I get this sentiment, but where do we draw the line? Shouldn’t OS makers (Apple, Microsoft) add additional apps just because third party developers have done it already?
"If you buy a phone or general purpose computing device, you have the legal right to choose your app store and applications installed on it seperate from manufacture demands".
The particular problem with Apple is not only duplicate your app, they can underprice it by 30% because they don't self pay their own store tax, and they can kick you out of the only app store for whatever reason they choose to make up that day.
I remember back in the early days of the iPhone, new feature releases would coincide with lots of apps being removed from the app store with the reason "this app duplicates core functionality of iOS."
> If you buy a phone or general purpose computing device
Point of clarity, the devices we are discussing are neither telephones, nor are they general purpose.
They are smartphones, a sort of miniature computer with a bunch of general-purpose sensors, and actuators viz. a screen and a speaker and some haptic feedback. They don't really do much computing per se; we outsourced most of that to The Cloud some 15-odd years ago. These things are just highly capable I/O devices, or clever terminals if you prefer.
And while Android has the PlayStore or whatever they call it this week, one can usually choose to load rogue APKs and one can usually succeed; and things like the Pinephone or Fairphone have been attempted that leave more power (and responsibility) in the hands of the user, but in practice it seems that they simply don't _work_ that well.
I agree with you wholeheartedly; I just think the "if" part is a bit out of sync with reality.
I like this view, though many people aren't just purchasing the phone from Apple, they are purchasing the OS and integration into the Apple ecosystem. Definitely think the user should have the option to pick the app store though
Apple doesn't seem to be in the business of selling software very much. Instead it's mostly used to increase the value of the hardware. The stuff I've seen them incorporate that at one time were apps weren't 30% cheaper when bought from Apple, they were free (i.e., they came with the device).
If they think some third party feature should be part of the core experience, they're going to incorporate it. This is true when building on anyone's platform (e.g., Microsoft, Facebook). Non-core experiences, like domain specific software, are less likely to suffer this fate. It's similar to when MS decided to ship a browser. God help you when the platform you're on decides they want to subsume your features.
> Apple doesn't seem to be in the business of selling software
As sheer hardware revenue growth slowed, they moved their focus to services [0].
That’s also what we’re seeing on their push into more ads for instance, and this new feature goes the same direction: to benefit these encrypted backups you’ll need to sign up for storage. For most people wanting to cover more than one device, they’ll probably end up with the 2Tb plan which is at 10 bucks a month, the bare minimum 50GB being at 1$ a month.
> Apple doesn't seem to be in the business of selling software very much.
This is veritably false, they made $80 billion selling software this year. You might not see the App Store as software revenue, but Apple certainly does.
The context of the text you quoted seems to pretty clearly be about Apple selling their own software, e.g., as a publisher, not as a distributor. This whole branch of the discussion thread is, after all, about whether Apple adding end-to-end encryption for iCloud backups is "sherlocking" other cloud backup providers (spoiler: no).
People who didn't live through that era really don't appreciate a key aspect of it, which was that MSFT OWNED the desktop -- like, 90+% of the market. There were no other real options. For a good chunk of that period, Apple was seriously on the ropes and might not have survived. (Michael Dell famously said it should be sold off and the money returned to the investors.)
Microsoft had deals in place with PC makers so that it was impossible, nearly, to buy a computer without buying a Windows license. BillG specifically told Netscape he planned to "cut off their oxygen supply" by shipping a browser with Windows, and he did this because he was smart enough to see that browser-based software could endanger their control of computing. That was literally illegal.
No one has anything like the control they had back then. The desktop market is still mostly Windows, but Apple got healthy and took a decent chunk back. Now there's also ChromeOS and Linux out there, too -- plus, we have mobile, which is an even BIGGER chunk of the platform market, and it's split between iOS and Android.
So that's at least 6 different software platforms a hypothetical user could pick in 2022, and they're spread over dozens of hardware manufacturers. That's been the norm for so long now that it's easy to forget how little choice we had in 1998.
*ANYWAY* the bigger point is that adding features to your system isn't a problem if you're not acting as a monopolist. Microsoft WAS in the 90s. Nobody has that ability now.
Apple just undercut this by creating an ecosystem which funnels something like 80% of mobile profits in their pockets.
Then they just point at marketshare and say: "we only have 30% worldwide". Yeah, but your stuff is aspirational and the vast majority of Android users have lower disposable income so spend less and many switch to iOS when they have enough money.
It's very sneaky and it's breaking everything down.
They do not control the market, and thus are not subject to -- and should NOT be subject to -- the kinds of restrictions justifiably imposed on actual monopolists.
>Android is stagnating, if anything despite the free and Open Source operating system
I might argue that Android is stagnating BECAUSE it's free/open source, and as such lacks effective leadership.
If a company could have 1 single user and that user could pay them $500bn in perpetuity for a product costing $1, they'd only want that customer.
They want more customers because they can't have that ideal case. First of all nobody would pay that much for such a cheap thing, secondly, nobody lives for ever. So companies expand to make more money (= profit) and to future proof themselves.
Again, as I said, very sneaky from Apple, and I'm arguing it's breaking down existing economic models.
It's basically another run-around at "winning capitalism". Monopolies were one way. This is another one.
I think you misunderstand why monopolies are regulated.
There is AMPLE computing choice today. There is even healthy choice available in mobile alone.
Monopoly regulation is about preventing those with market-controlling power from exploiting that position in unfair ways to the detriment of consumer choice. Microsoft did this when they tried to destroy Netscape by bundling a browser with Windows. There really WASN'T another viable desktop system at the time, and mobile didn't really exist; they owned the market.
Apple is free to improve their offerings in any way they see fit. They are even free to incorporate features into their systems that began life as products from other vendors; this is the normal way of things. If you don't like how Apple is behaving, you are free to shift your desktop to Linux or Windows or ChromeOS, or to migrate to mobile devices running ChromeOS or Android. That's a functioning market.
There's nothing sneaky about openly continuing to improve one's offerings.
HN is really, really bad about ascribing dark motives to every tech company not on the Approved List (which, of course, is constantly changing). Apple is pretty smart. Adding encryption to their backup scheme is one of those scenarios where yes, it's good business, but it's also the right move for customers.
There are still a lot of companies out there with significant control over their respective markets. Apple, for example, still has a huge control over the mobile device market and is not afraid to use it to their advantage. Companies like Amazon and Google also have significant control over their respective markets, particularly in the technology space.
Seems like we can never relax, always some company waiting for the chance to take over a space. Gotta stay vigilant.
Microsoft had something around 95% of the desktop market share in the 90s. Apple is not anywhere close that. I would agree it's similar in behavior but not intent. Microsoft was terrified of the Internet and applications that could "run anywhere" so they tried to control how people accessed the Internet. Apple is arguably adding these features because it's what their user's want.
> Microsoft was terrified of the Internet and applications that could "run anywhere" so they tried to control how people accessed the Internet
I see reflections of this throughout the history of the iPhone. Apple has always controlled how people access both the internet and even what applications they can install. Every "browser" on iOS is just Safari with a skin for example, because Apple will not allow any other browser engine.
Apple will not allow other browser engines because they are a subset of "programs that run arbitrary code".
Allowing anyone to put their browser engine on iOS through the App Store would open the door to a wide variety of security problems. It would also effectively bypass the App Store, as Google (just as a totally random example) could release their own iOS "browser" that's actually their own platform for apps that they sell. Not to mention inserting their own ads into anything people browsed on it. And tracking literally every single tap and text entry that people do in that browser, including bank passwords, credit card info, etc.
On a platform like the Mac, that doesn't matter very much, because it's small enough that basically no one would bother.
On iOS? If you could get 0.0001¢ per website visit from even 1% of iOS users, that would be a money-printing machine.
> Apple is arguably adding these features because it's what their user's want.
Apple would certainly argue that, yes. Foremost though, they're adding it because it's what Apple wants, and conveniently converges with the desire of the user.
Why do people act like what happened in the MS anti trust case is lost to the annals of history? Absolutely nothing came of the bundling IE with Windows in the US. There was never a time that IE was not bundled with Windows because of the lawsuit and there was no browser choice mandate in the US.
