They've done this since the early days of the app store. Mostly-content apps without really broad appeal have long carried a high risk of rejection.
> Homescreen widgets: utterly useless, but can't get more iOS-y and less webapp-y than this, right?
This especially, but really the whole post reads like the system working as intended.
Granted (as the author notes) way too much shit gets through anyway, but that's not an excuse to do even worse. I do, as a user, wish they'd tighten up the rules a lot and improve enforcement. I'm quite sure it'd improve my experience on the store (and probably on the web—imagine how much better the Reddit site would get, probably overnight, if their app got pulled over not being well-justified).
I think Apple has every right to tighten up their first-party App Store, but they should also acknowledge the user's right to install what they want. Maybe some people do want a "too simple" app, and I don't think Apple has the right to tell the user what is-and-isn't appropriate. It's common sense. This would be a great time for them to add a Developer Mode a-la Android, and also start purging their own shopfronts. If Apple genuinely believes they can compete in a free market, they should have no problem restocking their store.
In fact, aren't these preferable? I just want a weather app that shows me the current weather and a forecast, without any social bullshit, accounts, ads, etc.
Also, if iOS users have that "one app" they can't live without, surely it makes them stickier? Why would Apple want to limit the chances of hitting that spot with their users by curbing the number of apps available?
Exactly this, one of the things that really struck me about apps on fdroid is just how simple they are.
They do one thing, and (usually) do it pretty well, probably because the developers probably don't have the time and resources to do anything more than that. But that's perfect for someone who just wants the thing on their phone to do what it says on the tin.
I'm convinced that if iOS was opened up to third party app stores, a potentially popular store wouldn't be a Facebook/Google monopoly store that exists solely for user tracking, but rather something boutique and niche like F-Droid (except maybe without the FOSS focus). The current App Store is huge and unwieldy, its search and discovery UX dated. There's ample room for third party app stores that specialize in high-quality design, or high-functionality minimalism, or privacy and security. They might even have higher standards than the official App Store.
Well, the EU is starting to think the iPhone ecosystem is about anti competitive behavior and poor customer experience. The intentions of a multinational corporation are completely irrelevant when talking about the real-world impact on thousands of developers.
The deal is the same as it ever was: Apple can continue selling their extremely safe applications with their extremely secure payment system and state-of-the-art curation team; the only condition is that other shops get to play along too. There's zero downside to them going this route, I think it would allow them to further secure the iPhone by paring back the entitlements allowed for their store. Nobody would criticize them for this, but Apple's greed prevents them from conceding.
Just think about how you'd feel if your Mac could only use the App Store to install software. Personally, I wouldn't even be able to do anything on it if that were the case.
Screw the impact on developers. As a user, I'm more concerned about the impact on users.
The EU is dead wrong. EU commissioners have absolutely zero clue about what makes for good "customer experience". There's one party that has proven, for 15 years now, to have the most clue about that. It's Apple.
That's a fine perspective to have, but many people feel that a government of elected representatives is a better place for determining and adjusting impacts on people.
I find myself in the utterly bizarre position (to me, anyway) of defending a megacorp against government interference because government has failed to reign in the bad behavior of the entire rest of the software market. Granted the EU's headed the right direction, but they've still not gone far enough, and the US is way behind. I hope EU citizens get what they want, but am also hoping we don't see those effects bleed over into the US market—yet, with the legal protections we have in place right now.
My preference would be that spying and hoarding data about users simply be outlawed (plus a bunch of other things, some of which Apple does, unfortunately, allow) and those laws be well-enforced—and also the walled gardens opened up, by law if necessary, but I'd much rather not see the latter without the former happening first, since the current state of things in-fact lets me choose to have some protection against that bad behavior, without significant time investment on my part. If that private regulatory service breaks down for any reason, I'll simply be worse off, as things stand.
The "if iOS is opened up, Meta will put Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp on their own app store and steal user data" doomsday scenario has always seemed a little half-baked to me. Regulators on both sides of the pond are scrutinizing tech companies for all sorts of issues now. I doubt the EU will just be asleep at the wheel if Meta sets up a massive data collection op on European citizens. User data and privacy is just as important to them. Perhaps governments can walk and chew gum at the same time.
> The "if iOS is opened up, Meta will put Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp on their own app store and steal user data" doomsday scenario has always seemed a little half-baked to me.
Meta was literally already caught doing this by abusing enterprise certificates to bypass the App Store to spy on people, including children, until Apple stopped them.
Yes, and presumably the authorities would not go easy on them next time, with the greater political pressure to rein them in. And if Meta was doing that on their own third party store where all attention can be focused on them, misbehavior would be even more visible because they would not be hiding it behind someone else’s platform.
This happened after GDPR was in force and the EU was pushing hard on privacy. I just think it’s a little silly to dismiss as “half-baked” the idea that Meta might do something they have already been caught doing before. This is not a company that is afraid to break the rules when it comes to privacy.
It also happened under the cover of an obscure promo program that was far less visible than a rival app store. I don’t believe it is a true precedent for the hypothetical people are worrying about here.
Another important factor is the consumer backlash it’d engender.
To do something as disruptive as to create a new App Store and force everyone to migrate is not easy. Users are sick of juggling as many user accounts as they do already. Not all existing iOS users will switch, there will be grassroots viral social media campaigns on other platforms warning people not to use it, and it will bring a lot of bad PR. It would not be a frictionless transition and Meta would quickly discover that it is more trouble than it is worth. (And as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, I don’t believe Facebook or Google have the gumption these days to create widely popular new products these days.)
Ultimately, I believe both the public in the form of democratic government, and in the form of consumers, can be counted on to do the right thing. We should not put ourselves in the position of simply relying on one corporation’s benevolent paternalism to check the power of other corporations.
So what you're saying is that the app store is just as good as the government in this case? If meta will do this anyways, I'd rather have the openness and democratic oversight
A "government of elected representatives" (which is not what ruled in this case, of course, that's not what the EU body in question is) actually is the worst possible way to determine what a good customer experience.
Which is why God invented corporations for this purpose. I'm all for democracy, and there's a place for that. This isn't it.
Every developer does, but I doubt that's the case for users. They like the App Store, true, but few of them are aware of what kinds of barriers Apple places to new apps there.
The user has no "right" to "install what they want". Words have meanings.
Apple absolutely has the right to control what apps are available on its store, and what apps are not. This isn't about what is "appropriate"; you just made that up.
This also has nothing to do with "common sense", or at least what you think is common sense.
> The user has no "right" to "install what they want". Words have meanings.
If I own a gadget, I own it. That means that I _have the right_ to do whatever I want with it, including jailbreaking it, disassembling it, or throwing it from a cliff.
Apple might not like it, and might take punitive action. Void the warranty, maybe even cancel your Apple account. But they can not send me to jail.
> whether you have the right to force Apple to carry any apps
We are explicitly talking the opposite - let me install apps even if Apple disapproves of them. No need for the Appstore. Just let my sideload my own software on my own device I paid for with cash.
No, what's at issue is whether Apple has the right to gatekeep the relationship between people who have bought one of their phones and developers who write software which is capable of running on those phones.
The EU has decided that Apple doesn't have that right, just as companies don't have the right to enforce a contract which requires that the signer becomes their indentured servant. We don't accept slavery of meatspace humans, so it is only consistent that we don't allow companies to own our digital selves too.
> you have the right to force Apple to carry any apps you want
You might be talking about that, but I get the impression that the rest of us are talking about something else. I have, for example, specifically mentioned jailbreaking.
I don’t see why you’d reject ‘mostly content’ apps as long as they have the content to justify keeping on your phone? If I want an app instead of a website that is my business.
I’m all for rejecting ‘low effort’ apps, but this app clearly isn’t low effort.
Offline content as an app without extra permissions seems pretty justified. This is a curated Flipboard or subreddit with the ability to buy tickets, which maybe you could do on Flipboard/Reddit, but then Flipboard/Reddit would profit from the curation, not the person doing the curation who made an app.
> Homescreen widgets: utterly useless, but can't get more iOS-y and less webapp-y than this, right?
This especially, but really the whole post reads like the system working as intended.
Granted (as the author notes) way too much shit gets through anyway, but that's not an excuse to do even worse. I do, as a user, wish they'd tighten up the rules a lot and improve enforcement. I'm quite sure it'd improve my experience on the store (and probably on the web—imagine how much better the Reddit site would get, probably overnight, if their app got pulled over not being well-justified).