MacOS is a great example of what happens when that competitive ground does exist. Most Mac apps are distributed outside of the app store, some aren't even notarized.
Android is the more closer to iOS example though. They have alt store and you can also download app through chrome, yet most users only use Google's play store.
* Most users only use Google's play store, except for apps not available there
Certain categories of apps aren't deemed acceptable by Google (e.g. apps with adult content, apps that circumvent copyright, some "hacking" apps, etc). If you want any of those they are easy enough to find and sideload.
There is also a big community pirating legitimate Android apps. According to some for every one purchase ten people use a pirated version.
Also, there are many apps from sanctioned Russian companies that can't be published on Google Play, so they only exist in alternative app stores like RuStore and/or as self-updating apks.
On iOS, they just can't "legally" have an app any more, period. Some made their apps PWAs, some say "just use the website", and some (Tinkoff/T-Bank in particular) keep trying to get into the app store with those double-bottom apps and also distribute them signed with enterprise certificates.
Most of the paid apps I've ever used on MacOS are well-known and cross-platform -- the kind of thing where you'd go to the developers website directly by name. So, of course the developer is going to guide those people down a path where they get all the revenue.
And the users of FOSS apps are overwhelmingly the people who will download a DMG from GitHub releases, and change their security settings to install it -- so why bother?
But for everyone else -- the $4.99 apps that aren't household names -- the App Store is probably where these are most often purchased. Although I doubt this market is very large on the desktop -- most people just use a browser and maybe some well known software that would have come in a box 20 years ago.
US and Japan are the two unusual countries where iOS has more market share than Android. In the rest of the world, iOS is maybe 20%. For computers the situation is exacerbated by the fact that many people own one mostly for gaming, which means it's going to be Windows. Whereas an iPhone is considered a status symbol.
Are you implying that macOS has a smaller market share because of the lack of restrictions? Cause its competition, Windows, is less restricted if anything.
And what difference does that make with regard to software distribution models? It can easily be connected to a cellular network using one of those USB modem sticks btw.
I’m talking about the carrier network requiring protections. The carrier like to verify devices on their network. There was a time when booking up a fax was illegal. Apple is responsible for the activity of the devices they create on the carrier network.
> Apple is responsible for the activity of the devices they create on the carrier network.
Where did you get this idea? You are responsible for what your device does on the network. It's in your contract with your carrier. If you interfere with others' ability to use their phones on the same network, that has a good chance of the communications authority getting involved.
But we're talking about apps. The worst thing an app can do is DDoS something. That would just make you run out of data very quickly. Or auto-dial numbers (Android allows that, with a permission for which the app has to ask you), you'll just rack up an enormous bill and will learn to never make this mistake again. Or spam SMS, same thing.
Eveyone can interpret the various rules and regulations. I think you should do more research and reflection on how easy it is to be in cellular network.
The "being in cellular network" is done by the modem. It's a separate CPU core that doesn't run any user code. If you jailbreak the user OS, you can send AT commands to it, which is still harmless as far as RF interference is concerned.
But I really struggle to understand how any of this relates to the distribution of apps that run in sandboxes.
i dont think apple is too concerned with the end user using a 3rd party store but the large companies having the ability to host their app on a 3rd party store sidestepping apples fee entirely. thats what truely scares them.
People assuming this is a competitive posture exclusively are missing the point.
The app store isn't just about making more money, it's about enforcing privacy and security guidelines for apps through the review process and through checks for unauthorized api usage.
Apple's product is privacy; they view privacy as a premium feature worth paying for, and 3rd party app stores that are the wild west for privacy are antithetical to this.
These "important products" are already getting out of the Apple Store, but instead of moving to the competing App Store alternative (which currently doesn't exist), they are moving to another ecosystem
Apple did what they thought was best. The EU said no and the next step is the court system. When that result is known Apple can decide what markets to operate in.
When Apple Kerberos all their services they essentially made it possible to granularly manage service availability by user, device, and region.
The EU fining schedule is so out of proportion that it creates a real business risk to Apple that may be greater than the EU market size.
I don’t think the EU efforts are as detailed or grounded in reality as the EU considers them.
As a spectator I can’t wait to follow the ups and downs of this.
which is about brand marketing, which is about making more money. without the differentiation of the app store, they are that much closer to being android.
> Apple's product is privacy
that's a large component of their brand, not their product.
for contrast, signal's product is privacy. (note: i'm no fan of signal)
consider that the facebook app is allowed, on the first party app store. i'm failing to see how the app store gates privacy.
Customers would love to pay the 30% Apple tax for security and the great selection of apps.