Apple Says iOS Developers Have 'Multiple' Ways of Reaching Users and Are 'Far From Limited' To Using Only the App Store 98
As it faces a barrage of probes and investigations regarding the App Store and the distribution of apps on its devices, Apple has told Australia's consumer watchdog that developers have "multiple" ways to reach iOS users and claims that they are "far from limited" to simply using the App Store. From a report: In a new filing responding to concerns from the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission that it exploits "alleged market power in its role as a distributor of apps," Apple highlights multiple avenues that developers can take to reach customers. Specifically, Apple points out that the "whole web" exists as an alternative means of distribution, arguing that the web has become a platform unto itself. Apple supports this claim by noting that iOS devices have "unrestricted and uncontrolled" access to the web, allowing users to download web apps. Apple says: Web browsers are used not only as a distribution portal but also as platforms themselves, hosting "progressive web applications" (PWAs) that eliminate the need to download a developer's app through the App Store (or other means) at all. PWAs are increasingly available for and through mobile-based browsers and devices, including on iOS. [...] As explained further below, Apple faces competitive constraints from distribution alternatives within the iOS ecosystem (including developer websites and other outlets through which consumers may obtain third-party apps and use them on their iOS devices) and outside iOS. Prominent iOS developer Marco Arment commented on Apple's argument, saying: LOL
Re:Hello, Paywall??? (Score:4, Informative)
Even assuming that PWAs are as good as native apps, how do you charge for a PWA?
IDK, How do you charge for access to anything on the web?
I mean WTF dude.
It's kind of an easy answer to provide without being a total jerk about it - something like:
There, see? Not that hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, online websites can charge fees and subscriptions now?
Wow, we really are living in the future!
Browsing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple users tend to dislike ads and prefer direct payments, Google users tend to prefer ads and dislike direct payments.
As an Australian... (Score:2, Informative)
Apple loves "reaching users". Most of the time they are reaching into their pockets and robbing them.
At Apple events they are doing the reach-around - on developers clueless enough to believe that what they are being shown, is indeed fantastic.
Phrasing! (Score:5, Insightful)
At Apple events they are doing the reach-around - on developers
I'm not sure you know what reach-around means in the common vernacular...
As a developer, I can assure you that Apple has pretty much never given the goddamn common courtesy of a reach-around. :-)
Re:Phrasing! (Score:4, Insightful)
In spite of being the minority of devices, Apple produces the majority (often the vast majority) of app revenue. If I had to only release in one app store it would very much be Apples.
Re: Phrasing! (Score:2)
It depends on the app. (Score:2)
I use Safari to access Twitter, Facebook, and Flickr. Weather Underground works well as a website. My bank I go through the app as it does the touch id.
Re: (Score:2)
I use Safari
I don't like Safari, and wish to use another browser technology on my iPhone. How do I do that?
Bad Argument (Score:5, Informative)
This would be a good argument only if Native apps could be downloaded and installed to the device from the web without using the app store (Stored in the same way as with native apps with Icon on the home screen) - Or that Web Apps and Native Apps were equivalent.
The problem is Web apps are not equivalent at all in that they won't appear on the home screen; aren't stored as separate applications, and cannot utilize the Native App frameworks. Therefore Web apps are inherently restricted and prevented from using functions which App developers obviously require for their apps to be successful.
There are also capabilities available to Native apps within the Apple iOS operating system for which Web Apps have impeded, limited, or no access to.
Apple supports this claim by noting that iOS devices have "unrestricted and uncontrolled" access to the web, allowing users to download web apps.
Re:Bad Argument (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, web apps can appear on the home screen. When Apple replaced Google Maps with their own Apple Maps, the first version of Google Maps was a home-screen-installable web app. And I personally use home-screen installation of web apps for various personal projects where native code isn't required.
It is not nearly as easy for users to install them, and I think they still have minimal access to the camera, microphone, storage, accelerometers, etc. But they do exist, and they do work, albeit more slowly.
What about games? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we'll see if Microsoft succeeds [theverge.com]. In theory, WebGL makes it possible. In practice, well... JavaScript.
Re: (Score:1)
Javascript is fast enough for gaming, and has been for at least a decade. Update your copy pasta.
WebGL has everything a game developer would want. It's certainly up to the task.
Let me put it this way. I sold a 3D game that ran more than acceptably on the garbage hardware that was early FireFoxOS phones. It received glowing reviews from tech press in Spain, Portugal, and Mexico. That was, what, 2011 or 2012?
Fun fact, WebGL worked great on iPhones from the same era, but it required a jailbreak to enable
Re: (Score:3)
Javascript is fast enough for gaming, and has been for at least a decade. Update your copy pasta.
Two words: battery life.
Re: (Score:2)
> WebGL has everything a game developer would want. It's certainly up to the task.
As a graphics programmer who has actually worked with WebGL let me be the first to say:
LUL. [youtube.com] Do you even DO any graphics programming???
1. No, WebGL doesn't provide "everything" a game developer wants or needs. It provides SOME stuff but there is a reason we have API's like Direct3D, Vulkan, and Metal. Performance and Features being the primary ones. i.e. Last time I checked WebGL doesn't have compute shaders -- which are a
Steaming isn't remotely the same thing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the
I wish... (Score:2)
web assembly and webGL (Score:2)
You are able to run effectively natively and access the GPU using WebAssembly and WebGL. And there are crosscopilers from C to WebASM (among others). Of course one still will need to tweak just as with any target shift but that's just normal development.
Is that too hard. Well perhaps for most people yes. But they have the option ot paying to hire someone to do it fot them or they can pay apple and just develop using the tools apple built for them to make apps. Either way you have to pay for the expertis
Re: (Score:2)
are able to run effectively natively and access the GPU using WebAssembly and WebGL. And there are crosscopilers from C to WebASM
Well, for Antitrust purposes this capability is irrelevent - The web is Not an alternate distribution method to the App Store for your developed Native App. The web browser is a completely different platform which does not allow you to install and launch your Native iOS app. Nor does it provide all the same capabilities and performance that native iOS apps have availabl
Re: (Score:3)
WebGL for 3D graphics, and tons of input alternatives for input. And audio APIs. And video APIs. That's how streaming services are doing it.
All the technologies people wonder about are there. WebAssembly to help glue it all together at near native speeds.
It's also why things like battery APIs exist in HTML5 (used to track people, but also a way for a PWA to alert you in case the battery
You'll never hit the performance you need (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that he is talking about native apps installed from sources other then the app store.
But either way, Apple restricts features in the web browser and it makes some apps impossible to be 100% web based.
Re: (Score:2)
and also, they don't allow competing web engines.... so fuck Apple. That's why I never had an apple device in the 25 years that I had computers...
Congratulations. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
[web apps] won't appear on the home screen
1) Go to any website in Safari
2) Click the Share icon
3) Click Add to Home Screen
The feature has been there for at least a decade. Other browsers may or may not support it. Brave doesn't seem to, for instance, at least at a glance. I've used it with a number of sites over the years, especially back in the early days of modern smartphones, though these days native app support is common enough that it's rarely needed.
Mind you, I don't disagree with your overarching point, but at least on this detail you don't
Re: (Score:1)
You don't only have the option of storing what is essentially a hyperlink to a web page on your Home Screen.
If the web application is structured correctly (according to the specs Apple provides), you can download all the assets for the application and run it locally on the iPhone. It is still a "Web application", but it runs locally and will remain installed even if the web page disappears.
I have created such a web application before. It's not very difficult.
I am certain that it doesn't have access to the s
Re: (Score:2)
That approach works for you, a slashdot user. But ask any retirement-age person, and they'll have no idea that to get a Web site icon to appear on the home screen, you should start by clicking "Share." That's not exactly intuitive for those who know barely enough about their phone to unlock them and tap an icon.
Re: (Score:2)
Most PWAs simply open a dialog with a click button: add to home screen.
Wow, that was so simple again. However it is actually super annoying if a "normal web site" does that.
Before the "share button", there was an explicit menu to do it. But as "share" is now used to drop stuff into other applications, I think it might make sense to have that also under share.
Re: (Score:2)
I have never experienced a web site doing that on my iPhone. Can you link to an example? Thanks!
Re: Bad Argument (Score:2)
Courtesy of Mr Jaffa T Cake, https://airhorner.com/ [airhorner.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My mistake:
https://developer.mozilla.org/... [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:2)
http://spiegel.de/ [spiegel.de] did it for years. Hated them for it, but that was on my iPad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
YOU might think "share" is intuitive, but you are not a low-technology user.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not really think it is intuitive.
THEY might think it, the guys who designed it.
But after all as soon as you know it: you hardly forget it.
Share to Facebook? Share to Homescreen? Does not really sound that weird to me.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know my in-laws. I have to show them the same steps over and over. And there are lots of people out there like them, who just can't remember how to get around, if the steps aren't crystal clear. When you deal with "real" users, you learn quickly how hard it is to make things easy to use.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can’t tell the difference between a website shortcut and a standalone executable that can operate offline, retain state, operate independently of and alongside native apps, and make use of a device’s hardware, please deposit your nerd card in the nearest shredder.
Try to have some awareness of what a feature does before spouting off from your ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't put your own "App" on your home screen. This puts a shortcut on your homescreen which launches the Safari browser and points it to a website -- which does Not support basic functions like multitasking and running multiple web apps and having some web apps and web browsing in the background, and switching between different multiple web apps and browsing through the normal user interfaces utilized to switch between apps on the OS.
Re: (Score:2)
I don’t think you’re at all familiar with the feature I’m talking about.
This doesn't put your own "App" on your home screen. This puts a shortcut on your homescreen which launches the Safari browser and points it to a website
Actually, it does create an app, not a shortcut. Contrary to what you just said, Safari doesn’t get launched, which renders much of the rest of what you said incorrect. Instead, it creates a native app that acts as a wrapper for a web view linked to the site. Moreover, given their access to local storage and the like, these web apps can operate offline and maintain their state between launches, just like any nati
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is Web apps are not equivalent at all in that they won't appear on the home screen
Yes, thy do.
must use apples web engine (Score:3)
must use apples web engine
The Irony of Web Apps (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Developers hated it because it was unusable. Even now, iOS Safari is primitive compared with what you would need to do this right.
Ask yourself this: If web apps were viable as an alternative to native apps on iOS, why would a company like Bandlab, with a working web-based DAW, buy an iOS audio company to provide them with an iOS app?
I'm not sure whether iOS performance is simply too borderline or if there are too many features missing in Safari (Bandlab doesn't support desktop Safari, either, so I'd imagin
Re: The Irony of Web Apps (Score:1)
What BandLab claims to offer at no charge (Score:2)
Is this a Bandlab ad? I notice they emphasize "keep 100% of your earnings." Why is that even a question?
I can think of two reasons why ancillary services from a DAW vendor might cost money.
- The license terms for some samples and loops require a royalty. BandLab appears to be advertising that its loops [bandlab.com] are licensed royalty-free. I'm not 100 percent sure whether this is absolutely free or an one-time up-front price per artist.
- Payment processing costs money. The major credit card networks typically charge 3 percent of the total plus 30 cents per transaction or thereabouts. Physical gift cards in retail stores
"LOL" is right (Score:5, Informative)
So Apple claims that "the web is your oyster", and yet in order to have visibility on iOS you have to be on the AppStore - but in order to do so, you basically have to buy an ad on the AppStore, but in order to do so, you have to be an app! So...
- must produce and submit an app ($100/year dev fee)
- must buy ad space to avoid being "a needle in a haystack" on the AppStore
- if your app is backed by a paid service, you have to implement in-app purchase or else risk not being accepted (or future updates being denied until you do), so that Apple can get its 30% tax^H^H^Hskim^H^H^H^Hcut.
L-O-fuckin'-L!
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just the dev fee, it's the 30% skim they demand - why do they need both (on top of doing ad sales)?
Simple solution:
- you publish a free app: $100/yr fee
- you have in-app purchase: no fee (unless you have 0 sales, then it's the $100/yr)
- you buy ads on the AppStore: no other fees
Right now Apple wants its cake ($100) and to eat it too (30% skim), on top of making you pay (buying ads) for the privilege of watching them eat it.
Re: (Score:2)
Darth Vador didn't ask for much up front.... But the deals somehow end up getting worse once it's too late.
Re: (Score:2)
At least they're not making you wear a pink dress... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Yup. Apple seems to be going for PR and the money angle. The actual lawsuits before the judges are about anticompetitive practices, illegal tying, and similar. I don't know about the Australian case, but the US case every legal filing has tried to shift the focus away from that. They're trying to redefine the market to include ALL games, ALL platforms, ALL computing, where the lawsuits are about the specific monopoly abuses in specific markets. For example, subpoenas against Steam saying that somehow PC gam
Re: (Score:1)
Re: "LOL" is right (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Are you saying that there is no way to reach Apple customers other than being on the AppStore? Just off the top of my head you could pay for web advertising through Google (or whoever), you could buy TV commercials, you could buy a billboard or two.
I think what you mean is that the AppStore is the cheapest way to reach iOS customers. And you wish it was cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
> yet in order to have visibility on iOS you have to be on the AppStore
Are you saying that there is no way to reach Apple customers other than being on the AppStore?
No, I said "visibility on iOS" (it's right there in your own quote of my post) - meaning being able to have iOS users know about your product on the device, and unless Cook means also allowing PWAs to be directly listed in the iOS AppStore (which is totally doable, but of course wouldn't bring in any revenue for it, unless they charge for that too), claiming that developers have "the whole web" to reach iOS users instead is disingenuous.
You want free advertising. (Score:2)
There's nothing stopping anyone from launching an App Store for web-based apps. But that's not what you want, you want the App Store that's already on a billion devices connected directly to peoples' credit cards--and you don't want to pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying Apple would be willing to put listing of PWAs in the AppStore, with paid placement or otherwise? (I would take either)
I very much doubt that would ever happen, as it means Apple would let go of that precious control and deeply need and crave.
Make your own App Store for PWAs. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet I find most apps by simply googeling for them and not via the Appstore.
And yet every developer can have a web site with a link to his app in the Appstore.
So: what actually is your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Still looking to get the last word, [slashdot.org] I see.
That's rich coming from Apple. (Score:3)
If PWAs are just the same, how about you reach feature parity with your competitors, Apple?
Re: That's rich coming from Apple. (Score:2)
Indeed. The features make it possible but when you keep hitting the limitations of missing apis like push notifications and even regular notifications, and to be told (off the record, just opinion) that Apple have no intention of implementing them and PWAs have no future with Apple... Well, it's infuriating.
Disingenuous garbage (Score:2)
A PWA is not an app. It is a web page that has limited access to the resources of the phone. You can't build a full-featured, fully-integrated app using the PWA model.
State governments in the US should double down in the face of this and go for broke in gutting Apple's entire business model.
Re: (Score:1)
The boundary between "install" and web app with caching is rather fuzzy. Longer-term caching is just about the same as "install". And access to local resources should be controllable by the user REGARDLESS of native versus web. A standard whereby the app/site could request resources but the user can deny as needed and review later is something that both types can make use of. We maybe just need cleaner standards.
Re: Disingenuous garbage (Score:2)
PWA is an app. It doesn't have the same features available, but that could be said of any technology compared to any other technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to me that Apple is the gatekeeper of all things iOS. As a developer you have to pay them a yearly fee. If anyone wants to put your app on their iPhone or iPad they have to fetch it from the App Store, which Apple monitors and can pull your app at their discretion. Now there might be some way to side load the app, like you can do on an Android device, but that certainly isn't something your average user is equipped to do.
Re: (Score:2)
> Now there might be some way to side load the app, like you can do on an Android device, but that certainly isn't something your average user is equipped to do.
There's not,* which is why Apple is going to get the full blast and Google will barely be grazed.
Apple can fight this in court and the /worst/ they will have to do is to lower their fees a lot. So they don't need to do that until they lose. Apple will probably win the argument that the walled-garden is a feature; as much as I would not wish to
New boots (Score:2)
I'm going to have to get another new pair of boots for Apple, as the bull excrement is piling up mighty thick...
JoshK
Apple is full of it (Score:3)
Access to phone hardware (Score:3)
So a Web "app" can use the accelerometer or take a picture? It can pause playback when a call comes in, and resume when the call is done? It can display notifications to remind you to go to a meeting or complete a task?
Yes, I know that some browsers are starting to build in ways to access local hardware. But the standard isn't really there, and it does all depend on the browser.
No, Web apps are not equivalent to native apps.
Re: Access to phone hardware (Score:2)
No, they don't have the same capabilities but they are apps, and provide advantages over native apps too (eg not having to go through Apple, larger developer base).
Hopefully this will encourage Apple to implement more PWA features like push notifications.
Re: (Score:2)
You are basically parroting Apple's argument.
Apple and Google don't WANT to give web apps the same functionality as native apps, because then developers wouldn't be motivated to develop native apps, or pay exorbitant app store fees.
Re: (Score:2)
> You are basically parroting Apple's argument
Well, duh! Yes, I am, because they're right, at least partially.
I agree that Apple don't want to...they've basically said as much, off the record. Google, though? They're at least in two minds about it.
In any case, it doesn't matter. If Apple was at parity with Chrome (etc), then that would cover the vast majority of apps. Others could still do native if they want.
Sure thing apple (Score:1)
This all can be traced back to them (Score:2)