To your first point: I find it telling that your main concern with reducing Apple's monopoly power is that it would elevate Facebook's monopoly power. How about we design regulations that mitigate against monopoly power in all its forms? Then there would be viable alternatives to Facebook and all of the sudden their business model based on hostile tracking becomes completely unsustainable because there's meaningful competition that actually respects their users. We don't need to be serfs.
To your second point: Apple exerts influence far beyond their consumers. Even though I'm sure this isn't news to you, I'll still point you toward some interesting articles:
Much of this is invisible to the typical resident of the walled garden, but they actually cause a lot of harm to society because of their market dominance. Anybody with a small child is probably aware of the harmful effects of the "dreaded green bubbles" (I'm sure people will try to counter this point with claims that iMessage is somehow more secure / more functional than other protocols. I invite those people to do some research first. I think you'd be surprised at the gulf between your own understanding of iMessage's security vs. reality).
>Then there would be viable alternatives to Facebook and all of the sudden their business model based on hostile tracking becomes completely unsustainable because there's meaningful competition that actually respects their users.
This assumes my problem is with Facebook and Facebook alone. My problem is with ad-tech and more generally all other developers. I know Apple exersts influence beyond their customers and I'm not sympathetic to developers who cry about Apple not letting them run $program.
What the web has shown is that given a free-for-all platform, users lose and any new technology is used to fingerprint people on the web. Apple has provided an option that, sure is a walled garden, but I can be reasonably confident isn't doing something I'm not interested in.
I'm not sure what "harmful effects" of green bubbles are but I'm sure envy isn't as bad as every ad tech company having an NSA style citizen database.
> My problem is with ad-tech and more generally all other developers.
Perhaps without Apple taking the 30% cut, and with the possibility of new app stores that are designed differently from the current App Store, the economics of mobile apps might shift so that there could be third party app stores that cater to users willing to pay for apps up front.
Rather than the current situation that is a race to the bottom as the majority apps are free or freemium, supported either by that intrusive adtech or by in-app purchases that range from subscriptions to outright scams or loot boxes.
> users lose and any new technology is used to fingerprint people on the web
User data tracking is also of great concern to regulators. I doubt they will sit still while third party app stores collect user data. Those app stores will still be subject to regulation, even if it's not Apple's own oversight.
>the economics of mobile apps might shift so that there could be third party app stores that cater to users willing to pay for apps up front.
>supported either by that intrusive adtech or by in-app purchases that range from subscriptions to outright scams or loot boxes.
This is like some cruel joke. Developers constantly making the claim that the 30% is too onerous and some future system will have some pass savings onto consumers. Please point to any proof that the future would be this way. 3rd party stores exist on Android _today_, and I don't see any thing you talk about. In fact what I do see are developers, like Epic, pushing their stores so they can charge you whenever you want for vbucks. Like where is this software utopia on Android if it's so important? Instead, android shows that these changes are potentially more user hostile.
Developers pretend its about making things better for users when its about making more money for them.
>I doubt they will sit still while third party app stores collect user data.
My friend, they are sitting still _now_, when supposedly GDPR was to fix all this. They are rushing to "open up" the one platform that pretends to care about user privacy
> Instead, android shows that these changes are potentially more user hostile.
More than a decade using Android, and another decade using the then-free Internet before that, I have never thought that having more choice was ever, ever user-hostile.
The proposition is so delirious for anyone who lived the early phases of the Internet that it defies interpretation.
The early years of the internet might as well have been a totally separate system. How anyone can think that the modern internet is anything like the small implicitly trusting internet of yore compared to the globalized commercialized ad-tech megamall where every single avenue for abuse is taken and just called a business model instead of malware.
> Please point to any proof that the future would be this way.
Please provide your own proofs that the future would not be in this way. Prior to this change, the 30% cut was mandatory. Tomorrow, it won't be only the game in town. That alone shows that the future is at least one step towards a different app economy from the status quo. That alone changes things.
> 3rd party stores exist on Android _today_, and I don't see any thing you talk about.
But it opens up the opportunity for such a thing to arise. Someone can choose to create an app discovery platform like AppGratis or Chomp, to create new app catalog perhaps more targeted and organized than the current sprawl that is the existing App Store. The point is this change allows the possibility to arise, as well as the economics to shift. At the very least, this will lead to disruption of the status quo. That will breed opportunity and innovation.
> Instead, android shows that these changes are potentially more user hostile.
How have third party app stores made things any more hostile on Android? There is literally no competing Meta user data collection ap store there.
> Developers pretend its about making things better for users when its about making more money for them.
Users need developers, as much as developers need users. Anti-developer sentiment is puzzling. If you want Apple to build everything themselves, then close the platform entirely, allow only web apps (as Jobs intended), and let Apple Sherlock the entire App Store.
> My friend, they are sitting still _now_, when supposedly GDPR was to fix all this. They are rushing to "open up" the one platform that pretends to care about user privacy
GDPR was just the start, and further regulation on both sides of the Atlantic is in progress. Do you really think of all of this was meant to attack Apple specifically? Big Tech is under the crossfires by multiple regions, multiple nations, multiple political parties.
> Developers constantly making the claim that the 30% is too onerous
This one is honestly difficult to respond to. I encourage you to donate 30% of your next paycheck to charity. It would be a good deed and would illustrate for you how much 30% is in a better way than I ever could.
> Please point to any proof that the future would be this way
Another stumper. I don't usually claim to have proof about the future. I suppose you'll just have to use common sense here.
> Instead, android shows that these changes are potentially more user hostile
This I just find confusing. Where is the hostility in offering users choice? If your whole point is that nobody would use a 3rd-party app store, then why does this regulation even concern you in the first place? You don't have to use one! Just stick to the App Store and let other people do what they want, then thank them for providing the competition that ends up forcing Apple to lower their fees.
> Developers pretend its about making things better for users when its about making more money for them.
Actually, it's about competition, which is indeed something long considered essential to a healthy economy.
> My friend, they are sitting still _now_, when supposedly GDPR was to fix all this.
Ok, I'll come clean. I work for a big tech company. We had to overhaul a ton of services to comply with GDPR and I honestly believe our customers are better off because of it. GDPR did not magically fix all the problems in tech, but it's a big improvement.
> the one platform that pretends to care about user privacy
This level of cynicism is just so difficult to navigate. Are you saying Apple can or cannot be trusted? I much prefer to enable fair competition so that the best platform can actually emerge. Whether that's Apple or not, if users value privacy and the market is fair, they will be able to find it.
> I'm not sympathetic to developers who cry about Apple not letting them run $program
You don't have to be sympathetic to developers. By sympathetic to yourself. Apple stifling competition and charging exorbitant rents absolutely harms you as a consumer.
>Apple stifling competition and charging exorbitant rents absolutely harms you as a consumer.
Please point to me where these harms are.
It's not about the user - it's about developers getting to do whatever they want. It's about _developers_ complaining that they can't use whatever APIs to track me. This is the same thing Facebook says when Apple rolled out opt in tracking. It was stifling facebook and it harms the facebook user experience. Can you give me an example how as a _user_ I am harmed? Replace facebook for anyone of your favorite DMPs.
Where is this competition on Android? Surely on Android there is a robust market of apps that aren't an exercise in how much fingerprintable data can they siphon off? Is the harm that I can no longer sell my data for a free flashlight app? Or is it just handwaving "harms"? It just seems on Android, there is no stifling of important industries like mobile location data.
I don't think you're grasping the point of antitrust. This was a common sentiment about AT&T in the 70's; people actually liked them despite their monopoly because they liked having telephones and didn't realize how much better things could be.
I would really love to have at least one competitive product to Apple's. At least one, which I could give my family and not have to worry about them getting scammed out of their payment details. Without having recourse.
Yes, Apple is fricking expensive. Yes, I'd prefer if they would offer something at cheaper price points. Yes, I'd prefer if they were forced to provide better-than-mediocre software. Yes, I'd prefer if there would be access in case things don't work, for me to fix stuff myself and not just shrug and try again.
BUT they are still without a reasonable competitor that manages to even meet their bar in quality. And yes, that makes them comfortable enough to behave stupidly and in (more or less) open ignorance of anticompetitive regulations. However making their offering _worse_ is not helping _me_! Demonstrate a similar amount of customer safety and we can talk about mandating that also for Apple. But thanks but no thanks if the best we can hope for is AndroidII
Nothing I’ve seen from the major players in this industry (Meta, Epic, etc…), has convinced me that they’re capable of doing better. I do hope I’m wrong though.
To your second point: Apple exerts influence far beyond their consumers. Even though I'm sure this isn't news to you, I'll still point you toward some interesting articles:
https://proton.me/blog/apple-app-store-antitrust
https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/unsigned.html
Much of this is invisible to the typical resident of the walled garden, but they actually cause a lot of harm to society because of their market dominance. Anybody with a small child is probably aware of the harmful effects of the "dreaded green bubbles" (I'm sure people will try to counter this point with claims that iMessage is somehow more secure / more functional than other protocols. I invite those people to do some research first. I think you'd be surprised at the gulf between your own understanding of iMessage's security vs. reality).