly since Ma Bell and Standard
| Oil.
|
| They're _owning people_. Whole entities. You have to go
| through Apple to do business with them.
| slinkyblack wrote:
| Apple only controls 50% of the market because consumers
| keep buying their products. They are free to chose
| android, there are even plenty of androids phones are
| comparable in build quality and specs.
| kolinko wrote:
| I, for one, keep choosing iPhone exactly for this reason
| - I want only apple to control the app review process.
|
| Without this, you'd have every single major company
| pishing their own installers with a ton of crapware on
| top of them. To give an example - Epic on Windows
| requires you to install their own store, with their own
| update system and notifications, plus ads showing each
| time you open up their game.
|
| I don't want this on my phone - battery aside, I want the
| device to be 100% secure, and such crapware has a poor
| track record of security.
|
| I'm really for strong antitrust laws - Google and
| Facebook are monopolosts who abuse their position. But in
| case of the phones, both users and devs have a choice -
| they can use either Apple or Google. Unless both
| companies are guilty of the same thing (and in this case
| they are not), how this is an issue?
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| What 50% ?
| restingrobot wrote:
| The issue isn't that apple made jailbreaking harder, its that
| apple shouldn't be the sole controller of what apps people can
| install on their phone. For example, if you have a company with
| millions of users and Apple decides you are a threat to their
| business, (or whatever reason they make up), they can ban your
| apps from the store, (e.g. Epic Games). This is monopolistic
| behavior. If apple were to allow third party store options,
| (without jailbreaking required), there wouldn't be an issue.
| The root issue isn't jailbreaking, (that's still possible and
| required to install non-store apps), but rather the requirement
| that __ONLY __store apps can be installed in the first place.
| russli1993 wrote:
| What you are saying is that such business model, where a
| company creates a computing device, sells the device, and
| then continue to own the customer funnel for software
| experiences on top of the device is illegal. If this sets a
| precedent, and does become the new "interpretation" for anti-
| monopoly laws, it would also make console business model or
| Amazon Kindle business model illegal. I could also make the
| same argument for any kind of "platform" like business.
| Essentially, when an entity sales one category of products,
| it cannot use this product's platform effect to control the
| sale of another category of products. What about leveraging
| bundling and network effect? For example, Apple Watch only
| works with iPhone. A person bought Apple Watch a year ago
| cannot buy a Android phone a year later and have the Apple
| Watch work as advertised when he/she first bought it. This
| would also be illegal under this precedent. I think this is a
| positive thing. But it does invalidate a lot of business
| model's tech companies are using right now and the higher
| valuations software/platform companies currently getting. It
| would also results in fundamental re-calculation of margins
| and business model for a lot of companies. Might lead to
| decreased valuations and revenue. This would negatively
| impact the shareholders, employees and company, who are also
| stakeholders in this discussion.
|
| And you also cannot look at this law from an ideology
| perspective, you need to look at the practical affects as
| well. Going forward, companies will also spent energy to
| design how their product will interoperate with other
| products especially those from competitors. For example, if
| iOS is going to have third party App Stores, it has to be
| designed in the OS. It cannot be an afterthought. Comparing
| iOS and Android, you realize when Google built Android it
| actually has to spent the time and the energy to design the
| system that enables Android's flexibility and "multiple App
| Store and install any app package" system. Google has also to
| spend energy to maintain and support the system every year
| since Android's release. I know that there are instances
| where Google want to make changes to Android to better
| support their own use cases but is not able to because Google
| has to support these flexibility points. If you look at a
| from angle of "how much benefit do I get from a fixed amount
| of effort", flexibility and interoperability becomes
| significant features. I think a lot of people underestimate
| just how much effort it is to design, engineer, test and
| maintain interoperability. From a business perspective, they
| need to think do I spend the time to engineer and maintain
| systems to enable interoperability? Or to enable my business
| use case and enable me to make more money? By changing the
| law interpretation, the law is making the decision for the
| business. It's forcing the business to say "hey you have to
| spend time to build things that might end up benefiting your
| competitors, and perhaps you don't have time to build this
| feature that would benefit your bottom line instead ". Not
| sure where your political spectrum lies, but this definitely
| doesn't sit well with political conservatism that advocates
| for less government control over private affairs.
|
| Again, ideally this new interpretation will be good, but I
| feel there will be a lot of resistance for this "reform" to
| go forward.
|
| btw, if Apple is going to allow other stores and ISVs to
| offer users application packages to download and install
| freely like it is on Windows, any company of significant size
| is going to start bypass Apple's stores and asking users
| download Exe's or their own app launchers. Want to play
| Fortnite, download Epic store and Epic game launcher. Want to
| use Facebook and play Oculus games? Download Facebook store.
| Want to use Lightroom, download Adobe CC store. It will
| change the Apple's user experience, which is part of brand
| and product proposition. I know some people actually buy
| Apple because of this user experience. So is it okay for
| government to dictate such user experience is not allowed
| anymore? The private entity wants to design this kind of user
| experience, is it ideologically okay for the government to
| say "you cannot design a product this way anymore"? Maybe
| private entity should be able to design a product anyway they
| see fit, and let the market decide. Look at before there is a
| market for closed sourced developer tools and software. Now,
| there is no market for you if you don't open source your
| developer tools. People rather write apps for open source dbs
| and frameworks than some companies proprietary stuff. This is
| an example of market demanding openness and interoperability
| and making the producers change their behavior.
| WWLink wrote:
| > If this sets a precedent, and does become the new
| "interpretation" for anti-monopoly laws, it would also make
| console business model or Amazon Kindle business model
| illegal.
|
| It sounds like you think such a thing would be scandalous,
| but that's how it used to be. There was a time when game
| studios would just give Nintendo and Atari the middle
| finger and produce a cartridge that worked with their
| consoles anyway. Back in those days, the computers and
| consoles weren't restricted to only running software signed
| and approved by the manufacturer.
| ascagnel_ wrote:
| > It sounds like you think such a thing would be
| scandalous, but that's how it used to be. There was a
| time when game studios would just give Nintendo and Atari
| the middle finger and produce a cartridge that worked
| with their consoles anyway. Back in those days, the
| computers and consoles weren't restricted to only running
| software signed and approved by the manufacturer.
|
| You're partially right.
|
| In the case of Atari, there was no technical enforcement
| mechanism. Third parties figured out how to make their
| own cartridges, but lack of control on the market led to
| a glut of new games in 1982. That glut triggered rapid
| price reductions (as retailers were often stuck with
| unsold inventory that couldn't be returned to the
| publisher), which eventually cratered the entire
| business, shrinking it by about 97%.[0]
|
| For Nintendo, they did have a technical protection
| mechanism present in the NES (the 10NES chip). They were
| allowed to enforce market restrictions based on the
| presence of the chip.[1]
|
| [0]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._N
| intendo_....
| restingrobot wrote:
| I apologize I don't have time for an in-depth response, but
| a quick note is that you have some fallacies in your
| arguments:
|
| >it would also make console business model or Amazon Kindle
| business model illegal.
|
| My interpretation would not make console business illegal,
| but rather it would make limiting the product so that you
| are the only means of distribution illegal. I can currently
| side-load books onto my kindle without any sort of
| jailbreaking or modification. On my android phone I can
| download an .apk file and install it with no issues. The
| Google Play Store still makes fine profit, and the App
| Store would as well, even with competition. This most
| certainly would fall under the definition of a monopoly.
|
| >For example, Apple Watch only works with iPhone. A person
| bought Apple Watch a year ago cannot buy a Android phone a
| year later and have the Apple Watch work as advertised when
| he/she first bought it.
|
| You are comparing Apples to oranges. This is a lot
| different as a watch is hardware, not software. Plus we are
| talking about 1 apple software app vs another apple
| software app.
|
| >For example, if iOS is going to have third party App
| Stores, it has to be designed in the OS.
|
| No it doesn't really. It's not apple's responsibility to
| make it easy for third parties. If their apps do not work,
| it isn't apples responsibility to account for them.
| Furthermore, the OS can already handle "third party apps",
| it just has to be Jailbroken, or side-loaded via an MDM
| account. Any third party apps still have to use the
| internal SDK's of Apple in order to function.
|
| > you realize when Google built Android it actually has to
| spent the time and the energy to design the system that
| enables Android's flexibility and "multiple App Store and
| install any app package" system.
|
| Google did not build Android it was purchased by them in
| 2005. The system of installing any app is the same as
| installing google apps. The same with apple. There is no
| extra work that you're claiming, as they have to do this in
| order for the respective stores to work as well. This, and
| the comment above, are a different point that I was not
| making. This would be the case if Apple only allowed Apple
| software on their device, in which case I would not say
| this is a monopoly as there wouldn't be any competition for
| them on the iPhone. However, they do but they do not do
| this, so your point is moot.
|
| >they need to think do I spend the time to engineer and
| maintain systems to enable interoperability?
|
| This isn't a question of interoperability. These are all
| iOS apps. The question is simply the distribution source. I
| can make an app on my mac and load it directly onto my
| phone, but the only option I currently have for
| distribution is the App Store that Apple controls.
|
| Right now they charge 15% of all my purchases. Would you
| change your opinion if they charged 50%? I guarantee that
| would put some people out of business. What if apple
| decided to charge me 15% but you 50%, which would be
| perfectly within their legal right? Would you agree then
| that the appstore is not a monopoly?
|
| >btw, if Apple is going to allow other stores and ISVs to
| offer users application packages to download and install
| freely like it is on Windows, any company of significant
| size is going to start bypass Apple's stores and asking
| users download Exe's or their own app launchers.
|
| Yes and why shouldn't they be able to do so? That's the
| whole point of the lawsuit, Apple is enforcing this to cut
| their competition, they are effectively proping up their
| own monopoly. They currently own the base product, the
| means of distribution, the means of access, and the means
| of repair, (although right to repair rulings are becoming
| far more common).
| dkonofalski wrote:
| That would be a completely legitimate argument except that
| people buy their devices _with the understanding that APple
| is the sole controller of what they can install_. It 's not
| monopolistic behavior because Apple doesn't have a monopoly.
| Apple makes the devices, they are 100% legally allowed to
| only allow apps from their own App Store and that precedent
| has already been set. The only unique thing in this lawsuit
| is that Cydia is claiming to be a competitor to the App Store
| and I firmly believe that it'll be tossed because Cydia's
| entire existence is predicated on a process that, at the time
| it was operating, is illegal and violates the DMCA. I don't
| necessarily think Cydia is bad and people should be able to
| jailbreak their devices if they want but that can't be used
| as the basis for a lawsuit that alleges monopolistic behavior
| or even anti-trust.
| biaachmonkie wrote:
| Do "people" really have that understanding? I'd posit that
| that vast majority of Apple's userbase has given zero
| consideration to the issue at all.
|
| I suggest that if presented the choice of
|
| When you buy a phone would you rather ... A. that the maker
| of the phone has total and final control over what apps are
| available for you to install via it's own store. B. that
| the maker of the phone has a store pre-installed for you to
| install apps from, but you have the the choice to install
| apps from other 3rd party stores or directly yourself
|
| I'm pretty sure if put in that type of context most people
| would choose B. But they are never given that choice. The
| choice they get is over the maker of the device, Apple and
| option A or an Android based device that has some variation
| of B.
| restingrobot wrote:
| That's not true though, Apple does make the devices, but
| the user owns them, and therefore has the legal right to
| install whatever they wish. Apple does not have control
| over this, as evidenced by the legality ruling of
| jailbreaking.
|
| >Apple makes the devices, they are 100% legally allowed to
| only allow apps from their own App Store and that precedent
| has already been set.
|
| This is false. As proven time and time again, the Device
| Owner has full legal control after purchase.
|
| It is monopolistic behavior due to the scope of the control
| from Apple. The devices are the owner's property, and it is
| monopolistic for them to implement
| software/policies/hardware blocks, that prevent users from
| using the devices as they see fit.
|
| Take a simplistic example, Keurig. Keurig tried to prevent
| users from using any other coffee pod besides theirs. There
| is precedent to these monopoly lawsuits.
|
| https://time.com/2913062/k-cups-war/
|
| https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-
| pro....
| dkonofalski wrote:
| >has the legal right to install whatever they wish
|
| Absolutely. But people buy the devices knowing that
| that's not an option. It's not like Apple locked down
| these devices and changed them after people bought them.
| You can absolutely jailbreak your device and put whatever
| you want on it and I fully support that. That doesn't
| make Apple's behavior monopolistic or an anti-trust
| violation.
|
| Your Keurig example isn't relatable or similar at all
| since Keurig both _did_ have a monopoly on single-use
| coffee pods and that was the single purpose of the
| device. An optional App Store is not the same thing at
| all.
| restingrobot wrote:
| >But people buy the devices knowing that that's not an
| option.
|
| A manufacturer cannot dictate the consumer's options
| regarding the owned devices, even though they have it in
| their terms and conditions. Apple is currently being
| gobsmacked by right to repair claims under this very
| principle.
| chungus_khan wrote:
| Jailbreaking absolutely does not violate the DMCA, nor is
| it illegal. Circumvention that isn't related to copyright
| infringement is not covered under the DMCA, and
| jailbreaking mobile devices has been ruled explicitly
| exempt on those grounds:
|
| https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-10-26/pdf/2018-
| 2...
|
| Stop spreading fud.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| I'm not spreading FUD. That decision was made in 2018. At
| the time of Cydia's release, in 2008, it was a violation
| of the DMCA. You can't apply a ruling that happened 10
| years later to argue that.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| The Copyright Office didn't construct an exemption out of
| whole cloth - they cannot do that, and they'd be
| overruled by Congress if they did. It's a recognition of
| the underlying fact that the DMCA does not cover TPMs
| that do not control access to a copyrighted work. The
| actual text of the law says that.
| restingrobot wrote:
| Before the decision, jailbreaking was not considered a
| violation of the DMCA. Apple sued and lost trying to make
| it one. So your premise that Cydia was somehow in
| violation of DMCA at the time is completely false.
| chungus_khan wrote:
| It was not made in 2018, that's just the latest renewal
| of the ruling (which was originally made in 2010).
| Apple's attempts to make it illegal were denied at the
| time too, because even without the ruling it fairly
| obviously falls under exemption.
|
| The ruling also just makes it explicit, the DMCA already
| doesn't cover things like jailbreaking because they don't
| relate to copyright, and do relate to the user enabling
| interoperability of their device with legally obtained
| software (17 U.S. Code SS 1201 (f)). These rulings are
| not proclamations in contrast with the law, they are
| bound by it and must be valid interpretations of it.
| Apple's attempts to classify it otherwise were a clear
| attempt to abuse copyright law and were rejected as
| illegitimate.
|
| You clearly do not know what you are talking about.
| mhh__ wrote:
| It seems to me a fairly reasonable piece of legislation to
| require devices that are quasi-PCs (i.e. the iPhone today is to
| many what the laptop was 10 years ago) to be able to run software
| of the users choosing. The manufacturer isn't obligated to do
| anything beyond providing a stable ground for others to build
| from.
|
| Beyond the user freedom angle, this could also help reduce
| e-waste as there will be a niche but functional ecosystem of
| tools to keep the phone or games console (!) running past it's
| lifecycle
| Terretta wrote:
| This premise assumes a building full of vacuum tubes and the
| punch cards are two different things.
|
| One immutable set of toggles, and then an infinite variety of
| suggested settings for those.
|
| It's not clear to me that's as true any more, when, randomly
| for instance, HEVC is in chips, or iPhones include an ASIC
| that's actually an FPGA.
|
| This seems to require a new principle, that a device maker may
| decide how far up the stack their logic goes, regardless of the
| form in which that logic is represented.
|
| As a check and balance on this, perhaps device makers do not
| get to retroactively (for a given device) take back intentional
| open parts of that waterline, as we've seen console makers do
| with what were deliberate and marketed capabilities, sometimes
| long after release.
| mhh__ wrote:
| > It's not clear to me that's as true any more, when,
| randomly for instance, HEVC is in chips, or iPhones include
| an ASIC that's actually an FPGA.
|
| Ignoring that it would be pretty wild if I could actually
| throw Verilog (Yuck) at my phone, I would draw the line at
| roughly the OS kernel or at least it's rough outline. The OEM
| wouldn't be allowed to include any time bombs under that
| layer, but ultimately the focus is on "day to day" work
| rather than complete control of the hardware.
| lupinglade wrote:
| Installer.app was the first "App Store", before Cydia even
| existed, I wrote it. I spoke to Steve before they launched their
| App Store -- we were happy to see them open up the platform and
| provide an official SDK, which was our goal with Installer.app.
|
| I think Apple should either charge considerably less than they do
| for distribution via their App Stores (that is, even less than
| 15%) or allow competition. Even more importantly, they need to
| allow installation of apps via links without requiring an App
| Store altogether.
|
| They also need to provide wider access to low level APIs (with
| user confirmation), instead of dumbing it down for developers
| while keeping all the powerful APIs to themselves.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Smartphones are more PCs than PCs now - Apple and others OS
| makers shouldn't be even _allowed_ to run "app stores"!
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > I think Apple should either charge considerably less than
| they do for distribution via their App Stores
|
| The biggest problem for many people is not the %, but the rules
| and limitations of the platform that comes from Apple being the
| intermediary between devs and users.
|
| For example, game streaming services should exist on the app
| store. It is preposterous that apple rejects these apps. They
| are actively harming thier own platform, making it less
| featureful by doing this.
|
| Being this intermediary is both a pro and a con for both devs
| and users, but they disallow anyone else to innovate on the
| platform. If Apple is so confident that their IAP is what users
| prefer, then they should give users (and developers) the choice
| and let the market speak!
| thanksforthe42 wrote:
| The primary fear is getting kicked off because Apple said so.
|
| The fees might suck, but the concern is spending a year on an
| app only to be denied or lose it once you gain popularity.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| mcintyre1994 wrote:
| > Even more importantly, they need to allow installation of
| apps via links without requiring an App Store altogether.
|
| I really don't know about this, or rather I understand why
| Apple might argue that it's protecting users in addition to its
| services revenue. As far as I can tell from my mum's Android
| phone, Facebook has a lucrative business of advertising
| absolute garbage borderline-malware apps through their Android
| apps to people who don't know any better. It might be that
| Apple don't expose the APIs you need to make an iOS device a
| terrible experience for a user who installs your app at all.
| But if there are any holes in that walled garden once you drop
| the app store and review, a lot of iPhones will be a lot worse
| because Facebook will push horrible stuff at their less savvy
| users.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| So, here's the thing: Apple already has this, and has had it
| for a decade. When large companies want to have an internal
| app, they go to Apple and buy an enterprise signing
| certificate, and then you can just download and run the app.
|
| Well, _almost_ - there 's two hitches.
|
| 1. You have to manually trust the developer before the app
| will launch, which involves a huge dance of finding the
| developer trust settings (which are well hidden) and then
| selecting the developer of the enterprise-signed app 2. Apple
| will revoke your account if they catch your apps distributing
| outside of your organization
|
| Technically speaking, there's zero changes Apple has to make
| in order to allow competition in app distribution. It's all
| policy. Apple _could_ implement notarization requirements
| like they did with macOS, and they should, but that doesn 't
| affect the underlying fact that people worried about third-
| party app distribution are already too late to the party.
| Here's the thing: plenty of developers abuse the system
| anyway. But it's extremely obvious and signposted to the user
| that they're installing a third-party app Apple hasn't
| reviewed. You aren't going to just click a link on a Facebook
| ad and suddenly have malware on your phone.
| newbie789 wrote:
| I used Installer.app many many years ago on both my friend's
| iPhone and my first iPod touch! It was one of the first things
| I used when fiddling around with mobile platforms as a
| teenager.
|
| Thank you so much for your awesome work!
| purplecats wrote:
| That's awesome that you made that!
|
| I am not well versed in this area but why does apple "need" to
| do that? that would hurt them. more like everyone else needs
| apple to do that because they're profiting off of our backs. so
| the last thing apple needs is to hurt themselves.
|
| just curious why you phrased it like that.
| ubercow13 wrote:
| Need can also express an obligation, not just something that
| is required _by_ someone but also _of_ someone.
| fmntf wrote:
| Installer.app was awesome. I remember the first App Store
| release, it was sooooo similar :) Do you have any anecdote or
| story to share about Installer.app or more in general the iOS
| 1.0 era?
| kbenson wrote:
| > I think Apple should either charge considerably less than
| they do for distribution via their App Stores (that is, even
| less than 15%) or allow competition.
|
| There's no "or" there. They need competition. The fact they
| were able to quickly halve their fee due to public sentiment
| and some lawmakers sniffing around means that competition was
| not working to even that out to costs plus _some_ profit
| already. I would posit the reason is because there is no real
| competition because Apple 's behavior and control of their
| platform (from hardware to customer transactions) is
| _extremely_ anti-competitive. Monopoly or not, anti-competitive
| behavior that harms consumers is the problem, and the fact they
| could drop fees so easily and quickly and by an arbitrary
| amount (half) points towards harm to developers and by
| extension consumers due to inflated fees because of lack of
| competition.
| mrtranscendence wrote:
| It's not really significant that Apple was able to halve
| their fees, because the segment of developers for which the
| halving applies is responsible for a minimal amount of actual
| profit.
| clay_the_ripper wrote:
| I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the
| opposite.
|
| I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going
| away. I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about
| them spying on her.
|
| I like that developers aren't allowed to use their own
| payment processors. I don't want to input my credit card into
| your black box payment system that might or might not charge
| me correctly.
|
| I see that it does harm developers, but that's a different
| conversation entirely.
|
| If you want to install whatever apps you want, buy an android
| phone! And have fun while their bloat ware and preinstalled
| crap spams you with notifications and scams you.
| RIMR wrote:
| Look, you make a ton of valid points. If you like the
| walled garden, enjoy it.
|
| Thing is, Apple and Google both offer the exact same
| benefits. They approve what gets published, they listen to
| complaints, they control some aspects of how you are
| allowed to code for their platforms. They lock you into
| their payment processor and they take a cut.
|
| The difference is that if I want out of that comfy,
| protected walled garden, I have to do different things to
| get out.
|
| On Android, I go to my security settings, enable third
| party sources, and then download alternative app store APKs
| from sites like Amazon and F-Droid. The garden isn't a
| jail.
|
| On iOS, I either have to sideload software via my lighting
| cable in developer mode, or "jailbreak" (the garden is a
| jail) the operating system using third party hacks allowing
| me to install from new sources.
|
| And sure, rooting Android or iOS is typically a hacky
| chore, but at least the Android rooting tool is published
| by Google.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite
| the opposite.
|
| Game streaming services do not exist on iOS. This is a
| harm.
|
| You cannot sign up for Netlifx on iOS. This is a harm.
| threeseed wrote:
| Game streaming services do exist on iOS via the web
| browser.
|
| You can signup for Netflix on iOS via the web browser.
| Orphis wrote:
| Yet, you cannot have a link to Netflix or Spotify from
| their app to their own website as you could subscribe on
| it.
|
| And the browser is limited to whatever Apple allows. If
| it doesn't support some web API that has a native
| equivalent, you're out of luck. There are many of those.
| kaba0 wrote:
| Why would letting another app store be installable on an
| iphone make your mom not able to just use App Store the
| same way she does it now? It's simply not an either or
| question. It could be hidden the same way as developer
| options are in Android so your mon - with all due respect -
| will never accidentally enable side-loading, while I can
| actually use my phone for whatever I want.
| marshray wrote:
| > It could be hidden the same way as developer options
|
| If checking a box buried three screens deep in Settings
| is all it takes to play Fortnite with your friends again,
| that box is going to get checked. And once it does, all
| the privacy and security of iOS devices goes out the
| window.
| daveidol wrote:
| There are other possible approaches that could be taken -
| e.g. a full bootloader wipe required, per-app permissions
| that must be allowed, federated third party app stores,
| parental controls, etc.
|
| Although at the end of the day people will still
| sometimes self-XSS themselves with the browser developer
| console or get phished etc.
|
| Human error/ignorance is always a possible issue, and I
| don't think we should restrict everyone else for it. Cars
| and knives are still allowed in the world.
| tingol wrote:
| The same could be said about 3rd party car mechanics that
| have MUCH HIGHER stakes (your life behind the wheel), yet
| it is illegal for car manufacturers to ban someone else
| from fixing your car. But Apple zealots act like a ending
| a monopoly on app installation will ruin everything.
|
| If the warning box says THIS IS A BIG SECURITY RISK and
| you click anyway it's your own choice, but a choice given
| in every single product and market created by man. A
| stupid phone is not where you draw the line and give it
| up.
| Kbelicius wrote:
| > I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite
| the opposite.
|
| When there is no competition the prices are higher. That is
| one way the consumers are harmed.
|
| > I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going
| away. I like that my mom can install apps and not worry
| about them spying on her.
|
| And you can have your walled garden and your mom can still
| install apps without worrying if they are spaying on them.
| Just use apples app store, simple as that. This is a non
| issue.
|
| > I like that developers aren't allowed to use their own
| payment processors. I don't want to input my credit card
| into your black box payment system that might or might not
| charge me correctly.
|
| You still have the option of using the apples app store.
| Again, a non issue for you.
| buzzerbetrayed wrote:
| > You still have the option of using the apples app
| store. Again, a non issue for you.
|
| Except apps GP uses will leave the official App Store in
| favor of the jenky "type in your credit card to each
| individual app" app store. So it actually is in GP's
| favor for there not to be an option.
|
| Not saying that is justification, but let's not just
| pretend it's all roses.
| zouhair wrote:
| > I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about
| them spying on her.
|
| You really think Apple not doing that?
| buzzerbetrayed wrote:
| Yes, I really think Apple is not (at least nowhere near
| the same degree as their competition). That's not how
| they make money.
| isthatsoup wrote:
| wait until you hear about Apple Ads then.
| an0n1m0u2 wrote:
| You can have a walled garden and at the same time have an
| exit to that garden. Apple should have their appstore with
| all their security measures for payment but they shouldn't
| prevent a third party from making an app and offering it
| through side loading.
|
| Most of people might still want to use the appstore because
| it has the reputation of being safe. I don't see how the
| garden and freedom are mutually exclusive. You just tell
| your mom to stay in the garden and this is what most non
| technical people usually do on android.
| andrewzah wrote:
| "I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about
| them spying on her."
|
| Until very recently (ios 13/14) apps did exactly this.
| There are arguments for the walled garden in terms of
| ensuring applications are built, signed, and distributed
| safely but developers (e.g. Facebook, etc) absolutely
| abused the system APIs to spy on users and collect data
| they had no right to.
|
| Even with the newer protections, apps randomly want to
| access my contacts or local network or location. The
| average user (like my mom and dad) are most likely just
| gonna click through those.
|
| I'm not arguing for ios/android here but we should be
| factual. I will say I like the walled garden for other
| reasons, such as a consistent payment gateway, etc.
| kbenson wrote:
| You state those preferences as if there's no possible way
| they could be provided while allowing competition.
|
| You have been presented a single option, and find that you
| like some aspects of the outcome. What's being hidden from
| you are other options where the same or similar outcomes
| can happen which might have even more benefits you would
| like.
|
| Right now you seem to have what you consider a benevolent
| dictator. What happens when the dictates are not as
| benevolent?
|
| You desires matter less to Apple than they do to
| organizations that actually have to worry about users users
| leaving more. That's because there's so much you give up if
| you leave. How long until this is abused? Also, what of
| those that are _already_ abused because of Apple 's power?
| Where Apple makes arbitrary decisions dictated not by the
| rules they've put forth but by internal business decisions
| and the desire to prop up their own offerings?
|
| What about a world where Apple was a clearinghouse for what
| was allowed on the phone, but followed a very clear set of
| rules that dictated what was allowed and not, and took a
| well defined fee to review apps, and allowed App stored to
| be registered and submit apps for review and apply their
| own additional rules on top? Wouldn't you get most the
| benefits you like out of that? Wouldn't that provide both
| competition and provide a similar level of security?
| threeseed wrote:
| > What happens when the dictates are not as benevolent?
|
| I buy another phone.
|
| Because there is plenty of competition in the smartphone
| market and companies willing to take my money.
|
| But I stay with Apple because right now their walled
| garden is exactly what I am looking for.
| [deleted]
| gambiting wrote:
| What I like to compare it to, is cars. If you want to
| only ever take your Volkswagen to a Volkswagen dealer,
| buy Volkswagen parts and only carry out service done by
| Volkswagen engineers - you can absolutely do that and no
| one will or should ever stop you. But the second
| Volkswagen says you can't use a 3rd party part in your
| car that you bought - everyone should be up in their arms
| about it. There's a line here - and it should end at
| customers choice, always.
|
| The simplest way to do this would be like on android
| devices when you want to unlock a bootloader - a one way,
| single step process, where the phone wipes itself and
| reboots and is then "unlocked". If you did that on
| iPhones it would be enough of discouragement to stop all
| the mums and grandmas from accidentally installing dodgy
| software off the internet, but it still leaves the final
| choice to you, the user. You want a bodyguard, not a
| nanny - there's a difference.
| earhart wrote:
| Except the apps are the 3rd-party parts.
|
| In your example: Volkswagen imposes quality controls on
| those parts, making sure they're not going to blow up or
| subvert the car.
|
| As soon as other shops can install 3rd-party parts, you
| have a race to the bottom for shops, no one's enforcing
| quality controls, and you wind up with cars that, for
| example, get better performance by violating emissions
| standards except when they're actively being tested.
|
| (So, maybe we should be using some manufacturer other
| than Volkswagen. :-)
| filleokus wrote:
| I totally agree. We as techies /developers see problems
| from our perspective (too high of a cut, arbitrarily
| limiting what apps can be distributed, no third-party
| payment processing etc). And those are legit concerns.
|
| But in a typical "customer harm" perspective I think it's
| very hard to make a case.
|
| Apps aren't really that more expensive on iOS nor is the
| catalog smaller.
|
| However much we want a freer iOS experience, competing App
| Stores will just make iOS like modern gaming with a crappy
| custom App Store for each vendor. It would be more
| reasonable to have easier side loading for enthusiast or
| stuff Apple doesn't want in its store.
| daveidol wrote:
| So if you really want that level of centralization then
| at the very least can't we agree that Apple should reduce
| it's fee (30% of ALL revenue for some basic binary
| hosting and payment processing?) and be far less
| restrictive in it's decisions of what is allowed and what
| isn't (god forbid we have xcloud on iOS! the horror!)?
| tingol wrote:
| It is very easy to make a case actually, the equivalent
| would be no music besides iTunes store (no spotify). Same
| thing for games (no epic store, no steam, no GOG etc).
| Just because Apple provides a good experience doesn't
| give them the right to disallow competition. Don't fall
| into Stockholm syndrome.
| carlisle_ wrote:
| >I see that it does harm developers, but that's a different
| conversation entirely.
|
| This is generally the conversation that's happening here.
| People talking about competition aren't talking about it as
| it relates to the quality of the product, they're talking
| about it from an economic perspective.
| julienb_sea wrote:
| I hear you but there is actual customer harm. There are
| obviously silly UX things that happen in Apple world.
|
| Example: you cannot buy Kindle books in the Kindle app as
| they would be subject to 30% fees. You have to go to the
| web browser to buy the books. Apple inserting itself into
| this sort of marketplace transaction is highly
| questionable.
|
| The google play store offers the same level of protections
| around their internal payment platform and you can
| confidently download apps from verified developers.
| daveidol wrote:
| Apps in iOS are sandboxed anyway so spyware/virus concerns
| are less of an issue just due to the platform itself.
|
| But I agree with the other posters: literally making it
| impossible for me to willingly do something with my own
| device is not a feature.
|
| There are other ways to help prevent payment issues or
| privacy concerns - one of which is just sticking to the App
| Store (if it really is that valuable then won't the market
| decide?) - the other of which is requiring hoops to jump
| through like Google does with third-party applications on
| Android. Hell - look at Gatekeeper on macOS.
| com2kid wrote:
| > Apps in iOS are sandboxed anyway so spyware/virus
| concerns are less of an issue just due to the platform
| itself.
|
| On iOS, certain API restrictions are enforced by the app
| review process.
|
| Not to mention some behavioral restrictions are purely
| enforced by the threat of being banned from the app
| store.
|
| For example, apps _could_ [1] spam you 10x a day with 3rd
| party advertising push notifications, but that is banned
| by app store policy, _not_ by any technical limitation of
| the platform.
|
| [1] For awhile this was a serious problem on Android
| until Google clamped down on it, again, using store
| policy not technical restrictions.
| daveidol wrote:
| Fair point, but I have to believe Apple could come up
| with technical solutions to these issues. Or not - in
| which case we end up with a world not that unlike macOS.
| Which isn't that bad in my opinion. I'd still rather have
| that option than being told I can't do what I want with
| my own hardware.
| com2kid wrote:
| MacOS was never a large enough target for malware and
| adware.
|
| Think pre-SP2 Windows XP. Think the JRE updater
| installing the Ask Jeeves toolbar. (Or Chrome, that was
| slimy....)
|
| Drive by app installs initiated from Safari on iOS would
| be Bonzai Buddy all over again.
|
| Right now if a handful of misbehaving apps makes it past
| the app store review process, it is _in the news_.
|
| What happens if that review store process is no longer
| there? How many alternative keyboards will be going
| around stealing credentials? How many apps spamming ads
| 24/7?
| reader_mode wrote:
| >I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite
| the opposite.
|
| Your entire argument is refuted if Apple isn't allowed to
| abuse it's market position and you're allowed to have
| "Apple Pay +30% price" "Stripe Payment" "Payment X" - you
| would quickly see the real value of App Store and Apple
| Payment processing convenience - that 30% would probably
| come down to 10% where it provides the convenience value.
|
| If consumers weren't harmed consumer choice would have no
| effect.
|
| This "users are idiots and they need Apple to tell them
| what's best for them" is like Stockholm syndrome with Apple
| fans, it's especially entertaining to hear it so often on a
| "hacker" newsgroup. Good thing papa Apple decided you can't
| have that dangerous Fortnite scam tricking you in to using
| a different payment system, you're better off not wasting
| time on games anyway - really if you look at it that way
| they are saving you from bad choices two times - win/win
| for Apple users I'd say.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| It's not Stockholm syndrome, it's familiarity with how
| things worked on other platform.
|
| Windows/IE literally wasted hundreds of millions of
| person hours by being leaky, insecure, virus-prone crap.
| You could - if you chose to - make quite a nice income
| out of sending out phishing emails on our open email
| system. Likewise for randomsware, only more so. And so
| on.
|
| iOS may have other flaws, but worrying that your iPhone
| is going to be locked by a Bitcoin hacker isn't one of
| them.
|
| And realistically, users _are_ idiots - at least
| technically. We 've all heard of PC users who click on
| every random thing and end up with twenty-odd toolbars
| and almost every possible virus. The only reason phones
| aren't the same is because security is locked down.
|
| These are consumer devices. They are not hacker devices.
| If you want an open hacker device, go build one and see
| if you can persuade people to buy it.
|
| You won't - of course - because in userland locked down
| security is a feature, not a bug. And users care more
| about _not_ having to pay a ransom to unlock their own
| phones than they do about running with root privileges.
| Not having to think about this is _valuable._
|
| Having said all that, there's definitely room to
| negotiate the costs of all of this, and also to open up
| selected services that can be proven to be secure. But
| those costs, the access to useful non-risky APIs for
| devs, and access for third party service providers, are
| all _different issues_ to the core validity of the model
| itself.
| reader_mode wrote:
| >Windows/IE literally wasted hundreds of millions of
| person hours by being leaky, insecure, virus-prone crap.
| You could - if you chose to - make quite a nice income
| out of sending out phishing emails on our open email
| system. Likewise for randomsware, only more so. And so
| on.
|
| And so your argument is that Microsoft should have
| forbidden anyone from using a different browser engine
| (like Apple does) to make things safer ? What if someone
| installed Chrome or Firefox - that could have leaks and
| then you would think less of the platform - right ?
| swiley wrote:
| It's not about the money, it's about not being able to leave an
| IMAP connection open on IDLE or change the push server for your
| IRC app or run guile/gcc/vim/git locally at a _usable_ speed.
| lupinglade wrote:
| Yes - that's the real problem, too many restrictions on what
| apps can and can't do. This is not something Apple should be
| able to do - this is itself anti-competitive, as of course
| Apple are able to do all of those things while competing with
| other developers.
| handmodel wrote:
| I'd like to see someone with more legal knowhow chip in but
| I'm fairly sure the fact that the app store does restrict
| apps to be the most compelling legal case for its existence?
|
| If it literally blocked nothing then Apple can't say that the
| app store is part of the ecosystem that makes it unique. If
| it has a high bar for restrictions, it can successfully argue
| to avoid spamware and other bad quality apps Apple is going
| the work for the user to make the phone experience
| worthwhile.
| Despegar wrote:
| There's basically nothing new here. This is a similar aftermarket
| case to _Kodak_ [1]. Like the Epic case, this too will fail.
|
| A key element of _Kodak_ was a bait and switch. If Apple had
| monopolized the aftermarket for iOS app distribution _after_
| customers were locked in, you may have a case against Apple (if
| you satisfy the other elements, like switching costs). But that
| was never true. From day one, the App Store was the only way to
| legally obtain iOS apps.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak_Co._v._Image_Tec....
| chungus_khan wrote:
| I doubt they'll manage to win, but the fact that Cydia predates
| the official App Store looks pretty core to the complaint.
| chokeartist wrote:
| You forgot the period on the end of the URL :)
|
| Corrected:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak_Co._v._Image_Tec...
| .
| echelon wrote:
| Apple monopolizes access to 50% of American computer users and
| forces software shops big and small to pay their tax.
|
| Users can't install what they want on their computers and they
| can't upgrade them.
|
| The DOJ should force Apple to open the iPhone or face break up.
| Just because a breakup of this nature hasn't happened yet
| doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.
|
| And another thing. There's no reason a company this big should
| also be a music and film studio.
| FriendlyNormie wrote:
| It's a good thing that whiny melodramatic faggots like you
| will never have any actual power.
| Retric wrote:
| First it's 50% of cellphones not computers, but secondly as
| an iPhone customer I have never paid Apple for any app, but I
| have still paid for apps so that's clearly false.
|
| Apple forces companies to give them a cut of in App
| purchases, but Kindle and Netflix show you can sell to iPhone
| customers without that.
| echelon wrote:
| > First it's cellphone not computer
|
| Then I'll kindly ask you stop using it for GPS navigation,
| email, browsing the web, banking, Facebook, Twitter,
| Instagram, dating, calculating, and ordering food. :)
|
| And if you write any code at all that you run on it, just
| get outta here. :P
|
| > I have never paid for any app
|
| All your money goes to Apple and you leave everyone else
| out high and dry? I'm not judging you, but you have to see
| how that's not good for non-Apple employees.
| Retric wrote:
| Amazon and Netflix are getting my money without that
| Apple tax. It's already a completely viable option for
| both specific purchases and ongoing subscriptions.
| echelon wrote:
| Just the world we want...
| sova wrote:
| Is it not a computer first, cellphone second?
| Retric wrote:
| All iPhones are computers, not all computers are
| cellphones.
| ecf wrote:
| Part of the appeal of the iOS App Store is that end users are
| partially shielded from developers who believe it's their
| inalienable right to make apps to try to profit off of them.
| echelon wrote:
| App developers want to gain distribution.
|
| > inalienable right to make apps to try to profit off of
| them.
|
| What do you mean here? Do you have a problem with
| capitalism? The purpose of work is to earn a living.
| Outside of hobbyists and open source developers, nobody
| does this for free. It's work.
|
| Should app developers be poor and unable to earn a living
| off apps? I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean, but
| that's how this comes across.
|
| I think what you mean is that you're happy Apple controls
| distribution. My argument is that this isn't fair - they've
| built a computer, captured 50% of the US market, and
| control every economic funnel around these consumers, the
| likes of which we've never seen before in human history.
|
| They have a mega monopoly. They're distorting the entire
| market. There are consumers, and then there are _Apple
| consumers_. Try to do business with the latter group
| without going through Apple, jumping through hoops, and
| getting taxed. And you come out without a direct
| relationship with your customer.
|
| iMonopoly
| ecf wrote:
| > My argument is that this isn't fair - they've built a
| computer, captured 50% of the US market, and control
| every economic funnel around these consumers...
|
| > What do you mean here? Do you have a problem with
| capitalism?
|
| It seems the more egregious example of being against
| capitalism is wanting to legislate an already successful
| business one to make it easier for your success.
| kolinko wrote:
| First time ever I'm hearing a pro-capitalist person who
| is also pro-antitrust laws.
|
| If you were a true capitalist, you'd grant people to
| choose if they want a walled garden or an ,,open"
| platform (although the alternative is not really open -
| just a bunch of big players forcing you to install their
| installers).
| echelon wrote:
| Capitalism works with regulation.
| kolinko wrote:
| ,,Monopolizes access to 50% of users" - by definition, a
| monopoly is when you have access to the vast majoroty of the
| users :)
| echelon wrote:
| The entire economy around them!
|
| - buying apps
|
| - buying stuff online
|
| - buying stuff in real life
|
| - renting movies
|
| - watching netflix
|
| - subscribing to a dating service
|
| - subscribing to anything
|
| - playing games
|
| - logging into your product
|
| - ...
|
| That's a _super_ monopoly the likes of which this world
| hasn 't seen before.
|
| It begs the question - should Apple be forced to open iOS,
| or should they be split up outright into two or three
| different companies?
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| That is not what monopoly legally means.
| baby wrote:
| Apple: I can install whatever I want on my laptop, why can't I do
| the same on my phone?
| hnick wrote:
| What do you mean, _your_ phone?
| chaostheory wrote:
| Why? Security and ensuring "It just works". Choice, freedom,
| and customization are enemies to both. We can see this in
| action with the last MacOS update. I'm not saying that I'm with
| either side, but these are the pros and cons.
|
| What I'm not seeing is, does iOS have even enough market share
| dominance to require regulation? From what I remember they only
| have around 15% of the market.
| redwall_hp wrote:
| In the US, approximately 50% of smartphones in use are
| running iOS. It's lower globally, but the US market is the
| only one that matters when it comes to antitrust in the US.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| "It just works" was a jingoism from before the iPhone
| existed.
|
| Do Macs not "work"?
| meekrohprocess wrote:
| They work fine, as long as you never update them within 3
| weeks of a new OS release.
|
| And if Apple's authentication servers are up.
|
| Using them at work is a blessing and a curse.
| Kbelicius wrote:
| iOS has >50% of the market in USA
| slivanes wrote:
| Yep, and also 100% of the App market on iOS.
| anoncake wrote:
| The market in question is iOS app stores (or iOS apps), not
| smartphone operating systems.
| silviot wrote:
| Oh, don't worry! They're probably working on it: soon you won't
| be able to install whatever you want on your laptop.
|
| Just making some unsubstantiated irony, but I wouldn't be
| surprised if it happened.
| kbenson wrote:
| How far apart is an iPad Pro with a keyboard from the new
| MacBook Pro with the M1 chip? It seems pretty obvious they
| are converging to me. If they do converge, do you think Apple
| will start allowing MacOS on iPads, or will require MacBooks
| to run iOS and provide some virtualized OS emulation layer?
|
| I know what I'd put my money on, given lack of legal reasons
| in the future to force it another way.
| m463 wrote:
| It's like apple got set on a course...
|
| And they're on it...
|
| following it...
|
| and optimizing everything along the way...
|
| they're going to converge off the edge of a cliff and into
| the abyss.
| TheOperator wrote:
| MacOS on iPads won't happen anytime soon. Not so long as
| Apple can sell you two devices instead of one.
| someluccc wrote:
| I think as lawsuits keep coming, a possible alternative for Apple
| is to tie the app store to the free update cycle of iOS,
| essentially making iOS a SaaS product. Consumers and developers
| will be free to choose if the cost of iOS evens out with whatever
| fees they may save.
| FriendlyNormie wrote:
| Keep dreaming, dumbfuck. These losers can spam frivolous
| lawsuits all they want. Nothing will change and nothing should
| change.
| restingrobot wrote:
| This concept doesn't really work as the OS updates are required
| to interface with features of the new phones and support
| features of older phones. This would essentially force users to
| buy new devices every cycle, or cough up money for the updated
| OS. Also what about important security updates and bug fixes?
| Would Apple just allow these vulnerabilities to exist if people
| didn't pay? Either way this would be a terrible business
| decision on their part.
| someluccc wrote:
| But isn't this how OSs have been historically sold? You
| bought Windows XP and were entitled to a set number of years
| of support in terms of security parches, etc.
|
| Similarly if you don't like the terms of the App Store you
| could have the option to purchase an open iOS v.1X and
| install whichever store you please. The only difference would
| be that you would need to pay again for subsequent versions
| of the OS, just like ppl would pay to update windows from XP
| to Vista to 7, etc.
| restingrobot wrote:
| No, historically OS's haven't been linked to hardware like
| iOS is. Imagine if every time you got a new webcam, you had
| to buy a new version of Windows. XP was supported for 12
| years, iOS 12 was officially discontinued after 1 year.
| You're talking about orders of magnitude difference in
| time.
| BasicObject wrote:
| No mention of Synaptic anywhere?
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaptic_%28software%29 Predates
| anything here by 5 years. Similar functionality. Yes, nothing is
| technically for sale in Synaptic, but it's a graphical interface
| to install thousands of software downloads. What am I missing
| here?
| anamexis wrote:
| The fact that they aren't party to this lawsuit?
| rhacker wrote:
| I hate apps.
|
| I installed this app for Best Buy because I thought it was needed
| for curbside pickup. Turns out bestbuy.com on my phone has all
| the same features.
|
| I also have Netflix, Amazon Video and Hulu - but not because I
| want those apps, but because you can't play their video content
| in the mobile browser.
|
| But most of the time all apps do is annoy the crap out of me with
| pointless notifications. And I'm thankful that the latest Android
| let's me disable notifications for these apps - the entire
| experience is extremely pro-company, not pro-user. I think apps
| should die and if you want games get a switch.
| echelon wrote:
| Apps are the worst. Not everything should be an app.
|
| There's no reason web couldn't continue to be a powerful app
| platform with full device API access. Rust+WASM+device APIs and
| you could have Google Maps and Netflix be "native" web apps.
|
| Apps were just an excuse for Jobs to own the iPhone platform.
| It's why they killed Flash - they didn't want a cross-platform
| way to develop apps and marginalize their plans.
| giantrobot wrote:
| Sorry to spoil your Apple hate hard-on but your assertions
| about Flash cross-platform development are patently absurd.
|
| There's easily half a dozen cross-platform frameworks for
| developing mobile apps. Most emit native code and others
| target WebKit views.
|
| As for Flash, Jobs didn't want it on the iPhone because the
| Flash was a shit show. When the iPhone was released Flash
| Player 9 (with ActionScript 3 and the AVM2) had been out for
| a year. A vast majority of Flash content was using the older
| and much shittier AVM1. That content was also 100% developed
| for WIMP interfaces so there were zero affordances for
| multitouch or even just having hit boxes sized for fingers
| instead of cursors.
|
| Even if Steve Jobs _loved_ Flash and ached to have it on the
| iPhone most content available would have been designed for a
| minimum of SVGA screen resolution, a cursor, and a desktop
| processor and RAM and would have not been running in a JIT
| runtime with zero understanding of app restore states or any
| iPhone features.
|
| Flash Lite was not a good option either as it did not support
| web content or run as a plug-in. It also did not have good
| touch support since most phones it was targeted for didn't
| have a touchscreen. It was number pad and hardware keys
| almost exclusively.
|
| So there was very little overlap between the goals of the
| iPhone and any aspect of Flash. Flash on Android basically
| proved Steve Jobs right as to the performance of Flash on a
| smartphone. The UX ended up terrible for most content, it
| absolutely killed the battery, and its security problems were
| myriad.
|
| Flash's problem was it sucked anywhere but the desktop. Even
| then it sucked on laptops as it was a major power drain
| and/or fan spinner. HTML5 obviated Flash for most of its use
| cases. Even Adobe eventually realized that and last their
| Flash authoring tools target HTML5.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| The funny thing is, all the arguments against Flash on
| iPhone also apply to HTML on iPhone. Flash and the Web have
| a concurrent development history. Hell, AS3 almost became
| JavaScript 2.0 - Adobe even gave Mozilla the AVM2 runtime
| to replace SpiderMonkey. Conversely, pretty much no website
| was designed for smartphones before the iPhone. Everything
| was sized for large screens and had hover content.
|
| The difference is that Apple put a lot of time and effort
| into making old content work. They wrote dynamic JIT
| compilers for JavaScript, sliced up webpages into GPU
| layers, downscaled old content to fit on tiny screens,
| changed the behavior of hovers so that you could use them
| with a finger, and added detects for undersized tap targets
| and form fields. Adobe's approach was to shove all that
| compatibility work onto the developer. Why make a JIT for
| AVM1 when you could just make a new version of ECMAScript
| and make everyone rewrite their movies in AS3? Why embrace
| GPU rendering and composition when you can just hand people
| a thin wrapper around OpenGL and tell them to use Starling
| Framework? Why bother fixing broken hovers when you can
| just throw more events to the developer to handle?
|
| Like, imagine if Steve Jobs went up on stage and told
| people that the iPhone would run webapps, but only if
| people wrote everything in Angular and WebGL. That's kind
| of what Flash Player was trying to do. Apple knew that you
| had to get the existing, broken, not mobile-friendly-at-all
| content up and running first and they they could push
| through more mobile-friendly web standards. Adobe figured
| they could just entice developers into writing not-terrible
| Flash movies and then they'd be allowed on smartphones
| again.
| lupinglade wrote:
| _Apps were just an excuse for Jobs to own the iPhone
| platform. It 's why they killed Flash - they didn't want a
| cross-platform way to develop apps and marginalize their
| plans._
|
| This is nonsense as initially Apple was pushing web apps, it
| actually took a lot of convincing to get them to move to
| native code. Flash never provided a good user experience.
| wayneftw wrote:
| If you believe that Apple ever really intended web apps to
| be the only apps, I've got a bridge to sell you.
|
| The only reason they released a year earlier than their
| native app SDK was to get their product out in front of
| competition that they knew was coming so they could claim
| they were "first".
| unclekev wrote:
| > product out in front of competition that they knew was
| coming so they could claim they were "first"
|
| Who was coming? What competition?
|
| They weren't in a race with anyone to release the iPhone.
| Nobody was even close to what they had with iPhone at the
| time.
| wayneftw wrote:
| Do you really think Android popped up a year later after
| the release of the iPhone and nobody knew about its
| development?
|
| Android didn't start at Google. Google bought them in
| 2005, three years before the iPhone was released.
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| Prototype Android looked like a BlackBerry.
|
| https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/05/24/android-was-
| born-on...
| sjwright wrote:
| Android was on track to be a Blackberry clone with no
| touch screen until they got wind of what Apple was up to.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| You don't think that completely dismissing the other
| smartphone makers would have been foolish?
| [deleted]
| agust wrote:
| That is also why they are currently preventing competition on
| web browser engines on iOS, by forcing other browsers to use
| theirs (webkit). That way they can limit the web app
| capabilities, by not implementing APIs like the Push API, and
| make the web look very bad by not fixing bugs.
|
| I'm wondering why Mozilla, amongst other companies, hasn't
| taken action against this anti-competitive behaviour.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Mozilla wins. Apple has to allow other engines on iOS. Most
| users switch to Chrome. Most developers stop supporting
| anything else. Mozilla loses.
| sjwright wrote:
| Indeed, say what you will about Safari on iOS, it
| certainly forces some amount of diversity in the overall
| browser market.
|
| (I realise this is a controversial opinion but I don't
| lament the slower feature release cadence of Safari
| because IMHO the web is already far too complex and
| feature rich for its own good.)
| restingrobot wrote:
| I might be biased as an app developer, but if apps are done
| properly they can provide a much deeper experience for users.
| I understand your point that most things can be done in a
| cross platform manner, however in my 10 years of mobile
| development experience, cross platform is great for 90% of
| things, sucks at 5%, and simply cannot do the last 5%. If
| your tech needs fall into any of the 5's then a native app is
| simply the better solution.
|
| They killed flash because it was a bug riddled, security
| nightmare, owned by Adobe, (one of the greediest corporations
| in existence). I will never understand the flash nostalgia,
| good riddance.
| lupinglade wrote:
| You do no know that you can disable notifications on iOS right?
| Ever since they first added them.
|
| Apps should not die. They provide an infinitely better user
| experience, battery efficiency and many more capabilities.
|
| To the contrary, web apps should die (or maybe move to a
| separate medium) as they go against what the web was designed
| for - web apps are horribly bad for search-ability, archival
| and accessibility.
| kevincox wrote:
| > web apps are horribly bad for search-ability, archival and
| accessibility
|
| And iOS apps are somehow better?
|
| Also accessibility is quite good on the web, but I think iOS
| does a good job here too.
| hartator wrote:
| Most of the apps out there are just webview of a web app.
| alickz wrote:
| Those apps, if they exist, are explicitly against Apple's
| App Store policy.
|
| Usually they don't pass review.
|
| https://developer.apple.com/app-
| store/review/guidelines/#min...
| folkrav wrote:
| I would be curious to see your sources on this. Last I
| checked the overwhelming majority of applications were
| actually native.
|
| [1] https://insights.dice.com/2018/04/09/ios-developers-
| app-stor...
| mulcahey wrote:
| Was seeing if saurik commented in this thread yet, only to see
| that he posted it!
| BTCOG wrote:
| Also only came here to see if saurik posted. ;)
| samat wrote:
| Is there an actual lawsuit pdf somewhere? Could not find a link
| in the wapo article :(
| ApolloVonZ wrote:
| As an iOS developer I agree with some of the arguments, the 30%
| are a bit too much and should be less. The 15% for small
| businesses is a start but it's still not always fair. At the same
| time, I think the arguments Epic gives for example are bullshit.
| I rather give 30% of the money Epic takes for basically selling
| digital nothing to millions of teens to Apple. At least Apple is
| doing something with that money, maintaining the App Store,
| providing and developing tools like XCode and Swift. Also for me
| it makes a difference that Apple is a publicly traded company,
| Epic is not. But off topic here, the very closed nature of the
| App Store is a benefit in terms of security, especially for users
| that don't know much about technology or don't care to care about
| their security. Having several app stores would water down the
| whole iOS ecosystem and has actually the potential to hurt the
| business of many app based companies. Yes, the App Store can be
| strict at times and quite of few of its restrictive policies need
| changing. But it does force you to make good stable apps. And it
| puts your apps right next to every other app in that category,
| instead of having to care about n different ways of how to
| distribute your apps. It's only the one, and there you got to get
| it right. Having more app stores won't really increase your
| audience either, at the end it's still gonna be the same
| customers, but a lot more maintenance. So I think if Apple would
| change its pricing model, the App Store review process, and lift
| some of the more stricter limitations, which I think it has to in
| the next year and a half, then the App Store will be a great way
| to get you apps out there. But that's my opinion from a personal
| point of view.
| breeny592 wrote:
| > I rather give 30% of the money Epic takes for basically
| selling digital nothing to millions of teens to Apple. At least
| Apple is doing something with that money, maintaining the App
| Store, providing and developing tools like XCode and Swift.
|
| Epic also would be spending some of their money on their own
| development, improvement to games etc. I don't quite follow the
| line of argument here - if things are 30% more expensive to
| cover Apples costs, then the consumer is the one losing out in
| the transaction.
| 95014_refugee wrote:
| ... where "liberate" is a funny way of spelling "pwn", "exploit",
| "infest" etc.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-12-10 23:00 UTC)