ProtonMail vs Apple

Andre Garzia andre at
Sun Aug 9 10:51:32 EDT 2020

> Do Apple's actions and policies monopolistically harm consumers?

Yes it does. There is a ton of innovation that is user friendly that is
prevented from being present in iOS due to Apples practices. A simple
example is new browser engines, you can't have them. Which means you can't
have more private engines than what Safari uses. This also makes it harder
to bring lots of API innovation to iOS which would benefit users because it
would allow for better and more powerful web apps.

Since you can't sideload apps, you as a user need to have Apple permission
before installing software on the device you purchased and should own. You
as a developer are allowed to sell software outside of Apple's blessing,
even if you have customers interested in the software you make. Apple is a
gatekeeper and a very picky one.

Gatekeepers are harmful to consumers and sellers. Since you as a developer
can't simply compile software and sell it own your own page without Apple
double blessing, you're not really in control of your platform and Apple
may exercise the right to cut you out of the platform at any time. This is

> Consumer behavior itself argues against that. Quite the contrary,
consumers are willing to pay a premium for Apple products and services

That is totally not true because you can't measure it. You can't measure
"iOS with a more open ecosystem" vs "iOS with its current draconian
ecosystem" because that you don't have the more open version to match it
against the current one. The choice here is not between Apple and Android.
Apple could still offer the same software, services, and hardware, and be
more open. People would still choose them. No one chooses the option with
less options and gatekeepers if they have an alternative. The tight
integration between iOS and macOS devices is wonderful and people are happy
to pay a premium for such quality. If you ask any Apple user why they buy
Apple, no one will answer: "Because I like the way they don't allow
developers to compete with Apple itself" which is why the EU and other
companies are crying wolf in the direction of one infinite loop. People
will say they choose Apple because of the attention to detail, the quality
of service, hardware, and software, none of which would be gone if Apple
was more open.

The key to understand this is that all that you like about Apple can still
be there, including the App store. If you want to stay in an environment
like what we have today, it should be possible to do so. But you should
also have options for when you want to step outside. There should be
alternative stores or alternative ways to distribute software.

I'm not saying "burn iOS and Apple". I'm saying the current practices
benefit no one but Apple and are harmful to a healthy ecosystem. They could
still be Apple and not be a bully. For example, the need of notarizing apps
is going to make distributing FOSS on macOS a bit harder. Once Apple moves
to its own ARM CPUs, it will be harder for every third-party vendor to
compete with Apple solutions as they'll be able to cram custom silicon like
T2 and lock down the machine in a way that has not been done in ages.

If I was LC I'd be throwing some more people into making sure LC runs
really well under Linux and Windows, both of which are second class
citizens when compared to macOS. Heck the IDE under windows is horribly
slow, I have no idea how it performs under Linux. When dealing with Apple
you always need a plan b.

On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 at 22:16, Jim Lambert via use-livecode <
use-livecode at> wrote:

> BrianM wrote:
> > One thing that seems to be missing in this discussion is the point of
> view of the ?client?, the one who downloads the app and pays for it
> True.
> In the U.S. the laws against monopoly (the Sherman Act of 1890, the
> Clayton Act of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) are there
> to promote competition amongst companies for the benefit of consumers.   Or
> our end users.
> Do Apple's actions and policies monopolistically harm consumers? Consumer
> behavior itself argues against that. Quite the contrary, consumers are
> willing to pay a premium for Apple products and services.
> Andre notes that Apple exercises a monopoly WITHIN the iOS system. But
> that is a misnomer. Apple has a proprietary system not a monopolistic one.
> And they strictly control it. It's simply not true that "there is nothing
> iOS users can do about that." Yes, there is. Consumers who don't want to
> buy into Apple’s closed system are free to buy elsewhere. Consumers can
> choose Android or any other alternative products. No one is forcing
> consumers to buy and use Apple products, which is what would happen if
> Apple had an actual monopoly. In fact, some consumers prefer Apple's strict
> proprietary control and are willing to pay mucho dinero for it.
> Now look at it from the developers' point of view. Apple makes us jump
> through many more hoops than Android developers do. Apple constantly
> changes these hoops which can seem inexplicably capricious. But is it? Or
> is it a constant effort to assure safe computing for their consumers?
> There seems to be an assumption that the 30% cut Apple takes is
> outrageous. But what does a developer get for that Apple %? If you think
> you can replace what Apple offers for less money, then just sell your app
> on Android and rake in the extra bucks. What's stopping you?
> The reality is that the vast majority of smartphone apps make little or no
> money, regardless of OS.
> So is it painful to surrender 30% of nothing? ;)
> But back to the purpose of this list, aren't we lucky to have LiveCode, a
> development platform that gives us the power to develop for whatever
> platforms make sense for us?
> Jim Lambert
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:

-- <>
Want to support me? Buy me a coffee at

More information about the use-livecode mailing list