this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Apple
111 readers
1 users here now
A place for Apple news, rumors, and discussions.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Apple argues that its opposition to 3rd party App Stores is that with only one App Store offering approved-only apps, it better serves customer's needs because Apple can oversee security and quality control. That sounds altruistic enough, but if that were genuinely true, Apple could minimise their fees to only cover these costs and no more. Instead, Apple takes a whopping 30% bite of not just the initial app purchase price, but every purchase made in the app. Apple are learning the hard way that the EU Commissioners weren't born yesterday.
If the Apple App Store is best for the customer, then the customer can choose to use it.
You’re making a logical error!
It's important to understand that the App Store is stringently regulated (a lot more than the PlayStore. The PlayStore is a joke), particularly regarding privacy safeguards. For instance, Facebook once reported a 50% profit loss due to these regulations. This underscores a key point: if companies or developers could circumvent the App Store and its rules, they certainly would. The consequence? Customers might find essential apps no longer available on the App Store, which benefits profit-driven companies at the expense of the consumer.
The core issue lies in the balance between consumer freedom and the quality of the apps. If Apple were to allow customers greater freedom in sourcing their apps (akin to sideloading on Android), this could potentially lead to a market flooded with apps that are less consumer-friendly.
That's precisely why I oppose the idea of sideloading on iOS. Customers who prefer more freedom in choosing where to get their app can opt for Android. However, I value the assurance of consumer-friendly apps that comes with the current iOS model. In the end, allowing sideloading on iOS, like on Android, might ironically result in fewer meaningful choices for consumers.
But it’s not for apple to decide what’s best for the consumers. The consumers decide what’s best for them. Apple is not government.
You're not forced to buy an iPhone. I like what Apple does.
You need to understand, that there is a general rule in the world, that you can't have both: maximal freedom and maximal security.
More freedom leads to less security, more security leads to less freedom.
This rule can be applied to everything. Look at USA and Europe. In the USA there is more freedom than in Europe, but less security than in Europe.
And I like the less freedom of Europe more than the more freedom of the USA. Because the live in Europe is more secure and has a higher quality.
The trick is, to find the right balance, between freedom and security. And for me, Apple does a great job to keep the balance.
There is nothing I miss on the iPhone. A sideloading alternative wouldn't give me any advantages, only downsides.
And if sideloading is important to you, you're free to buy an Android.
So everyone is happy and can choose between two different OS, with their own quirks. If you force iOS to be similar to Android, we will have less choices.