While I’ve written how App Store policies are a much bigger issue than most people realize. Because it hints at how Apple sees itself long-term. Is Apple a hardware or services company? Is one used to sell the other? But ultimately, I don’t think this issue is about money. It’s about curating Apple’s famous walled garden.
Most of the tech world outside of Apple uses the term “walled garden” with derision. However, walls don’t just keep people in. They also keep predators out. When Apple created the iPhone they had a vision of a new world different and apart from their Mac.
Apple’s experience with the Mac showed them that allowing anyone to sell software on their devices came with a high price. People could easily load Malware and viruses onto their computers and there was nothing Apple could do about it. Thieves were always creating new ways to load credit card skimming programs. Advertisers were trying to load spyware, and on and on.
To use an example from Apple’s excellent movie Greyhound. Apple is positioning itself as an overwhelmingly powerful military escort for iOS users. They would insert themselves between their customers and the pirates out on the high seas. And if they detect any threats, they’ll turn their huge guns on it and blast it out of the water.
From the very beginning the iPhone was created with different priorities than any other platform. It was decided that quality and security were going to be treated with higher regard. This was going to necessitate some trade offs but the iphone wasn’t for everybody. It was for those willing to pay more for a higher quality device that was more secure. If you didn’t value those priorities you already had a myriad other brands of phone at your disposal.
While not perfect, the system seems to be working fairly well. iOS is a much more secure platform than macOS, Windows, or Android. It also guards your privacy better than anyone else.
So why all the hubbub from iOS developers? Greed. The developers want to tear down Apple’s protective walls for two reasons. First, they want to make more money off the customer. And second, they want more customer data. This is hostile to iPhone users even though the developers portray themselves as the victims.
Who’s the real victim here? Lets look at what iOS users would get from Apple acquiescing to developers and lowering their gardens walls. What would be the logical result? For starters, less services revenue would mean more expensive iPhones. That is not in the consumer’s interest. And allowing alternate payment methods means payment scams and credit card theft is back in the picture. And Apple would be powerless to help you get a refund if you bypass the AppStore.
At the end of the day, Apple just wants to offer a secure safe environment for it’s users. However, the interests of the users are contrary to the interests of the developers who want more money and more customer data (to make more money).
Don’t forget, developers are businesses. Just like Walmart or Exxon only on a smaller scale. Their interests can run contrary to the consumer. For example, do consumers like subscription services? No. Do developers love them? Yes. Because, again, more money.
I would caution all of my readers to be wary of any writer who attacks Apple on the AppStore front. These writers should advocate for the consumer, not for developers. It is Apple’s job to protect the consumer from unscrupulous developers and any attempt to weaken that is hostile to the consumer.
Let me give you a a little litmus test to help you flush out who is being dishonest in this debate. If someone uses the term “rent seeking”, that person is a dishonest purveyor of propaganda.
Here’s why. The term rent seeking is used to describe someone who adds no value to the process but is demanding a cut of the revenue. A good example would be a criminal organization which is charging local businesses a “protection” fee.
It is dishonest to use the term rent-seeking with Apple. Apple spends an enormous amount of time and money into creating new hardware and software for their customers. The quality and security of the iPhone is the glue that holds the iOS market together. People pay a premium for that quality and security. If you just want instagram and twitter, you could get a cheap Android phone and load all the apps you want.
So, no, the term rent-seeking doesn’t apply to Apple. And anyone who applies it in this debate about the Apple AppStore is dishonest.
Apple’s experience with the Mac showed them that allowing anyone to sell software on their devices came with a high price. People could easily load Malware and viruses onto their computers and there was nothing Apple could do about it. Thieves were always creating new ways to load credit card skimming programs. Advertisers were trying to load spyware, and on and on.
To use an example from Apple’s excellent movie Greyhound. Apple is positioning itself as an overwhelmingly powerful military escort for iOS users. They would insert themselves between their customers and the pirates out on the high seas. And if they detect any threats, they’ll turn their huge guns on it and blast it out of the water.
From the very beginning the iPhone was created with different priorities than any other platform. It was decided that quality and security were going to be treated with higher regard. This was going to necessitate some trade offs but the iphone wasn’t for everybody. It was for those willing to pay more for a higher quality device that was more secure. If you didn’t value those priorities you already had a myriad other brands of phone at your disposal.
While not perfect, the system seems to be working fairly well. iOS is a much more secure platform than macOS, Windows, or Android. It also guards your privacy better than anyone else.
So why all the hubbub from iOS developers? Greed. The developers want to tear down Apple’s protective walls for two reasons. First, they want to make more money off the customer. And second, they want more customer data. This is hostile to iPhone users even though the developers portray themselves as the victims.
Who’s the real victim here? Lets look at what iOS users would get from Apple acquiescing to developers and lowering their gardens walls. What would be the logical result? For starters, less services revenue would mean more expensive iPhones. That is not in the consumer’s interest. And allowing alternate payment methods means payment scams and credit card theft is back in the picture. And Apple would be powerless to help you get a refund if you bypass the AppStore.
At the end of the day, Apple just wants to offer a secure safe environment for it’s users. However, the interests of the users are contrary to the interests of the developers who want more money and more customer data (to make more money).
Don’t forget, developers are businesses. Just like Walmart or Exxon only on a smaller scale. Their interests can run contrary to the consumer. For example, do consumers like subscription services? No. Do developers love them? Yes. Because, again, more money.
I would caution all of my readers to be wary of any writer who attacks Apple on the AppStore front. These writers should advocate for the consumer, not for developers. It is Apple’s job to protect the consumer from unscrupulous developers and any attempt to weaken that is hostile to the consumer.
Let me give you a a little litmus test to help you flush out who is being dishonest in this debate. If someone uses the term “rent seeking”, that person is a dishonest purveyor of propaganda.
Here’s why. The term rent seeking is used to describe someone who adds no value to the process but is demanding a cut of the revenue. A good example would be a criminal organization which is charging local businesses a “protection” fee.
It is dishonest to use the term rent-seeking with Apple. Apple spends an enormous amount of time and money into creating new hardware and software for their customers. The quality and security of the iPhone is the glue that holds the iOS market together. People pay a premium for that quality and security. If you just want instagram and twitter, you could get a cheap Android phone and load all the apps you want.
So, no, the term rent-seeking doesn’t apply to Apple. And anyone who applies it in this debate about the Apple AppStore is dishonest.
RSS Feed