I really don’t think that’s true, I think Apple became dominant through being first to market, having attractive design (was largely sold as a fashion/luxury item), and attracting devs early on (mostly through being first to market). Most of the value of the App Store was the quality of app reviews, which was due to developer fees (raise barrier to releasing trash) and actual app reviews, and that’s how Apple earned their 30% cut. Since iPhones were a luxury item, they attracted people willing to actually spend money on apps, which attracted more developers.
I really can’t see how not having other options somehow improves the attractiveness of iOS. Having high quality apps on the App Store made it more attractive, sure, but it didn’t make other app stores unwanted, in fact not being able to side load apps/stores has been a complaint since pretty much the beginning.
Nobody is saying Apple is bad because they’re popular, they’re saying Apple is bad because they’re anti-competitive.
I didn’t understand back then I don’t understand now why they lost lawsuit if they didn’t, IIRC, block you from installing anything else.
Microsoft restricted access to internal APIs that made the browser work a lot faster, so other browsers would always be slower and a worse experience vs Internet Explorer because Microsoft prevented them from getting the most out of the hardware.
You could install an alternative, sure, but it would be hamstrung and most would blame the browser, not MS.
Having a default wasn’t the problem, Microsoft still has a default browser to this day and it’s totally fine. Being anticompetitive, however, isn’t fine.
I actually have seen the closed garden nature of Apple be listed amongst its attractive features between laypeople. There’s no fiddly bits, everything is simplified, almost no configuration required, and the closed garden means there’s some implied quality control going on. For people for whom computers and technology is scary, the closed garden is a feature, not a bug.
I absolutely and completely agree with you. I’m just saying, my aging mother does not. Having the option, to her, would make the iPhone a far inferior product. She is not alone in her opinion.
I just don’t understand that. It doesn’t add any complexity, you can literally ignore it. In fact, I’m guessing most Android users don’t know you can install apps outside the Play Store, so that’s an example of it literally not mattering if you don’t want to use that feature.
The panic at the existence of additional options you don’t use and will never use is, unfortunately, strong in some people. It is what it is.
I also have an iPhone and absolutely would love a 2nd store. I’m trying to figure out how to side load as it is, so I can get a version of YouTube that can keep playing audio while the screen isn’t on. I’d love that. My mother would be in fits of panic at the thought.
Did not know about the API. This clears a lot, thanks.
And about closed garden being wanted - if evrything goes through the people who made the thing, then these things are guaranteed to work on the thing. No wondering, no thinking, it just works. And such closed and tight thing was something I heard from people boasting iphones as best thing.
There are some benefits to Apple’s ecosystem, such as iMessage and iCloud working across devices, but that has nothing to so with the App Store, but Apple’s first party apps. The App Store certainly has value through its audits, but that could still be a thing with rival stores existing on the platform.
What harm does having more options for installing apps have for iPhone users? If they don’t want to use them, they don’t have to. Do it like Android and tell users that those apps aren’t reviewed by Apple and could cause problems, but only the first time (or perhaps the first time per source).
I really don’t think that’s true, I think Apple became dominant through being first to market, having attractive design (was largely sold as a fashion/luxury item), and attracting devs early on (mostly through being first to market). Most of the value of the App Store was the quality of app reviews, which was due to developer fees (raise barrier to releasing trash) and actual app reviews, and that’s how Apple earned their 30% cut. Since iPhones were a luxury item, they attracted people willing to actually spend money on apps, which attracted more developers.
I really can’t see how not having other options somehow improves the attractiveness of iOS. Having high quality apps on the App Store made it more attractive, sure, but it didn’t make other app stores unwanted, in fact not being able to side load apps/stores has been a complaint since pretty much the beginning.
Nobody is saying Apple is bad because they’re popular, they’re saying Apple is bad because they’re anti-competitive.
Microsoft restricted access to internal APIs that made the browser work a lot faster, so other browsers would always be slower and a worse experience vs Internet Explorer because Microsoft prevented them from getting the most out of the hardware.
You could install an alternative, sure, but it would be hamstrung and most would blame the browser, not MS.
Having a default wasn’t the problem, Microsoft still has a default browser to this day and it’s totally fine. Being anticompetitive, however, isn’t fine.
I actually have seen the closed garden nature of Apple be listed amongst its attractive features between laypeople. There’s no fiddly bits, everything is simplified, almost no configuration required, and the closed garden means there’s some implied quality control going on. For people for whom computers and technology is scary, the closed garden is a feature, not a bug.
Sure, and you can have that by not installing stuff outside the App Store. I don’t see how having the option is a bad thing…
I absolutely and completely agree with you. I’m just saying, my aging mother does not. Having the option, to her, would make the iPhone a far inferior product. She is not alone in her opinion.
I just don’t understand that. It doesn’t add any complexity, you can literally ignore it. In fact, I’m guessing most Android users don’t know you can install apps outside the Play Store, so that’s an example of it literally not mattering if you don’t want to use that feature.
The panic at the existence of additional options you don’t use and will never use is, unfortunately, strong in some people. It is what it is.
I also have an iPhone and absolutely would love a 2nd store. I’m trying to figure out how to side load as it is, so I can get a version of YouTube that can keep playing audio while the screen isn’t on. I’d love that. My mother would be in fits of panic at the thought.
I dont think most android users know you can install alternstive app stores and otherwise sideload apps
Did not know about the API. This clears a lot, thanks.
And about closed garden being wanted - if evrything goes through the people who made the thing, then these things are guaranteed to work on the thing. No wondering, no thinking, it just works. And such closed and tight thing was something I heard from people boasting iphones as best thing.
That’s mostly copium.
There are some benefits to Apple’s ecosystem, such as iMessage and iCloud working across devices, but that has nothing to so with the App Store, but Apple’s first party apps. The App Store certainly has value through its audits, but that could still be a thing with rival stores existing on the platform.
What harm does having more options for installing apps have for iPhone users? If they don’t want to use them, they don’t have to. Do it like Android and tell users that those apps aren’t reviewed by Apple and could cause problems, but only the first time (or perhaps the first time per source).