> Just waiting for Adobe Store, Amazon Store, Microsoft Store, Epic Games Store, etc. to be installed on every phones soon.
Why would it happen with iOS when it has not happened in the 15 years or so since Android exists?
There's basically just one relevant alternative app store which is F-Droid, and it's just all around much better than Google's Play Store, although of course it doesn't have any proprietary, closed-source apps.
Android does have other appstores though. Samsung has one for their phones, and Amazon has had an openly available one for well over a decade (wikipedia says 2011, which tracks with when I remember first using it). Epic wants one, but pursued a court case because they argued Google made it an uncompetitive environment to work within.
> Current status isn't normal, but no one would complain about it if transaction fees weren't abusive.
This is an oft-repeated misconception.
Even if transaction fees were 0%, we'd be way better off with alternative stores.
You're just so used to how shitty things are that you can't conceive of a better alternative.
Consider that there are plenty of completely free games on Steam that are popular and help those creators find thriving communities. How? They have good discovery.
App Store and Google Play sucks in every way. Discovery is awful. Their approach is awful. Why even show download counts and top lists? Stupid, stupid stupid. But you have no choice as a consumer or developer. So the top developers will not complain. What's the point?
And anyway, you're complaining about a world where alternatives are viable. Why are alternatives being viable a bad thing. If EGS is paying up front for games and giving them away for free as cross-promo for Fortnite, better that than ad supported garbage.
What exactly is the bad thing here, for consumers? The negative aesthetic experience of having more icons? Everyone has to oppose this crushed-in-head line of thinking. One meaingless detail that impacts an extremely low brow part of the aesthetic experience - the fucking home screen icons - should not preclude the gain in meaning from 10k-100k more developers who could flourish in the mobile ecosystem if it were to have working discovery. It has the same energy as requiring Helldivers users to create PSN accounts - offensive only in a strictly aesthetic sense even though successful competition and cross promo benefits everyone. The users' fixation on meaningless aesthetics is wrong.
I mean Apple could make discovery pluggable too, all of it could be pluggable and have fewer "icons," this isn't even a real obstacle. There are many, many ideas in this space, and no permissions to do any of it.
As it is, the App Store and Google Play are glorified install wizards. Open, install TikTok, Google Maps, whatever. Never visit again. That is 98% of people. That's horrible and its Apple's fault. TikTok already does not pay any fees. This is just to show that you are not right in general, even if you are right about the one company you've heard of that went and took these people to court in this country for an outcome that you should be in favor of.
Free app stores like F-Droid are also great for stopping you from downloading crap software. Whenever I need "normal software" (music player, PDF reader, RSS feed, what have you) I search for it there and don't suffer through ads or microtransactions. It's like using Linux, free software is just what I default to now.
Using stock iOS and Android today, it feels like both sides have lost the script. The entire pipeline of "consumption" dominates both platforms, and demands you pay money or accept a competitor's inferior product. Google didn't even let F-Droid auto-update apps until recently, it's a racket on either side. We need to bring the hammer down and enable people to stop supporting shit businesses. The current loop of consumption is going to kill everything we love about computing with a long and painful extortion process.
I was not aware. This is interesting to know. Let's go deeper about "malware". I'm sorry that I was not more specific. What about some dumb app that shows holiday calendars or "the weather", but actually uses your mobile to secretly mine Bitcoin? Does their process also stop that type of malware?
That sort of attack would need to take one of two forms:
1) Hijacking an already-approved application
2) Creating a forked/new fraudulent application and submitting it to the store
Option 1 requires you to fool the repository owner, first of all. That would mean submitting a pull-request with your malicious code, having that malicious code reviewed by the app author, and then getting it into a major release. In most apps with a significant userbase that's nigh-unimaginable; especially if there are testers or multiple contributors testing and debugging on recent builds.
Option 2 requires you to fool the F-Droid admins. This means one of two things. Either creating a forked application with plausible yet distinct features that make it necessary to be forked from the main project. Alternatively, you get ChatGPT (or just copy boilerplate ffs) and make a calculator app or whatever, commit it all to Github and send it in for review. Both of these routes are horribly suspicious - a reviewer is going to want to see if you have multiple contributors, a long history on Github, linked social media accounts or websites, other repositories, binary blobs, that sort of stuff. Maybe they aren't the most cautious, but suffice to say anyone making an attack like this is going to be covered in red flags.
So; it's a feasible attack. But it requires so much social manipulation for so little feasible gain (especially when F-Droid wasn't even auto-updating for most people) that it's not worth the effort. If you do manage such a daring attack, your reward is maybe 300-odd sideloading users that mistakenly clicked your install button instead of the other guy's.
My fear is that if I want to download Skype or Teams, I’ll need to first download the Microsoft Store app, and then sign in, and then download the app I want. And the store will be slow and shitty and packed with ads. Likewise for Meta, Adobe, every big game publisher, etc. And my subscriptions will end up spread across multiple different stores rather than all in one place.
That feels like the natural direction App Store competition would take us. But, on the other hand, it doesn’t seem to have happened on Android, so maybe I’m being overly pessimistic.
>My fear is that if I want to download Skype or Teams, I’ll need to first download the Microsoft Store app, and then sign in, and then download the app I want. And the store will be slow and shitty and packed with ads
I'm not sure I see the problem here. If some apps are only available through shitty ad-packed vendor-controlled stores, then hopefully that'll push people to simply avoid them. I mean, if I want to video-chat with someone and to use Skype/Teams I have to download the Microsoft store app and suffer with all that, or I just could use Facebook Messenger on the regular Google Play store (assuming they don't force their own store like MS) and it's easy, I'm going to tell my friend, "let's use FB Messenger instead; these MS apps are a pain in the ass." And if someone insists on using some shitty MS app that I can only get through the shitty ad-laden MS Store, I might re-evaluate how much I really want to chat with them. Smarter app vendors are going to try to avoid putting their users through that experience.
(Also, this is just an example; for all I know, Meta/FB in this possible future would be the stupid one pushing an ad-laden store while MS might be the smarter one making it easier for users to install their apps.)
Plus, I'd add that this is only an issue for apps with a high network effect.
For everything else I'd expect publisher's to just put their app in my favorite place, or risk me choosing something else.
For example im not going to install a new store just to get a note-taking app, unless that app was in some definitive way superior to all the others. (Which seems unlikely for a note taking app.)
Yes, exactly: new stores means much higher friction for consumers, so they're much more likely to choose an easier-to-install alternative unless there's something about that app that either requires them to use it (e.g. work) or its reputation is so much better.
So if it doesn’t affect apps with low stickiness, and the network effect will ensure that large publishers benefit from it, what’s the benefit for me as a user?
The issue is many stores use dark patterns and you may not catch on until too late.
- Subscriptions impossible to cancel
- Silent auto-renewal
- Silent price changes
- Hidden Fees
- Sales of purchase history
- Apps released under known brand that are off brand knock offs.
- Apps bundled with added cruft (think those download.com installers that installed toolbars and whatnot).
- Pirate versions of Teams through off brand store causing licensing audits
A lot of dumber app vendors will just drain the suckers dry and rebrand and if Microsoft pulled their apps from the App Store some unfortunate souls would click the first Google hit and get sucked into the scam.
If my workplace says I’m using teams, then I’m using teams. There’s no way to change that.
> And if someone insists on using some shitty MS app that I can only get through the shitty ad-laden MS Store, I might re-evaluate how much I really want to chat with them.
It’s comments like this that show a huge lack of understanding of how the majority of people feel. I don’t give a shit if my parents like WhatsApp, but I still want to talk to them. And it’s hard enough to get them to use technology, never mind navigating whatever is to come here.
Are you honestly telling me that you think Meta are going to not use this opportunity to skirt around the limits placed on their apps by the apple App Store? If you believe meta, or byte dance are going to have your best interests at heart, I have a bridge to sell you
But it has sort of happened on Windows with gaming. I’ve got games on Steam, GOG, MS Store, and Epic. It’s annoying and I very much preferred the state of things a decade ago when it was just Steam.
Android has curated a market of users who don’t buy apps. I don’t know that we can extrapolate their alt-store outcome to iOS where the buyers are.
Steam was doing sales before the other stores popped up and I was acquiring games faster than I could play them even then. Increasing sales frequency means little to me, and is even a little annoying since I now feel like I should be constantly window shopping all the stores nearly year round to make sure I get the best sale price on something I'm after.
Epic has given a lot of free titles away, which is a big difference, but only because they're trying to buy favor and want to be the winner who takes all.
I very much preferred the state of things a decade ago when it was just Steam
Ok, but Steam is a third party store. The alternative isn't "just Steam", it's "just Microsoft". I'll gladly accept the occasional annoyance of multiple stores to avoid being locked into a monopoly.
> and the store will be slow and shitty and packed with ads.v
But both Apple and Googles stores are slow and packed with ads. Pretty much every search you do for an app even with the exact name gives you some ad supported shovelware as the first one or two results (ads).
So how is this meaningfully any worse? (outside of one more login you might need to setup).
The PC gaming industry is a perfect example of this. In the last 5-6 years I have had to install and use the following game stores:
* Epic's Launcher
* EA's Origin
* Ubisoft Connect
* Steam
* GOG
* Xbox Store
* Battle.net
I had a brief Gatcha game phase (before I realized how pay-to-advance it was) and that game had its own damn game-specific "launcher" as well.
Each one of these required creating an account, installs its own "overlay", background windows services, anti-cheat system (more background services!), has its own "social" system, and defaults to running at startup and minimizing (not quitting) when you click the window-close button unless you dig through the options.
Of course, each one of these games also has at least one type of currency unique to the game, which you can only convert in one direction, nor is there any way to move currency in the "store". Often that currency, and anything you bought with it, is locked to the particular platform on which it was purchased.
It's a complete mess, and nearly every single one of them is worse than Steam in terms of UX design and features.
Do we see any competition, resulting in lower prices, better terms of use for customers, or better quality software? Nope. Games are as expensive as ever, have even worse day-of-release bugs, more cheaters, and more microtransactions. Games are exclusive to one particular store either indefinitely or during the period after its release.
But according to Epic, why...if Epic can make its own app store for iOS, consumers will benefit! Bullshit. All that will happen is we'll have to install multiple app store apps on our phones, having each one collect data constantly about us...
> Of course, each one of these games also has at least one type of currency unique to the game, which you can only convert in one direction, nor is there any way to move currency in the "store". Often that currency, and anything you bought with it, is locked to the particular platform on which it was purchased.
On steam and GoG you pay with government issued currency. If the others have a currency system just hard pass on them. If you could cure yourself of Gacha, you can do it.
It’s actually worse than on PC imo. Apple have a set of standards (google do too but slightly less so) that means that every app has to support Apple Pay and login with apple. This means I’m not giving my details to random third party with popular game, and I can try it and even spend money on it. With this new order, you can bet that I now have three different subscription management platforms with different rules, for example
> Do we see any competition, resulting in lower prices, better terms of use for customers, or better quality software? Nope. Games are as expensive as ever, have even worse day-of-release bugs, more cheaters, and more microtransactions. Games are exclusive to one particular store either indefinitely or during the period after its release.
The gaming industry has enormous amounts of monetization and gameplay innovation, with the huge and vibrant middle that is disappearing from movies, books and music, so I have no idea what you’re talking about. It has never been a better time to find games.
> But according to Epic, why...if Epic can make its own app store for iOS, consumers will benefit! Bullshit. All that will happen is we'll have to install multiple app store apps on our phones, having each one collect data constantly about us...
Most of Epics arguments are that the developer will benefit by them taking a smaller cut then Apple/Google/Steam/etc so if they sell the game for the same price the developer gets to keep a couple percentage points more money.
I don't remember any argument they have made that has put the customer as the beneficiary though there probably are some.
Do you expect it from being different from Windows with the average person having at least a dozen game launchers, update services and downloaders running in the background?
Gaming is surely popular on phones, but I suggest that AAA games on on a tiny minority of phones overall. (My mom has literally no games on her phone etc.)
For Windows the proportion of games-machines to others is tiny. The number of people with "a dozen game lauchers" would be a microscopic percentage.
Yes, there are home PCs that are dedicated to gaming. Yes they will likely have lots of shortcuts, launchers, auto updates etc. And in some demographics (think male, under 25 etc) there will be proportionally more games installed.
99% of people opening the App Store are not opening it to solve a problem with software. They’re opening it because it is the only way to install Disney+, ChatGPT or whatever thing they’ve heard of through a $10m-$1b of ad budget and ubiquity in the discourse. Compare to Steam where most people opening it are doing so to launch games and learn more about other new games. The App Store sucks.
Lots of things suck and make money, tons of money. OPEC absolutely sucks and makes tons of money, are you going to tell me “OPEC could be better. It doesn’t suck.” Monopolies and cartels don’t just suck, they are horrible, they are the biggest antagonists in our lives, because everyone’s income is someone else’s expense, and we don’t all work for Apple or OPEC.
Ok, these are good points. I was not aware. Thanks to share. It sounds like the "friction" to use Apple AppStore is much too high. Do you think this is done in the name of security or tracking users' behaviour?
The value is in the lock in, though. This absolutely sucks for consumers and the profit is just an indication of market inefficiency. We need to be able to force competition to bring the valuation of the app store and the value the hardware provides users in line with the potential of the technology.
If apple truly is bringing the market what it wants at a price folks find reasonable surely this competition wouldn't impact anything!
I would. The App Store censorship is abhorrent even if they charged nothing.
I should be able to install hacking tools, background apps that might kill my battery, sandbox breaking apps that allow adversarial interoperability, porn apps, protest apps that track cops, or apps that do legal things that nonetheless assist me in breaking the law.
That's a reach. If you want to make money in mobile apps, you target the US first. We could cut out the entirety of the rest of the world and the US market would still be plenty big enough to drive a lot of developers.
Yes and no. iPhone only has about 25% of the world market, but developers are keen to develop for them because users are more willing to pay for apps. Reach isn't the same as value.
OMG, next time it happens I will try if this is a way to get it to switch back (without unplugging and replugging /or rebooting or whatever I usually end up doing)
EDIT: it's not the Dock I meant but the Cmd+Tab app switching UI, don't know what it's called... but I guess maybe which display they appear on are somehow related
I can't emphasis enough how I hate that you can't have one dock per screen, aggravated by the fact that multiple windows of the same app (i.e browser) can't be degrouped.
Though for a large amount of HTTP bots, the authors don't even bother changing the default Python User-Agent. I'd assume a large proportion of these bots still can't run concurrently.
Some people like computers but don't like half-assed Control Panel replacements, a task bar/start menu filled with msn.com tabloid contents, Copilot search bars, Microsoft 365 nagware and advertising
He mentions the main issue for a physical interface is that screens aren't necessarily available in the required dimensions.