Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, my interpretation is that Apple either increases their fees or decreases prices for an app that is also distributed elsewhere. I don't see a problem with that. If a producer grants exclusive distribution rights to a seller, the typical consequence is that the seller gives the producer a greater profit share in return. On ending those terms, the seller may rightfully reduce the profit share, in my opinion.
A distributor cannot strong arm producers into exclusivity contracts while in a dominant position, this is text book example on how to get fined heavily in most countries, and would not fly at all in Europe.
iOS 17 app sideloading might only be available in Europe
691–700 of 1001 posts
Re: iOS 17 app sideloading might only be available in Europe
#692Earlier quoted context omitted.
you seem to be completely sure that everyone loves and wants pwa newsflash: many users hate pwa, they prefer native apps
Why? Most of those """native""" apps are a pile of HTML and JS anyways.
I hate PWAs because I like good native apps, and PWAs give an opportunity for developers to replace their native app with a cross-platform web app. And in my experience, cross-platform generally comes at the cost of app quality on a single platform. Instead of hiring developers who know iOS, you now hire web developers who debug their web app on many platforms they don't really know well.
Re: iOS 17 app sideloading might only be available in Europe
#693Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I were being extremely charitable on the phrasing, I think they might mean, for example, if you pay Apple 30% (or whatever the going rate is) you might have to pay an external app store an additional number. Or, it might mean Apple will charge higher rates for apps that are also available on other app stores? Not sure if that's entirely legal, but since when have pesky things like the law stopped companies as big…
I agree. As a dev, if I list my $3/mo subscription app on the Apple App store and they take 30% and I have 100k customers and I double-list the app in the 3rd party store + the Apple app store and gain 20k customers from the 3rd party store and the 3rd party store charges 10%, I have saved (30% - 10%) x 20k x $3/mo = $12k/mo on the new customers. If I release my next version update and post it to just the 3rd party a…
Re: iOS 17 app sideloading might only be available in Europe
#694Hasn't Apple always said the reason they don't allow sideloading was that it'd be impossible without compromising security? So are they claiming their European iDevices won't be secure anymore, or are they admitting they were lying before and that the real reason was nothing but greed?
Re: iOS 17 app sideloading might only be available in Europe
#695Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, my interpretation is that Apple either increases their fees or decreases prices for an app that is also distributed elsewhere. I don't see a problem with that. If a producer grants exclusive distribution rights to a seller, the typical consequence is that the seller gives the producer a greater profit share in return. On ending those terms, the seller may rightfully reduce the profit share, in my opinion.
The problem is that EU law requires Apple to not restrict sideloading for selected apps. It doesn't matter if they pay or don't pay Apple. You have to be able to sideload them.
Re: iOS 17 app sideloading might only be available in Europe
#696From the article > In addition, developers may have to pay extra if they want their apps to be available outside of the iOS App Store, Gurman says. The statement is a bit ambiguous. Is it pay Apple extra or pay extra to the 3rd party to have their app listed in the 3rd party app store? The former doesn't sound right; It is probably FUD. Logically, a 3rd party app store could compete on significantly reduced fees rela…
How I read this is that they are basically creating a 3rd category of apps. Up until now you could sideload apps on an iPhone via an enterprise cert (though it carries some major restrictions that would make it unsuitable for general distribution). With this they are likely creating something like that enterprise cert but for all app developers.
Re: iOS 17 app sideloading might only be available in Europe
#697Earlier quoted context omitted.
Users don’t want crappy PWAs, they want something that follows the platform UI conventions. It’s good that Apple care enough about about UX to actually enforce this.
Games are an obvious example where platform UI conventions aren’t applicable, and where Apple’s restrictions hinder not just UX (see discoverability in the App Store) but also incentivise shitty monetisation practices. Gaming on mobile friggen sucks and that is primarily because Apple wants to retain control and the biggest piece of the pie. Gaming in mobile browsers, in 2023, should be as easily accessible as it wer…
Re: iOS 17 app sideloading might only be available in Europe
#698Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a three player world now, and Google wants a better web, Apple doesn't want a better web, and Mozilla is somewhere in-between, but increasingly playing the "privacy above all else" card too. In June 2020, Apple declared a bunch of APIs they will not implement ( https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-declined-to-implement-16... ), in a big press blitz trying to make it look like they were some noble hero. Web MIDI (…
> Google wants a better web Really? I believe that they want to control the web.
Which of these Standards do you think Google will use to "control the web"? https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/
There's been an unmitigated use of Fear Uncertainty & Doubt, played with great effectiveness, against the top player. People keep ascribing to Google the role of platform-controller, like literally everyone else in history has done: IBM, Apple, Microsoft, all of which have used OSes to maintain control & dominance. Google is a search engine; they benefit from a rich healthy powerful competitive web. If Google did have "control" over the web, what would they do? What's the evil mastermind plan here?
Everything Google does goes through the Technical Architecture Group (TAG) and Security review. It's all open process. The checks are very real; even if no one can prevent them from implementing it would look very bad to disregard feedback, and thusfar they have not. Thusfar there seem to be extremely few examples of actual real scary things done. Web MIDI shipping without permissions was the most "egg on face" thing Google's done, and I have a hard time interpreting that as malicious. It has the hallmark of naively hopeful to me, and was easy enough to address.
The desire to see the browser teams as the enemy, as a foe, is a greatly harmful & reductive and alas popular outlook in my view. I don't think it's warranted, I don't think there's real evidence for it, and I stress again, Google has so far set the gold-standard for web standards accountability. They wouldn't have done that, they wouldn't continue that process, if they wanted to take control. The case here for taking-over seems absurd, has no clear outcome & only risk. Taking control is an existential risk, would jeopardize the web's success, could easily kill the Golden Goose that has made Google so wealthy & wise. People's fear here does not make business sense.
Re: iOS 17 app sideloading might only be available in Europe
#699Earlier quoted context omitted.
Users don’t want crappy PWAs, they want something that follows the platform UI conventions. It’s good that Apple care enough about about UX to actually enforce this.
I see this argument often, but I'm genuinely curious if it's actually the case - at least in my experience, a huge amount of apps nowadays have custom-designed UIs and very little conformance to "platform UI conventions". And that's even an expectation - if you see an app that uses standard UI controls, navigation etc - it comes off as basic and probably not really polished. I might be completely wrong. On the other…
I'd say look at popular cross-platform frameworks, and tell me if you think that cross-platform apps generally look native. I don't.
Re: iOS 17 app sideloading might only be available in Europe
#700Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd hate to see PWAs take hold - browser based apps are never as good on any platform. Give me native apps any day.
Depends on your priorities. For people into standards and commoditization, PWAs are awesome because they reduce the ability of HW makers to differentiate. For people who just want the best possible app/phone experiences, PWAs are awful.
The real differentiator with native vs pwa is their ability to track the user.