The Right to install Software I like
I really thought I was done writing about the Apple App Store. But after the Hey controversy and the questionable performance in front of Congress things escalated even more with Epic Games. Even die-hard Apple fans slowly come to grips. Here we go again.
What I want to focus on in this article is the question of software installation.
Both Ben’s had good posts about the trade-offs of App Stores. Marco Arment went on a rant about Apple as the bully.
And yet all three argue that Apple should stay in control over what apps are allowed to install for Trust and Security reasons. This is where I disagree.
Ethics
The App Store model is basically a benevolent dictatorship. From an ethical standpoint that’s unsustainable. Nobody should have so much power. As a society we should work to decentralize power as much as possible.
It’s not a question if I trust Tim Cook or Apple or if I trust another company more. It’s not a question if I think Apple uses its power for good or bad causes. The problem is in principle — one company can do as it wishes.
See other places with the same issue, like Facebook, Twitter or Google. If for some reason Twitter removes your account, you can scream “It’s their platform, they can do with it what they want” as loud as you want, nobody will hear you.
I would add that most platforms offer two main differences to how the App Store is run:
- They make it as frictionless as possible to get suppliers on their platform. In Google’s case you don’t even have to submit your website to be indexed. There’s no review before getting published — the content moderation happens only after a certain number of complaints.
- Despite being American companies they at least try to stay neutral. Sometimes they get heat for that and surrender. But contrast that to Apple’s approach. The company openly states that apps that they don’t like (“fart apps”, “no lasting entertainment” or Crypto) will be rejected. It’s actively trying to inject the subjective Apple taste.
Trust
By sandboxing the system (the OS, not App Review) lots of possible app use cases get shut down — both positive and negative ones. Apple likes to remind us of the negative use cases.
But one could make the case that because
- more people use smartphones than PCs,
- more sensible information is stored on smartphones,
- and there are API’s to access said information (like adressbook upload)
more people got harmed from the iOS model than from the macOS model, where one can choose between curated Store or notarization.
Also, Ben’s characterization of the downsides of the ‘Windows model’ seems a bit over the top. Especially macOS strikes a good balance of ease of use and freedom. What gets described sounds more like Windows 98.
Hackers concentrate on the most used devices. If you know computers, you know that they are inherently vulnerable. Just ask Kevin Mitnick. To postulate that any computing device is 100% secure is giving a false sense of security.
Scaling
App Stores are incredibly successful and therefore the new de facto software distribution mechanism. If the model is superior overall — like suggested by the mentioned Apple pundits — why should it only be on phones?
What percentage of software is installed via App Stores today and would the model scale to 100%? What would happen if you can’t retreat to a Desktop PC or Mac?
I would argue scaling issues can be observed already. Mistakes happen regularly. Like I said before:
A $500 billion business (about the GDP of Belgium) with no clear rules, just varying interpretations by folks who are surely not the best paid Apple employees.
Innovation
The real damage of restricted software can only be estimated. Francisco Tolmasky:
Apple’s iOS rules would not have allowed for the invention of the web browser. Let that sink in. They would have rejected one of the most important technical innovations in the history of computing. […]
Think of all the other amazing ideas that haven’t gotten a chance to be invented because they aren’t allowed on mobile devices. Mosaic happened less than 10 years after the Macintosh. We very well might have already had a browser-caliber invention by now.
In an alternate reality we would have gotten the next computing revolution already. Candidates like AR smart glasses or ubiquitous Voice frameworks aren’t possible without Apple playing ball. Heck, if iOS were open to 3rd party developers we would certainly have a better multi-tasking system by now.
Innovation happens when there is freedom to tinker and to explore. A closed-down Windows would have shut the door to everything we value today, including the iPhone.
While Android is not that much better, I really favor their philosophy:
Not polished, but at least possible.
It’s easy to dismiss a feature like Dex from our western point of view — we have always our Laptop or Desktop PC as fallback. I think in developing nations where the smartphone is the only digital device (PC got leapfrogged), it’s more important that the device is capable of doing every task, and less important that the UX is polished.
That I have to go to great lengths to show why the right to install the software without restrictions is important, is an example in how the Overton window got shifted to closed ecosystems.
I paid the device with real money, I own it. Therefore I should do whatever I want with it, including installing software that somebody in Cupertino doesn’t like.
The “computer / console” definition war is distracting: Every console or computing device should be legally required to have a admin/root/pro mode.
It boils down to this question: Should Apple allow other platforms and ecosystem to be built on top of iOS? Epic says Yes, their goal is the Epic Games Store on iOS (the 30% cut is a side issue). Apple says No for the discussed reasons, they think the customer belongs to them.
Yes or No?
I don’t get why this still is a debate.
