You can never assume that one company represents your interests better than another: the solution to reducing addictive patterns is to enable other developers to build more privacy-oriented and dark-pattern-busting apps (one sec is a good example of this).

Apple makes certain aspects of the phone addictive as well (i.e. the app tray that can't be disabled, Screen Time is a joke for actually trying to restrict how much time is spent on apps, etc.), and the lack of 3rd party APIs to modify the addictive behavior makes it difficult to control.

The easiest way to reduce addiction to devices is design UX roadblocks that prevent seamless, mindless interaction with the device, and the "digital drug" providers are never going to willingly build that themselves.

I agree that we should be talking about the addition problem of these apps.

But I reference these specifically as being the gateway to more bad behavior.

The idea of Facebook being able to introduce their own App Store for example that would allow other developers to engage in the same shady behavior.

I only mention those apps since I feel like they have the addicted user base to be able to pull it off in a meaningful way, but I don't mean that those apps are specifically my concern.

Any technology can be abused and misused. If the bar for introducing any new technology was that it couldn't do harm to anyone, then nothing would ever change.

The current marketplace for apps gives us very limited choice in many ways, it's more of an illusion of choice in many cases. If 3rd-party marketplaces allow us to build more and less-private apps at the same time, I see that as a net positive.

>...this could be a trend that starts small but overtime I no longer have the choice to avoid these alternate stores...

You wouldn't lose that choice. Want only Apple-vetted apps? Only use their App Store. Easy. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you seem to be saying: 'evil facebook will harvest more data, but I want to keep using evil facebook'. Maybe the conclusion you need to reach is that you should stop using facebook (and the like)?

No I am not saying I want to continue using Facebook, but as more technical people we have to understand the impact that this has on non technical people.

Short term we may just see apps like Facebook, TikTok, and others that wish to engage in shady practices put out a side loaded app. Fine no harm done I can just choose to not use those.

But as they get more users they could push their own app stores that make it even easier for other smaller apps to ditch the App Store entirely.

My concern is not what happens right away for me. (But we should all be concerned about companies like Facebook being able to harvest more data and be more shady for others). But as time goes on and if I need a certain app that I no longer have the choice of using an App Store with basic protections in place because its too easy for a developer to use the alternate store.

We all know that app developers love to use really shady practices, this is just going to make it worse.

Per the parent comment, the terms they would have to add to be competitive in this scenario would be "Developers can blatantly and horrendously mine all sensitive data from users." which, while they would be appreciated by many businesses that want to provide apps to iOS users, may not be as desirable to the users themselves.

Essentially, what I believe that parent comment is calling out is that Apple is currently (voluntarily) acting as a user advocate by discouraging exploitative behavior, and enforcing that position using their monopsony.

When the monopsony breaks down, Apple will lose the power to enforce this rule, and exploitative practices will become the new norm. Of course, this does take a somewhat paternalistic view of users, in that it assumes that people will continue to use TikTok, Instagram, and so on despite their privacy being grossly violated. I think that this assumption does have a strong precedence, however.

YES!

And not just privacy but also shady practices around canceling and managing subscriptions and others.

There is a very good reason I bought my parents iOS devices and the app store is the biggest one.

Even as a technical person myself this is a big selling point for me to have an iPhone.

Does it give a lot of control to apple and have they blocked some apps I wish they could allow, Yes!

But I will take that over a future (that I really don't see being an "IF" since we know developers like Facebook will jump at the chance to be shady, and they could just make it easier for others to follow) where the choice is made for me by an app not being available on the store.

I'll respond to both of your comments here, since I think you're largely coming around to the same point.

> the terms they would have to add to be competitive in this scenario would be "Developers can blatantly and horrendously mine all sensitive data from users."

If they can do this as-is on iOS, that's the OS manufacturer's failure, not the failure of the store. Apple controls the runtime, they control what data gets exposed. Same as it ever was.

> Apple is currently (voluntarily) acting as a user advocate by discouraging exploitative behavior

I'm going to proceed on good faith and say I agree. Their idea of "exploitative behavior" is an obvious double-standard, but they don't make zero effort to protect their runtime. For the sake of argumentation, I'll assume they're entirely benevolent (even if I believe they aren't).

> Apple will lose the power to enforce this rule, and exploitative practices will become the new norm.

No they won't. They control the sandbox, there is no reason to assume "this rule" goes away. They just have to enforce it on an OS level instead of with arbitrary App Store signing. Their current method is arguably the worse/less secure option anyways.

> it assumes that people will continue to use TikTok, Instagram, and so on despite their privacy being grossly violated.

They already do. Apple can protect them against certain fine-grained fingerprinting from the runtime (and should), but they haven't removed any of those apps from their store. They all violate their acceptable terms for data processing, but they do it server-side where Apple can prove nothing. Apple's personal enforcement crusade failed since they cannot compel any company to truly act in good faith. It's living proof that the government should be handling this, not a private company. If Apple would lobby for privacy bills stifling Meta/TikTok, their privacy dollars would go much further than signing certs for known malicious apps.

---

> And not just privacy but also shady practices around canceling and managing subscriptions and others.

Sure, all those are great features. They also require Apple to charge an asinine per-transaction fee to sustain, but I'm sure the user experience is excellent. Without the ability to impose an unfair monopoly, I'm not sure if they'll be able to offer these going forward.

> Even as a technical person myself this is a big selling point for me to have an iPhone.

I'd hate to hear what you go through when you gotta cancel the morning edition of The Times.

> But I will take that over a future where the choice is made for me by an app not being available on the store.

You don't get to choose. If the market settles on an illegal or unproductive status quo, it will be disrupted or regulated back into functionality. It doesn't matter if you're a user or a shareholder, bad behavior gets patched-up through the democratic process. Apple is standing in the way of fixing things, and instead of cooperating they're being bent into compliance by the EU and States.

> that I really don't see being an "IF" since we know developers like Facebook will jump at the chance to be shady

FWIW, it's not like Apple doesn't also have a litany of shady moments. They're cardholding PRISM members who have no problem operating in China even if it means compromising iCloud. They want to upload unique identifiers for your Photo Gallery so they can pinkie-promise that they won't use it for anything bad, complimenting their OCSP telemetry.

Facebook is no saint, but nobody is forcing you to use their app. Your "fear" is that other people might still find Facebook's terms agreeable after leaving the App Store, which is neither "your" business nor that different from the status quo. The only thing that changes is Apple isn't negotiating the business side of things anymore... and why should they? Their only concern should be keeping the runtime secure and improving their platform.

---

In conclusion, myself (and a number of regulators) feel like Apple has asserted unfair control over app distribution. No foul, they still have a chance to fix things - the iOS platform can still remain secure while offering users options. The very plain reason Apple resists this is because the status quo is profitable - the App Store makes ~$80bn annually on a good year, so they'll defend it's monopoly to the death. Apple shouldn't say what the user does on a phone they own though. You should have the option to default to Apple's opinion, but purchasing any product does not make you beholden to the manufacturer's will. Apple has seemingly forgotten this: the government will kick them out of bed if it finds that they've been fucking the economy on the side this whole time.

Let's stop pretending that not being allowed to engage in "mining sensitive data" is the only reason a company has to not want to be on the app store.

- Discrimination against entire fields of endeavor like emulators and streaming clients

- 30% tax

- Victorian era morality clause that has forced applications to make UX degrading changes for NSFW content

- Anti-competitive behavior for anything that competes with Apple's own offerings, including e-books (audible), music (bandcamp), web browsers (Firefox/Chrome), and probably more I'm not thinking about right now.

- No GPL on the app store

If this were just about "Facebook is mad because they can't data mine and stay on the app store" there would be a much stronger case, but in the world we live in, Apple has abused their so-called "user advocate" position to advance their own interests at the expense of their competitors, and users, in many other ways. They did not have to do this.

If you want to be upset at someone, be upset at Apple for inviting the typically heavy and imprecise hammer of the state when they could have just stayed in their lane and not behaved like greedy controlling puppet masters.

More attractive to giant social media companies who thrive on data collection is almost never going to be in favor of the user.

Like TikTok and Facebook, both of whom already collect and process data serverside? If we want those things seriously addressed, we should be lobbying governments to fix it. Private companies are obligated to serve the government and shareholders first, then address your privacy somewhere after that.

Apple is serving their shareholders by offering users a safe platform. It’s a marketing feature.

I don’t disagree that government should be regulating this, these aren’t mutually exclusive options.

There are no terms on which companies big enough to already be bad actors and not get banned[0] won't at least push users to their own app stores where they can easily sidestep any of Apple's privacy rules.

[0]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...

Sure they could lower the percent from 30% but that doesn't address the privacy and shady practices that the free apps engage in.

Apple should in no way loosen those terms.

Of course not! They have an image to uphold, as the stalwart tinfoil knights of user privacy. However they respond is up to them, their forced competition with the free market is inevitable though.