Apple can be frustrating with the App Store because they will have policies that are plainly wrong, morally if not legally, and still try to convince you that you’re the crazy one. Increasingly this is what I hear from Apple: “I’ll only be a dictator on day one.” Hubris + total control is dangerous.
@pratik That's a fine distinction that I'm perhaps not quite following. Do you distinguish ethics and morals on a professional/religious axis or a community/individual axis (or both, or neither)? For me, I think what Apple is doing is wrong because it is in bad faith, and it's a strategically poor business decision. It is almost as if they are begging to be "regulated hard" - when it is at least possible that at least the first draft of hard regulation will lead to worse outcomes. "We so don't want to find a middle ground that we'd prefer to be forced to let our customers install malware" strikes me as closer to immoral - offending individual norms of what is right and wrong rather than community norms of what is good and bad business practice.
@manton I hope the will get slapped hard for the 27% stunt. And I hope some day they finally wake up. But I am not counting on it.
@manton I’m hearing this more and more. It’s disappointing, because Apple has so far been a bright spot for personal privacy online. But I can’t tell if this change is a selection bias on my part because I’m increasingly talking to a different crowd of people.
Did you just run into a specific policy that seemed morally, ethically, or legally wrong?
@benpate I haven't run into many problems myself, although we've been careful to avoid the edge cases. This is mostly a response to Apple's new policy of taking 27% from payments outside the store and auditing your bookkeeping if they think you aren't complying.
@manton You’re using the words of DJTrump to describe the behavior or Tim Cook & Apple? That seems very poorly considered.
@wendinoakland Maybe. Just thinking out loud about how powerful Apple is and how seemingly entitled they feel. It's not a great comparison but there's a hint of truth there, I think.
@manton One of them is a failed businessman with a string of bankruptcies and indictments for fraud, the other is the head of a computer empire. Might be worth rethinking your willingness to conflate them?
@mmetcalfe @pratik Ethics and morals are so intertwined that I'm often not sure which is more appropriate. In this case, Apple can't see how their actions hurt both users and developers, going against what I feel are Apple's own principles.
@manton They’re entitled because it’s their system. That’s why I’m confused at the outrage. They built the system and it has been wildly successful. They’re not holding anyone hostage. They are, however, setting parameters for participation in their system, which is their right. There are always overhead expenses for any business. The 27% is just part of the overhead, the cost of doing business with Apple. Tying the overhead to ethics and morals is very big stretch.
@paulcraig901 I guess they aren't, not exactly. It's more that their framing just leaves no room for a different perspective.
@gdp I wouldn't use the word "hostage", but developers really don't have a choice except to develop for the iPhone. There's a monopoly on iOS distribution so Apple is effectively unchecked.
@manton That's a better way of explaining it. Now, more than ever, we have to be vigilant regarding gaslighting. If the behavior is gaslighting, then let's specifically cite it and call out the offender. But if it isn't, then let's correct our initial assertion as soon as possible. You've done that. You're a good man, Manton. I appreciate you.
@manton The cost to sell your physical product in a store is vastly higher than that, 50% to wholesale, then another to market. It’s not “fair” but it’s business.
@manton @mmetcalfe True. Maybe I was just being nitpicky. I think of morality as a higher-order value, but I also know that it can differ based on culture. When you add business to the mix, it makes it even muddier. In traditional Islamic cultures, asking for an interest for a loan you make is considered highly immoral, whereas in some parts of the West, the sentiment of "greed, for a lack of a better word is good". I think ethics are more micro and more about what you* think you would do and, ergo, how you also may expect someone else to do, thus judging them negatively if they don't. We cannot ascribe intent to how someone acts unless that intent is expressly stated but a string of actions can point to intent. A good example is Google initially saying, Do No Evil and then proceeding to do things that some/many thought were evil. I'm looking for similar stated principles by Apple that we think they are violating. Personally, I think they are acting dickishly and prioritizing higher profits above everything else. Hence sometimes it helps to remain small & content even if you believe you are not impacting everyone's life.
@wendinoakland Right, but for physical products you can sell anywhere. You can online, at the farmers market, wherever. With iOS apps, you can only sell with Apple. That exclusivity is the root of all the problems.
@manton @pratik I think to most moral philosophers (at least in the UK), there's no practical difference between ethics and morals: they mean the same thing. But I know people do make a distinction, so (and please excuse me for being bad at illustrative examples), some people may regard sex-work as immoral, but at the same time view paying a sex-worker with counterfeit bills as unethical. But there are other axes of distinction, and I guess I'm curious to tease out what has got to different folks about Apple's actions. On this side of the Atlantic, it seems Apple's intransigence with the App Store is delivering state-enforced side-loading. Apple could have avoided this with what seem to me to be relatively small compromises. The end result hurt their customers, and if the games they are playing in other markets are anything to go by, will provide no benefit to developers. This is a long way to go to "stick it to the regulator", and, as you say @manton, it doesn't sit easy the the principles Apple (appear to) espouse.
@mmetcalfe The EU side-loading is going to be very interesting to watch. It could all backfire on Apple because they went too far, or they could continue to be so uncompromising in the required changes that no one can take advantage of the improvements. ("You are about to enable side-loading. Please solve this complex math problem first, then wait 30 minutes, then enter your password five times.")
@pratik @manton Christians used to think interest on loans immoral, too - it's the plot of the Merchant of Venice :) Thank you for unpacking your ethics/morals distinctions - very enlightening. I think your big/small dichotomy is useful. I'm not sure that it's even possible to set multinational megacorps into an ethical or moral frame. We may I suppose talk of their "ethos", but they are mechanisms, and so, beyond morality. You remind us, then, that in the smaller business, the people are larger than the mechanics. The converse is true in the megacorp, but, because they are led by people, we have the same ethical expectations. Which Apple's leadership team have surely betrayed.
@manton Ok. Still, you essentially attributed the words of a fascist to a benign actor, because you’re angry. Bad form.
@wendinoakland Apple is not benign. They've been anticompetitive, ungracious, and petty throughout this whole saga. But yeah, I agree it's minor stuff in the tech world compared to Trump. I should've phrased my post better.
@manton @wendinoakland that’s like saying with Toyota entertainment centers you can only go through Toyota. Well, duh? It’s their car and they set the rules. You always have the choice to build something for Chevy, Subaru, Ford, Kia, etc. If you couldn’t go to another car manufacturer then I would understand
@manton It will indeed. I think it's already gone too far as it will either lead more enshittification than the sanctioned loot boxes and gambling apps, or it will be another display of corporate arrogance and bad faith. Or both, I fear. But we'll see.
@manton I’m sure you realize how expensive it is to develop an operating system and developer tools. How many employees does Apple have working on these?
This is Apple’s chosen method of monetizing the platform.
Remember when end users paid $129 for each version of the OS? Remember when developers paid $500 to $3500 a year for the developer program? Remember what the market share was like back then? No one wants to go back to that. 27% is more than fair for what you get from Apple here.
@platkus We pay $99/month for the dev program, and I'd be fine paying $500 or more if that's how Apple wants to go. But 27% of all revenue unrelated to the App Store is wrong.
@manton You're overpaying. I'm only paying $99 per year.
You're also ignoring the part where end users funded the OS and tools development and the marketshare was an order of magnitude smaller than it is with Apple's current model. I don't think many iOS developers would trade the model Apple is using now for the no commission small marketshare with the majority of users on two and three year old OS versions.
@platkus Heh, yes, $99/year. Sounds like we’re talking about different things. An iOS app that links to the web isn’t a “marketplace”… Apple is way outside their lane.
> Remember when end users paid $129 for each version of the OS? Remember when developers paid $500 to $3500 a year for the developer program?
I want to go back to that. It was a more honest transaction. ($3,500/yr wouldn’t even be the highest my employer pays in dev tool licenses.)
We’re in a problematic era where people are even less willing to pay for software, and the result is privacy abuses (i.e., getting the money a different way), and indies unable to make it.
